Thursday, July 27, 2006

Wagner, Padberg, and Milchiker file for reelection

From this morning's Irvine World News (SOCCCD, p. 8):

Three board of trustees incumbents for the South Orange County Community College District have filed for re-election: President [sic] Donald Wagner, Vice President Nancy Padberg and board member Marcia Milchiker.

Wagner represents area two, which includes parts of Tustin, Santa Ana and Irvine. He has been on the board since 1998 and served as board president from 2002 through 2004. Padberg represents area four, which includes San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Coto de Caza, Los Flores and Talega. She also has been on the board since 1998, serving as president for two years and vice president for five. Milchiker represents area five, which includes Laguna Woods, Laguna Niguel and parts of Laguna Hills. She has been on the board since 1985, serving as president, vice president and clerk.

Milchiker is the only candidate who has completed all the paper work necessary to run in the Nov. 7 election. Candidates have until Aug. 11 to file.


July, 1996

STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER
SADDLEBACK COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT


TRUSTEE AREA 3

DOROTHY FORTUNE
AGE 56

OCCUPATION: RETIRED COLLEGE ENGLISH AND HISTORY TEACHER

The Saddleback Community College District must prioritize its resources and restructure its budget to accommodate a growing enrollment. Increased class offerings and improved community service can only be achieved through budget restructuring.

Students cannot get into required classes to complete their programs. Redirecting funds will increase the number of basic courses transferable to state universities and offer additional job-skill classes.

Only 35% of Saddleback District's $70 million annual budget is spent on classroom instruction compared to grade and high school allocations averaging 65%. The District makes huge expenditures on a hierarchy of administrators, consultants and attorneys, but no proper cost accounting is made available to the public.

A majority of' District 'Trustees must be willing to force the administration to become student centered. Some current Trustees recognize this and will join my efforts to slash bureaucratic spending and establish prudent objectives

I support community outreach through satellite centers offering basic and Emeritus courses. I favor college activities promoting traditional values and responsibility.

Saddleback and Irvine Valley Colleges must focus on student needs and fiscal accountability. I promise to work for those goals. Thirty years [sic] experience in higher education and private business has prepared me for the position of Trustee.

(Signed by Dorothy Fortune, July 16, 1996)

SOCCCD's Kinsler pipes up

The OC Register reports today on the Capo district’s alleged Brown Act violations during closed board sessions:

Closed CUSD meeting draws criticism
Worst example of meeting-law violation in 25 years, attorney says.


According to the counsel for Californians Aware, Terry Francke, the Capo board’s violations are egregious. (The Reg calls Francke, who has in the past opined on SOCCCD issues, "One of the state's foremost experts on open-meetings law.")

In the relevant instances, the Capo trustees were supposedly discussing "criteria for evaluation" of the district Superintendent. But it's very hard to see how that is so.

But guess who’s on hand to defend Superintendent James Fleming and CUSD trustees’ broad interpretation of Brown Act provisions? Why, that would be SOCCCD’s own Warren Kinsler, the fellow who represented the district regarding its—illegal, as it turns out—imposition of a faculty hiring policy over Academic Senate objections.

According to Kinsler, you definitely get to go with a "broad" interpretation of "criteria of evaluation." So there.

The Register spoke with Francke and Peter Scheer, exec director of the California First Amendment Coalition. According to those two, CUSC meeting notes indicate that, in closed session, trustees discussed such items as:

•which school calendar to adopt,

•whether to advertise on school buses,

•a presentation on No Child Left Behind

According to Scheer: "Any reasonable person looking at these minutes would be unlikely to come away thinking he had just observed a performance evaluation…He'd come away thinking he'd just seen what most people would call a school board meeting."

Francke is calling on the district attorney to file charges.

Our district attorney? Don't hold your breath.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Well compensated South Orange County Community College District Chancellor asks for raise and is rebuffed by trustees

At last night’s meeting of the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees, the board acted to reject Chancellor Raghu Mathur’s recommendation that he be granted a $20,000 raise and a retroactive cost of living adjustment.

A year ago, many in the district were surprised when the board voted to give Mathur—who has received three faculty votes of “no confidence” during his career as an administrator within the district, including a 93.5% vote just two years ago—a salary increase that amounted to over a quarter of a million dollars, when medical benefits and perks are included.

The unpopular Mathur, whose actions have instigated expensive litigation against the district over the years, and who once sued the district, is among the highest paid CEOs in the California community college system.

Item 28 on last night’s agenda was “Academic Personnel Actions,” recommended by the Chancellor, which included “additional compensation” for the Chancellor.

An attached exhibit described the recommended “compensation revision” as follows:

(1) Dr. Mathur will receive a cost of living adjustment…to his base salary for the fiscal year 2006/07, based on the State of California 2006/07 budget as approved by the Governor;

(2) the District will pay Dr. Mathur for all his accrued but unused vacation days above 48 days; and

(3) Dr. Mathur will receive a salary equity adjustment of $20,000 for 2004-05, with all of these items effective July 1, 2006

When trustees emerged from the closed session that precedes the open board session, rumors flew that trustees was angered by Mathur’s “compensation” request. Then, when item 28 came up during the open meeting, board president David Lang announced that parts of section H of 28—the section dealing with Mathur’s “compensation”—would be “pulled.”

Specifically, items (1) and (3) of Mathur’s compensation recommendation were pulled, leaving only (2), which concerns paying Mathur for his unused vacation days.

Apparently, the board had decided not even to consider Mathur’s proposed raise.

Even Mathur’s remaining “unused vacation days” request proved controversial. Trustee Nancy Padberg argued that the district should be consistent in observing an “if you don’t use it, you lose it" policy.

Nancy Padberg and Marcia Milchiker were the sole trustees to vote against Mathur’s requested payment for unused vacation days.

Last night’s board meeting: "no blue mountains"

By 7:00, the board had not yet emerged from its closed session and we in the auditorium waited and complained about the heat.

A rumor flew that Mathur had requested a raise. The nerve of the fellow!

I spoke with a Saddleback College employee who opined that the public sector is so “forgiving.” It’s not like the private sector, he said.

“Mathur couldn’t manage a Taco Bell,” he declared.

Another rumor circulated that Bob King, the new VC of HR, was being suggested for the role of in-house legal counsel. When, less than a year ago, King was hired, many speculated that King would likely end up doing legal work for the district. It was all very conspiratorial.

Obviously, King is not qualified to serve as general counsel for a community college district. He has little experience in the relevant law. What would motivate Mathur to make King general counsel?

Bob sure is interesting though. Did you know that King and his wife run a business called “Legally Nanny”? (Legally Nanny)

At their website, one learns that “At Legally Nanny, we are committed to helping you hire your nanny legally, maximizing your tax savings, and providing you with more time to spend with your family.”

One of the sections of the website is called “getting caught.” Check it out.

Park Ranger Bob Kopecky joked about the “rustic conditions” over at ATEP. He entertained us with stories of his wrestling with unruly air conditioning units and such.`

After a while, the trustees wandered into the hall and, as usual, when they were all seated, a strange tomb-like silence fell upon the room.

Williams launched into a prayer: “Oh Heavenly Father…Give us wisdom…to do what is right….”

Claire was treated to a big fancy “resolution” in praise of her efforts as Saddleback College Academic Senate President. It appears that she is well liked and respected even by administration. She’s “passionate,” said Lang. She’s “a delight to work with,” said Rich McCullough.


During board reports there were lots of references to the national championship recently won by Saddleback College’s surf team. “It’s about time,” said one trustee.

During board report requests, Williams asked for a report on installing “security cameras” all over the place. Fuentes didn’t seem to like the idea.

Bill Jay wanted a report on the possibility of a Saddleback soccer team. He suggested adding artificial turf somewhere for the football team, which would free up the old football practice field for soccer.

He mentioned all the excitement about the World Cup competition and the fact that the U.S. team was “eliminated by Chad of all places!” We all cringed.

Luckily, there were no Chadsters in the room.

