I'm shocked, shocked!

SOME READERS have asked to see the “district/trustee RESPONSE” to the Accreditors that suddenly materialized at Monday’s meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees.

Well, here it is (at the end of this post; click on the images to make them larger).

Background:

As you know, teams at Saddleback College and Irvine Valley College have been working for months now—in accordance with Accreditation guidelines, which require openness, broad input, and careful documentation—to write the latest in a series of reports to the accrediting commission. The accreditors have asked that the colleges take steps to address such problems as continuing trustee meddling and the prevailing atmosphere of “despair" (caused largely by the policies and actions of the Chancellor and board).

These latest reports are due to the Accreditors in October, but anything sent to them must be approved by the board in September, for the board meets only once a month. That's why the teams provided their drafts this month.

On Monday (see Machinations SNAFU!), at the “eleventh hour,” this accusatory and undocumented response appeared, without warning. Further, Chancellor Mathur, with typical ruthlessness and indifference to process, ordered the teams at Saddleback and IVC simply to “incorporate” the unvetted document into the Accreditation Focused Midterm Reports that they have just finished writing.

During Monday's discussion, trustee Milchiker asked who authored the Response. She received no clear answer. We still don't know exactly who was involved in writing it, beyond Mathur. (Based on the character of the board discussion, it seems likely that trustee Wagner had a hand in writing it.)

I present the 7-page RESPONSE below. Just click on the image, and it should enlarge sufficiently that you’ll be able to read it.

WATCH THE DISCUSSION:

You can actually watch Monday night’s discussion by going to Board Video.

Click on the link; then, at the district site, click on "video," at the bottom right. Look for the “jump to” area. Jump to the section of the meeting devoted to item 7.1. Look just below the video image. You’ll see a timer. Using that timer (and manipulating the green slider) you should be able to go directly to the following points in the discussion:

2:27
Chancellor Mathur’s introduction (to 7.1)

2:29
Trustee Don Wagner’s support of the Response document

2:30:45
Trustee John Williams’ support

2:35
Randy Anderson (representing Saddleback College’s report), offering concerns about the response.

2:38:36
Mary Williams (also representing Saddleback College’s report), offering further concerns.

2:41:08
Irvine Valley College Academic Senate President Wendy Gabriella, offering detailed concerns.

2:50:15
Board President Dave Lang responding (especially to Wendy)

2:52:30
Wagner again

3:01:24
Mathur. At 3:04:45, Mathur explains that IVC's example of Chancellor micromanagement (the goals he gave IVC's President) is "shocking."

3:08:57
Trustee Marcia Milchiker offers concerns about the “response.” At 3:11:07, she rejects some elements of the “response,” despite its supposedly representing the view of the board. At 3:11:50 she asks, “Who wrote it?” She gets no clear answer.

3:19
Mathur decries mistreatment of the board at the hands of Accred report authors.

3:22
Milchiker worries about impression of “continuing dissention” that including the “response” will leave.

3:22:45
Trustee Nancy Padberg complains that the board “minority” was not invited to participate in the writing of the “response.”

3:25:30
Wendy notes that the “response” obviously fails to represent all seven trustees.