Dealing with a Mathurian fiasco: "we'll find a way"

(A full account of last night's meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees. See the Video, jump to item 6.3., esp. hour 2:00)

BOB. During “public comments,” former Saddleback Academic Senate President, Bob Cosgrove, reminded the board that, during Bob’s tenure, citing overwhelming evidence, he argued for the need for full-time faculty hires. But evidence meant nothing to the Chancellor, it seemed.

Now, of course, owing to the Gooster’s remarkable incompetence, the district faces likely and deepening noncompliance with the 50% Law—and the unknown legal consequences thereof—and so the fellow is pressing for 45 new hires ASAP, with emphasis on the S.

Why, asked Bob, are CEOs in Public Education not held to account for their screw-ups?

During trustee reports, Tom Fuentes praised the “spiritual and patriotic” musical performances offered during the recent IVC Performing Arts Center Gala. John Williams, in a prelude to his later advocacy of “safety and security cameras,” reminded us of the alarming wave of violence and horror that is washing across colleges throughout the land.

As you know, John isn't the brightest bulb on the tree.

The man of the hour—Chancellor Clouseau—gave a report that left an impression of districtular normalcy and wonderfulness. It was but the first act in a delightful, multi-faceted performance offered this night. Where's Kato when you need 'im?


INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS REPORTS. The Chancellor chose this night to reveal, “for the first time,” Institutional Effectiveness reports for the two colleges. Predictably, these reports, compiled by Vice Chancellor Andreea Serban (and team), revealed our colleges to be more or less accomplishing what they are supposed to be accomplishing. As if reporting accomplishments were the same as achieving them, Mathur talked up “his” reports. “It’s about time” we did something like this, he said.

“It’s about time,” he was really saying, “that I am duly recognized for my achievements.”

I can’t speak for Saddleback College, but it is no secret that Serban developed her report on IVC without consulting the college. Indeed, the IVC Academic Senate first heard about this report about a week or two ago.

That’s our Raghu. He writes his own report cards. It’s Mathurian quality assurance!

OK, but now get this: I’ve been studying Don Wagner’s facial expressions for years, and I do believe that his look whilst Serban sauntered back to her seat set a new standard for “manifest incredulity.”


SAFETY AND SECURITY CAMERAS. The next discussion item was a report regarding campus safety and security cameras—the purchase of which is advocated by Saddleback College Police Chief Harry Parmer.

And John Williams.

Tuesday night’s discussion proceeded on the assumption that, next month, the board will decide whether to purchase the camera equipment. But wait! Trustee Fuentes was under the impression that the board would first decide the relevant “philosophical” issues regarding privacy and whatnot and only then contemplate the purchase of equipment. That's only logical!

Mathur seemed caught sans trou. “Your point is well taken,” he said.

Fuentes dryly observed that we’ve seen some of these campus tragedies unfold in classrooms while somebody is “filming the quad.”

Marcia Milchiker agreed that we should not put the cart before the horse.

Parmer said something helpful and intelligent. The most common crime at Saddleback College is petty theft. It’s a high probability crime with low consequences. The chances of a major act of violence are very low, but the consequences would of course be very high. We need to come to a “rational understanding,” said Harry, of this matter of low probability crimes with high consequences.

But Williams can’t abide rational understandings. He'd rather shout "boo!" He commenced railing against the “it can’t happen here” mentality. It’s like “having your head in the ground,” he said. I do wish he would keep his there.

At one point, Bill Jay recalled an incident in which Parmer spotted some guys on campus “with guns.” Gosh! It’s a good thing Harry was on the ball!

“They turned out to be cops,” said Harry, utterly deflating Jay’s point, whatever it was. We all had a good laugh, Jay included.


THE 50% LAW. That brought us to the discussion of the 50% Law. In his introduction, Chancellor Mathur asserted that the law was "backed" by “unions.” He then stated that “at least one turd" of all colleges in the state have had some difficulty with this law.

Earlier, IVC Academic Senate President Gabriella had distributed a packet of fiscal facts and charts that had been provided to some by the district. That data makes abundantly clear that Mathur’s assertion about “one turd” was at best a gross exaggeration.

Heroic Raghu explained how he labored to put together a special committee (informally known as DRACULA) to study our 50% situation and to offer recommendations. He carped, however, that the committee’s recommendations thus far have been “general,” not specific.

Finally, he mentioned once again that, in dealing with this situation, there can be no “sacred cows.” This was Mathur’s way of saying that he’s gonna target faculty reassigned time if it’s the last thing he does.