Lang, wearing his Accreditation watchdog hat, reminded the board that there exists a process for establishing programs and priorities of this sort, and we don’t want to ignore or circumvent that. Williams countered by saying, I think, that the board gets to add its two cents anyway, cuz it represents the taxpayers. Thousands of 'em.

It's democratic!

Fuentes, seeking to poke a pin in the big blue soccer balloon, joked that the remaining discussion should be carried out in Italian.

In the end, all but Lang supported Jay’s request.

Item 25 concerned approval of “board policy revisions.” Among these was a hard-fought new policy re “employment procedures for chancellor” (BP 4011.6).

Nancy thought the policy was too long. ("There are too many notes in this song.") Lang spanked Nancy for not presenting her points earlier. Williams said that the policy represented “best practices.” Wendy and Gary reminded everyone that the Accreds dinged us for not having a chancellor hiring policy, and governance groups were hoping to cite board approval of a policy during the next round of Accredulosity. Delaying approval of 4011.6 would mess that up.

In the end, the board voted unanimously to approve 4011.6.

There was some discussion of a 120-page report designed to shed light on the organizations proposed for “institutional memberships.” You’ll recall that, last time around, trustee Wagner advocated removing the American Library Association from the list of memberships, owing to that organization’s being a bunch of “liberal busybodies.” Ultimately, Wagner got his way. He's been pleased as punch ever since.

For this round, Wagner wanted more info concerning “4Faculty," an organization that the Saddleback Academic Senate seeks to join. Nobody in the room seemed to know anything aboutt 4Faculty (Ac. Senate Prez Bob C had stepped out of the room.)

In the end, the board unanimously approved the list of memberships. (Still, I don’t get it. If the ALA is a problem, why isn’t the MLA a problem, too? The MLA bodies are pretty busy, too. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Item 28 concerned “personnel actions” recommended by the Chancellor, including a $20,000 raise for Mr. Goo. Evidently, the board was not pleased by that recommendation, and so it was essentially “pulled” before discussion. (See blog above.)

Also pulled was section G, the “change of title” for Bob King, currently the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. The recommendation was that King’s title would be changed to "VC of Human Resources and General Counsel.” Obviously, the change would involve new duties and a bump in pay.

Well, evidently, the board didn’t like that suggestion either, so they pulled the item.

Don’t worry, Bob, you’ve still got that "Nanny” gig.

The board separately discussed 28F, which recommended approval of a paid leave of absence for Bill Hewitt—so that he can serve as President of the FACCC.

Evidently, trustee Fuentes’ “conscience” required that he abstain from voting on that item, for, he said, he opposed using taxpayer money to support a “private organization.” Approving this item, he said, amounted to a “gift of public funds.”

Others disagreed. The item was approved.

Item 31 was informational only. It concerned “basic aid.”

Williams took the opportunity to suggest that the district should abandon its existing funding model, according to which the two colleges are funded as though the district were on “program based funding.” (Basic aid funding provides us with much more than what would be provided by program based funding, since the former is keyed to local property taxes, and property values in OC are very high.)

Williams asserted that we are a “wealthy district” and yet the colleges are being forced to make painful cuts. We’re here to “support the colleges,” he said. And yet we’re “scrimping.”

Lang defended the existing model. He argued that, in the end, the district needs to make difficult judgments about balancing “infrastructure” and “current operating needs” with “other” needs (new construction, etc.). “We’ve done a pretty good job doing that,” he said.

Jay chimed in to agree with Williams. “IVC is really hurting,” he said.

After a while, Fuentes, a staunch supporter of the current model, joined the discussion, saying, nastily, that, evidently, when the temperature is over 100 degrees outside, it’s “Christmas in July.” He then seemed to say that our district’s current affluence depends on real estate prices, and, right now, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the fate of OC real estate prices. (Maybe i misunderstood.) I think Fuentes was saying that it is a great and perilous error to count on the basic aid gravy train.


Lang skipped ahead to item 40, which concerned “updating” the current district logo. Tracy Daly had taken the board’s suggestions and developed a somewhat modified and colorized version of the old logo. (See.)

She explained that “we’ve moved the sun to the correct side.” The update has a “dynamic” feel, she said. The trustees had the new logo before them.


Padberg didn’t like it. “There’s a tremendous value in tradition,” she said, implying that tradition means never having to say "it's updated." Evidently, in Nancy's mind, Tracy was supposed to add color and leave everything else the same. Even that wayward sun.

Marcia liked the new logo. She said so.

Padberg countered by saying, “I’ve never seen mountains that are blue.”

Marcia responded by saying, “mountains could look bluish. That’s a possibility.”

During his report, SC Academic Senate President Bob C presented a study concerning reassigned time compensation for senate officers around the state. The upshot: especially in comparison with other large districts, compensation for academic senate officers in our district is extremely low.

In the course of the discussion, Bob (and Wendy) noted that these senate officer positions are getting harder to fill, for they are utterly unattractive.

Wendy noted that she and Claire reckoned that they worked about 45 hours a week on senate business alone. That’s on top of teaching and raising a family.

Wendy also noted that, as the district has moved to more inclusive governance, the work of the senate president has grown. In the meantime, compensation for senate presidents has not.

That was about it.

(See also Tracy's Board meeting highlights.)

Monday, July 24, 2006

BOARD POLICY 4011.6: employment procedures for chancellor

All board policies are available here as pdf files (on the district website)
Adopted: 7-24-06
BOARD POLICY 4011.6
SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY PERSONNEL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
EMPLOYMENT PROCEDURES FOR CHANCELLOR
SECTION I: GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Preface: The hiring of a highly qualified Chancellor is essential to the mission of the South Orange County Community College District. Therefore, the governing board, with input through this process from administration, faculty and staff, has the responsibility to select a highly qualified Chancellor. The Office of Human Resources shall ensure that every aspect of the hiring process is implemented appropriately.
2. Scope: This policy applies to the recruitment and hiring process for Chancellor.
3. Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and Statement: The South Orange County Community College District shall recruit, hire, and promote in all job titles without regard to ethnic group identification, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, age, medical condition, marital status, military service, sexual orientation, or any other basis protected by law. The District shall comply with the Board of Governors regulations relating to equal employment opportunity.
4. Definitions:
Board: The Board of Trustees of the South Orange County Community College District.
Board Designee: The Board of Trustees may elect to appoint an alternate designee to oversee the hiring process.
Chair: Chair of the Hiring Committee.
Chancellor: The Chancellor of the South Orange County Community College District. The policy also refers to Chancellor during the process, meaning the current, interim or acting Chancellor.
Committee: The Hiring Committee, also known as the Search Committee.
District: The South Orange County Community College District.
EEO: Equal Employment Opportunity.
HR Specialist: Human Resources Specialist, Hiring Compliance Officer and EEO representative assigned to the job opening.
OHR: Office of Human Resources.
SOCCCD: The South Orange County Community College District.
Vice Chancellor: Vice Chancellor, Human Resources, or designee
5. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Statements: The South Orange County Community College District Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Statements apply to this process.
6. Compliance: This policy is intended to comply fully and be interpreted in a manner consistent with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Board of Governor’s equal employment opportunity regulations. Any provision of this policy that directly conflicts with any applicable state or federal law or regulation may be disregarded and a procedure that complies with the superseding authority shall be developed by the Chancellor and substituted until such time as the Board may adopt a formal amendment to this policy.
7. Oversight: Normally, the current, acting or interim Chancellor will provide oversight of the hiring process. However, the Board may appoint an alternate designee, as appropriate, to insure avoidance of any conflict of interest. The Chancellor or Board designee, with the assistance of the OHR, oversees the implementation of the hiring process and the activities of the hiring committees as they exercise their duties, specifically to ensure that actions of hiring committees are consistent with both the written stipulations and the intentions of this policy. It is the responsibility of the Chancellor or Board designee, to ensure the integrity of the hiring process established by this policy. If, in the judgment of the Chancellor or Board designee, the integrity of the process described herein has been substantially violated or abused, the Chancellor or Board designee, may order that the process be suspended, pending determination of an appropriate action in consultation with the Office of the Human Resources and the Board President.
8. Interpretation: Technical questions and minor problems will ordinarily be resolved by the HR Specialist in consultation with the OHR. In the event that a question of the procedural interpretation of this policy arises and cannot be resolved by the HR Specialist, the question shall be submitted in writing to the Vice Chancellor, or designee via the HR Specialist. If in the judgment of the HR Specialist, the Chair, the Chancellor or Board designee, a problem of interpretation occurs which threatens the viability or integrity of a Committee’s duties as described herein, all parties shall be immediately notified, and the hiring process shall be suspended pending resolution of the problem. The Chancellor or Board designee, in consultation with OHR, shall attempt to resolve any problem or difference of interpretation of this policy.
9. Exceptions: The Chancellor or Board designee, in consultation with the OHR, may reduce or extend the time period for any step established in this policy. Such exceptions shall be as narrow as possible to address, in a reasonable manner, the unusual circumstances posed. In the event of such an alteration to the process as described herein, the Chancellor or Board designee will notify the OHR in writing, stating the unusual circumstances necessitating the extension or exception.

