I went to the “open forum” today. It featured Dr. Bill Vega, former Chancellor of the Coast Community College District, who has in some sense been hired by the district as a “consultant” to help us with our accreditation problems.
But, all day today, controversy swirled regarding Vega’s standing and role.
The meeting was held in a fine room on the ground floor of the new Business (BST) building. It held about fifty people and, by the middle of the meeting, it was full. Vega seemed pleased, or at least surprised, by the big turnout.
Vega introduced himself and right away came across as wise and thoughtful. He explained that he’d been away from Orange County (in Dubai!) for a few years but was glad to be back near his children, who, no doubt, have children of their own.
He explained that his task, as consultant, was specifically to assess “decision-making” at the college and district. He encouraged us to be candid and he explained how those who wish to communicate with him in private could arrange to do so. He gave out his email address.
Right away, he was asked a series of questions that revealed something important about decision-making in the SOCCCD, for it was obvious that no one in the room quite understood who Vega was, who had hired him, how he was selected, to whom he would report, and how his endeavors related to the accreditation process.
Vega seemed genuinely surprised to learn that faculty (et al.) had not been consulted about hiring him. He said that, had he understood this, he likely would never have agreed to the job. (At times, he seemed to hint at the possibility that he would not be turning in a report at all. Not sure.)
Vega did attempt to clarify his role and how he was hired. Evidently, he was selected for the task during the Spring—he was (informally?) recommended, I think, by Barbara Beno of the ACCJC. By the time he was selected, faculty were dispersed for summer, and so, unwilling to proceed without their input, he backed out.
He seemed to say that this problem was the reason that he was visiting with us now, at the start of the Fall semester.
He explained that he had been hired by the board, evidently through the Chancellor. He mentioned that, therefore, naturally, his consultation required board approval. Someone in the audience then asserted that no board approval has yet occurred. (I’ve followed the board meetings, and I do not recall the board approving Vega’s visit.)
What does it all mean? Dunno. Everybody seems perplexed. Even Vega.
Vega explained that he will deliver his report to the Chancellor, and he assumed that it would then be forwarded to the board. (Throughout the room, eyebrows arched.)
The meeting was held in a fine room on the ground floor of the new Business (BST) building. It held about fifty people and, by the middle of the meeting, it was full. Vega seemed pleased, or at least surprised, by the big turnout.
Vega introduced himself and right away came across as wise and thoughtful. He explained that he’d been away from Orange County (in Dubai!) for a few years but was glad to be back near his children, who, no doubt, have children of their own.
He explained that his task, as consultant, was specifically to assess “decision-making” at the college and district. He encouraged us to be candid and he explained how those who wish to communicate with him in private could arrange to do so. He gave out his email address.
Right away, he was asked a series of questions that revealed something important about decision-making in the SOCCCD, for it was obvious that no one in the room quite understood who Vega was, who had hired him, how he was selected, to whom he would report, and how his endeavors related to the accreditation process.
Vega seemed genuinely surprised to learn that faculty (et al.) had not been consulted about hiring him. He said that, had he understood this, he likely would never have agreed to the job. (At times, he seemed to hint at the possibility that he would not be turning in a report at all. Not sure.)
Vega did attempt to clarify his role and how he was hired. Evidently, he was selected for the task during the Spring—he was (informally?) recommended, I think, by Barbara Beno of the ACCJC. By the time he was selected, faculty were dispersed for summer, and so, unwilling to proceed without their input, he backed out.
He seemed to say that this problem was the reason that he was visiting with us now, at the start of the Fall semester.
He explained that he had been hired by the board, evidently through the Chancellor. He mentioned that, therefore, naturally, his consultation required board approval. Someone in the audience then asserted that no board approval has yet occurred. (I’ve followed the board meetings, and I do not recall the board approving Vega’s visit.)
What does it all mean? Dunno. Everybody seems perplexed. Even Vega.
Vega explained that he will deliver his report to the Chancellor, and he assumed that it would then be forwarded to the board. (Throughout the room, eyebrows arched.)
He also said that his report might be included in our October 15 Progress Report to the ACCJC.
More eyebrow archage.
Vega explained his own history and philosophy—his embrace of “collaboration and collegiality” and his efforts to build a culture around that at the Coast CC District, etc. He made clear that it was important to him to maintain his reputation for honesty and integrity. He was entirely believable.