Beth Mueller presented some background regarding the 50% Law. She showed us a chart of spending “hurts and helps” re the Law. Right at the top of the list: reassigned time. That’s a “hurt.” (In fact, our noncompliance with the law is so great that any adjustment in RT will be utterly inconsequential. It's exactly this sort of Mathurian gambit that makes life with Goo demoralizing.)


It seemed to be Beth’s job to portray our district as an unsuspecting victim of the crafty and stealthy 50 Percent Monster. “When we realized that we were having” a problem with it, she said, the fiscal staff jumped on their horses and road in all directions! They met with their equivalents over at Rancho Santiago and Coast. They redid recalculations. (Nothing dishonest, though.) In the end, for 2006-2007, they managed to hit 50%. (Things don’t looks so rosy, though, for 2007-08.)

How did this happen? Beth blamed it on “coding.” Plus reassigned time, of course. Then there was the 2004 retirement incentive. And of course, “last but not least,” startup costs for ATEP. Sometimes, she added, “you’ve got to spend money to make money.” (Mueller and company failed to note that, each year, the chancellor must sign a document with the instructional/total spending ratio emblazoned upon it. Mathur watched us drift down toward the 50% line for five years and did nothing—except push us way over the line. For 2007-08, we are projected, by the district, to be at 46%.)

What happens if we actually fall out of compliance (which seems certain)? Blah, blah, blah, said Beth. The law seems geared to districts that get state apportionment. But we’re one of those wacky “basic aid” districts that gets local property tax money. So how will the state go about penalizing us if we fail to comply with this law?

Evidently, the state has told us. "We’ll find a way,” said the state.


Gary Poertner explained that we can address this problem in three ways. First, we can spend more on instruction—that is, we can hire more full-time faculty. Or we can “reduce the denominator expense,” i.e., spend less on the non-instructional. (Yikes!) The most efficacious approach is to do both: spend less on the non-instructional and use that money to hire new faculty.

Williams noted that the 50% law does not include librarian and counselor salaries as “instructional.” “Something’s wrong with the law!” he opined.

Gary responded by saying that the purpose of the law is to insure that districts spend their resources on “classroom activity.” Get it?

Trustee Fuentes thundered: “this is a bad law, this is a hurtful law!” (You'll definitely wanna see the video when it becomes available Thursday. Look for item 6.3, hour 2:00.) He attributed the law to “the special interests” (that’s Fuentean code for: the teachers union). Maybe, he said, we ought to take a leadership role and gain the cooperation of other districts in an effort to “roll back” this law!

Lang seemed to indicate agreement with that. Not sure. Wagner noted the “perverse nature of this law.”


ON THE OTHER HAND, Wagner seemed skeptical about Mathur’s faculty hiring initiative. It is not a “realistic solution, not a timely solution,” he said. That sentiment turned out to be a Wagnerian motif.

Bill Jay noted that, in truth, our district shares 50% Law difficulties with “bush districts,” including “Copper Mountain.” And Compton, of course. He further noted that, in the state he comes from, the law demanded 60% on instructional costs! There’s a reason for the law, he said. Boards load up staff with administrators, not instructors.

In any case, said Jay, we must comply with the law "as it is now.”

Bingo.

Wagner definitely didn’t like Mathur’s big hiring initiative. Maybe, he said, we’re better off losing the $4.7 million (that’s the amount we’re projected to be out of compliance for 2007-08) rather than going for this “quick fix.”


Saddleback’s Academic Senate President, Carmen D, noted that the hiring initiative entails setting aside the college’s carefully considered “strategic plan.” We don’t even have offices for 30 more faculty, she said. This whole business seems half-assed, she seemed to say, and Wagner was right there with her.

Wendy G noted that, at the two colleges, instruction accounts for well over 50% of expenses. (The problem, it seems, is elsewhere. In Gooville.)

In the end, Mathur declared that the discussion about the 50% Law had been “extremely helpful.” Yes, he said, we must appeal this silly law. Yup, that’s the problem. Not me, nope.

45 NEW HIRES. Later, as a separate item, the board discussed Mathur’s plan to hire 30 new faculty at Saddleback and 15 new faculty at IVC.

Wagner asked: are we hiring all of these faculty at once just to satisfy the 50% law? He didn't like that. Mathur's plan didn’t strike him as being sufficiently thought out.

“This is being driven by the 50% Law,” he said. “In good conscience,” he said, “I can’t see hiring 45 faculty just to solve a ‘crisis’ that might not be a crisis.” He was referring to the possibility of getting some sort of waiver or reprieve from the state. (That doesn't look promising.)

In the end, only Wagner voted against the faculty hiring plan. He's my new hero.

The board also discussed the “2% rule” regarding Reassigned Time. But I’ll leave that for another time. --CW

• See Look at the data!
• Tracy's highlights have some cool links (e.g., to Andreea's presentation).