I ATTENDED the Board Forum at Irvine Valley College today, and it was fun! Really!
Considering that it was announced only two days ago and scheduled for a Friday afternoon, it was remarkably well attended, though not by faculty. A friend said she counted about ten instructors in the room.
I should mention that the board holds these forums infrequently, and, near as I could tell, my colleagues who attended this forum appreciated the opportunity to interact with the trustees. A PLAQUE FOR WAYNE:
Things got rolling just after 2:00. Trustee Tom Fuentes invoked the Lord, and then we all pledged to the flag. Next came the presentation of a plaque to exiting Director of Facility and Maintenance, Wayne Ward. Board President Dave Lang announced that the board wanted to “recognize all the terrific work” that the Waynster had done over the years.
I scanned the room for wry expressions. People were being mighty good. —They didn’t applaud though.
Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur then explained that the purpose of the forum was to answer questions and whatnot. “Let the Q & A begin,” he said.
There was silence, no Q. Finally, an administrator asked the trustees, “What would you like to see happen at the college?” Don Wagner then explained that he wanted to see everyone working together collegially. With that, he subtly launched the canard that the real problem with this district isn’t a rogue board and its toady, but the district’s fractious and unseemly faculty troublemakers.
OFF-CAMPUS SITES:
Eventually, Fuentes said that he supported Bill Jay’s dream of slathering our pedagogy all over the map via off-campus sites. Then someone got all empirical and asked just how many off-campus sites we now have. Glenn Roquemore or Dave Anderson said something like, “a zillion, more or less.” Well, no, but the number was very high, maybe twenty-seven.
Twenty-seven? We all stared at each other. Suddenly, it seemed like our problem was that we’ve just got way too much hangin’ out there, off-campuswise!
John Williams explained that this is an exciting time, owing to our Basic Aid funding, which allows us to collect huge piles of property tax money to pay for all sorts of wonderful things. True enough. (Trustee Fuentes has recently warned that the Basic Aid gravy train could end, what with the housing market being what it is.)
THE ACCREDITATION QUESTION:
I offered a question. I said that the Accreditation Commission is once again demanding that the board cease micromanaging, and yet, in recent months, one board member (I didn't mention Mr. Wagner's name) has declared that at least some of the Accred’s charges of micromanagement are mistaken. How, I asked, can we emerge from this Accreditation process if trustees take this kind of defiant stance?
Wagner is not alone. Last Spring, Mr. Fuentes openly opined that the problem with the district isn't so much board micromanagement as "macromanagement" by others. He was referring to faculty.
Trustee Fuentes commenced speechifying. Affecting a manner of smiley omniscience, he explained that, sadly, there are “elements” within our district who remain determined to “propogate the negative.” Somehow, he said, all these “employee-management issues” become the focus, and so our accreditation suffers.
Don Wagner—the defiant board member to whom I had alluded—then stated that he “disagreed with the premise” of my question, namely, the premise that our accreditation might get pulled.
No way, said Don.
Bill Jay then argued for the thesis that “some micromanagement” is good. For instance, during a crisis, micromanagement is just the thing.
I got a chance to respond. I noted that the issue isn’t whether there are kinds of micromanagement that are good—that’s a “red herring,” I said. No, the issue concerns the kinds of micromanagement that the board has been accused of engaging in. That's not the "crisis" kind. Are trustees gonna cease that kind or are they gonna dig in their heels and say it isn't micromanagement?
I turned to Mr. Wagner. I explained that the premise of my question was not that our Accreditation is at risk—I know that it isn’t, I said—but that trustee defiance ensures that we will continue with the effort—and embarrassment—of report after report. That's been going on for years now.
Mr. Wagner then stated that, maybe not CHUNK, but some faculty have mongered accreditation fear among innocent students!
Frankly, none of my students ever expresses that fear, although, occasionally, some reveal, with bemusement, that they are aware of the controversy over our accreditation, etc.
All you boots on the ground: do any of you encounter students who worry about our accreditaiton? If so, let us know! Speak up!
I explained to Mr. Wagner that he might feel comfortable with our endless Accreditation gauntlet, but he’s not among those who have to produce the lengthy Accreditation Reports. “We” do that, I said, referring to the college.
CONSPIRACY THEORY:
Right about then, Mr. Fuentes, with manifest incredulousness, declared, “Well, we all know where [the Accreds] get their information!”
He was expressing a worldview, which he has articulated more than once in the last year, according to which faculty control the accreditation process. In his mind, it's a rigged system.
“Oh, you mean your conspiracy theory!” I said. “Tell us about that! How does that work?"
Excitement filled the air!
Near as I could tell, several of the trustees—certainly Fuentes, Wagner, and Lang—gave each other a bemused and languorous “ha ha, we know about the Accreditation scheme, don’t we boys?” look.
But they weren’t going to take my bait. Nope. They clammed up.
My God. Some of these people live on freakin' Fantasy Island.
Eventually, Nancy Padberg spoke. She said: “micromanagement is a good thing, really, because it means you’re involved.” I studied Dave Lang’s face. He didn't grimace much, really.
