Tom Fuentes demagogues it

Gosh, I stop reading OC Blog for two days, and what happens? I miss something!

On Sunday, “Jubal” (aka Matt Cunningham) posted an interview with trustee Tom Fuentes: Fuentes interview, part 1.

Jubal asks Fuentes why he is seeking reelection. In part, Fuentes answers,

…[T]here is … a small element of liberal union bosses leading our local CTA-affiliated faculty labor union who want control of the public checkbook to enhance their salaries and eliminate responsible public oversight. They have attempted to macro-manage affairs at the colleges but we have worked hard on the board to stop these efforts. Unfortunately, we have only a one vote margin. So it is important that Dave Lang, John Williams, and I remain on the board. If any one of us loses, we will give control of the district purse strings to a CTA union leadership that does not have the public interest and our students in mind and will not exercise fiscal restraint or who will govern in a manner consistent with our community's values.

We have the obligation - and have been successful - to plan, save, and utilize the fiscal resources of the district to build and renovate on all of our three campuses. We have implemented advanced technology and improved facilities to better serve our students. This is the kind of prudent use of district funds that cannot be abandoned to the whims of liberal union bosses.

I wrote a response:

Naturally, the quality of a college cannot exceed the quality of its faculty. Hiring the best possible faculty is crucial to maintain a college's excellence.

There was a time when faculty salaries in the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) were relatively high. Offering high salaries was defended by, for instance, Tom Fuentes' pal, John Williams, on the grounds that high salaries attract the best instructors.

Further, in case you haven't noticed, living in South Orange County is expensive.

But the era of high SOCCCD faculty salaries is long past. These days, faculty salaries do not compare well with those of other districts in the area, and this means that the SOCCCD is headed for decline.

Tom Fuentes speaks of "liberal union bosses." I've known the current President of the Faculty Association for many years, and I don't even know what his politics are. Is he liberal? Who knows? His job has little or nothing to do with politics. The primary job of the Faculty Association is to represent faculty in contract negotiations. That is its role, determined by law. Nothing nefarious is afoot.

What is supposed to be a union "boss" anyway? Do "bosses" smoke big cigars and engage in unfettered cronyism? Trust me. The President of our little union is not the type. No cigars. No cronyism.

But there is plenty of cronyism in the SOCCCD, and it flows from the cigar-chomping Mr. Tom Fuentes. He has arranged for friends to get high-paying jobs. His political cronies—Mike Carona, DA Tony Rackaukcas, et al.—come and go, receiving prizes, taking bows. Many district functions looks like meetings of the OC Republican Central Committee.

Gosh, Jubal, why don't you ask Tom why it is that the two colleges of the SOCCCD are now threatened with the possibility of losing accreditation? The accreditors were pretty clear about what is wrong with our district and its colleges. They have no complaint with instruction. On the contrary.

They did carp, however, that the "Board of Trustees [must] cease involvement in college and district operations." Yes, folks, the meddling of Tom and his friends is threatening Saddleback College and Irvine Valley College's accreditation.

But didn't Tom say something about "macro-management" by the "bosses"? That's funny. The accreditors didn't mentioned anything about "macro-management" by anyone.

Boy, that Tom sure can spin 'em.

To see the Accrediting Commission's letter to IVC, go to
http://www.ivc.edu/accreditation/pages/default.aspx

Part 2 of Jubal’s interview appeared yesterday: See. Here's part of it:

MC: What can you tell us about your opponent?

TF: My opponent [Bob Bliss] is a long time CTA-affiliated faculty labor union member, now in retirement. I suspect that he has obtained the union's backing by promising to do its bidding. He has promised to be the one vote the union needs to undo all the good work Dave Lang and I and our conservative colleagues have accomplished over the last several years.

MC: Why is the faculty union so determined to defeat you?

