Monday, May 24, 2010

The May board meeting: Fuentes wants to "go after" prayer plaintiffs

.....
.....Gonna make this quick. I’ll have more details tomorrow. (See also Tracy's board meeting highlights.)
.....Marcia Milchiker announced that the dependable and popular Dixie Bullock was appointed interim Chancellor. She’ll start July 1. People cheered.
.....Normally, during the passing of “resolutions” (about the wonderfulness of, say, the successful women's tennis team) the board Prez and the Chancellor do the presenting together over by the podium off to the right. Tonight, however, Don Wagner presented alone. As he walked to the podium, he said, “the chancellor has declined to join me.” It appeared that this was Mathur’s choice, not Wagner’s.
.....Mathur's hostility toward board President Wagner was palpable. Mathur appeared disgruntled throughout the meeting. At one point, his hostility flared hideously, as I will later explain.
.....Two students made public comments opposing the board’s practice of prayer/invocations. One of these students appeared to be Middle Eastern.
.....The faculty plaintiffs of the “Westphal” invocation complaint read a statement, urging the board not to spend more money defending their actions, etc. (We all stood together; Margot and Claire took turns reading the 4-minute statement.)
.....Tom Fuentes mentioned the recent celebration of Raghu Mathur’s career and alleged contributions to education. Naturally, it was held at the Balboa Bay Club and Center for the Advancement of Rich Assholes. I am confident that most people in the room viewed the event as some sort of joke or perverse ritual of power. As Tom spoke, the Twilight Zone theme could be heard, faintly. Or maybe it was the Outer Limits.
.....Trustees fell all over themselves praising the recent Veterans Memorial opening, which, by all accounts, was very successful and well-attended. Dave Lang felt the need to explain why he did not attend. At that moment, he said, he was in Washington, D.C. introducing Congressman Ed Royce at a dinner.
.....He said this as though it were not obvious to everyone in the room that he was in Washington to promote his political career. As you know, Mr. Lang would even betray his supporters for a chance at grabbing the brass ring. He tells voters that he has "integrity."
.....Mathur introduced the new student trustee, Eve, who seemed nice. Mathur declared that he was all over her (mentoring and such) and he has determined (he said forcefully) that she is “one heck of a person.”
.....We stared at him.

ATEP discussion tabled to avoid pesky goo

.....The discussion item (4.1) concerned the inevitable ATEP. The Saddleback College Academic Senate President, Bob C, had prepared a report and a letter. (I believe that he produced the report with Carmen D, the incoming Senate Prez.) The letter presented a recent SC Academic Senate action: to ask the board to commission a cost study before moving forward with ATEP. (To read the letter, go here.)
.....The idea seems to be that ATEP is an enormous money pit.
.....The letter mentioned such factoids as that, since 1999, the district has spent at least $23 million on ATEP. That is likely a very conservative figure. The net amount "committed to" ATEP is at least $46 million (it is probably much higher).
.....ATEP’s mission, says the letter, has changed 4 times in fewer than 8 years.
.....Several trustees (Milchiker, Padberg, et al.) sought to table 4.1 until July—perhaps because they did not want Mathur to have a significant voice in the discussion (he would likely defend pursuing a grander ATEP, i.e., he badly wants his Mt. Goomore).
.....4.1 was tabled, with Fuentes and Lang voting to the contrary. (Lang takes orders well, doesn't he?)

$2 million for legal defense re "Westphal"?

.....Item 6.2 was a recommendation concerning how to spend $13 million of basic aid money. As you know, included on the list of 6.2's proposed expenditures is $2 million for the district’s defense against the “Westphal” invocation complaint.
.....Marcia succeeded in dividing the question: the legal defense part was separated.


.....When they got to that matter, Marcia declared that she would vote against this expenditure. She noted the areas of great need throughout the district: counseling, etc. It sounded pretty grim. Under the circumstances, spending so much money defending trustee prayer didn’t make sense to her.
.....Most trustees, however, seemed inclined to vote in favor of the expenditure. They argued that setting aside this amount did not mean that it would be spent. Marcia spoke again, noting that, if we set aside a chunk of money for some purpose, then we’ll spend it all. Be realistic.

