What a curious turn of events.As you know, Chancellor Raghu Mathur brought in Bill Vega as a consultant. Vega was supposed to produce a report, based on a series of interviews over a period of two weeks. Evidently, after only one day on the job (all of it at IVC), Vega is out; Mathur has pulled the plug on Vega’s work. —Or maybe Vega bailed as he hinted he might. It's hard to say.
Mathur seems to be saying that it's his idea.
In an email sent mid-afternoon, Chancellor Mathur engaged in some dubious revisionism concerning the events leading to Vega’s hire. For instance, according to Mathur, Vega's consultation is a continuation of a "review of our decision-making processes at the Board, District and College levels" that started with the Woodruff/Walton technical assistance "some months ago."
Some months ago? Actually, Woodruff/Walton visited 2 ½ years ago. And the notion that their technical assistance visit way back then is linked to Vega's consultation has never been expressed until now, as far as I know.
Then Mathur ends his email with this:
Dr. Vega began his work yesterday at Irvine Valley College. Today he reported to me that, based on his interviews with many faculty and staff members, it is his observation that the decision-making process seems to be working well and any further assessment work is not necessary at this time. Therefore, I’ve decided to discontinue the work of the consultant, Dr. Bill Vega, effective immediately. He has graciously concurred. We may conduct such a review through a more collaborative process in the selection of a consultant perhaps at another time, when we have more time, and as deemed necessary.
At the “open forum” yesterday, Vega clearly implied that he had been hired to examine decision-making, not only internal to IVC, but also at Saddleback College, at the district, and in the district’s interface with the colleges. Also, at the forum, he clearly suggested that he was very sympathetic to complaints he heard there (and elsewhere) especially regarding district (i.e., Chancellor and even board) involvement and interference with college decision-making at IVC. At some meetings yesterday, Mathur's intrusions into the hiring of deans at IVC were cited as instances of improper involvement or interference. The board's last-minute insertion of language into Accreditation Progress Reports (in late 2007) was also cited.
Hence, it is very strange to hear Mathur's account that, today, Vega judges that “the decision-making process seems to be working well.” Again, Vega has not yet examined Saddleback College’s decision-making process or that college’s interface with the district. Further, yesterday, Vega clearly implied that he agreed that serious problems exist with regard to IVC decision-making insofar as the district (i.e., the Chancellor) interfered with it.
In today's email, Mathur also attributes to Vega the judgment that “any further assessment work is not necessary at this time.” Again, this would seem to contradict the implications of some of Vega’s remarks during meetings yesterday. Vega clearly implied that his report would include strong recommendations; indeed, he warned us that the board might fail to accept those recommendations.
In his email, Mathur asserts that Vega has “concurred”—evidently with the decision to cease Vega’s efforts. Yesterday, however, Vega obviously viewed the decision-making processes within SOCCCD as troubled and problematic. If so, why would he judge (today) that no full examination of SOCCCD decision-making is necessary? (On the other hand, he hinted yesterday that he might not be able to complete his work in good conscience, given the non-collaborative fashion in which he was hired by Mathur.)Mathur asserts that we may “conduct such a review [of decision-making] through a more collaborative process in the selection of a consultant perhaps at another time.” As I explained last night, a major theme in the discussion during the open forum was the Chancellor’s failure to use a “collaborative" processes in selecting Vega or in securing a consultant at all. Indeed, yesterday, Vega asserted that, had he known that the faculty were not consulted in selecting him, he would never have taken the job. I can only conclude, therefore, that Mathur's last sentence is an acknowledgement—no doubt forced upon him by his superiors—that his failure to collaborate in this instance was unfortunate and is not to be repeated.
Naturally, each college’s Accreditation Focus Group must now consider whether to discuss and include this strange truncated episode of consultation and its unfortunate defects with regard to process and collaboration.