SECTION II: RECRUITMENT
1. When the need for hiring a new Chancellor is determined and recommended by the Board of Trustees, and upon the Board’s approval, a Request to Announce Form is completed and submitted to the Office of Human Resources.
2. The Board of Trustees may consider employment of a professional consultant to assist with the Chancellor search process.
3. Job Announcement Content: The job announcement will determine the screening criteria for review of applicant files. Care must be taken to ensure accurate and job-related criteria. It shall contain:
a. Opening and closing dates
b. Summary of duties and responsibilities
c. Minimum qualifications
d. Desirable qualifications
e. Application requirements and procedures
f. Special testing, if applicable
g. Submission of materials, if required
h. EEO Statement
4. All openings will be advertised through the Office of Human Resources.
5. As a position is opened, it will be announced by the Office of Human Resources with sufficient lead-time to advertise the position. This should normally be a minimum of ten weeks or 50 working days, unless otherwise requested by the Chancellor.
6. Applications, resumes, and other required materials are accepted only by the Office of Human Resources.
7. Announcement brochures will be distributed to appropriate professional sources.

SECTION III: APPLICATION PROCESS
1. Submission: Applications, resumes, and other required materials are accepted only by the OHR via the District’s online employment site.
2. Application Period: Applications may be submitted for a set period of time or “until filled.” In the case where a position is “open until filled,” screening may not begin until at least 30 working days after advertising has appeared in some public forum.
In the case where a position is “open until filled,” applications submitted less than two working days prior to the beginning of the screening process may be excluded from consideration.
3. Search Extension: The recruitment period will be extended when the applicant pool has fewer than five minimally qualified applications, unless the OHR, the Chancellor or Board designee and Board President agree to forward the pool.

SECTION IV: SEARCH COMMITTEE
The Chancellor or Board designee will appoint the Search Committee according to the following criteria: The Search Committee shall consist of no more than eleven and no less than seven voting members. A majority of the appointees to the Search Committee will be administrators and managers.
a. The Chancellor or Board designee will select six administrators and managers. The Chancellor or Board designee also will appoint the Search Committee Chair
b. Each Academic Senate will select one faculty member
c. The South Orange County Community College District Faculty Association will select one faculty member
d. The California School Employees Association Chapter 586 (“CSEA”) will select one classified employee
e. The Police Officers Association (“POA”) will select one of its members
1. Terminate Process: The Chancellor or Board designee may terminate the process if, in his or her judgment, the formation of the Committee has violated the integrity of the hiring process.
2. EEO Representative: The EEO Representative shall be appointed by the Vice Chancellor or designee, and may be replaced as necessary by another qualified staff member. Only a trained staff member may serve as an EEO representative.
3. Orientation: The HR Specialist will conduct an orientation meeting to explain roles, duties, expectations, timelines, and the rating process to the Committee members. At this time, the Committee will agree on the schedule. All members must also sign a Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Statement. All HR forms must be completed in ink.
4. Relative Weights: At the Orientation, the Committee will assign the value to be given to the application and to the interview components. Neither the screening nor the interview may be weighted less than 30 percent each.
5. Duration: At the Orientation, the Committee will determine the length of the interview.
6. Criteria: The Committee shall establish in writing the criteria to be used in screening the applications and selecting the applicants to be interviewed. The screening criteria shall be job related, and based on the position description and the District hiring policy.
7. Interview Questions: All questions and other requirements must be kept confidential throughout the process. The Committee will develop and forward to OHR for approval a list of interview questions to be asked of each candidate, as well as any exercise, presentation, or other requirement. The list of questions and requirements will be provided to OHR at least five business days prior to the first scheduled interview. All questions and other requirements shall be job-related and composed with the intent of evaluating the candidate’s knowledge and abilities in relation to the minimum and desirable qualifications as published in the formal job announcement. OHR may provide sample questions at the request of the Chair for the consideration of the Committee. The list of questions and other requirements as described above must be approved by a majority vote of the Committee. The Vice Chancellor or designee reviews all Committee approved questions and other requirements if applicable to ensure compliance with District policies and State and Federal laws and regulations, and must approve all interview questions and other requirements prior to the interview. The Vice Chancellor or designee may make editorial changes; however, if a particular question is deemed by the Vice Chancellor or designee to be in need of substantive changes, these changes will be made in consultation with the Chair or designated discipline expert. The Chair or designee will be provided with the OHR-approved list of questions and other requirements if applicable one (1) business day before the interview.
8. Participation: Committee members are expected to be available as necessary for Committee functions, to fully participate in all required meetings and related Committee responsibilities, and to complete screening functions in a timely manner. Any member who fails to complete screening in a timely manner, or who misses Committee meetings, may be subject to removal by the Chancellor or Board designee after consultation with the Chair and the OHR. The scores or ratings of a Committee member who withdraws prematurely or is removed will not be counted in the uncompleted phase or section of the process.
9. Minimum Membership: In the event that the Committee membership falls below the required minimum number of members, the Chancellor or Board designee, after discussion with the OHR, shall determine whether to restart the hiring process, appoint a replacement Committee member, or continue the hiring process with fewer than the minimum number of committee members.

SECTION V: SCREENING PROCESS
1. Determination of Application Completeness: The OHR will screen all applicants for minimum qualifications as specified in the official announcement for that position before submission to the Committee, thereby determining applicants who will be paper screened and eligible for interviewing. The Search Committee Chair has the option to be involved in the minimum qualification screening process.
2. Review of Application: The review of application and resumes is done online on the District’s employment site on an individual basis by each committee member.
3. Evaluation of Application Materials (Screening): The Committee may not begin to review applications until the appropriate application period has elapsed. At the Orientation meeting, the Committee in consultation with the HR Specialist shall specify the time(s) and location(s) when application materials shall be available. During the screening process, Committee members may not remove the files or their contents, copy or alter any material contained in the files, or append comments or marks. Notes on the candidates must be kept in the Committee member’s evaluation file, which will be maintained by the OHR.
4. Scoring: Each application shall receive an independent evaluation according to job-related criteria by each member of the Committee. The Committee members shall rate each applicant on the appropriate forms provided by the OHR.
5. Recommendation of Candidates for Interview: Using a final ranked list, without names, of candidates by score, the HR Specialist and the Chair will meet to determine the lowest score to qualify for an interview. On the basis of the lowest qualifying score, the OHR shall assemble a list of candidates to be interviewed.
6. Interview Scheduling: The OHR shall schedule selected candidates for a first-level interview, according to the schedule adopted by the Committee, giving them at least five business days notice of the interview. Exceptions to the five-day notice may be granted by the Vice Chancellor or designee.
7. Travel Reimbursement: Reimbursement claims for over 300 miles must be submitted no later than 30 days after the interview. Any reimbursement claim is limited to standard District reimbursement guidelines and shall not exceed $1500.

