THINGS went well at today’s meeting of the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate. The senate and the college have now fully dealt with that awful “Crean High School” snafu that we discussed here last December; and it has done so in a fully satisfactory manner, I believe. Administration has consistently taken the hit here, explaining that they screwed up royally, and that “it won’t happen again.”I believe ‘em.
TODAY, Jennifer Muir posted something on the OC Register’s “Watchdog” blog that concerns our district. I promised someone today that I would do what I could not to draw attention to it. (I cannot simply ignore it.) I did say that I would provide a link:
Chancellor alleges blackmail in whistle-blower complaint
I’ve known about these allegations for some time, but I chose not to mention or discuss them here because, in my judgment, they amount to a desperate and appalling attempt to gain leverage by smearing opponents. I consider people who do this sort of thing, well, rat bastards from hell. If you read Jennifer’s post, be sure to read to the end, where the President of IVC effectively undermines these charges.And remember: all of the trustees are of course fully aware of Mathur’s claims, which were made many months ago. Nevertheless, Mathur’s recent “resignation” deal was approved, not by the solitary Don Wagner, but by five of the seven trustees: Wagner, Padberg, Jay, Milchiker, and Williams.
TODAY at the senate, we voted to make a statement of support of the SOCCCD board of trustees for it's commitment, unequivocally expressed by Board President Wagner three days ago, to pursue a thorough, transparent, and aboveboard chancellor hiring process.
As I recall, only one senator failed to vote in favor of that motion.
He's a close friend of—well, you know.
Comments
Emmet said... ~ Yes. I good day. ~ 9:40 PM, February 25, 2010
Anonymous said... ~ Raghu is NOT going quietly into that good night, is he? ~ 6:36 AM, February 26, 2010
Anonymous said... ~ Classic Raghu! "an unmarked envelope containing a signed and stamped copy of Mathur’s whistle-blower complaint arrived at the Register late last week. The envelope also contained some campaign literature, a highlighted Orange County Register editorial and other accusations about Wagner’s moral character that can’t be verified." ¶ I'm surprised the Reg went for his bait though... ~ 7:25 AM
Anonymous said... ~ Raghu is setting up his reintstatement -- when Don wins his Assembly seat, Raghu will use all this -- and more -- to bully his way back in. Heads will roll. Watch. ~ 7:32 AM
Anonymous said... ~ SO - you WERE right about Crean, weren't you? ~ 7:59 AM
Anonymous said... ~ Mathur's toxic. I'm wondering why the Register doesn't ask Roquemore which trustee called him to stop the process. I'm betting it's Fuentes. (Maybe they did ask him, got that answer, and are protecting the big guy.) Anyway, that's the story, that and why Fuentes, Lang and Williams (and Wagner for too long) support this creep. ~ 8:38 AM
Anonymous said... ~ They're all creeeps. All of them: Fuentes, Lang, Wagner, Williams, Mathur. ~ 1:38 PM
Anonymous said... ~ There is STILL something terribly wrong with that new dean position and their attempts to shove Wendy into it. Everyone knows it. ~ 1:40 PM
Anonymous said... ~ "an unmarked envelope" -- ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ~ 3:33 PM
B. von Traven said... ~ We're about the start a Chancellor search that can go badly or well. It is in everyone's interests (leaving aside Fuentes and Mathur and Satan) to permit and promote a good search with a good outcome. The board majority appears genuinely committed to a good search. With a little luck, we could have a good chancellor by summer. ¶ The spotlight, for now, is on hiring processes and the value of transparency and the like. So let's continue to maintain that spotlight. That might be enough to prevent hinky hires, beyond the Chancellor hire. ¶ I think it's a time to feel good: we have a board that, it seems, owing to a shift in power, can do some good and decent things that will have a lasting impact on the district for the better. We need to support David Bugay and board members who are moving in the right direction. Be as cynical as you like, but do not fail to support people who right now are involved in decent and highly consequential processes. ~ 3:44 PM
