Friday, March 24, 2006

The Lyin' King

At the March 2 IVC Academic Senate meeting, senators discussed Chancellor Mathur’s curious new “planning process,” which pretty much leaves faculty out of planning. No surprise there. The new process had been authored by the corrupt little fellow. He had not solicited senate input.

That is illegal, for Title 5 and BP 2100.1 require that the district rely primarily on the Academic Senate(s) for the development of processes for institutional planning and budget development. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Academic Senate Prez Wendy then explained that, during a meeting with the Chancellor that very day, after lengthy discussion with the two senate presidents (Claire and Wendy), Mathur acknowledged that he made a mistake when he developed the District Planning Process without consulting the Senates. He even apologized for the error and promised that he would not commit it again.

That was welcome news. Still, senators were unhappy. Some, including yours truly, pressed for clarification regarding the standing of the illegal planning process. Is it dead or no?

We know our Raghu. It would be just like him to acknowledge that he was in error and even to promise not to commit the error again—and then to set about implementing the erroneous action. That’s just standard Mathurian operating procedure.

According to the published minutes for the March 2 meeting, “Senators pointed out that despite the admission of wrongdoing, the apology, and the assurance of non-interference, the District Planning Process remains in place and will continue to create confusion among deans and faculty until it is withdrawn.”

Thus the senators took action. They requested “that the Chancellor immediately discontinue implementation of the illegitimate District Planning Process or the Academic Senate will consider filing a Minimum Conditions Complaint with the office of the State Chancellor.” (From minutes.)

During a subsequent meeting, the fellow clarified matters to Wendy in the way desired. He agreed that the new process should be (or already was?) discontinued. How could he do otherwise?

Wendy then wrote IVC faculty, delivering the good news.

But, in a kind of “switcheroo” that will be familiar to long-time Mathur observers, Mr. Goo then cried foul and denied that he had agreed to discontinue the process. Evidently, despite acknowledging the impropriety of his unilateral development of the process, he persists in viewing the process as valid.

Stunning. —But no. It’s just Raghu bein’ Raghu. The New Raghu that we've heard so much about (from Dopey Dave) is just the Old Raghu sayin’ he’s New. Woo-hoo.


And so, on the 23rd (yesterday), the "planning process" issue returned to the IVC Academic Senate. Clearly, Wendy was disinclined to pursue this matter through the existing legal channels, namely, filing a complaint with the State Chancellor. That’s slow and tedious, bigtime. I think maybe she’s had her fill of this kind of legal work for a while.

But senators were adamant: we cannot threaten to go to the State Chance if Mathur does not fly right, and then not go to the State Chance when, in fact, Mathur keeps flyin’ wrong. We said we’d turn to the State Chance, and so now we've got to keep our word.

A motion was made to that effect.

Wendy groaned. She suggested that we change the motion so that it speaks of “exploring” this avenue. But senators would not hear of it. Said one senator: “If you tell your kid that if he does that again, then there’ll be consequences, then, when he goes and does it again, you can’t say, ‘we will now explore consequences.’”

We’ve got some funny senators, boy.

The motion passed unanimously. The IVC senate will now file a Minimum Conditions Complaint.

Soon, the Saddleback College (or, as one of our favorite administrators spells it, “Saddle Back College”) Academic Senate will meet to discuss the planning process. Don’t be surprised if they take a similar action.

And can you blame 'em? We faculty are supposed to have a role, and these people--Mathur and his board patrons--keep taking it away. We can't let that happen.

Naturally, the Accreds will hear about this. We might wanna start looking for new jobs.

A setback for the Fuenteans--PLUS: Is our Nancy a “crazy aunt”?


A MAJOR DEFEAT FOR THE FUENTESISTAS. The OC right-wing blogosphere has been atwitter this week over the failure, Monday night, of the county GOP to endorse Mike Carona for Sheriff. As you know, Carona is a star in Fuentes World, aka the Neanderthal Political Machine.

A couple of years ago, owing to its Fuenteans, IVC’s Foundation anointed Carona its “Hometown Hero,” a fact made ironic—among the civilized—by the subsequent train of Carona scandalosity. Between Carona and Cave co-star Tony Rackaucus (our embattled county DA), these local Neanderthals have more than matched the Bush Administration, corruption-wise. And that's sayin' something.

Recently, the OC Register reported that key denizens of the Fuentesphere—namely, Mike Shroeder (Fuentes' close pal and GOP backer of the Frogue Recall), John Fleischman, and Adam Probolsky (Fleischman and Probolsky are on the IVC Foundation board)—were caught engineering an effort by a “citizen” to challenge the campaign statement of a Carona challenger, Republican Bill Hunt. Hunt had referred to the “scandals” and the “failure” of the Carona administration. “Unfair,” cried the citizen, who turned out to be very connected to the Fuentes crowd (mostly through his wife).

It seems clear (given their emails, which, somehow, Fleischman accidentally sent to the Register) that the Cave People seek to use the threat of expensive litigation over this matter to motivate Hunt to soften his campaign rhetoric. That Hunt’s language--especially his use of the word “scandal”--is manifestly accurate is beside the point.