Fuentes wants to "go after" prayer plaintiffs

.....Finally, Fuentes spoke. He said that he supports setting aside these funds. It is the only responsible thing to do, he said. He declared that the district will win the case. He hoped that the district will pursue the defense “with all aggressive action that we can take.”
.....And then he said: he hoped that the district will “go after those who have caused” the district to defend itself in the courts. There was no doubt who those persons were. They had just addressed the board.
.....This was said with typical Fuentean sternness and unpleasantness. To me, it sounded like a threat against the "Westphal" plaintiffs. I was amazed. I was equally amazed that none of the trustees seemed to react to Fuentes’ curious statement. (Not sure about Marcia.)
.....I was stunned.
.....Luckily, board meetings are videotaped. In a few days, we can all see for ourselves exactly what Mr. Fuentes said and the manner in which he said it. [UPDATE: I'm told that the video should be up some time tomorrow, i.e., Wednesday.] The plaintiffs in "Westphal" include instructors, students, and members of the community. Fuentes wants to “go after” them.
.....Amazing.
.....Watcha gonna do?
.....Naturally, Fuentes imagines that the “Westphal” plaintiffs are mere wrongdoers, criminals. One should take stern action against them, of course, just as one should take stern action against thieves or murderers (or illegal immigrants!).
.....How can he be so dense? Naturally, the complaint itself is based on the plaintiffs’ sincere belief that the district has wronged them and those they represent—by imposing religion upon them, contrary to the values of our Constitution, which proscribes governmental establishment of religion. They did not suddenly sue the district: there had been discussions and efforts at comprise for years. (Why not a moment of silence?)
.....Then the district started showing "Jesus" videos.
.....Fuentes cannot understand this. He is a bully. He's about taking out the enemy, by hook or by crook. He’s about as ugly a person, morally, as I have ever encountered. Yep, worse than Mathur.


Mathur gets ugly, seems to make accusations

.....Later, there was a remarkably ugly episode involving Don Wagner and Raghu Mathur: their hatred for each other (or at least Mathur’s hatred for Wagner) suddenly flashed forth for all to see. In the course of a discussion about new hires, in which it was noted that the HR chief’s wife was hired for a job (because, we were assured, she was by far the committee's first choice), Mathur oddly spurt forth that two complaints about inappropriate action had come to him about that administrator. Inappropriate actions? Many in the audience were dumbstruck. These were stunning things to say at a public meeting. They were serious allegations.
.....Wagner stopped Mathur. Are you saying, here in a public meeting, he asked, that this man engaged in inappropriate actions?
.....Mathur refused to answer. “I stand by what I said.” Wagner wanted a simple “yes” or “no” answer.
.....He asked again. Mathur slithered anew.
.....Wow, it was way ugly. Mathur had lost it. He had crossed a line. Wagner gave a "so be it" look and then proceeded with the rest of the meeting.

Fuentes makes like Joe McCarthy

.....Later, during the discussion of the report on nepotism (the wrongful favoring of relatives in hires) and related employees, things got ugly again. I’ll say more about that tomorrow. But here’s the thing you’ve got to know: in this country, at least at a public institution, you can’t discriminate against somebody who wants a job just because they happen to be related to somebody somewhere in the organization. So says the law—and SOCCCD policy. In fact, there are no clear instances of nepotism that anyone can identify at the SOCCCD (according to Bugay's report, given known facts), and the rate of “related employees” in the SOCCCD is actually lower than the norm.
.....None of this mattered to Mr. Fuentes, who had no interest in facts or logic. He yammered about the taxpayers. He was tossing red meat. He had blood in his eyes.
.....Fuentes, like his hero the late Richard Nixon, is the kind of guy who lives in a world, not of opponents, but of enemies. He knows who his enemies are and he is determined to go after them.
.....He is the world’s ugliest man.
.....Why is he in a position of power and authority?

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Fuentes still imagines this county is his little fiefdom and he can "go after" those who oppose him.

Well, we'll see how his threats play out.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Fuentes is loaded for bear, as they say. The silence of the others is telling - and chilling. They all tolerate him 'cause they need him. Even Wagner.

Anonymous said...

Such blatant and scurrilous behavior must certainly be a catalyst for a public display of opposition to Mathur's past and the Board's future direction. With little to lose (Mathur and his inevitable retaliation) I'm surprised that this was not the "Golden Moment" for a mass demonstration. With multiple candidates for other positions they are pinned to the wall. A godd old pig roasting seems in order. Are we asleep. Let's take back our colleges

Anonymous said...

What 8:26 said is so true. Our faculty have the numbers and ability to really mobilize, but save for a brave few, as a whole our faculty seem pretty apathetic.

Roy Bauer said...

Apathetic. Yeah, that's one word for it. (Gosh, what are academic senates for?)

Anonymous said...

Weren't the Senates there last night? I thought they both signed resolutions decrying all these prayers. Or are they hiding their heads now too? Worried that special projects might not get funding or friends might not be promoted?

Anonymous said...

Fuentes is in a position of pwoer and authority because this is Orange County with its peculair history of tolerating and encourging men like him - and because people do not stand up to him. This is the equivalent of him posting security guards at polling places to frighten Latino voters.

Roy Bauer said...

