You'll recall that Chancellor Raghu Mathur got spanked at the last board meeting for recommending that he receive a hefty raise, some of it retroactive. So annoyed was the board by this self-serving "recommendation" that it quietly deleted the item from the agenda.
Raghu responded by stewing and putrefying. It was ghastly.
Insiders now tell me that, what made matters worse, as it turns out, was Raghu's timing. Faculty senate leadership chose last meeting to make a strong and public (i.e., televised) plea for increased reassigned time for the senates. Evidently, compared to officers in other districts, our academic senate leaders are poorly supported in their endeavors, a situation made worse by increased inclusion of the senates in district governance in recent years (some of it compelled by legal decisions going against the district).
More importantly, as everyone knows who hangs with senate presidents, those people spend 40+ hours a week doing senate business, but they're paid for a mere fraction of that time. They work like dogs, and they've gotta teach their load and run their private lives to boot.
Well, just in case somebody didn't know--for instance, those Seizure World geezers who watch the BOT on Friday cable mighta been outa the loop--the two senate presidents spelled it out in gruesome detail, using charts and stuff.
Uh-oh. "Thank God we didn't throw more money at Raghu!" thought some trustees, I guess. "It woulda looked bad, real bad!"
I've got a question for you guys. How come you don't believe in PAYING PEOPLE (or, anyway, people who happen to be faculty senate officers) FOR THEIR WORK? You don't mind paying a worthless sycophantic load like Mathur a quarter million dollars. But faculty senate officers? Well, let's just scr** those guys!
You call yourselves "conservatives." Do conservatives favor making people work too much--so much that it cuts way into their family lives--and without compensation? --Um, nope.
I DON'T GET IT.
(I've been told that reassigned time HAS now been increased for the senates, but not by much. Not by nearly enough. How are these people supposed to have family lives?)
2. Old news, but still:
I ran across an old Community College Week article that many of us missed. It reports the Academic Senates' big win over the district--in the Court of Appeals--concerning the district's illegal unilateral imposition of a faculty hiring policy: Academic Senates Get Big Win in California Appeals Court.
[T]he Court of Appeal...[noted] that the legislature gave specific responsibilities to academic senates. For example, the legislature directed that hiring criteria, policies and procedures for new faculty members “shall be developed and agreed upon jointly” by the trustees and academic senate.
“The faculty has an inherent professional responsibility in the development and implementation of policies and procedures governing the hiring process,” Justice Eileen Moore wrote for the court.
The court rejected the district’s assertion that allowing the senates a “veto” would enable them to frustrate and obstruct the process of revising hiring policies, and it found no evidence that the two senates were acting maliciously or intended to obstruct the process.
Chancellor Mathur is quoted as saying, "...we are keeping our options open in terms of appeals.”
That went nowhere, of course. The district lost the case simpliciter and finito.
I've been told by informed attorneys that our victory will have (perhaps already has had) significant ramifications throughout the system. It's a huge step toward finally satisfying the intent of the late 80s AB1725 legislation.
So I've got another question for you trustees. How come you don't care about OBEYING THE LAW? Tell me that! And I'm not even counting your earlier incarnation's "persistent and defiant" violation of the Brown Act!
What kinda conservative thinks he gets to cheat and and spin and wriggle his way out of obeying THE GODDAM LAW?
I DON'T GET IT.