Anonymous said... ~ Imagine Ray voting against a open process. Perfect. ~ 6:41 PM
Anonymous said... ~ Roy, I read your comment in the OC Register, and it is lip service to Wendy et al. at best. Why don't you be a reporter and tell the TRUTH? You know as well as a lot of people in the District that several failed attempts have made to give Wendy a dean job. What's amazing in all this that YOU of all people have condoned it! Have some decorum and stop participating in this buffoonery!!! Wendy and company are doing the same exact thing you’ve been accusing Mathur of doing. They’re ALL selfish bastards! ~ 7:24 PM
Anonymous said... ~ 7:24 - I haven't read Roy's comment in the Reg, but if you remember Roy reported on this same issue (the dean-ship and Wendy) weeks ago...here in Dissent. At some length. Inspired some pretty heated commentary too. Get a clue. ~ 7:58 PM
B. von Traven said... ~ 7:24, months ago, I wrote a post in which I said:
Naturally, anyone who believes in fair and open hiring processes will cringe at the possibility that administrators would pursue a new position—such as a deanship—with a particular person in mind to fill that position. And, gosh, many of us who have battled the forces of slime and darkness since 1996 have regarded “fairness and openness” as, well, a big part of what we were fighting for. (About last night)
It wasn’t the first time I said that or something very like it.
You might want to read such DtB posts as Trust, Lines, Last night, and Wendy's new assignment. In the latter, I very deliberately noted Wendy’s heroic leadership in the last dozen years and I emphasized her early stand against hinky processes. Now why do you suppose I did that? I paid dearly for that post, as did the Reb.
My recent letter to which you refer does not fail to state the truth. As far as I know, everything I said there is true.
You are confusing issues. ~ 8:25 PM
Anonymous said... ~ One of these days you'll have to tell us what happened to her. I don't get it. She's just not there anymore. ~ 9:15 PM
B. von Traven said... ~ People change. And they have every right to change. I'm OK with it. But I have not changed. My values are as they were in 1996. Process, process, process. No hinky hires. Let the best person win. Good night. ~ 9:44 PM
Anonymous said... ~ Seeking whistle-blower protection to keep a job as a BOSS? You have to admit, that's brilliant. Of course, he has extra space in his brain for that kind of brilliance because he has all those cells most people use for a conscience. ~ 10:46 PM, February 27, 2010
Brave "anonymous" squeaks forth:
Anonymous said... ~ "I’ve known about these allegations for some time, but I chose not to mention or discuss them here because, in my judgment, they amount to a desperate and appalling attempt to gain leverage by smearing opponents. I consider people who do this sort of thing, well, rat bastards from hell." ¶ Roy, isn't this exactly what you've been doing to your opponents for the last 15 years? ¶ Isn’t this exactly what you continue to do? ¶ According to your logic, that makes you a rat bastard from hell. ~ 11:19 PM
B. von Traven said... ~ smear: figurative damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations ¶ "Roy, isn't this exactly what you've been doing to your opponents for the last 15 years?"
ANSWER: no. I have made no false accusations. I have repeatedly supported any accusations I have made. ¶ If you have nothing to offer, go away. ~ 11:34 PM
At yesterday's Black History Month celebration
The church on the hill, down the road
20 comments:
Yes. I good day.
Raghu is NOT going quietly into that good night, is he?
Classic Raghu!
"an unmarked envelope containing a signed and stamped copy of Mathur’s whistle-blower complaint arrived at the Register late last week. The envelope also contained some campaign literature, a highlighted Orange County Register editorial and other accusations about Wagner’s moral character that can’t be verified."
I'm surprised thw Reg went for his bait though...
Raghu is setting up his reintstatement - when Don wins his Assembly seat, Raghu will use all this - and more - to bully his way back in. Heads will roll. Watch.
SO - you WERE right about crean, weren't you?