TF: The union bosses oppose me because they know I will not ever sign on to their fiscally irresponsible and socially liberal agenda. I insist on representing the values of our community, not the labor bosses. They have publicly threatened to put hundreds of thousands of dollars, an astounding amount of money for a simple college district race, into the fight against Dave Lang and me because they know that so much more taxpayer money is theirs to control if they win. By defeating us, the union bosses can finally get control of the district's finances to enhance salary and benefits of an already very well paid union faculty who enjoys tenure, marvelous benefits and very comfortable working conditions.

I wrote a letter in response to Part 2 as well. Check it out.

Open forum at Saddleback College

Today, the Saddleback College Accreditation Task Force held an "open forum" in the Student Services Building. The meeting started at 1:30 and ended about 45 minutes later.

Since I teach until 1:45, I couldn't get to the meeting until about 2:05, at which point Carmen D. seemed to be wrapping up her account of the contents of the group's report draft.

Saddleback College's new President, Todd Burnett, was on hand. He alluded, cheerfully, to the absence of questions from the meager audience of twenty or thirty.

I decided to ask what apparently was the only question of the meeting: was any mention made in the report of the strange "consultant" episode?

Yes.


P. 81 of the group’s Accreditation Progress Report draft does indeed include a section that describes the consultant episode. According to the draft, early in September, the community was informed that the task force and various other groups would be meeting with the consultant, Bill Vega, on Sept. 9 and 10. At that point, task force members felt they lacked “clarity about the purpose of the visit.” Who had hired the consultant? What was his charge? To whom would he submit his report?

According to the draft, the task force learned that the consultant had been hired at Chancellor Mathur's direction to “facilitate the clarification of the decision-making processes at selected district locations.” Supposedly, Vega's work was a continuation of the technical assistance visits of 2 ½ years ago.

Those visits were arranged in consultation with all involved groups.

But then, on Sept. 3, the Chancellor sent an email, which stated:

Dr. Vega began his work yesterday at IVC. 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....

All remaining meetings with Vega were cancelled, including the meetings at Saddleback College.

The draft then notes that “the decision to engage the services of a consultant to ‘continue the dialog’ [of the long-ago technical assistance visits] was made solely by the Chancellor and bypassed the consultation process.” (My emphasis.)

Readers of DtB will recall that, on Sept. 3, I forwarded Mathur’s email to Bill Vega. Vega immediately responded, explaining that he (not Mathur) had recommended discontinuance.

Given his public comments during his visit to IVC on Sept. 2, it is highly doubtful that Vega offered the rosy assessment of decision-making that Mathur attributed to him in his Sept. 3 email.


AT IVC:

This afternoon, the IVC's Accreditation task force (which is called a "focus group") met mostly to discuss whether to include language concerning the odd consultant episode. I’ve been told that the group has decided to make a brief mention of it, quoting the part of Mathur’s memo in which Mathur attributes to Vega a positive assessment about decision-making processes.

Gosh, I wonder what Bill Vega thinks of all this? (These days, he teaches at CSLB. Drop him a line. Say hello.)

David Brooks: Why Experience Matters

from today's New York Times, columnist David Brooks on Palin's qualifications:

Philosophical debates arise at the oddest times, and in the heat of this election season, one is now rising in Republican ranks. The narrow question is this: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be vice president? ...

There was a time when conservatives did not argue about this. Conservatism was once a frankly elitist movement. Conservatives stood against radical egalitarianism and the destruction of rigorous standards. They stood up for classical education, hard-earned knowledge, experience and prudence. Wisdom was acquired through immersion in the best that has been thought and said.

But, especially in America, there has always been a separate, populist, strain. For those in this school, book knowledge is suspect but practical knowledge is respected. The city is corrupting and the universities are kindergartens for overeducated fools.

The elitists favor sophistication, but the common-sense folk favor simplicity. The elitists favor deliberation, but the populists favor instinct.

This populist tendency produced the term-limits movement based on the belief that time in government destroys character but contact with grass-roots America gives one grounding in real life. And now it has produced Sarah Palin...

For the rest, click here.