Tuesday's BOARD FORUM: Raghu wags his finger

Yesterday’s BOARD FORUM—i.e., the “Q&A” session held by the SOCCCD Board of Trustees at Irvine Valley College—was a moderate success, judging by attendance (eventually, most seats were filled in the small hall) and the quality of the discussion.

At first, only five of the seven trustees—plus Chancellor Mathur and the hirsute student trustee—sat before the half-empty room on the second floor of the IVC Library. Nevertheless, this incomplete mass of trusteehood was in no mood for waiting—possibly because the 9-11 ceremony was set to start at 4:00—and so the session started on time (at 2:30).

Eventually, however, the remaining two trustees (Wagner and Milchiker) arrived, though not before shouting loud and indecipherable (to me) absurdities as they trudged up the stairwell.

The audience gradually grew too.

Board President David Lang offered an invocation. Tom Fuentes led us in the Pledge.

Lang then introduced the forum, which he described as a "free and open exchange of ideas." I heard an administrator gulp. He asked the chancellor to make some remarks. Fortunately, they were brief.

THE "50% RULE"

Susan S asked the first question, and it was a good one. She referred to the notorious 50% rule—a state law (since 1961) that requires that school districts, including (alas) community college districts, devote at least 50% of their expenditures to instruction. Our falling short of that standard, she said (I think), seems to be motivating new hiring, but not, it seems, of classified employees or counselors. I do believe that, in her view, such hiring is needed.

In response, Mathur explained that, like it or not, the 50% law narrowly defines instructional spending as money spent on (essentially) faculty salaries and benefits. For reasons known only to pinheaded legislators, counselors and librarians are not here counted as faculty.

Mathur seemed to argue that the various rules imposed by the state are “contradictory” and that they don’t add up. We are told that we must achieve a certain percentage of full-time to part-time instruction (i.e., we need more full-timers, fewer part-timers), and here, counselors and librarians count. But then why don’t they count in the case of the 50% rule?

Further, faculty in our district have the fourth highest salaries in the state—suggesting that we do indeed spend relatively much on “instruction.” Nevertheless, somehow, we have managed to run afoul of the 50% rule: we presently devote only 49.56% of our expenditures on instruction. Something must be done.

The obvious move: hire more full-time faculty, a big-buck item if ever there was one. That doesn’t mean we can’t hire others—for instance, non-instructional workers for the Performing Arts Center—but, obviously, we have a reason to favor “instructional” hires.

Lang chimed in to say that the district is seeking a waiver from the state re the 50% rule, and he is hopeful of securing it.

Linda R noted that, in fact, IVC’s counselors do in fact “instruct”: they teach at a rate of up to 60% of their load. Shouldn’t that be taken into account in this zany 50% rule?

Yep, it is taken into account, said Mathur.

Lang grumbled that the 50% rule “penalizes” districts that attempt to run full programs, etc. He obviously didn’t think much of that.

John Williams chimed in to say something about “golden handshakes.” (Maybe it was “milkshakes.” Could be.) He noted that our “basic aid” funding (which ties our funding, not to how many students are taught [FTES], but to a percentage of locally-collected property taxes) “almost” gives us a disincentive to “market the district,” i.e., to increase enrollments, increase "productivity," etc.

Hell, said Williams, given the way we’re funded, we could actually lose students to the point of having fifteen per classroom—like at a private university!

That remark inspired Nancy Padberg to roll her eyes, which she did so grandly that half the room recoiled.

Mathur then reminded the group (i.e., Williams) that there is no guarantee that we will remain on basic aid, and if we end up with the alternative form of funding (in which we receive moola based on Full Time Equivalent Students), we could find ourselves in big trouble fast.

Williams noted the growing phenomenon of home-owners demanding an adjustment (downward) in the assessment of their homes in order to lower their property taxes. Lang agreed that, right now, it seems that a decrease in basic aid money is expected. That’s not good.

ATEP AIN'T NO COLLEGE


Kate C then changed the subject. She noted that the state places restrictions on when and how a district can add a college, and, as far as she can tell, ATEP cannot qualify as a “college”—among other reasons because of its proximity to IVC. But, in fact, ATEP is sometimes described as a college. (Well, it’s a “park,” but then Garden Grove is a grove and Irvine Valley is a valley.)

Mathur then declared that, whichever words are used to describe the ATEP entity, the district has “no thought” of turning the thing into a college. It is a campus [i.e., a park], not a college, and the idea is to use it as a place to offer unique courses and programs that do not duplicate what already exists at IVC and Saddleback.

In fact, ATEP generates FTES per student that goes straight to one of the two “colleges.”

By way of elaboration, Raghu explained that ATEP focuses on “high-tech programs” and nursing. At ATEP, he said, we have an opportunity to “partner” with other institutions (Chapman U, CSUF) to expand nursing instruction.

(Saddleback College, of course, already has a celebrated nursing program. As far as I know, however, it offers a supply that is not meeting demand. Hence, arguably, “duplication” is less of a worry if ATEP eventually comprises some sort of nursing program.)

The ATEP concept, said Mathur, is to bring new students to the district, not to have ATEP compete for students with IVC and Saddleback. He referred to new data according to which, among the 400+ students currently taught at ATEP, 90 of them are new to the district. (That factoid sounds underwhelming to me, but what do I know.)

Lang indicated general agreement with Mathur’s remarks, though he expressly distanced himself from any commitment never to pursue ATEP as a college. “Never say never,” he said.

Mathur (who, by the way, looked like death warmed over) seemed to cringe.

MATHUR AND CANNIBALISM

Kate expressed concerns about the availability of non-instructional support for students at ATEP—such services as counseling and whatnot. Mathur responded by saying that there is a move afoot to hire part-time counselors for ATEP.

It was at about this point that Mathur went seriously wrong, in my view, for he commenced wagging that awful little finger of his—figuratively, anyway. Decades ago, he said, Saddlebackians groused indecorously about the construction of “Saddleback College North” (later named “IVC”) on the grounds that the new campus would “rob” Saddleback of students. Mathur compared those peevitudinal eruptions—and the current ones—to an event that occurred years ago in the Mathur household, namely, the time that Raghu’s older son bit his younger son “seriously.”

Good grief!

Evidently, the young fellow was motivated by jealousy or something equally base.

“ATEP is here to stay,” declared Mathur, the scolding parent with the cannibal son.

Later, Lewis L revived Kate’s concerns, emphasizing the worry that instructional growth at ATEP might not receive concomitant support services. Further, he said, it would seem that some of the ATEP faculty are unassociated with our two colleges, and they are thus unfamiliar with our college cultures and their traditions of reliance on support services.

At this point—or was it earlier?—we learned that all students at ATEP are in fact either Irvine Valley or Saddleback students. That is, in order to enroll at ATEP, a student must enroll at either IVC or SC.

Park Ranger Kopecky explained that he and his team are looking for ways to “connect” with the services at the two colleges. Indeed, there is a move afoot literally to connect students at ATEP with counselors down at Saddleback via strings and cans. He seemed aware that ATEP instructors must acclimate to “the way things are done” at our colleges.

ATEP Dean, Kathy Peterson, then explained that she is setting up (or is contemplating setting up) short-term seminars to familiarize ATEP students with college services and resources (e.g., the libraries).

At one point, she seemed to say that she has personally hired a counselor. Eyebrows shot upward.

Evidently, she misspoke. Any hiring of instructors or counselors is done at one of the two colleges. She only accepts the colleges' recommendations.

Gosh we're a prickly bunch!