John Williams then explained that it is a natural tendency of elected trustees, city council members, and the like, “to want to get involved in things.” He didn’t think the micromanagement that goes on in our district was as bad as it has been portrayed as being.
(Har har har. He then told of how, years ago, a few trustees, administrators, and faculty leaders would meet out on a boat in Dana Point Harbor to work out the contract and such. They'd shake hands and that was that. —Ah, the good old days!)
A classified employee who works with students reported that she doesn't hear them expressing fears of accreditation loss. She expressed the concern that our “distance ed” offerings do not include enough “foundational” courses to keep students at our college.
REASSIGNED TIME:
THEN, a long-time member of the School of Humanities and Languages—one with a stellar reputation as a teacher—spoke. She explained that, over the years, her relationship with her students has “eroded” in some ways, for she has less and less time to spend with them. She cited some of the non-instructional tasks that seem to have piled up over the last few years: program review, curriculum updates, SLOs, and, now, pressure to pursue distance ed.
That led to a point about reassigned time: i.e., course work from which an instructor is “released” so that he or she can devote time and energy to some non-instructional activity—e.g., chairing a department or a committee. Reassigned time is utterly routine in academia, but not in the SOCCCD.
A "ban" on reassigned time was among the innovations of the bad old "Board Majority"/Union Old Guard Axis that emerged in 1996, thanks to the union's homophobic fliers. Naturally, the ban didn't apply to union officers.
Since then, the absurdity of the ban has produced more exceptions, but reassigned time is kept by Mathur and the Board to an unworkably low level. It's yet another source of low morale.
As things stand, said the instructor, academic chairs (among others doing substantial extra-instructional work) get no reassigned time. Instead, they must teach a full load of classes and then take on chair duties on top of that. As compensation, they receive a stipend.
“I don’t need more money,” she said. “I need time.”
We all laughed at that one. No, we need more money too. But the point was that one can’t teach a full load and then do all of this other work. (Well, maybe some can; but many can’t.) Given the ban on reassigned time, increasingly, the very best faculty will simply refuse to do these jobs. She, for one, would never accept the job of chairing her department.
Mr. Wagner seemed frustrated. He argued that giving the excellent instructor reassigned time removes her from the classroom, so what about that?
“Our adjuncts are excellent,” responded the instructor. Another instructor—one from the School of Fine Arts—chimed in to make the same point: if she were given reassignment for a course, the adjunct who would replace her would be excellent.
Reassigned time doesn’t deprive students of good teachers, Don.
Marcia Milchiker suggested that the best way to increase the availability of reassigned time is through contract negotiations. (Hear that, Faculty Association?)
Then JOHN WILLIAMS weighed in. Trustees shouldn’t be involved in this matter, he said. We’ve got these CEOs who can get together and make the appropriate decisions about reassigned time, said John. This is “not a trustee issue."
That sounded awfully good. What’s gotten into the fellow?
CLUELESS?
I don’t recall what went on immediately after that—I stopped taking notes—but people started squirming like they do, cuz it was nearing 3:00 p.m.
I managed to get the last question. I referred to Mr. Fuentes’ earlier remark about “negativity.” I explained that I know the people who write the Accreditation reports. They are, I said, some of the best, the most conscientious, the hardest-working and honest people in the district.
“How do you think they feel,” I asked, “when trustees embrace the incompetent notion that the Accreditation process is rigged or dishonest?”
“It amazes me that you can be that clueless.”
Upon declaring that my question was actually a statement, Mr. Lang simply concluded the meeting. And that was about it.
Have a great weekend. —CW
19 comments:
Chunk, you're speaking the truth to power. You're walking the walk. You're standing up to the Man, in person.
Woe to him who would say otherwise.
I would certainly say otherwise. Unlike you, Jonathan, I was there and Chunk made an absolute overbearing fool of himself.
hmmm, how do we know you - you anonymous one - were where YOU claim to be, hmmm?
I hear that Goldilocks tells the students that some instructors are telling their students about pending loss of Accreditation - very clever!
These are the students who of course have the ears of the admin and trustees - the student gvt. types who needs to be on Goldi's good side in order to get the $$$$ for their clubs and projects.
Well, 6:53, Chunk was down front two seats away from Pres. Roquemore. The professor who asked about reassigned time, Jeanne Egasse, sat behind him directly back against the wall. Al Tello slipped in about ten minutes late and sat on the right. Prof. Mrs. Roquemore slipped in late, left early, and sat alone on the left. I was there, and Chunk ended not with a flourish, but with typical loutishness and insults. No wonder those people don't get out to IVC very often. The boorish village idiot won't let civilized people have civilized conversations.
Hi anonymous...you obviously don't follow district politics. Do you think that the colleges should be forced to write progress report after progress report due to the misbehavior of 5 trustees and 1 chancellor and nobody should say anything about it? We should just pretend that we are all one happy family? Chunk's comments were not overbearing. He was right on. His questions were precisely the only questions that mattered and every one in the room with half a brain was dying to ask the exact same questions. I've got an idea....how about you write the next series of accreditation reports while these 5 publicly elected folks continue to cause grief for the colleges and then never get to ask them whether they know what they are doing. To use one of Mathur's favorite sayings, when you are pointing a finger, three fingers are pointing back at you...perhaps you are the boorish village idiot who would rather sit around chit-chatting idly with publicly elected officials and an incompetent highly paid chancellor and pretend that nothing is wrong. Get a clue...or better yet...run for a seat on our board. Sounds like you'd fit right in.
