.....EACH COLLEGE'S accreditation progress report is due on October 15. That's just seven months away. But, of course, a progress report is a report on progress, and any progress, naturally, must occur before the reports are written.
.....—Unless, of course, we wanna get tricky—you know: describe our progress first and then do what we gotta to make the description seem plausible.
.....That's strictly Bush league.
.....Now, unless the report writers plan to wait until the last minute to write their reports, whatever progress that “we” make needs to be made by, say, August or September. Even earlier.
.....And don’t forget that, traditionally, faculty are virtually incommunicado during the summer months. If they figure into this "progress," it had better be made by May.
.....We're in the middle of March.
* * * * *
.....How will this work exactly? As I said, progress report committees are now forming. Will still other committees now be organized to actually make the progress—i.e., the progress to be reported by the committees now forming? It seems not. Evidently, the committees now forming are “the” accreditation committees. The idea seems to be that these committees will make the progress—or somehow cause the progress to be made—and then, having accomplished that, will set about to report on the progress.
.....It's crystal clear.
.....Perhaps we will rent Irvine's big fucking orange balloon, tie it up at the colleges, and paint on it: MAKING BIG PROGRESS.
.....The committees will be large and diverse. Evidently, Trustee Don Wagner, the board president, will serve on each college committee. I hear the Gary Poertner, too, will be on the committee, at least here at IVC. Plus a few administrators. Plus some faculty, the number not yet determined. Plus some classified. Here at IVC, Wendy and Jerry will also be on the committee.
.....Gosh. One thing about big and diverse committees, they really know how to focus.
* * * * *
.....I keep hearing that NO faculty at Saddleback are willing to serve on their college’s accreditation committee. After the way Mathur and Wagner messed with the last report, Saddlebackians are fed up.
.....That's gonna take the starch out of the Saddleback effort, for sure.
.....And then there’s this: it looks like negotiations between the district and the faculty union over the faculty contract have ground to a halt, or are threatening to do so. The word is that the district is seriously low-balling the faculty. (Keep in mind that the only solution to our 50% problem is to increase the proportion of district expenditure devoted to faculty salaries and benefits.)
.....I hear that union officials are contemplating a “work action” according to which faculty will do only the work that is identified by the faculty contract.
.....Naturally, that work is less than the work that faculty presently do.
.....But here’s the clincher. Were a work action to occur, it may, of course, affect these accreditation committees—well, not Saddleback’s committee, which can’t scare up faculty anyway. But if, for whatever reason, faculty refuse to be on these committees, it seems unlikely that these groups will succeed in their modest aims.
.....Imagine the ACCJC receiving a progress report that faculty refused to participate in. "Promising!", they'll shout.
.....It gets worse. Right now, owing to the Chancellor’s monumental screw-up regarding the 50% Law (by the way: we seem doomed to being in noncompliance with it, despite efforts now underway), about 40 search committees are gearing up to hire new faculty. It’s an all-out effort to increase “instructional” expenditures without resorting to, oh, raising salaries. Can’t have that. So saith certain trustees, namely, the ones who got us into this accreditation fix by bullying and insisting on their man Mathur, the screw-up.
.....But what if faculty, or even most faculty, refuse to do this work—this work for which they are not compensated?
.....(By the way: I don’t know any colleague who isn’t on one or more of these hiring committees. Thus far, everyone seems quite happy to do this work.)
..... Given the existing hiring policy, those searches will simply have to shut down, for the policy requires a certain number of faculty per committee. And if the searches shut down, the faculty don't get hired, which puts us even further below the 50% line.
.....Yikes.
UPDATE:
Today (3/13), at the IVC Academic Senate meeting, President Roquemore came to explain progress made in the formation of the Accreditation committee, which will be meeting some time soon after Spring break. Reportedly, he answered Senators' questions to their satisfaction. He also updated faculty on developments at ATEP, which seem to be taking an upturn.
The SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT — "[The] blog he developed was something that made the district better." - Tim Jemal, SOCCCD BoT President, 7/24/23
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"
This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...
-
Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox OCC Trumpsters/GOP A professor called Trump’s election an ‘act of terrorism.’ Then she became the vict...
-
The "prayer" suit: ..... AS WE REPORTED two days ago , on Tuesday, Judge R. Gary Klausner denied Westphal, et alia ’s motion f...
-
Yesterday morning, the Irvine Valley College community received an email from college President, Glenn Roquemore, announcing the coll...
15 comments:
Sounds like extortion, Chunk.
Would faculty rather lose accreditation than keep Mathur?
Can't everyone get along and just do what is best for the students? After all, that is what our mission is?
Just like the signing fiasco last time. All BARK, no BITE.
I like the balloon idea!
Can you put raghu on it for me Chunk and have him cherrfully waving goodbye just like the wizard at the end of the Wizard of Oz?
Thanks!
IF there's a work action at IVC, El Rey and dale will write the report - and, well, you know how good that went last time...
Is a work action legal? Are we protected?
The work action here described is restricting work to that which is identified or required in the contract. So, naturally, such an action would not be illegal.
And it would underscore the simple fact that many faculty routinely do work that is above and beyond what they are required to do.
