1. NO TALKING WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR! Remember in grade school, when you talked to your “neighbor” while the teacher was speaking? I remember it as though it were yesterday...
Suddenly, Teacher points an accusing finger at you and says, “Mr. Wheeler, perhaps you’d like to share that with the rest of the class!”
Well, there was just such a moment during Monday’s board meeting. It occurred only minutes after three faculty had presented their objections to prayers and invocations at district and college events. Some of the same faculty were whispering to “their neighbor” at the Board Meeting Ghetto, namely, that stupid table that stretches across the floor below the trustees' Edifice of Power & Patriotism.
Suddenly, in the middle of a Mathurian pontification, trustee Fuentes interrupts to say, “Excuse me, point of order” (or some such thing). He directs has gaze at the Ghetto, and in particular at its benighted faculty district. Certain persons, he declares, “are carrying on separate conversations!” I’m sure, he continues, that those same persons wouldn’t “appreciate that same behavior in their classroom!”
There’s silence. Fuentes is dead serious. Margot and the other naughty little girls just stare back at Fuentes, mouths agape.
I am about to burst out laughing. (I don't.)
2. "CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT" DEVELOPMENT. Among the “consent calendar” items of Monday’s board meeting was 4.10: “Mission statements.” Evidently, Saddleback College's mission statement mentions “character development.” Trustee Wagner asked for clarification regarding how the college pursues that. Padberg sought to table the item, thus permitting reflection and debate, I suppose. One wonders what that’s all about. Obviously, our brethren (and sistren) on the religious right are all in favor of character development, as long as it concerns virtues that are more or less traditional—none of this New Agey stuff about “self-esteem” or “bliss-finding” or, say, “tolerance.” So maybe we’ll hear more about this in future.
3. LOUD PIANO PRICES. Item 4.20 was approval of hiring of vendors who would supply “musical instruments for the Performing Arts Center” at IVC. The amount: $415,236.32.
Evidently, the item was misdescribed to some extent. Some of the money will purchase, not musical instruments, but food. (Peanuts? Hot dogs? Beer?)
Still, about $250,000 was slated for pianos.
Padberg didn’t like the sound of that. It turns out that the Quarter Mill was for three pianos costing $100K, $100K, and $50K. That was OK with all trustees except Padberg. “Too expensive,” she said, I think.
That reminded me of the time I joined my then-wife’s family for dinner at the fanciest restaurant in Lewistown, Montana (a hick town). The whole famdamily was there, and the bill came to something just over 100 dollars. (This was about 25 years ago.)
It was grandma’s treat! Nice lady, very old.
I watched her leave the tip.
It was one dollar.
4. NOW ON THE ROAD TO DRUNKENNESS AND DISSIPATION. Item 5.4 concerned revisions to three board policies, including 1900: “Alcoholic beverages.”
As things stand, the policy forbids alcohol on either of the campuses. It requires that people be served Ovaltine instead.
The IVC Foundation has complained that the “Ovaltine rule” hampers fundraising. “Some people dislike the taste of Ovaltine,” said Glenn (well, no).
In truth, the current policy forbids the serving of alcohol anywhere on the campuses for any reason. The revision would allow alcohol for Foundation fundraising events.
Trustee Williams had a problem with the proposed change. He blathered about “wine tasting” courses up in the California wine country. He envisioned drunken contributors driving away from campus and getting into nasty wrecks. If that happens, we’ll be the “deep pockets,” he said.
Turns out, we’re the deep pockets even when events are held off campus. Plus, said Wagner, “that’s what insurance is for.”
In the end, the trustees approved the change.
Wendy & Glenn at last week's Commencement5. CAN WE GET A PLACE TO TEACH 1ST? Item 5.5 concerned the district’s “5-year construction plan.” As you know, some trustees, especially Mr. Jay and Mr. Williams, advocate the building of fancy new stadiums ASAP.
At one point in the discussion (of our construction priorities), IVC’s Academic Senate Prez, Wendy G, said that a new stadium (at IVC) would be “wonderful,” but she is involved, she said, in the college’s strategic planning process, and it is clear that classroom and lab space is desperately needed.
“We need a place to teach our students,” she declared.
So as not to piss off her PE colleagues, she made an effort, though, to acknowledge the hypothetical wonderfulness of a new stadium, should one be built. "Wonderful. Really wonderful."
