● RAGHU'S stealth agenda item!
● WAGNER on Spain again
● FORTUNE'S legacy?
● A first-rate stadium complex for Saddleback College?
● MATHUR/ADMINISTRATORS caught in a sh*t storm
As promised, here is my “full report” on Monday night’s meeting of the South Orange County Community College District’s Board of Trustees. (See also Tracy's board meeting highlights.)
LARIAT. The board loves Resolutions. Monday night, it “resolved” in various directions, including the direction of honoring Saddleback’s student newspaper, the Lariat, which, evidently, is a finalist for the National Pacemaker Award.
During public comments, the Lariat’s editor carped indecorously that the “division” will no longer be providing the paper its usual $14,000. The powers that be, he suggested, have decided to “punish [those who produce the newspaper] for being successful.”
Someone close to Liberal Arts Division leadership told me today that the student editor is mistaken. We’ll look into it.
SAFE CITIES. During his public remarks, Trustee Fuentes “saluted” the elected leadership and the police of Mission Viejo, Lake Forest, and Irvine. Evidently, earlier in the day, the FBI had declared those cities—especially Mission Viejo—to be among the very safest in the nation. Of course, if the Feds say it, it must be true.
BUT DO THEY EVEN KNOW WHAT "PROFLIGATE" MEANS? During the Saddleback College Associated Student Government’s giggly presentation of their budget, Trustee Wagner grumbled about the ASG’s “criteria and priorities,” suggesting that those standards “will encourage profligate spending.”
SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS:
The Honeywell Corporation then came up to present a semi-slick sales pitch for their super-duper digital “video surveillance” system. I do believe that the name of the man from Honeywell was “Ted Nugent.” He did not have a guitar.
Mr. Nugent explained that he used to sell AC units, but, increasingly, he found it necessary to concentrate on video surveillance equipment, which is hot hot hot. Nugent showed charts and graphs and diagrams. The best thing about the new system, he said, is…“risk mitigation.” Sounds impressive!
At first, I wondered if our benighted board had finally decided to monitor the movements, thoughts, and conversations of every employee and student in the district. But no. It appears that the reason for the Honeywell presentation had more to do with cops’ love of new gadgets to hang on their black leather utility belts than the trustees’ love of control.
Trustee Williams, a former bailiff wearing a hideous tie made from a large American flag that hung down near his knees, indicated that it was he who invited Ted Nugent and the Honeywells.
Trustee Fuentes expressed Libertarian “Big Brother” concerns.
Trustee Padberg seemed to ask: if Mission Viejo is the third safest city in the whole dang country, why the heck do we need all this surveillance equipment?
Williams reminded everybody that, once, in the 90s, an itinerant serial killer murdered a student in the parking lot. Plus, in the 70s, some guy ran amok at Cal State Fullerton.
Williams saved his best argument for last: “we live in an era of surveillance cameras,” he declared.
Trustee Jay yelped that “this is a terribly scary place at night.”
Trustee Lang and Chancellor Mathur reminded everyone that this stuff costs money.
MATHUR CAUGHT RED-HANDED:
Eventually, the board got to item 38: “Academic personnel actions.”
A half hour earlier, some of us detected something strange about the agenda. At the Docket meeting back on Oct. 19—when, supposedly, the Chancellor lists upcoming board agenda items—there was no mention of a recommendation to grant the Chancellor a retroactive (to 7/1/06) COLA. And yet the version of the full agenda available at the district website as of Oct. 30 included the following item:
Trustee Jay moved that item J1 be separated from the rest of item 38. That was approved. Eventually, the board returned to item J1.
Trustee Padberg “objected” to the item. For one thing, she said, why is the granting of a COLA to the district’s chief administrator listed under the heading: “Academic Personnel Actions”? Why does this newly added item refer to a “Raghubansh Mathur”—an unfamiliar name?
Padberg declared that these tactics are an “attempt to hide the item.” We’re paying the fellow “$300,000 a year,” she said, and “he does not need a COLA.”
Trustee Milchiker noted that the proposal to grant Mathur a COLA had come up a few months ago and was rejected by the board. (No, actually, the matter was essentially tabled.)
Trustee Lang, that notorious quisling, argued that, not long ago, every other administrator in the district received a COLA. Fairness, he said, demands that the Chancellor receive one too, even though, of course, the Chancellor makes more money than God. (Leave it to a bean-counter to offer so soulless an argument.)
Irvine Valley College Academic Senate President Wendy G was allowed to speak. She noted the curious circumstance that, at Docket, item J1 was not revealed or included. Between Oct. 19 and Oct. 30, she said, J1 was slipped into the agenda.
Chancellor Mathur commenced looking homicidal. His nose pulsated.
Wendy continued: there’s a “Brown Act” issue here. According to the Brown Act, posted agenda items should inform the public just what the board plans to discuss. How is the public supposed to learn that the board intends to discuss granting the Chancellor a COLA when all that they’ve got to go on is the cryptic phrase “additional compensation” appearing under the heading “Academic Personnel Actions”? (See graphic.)
Mathur’s boy Bob King, who wrote the item, was asked to respond. He seemed to say that the agenda says “additional compensation,” and, sure enough, that’s what is supposed to be discussed: additional compensation—for the Chancellor. So there's no prob.
Williams then argued that Mathur is a “professor”—one who happens to be the Chancellor. And so it is right and proper that his compensation is listed under the heading “Academic Personnel Actions.”