A faculty member (a member of the IVC Accreditation Focus Group) explained that, in the past, the Chancellor has repeatedly derailed established processes, engaging in “end runs.” In the case of accreditation, the college has worked hard since January to address our accreditation situation with open and above-board processes (we’ve been “squeaky clean,” she said). The college has produced some great work.
But now, she said, as we near the end of the process, we encounter what appears to be yet another “end run”—namely, the appearance of a consultant and his report, perhaps to be included with the duly-created Progress Report. It's pretty dispiriting.
IVC's Senate President explained that we at the college have worked very hard since 2005 to change how “we do business,” and collegiality and collaboration are now the norm at least at the college. But in truth, she added, no senior person at the college (as opposed to the district) was involved in the decision-making process whereby Vega was hired.
It is “ironic,” she said.
Again, Vega seemed to be very surprised, even disturbed, to discover how he had been hired and, in particular, that no effort was made to consult all groups. He alluded to earlier meetings (today) and how they presented a similar picture of decision-making in the district/colleges. Vega was careful not to say too much, but he left little doubt as to where he stood, generally.
Some in the audience reminded us all that setting up good processes is not sufficient, since they can be derailed or ignored. In particular, they said, decisions made at IVC are repeatedly “overridden” by the Chancellor, a phenomenon that “demoralizes” the college community.
A member of the Focus Group explained that, when she first arrived at the district/college, it was an “oasis” of collaboration and collegiality. Whereas, evidently, Vega had helped create a “culture” of collegiality and collaboration at the Coast district, here at SOCCCD that culture was rudely dismantled, and Mathur was central to that innovation.
Again, some emphasized that it is all well and good to set up collaborative and collegial processes, but it is crucial that all players also “acquiesce” in the processes, and that’s what’s lacking in the interface between the college and “the district.”
One faculty member acknowledged the substantial “attitudinal improvements” at the college in recent years, but she insisted that all has been achieved in spite of the Chancellor/the District.
Dr. Vega asked how much of our difficulty concerned the board and how much concerned the Chancellor. Generally, people emphasized the Chancellor over the board as a source of difficulty. On the other hand, some noted that the board has continually supported Mathur, offering him new and lengthy contracts.
A faculty member explained that “our message,” given to the Chancellor, never seems to get to the right people with the right tone. We are at the mercy of the Mathurian filter.
At one point, a faculty member cited the board president’s recent experiences on the IVC Focus Group. For all of these years, Chancellor Mathur had been portraying the faculty to the board as seeking to “control the district.” Once the board president starting working with faculty, however, it became clear that faculty had no such intention.
Vega suggested that, clearly, the roles and responsibilities of the Presidents and the Chancellor need to be defined. Defining them, he said, would go a long way in addressing our concerns.
The audience seemed skeptical (or maybe it was just me).
A classified employee explained that she was very proud of the good work that’s been done at the college, but she regretted the waste of energy (she used the verb "zapped") engendered by the chancellor’s endless interference.
Vega emphasized the evident and impressive improvements at the college over the last four years. He said that we must remember that we now have a very sound "foundation" for moving forward and that we must not minimize our achievement.
A member of the Focus Group explained that, in her view, the Chancellor must be “sacked,” the point being that no other reform will help without that particular step. (Others were careful not to insist on that point, though surely no one actually disagreed with it!) All seemed to agree that no set of processes can work if people’s input is not valued.
More eyebrow archage.
Vega explained his own history and philosophy—his embrace of “collaboration and collegiality” and his efforts to build a culture around that at the Coast CC District, etc. He made clear that it was important to him to maintain his reputation for honesty and integrity. He was entirely believable.
A faculty member (a member of the IVC Accreditation Focus Group) explained that, in the past, the Chancellor has repeatedly derailed established processes, engaging in “end runs.” In the case of accreditation, the college has worked hard since January to address our accreditation situation with open and above-board processes (we’ve been “squeaky clean,” she said). The college has produced some great work.
But now, she said, as we near the end of the process, we encounter what appears to be yet another “end run”—namely, the appearance of a consultant and his report, perhaps to be included with the duly-created Progress Report. It's pretty dispiriting.IVC's Senate President explained that we at the college have worked very hard since 2005 to change how “we do business,” and collegiality and collaboration are now the norm at least at the college. But in truth, she added, no senior person at the college (as opposed to the district) was involved in the decision-making process whereby Vega was hired.
It is “ironic,” she said.
Again, Vega seemed to be very surprised, even disturbed, to discover how he had been hired and, in particular, that no effort was made to consult all groups. He alluded to earlier meetings (today) and how they presented a similar picture of decision-making in the district/colleges. Vega was careful not to say too much, but he left little doubt as to where he stood, generally.
