"Hey, where are those fireworks you promised!" shouted someone to me during the break, two-thirds into tonight's meeting of the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees.
By that point, the trustees had seemed tired and maybe sick-and-tired, too. They'd provided some peevitude, but no real fireworks—though, reportedly, three or four faculty had provided plenty of fire and brimstone during the earlier 3:30 "board forum," also held at Saddleback College.
"The night's not over yet," I responded. I knew that, after the break, the board would turn to the most promising item of the night, pyrotechnically speaking.
"I think maybe that forum fracas must've taken the fight out of 'em," said a friend.
Well, apparently not. I'll give a blow-by-blow tomorrow. For now, let's just say that, when the board got to the Accreditation Midterm Reports, it revealed itself to be seriously fractured and fractious. In the end, the body voted 4 to 3 (Lang, Williams, Wagner, Fuentes vs. Milchiker, Padberg, Jay) in favor of the misshapen drafts that were the products of weaving the district's rude verbiage into the already-existing college Midterm reports.
Will the faculty who actually wrote those reports sign off on them? Don't think so.
It's quite a mess. But of course!
19 comments:
Don't sign!
Don't sign, Carmen!
By the way, when do the senate presidents have to make the decision about signing or not? When's the deadline?
Don't sign. Let Raghu forge their names.
I agree - don't sign off.
Don't sign off. That'll show 'em.
That way the accreds will come back and faculty can spend days and days and days writing, documenting, complaining, airing dirty laundry. Look how helpful that's been. And then the board will spend, what, hours? writing another response. Bet they'll hate that.
For God's sake, don't sign ...
Sorry, can't say that. For heavan's sa . . . Ooops. Not that either.
Gosh. Don't sign. It's only been ten or more years of complaining. Victory's just got to be right around the corner, doesn't it? If only nobody signs the report, that'll sure show the meddlesome board.
You have to take a stand somewhere, some time. this is one of those times.
I bet 9:38 never labored over an acred report or if he did (and it is a he, ain't it?) it was the one were were dinged for for its lack of veracity and narrative style.
What do you think?
Don't sign.
What's your point, 9;38?
Give up? Shut up? Put up with it? Take the paycheck and go home?
What do YOU do, 9:38?
Do tell us.
Enough of this shit. We work hard to make the report and then they come in and mess with it?
Don't sign.
My point, 10:48, is that this long running battle between some elements of faculty and some elements of the board shouldn't be fought out in front of the accreds. You've been dealing with essentially your same board for ten years. What in the world makes faculty think that snotty charges and complaints to the accreds about the role of the board will change them?
Perhaps if faculty didn't take public potshots at publicly elected officials, those officials wouldn't have to respond in public. Take these fights in house. Focus on the fact that the colleges provide a fine education, which is the real goal, and stop playing politics with the accred process.
Otherwise, the accreds will keep the heat on, which only causes more work for faculty and, from what I can see, really causes no extra work or real pain for your trustees.
10:51 is partly right. Faculty works hard on these reports. But the knee jerk response, don't sign, is brain dead. That can only assure more work, which for all the world looks like it won't bother your trustees.
Sign the report, try to minimize the fallout, and don't get in this position again by writing stuff to which your trustees feel compelled to respond.
Whether the senate rpesidents sign or not (I hope they don't) I expect that the accreds will see through this report like they did in the past.
I mean, it's obvious what's going on, isn't it?
The split board vote will tell them what they need to know about the quality of the report.
They read the blog, don't they? that's what I heard.
By the way Chunk, your numbers today are through the roof.
You got a lots of readers today.
Where, 11:09, is an example of a "public potshot"?
and what, 9:38, do YOU do with your "dirty laundry"? At least you admit that the laundry is filthy and in need of washing.
I think the Accreds offer us an opportunity to come clean and clean up - without some outside agency, the board majority and Raghu feel absolutely con compunction at all to even acknowlege shared governance and their institutional obligations...
Don't sign!
During her "invocation," Trustee Padberg bemoaned "pettiness" and called for "kindness."
This board is manifestly divided in half. Some members actually hate some other members. There are constant eye-rolling wars.
Mathur, of course, is manifestly partisan in favor of the Majority. Last night, he actually asserted that some trustees don't do their homework. "It pains me to say it," he said, lugubriously.
It's a worse case scenario, board-wise, and Mathur and Lang are responsible. If David Lang had any integrity, he'd resign.
If Mathur had any integrity, we wouldn't recognize him.
If Nancy wants to get away from pettiness and move toward kindness, she should start by firing that paragon of pettiness and nastiness (which are her *better* traits), Lise Telson.
The Accreds are unlikely to do much of anything except make Raghu uncomfortable and pissed off - he'll ride it out as he always does. The Accreds will never take the strong stand we want them too - but still, we shouldn't sign. It's the right thing to do.
However, this report AND the looming 50% debacle has got to make Raghu wonder if the board really takes seriously their role in evaluating the chancellor's performance.
Then again, he shouldn't be too worried there. They seem willing to overlook most any kind of mismanagement. Integrity? HA. Self-interst all around.
But Raghu will be angry and on the prowl for scapegoats - watch out!
Is Mathur giving an award to those people? What was it? That's an interesting moment, judging by the expressions on people's faces.
What a weird scene: Mathur is a monster and a creep, and then he gives out silly prizes with smiles all around.
No wonder that one gal doesn't know whether to stay or run.
Click on the pics, everybody. Click on the pics.
11:46--
Let's lay off the private battles, OK? Not everything is about you.
Don't sign.
if you don't sign, how will all the deaf people know what's going on?
I know politically incorrect, but who cares?
9:38 obviously has not read the report. I always appreciate the comments of folks who don't know what they are talking about. Perhaps, 9:38 is an aspiring trustee?
Post a Comment