6. MISERLY BUBBLE POPPED. Item 6.1 concerned the thorny issue of the “cost of employee benefits and the ratio of administrators, classified staff, and full time/part time faculty.” Deputy Chancellor Gary Poertner explained that, though we tend to think that our district is exceptional in expending 88% of funds on salaries/benefits, as it turns out, that percentage is "in the middle" compared to other districts statewide. We looked at charts that made this very clear.
The upshot: re salaries, etc., we spend money just as other districts do.
7. OUR WENDY INSPIRES NEW AWARD. As you have probably already heard, IVC’s Wendy Gabriella will be the recipient of the State Senate's first “Faculty Freedom Fighters” Award, an award that she in fact inspired:
Wendy Gabriella, beyond our pride in selecting you as the first recipient of this award we want you to know that you are the inspiration for its creation. In that spirit and in our desire to motivate future generations of Faculty Freedom Fighters, we would like to honor you during the Academic Senate’s Leadership Institute, June 14-16, 2007 at the Hayes Mansion Hotel in San Jose. There will be a dinner in your honor on the evening of June 15, and the presentation of the first Faculty Freedom Fighters Award will occur there in the company of your admiring and grateful colleagues…. (Letter from Ian Walton, President, the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges)
37 comments:
Just heard from our friend Paul Ho (former student trustee). He reports that he is doing much better.
It's OK; I just said, "Trustee Fuentes, I had business to discuss." (If he really wants to intimidate me he needs to bring in a nun with a ruler.)
That's right--one of Herr Fuentes' recalcitrant "pupils" responded. I couldn't hear the response very well, but that was surely it: "I had business to discuss."
Incidentally, sorry for misspelling your name, 2:58. (I know I misspelled it, cuz I spelled it two different ways!)
The change to the alcohol policy was not approved. Even when you can hear what goes on it looks like you don't pay much attention. Probably too busy wondering how to spin your nonsense for the kool-aid drinkers.
How does having "business to discuss" justify rudeness and interruptions to the public meeting? Doesn't simple decency, common sense, basic politeness, some regard for others, mean that these conversations get taken outside?
I like it when the trustees confer, shuffle papers, pray, etc., when people are at the podium making statements during public comments...
Liberals always have an excuse for their rude and negative behavior. They always blame it on someone else. F*** 'em all!
Mr. One Note - gotta love him!
By the way, people in Lewistown, MT STILL leave tips like that after dinners with the whole famdamily! They are incorrigible: seemingly incapable of understanding concepts of inflation and such.
"Liberals always have an excuse for their rude and negative behavior" ?! What; are we in junior high school? Please retire to beneath the rocks of troll-land, 7:36.
5:09, one must simply communicate to the level of the audience, and liberals are one click above snake shit.
ah, critical thinking at its best!
thanks again, Mr.One Note - and it IS Mr., ain't it?
You forgot the "Church Piano" comment!
I didn't realize one whispered sentence could set off a debate about the relative politeness of liberals vs. conservatives. I would have passed a note . . . oh, but that would have been bad too.
Maybe I can show this to Carmen as evidence that she definitely has to go to all BoT meetings because I just cant be trusted :)
PS Chunk, no problem - everybody messes up my name.
Misspelling correkted.
Now, Allanah, you're not being completely honest with us, either. Something about Chunk and his blog must rub off on his cohorts. It wasn't one sentence. It was a rude, extended discussion. As you admitted before your story changed, you "had business to discuss." You were rude and petty to the chancellor, and it would have been rude and petty no matter what your political leanings. And now you're lying about what you did when you get some well deserved criticism. What's wrong with a simple apology and promise not to do it again instead of a lie? Is that really so hard?
I attend virtually all SOCCCD board meetings, and I have observed this board carefully for years. Those who suppose that our "rude" faculty leaders owe the Chancellor an apology should consider this: during SOCCCD board meetings, some on the dais routinely whisper to each other when the board is being addressed by someone at the lectern. Specifically, Fuentes/Wagner and Mathur/Lang pretty regularly whisper & joke when others' speak.
Nowadays, I bring my Nikon to meetings, but I used to bring my video camera. I've recorded many an instance of this, and I've displayed stills of just such moments on this blog.
So, whether or not faculty behavior was "rude," it was no worse than the behavior routinely exhibited by Mr. Fuentes and Chancellor Mathur.
One more point: among decent people, one does not accuse others of lying unless they can back that up. And please note that, among the literate, lying is intentional deception. We all get our facts wrong occasionally. Obviously, that does not make us all liars.
Don't people understand that there are simple rules to be followed at all meetings of publically elected boards?