Well you've received your legal counsel and it appears that a work action may be worth a try. Who knows it could save those "many" faculty grief by allowing them to review just what they were hired to do and what they voluntarily take on themselves to help feed their ideological egos.
"Feed ideological egos"? 6:25, what nonsense! And 6:23AM, faculty ARE doing what is best for students--we serve as advisors for their clubs, meet for extra tutoring sessions outside of office hours, and write new curriculum for them. We do the endless committee work necessitated by the administration--and also do their administrative work (serving as department chairs, on advisory committees, etc.) that this district is too cheap to pay for legitimately. A work action might make that unpaid labor of love and professionalism more obvious. But then people with views like 6:25 wouldn't recognize hard work if they saw it.
Roy's account of the circumstances surrounding accreditation contains so many factual errors, it would take the rest of my spring break to respond. I have discussed this with him this afternoon and expressed my dismay. I would like to request that faculty and concerned members of the public direct their questions and concerns regarding the College's accreditation to Wendy Gabriella, President of the Academic Senate, asenate@ivc.edu. There is a substantial disconnect between what is being reported on this Blog and what is actually happening at the College and within the District. Please email asenate@ivc.edu if you would like to know what is actually happening.
However, if you would like to engage in this mileu, so be it. Please know that what is actually happening is not being accurately reported on this Blog.
This will be my last post. As I've discussed with Roy, the College and the District cannot attempt to solve the problems, write the report, and run interference on this Blog. You assume the risk regarding whatever you read on this Blog concerning accreditation. (You may want to consider Glamour magazine as alternative reading material.)
Again, I would like to encourage interested members of our College Community and the public to email asenate@ivc.edu for the facts.
You are not getting a straight story based on any facts here. You are simply getting Roy Bauer's version of reality, which is not based on any factual information. But, of course, the opportunity to express his opinion, no matter how factually incorrect, is certainly covered by the First Amendment!
Wendy Gabriella,
IVC Senate President
IVC Accreditation Co-Chair
And, Roy Bauer's First Amendment Attorney!
RESPONSE:
I want this to be friendly. I believe that Wendy is a great faculty leader. I have never thought or stated otherwise.
I did discuss the above post with Wendy earlier tonight. She said that I didn't get my facts straight. I asked her to explain. She responded by saying that my post
1) has the "timeline" wrong.
2) falsely states that "nothing is being done" about accreditation
3) falsely accuses leadership--including faculty leadership--of leading badly.
She was personally insulted by the last of these, she said.
I cannot see that my post offers a timeline. It did provide a graphic that shows that we are now in March and that we must have our reports done by October. That is entirely accurate.
As I told Wendy over the phone, I do not believe that my post asserts or implies that "nothing is being done" about accreditation. My post does suggest that there are problems concerning the Accrediting committees that will be meeting after the break.
For instance, I implied that these committees are large and unwieldy. I think that that is factual.
I suggested that these committees intend to both address our difficulties and report on progress in addressing our difficulties (simultaneously, near as I can tell). Wendy does not deny this.
I continue to believe that this complex agenda is confused. Solving our problems is one thing; reporting on our progress in trying to solve them is quite another.
I suggested that, if there is a (faculty union) work action (as has been contemplated), this could negatively affect these committees. Wendy does not deny this.
I am (and was) aware that some "things" have already happened relative to our new accreditation situation (meetings, etc.). I am also aware that the district and the colleges intend to respond to our accreditation situation via the accreditation committees, and that these committees won't meet until some time after Spring break.
Wendy explained that she was personally insulted at the suggestion that her leadership is poor. I responded by saying that I do not think that it is poor, that I have never thought that it is poor, and that I did not say or imply that it is poor.
In my original post, I ended with the comment: "Leadership. That's key." I intended this to refer to district leadership. I also included a graphic (see) of Chancellor Mathur with the caption: "Leadership. That's key." I was implying (I thought) that the Chancellor's leadership is poor. I fail to see that I was in any way suggesting that our senate leadership is poor.
It is evidently true that, owing to (at least) IVC's Senate, the first meeting of the Accred Committee was delayed--in part because senators insisted on increasing faculty representation. The delay is unfortunate, but the idea of increasing representation came from senators, not from Wendy.
I do not understand why Wendy believes that my post contained "many factual errors." As near as I can tell, it contains none.
But she does believe it.
In any case, I believe, as I have long believed, that Wendy is a great Senate President and that the faculty should consider themselves very fortunate that she is willing to lead them.
--Roy Bauer (C. Wheeler)
See also We're all in this together
I meant: We're all in this together
It seems to me that this blog does what no other entity in the district does - attempt to convey facts to an audience that has been systematically denied them. Sure there is a point of view - but most of us can draw our own conclusions. I'm glad the blog is here. God knows what would happen if we didn't have it - and the admin knows it. The power of being watched is great.
Amen, 12:26. There's a giant information void that's filled by this blog. Many employees are painfully aware of the District's inability to communicate the facts. We're sick of having to ferret out information. Now we're told to contact the Senate president directly for "the truth"?
Chunk spends a great deal of time keeping the public informed. Maybe Wendy might want to invest the same energy in communicating "the truth" instead of telling us to drop a dime. Where's your blog, Wendy?
Post a Comment