Mathur's toxic. I'm wondering why the Register doesn't ask Roquemore which trustee called him to stop the process. I'm betting it's Fuentes. (Maybe they did ask him, got that answer, and are protecting the big guy.) Anyway, that's the story, that and why Fuentes, Lang and Williams (and Wagner for too long) support this creep.
They're all creeeps. All of them: Fuentes, lang, Wagner, Williams, Mathur.
There is STILL something terribly wrong with that new dean position and their attempts to shove Wendy into it. Everyone knows it.
"an unmarked envelope" - ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
We're about the start a Chancellor search that can go badly or well. It is in everyone's interests (leaving aside Fuentes and Mathur and Satan) to permit and promote a good search with a good outcome. The board majority appears genuinely committed to a good search. With a little luck, we could have a good chancellor by summer.
The spotlight, for now, is on hiring processes and the value of transparency and the like. So let's continue to maintain that spotlight. That might be enough to prevent hinky hires, beyond the Chancellor hire.
I think it's a time to feel good: we have a board that, it seems, owing to a shift in power, can do some good and decent things that will have a lasting impact on the district for the better. We need to support David Bugay and board members who are moving in the right direction. Be as cynical as you like, but do not fail to support people who right now are involved in decent and highly consequential processes.
Imagine Ray voting against a open process. Perfect.
Roy, I read your comment in the OC Register, and it is lip service to Wendy et al. at best. Why don't you be a reporter and tell the TRUTH? You know as well as a lot of people in the District that several failed attempts have made to give Wendy a dean job. What's amazing in all this that YOU of all people have condoned it! Have some decorum and stop participating in this buffoonery!!! Wendy and company are doing the same exact thing you’ve been accusing Mathur of doing. They’re ALL selfish bastards!
7:24 - I haven't read Roy's comment in the Reg, but if you remember Roy reported on this same issue (the dean-ship and Wendy) weeks ago...here in Dissent. At some length. Inspired some pretty heated commentary too. Get a clue.
7:24, months ago, I wrote a post in which I said:
Naturally, anyone who believes in fair and open hiring processes will cringe at the possibility that administrators would pursue a new position—such as a deanship—with a particular person in mind to fill that position. And, gosh, many of us who have battled the forces of slime and darkness since 1996 have regarded “fairness and openness” as, well, a big part of what we were fighting for. (About last night)
It wasn’t the first time I said that or something very like it.
You might want to read such DtB posts as Trust, Lines, Last night, and Wendy's new assignment. In the latter, I very deliberately noted Wendy’s heroic leadership in the last dozen years and I emphasized her early stand against hinky processes. Now why do you suppose I did that? I paid dearly for that post, as did the Reb.
My recent letter to which you refer does not fail to state the truth. As far as I know, everything I said there is true.
You are confusing issues. I am not.
One of these days you'll have to tell us what happened to her. I don't get it. She's just not there anymore.
People change. And they have every right to change. I'm OK with it. But I have not changed. My values are as they were in 1996.
Process, process, process. No hinky hires. Let the best person win. Good night.
Seeking whistle-blower protection to keep a job as a BOSS? You have to admit, that's brilliant. Of course, he has extra space in his brain for that kind of brilliance because he has all those cells most people use for a conscience.
"I’ve known about these allegations for some time, but I chose not to mention or discuss them here because, in my judgment, they amount to a desperate and appalling attempt to gain leverage by smearing opponents. I consider people who do this sort of thing, well, rat bastards from hell."
Roy, isn't this exactly what you've been doing to your opponents for the last 15 years?
Isn’t this exactly what you continue to do?
According to your logic, that makes you a rat bastard from hell.
smear: figurative damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations
"Roy, isn't this exactly what you've been doing to your opponents for the last 15 years?"
ANSWER: no. I have made no false accusations. I have repeatedly supported any accusations I have made.
If you have nothing to offer, go away.
11:19, there is a major difference between factual reporting and valid opinions, and gaining leverage by smearing opponents.
Get a clue.
Post a Comment