You SHUT UP unless spoken to and you keep your hands to yourself and eyes forward on the important people - in this case, the trustees and the chancellor (some of whom have been put their by their GOD, don't forget). No passing notes. No eye rolling. No disrepect or else you will be removed from the august auditorium.
You don't like it when they disregard you you when it's your time to to speak?
Tough. It's their microphone, not yours, baby and don't you forget it.
Chunk:
Like you, I too watch the board closely. You are wrong that Fuentes/Wagner or Mathur/Lang routinely talk and joke during public comments. It has happened, but is hardly routine. Though we can probably disagree on the meaning of routine, an unbiased reviewer would most likely conclude that you are wrong on this. I think you are intentionally wrong on this, and therefore, by your definition, lying to your readers. Go ahead and post all of your videos of this supposedly rude behavior. Given the years they have all been there -- years that eat away at the souls of you and your fellow kool aid drinkers -- and the hundreds of speakers they have listened to, I think you (maybe not you, but reasonable people) will find them to behave appropriately, professionally, and reasonably, and not at all like you and your crowd.
Allanah, too, was lying when she just wrote about "one whispered statement." That was false, intentionally false, knowingly false. It contradicted her earlier post about having "business to discuss." In other words, it was a lie.
You're slipping, old man. I've noticed a lot more people on this blog not putting up with your spin lately. You've either got to get better, i.e., more honest, substantive critisicm, or I'll have to start arguing for your side too. Pass the Kool aid.
Nasty little fellow, aren't you, 1:42?
Ironically, you are misinterpreting the Kool Aid analogy, which is appropriate for sycophantic sheep following their demagogue leader. Sort of like you and Fuentes, or any supporter of Bush.
"misinterpreting the Kool Aid analogy . . ."? Really, 3:42? What a stupid comment. Try to follow me here; you can move your lips while you read if it will help: The analogy "is appropriate for sycophantic sheep [you and your crowd] following their demagogue leader [Chunk]." We clear now? Nothing at all "ironic" about my use of the analogy. You just don't understand the concepts of irony or analogies. My use of the analogy is dead on.
Isn't Wendy's accomplishment, to say nothing of Paul Ho's recovery, a great deal more important than all of this how-many-sentences-was-it nonsense?
Wendy did amazing work on behalf of all faculty, and deserves congratulations!
Dear Mr. Kool-Aid (4:09):
I wanted to thank you for sparing me the trouble of refuting you. You do that so much better than I ever could.
I do wish, however, that you would be more succinct.
Chunk:
Is that how you teach your class? Can't answer a point or lose an argument so you just declare victory and move on? Tenure must be great.
In the real world, though, "shut up," he explained, doesn't cut it.
CONGRATULATIONS WENDY!!! Well deserved!
I take comfort in the fact that the blog must be having some kind of effect when it gets such attentions...otherwise they'd leave us alone.
I thought it was one sentence. Possibly not. I didn't intentionally lie (even if I were prone to lying, I'd like to think I'd hold out for higher stakes). At any rate, it was Senate business, it needed to be done then, doing it that way was less disruptive than getting up / going out / coming back would have been, and I believe it was not out of line. It was consistent with behavior that had never been remarked on before. I don't apologize.
I presumed Fuentes' action, like his they-loved-my-prayers statements and the church organ joke, was Fuentes' way of being snippy at the protesters.
And much, much, much more important, yes, congratulations to Wendy! - The amount and quality of the work she's done for all of us is incredible.
- Alannah
How can Dave "Benedict Arnold" Lang live with himself?
Mona Lisa is in town and she doesn't tolerate much.
Hands to yourselves, boys - keep it up and you'll be benched bigtime.
oooh, girl means business!
that's right!
Mr. 4:09, this is obviously posted just to irritate people.
"The analogy "is appropriate for sycophantic sheep [you and your crowd] following their demagogue leader [Chunk]."
Breathtakingly stupid. You've raised the bar.
"I take comfort in the fact that the blog must be having some kind of effect when it gets such attentions...otherwise they'd leave us alone. May 26, 2007 6:56 PM "
Stop your self-important thinking, 6:56, we post here because this is where you and the liberal shitheads hang - similar to being in Iraq where the Islamofacists provide a target rich environment.
We do enjoy the your postings, 1:25, because it reminds us that the slack jawed local factor is alive and well, and thus we stay ever vigilant.
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways acknowledge him,and he will make your paths straight.
Proverbs 3:5-6
4:09, And if Chunk marched off a cliff, all the numbskulls would follow him!
From where the fuck did all these moronic religious fucks come?
Post a Comment