Earlier, Trustee Padberg noted that spelling out Raghu’s first name was unusual and served to further obscure the item. This inspired Williams to now argue that Padberg was making fun of Raghu’s name. “You owe him an apology,” he declared.
Milchiker then suggested that "Raghubansh" “is certainly a wonderful name,” but it has never appeared on an agenda before. Besides, she said, the board discussed this COLA idea before, and it failed. Item 38 “is suspicious to me,” she said.
Trustee Fuentes then suggested that perhaps Trustee Padberg has “difficulty with gentlemen whose names have a foreign origin.” (Fuentes is of Spanish origin, via Mexico. "Fuentes" means "fount of appalling evil" in Spanish. Or not.)
Trustee Wagner turned to Bob King, pressing him on the adequacy of the agenda verbiaage relative to the Brown Act and its requirements. (As you know, the SOCCCD board has a history of egregious Brown Act violation.) Wagner seemed to say that he was turning to King for guidance and that he was not getting any. He noted that the agenda refers to “additional compensation,” and yet section J1 refers, not to additional compensation, but to “compensation revision.”
Wagner seemed genuinely peeved.
In the end, King agreed to rethink the item and make sure that, next time, it is properly agendized.
SPAIN AGAIN:
Items 42 and 43 concerned Saddleback College’s “Spanish language studies” trips to Salamanca, Spain (one in spring; the other in summer). Once again, Wagner (and Fuentes?) were unhappy. The spring trip, said Wagner, is an “extraordinarily expensive program.” He wondered whether the department had considered more than one program provider.
Saddleback President McCullough explained that the division and departments did look at various programs, but the others were found wanting.
Wagner sought information from Dean Kevin O’Connor (Liberal Arts). O’Connor again stated that the department considered several vendors. Evidently, the board’s “$50 million liability coverage” requirement scared off many vendors. (You’ll recall that the board embraced that requirement after addressing the dangers of terrorists and marauding Flamenco dancers in connection with the Santander, Spain program.)
Wagner peevishly bemoaned the $50 million requirement. Apparently, no policy covers acts of war or terrorism. Hence, raising the liability amount failed to accomplish what trustees sought to accomplish.
During this discussion, it became clear that most vendors would not go along with this unusual liability requirement.
If his mouth did not say that the requirement was stupid, Mr. Wagner's face surely did.
Fuentes revived the idea that students should go to Mexico instead of Spain. Trips to Mexico are relatively inexpensive.
O’Connor said that the department hadn’t looked at Mexico. He said he could ask them to do that.
Milchiker explained that Salamanca is a city with an Ancient (Roman and Medieval) past. A visit to a city like Salamanca is nothing like a visit to Mexico. It's a case of apples and oranges.
Saddleback Academic Senate President Bob C reminded everyone that a delay in approving these programs would set them back.
Wagner declared that he was “extremely distressed” by Dean O’Connor’s “screw the board” attitude, as he put it. When the matter of cost was discussed previously, said Wagner, O’Connor said he would look into other options, but he clearly didn’t do that. “This is no way to treat recommendations of the board,” he fumed.
Padberg then suggested that the sort of influence Wagner, as an individual trustee, seemed to want over administrators amounted to “micromanagement.”
Eventually, the trips were put to a vote, and they were approved. But Trustee Wagner then pursued a “reconsideration” of the item.
Wagner seemed to say that he and Trustee Fuentes have concerns, and those concerns have been ignored. They’ve had to endure “silly arguments,” he said, about the inexpensiveness of trips when considered relative to “per day” cost.
In the end, the Salamanca trips were approved.
INDECOROUSNESS, REASSIGNED TIME, ETC.:
Vice Chancellor Serban was supposed to make a computer-assisted presentation of her work in pursuit of “institutional effectiveness,” a matter of great importance, according to the Chancellor. But it was getting late, and this yielded an indelicate effort by some trustees to skip Serban’s presentation as unnecessary. In the end, owing to the importance of the topic (re accreditation, etc.), Serban was allowed to make her brief presentation.
The episode seemed to go down badly with many people in the audience.
Item 49 concerned stipends and reassigned time. You’ll recall that, back in 1996-7, then-Trustee Dorothy Fortune led an effort essentially to do away with reassigned time, the practice of relieving instructors of teaching duties so that they can perform other duties (e.g., chairing departments, writing accreditation reports, etc.). Discussion of 49 seemed to revive this old issue.
Trustee Fuentes reminded everyone that Fortune left two “great legacies,” including “this building” and severe limitations on reassigned time for instructors. He seemed to warn against reversing Fortune’s “great” reassigned time-busting reform.
Wendy noted that the prevailing “reassigned time” policy—which restricts RT to 2% (of?)—was set about ten years ago. But in the last decade, the state has greatly increased demands of accountability, and this has multiplied duties that normally fall to faculty. Sticking with this old 2% rule is not fair to faculty, she said.
Item 51 was a report on “intercollegiate soccer at Saddleback College,” the contents of which Mr. Wagner found wanting. The discussion brought out more Wagnerian peevitude, which seemed to be dumped on Dean L. Discussion of item 51 led to a discussion of the desirability of a “first rate stadium facility,” something strongly advocated by Trustee Williams and Trustee Jay. Trustee Lang threw cold fiscal waters on that discussion.
In truth, the trustees got pretty snippy, and everybody, I think, was glad when the meeting came to an end.