SECTION VI: INTERVIEW PROCESS
1. Materials: At the beginning of each interview meeting, the applicant’s files shall be made available to the Committee, along with the appropriate OHR forms. Each member of the Committee will receive a schedule of interviews, and the interview questions.
2. Site: The Chair will inform the HR Specialist of any special interview needs. After consultation with the Chair, the HR Specialist will make the arrangements for the interview location.
3. Set Time: Each applicant shall be afforded the opportunity to have an interview of approximately equal length.
4. Search Committee Names: Each candidate will be provided with a list of the names and titles of the Search Committee just prior to the interview.
5. Review of Interview Questions: Candidates will have the opportunity to review the interview questions 15 minutes in advance of their interview. All questions must be job-related. Answers to core questions should reveal attitudes towards the job, appropriateness of education and experience, competency in the field, extent of responsibility and philosophical orientation with respect to the functions involved.
6. Writing Sample: The candidate will be asked to provide a writing sample in response to a question provided to the candidate by the Search Committee before the interview.
7. Questions: Each candidate will be asked the same interview questions in the same order. During the interview, follow-up questions may be asked to clarify or further investigate a response given by a candidate. If, in the judgment of the HR Specialist, a follow-up question violates standards of non-discrimination, the HR Specialist will direct the candidate to disregard the question. Follow-up questions should be kept to a minimum to maintain consistent standards of candidate evaluation throughout the interview process. Any question by the candidate pertaining to conditions of employment, such as salary, benefits, or policy, must be referred to the OHR.
8. Group Discussion: Committee members shall be given an opportunity to discuss each applicant and only that applicant after each interview. Comprehensive discussion shall not take place until after all interviews are completed. No discussion of any candidate may take place unless the HR Specialist and all committee members are present. Committee members are encouraged to discuss candidates’ fulfillment of job-related criteria in a candid and thorough manner, but shall not discuss specific numeric scores to be given to any candidate. The HR Specialist shall be responsible for ensuring that discussion is limited to job-related criteria.
9. Score: Each Committee member is responsible for exercising his or her independent judgment in rating each candidate. Following the Committee’s discussion of the candidates, each committee member shall rate independently each candidate using the appropriate form provided by the OHR. At the conclusion of the interviews and any subsequent discussion, each member of the Committee shall enter a final interview score for each candidate, and then calculate the final total score from the appropriately weighted screening and interview scores. The OHR will verify and compile final scores for all candidates.
10. Selection of Finalists: After the conclusion of interviews, the Chair and the HR Specialist shall assemble a ranked list of candidates and their final scores. Using this list, the Committee will determine the lowest score to qualify as a preliminary finalist for a second level interview. The committee shall provide job related reason why a candidate interviewed is not forwarded to the second level for final interviews. The committee shall forward at least three (3) finalists for second level interview.

SECTION VII: REFERENCE CHECKS
1. Timing: Official reference checks, in accordance with the OHR Guidelines, will be performed prior to the submission of the recommended candidates to the Chancellor for second-level interviews.
2. Required Professional References: Each applicant will be asked to provide at least three references, preferably from the following categories:
• Current supervisor(s);
• Previous supervisor (from the past five years);
• Colleague/co-worker who can address professional competency and appropriate practical skills;
• Other professional references
If the individual provided as a reference is unavailable, or if the candidate fails to provide sufficient references, the OHR, in consultation with the Chair, may request additional references from the candidate.
3. Reference Contacts: The Vice Chancellor, in conjunction with the Chair, will conduct the reference checks and record the information on the appropriate OHR form. The HR Specialist will verify all data on the application. Each reference for each finalist shall be asked the same questions about that finalist, and shall be asked whether he or she can recommend the finalist in question without reservation, and, if not, to specify these reservations. The reference checker(s) shall ask no question that is impermissible under applicable laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, or that seeks information unrelated to the qualifications for the position. The reference checker(s) shall not provide any derogatory or confidential information about the finalist, and shall not provide with any assessment of the quality of the finalist’s qualifications.

SECTION VIII: SECOND-LEVEL INTERVIEW
1. Finalists: The Board of Trustees shall be provided an unranked list of finalists by the Chair, and a report of the final scores for all candidates including job related reason(s) for not forwarding candidates interviewed.
2. Second-level Interview: The Board of Trustees will interview the finalists for the position. The Board may invite the Chancellor or Board designee to participate in the interview process.
3. Second-level Interview Schedule: Finalists shall be given at least five (5) business days notice of the interview.
4. Content: The Board may ask any job-related questions, may ask follow-up questions, and may provide clarification of ambiguous or unclear questions. The Vice Chancellor or designee must review any questions, exercises or other requirements prior to the interview to ensure compliance with district policies and State and Federal laws and regulations.
5. Substantially Similar Interviews: Although variations are permitted throughout the interview process, the Board shall give each candidate a substantially similar interview of approximately the same duration, involving the same segments and exercises.
6. Additional Interviews: After completing this initial round of second level interviews, the Board of Trustees has the authority to interview additional candidates from the first level interview pool in the order of the next highest Search Committee rankings.
7. Consultation: The Board may consult with the Chair of the committee after the second-level interviews and before any offer of employment is made.
8. Termination of Search: After the completion of all second level interviews, the Board of Trustees may decide to stop the process, at which point the position would be reopened.
9. Board Reference Checks: Following candidate interviews, the Board of Trustees may make further job-related reference checks. The Board may conduct site visits.
10. Recommendation for Appointment: Upon selection of the finalist by the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor or Board designee will submit the recommendation to the Office of Human Resources for the offer of employment and presentation to the Board for final approval.
11. Travel Reimbursement: Reimbursement claims for over 300 miles must be submitted no later than 30 days after the interview. Any reimbursement claim is limited to standard District reimbursement guidelines and shall not exceed $1500.

Not so fast! Rethinking fall opening

Today's report  — up again USC reverses robust fall reopening plans, asks students to stay home for online classes LA Times  ...

Invited to IVC—this time a notorious admitted HOMOPHOBE

—Conservative radio host, Michael Reagan


Here at IVC, natch, we have an Accounting Department. It happens to support something called the Guaranteed Accounting Program: GAP4+1.

According to the department website,

This unique pathway program — a partnership between Irvine Valley College (IVC) and Cal State Fullerton (CSUF) — will enable you to graduate with a bachelor’s degree in four years and a master’s degree with one more additional year (thus GAP4+1).

Among the Master's degrees available through the program, we're told, are "Accountancy and Finance; Taxation; or Accountancy."


We're also told that "The number of students accepted into this program in any one year is limited so be sure to apply early."


Great. The early bird gets the worm.


Evidently, the good people of the GAP4+1 program have recently seen fit to invite someone to speak at Irvine Valley College (in late April): Michael Reagan.




The Republican Party of OC just loves IVC (from their website)

That's right. They've invited Reagan family embarrassment Michael, a man of, let's face it, little or no distinction.


He was expelled from his High School and he washed-out of college. Eventually, he went into clothing sales.


In those early years, he made some curious friends:

In 1965, the FBI warned Ronald Reagan that in the course of an organized crime investigation it had discovered his son Michael was associating with the son of crime boss Joseph Bonanno, which would have become a campaign issue had it been publicly known. Reagan thanked the FBI and said he would phone his son to discreetly discontinue the association. (From Wikipedia's Michael Reagan.)