Trustee John "Brownie" Williams has weighed in on this issue in a letter to the Register (yesterday). Naturally, he sides with his pals and against Hunt. (See Williams questions Hunt's competence)

THERE’S ALWAYS A BIG “BUT.” OK, the local GOP has come to its senses and has not endorsed the corrupt Carona. Still, there's bad news, for it is clear that Carona has lots of cash for his campaign, and money is everything. You may as well get that tatooed on your butt.

According to OCBlog.net, Carona is “miles ahead of opponents in fundraising." They got the following from the OC Registrar of Voters:

Mike Carona 
Cash-on-hand: $618K 
Debt: $28K

Bill Hunt 
COH: $6K 
Debt: $26K

Bob Alcaraz
COH: $76K 
Debt: $100

Ralph Martin 
COH: $80K 
Debt: $3K

Evidently, in the last three and a half months, Carona’s campaign has amassed over half a million dollars. When all is said and done, Carona will have spent over a million dollars on this campaign, or so crows Mike Schroeder. Compare that figure to the puny war chest of a guy like Hunt: $6,000 (and 26K in debt).

TRASHING OUR NANCY. We recently reported that trustee Nancy Padberg is running for Judge. On Tuesday (the 21st), “Roscoe” of OCblog.net reported that there are three candidates for the #4 spot on the OC Superior Court:

Sheila Hanson, Deputy District Attorney - DEMOCRAT

Nancy Padberg, Attorney/College Trustee - REPUBLICAN

Lyle J. Robertson, Commissioner, Superior Court - REPUBLICAN

Roscoe goes on to explain:

Hanson already has the support of her boss DA Rackauckas, neither Padberg or Robertson paid for a candidate statement so we don't know a lot about their campaigns.

We do know Nancy Padberg from her time on the South OC College District. She is kind of like your crazy aunt you keep in touch with just in the hope that she might leave you something in her will.

Robertson has run before and lost.

With three candidates in the race there will probably be a run off in November. Robertson and Hanson will most likely be in it unless Padberg does something crazy like spend $200,000.

“Crazy aunt”? I bet Nancy didn’t like that a bit. Not a bit.

A Mr. Mark Brainard responded to Roscoe’s blog by writing “I disagree with your characterization of Nancy. She would make a terrific judge.”

Another reader said that he “met Nancy at the Central Committee meeting [on Monday]…and I support her.”

Yet another reader—this one calls him/herself “Redwine"—wrote:

I recommend asking around a little before disparaging someone you obviously don't know, like Nancy Padberg. She's a dedicated Republican activist who has assisted MANY campaigns over MANY years. She is an elected Trustee for the SOCCCD and, until her resignation last night [presumably, from the Central Committee, not from the Board] because of her campaign for judge, she was an elected member of the Central Committee.

Nancy should be supported by the Republican Party Central Committee and every elected Republican (including Rackauckas, who you say has already endorsed the Dem).


Redwine’s remark provoked “OCSD Investigator” to write:

Redwine, are you kidding me? We should vote for Nancy because she is a Republican. Is that your argument? Do you vote everything straight down the party line? Hanson is a very experienced trial lawyer. She has had her hand in putting away some very dangerous child molesters and numerous other criminals. I have presented many cases to her and found her to be very dedicated to her craft. When it comes to being a judge in the county where I work and live, I could care less about party lines. I do not mean to discredit the other two choices. I just find your comments offensive.

At this point, someone (not me, but someone called “Investigator”) suggested that readers check out DISSENT the BLOG and its account of Nancy’s recent activities on the SOCCCD board (Closing in on Junket Abuse), whereupon Redwine wrote: “OCSD Investigator—My God, a voice of sanity on this issue. Thank you.”

“Jim” then wrote to say, “I know Ms. Padberg, and I have appeared many times before Commissioner Robertson. Both would make fine judges.”

For what it’s worth, here’s Hanson’s campaign statement. We’ll post Nancy’s, too, as soon as it becomes available:

SHEILA HANSON
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, OFFICE NO.4


Occupation: Senior Deputy District Attorney

Police, prosecutors and crime victims overwhelmingly support me because they know I will be a fair, no-nonsense Judge who supports law and order for Orange County.

I am honored to have spent sixteen years as a prosecutor in the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. Currently, I lead a team that prosecutes crimes including drunk driving homicides, kidnapping, and robbery.
While assigned to the elite Sexual Assault Unit, I prosecuted sexual predators, child molesters and rapists.

In the prestigious GangUnit, I prosecuted criminal gang members for carjacking, drug-dealing, and drive-by shootings.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) honored me for my dedicated work with crime victims.

Because of m ysupport for Victims’ Rights, the death penalty and Three Strikes, I am endorsed by:

District Attorney Tony Rackauckas
Santa Ana Police Chief Paul Walters
California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations
Orange County Coalition of Police and Sheriffs
Police Associations representing; Anaheim, Santa Ana, Fullerton, Westminster, La Palma, Placentia,
Garden Grove,Brea, LosAlamitos
Citizens for Law and Order
Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau

I am most proud of my family and my volunteer work with Assistance League, Girl Scouts, Laurel House, AYSO and in my Parish.

I would be honored with your vote.

I should mention that, according to her district bio, “Nancy serves as a Temporary Judge for the Superior Court of Orange County.”

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...