AS YOU KNOW, Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur has screwed up bigtime (see A Mathurian fiasco), for he has allowed the district to trend toward severe noncompliance with the 50% Law (which requires that at least half of district expenditures be on instruction). Mathur has responded to his huge f*ck-up with a massive hiring initiative. At the recent board meeting, he explained that he hopes to hire 45 (or 40) full-time faculty ASAP. (Note: even if that occurs, it will do nothing to bring us into compliance this year, since the new hires won’t start work until the fall of 2008.)Even before the board meeting, it was clear that Mathur was determined to push for these hires. Further, it appeared that he and his crew were intent on violating provisions of our new (and hard-won) hiring policy, BP4011.1!
The latter situation, Senate officers told us, was being addressed.
Last Wednesday (the 21st), we, here at Dissent the Blog, suggested that faculty, especially faculty who expect to serve on hiring committees, bone up on that policy (see Our hard-won hiring policy). Faculty knowledge of that policy, we reasoned, was the best defense against abuse by you-know-who. (That point had already been made on campus by some senate officers.)The blog post included a link to the district website at which board policies are posted. At the time, I made sure that the policy (i.e., the correct and current policy) was posted there. It was.
But then, this morning, someone discovered that the policy was no longer listed at the site. I checked. Sure enough, it had disappeared, without explanation.
I smelled a rat.
IVC’s Academic Senate President immediately made inquiries. In the afternoon, she reported what she had learned: that a classified employee had removed the policy in order to correct some minor typographical errors but that, somehow, she was having difficulty returning the corrected policy to the site. The Senate Prez was inclined to believe this account. I.e., she was inclined to think that there’s no rat.Well, OK. I decided to leave the matter at that.
But, just now—more than five hours later—I returned to the district site. The listing for BP4011.1 had reappeared. Great.
I downloaded the file. What's this? It isn't 4011.1. Rather, it is 4011—Employment procedures for administrators and managers.
What’s it all mean? Dunno.
I’m smelling rodent again. Lots of people are. That wouldn’t happen, of course, were our Chancellor to be an honest man. In that hypothetical world, we’d all say, “Hey, mistakes are made. No big deal.”
But in our rodent world, such talk seems foolish.
SEE ALSO:• Mathur: the case of the mysteriously missing reference check
• Mathur: the case of the mysteriously missing "threats" (See esp. section 25)
• Mathur: the case of the mysteriously missing plaque (See Jeff's remarks)
• Mathur: the case of the mysteriously appearing agenda item
10 comments:
Another Board Policy to keep a watchful eye on: 4000.2 Expect some changes soon (about 3 weeks), unless... they wouldn't defy a superior court judge's order, would they?
Rat?
or Rat Bastard?
Well, obviously, Mathur attracts paranormal disappearance events! How else are they to be explained?
It's all very mysterious.
Not.
Why not just get a hard copy of the hiring policy from someone's files?
It will take your Board at least two meetings to change a policy: one meeting for a public posting and discussion, and another meeting to vote on it.
--100 miles down the road
"Western Goo Rat" LMFAO!
Hi 100 miles,
Not so easy to change this costly policy. Ed Code requires "mutual agreement" between the Senate and the BOT on all issues related to faculty hiring policies, procedures, and criteria. The board cannot unilaterally change the faculty hiring policy. No board can...I hope your District is aware of this Ed Code statute. Remember, the Senates from both SC and IVC sued the BOT and won. The Appellate Court issued a wonderful decision which is posted on the IVC Academic Senate website and is in case law. Our Chancellor didn't like that one drop. So, the Board decided to throw more taxpayer dollars defending their wrongdoing and appealed to the California Supreme Court, The Supremes upheld the Appellate Court. I'm still being paid by the District (and will be for the next nine years) for that little mess. The mysteriously disappearing hiring policy cost this district a cool million in legal fees and administrator salaries. And, now, the most expensive board policy in the entire state is missing. Pretty funny!
Wendy
Our ex-President rat bastard introduced an Agenda item at a Board meeting to change an Agenda item for a Board meeting that occurred months prior to the Board meeting. He was trying to cover his tracks for an Ed Code and Brown Act violation. The Board discussion pointedly ignored the motivation for his mendacity and focused instead on the propriety of the attempted gambit. After the vote it failed.
Wendy, the Supreme Court didn't uphold the appellate court. It merely refused to hear the case, which every lawyer with any experience will tell you is a far cry from "upholding" the lower court. Technically under California law this decision is not binding on any other appellate court in the state. Hopefully one of them with smart judges who can actually read statutes and have common sense will get it right. And the trial courts can then follow whichever decision they want -- even trial courts in Orange County could follow a conflicting decision from outside the Third District until the Supreme Court really does decide the matter.
Of course, you probably know all this. But it's not fair to mislead 100 Miles and everybody else just to make your efforts in our miserable local appellate court look impressive.
The statute in question (87360) says:
"hiring criteria, policies, and procedures for new faculty members shall be developed and agreed upon jointly by representatives of the governing board, and the academic senate, and approved by the governing board"
The district developed a policy, ignored the senates' utter rejection of it, and then approved it.
12:34, it appears that the one with the "common sense" deficit is YOU.
Post a Comment