[“F.B.I. agents in Phoenix made an unexpected discovery: According to records, ‘the son of Ronald Reagan was associating with the son of Joe Bonnano [sic].’ That is, Michael Reagan, the adopted son of Reagan and Ms. Wyman, was consorting with Bonanno’s son, Joseph Jr. The teenagers had bonded over their shared love of fast cars and acting tough.” ... "Joseph Jr. was not involved in organized crime, but he was spending time at his father’s home... [I]n October 1964, he had been arrested in connection with the beating of a Scottsdale, Ariz., coffee shop manager. ... Following routine procedure, F.B.I. agents in Phoenix asked agents in Los Angeles to interview Ronald Reagan for any information he might have gleaned from his son. The investigation, after all, was a top priority. But Hoover blocked them from questioning Reagan, thus sparing him potentially unfavorable publicity. Declaring it 'unlikely that Ronald Reagan would have any information of significance,' Hoover instead ordered agents to warn him about his son’s worrisome friendship." - New York Times]

Later, there were legal problems:

In 1981 Reagan was accused, but later cleared of felony violations of California securities laws in court documents. The Los Angeles County District Attorney alleged that Reagan had baited investors into unlawful stock arrangements, and selling stocks despite the fact that he was not legally permitted to do so. The D.A.'s office investigated allegations that Reagan improperly spent money invested by others in a company, Agricultural Energy Resources, he operated out of his house in a venture to develop the potential of gasohol, a combination of alcohol and gasoline. Investigators said they were also checking whether he had spent up to $17,500 of investors' money for his living expenses. The district attorney's office cleared Reagan of both charges later that year. [“The investigators said they became interested in Michael Reagan after being informed that he had steered customers to Mr. Carey {Richard Francis Carey, who "was selling worthless stock,"} had accepted a $4,000 check from one investor, and that, in at least one meeting of potential investors, his relationship to Ronald Reagan had apparently been exploited as a promotional tool for the stock.” - New York Times]
On September 20, 2012, Reagan and two associates were sued by Elias Chavando, a fellow partner, for allegedly withholding Chavando's interest in an e-mail business built around the Reagan.com domain name. In 2015, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found Reagan liable for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty. Reagan and his business partners were ordered to pay $662,500 in damages.
(From Wikipedia's Michael Reagan.)

Michael tended to smash things (cars, etc.) in his youth. Well into his 40s, he tells us, he was full of "rage" (owing, he explains, to having been molested) and he treated his family badly.


Then, natch, he found the Lord.


Plus, owing to his relationship to his pop, President Ronald Reagan, Michael grabbed the brass ring and became a talk-show host on one or two right-wing radio networks. Blah, blah, blah, he said.


In his latter-day career as mediocre right-wing bloviater and Pious Christian, Michael Reagan has said some unfortunate things:

In April 2013, in a syndicated column, Reagan accused American churches of not fighting hard enough to block same-sex marriage. He wrote that, in regards to arguments supporting gay marriage, similar arguments could be used to support polygamy, bestiality, and murder.

. . . In June 2008, conspiracy theorist Mark Dice launched a campaign urging people to send letters and DVDs to troops stationed in Iraq which support the theory that the September 11 attacks were an "inside job". "Operation Inform the Soldiers", as Dice has called it, prompted Reagan to comment that Dice should be executed for treason. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a liberal/progressive media criticism organization, asked Radio America at the time to explain whether it permits "its hosts to call for murder on the air".

. . . He spoke out in support of profiling in October 2014. In a piece called Profile or Die, he wrote that it would be left to citizens to defend themselves if there were an attack against them by terrorists such as the Islamic State. (Wikipedia)

Golly. It's pretty clear that Michael Reagan is just another "former total fuck-up, now reborn and pious."


Intellectually, he's a low-rent Limbaugh, and that's pretty low.


I mean, when he gets here, just what is he gonna say? That liberals are evil? That his dad was a saint? That freedom and democracy are good? That you oughta put your life in the hands of the Lord? That you don't need to go to college? That homosexuality is a sin?


Only in Bizarro World would Michael Reagan be judged a good speaker to invite to a college.


* * *

Meanwhile, IVC's Guaranteed Accounting Program folks have only wonderful things to say about the fellow:


Michael Reagan

The eldest son of former President Ronald Reagan and one of the most dynamic and sought-after public speakers, Michael Reagan’s commitments to public service and the conservative vision his father championed are second to none, making him the natural heir to the Reagan conservative legacy. Michael serves as chairman and president of the Reagan Legacy Foundation, which seeks to advance the causes President Reagan held dear and to memorialize the accomplishments of his presidency. Michael’s career includes hosting a national conservative radio talk show syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks, championing his father’s values and principles in the public policy forum, commentating and appearing on the Today Show, Good Morning America, Good Day LA, CNN, and Fox News, and contributing to Newsmax Television. Also an accomplished author, Michael has many successful books including On the Outside Looking In, Twice Adopted, and his latest book, Lessons My Father Taught Me.

Well, sure. But he's also the worst kind of insubstantial, opportunistic "celebrity." And he's not an intellectual; he's a propagandist. He's a minor player in our sad era of noisy and loutish conservative anti-intellectualism and demagoguery.


—And he's a homophobe, among other things. Or so he says.


WAY TO GO, GLENN


IVC Prez Roquemore shares Reagan's enthusiasm for the Pussy-grabber-in-chief.

Recent columns by Michael Reagan


ALL IS FAIR IN THE WAR ON TRUMP (Cagle.com) - by Michael Reagan, December 13, 2018

…Hillary continues to skate free, unbothered by the FBI or any federal agency for the dirty things she and the Obama administration’s injustice department did during the 2016 election to try to defeat Donald Trump.

But not General Flynn.

His life was ruined by the FBI bosses who set out to nail him – and did….

TRUMP VS THE CRAZIES (Cagle.com) - by Michael Reagan, January 11, 2019

…Some of the country’s most desperate liberals in the media actually argued that the president’s televised pitch to the country for congressional funding for a stronger border fence should not be carried live by the networks.

Why? Because they said the president lies too much and they wanted to be able to fact-check his speech beforehand….

TRUMP SAYS ‘ADIOS’ TO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP (Cagle.com) - by Michael Reagan, November 1, 2018

…Ending birthright citizenship, better known as dropping the anchor baby, is the most significant illegal immigration reform the President Trump has announced. With a single executive order, he unplugs a beacon that attracts scammers from the world over. He also attacks a visible manifestation of the “foreigners first” mindset that has infected the State Department, and the rest of the federal bureaucracy, since the 1960s….

THE PARTY OF EVIL (Cagle.com) - by Michael Reagan, October 11, 2018

…Now, thanks to the Democrats’ ugly smear campaign against Judge Kavanaugh, Republican senators like Susan Collins and Trump spokeswoman Sarah Sanders need security guards 24/7.

It’s not the new Supreme Court Justice who’s evil.

It’s the Democrat Party and the nasty “progressives” who’ve taken it over and are willing to say or do anything or destroy anyone to bring down President Trump.

Maybe this is not something new. Maybe the Democrats have always been this evil….

About Michael Reagan:


A separate peace* (LA Times, August 31, 2004) – by Anne-Marie O'Connor

For years, Michael Reagan, the older son of Ronald Reagan, felt unloved and unwanted. His parents divorced when he was 3. Two years later he was packed off to a boarding school where, he says, he was so lonely he cried himself to sleep. Sexually abused at age 7, he felt shame and self-loathing, compounded by Bible passages that convinced him he would never go to heaven.

He grew up so angry he smashed a childhood bicycle and later took a sledgehammer to his new car. Well into his 40s, his "rage came to a full boil," and he often yelled at his wife and young son.

Then, he says, he found salvation through the love of his family and his "adoption" by God. He embraced conservative values and became a syndicated talk-radio host who today tells listeners: "I am homophobic."….

Roquemore and U of Phoenix

From Clueless IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore smiles as he makes nice with the enemy DtB, 8-26-14

Vice President, Western Region, Workforce Solutions/University of Phoenix, Chuck Parker, President, Irvine Valley College, Dr. Glenn R. Roquemore

Members of the Irvine Valley College community just received this gushing email from the President:

Irvine Valley College Signs Memorandum of Understanding with University of Phoenix

Irvine – Irvine Valley College (IVC) administration, faculty and staff held a formal signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Phoenix, Inc. (University) on Wednesday, August 20, 2014.

Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore said, “This partnership will expand the many transfer opportunities available to the IVC students and staff. One of the major benefits of the MOU is the tuition discount."

Irvine Valley College students transferring to University of Phoenix into an undergraduate baccalaureate degree program … will be considered as having satisfied the general education requirements for the breadth of the liberal arts degree program….

IVC students get 10% off Phoenix tuition, which is way pricey.

Evidently, President Roquemore is not aware that entities such as the U of Phoenix exist to make huge profits by taking advantage of students who typically receive federally insured loans, putting them in serious debt. Those students, upon graduating, typically fail to find the work they were expecting and often default on their loans, forcing the taxpayer to pay. (It's a massive bubble that, one day, will pop.)