Some in the audience reminded us all that setting up good processes is not sufficient, since they can be derailed or ignored. In particular, they said, decisions made at IVC are repeatedly “overridden” by the Chancellor, a phenomenon that “demoralizes” the college community.
A member of the Focus Group explained that, when she first arrived at the district/college, it was an “oasis” of collaboration and collegiality. Whereas, evidently, Vega had helped create a “culture” of collegiality and collaboration at the Coast district, here at SOCCCD that culture was rudely dismantled, and Mathur was central to that innovation.
Again, some emphasized that it is all well and good to set up collaborative and collegial processes, but it is crucial that all players also “acquiesce” in the processes, and that’s what’s lacking in the interface between the college and “the district.”
One faculty member acknowledged the substantial “attitudinal improvements” at the college in recent years, but she insisted that all has been achieved in spite of the Chancellor/the District.
Dr. Vega asked how much of our difficulty concerned the board and how much concerned the Chancellor. Generally, people emphasized the Chancellor over the board as a source of difficulty. On the other hand, some noted that the board has continually supported Mathur, offering him new and lengthy contracts.
A faculty member explained that “our message,” given to the Chancellor, never seems to get to the right people with the right tone. We are at the mercy of the Mathurian filter.
At one point, a faculty member cited the board president’s recent experiences on the IVC Focus Group. For all of these years, Chancellor Mathur had been portraying the faculty to the board as seeking to “control the district.” Once the board president starting working with faculty, however, it became clear that faculty had no such intention.
Vega suggested that, clearly, the roles and responsibilities of the Presidents and the Chancellor need to be defined. Defining them, he said, would go a long way in addressing our concerns.
The audience seemed skeptical (or maybe it was just me).
A classified employee explained that she was very proud of the good work that’s been done at the college, but she regretted the waste of energy (she used the verb "zapped") engendered by the chancellor’s endless interference.
Vega emphasized the evident and impressive improvements at the college over the last four years. He said that we must remember that we now have a very sound "foundation" for moving forward and that we must not minimize our achievement.
A member of the Focus Group explained that, in her view, the Chancellor must be “sacked,” the point being that no other reform will help without that particular step. (Others were careful not to insist on that point, though surely no one actually disagreed with it!) All seemed to agree that no set of processes can work if people’s input is not valued.
Clearly, Vega understood this.
Another member of the Focus Group reminded us that Mathur has been Chancellor now for six years and, before that, he was IVC President for a similar period. If he hasn’t learned how to conduct himself properly by now, then it isn’t going to happen.
Vega reminded the group that “recommendations are recommendations,” by which he meant, I think, that the board can always choose to ignore his advice. Again, he urged us to be mindful of the strong foundations we have set in place.
Another member of the Focus Group reminded us that Mathur has been Chancellor now for six years and, before that, he was IVC President for a similar period. If he hasn’t learned how to conduct himself properly by now, then it isn’t going to happen.
Vega reminded the group that “recommendations are recommendations,” by which he meant, I think, that the board can always choose to ignore his advice. Again, he urged us to be mindful of the strong foundations we have set in place.
An administrator suggested that the removal of Mathur just isn't in the cards.
Another classified employee explained that the classified shared faculty’s estimate of the Chancellor, but, she added, classified are vulnerable; they fear losing their jobs. And so they do not speak out.
A faculty member noted that Mathur is vindictive and that he has often targeted critics, making their life a “living hell.”
Vega noted that, today, many community colleges are now entering the situation that we entered ten or so years ago. I do believe that that was meant as some sort of comfort.
I think it was as good a meeting as could be hoped for. For what it’s worth, I have no doubt that Bill Vega is a man of integrity and wisdom and that he will do his very best.
Another classified employee explained that the classified shared faculty’s estimate of the Chancellor, but, she added, classified are vulnerable; they fear losing their jobs. And so they do not speak out.
A faculty member noted that Mathur is vindictive and that he has often targeted critics, making their life a “living hell.”
Vega noted that, today, many community colleges are now entering the situation that we entered ten or so years ago. I do believe that that was meant as some sort of comfort.
I think it was as good a meeting as could be hoped for. For what it’s worth, I have no doubt that Bill Vega is a man of integrity and wisdom and that he will do his very best.
I am also convinced that he has an accurate general idea of how decision-making occurs in the district.
He'll return on Thursday for a session with the IVC Academic Senate. I believe that he will be visiting Saddleback College next week.
