Old documents provoke reverie

.....I happened upon some old documents today, and they provoked special memories.
.....Remember when then-IVC President Mathur joined his Board Majority patrons in deploring the practice of reassigned time? (For those not in the know, reassigned time is an instructor's taking on non-teaching duties—e.g., chairing a department or penning an accreditation self-study—in place of part of his/her normal teaching "time.") That was back in the late 90s. Ten years later, Raghu is still pretty down on reassigned time, as you know.
.....And do you recall the enthusiasm with which Chancellor Mathur helped his trustee patrons determine how many fiendish faculty were members of the "one hundred thousand dollar club"? Gosh, I do. That wasn't so very long ago.

.....Well, today, I happened upon district salary records from 95-96 and 96-97. According to those records, for 95-96, Mathur, then a lowly Chemistry instructor, was the third highest paid faculty member in the district, making $118,312.
.....Gosh!
.....For 96-97, Raghu was again the third highest paid instructor in the district, this time making a cool $123,305. —That's right. Mr. Goo was in the friggin' hundred twenty thousand dollar club! And that was more than a decade ago!
.....Did Raghu have any reassigned time? Well, I can't say. On the other hand, everybody knows that he held on to that "School Chair" job like a dog with a bone. And some chairs of little schools who saw themselves as especially hard-working received 80% reassigned time, know what I mean?
.....Golly! I do believe he suffered a slight cut in pay when he became IVC President!
.....But don't worry about our Goo. He now makes about $300,000.

Lambrose Canyon/Live Oak Canyon, earlier today

Construction at IVC: moving right along!

92 goes down

In this morning’s Inside Higher Ed: Californians Reject Community College Measure:

California voters on Tuesday rejected — by a wide margin — a controversial measure that would have set aside a specific share of state appropriations for community colleges and cut tuition at two-year institutions.

With more than 60 percent of precincts reporting, the measure was attracting only about 41 percent of the vote.

“Obviously, we are disappointed by the decision of California’s voters,” Scott Lay, president and chief executive officer of the Community College League of California, which worked on behalf of the measure, said via e-mail early this morning. California’s deteriorating budget outlook hurt the effort, he said.

…Proposition 92, as the measure is called, is the latest in a series of California ballot questions designed to shape how the state spends its funds. Supporters of these measures (as was the case with this one) cite the importance of setting aside a share of the state budget for particularly crucial agencies or services. But critics see the measures hurting other, equally vital state services (including much of higher education) by making everything not covered by a special measure compete for a smaller and smaller slice of the budget pie. Because much of the state budget in California (as elsewhere) is set aside for required spending, higher education tends to be particularly fearful of the impact of more budget set-asides — however worthy the set-aside.

As a result of these tensions, Proposition 92 won the backing of many community college advocates, but was opposed by many public university leaders.

Supporters of the measure noted that California’s community college system — the nation’s largest higher education system — served many low-income, minority students who can be discouraged from enrolling by large classes, closed sections and even seemingly modest tuition increases. Supporters provided plenty of stories — not contested by others in higher education — of the need for more state support and more stable state support for community colleges.

But critics — within higher education and elsewhere — focused on the impact the measure would have had on the rest of the state budget. A resolution from the University of California Board of Regents, for example, expressed strong support for the mission of community colleges, but opposed Proposition 92.

“Proposition 92 requires more state funding and reduces student fees for one segment of higher education without regard to the needs of all of higher education. Since it does not create or identify any new revenue sources, unprotected state programs such as UC and CSU would be competing for a smaller share of available general funds,” the resolution said. “Passage of Proposition 92 could result in a reduction in the university’s state-funded budget, which in turn could result in an erosion of university programs and services. It would limit fee increases for one segment of higher education while potentially increasing pressure to raise fees even further at UC and CSU to make up for unavailable general funds.”

ALSO: “RIGHT-WING NUT”:

Bruce Benson, the only finalist named by the University of Colorado Board of Regents to become system president, is facing tough questions — and a vandal — on the Boulder campus. The Rocky Mountain News reported on an open forum at which Benson, a career energy industry executive whose highest degree is a bachelor’s, was grilled by students and faculty members. He was asked about his lack of an advanced degree (he said he would leave academic decisions to campuses), whether he believes in climate change (he promised not to interfere in research), his Republican ties (he pledged to work only on behalf of the university), his DUI (he said it was a long time ago and he took responsibility) and his donation to a legal defense fund for former Sen. Bob Packwood, who faced sexual harassment charges (he said everyone deserves a defense). Also this week, a painting of Benson in a geology building named for him was defaced. Someone wrote on it: “I’ve given CU enough $ for an individual right-wing nut like me to be CU’s president.

McCain, not Romney

From this morning’s OC Reg: GOP: an untidy contest:

… “I can’t remember an election where conservatives were so intently confused about the right direction to go,’’ said former Lincoln Club Chairman Michael Capaldi. He waited until the last minute to choose who he would vote for. He went with John McCain.

…Capaldi, like many conservatives, has had a lot of problems with McCain over the years…“It seems like he’s left the reservation and now he wants to come back,’’ Capaldi said of the Arizonasenator. “And I’m willing to give him a chance.’’

…The mainline leadership of the Orange County GOP – Chairman Scott Baugh, former Chairman Michael Schroeder, Rep. John Campbell and most recently Rep. Dana Rohrabacher – lined up behind Romney.

…The question often asked – in an election season in which Democrats have outraised Republicans nationally and the pundits all say the GOP lacks passion for this race – is whether Republicans will get energized for the fall election.

…Romney’s California chairman Michael Schroeder isn’t so sure either Clinton or Obama will be enough to motivate conservative Republicans here if Romney doesn’t capture the nomination.

…Marianne Zippi may be one of the Republicans McCain needs to convince. She voted for Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. Zippi prefers Romney over McCain, who she called a “loose cannon.’’

"To me, voting for McCain would be the same as voting for Obama or Clinton, so I have no idea (if I'd vote for him). I'd have to wait and see."