You’re fine with all that, are you Glenn? You're a Republican, aren't you? Yeah. I see you smiling with those vets you claim to love!

Alas, the "predatory for-profits" problem is especially egregious in the case of Vets, who pay their way via the new GI Bill:


GI Bill funds failing for-profit California colleges

(Desert Sun)

The ever-clueless Glenn R

Over the last five years, more than $600 million in college assistance for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans has been spent on California schools so substandard that they have failed to qualify for state financial aid.

As a result, the GI Bill — designed to help veterans live the American dream — is supporting for-profit companies that spend lavishly on marketing but can leave veterans with worthless degrees and few job prospects, The Center for Investigative Reporting found.

. . .

Financial records analyzed by CIR show that California is the national epicenter of this problem, with nearly 2 out of every 3 GI Bill dollars going to for-profit colleges.

The University of Phoenix in San Diego outdistances its peers. Since 2009, the campus has received $95 million in GI Bill funds. That's more than any brick-and-mortar campus in America, more than the entire 10-campus University of California system and all UC extension programs combined.

. . .

The school's large share of GI Bill funding reflects more than just the number of veterans enrolling. The programs are expensive. An associate degree costs $395 a credit, for instance — nearly 10 times the cost at a public community college.

The University of Phoenix won't say how many of its veterans graduate or find jobs, but the overall graduation rate at its San Diego campus is less than 15 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education, and more than a quarter of students default on their loans within three years of leaving school.

Those figures fall short of the minimum standards set by the California Student Aid Commission, which dispenses state financial aid. The commission considers either a graduation rate lower than 30 percent or a loan default rate of more than 15.5 percent clear indicators of a substandard education.

No such restrictions govern GI Bill funds. And nearly 300 California schools that received GI Bill money either were barred from receiving state financial aid at least once in the past four years or operated without accreditation, CIR has found.

. . .

Of the $1.5 billion in GI Bill funds spent on tuition and fees in California since 2009, CIR found that more than 40 percent — $638 million —went to schools that have failed the state financial aid standard at least once in the past four years.

Four of those schools were University of Phoenix campuses, which together took in $225 million….

An Enemy In Common? The Case Against For-Profit Colleges

(Cognoscenti [NPR Boston])

… As Americans, we should all be concerned that veterans are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous profiteers. As taxpayers, we should be aware that we are paying for this disservice. Approximately 85-95 percent of the for-profits’ revenue comes from taxpayer-supported benefits….

For-Profit College Investigation--Is the New GI Bill Working?: Questionable For-Profit Colleges Increasingly Dominate the Program

([Senator] Harkin newsletter)


…Senator Harkin's HELP Committee investigation found:

. . .

  • Most for-profit colleges charge much higher tuition than comparable programs at community colleges and flagship State public universities. The investigation found Associate degree and certificate programs averaged four times the cost of degree programs at comparable community colleges. Bachelor's degree programs averaged 20 percent more than the cost of analogous programs at flagship public universities despite the credits being largely non-transferrable.
  • Because 96 percent of students starting a for-profit college take federal student loans to attend a for-profit college (compared to 13 percent at community colleges), nearly all students who leave have student loan debt, even when they don't have a degree or diploma or increased earning power.
  • Students who attended a for-profit college accounted for 47 percent of all Federal student loan defaults in 2008 and 2009. More than 1 in 5 students enrolling in a for-profit college-22 percent-default within 3 years of entering repayment on their student loans....

Hey-Diddly-Ho, Neighbor!

Oldie but Goodie [2012]: See Senator Harkin’s For-Profit College Investigation: U of Phoenix

Glenn Roquemore, the Pacifica Institute & women's "primordial nature"

Glenn Roquemore, the Pacifica Institute & women's "primordial nature" May 21, 2013

Delivering factoids for

Turkish anti-feminists

Here’s a curious factoid. I came across the following press release, evidently dating back to April of 2008. It was posted by the “Pacifica Institute,” which has a dozen or so offices, including one in Orange County (Irvine):


Glenn R. Roquemore-Irvine Valley College President Speaks at PI - Orange County

Today Pacifica Institute hosted Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore. Before this luncheon forum in Irvine , New Zealand Consul General Rob Taylor and Irvine Mayor Beth Krom were the keynote speakers. Consul General Rob Taylor spoke about Welcoming Diversity as a Path to Peace and Mayor Beth Krom’s topic was How to Create a Balanced Community. Dr Glenn Roquemore’s topic is the Role of Community Colleges in Higher Education.

Dr. Glenn Roquemore is President of Irvine Valley College….

Dr Roquemore gave very important statistics of the Community Colleges in California….

You’ll recall that, in the past, we’ve kidded Roquemore over his tendency to approach speaking always as an occasion to dispense the merest of statistics as though they were astonishing jewels. "Two percent of our students," he'll say, "sport a vestigial tail." Huh?

What’s the matter with ‘im? Dunno.

But just who are these “Pacifica Institute” people?

According to PI’s website,

Pacifica Institute was established in 2003 as a non-profit organization by a group of Turkish-Americans. Pacifica Institute designs and executes projects covering social welfare, education, poverty, and conflict resolution issues in collaboration with scholars, activists, artists, politicians, and religious leaders-communities….

. . .

The Institute seeks to …[engage] in a variety of civic activities and [seeks to invite] others to generate and share insights, thereby removing barriers to confidence-building and trust….

Gosh, it sounds as though that illiterate pseudo-educator, Raghu Mathur, may have had a hand in writing this stuff.

Elsewhere, PI presents “Frequently Asked Questions about Pacifica Institute and Fethullah Gülen.”

One naturally assumes, then, that Mr. Fethullah Gülen and his ideas are important to PI. Sure enough, in the Q&A, Gülen and his movement are central:

Fethullah Gülen

Q: How is the Pacifica Institute involved with the Gülen movement?

A: Some of the founders and donors of Pacifica Institute are participants of the so-called Gülen, or Hizmet movement. Pacifica Institute was inspired by the movement’s philosophy and goals….

. . .

The Gülen/Hizmet movement is a values-driven social movement and following a philosophy that advances interfaith dialog, education and community service as tools to build a better and more harmonious society. The movement was inspired by the philosophy and teachings of Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish scholar, author and advocate….

. . .

Q: Who is Fethullah Gülen?

A: Fethullah Gülen is a Turkish scholar, preacher, thinker, author, opinion leader, education activist, and peace advocate who is considered by many to be one of the world’s most influential religious thinkers. He is regarded as the initiator and inspirer of the worldwide civil society movement, the Gülen Movement, which is committed to education, dialogue, peace, social justice, and social harmony….

Well, I’ve done a little looking, and this Gülen fella is mighty controversial, in some circles at least.

I skimmed a couple of sites, which suggested that Gulen is, among other things, a conservative and a vocal opponent of feminism (although I ask that readers judge for themselves based on his writings--and the writings of his mouthpieces).

So I went to the Fethullah Gülen website. There, I searched the term “feminism” and that brought me to a page with links to various relevant essays, evidently by Mr. Gülen, including The Gülen Movement: Gender and Practice.

I clicked on that. That essay includes this passage:

Although he promotes equality between the sexes, Fethullah Gülen's views on gender can indeed be described as complementary. He sees women and men as having equal value but inheriting different roles and characteristics due to physical and psychological differences. He classifies men as "physically stronger and apt to bear hardship" and women as "more compassionate, more delicate, more self sacrificing" (Gülen 2006: 1). Although he does state that women can be involved in any field of work he idealizes the mother as the pure educator (Gülen 2006: 2) implicitly implying that the man should be the family provider. This may open up for critique on behalf of Western feminists or scholars of religion and gender. According to this relatively new academic discipline[,] gender is a social construction. Human beings are born with different sexes, but social roles and expectations of fulfillment of these are constructed and emphasized by the norms that prevail in society.