Your trustees are unbelievable. There's lots to criticize in the Accreditation process, but the idea that it's rigged or that secret communications go on is just ridiculous.
Conspiracy theorists, why don't you go to the college presidents and ask 'em: tell me whether this process is honest? They know what's going on.
Who are you people listening to, anyway?
I read Saddleback's recent accreditation midterm report, and it's obvious that the Accreditors get at least some of their "information" from Mathur and the board--for instance, the stuff about how faculty leadership seem to stir up trouble just for the sake of stirring up trouble.
Or don't your trustees read these reports?
People who offer conspiracy theories should be made to defend them, otherwise, it's just a form of McCarthyism. Explain it to us! Who's involved? Are you saying that the authors of the reports are in on it? Just what are you saying? Give us the particulars!
The accreditation process may be flawed, but it isn't rigged. It isn't controlled by faculty. The situation is more complex than that.
I sometimes think that these trustees just don't want any kind of oversight. To people like Fuentes, any kind of criticism is invalid because, after all, he's elected by the people!
More and more your board & Chancellor Mathur remind me of the Bush administration.
My only question is: when will Mathur be forced to resign so he can get the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
So, 9:20, the only thing that mattered was Chunk’s concern, huh? Not Jeanne’s questions about reassigned time; not Dave Anderson’s question about IVC’s direction; not Susan Sweet’s question or the discussion about distance ed or . . . no, all that matters is Chunk’s worry about having to write another report (which, of course, he doesn’t actually write).
I hope you were at the meeting because Chunk’s report is tendentious. I heard the beginnings of a good give and take about serious issues. There are strong opinions on many sides and no easy answers. That’s why discussion is important and why Chunk is a fool to try to monopolize, insult, and lie about these talks.
Chunk obsesses about trustees he can’t beat at the ballot box and invocations and accreditation even he admits is not in jeopardy. His rants are nothing but small minded concerns from an obsessed cynic. Meanwhile, the others in that room are trying to move IVC forward.
hey 11:25!
Chunk has "small minded concerns"?
Our board has a history of Open Meeting Law violations, illegal unilateral decision-making, headline-grabbing idiocy (e.g., nixing the "Spain" program), 1st Amendment violations against students, micromanagement (most of our trustees acknowledge that, you know), and on and on.
Chunk has been there through all of it. Don't forget: he was the petitioner in all those successful Open Meeting lawsuits.
And now he makes clear that some of our trustees embrace a conspiracy theory in which accreditation is rigged. Plus he defends the hard-working authors of the midterm reports against trustee implications that their work is dishonest.
Petty small minded.
Thanks for the update, Chunk. Back to the original question. No, I neither tell nor do my students ask about "accreditation fears." We're too busy engaged in the education process.
From experience, though, faculty don't "control" accreditation--either on the report writing side (our IVC group is above board and listens to what readers say about the draft) or on the "visitor" side. Of those who comprise the visiting team, the faculty often have been years out of the classroom, while the administrators who come are often failed administrators whose own institutions are far from being models. ACCJC calls it a "learning opportunity" to send those administrators out into the field. Conspiracy? If anything, it can be a conspiracy in defense of mediocrity at its worst. But in the control of faculty? Wow--Fuentes sounds as wacky as Frogue did!
But you're right, Chunk--the continual report writing and layer upon layer of report writing, takes precious time from faculty who want to teach. And it makes the district as a whole (generally known as "your crazy district down there") look bad and incompetent. If trustees really cared about students, they'd take care of the mess THEY created all by themselves.
From Urban dictionary - Dhimmicrat is defined as:
"A person, usually liberal, who is willing to overlook abuses to free speech, women's rights, gay rights, etc., in Arabic countries due to their blinding hatred of the conservative political movement in the United States."
IVC is being run magnificently!
Morale is at an all-time high due to masterful management and exceptional working conditions!
Faculty are routinely recognized and rewarded for their achievements in and outside the classroom as are staff. As a result, the number of faculty and staff who volunteer to participate in the governance of the college is at an all time high! You have to beat them off those committees with a stick!
This local situation mirrors the national scene!
The war is going better day by day! Victory is within reach!
The environment is being carefully stewarded by the most brillant scientific minds!
Research into cancer and other deadly diseases is receiving the funding and support that it needs!
Things have never been better!
Ray takes such good notes!
Didn't he write some full-term and mid-term Accreditation reports once upon a time?
Didn't the Accreditors cite him for his narrative style and presentation of evidence?
psst - Ray is part of the conspiracy - don't you see?
Everybody knows that Ray wrote those reports for years - with reassigned time too, I think.
Do the editorials in the Lariat reflect the students of both campuses or just the ones on staff at the Lariat?
Asserting the Lariat editorials [accurately] reflect anything is the funniest commentary I've heard in 40 years.
Post a Comment