Tom Fuentes' deceptive candidate statement

Have you read Tom Fuentes’ candidate statement? (He’s running for reelection as SOCCCD board member, Area 6.)

Since the SOCCCD is, after all, a college district, I thought it would be appropriate to subject Tom’s little essay to some close reading and analysis—you know, like we do at the colleges!

Tom starts off by invoking the memory of Ronald Reagan:

Ronald Reagan broke ground for the South Orange County Community College District, forty years ago. As your Trustee, I have sought to utilize his conservative values and principles to guide our District. ¶ As a result, our District is financially solvent and our campuses are safe for our students.

We critical thinking instructors discourage this “brownie points by association” tactic, of course, since it amounts to the ringing of a Pavlovian bell. In this case, drool is replaced with the voting-for-Tom reflex.

Also, Tom here states that his (allegedly Reaganesque) guidance has resulted in campus safety and financial solvency. In logic, we call this sort of statement, um, a "statement." Statements that are not obviously true need support, but Tom offers none. In fact, our campuses were very safe before Tom arrived. Our district is financially solvent largely owing to our being a “basic aid” district—a district that receives a portion of local property taxes, and, as you know, the value of local property has been very high. Tom is no more responsible for our basic aid funding than any other trustee.

Modern classroom technology and instructional equipment have been implemented by the prudent expenditure of limited funds. Enrollment has increased and the renovation and construction of college buildings have been achieved without new taxpayer burdens of bond measures.

Oops! One doesn’t “implement” equipment, does one? Still, we know what Tom meant.

Tom implies that the district has “limited funds,” but, in truth, our district is nearly unique in the state in that, owing to its basic aid funding, it has been swimming in dough for years—a circumstances that yields much resentment throughout the state’s community college system.

It is true, of course, that the district has not pursued bond measures, but that is because its basic aid funding makes such measures unnecessary. In truth, SOCCCD is a relatively rich district, and thus it spends an unusually large amount of taxpayer money. Tom is trying to pull a fast one here.

Course offerings for students have grown tremendously with online classes. A Master Plan for education and facilities is in place. Faculty and staff are held accountable for student success. As a consequence, our District has achieved high transfer and job placement rates for our students.

The claim about course offerings seems a little confused (# of course offerings and # of students [FTES] are distinct). In fact, in recent years, our colleges have seen zero growth except for online classes, which are growing faster in many other districts. (And are online courses always a good idea? That’s hard to say.)

Yes, we have a Master Plan, but is it any good? Chancellor Mathur’s fingerprints are all over it.

Is Tom implying that, under his guidance, faculty and staff are held more accountable for student success? How so? What has changed re accountability during the Fuentes era? Nothing that I can see. ("Student Learning Outcomes" are mandated by the state and by the accreditors, not by trustees. Besides, there is no evidence that they have yielded anything beyond annoyance.)

In any case, Tom asserts specifically that our colleges’ high transfer rates are the “consequence” of his holding faculty and staff accountable. But, again, how has Tom or the board affected accountability? What is supposed to be the mechanism? I am completely at a loss to explain why Tom thinks that he is responsible for our high transfer rates.

And why does Tom repeatedly imply that he is the leader of the board? With the exception of newbie Bill Jay, Tom Fuentes is the only trustee who has not served as President of the board (at one time or another).

(Now, in fact, I do think that, owing to his political stature as the former chair of the OC GOP, Tom does wield unusual influence among our Republican trustees, some of whom are politically ambitious. But one can easily argue that such "leadership" is a species of corruption.)

Well, there you are. I give 'im a C-