Another link takes one to an essay entitled Women Confined and Mistreated. Here are some excerpts:

As a reaction to all the injustice done to women … a movement to claim women's rights emerged, particularly in the West. Even though this movement is considered an awakening of women, it occurred as a reaction and was doomed to imbalance like all other reactionary movements and ended up in extremism. Although the starting point was to defend women, in time it deviated from the original aim to the degree of being full of hatred towards men and to feeling a grudge against them. The movement named feminism, which was born from the idea of protecting women and providing them with rights equal to those of men, has only left behind longing, sorrow, and wreckage as a movement of discontentment….

. . .

According to Islam, women's role in this world is not only restricted to doing the housework and raising children. In fact, as long as it does not conflict with her primordial nature or with observing religious requirements, she is responsible for carrying out the duties that befall her in every area of society and making up for shortcomings where men fall short in social life. However, this reality was ignored in time, even among Muslims; rough understandings and crude thinking upset this system based on women and men's mutual assistance. After this upset, both family life and the social order were also upset. Different peoples' perception of their own historical heritage as a part of Islam, their seeing and reflecting their folklore and traditions as essentials of religion, and making judgments pertaining to this issue at certain periods all resulted in the usurpation of women's rights; they were pushed into a more restricted area day by day, and in some places they were totally isolated from life without consideration of where this issue leads. However, the source of mistaken thoughts and deviations in this matter is not Islam whatsoever. The mistakes belong to those who misinterpret and misapply the religion. Such mistakes in practice must definitely be corrected.

On the other hand, while correcting these mistakes, approaching the issue from a feminist standpoint will upset the balance again and an opposite extremism will replace the former. For instance, just as it is very ugly to see women as merely child-bearing objects and is insolence towards them, it is equally unbecoming and unnatural to build a society where women are unable to bear and bring up the children they wish for, or for a woman to feel a need to rebel against marrying and to avoid bearing children in order to show that she is not a machine. As a woman is not a dirty dish, her place at home is not confined to the kitchen with the dirty dishes. However, a woman who claims to have no household responsibilities and thereby turns her home to a quarters for eating and sleeping is far from being a good mother, a good teacher, and a good spiritual guide to her children.

Besides all this, it is another form of oppression to make women work under difficult conditions, such as mining and road-building. It contradicts human nature to push women into heavy tasks like agricultural manual labor, or military field operations, and other harsh pursuits, just for the sake of proving their equality with men; it is nothing but cruel torture. It shows ignorance of women's qualities and conflicts with their primordial nature. Therefore, just as an understanding which imprisons women at home and takes them completely away from social life is absolutely incorrect according to Islam, likewise, depriving women of financial support, preventing them from bearing and raising children in security, and forcing women into the labor force to do uncongenial work is also oppressive. A woman, like a man, can have a certain job as far as her (and his) physiology and psychology are taken into consideration; but both women and men should know that a good life consists of sharing and division of labor. Each should assist the other by doing tasks in compliance with their nature.

Yikes.

I’m in no position to judge this “take” on feminism relative to the various Muslim communities (e.g., in Turkey) and the possibility of discourse within them. But it’s pretty plain that Gülen’s philosophy, as expressed here, is antithetical to some of the core tenets of Western feminism, broadly understood. It seems clear that Gülen is not likely to gain many adherents or followers among contemporary Westerners, with their commitment to the ideal of equality, as they understand it at least, between the sexes.

The Wikipedia article on Gülen is alarming—if, that is, it can be trusted. It asserts that

...Gülen's views are vulnerable to the charge of misogyny. As noted by Berna Turam, Gülen has argued:

"the man is used to more demanding jobs . . . but a woman must be excluded during certain days during the month. After giving birth, she sometimes cannot be active for two months. She cannot take part in different segments of the society all the time. She cannot travel without her husband, father, or brother . . . the superiority of men compared to women cannot be denied." [35]

Berna Turam, Northeastern

Wikipedia is quoting Berna Turam, a serious academic at Northeastern U. She herself seems to cite a work from 1996 entitled Fethullah Gulen Hocaefendi ile ufuk turu (Aktuel kitaplar dizisi). It is written in Turkish.

One should be careful to note that the superiority that Gülen is discussing is physical, not moral, or at least that's how I read it. Even so, his remarks are mighty offensive, at least to these Western ears.


Gosh Glenn, you really oughta be more careful who you hang out with. Philosophically, these Gülenites are a problem, at least relative to most of our community on these shores.

I'll see if I can shed more light on the Pacifica Institute and what it means for the likes of Glenn Roquemore and Beth Krom (a Democrat) to be hanging out with 'em.

Votes of "no confidence" - 1999

from the Dissenter's Dictionary, Dec. 3, 1999


MATHUR, RAGHU P.



In April of 1997, in an action later judged a violation of the Open Meetings law, the Board Majority appointed chemistry teacher and campus joke Raghu P. Mathur as Interim President of Irvine Valley College. At the time, Mathur had no experience as a full-time administrator. Five months later, through a process that violated board policy, and amid strong faculty opposition, the BM appointed Mathur permanent president. That action, too, was later voided owing to violations of the Brown Act. Two years later, despite his miserable record, which included a vote of no confidence and the palpable contempt of nearly all IVC faculty and staff, the board majority renewed Mathur's contract, giving him a raise and a $200 a month "security stipend."

Mathur was hired as an instructor in 1979, and he quickly established a reputation as a schemer and liar who would stoop to anything in order to secure an administrative position. Owing to his manifest unsavoriness, however, that ambition was consistently thwarted both inside and outside the district.

His intrigues soon gained him the hatred of Ed Hart, IVC's first president. In 1986, Hart retired, and the college adopted a "faculty chair" model, partly for fiscal reasons. Soon, Mathur "ruled" the tiny school of Physical Sciences as its chair. During the "chair" era, he was, without doubt, the chief abuser of that office, engaging in endless machinations while arranging a lucrative schedule that netted him a salary far in excess of the college president's ($124,000 in 1996-7).

During this period, Mathur continued to seek administrative positions. When he was passed over, he played the race card, charging everyone in sight with "discrimination," apparently on the sole grounds that he had not been selected.

Mathur's habit, as chair, of circumventing the governance process eventually yielded an official censure of him by IVC's "Instructional Council' in April of 1994. Earlier, the IC membership had all agreed not to go outside the process--particularly with regard to the selection of the IVC presidential search committee chair. During an IC meeting in March (of 94), Mathur was asked whether, despite the agreement, he had presented a petition, urging the selection of a particular faculty member, to the chancellor. He answered that he had "not forwarded" a petition to the chancellor or anyone. In fact, he had and, apparently on that basis, the chancellor did appoint the faculty member as (co)chair.

When this came to light in April, Mathur was censured. According to the minutes of the April 5 meeting, "Instructional Council had agreed that no one will work outside of the IVC governance structure and agreed-upon processes. They felt that Raghu had lied to the Council...[One member] made a motion to censur Raghu Mathur for lying to the Instructional Council regarding the petition and the presidential search process and for misrepresenting not only Instructional Council, but also the faculty...Raghu Mathur stated that he did not lie to the Instructional Council. He said that he was asked if he had forwarded the petition to the Chancellor and he said he had not. He did admit, however, that he had shown the petition to Chancellor Lombardi...Raghu felt that the members of Instructional Council were making too big of a deal out of the situation...The question was called and the motion passed with 8 ayes, 3 noes, and 4 abstentions."

Classified employees, too, have at times found it necessary to complain about of Mathur's conduct. For instance, in August of 1995, IVC administration received a letter from Leann Cribb, Executive Secretary (and formerly secretary for the School of Physical Sciences), in which she wrote: "Mr. Mathur routinely revises facts and manufactures innuendo to suit his objectives." During the January '98 Board meeting, classified employee Julie Ben-Yeoshua explained that Mathur was the reason she was seeking employment elsewhere: "Since you first appointed Raghu Mathur as the interim president, the atmosphere at IVC has changed drastically; morale is in the gutter...[Mathur's] inability to tell the truth is so natural that I have come to gauge everything he says and writes by believing the complete opposite...."