YES, and in the old days (50 years ago), south county was especially "Neanderthalic." Even now, it harbors key figures of the "birther" movement and the anti-immigrant movement.
Fuentes cites OC Supe Ronald Caspers as one of his mentors--but also Congressman James Utt, who, in the 60s, made a series of extreme and unfortunate statements about race and communists and much else.

Anonymous said...

Why does Fuentes have to "go after" the plaintiffs? Doesn't he have faith God will take care of it if need be? Or perhaps he believes God needs help on defense?

Anonymous said...

Oh, WE THINK you have no business defending yourself now that we’ve hit you over the head with this huge lawsuit! Just lie down, be quiet and take the beating so we can easily collect our big payout! Screw the students and instruction; it’s all about us winning, and our rights!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for being there.

Anonymous said...

It's just taking the "W" doctrine to the next level; "No Orange County Republican Lawyer Left Behind (Getting Taxpayer Money) Act".

Anonymous said...

Good one!

Anonymous said...

ha ha ha ha ha

Roy Bauer said...

6:56, first, there is no "big payout." If we--the plaintiffs--win this suit, will will gain nothing but our rights. No money.
If we win, "we" would be able to secure legal costs. Given that our lawyers are working pro bono, that won't be much either.
We didn't just hit the district over the head with a "big lawsuit." Westphal and the senates have been open to compromise. For instance, we sought the compromise of a "moment of silence" to be filled in per individual in any way desired. In the face of those efforts, the board arrogantly persisted in prayer and even started showing "Jesus" videos.
These people violated people's rights. We complained. They responded with defiance.
Payout? You are an idiot. Pay attention.

Anonymous said...

Roy, you're the idiot. Of course there will be a big payout. THAT is why lawyers work pro bono. If they win, an increasingly unlikely scenario since they've won nothing so far, then they get attorneys' fees. That does NOT mean the fees they actually incurred -- nothing -- but the "reasonable value of their services" -- likely six or seven figures in a very tough case like this one. Ask them. That's what they're in it for. Don't be such a naive simpleton. No big payout? What nonsense. God, you can be dense sometimes. Pay attention.

Roy Bauer said...

9:30, I was responding to 6:56, who was plainly referring to the plaintiffs, not the lawyers ("our rights"), collecting a "big payout." Again, we will receive no money at all. No payout. So get your facts straight.

Anonymous said...

Nice try Roy, but no. "Given that our lawyers are working pro bono, that won't be much either." You explicitly state that the LAWYERS won't get much either BECAUSE they're working pro bono. But that is simply not true. They get a large six or small seven figure payment if they win.

You made a mistake. Admit it. It happens. You're wrong. You said a stupid wrong thing. How horrible is that? Folks do it all the time, maybe just you more than others.

Roy Bauer said...

9:55, are you that incorrigible person who seems incapable of understanding simple points? You (or, at any rate, 6:56) suggested that we're in this thing for the money. One more time: if we win, we will get no money. The lawyers are irrelevant. This case was started by and is pursued on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Bob Cosgrove said...

The Saddleback Senate was asked years ago to consider requesting the then BOT to stop invoking a particular Christian view in their "prayers". The SC Senate took its approved resolution to the BOT. No change. Then the SC student government sent in their resoluton asking them to stop prayers at public school events. No change. The IVC's Senate and IVC student government submitted their resolutions. No change. And then our district FA did the same. No change.

The only change is now to charge the tax payers up to $2,000,000.00 to allow some trustees to continue their prayers. Still no change.

Anonymous said...

Roy, you haven't answered the question, "how is working pro-bono cheaper than the conventional way?" Please explain.

Thinking logically, wouldn't one reasonably assume pro-bono ultimately costs more figuring in all the interest on deferred payments?

And don’t tell me attorneys don’t charge interest, you know they charge for EVERYTHING and ANYTHING they can get, i.e. photocopies @ $10 a pop, faxes @ $15 a pop, etc…

Roy Bauer said...

3:54, Are you some sort of crank? You just asked this question under our “$2 million” post. I answered it there. (See.) Then you go to this post and ask the same question, almost word for word.
Are you some kind of a nut?
Get a grip. Or stay away. Permanently.

Anonymous said...

3:54 PM here. Well Roy, the reason I asked twice is because you have asserted in both places, paraphrasing, “that pro-bono legal services don’t cost nearly as much as compared to conventional legal services.” I then asked you to explain why you believe this is so. Now in return, you insult me and tell me to get lost. Very interesting…

Anonymous said...

Wow, Roy, sounds like a crank lawyer. Don? Wendy? Who's taking bets?

Anonymous said...

7:41 PM, As I understand it, the Bush Doctrine did not contain his public education agenda.

Anonymous said...

von Tavern, looks like you’re having a bad day. Dismiss your class and go have a beer, it’s on me. Roy, everything’s gonna be OK

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...