Runyan and Heffernan take home the big bucksPerhaps you saw it: the article in Friday’s Reg about the thousands of “educators” who receive six-figure pensions (3,000 retired educators take home six-figure pensions).
I guess we’re supposed to be horrified.
Naturally, the Reg zeroes in on former Capistrano Unified School District Superintendent James A. Fleming, who will be going to court soon concerning all sorts of alleged misconduct. Fleming, we’re told, “collects $141,331 a year in California state teacher retirement funds, on top of the $64,068 pension he collects from working 27 years in Florida.”
Even if convicted, he’ll be getting those checks.
Turns out Fleming is “one of 3,090 educators in the California State Teachers' Retirement System who make at least $100,000 a year in taxpayer-guaranteed public pensions….”
Meanwhile, the “average STRS pension is just $36,252….” Fewer than 1.6 percent receive six-figure money, but “they account for 5 percent of the $8 billion yearly payout.”
Why is this a problem? Because
Like the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the teachers’ retirement system is running into trouble as workers retire to larger pensions that are increasingly difficult to fund. … Officials calculate that the system will face a $23 billion funding gap by 2039.Well, you can read all about it, if you like. Prepare to get pissed off.
The Reg provides a link to the list of $100K club members per district: Which educators are in the $100k pension club?
I looked up the SOCCCD and found 18 names, including various retired administrators and some retired faculty.
Here’s the list:WHITE, DENNIS W - $193,129.92
MCCULLOUGH, RICHARD D - $188,592.96
MACDOUGALL, ALLAN B - $156,314.16
BREWER, EVERETT L - $151,722.24
BUSCHE, DONALD L - $132,634.56
CORUM, SUSAN L - $130,564.08
BULLOCK, DIXIE L - $122,747.76
RUNYAN, MICHAEL G - $118,759.56
BRUMMEL, WILLIAM C - $116,683.44
ARNTSON, LEONA J - $112,998.60
CUNERTY, WILLIAM J - $112,701.36
HEFFERNAN, WILLIAM A - $110,381.40
MEYER, THOMAS S - $109,684.92
YATES, JAMES D - $107,233.44
NELSON, CALVIN L - $106,680.72
LOMBARDI, ROBERT A - $104,901.00
OTTA, WILLIAM E - $103,367.76
CALKINS, KEITH D - $100,601.76
Some of these people are known for their excellence. Some, however, are known for their incompetence or worse. Sheesh.
Note: I couldn't find a picture of Mike Runyan, so I searched the internet for someone who looks just like him. Runyan was a major player, along with the likes of IVC's Raghu Mathur, in the secretive and unscrupulous union "old guard" group that brought us the 1996 "board majority" of Frogue, Williams, Fortune, and Lorch. (The union had supported Frogue and Williams in '92; Lorch, with union support, was appointed a year or two later to replace a trustee who had died.)
In the election of '96, the union had supplied the notorious homophobic "same sex" fliers that secured the victory of Republicans Frogue, Williams, and Fortune (Lorch was not yet up for reelection).
This was one among several outrageous actions performed by union leadership at the time, including very misleading charges of misconduct against retiring trustee Harriett Walther.
After the '96 election, many faculty sought to reform the union, but Mr. Heffernan (see above) steadfastly defended Runyan and his group. If you see Bill, be sure to thank him for me.
Not long after the '96 election, some of the key old guard players secured administrative positions. Mathur, of course, became IVC's President. Ken Woodward became the dean of Saddleback's Liberal Arts division. Runyan became a Vice Chancellor.
Interestingly, during the election, Old Guard leadership repeatedly accused their faculty foes (including me) of hating teaching and seeking administrative positions.
16 comments:
Mike Runyan?
"including very misleading charges of misconduct against retiring trustee Harriett Walther."
Walther "retired" in a deal to avoid FPPC charges. What's so misleading about the charges of misconduct?It was a "plea deal" one step ahead of the law.
You folks ask for examples of Chunk's dishonesty. Here's one. Probably the Chunkster figured no one would remember.
Who ever wrote the previous entry makes little sense. What's the point of these bunches of words strung together?
10:45, I do recall the facts about Walther. Owing to redistricting, her trustee seat was eliminated. That is why she ceased to be a trustee (as far as I know). Her alleged "conflict of interests" was fully investigated by the appropriate authorities, which explained that her technical error was not deliberate, was done with complete openness concerning the facts, and achieved no gain for her--nor was their potential for that. The report made all of this clear, as you know.