By the mid-90s, Mathur had come to regard Terry Burgess, then-VP of Instruction, as his nemesis, and, in 1996, he tried to discredit Burgess with the board. In the spring of '96, a student sought to enroll in a chemistry course without enrolling in the concurrent lab, and the matter came before the chair--Mathur. Though the student provided documentation proving that she had done the equivalent work at UCI, Mathur denied the request, whereupon the student asked for a review of the decision by the Office of Instruction. Mathur agreed to go along with the Office's decision.

Later, however, he accused Burgess of signing the student's admittance card despite non-approval by the instructor. Mathur convinced his school to send a resolution of complaint to the board (and also to the senate and the union), appending the student's transcripts, without her permission, an action that violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and district policies. When then-IVC president Dan Larios learned of this, he requested an opinion from the district's attorneys regarding the legality of Mathur's action. The opinion, dated March 18, 1996, indicates that Mathur acted improperly, violating FERPA and board policy 5619. Larios was fed up.

Realizing that Larios now planned to deny approval of him as chair of his school, Mathur, as per usual, scrambled to lobby board members for support. On March 29, Larios met with Mathur; he explained that he had lost confidence in Mathur and that Mathur had better "change." In the end, Larios wrote a memo (May 14) expressing his serious reservations about Mathur's leadership, owing to his repeated circumventing of established processes and his violations of board policy, and placed him on probation. If there were any further violations of process, wrote Larios, Mathur would be removed as chair.

In the meantime, Mathur asked the senate to censure Burgess. It declined to do so, citing Mathur's misdescription of crucial facts. Larios, troubled by Mathur's misrepresentations, sent out a memo explaining that Burgess had in no sense acted improperly.

In December of '96, the Board Majority era began, and Larios sensed that it was time to move on. Normally, the VP of Instruction—Terry Burgess--would serve as interim president, but the BM blocked his selection, and, in March, Lombardi was chosen as a sort of compromise. But in April, Frogue presented another one of Mathur's petitions--this time, an “anonymous” petition urging Mathur's selection as president. On that basis, Mathur became IVC president.

Mathur's outrages while president are too numerous to recount here. Suffice it to say that in the early months of 1998, the IVC academic senate instituted a Special Inquiry into “abuses of power.” By April, it became necessary to abandon the investigation, owing to the number and the complexity of the charges against Mathur. Said the committee’s chair: “It’s like bailing water out of the Titanic with a tea cup…Every time we put an allegation to bed, another one jumps up” (Voice, 5/7/98). Soon thereafter, Mathur received a 74% vote of no confidence by his faculty.

Mathur has sought to rule through intimidation, punishing his critics in every way available to him. In early November of 1999, the IVC academic senate released the results of a survey of full-time faculty (78% participated). 90% disagreed with the statement, "I can express my opinion about issues at the college without fear of retribution or retaliation." The 90% figure will likely go up soon, for Mathur intends to fire an untenured instructor--a critic--for his involvement in the act of naming the plot of dirt next to the Life Sciences greenhouse. It was named the "Terry Burgess garden."


Huge Vote Against College Chief (LA Times, May 18, 2004 | Jeff Gottlieb)

Faculty in the South Orange County Community College District overwhelmingly voted no confidence Monday in Chancellor Raghu Mathur.
Of the full-time professors at Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges who cast ballots, 93.5% voted in favor of no confidence, and 6% were against the union-sponsored measure. One person abstained.
Out of 318 faculty eligible, 246 -- 77% -- voted, according to the district faculty association….

Clueless IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore smiles as he makes nice with the enemy - August 26, 2014

Vice President, Western Region, Workforce Solutions/University of Phoenix, Chuck Parker, President, Irvine Valley College, Dr. Glenn R. Roquemore

○ Members of the Irvine Valley College community just received this gushing email from the President:

Irvine Valley College Signs Memorandum of Understanding with University of Phoenix

Irvine – Irvine Valley College (IVC) administration, faculty and staff held a formal signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Phoenix, Inc. (University) on Wednesday, August 20, 2014.
Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore said, “This partnership will expand the many transfer opportunities available to the IVC students and staff. One of the major benefits of the MOU is the tuition discount."
Irvine Valley College students transferring to University of Phoenix into an undergraduate baccalaureate degree program … will be considered as having satisfied the general education requirements for the breadth of the liberal arts degree program….

○ IVC students get 10% off Phoenix tuition, which is way pricey.

○ Evidently, President Roquemore is not aware that entities such as the U of Phoenix exist to make huge profits by taking advantage of students who typically receive federally insured loans, putting them in serious debt. Those students, upon graduating, typically fail to find the work they were expecting and often default on their loans, forcing the taxpayer to pay. (It's a massive bubble that, one day, will pop.)

○ You’re fine with all that, are you Glenn? You're a Republican, aren't you? Yeah. I see you smiling with those vets you claim to love!

○ Alas, the "predatory for-profits" problem is especially egregious in the case of Vets, who pay their way via the new GI Bill:


GI Bill funds failing for-profit California colleges

(Desert Sun)

The ever-clueless Glenn R

Over the last five years, more than $600 million in college assistance for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans has been spent on California schools so substandard that they have failed to qualify for state financial aid.
As a result, the GI Bill — designed to help veterans live the American dream — is supporting for-profit companies that spend lavishly on marketing but can leave veterans with worthless degrees and few job prospects, The Center for Investigative Reporting found.

. . .

Financial records analyzed by CIR show that California is the national epicenter of this problem, with nearly 2 out of every 3 GI Bill dollars going to for-profit colleges.
The University of Phoenix in San Diego outdistances its peers. Since 2009, the campus has received $95 million in GI Bill funds. That's more than any brick-and-mortar campus in America, more than the entire 10-campus University of California system and all UC extension programs combined.

. . .

The school's large share of GI Bill funding reflects more than just the number of veterans enrolling. The programs are expensive. An associate degree costs $395 a credit, for instance — nearly 10 times the cost at a public community college.
The University of Phoenix won't say how many of its veterans graduate or find jobs, but the overall graduation rate at its San Diego campus is less than 15 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education, and more than a quarter of students default on their loans within three years of leaving school.
Those figures fall short of the minimum standards set by the California Student Aid Commission, which dispenses state financial aid. The commission considers either a graduation rate lower than 30 percent or a loan default rate of more than 15.5 percent clear indicators of a substandard education.
No such restrictions govern GI Bill funds. And nearly 300 California schools that received GI Bill money either were barred from receiving state financial aid at least once in the past four years or operated without accreditation, CIR has found.

. . .

Of the $1.5 billion in GI Bill funds spent on tuition and fees in California since 2009, CIR found that more than 40 percent — $638 million —went to schools that have failed the state financial aid standard at least once in the past four years.
Four of those schools were University of Phoenix campuses, which together took in $225 million….

An Enemy In Common? The Case Against For-Profit Colleges

(Cognoscenti [NPR Boston])

… As Americans, we should all be concerned that veterans are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous profiteers. As taxpayers, we should be aware that we are paying for this disservice. Approximately 85-95 percent of the for-profits’ revenue comes from taxpayer-supported benefits….

For-Profit College Investigation--Is the New GI Bill Working?: Questionable For-Profit Colleges Increasingly Dominate the Program

([Senator] Harkin newsletter)


…Senator Harkin's HELP Committee investigation found:

. . .

  • Most for-profit colleges charge much higher tuition than comparable programs at community colleges and flagship State public universities. The investigation found Associate degree and certificate programs averaged four times the cost of degree programs at comparable community colleges. Bachelor's degree programs averaged 20 percent more than the cost of analogous programs at flagship public universities despite the credits being largely non-transferrable.
  • Because 96 percent of students starting a for-profit college take federal student loans to attend a for-profit college (compared to 13 percent at community colleges), nearly all students who leave have student loan debt, even when they don't have a degree or diploma or increased earning power.
  • Students who attended a for-profit college accounted for 47 percent of all Federal student loan defaults in 2008 and 2009. More than 1 in 5 students enrolling in a for-profit college-22 percent-default within 3 years of entering repayment on their student loans....

Hey-Diddly-Ho, Neighbor!

Oldie but Goodie [2012]: See Senator Harkin’s For-Profit College Investigation: U of Phoenix