Except for me, no faculty attended.
Mathur was in “bloviation” mode. There weren't many questions, so he held forth.
Fearful employees nodded subtly. The sound of his voice reverberated in the empty room with its high ceiling and odd blackness.
After a few minutes, I just got outa there.
Later, I asked someone how it went after I left. They said, “His mask slipped.” For a moment, the real Raghu was in full ghastly view.
REMEMBER that email two days ago? The one from Mathur that “encouraged” the colleges to “add any comments about the inclusion of the District...Response...as deemed appropriate, particularly if such additions would enable the accreditation chairs to appropriately include their signatures on the reports”?
The team at IVC did just that. IVC's chief Accred writer added two brief paragraphs that explained the facts concerning the district's inclusion of the “response.” That, of course, is just what it would take to get those signatures.
That's all.
Guess what?
Mathur rejected them.
BUT I SEE THE FUTURE. I see a dark time ahead for Raghu and his patrons. Angry commissioners. Peevish goblins. Foul incubi. Wakeful, sweaty Mathurian nights.
Spooky, ain't it?
19 comments:
Under the circumstances, there's NO WAY that anybody with any integrity can sign these reports.
Integrity has to count for something.
Plus Mathur is lying when he says that he's checked with the ACCJC and they approve the inclusion of the response. Naturally, he neglected to point out that the response is outside the process.
For once, I think, Mathur will pay for his lies.
"BUT I SEE THE FUTURE. I see a dark time ahead for Raghu and his patrons. Angry commissioners. Peevish goblins. Sleepless Mathurian nights."
Um, how exactly is it that there will be a "dark time ahead" for Mathur and your board? It's the colleges that have to answer to the "angry commissioners" and will have "sleepless" nights writing more reports, not Mathur and the board. And if they feel the need to respond again to what you write, you'll just be back in the circle of dark times, angry commissioners, and sleepless nights.
But it will be you, not Mathur and the board, in that circle. And you will have no one to blame but yourselves. You should have just signed the reports and moved on. Maybe next time you'll be smarter about this.
And 8:23, "Mathur will pay for his lies"? Ha. From what planet are you visiting? Mathur has nothing to pay for and nothing to fear from the ACCJC. The commission is going to come back and make your lives miserable. Life for Mathur and what the Chunkster calls "his patrons" will go on. What did you think would happen differently? Get a clue. You don't win this fight.
The ACCJC is very, very clear on one point. Anything that is included in an accreditation report MUST go through a process. When Mathur and his patrons ordered the Colleges to insert their dribble (only supported by the faithful four), he committed a fatal error. There was no college review process for their dribble, Traci Daly was simply ordered to order the colleges to insert it into their reports. There was no Board process. An email was sent in July. That is not a process. Once again, even the Board was presented with a final draft. The next few years of ACCJC grief will land squarely on Mathur's head. Of course, the colleges will pay and nobody wins. The colleges have been paying and paying for fatal Mathur errors for a decade. Soon, we will get to see the amount of legal fees this District has spent paying for Mathur's legal errors. That should prove interesting considering the faithful four seem to claim to be so fiscally conservative. Every college pays when there is incompetence at the top. Also, remember, the ACCJC and Dr. Beno know Mathur. Every college in this state knows Mathur. The ACCJC knows that there is nothing they can do if Mathur has four board votes. The colleges know there is nothing we can do if Mathur has four board votes. The board minority knows there is nothing they can do if Mathur has four board votes. We are all powerless to effect change as long as Mathur has four board votes. Isn't the answer obvious? We must change the board or there will be no change. November 2008 there will be three seats open, Lang, Fuentes, and Jay. We must work together to ensure the replacement of Lang and Fuentes. Contact the Faculty Association and increase your donations to the PAC, serve on the PAC, and volunteer your time to help rid this District of Lang and Fuentes. Otherwise, will we continue to pay for Mathur's sins. And, Lang will continue to "give poor little picked upon Raghu" a chance. After all, it is just those mean, nasty, mean spirited, left wing busy bodies that have not picked Mathur to play on their team.
This is silly and it must stop. Let's work together to oust Lang and Fuentes in 2008.
Don't sign!
SO - we try and work with him in order to accommodate his desire to distort the report -and then he rejects that too? two paragrpahs?
Don't sign the thing.
Exert the power we have.
The senate presidents should not sign.
We're not going to get rid of Fuentes and Lang. I wish we could but it's obvious - we learned that lesson, didn't we?
WHEN will we get to see the legal fees they have been paying out for Mathur?
WHEN?????
Don't sign!
It's no secret that Fuentes will be leaving soon. It's no secret that Lang is unhappy as a trustee and it is unlikely that he will run again.
Even fewer showed for the Friday morning version of this Q&A. Two brown-nosing employees complained about faculty and the distasteful spectacle of "airing our dirty laundry."
No faculty were there.
Mathur's losing it.
Where exactly is the dirty laundry being aired?
Chunk, you are not a good American.
Chunck, you are a GREAT American.
A true patriot must always be ready to defend his/her coutnry against its own government, and not just foreign enemies.
Thank you to Chunk and so many others. Your work does not go unnoticed. I am grateful.
ATEP = Another Tremendously Expensive Project
chuck maybe you should have defended the faculty on friday instead of sitting in the back of the room taking notes. and by the way im not a BROWN NOSER. SEE YA AROUND
7:17:
Well, as I said (in the relevant post; see), I only dropped in (for the Friday Q&A) during a brief break (I teach a three hour class Friday morning), and so I was only in Lib 213 for maybe five minutes.
If you were to know the history of this district, then you'd know that I've done more than my share of defending faculty (and others) during meetings, though it is true that, nowadays, I speak less often.
In some settings, by engaging Mathur, you elevate him. That was so, I think, during these two Q&A sessions. Indeed, some of my colleagues urged me not even to monitor the sessions.
As for "brown-nosing," anyone who thinks that faculty are the problem in this district or that the persistent and defiant misconduct of trustees/Chancellor should not be mentioned in the one tool we have to correct difficulties—well, their nose is caked with goo.
Get a clue.
8:47 there are a lot of problems at the colleges ect. I did like to listen to the goo talk to himself that makes him feel good. I am here for the work and the students thats it.
By what right does Mathur "reject" paragraphs written for inclusion in the colleges' reports? It's not the district's report--it's the colleges! He has no right..ah, but then he's never understood the concepts of "right" and "fair" and "honest."
Not "air dirty laundry"? Someone is forgetting that a former IVC accred chair sanitized every piece of laundry he wrote about--and incurred the wrath of ACCJC for doing so.
The college accred team has done a remarkable job thus far. Don't cave now--DON'T SIGN!!!
Post a Comment