An anniversary of ruthlessness

A WEEK AGO, a friend reminded me of an anniversary. On July 16, exactly ten years had passed since the infamous "reorganization" of the district—an action that reduced the number of Saddleback College deans and eliminated Irvine Valley's "school chairs" system.

Arguably, the era of serious administrative instability started with that event. As you know, administrative instability has plagued the district ever since. (See Accreditation visit.)

In order to minimize scrutiny, the unprincipled 1997 "board majority," including John Williams, performed the "reorg"—sometimes called the "Big Sloppy"—in the middle of summer (July 16, 1997) and in closed session.

According to the courts, the action was illegal, for it violated the state's "open meetings" law. The reorg was not agendized (as such), thus failing to inform the public of the board's planned deliberations. Further, a reorganization is not a permitted closed session topic. It should be done in open session.

No matter. Once the illegality of the action was determined, the board simply repeated it in open session, this time properly agendized.

Observe that the "scrutiny minimization" ploy was used again in the last week! Discussion of Mathur's new contract occurred during a closed "special meeting" last Thursday. All that was left to do at Monday's meeting (on the 23rd) was to vote on it.

WHEN I BOUGHT my new car on Saturday, I traded in my old Honda, and that entailed removing all the crap that, over the last eight years, I had piled in its trunk. This morning, I sifted through that awful pile, now sitting outside my front door.

I came across this November 4, 1999 edition of the now-defunct Irvine Valley College Voice.

Talk about your ruthlessness! This particular issue told the story of how then-President Raghu Mathur sought to stifle dissent among faculty by targeting the most vulnerable among them, namely, an untenured faculty member, Dr. K.

Mathur's ugly realpolitik was so egregious that it inspired student protests (see above photo).

K had an unblemished record and and was by all accounts an excellent instructor. He was very popular with students. But he had occasionally expressed criticism of Mathur, as had dozens of other instructors.


Mathur decided to make an example of K. At the time, Mathur was laying the groundwork for a negative recommendation re K's tenure. K was accused of participating in the unauthorized dedication of a greenhouse (built and paid for by the bio faculty). I kid you not. In fact, K did not participate in that activity, exactly because he was untenured.

K had also allegedly provided spray paint to a student who sought to write on the side of an old car that was being used in the Honor Society's "Smash a Car" activity (part of IVC's Oktoberfest celebration). The plan was to spray over the name "Mathur," which a student had painted on the car but which then-VP of Student Services Armando Ruiz objected to. (Ruiz, one of Mathur's hand-picked administrative recruits, later retired and then gained infamy bilking taxpayers by exploiting a loophole in the pension laws. See Double-dipping.)

Well, in the end, thanks to a tremendous show of support for K, the trustees were persuaded to grant K's tenure, despite Mathur's recommendation. (See Hello Mr. Chips.)

Targeting people and then using ruthless means to eliminate them is still a favored Mathurian tactic. I'll have more to say about that in the coming months.