Dennis White did damn well (how long did he labor in our fair academic fields?) - no wonder people want to leave the classroom for administrative posts. Sheet.
Re Walther:
The California Fair Political Practices Commission sent a "Case Closure Memorandum" to Trustee Harriett Walther concerning the charge that she had violated "conflict of interest" provisions. (5/3/95)
The memorandum ends with a paragraph that makes clear that Walther's violation was merely technical and insubstantial (see below).
The faculty union--on behalf of Frogue, Williams, Fortune and Davis--secured this document and quoted from it selectively and deceptively in fliers and ads during the 1996 trustees' campaign. Williams did the same in "letters to the editor."
What follows is the key section of the memo that the union conveniently failed to reveal in "exposing" the existence of the CFPPC document:
However, we have determined that prosecution for this violation is not warranted based on several mitigating factors which include: 1) the vote to approve the ACCT contract was unanimous and apparently would have been approved without Ms. Walther's vote; 2) it appears that Ms. Walther did not believe that she had a conflict of interest with regard to the ACCT contract, and had she known, it appears she would have abstained from the decision; 3) as a telephone research consultant, she did not stand to gain any commission or bonus as a result of the contract; 4) all other members of the SCCD involved in the ACCT contract were informed by Ms. Walther that she had been employed by ACCT, and 5) Ms. Walther has no prior enforcement history with the Commission.
Try again, 10:45.
Doesn't have to. That is what the official transcript states. Giving it a spin that poster 10:45 wants to doesn't change that Walther's wasn't was not guilty of anything except bucking the old union guard and some pretty nasty BOT members.
Roy keeps asking for examples of alleged "inaccuracies" and such in Dissent, but no one seems able to provide them, aside from an alleged misspelling of someone's name!
How many of us would be aware that Wagner has been endorsed by Fuentes in his Assembly run, if they had not read it in Dissent?
How would we know what really goes on at BOT meetings, if not for the reporting in Dissent?
And why is it that these rude characters that fume against Bauer/Dissent never have the courage to give their names? Bauer puts his name at the start of each post.
I've gotta say: Bauer's critics seem to be a group of cowardly and stupid assholes. They only manage to make his points for him.
Dissent the Blog abides.
It's true. Walther lives in Santa Ana, in a part of that town that used to be a part of the old Saddleback Community College District. After a redistricting in the mid 90s, she no longer was eligible as trustee because of her address.
Roy's right, that's what the closing memo said, but as part of the plea agreement. For Christ's sake, you can't use the negotiated final language of the deal, which included Walther's consent not to seek re-election or contest the boundary change as evidence that there was never anything to the charges in the first place. Roy, as a simple matter of logic you should know better. Don't your people have even a rudimentary understanding of plea deals and settlement agreements? Your reading in this post is as selective and deceptive as anything in the 1996 election.
Perhpas 5:55 should direct her anger at the courts and the law.
Roy's no lawyer as we know. He does what he can with what is out there. Sheesh.
As far as his reading being as "deceptive" and "selective" as the red flyer campaign of 1996 - (running of fear of gays and airports! HA!) well, well, just WELL.
I appreciate the service the blog provides as do most of its readers - obviously, not all, but that's okay.
Whtach out, 6:08, 5:55 doesn't take too kindly to direction or criticism. And she shoot fast too. Off the hip.
5:55, I am unaware of any plea agreement. What I have is the memorandum quoted earlier, which makes clear that Walther's "conflict of interest" was an honest mistake and one in which she stood to gain nothing.
The point I made in this post was that the union leadership made "very misleading charges of misconduct against retiring trustee Harriett Walther." Do you deny this?
I quote from the 10/96 Faculty Association newsletter:
Harriett Walther has organized a campaign to elect a board of trustees which will do her bidding. Since the time it was discovered and publicly announced that Walther had been taking monetary payments from district contractors, she has been on a campaign for retribution.
Consider closely the remark in bold. Then consider what the FPCC actually ruled:
as a telephone research consultant [i.e., she made phone calls], [Walther] did not stand to gain any commission or bonus as a result of the contract....
I leave it to the readers to judge how misleading the union's charges were.
Did you even read the scurrilous screed that the flyer set forth? Have you no shame?
That same-sex flier is stunning.
Post a Comment