Video of Monday's wild board meeting: key moments

......

.....Go HERE. Look for the list of “archived videos.”
.....Click on “VIDEO” for the May 24 meeting.
.....The “streaming video” player should appear. (Mac users may want to use Firefox.)
.....JUMP TO:

Item 6.2 [esp. 50:42]
Spending $2 million in basic aid on "Westphal" legal defense
(Fuentes is among the last to speak. He says he hopes the district will "go after" those who brought the suit.)

Item 6.9
Discussion of classified personnel action—including one hire that inspired a heated exchange between Mathur and Wagner. Mathur bloviates re diminishment of Chancellor's role

Item 7.1
Discussion of “nepotism” at the SOCCCD

0:28:53 The faculty plaintiffs' ("Westphal" prayer complaint) public statement occurs (Margot/Claire, et al.)
1:09:50 Mathur speaks; it’s ugly
1:24:45 Here's where Fuentes does his best "Joe McCarthy" impersonation. He almost holds up that piece of paper. And it is a list. And he doesn’t care that lots of the people on the list have done nothing wrong. And he’s a tail-gunner. (Well, OK. I just made that up.)

UPDATE: on “going after” (discussion of item 6.2)

.....Marcia motions to separate out the part of the item requesting $2 million for legal defense in the prayer case. That occurs.
.....When the board gets to that part of the item, Marcia states that she pulled it (out of the rest of the item) to vote against it. She gives her reasons: Given that important services are being cut at the colleges, how can this large sum for defensive litigation be defended? (Note: the district's prevailing in the case would do nothing to improve the colleges or student services.)
.....Padberg explains that the action is only to set aside $2 million, not necessarily to spend it.
.....Lang then asserts: “I frankly find it somewhat disingenuous that the very folks who are speaking out about spending the money on this item are the same folks who are causing us to incur this amount of expense for the district. I’m gonna support the motion…”
.....Please note that Lang here commits a classic fallacy, namely, rejecting a view based on (alleged)  facts about the persons who hold it (ad hominem). Also, note that Lang’s point about disingenuousness in no sense addresses the point that Milchiker had just made—a point that Lang acknowledges he is sympathetic to. Note, too, that Milchiker is untouched by Lang’s ad hominem, for she is not among those who brought the suit.
.....Fuentes then says:

“It is my intent to support the setting aside of these funds. I think it is the only responsible action this board can take, to be prepared. I believe that our district will wiiiiiiin this case. I hope that we will pursue it with all aggressive action that we can take. And I hope that we can go after [51:10] those who have caused the district to spend this money and win the repayment of these attorney fees.”

.....I suppose that critics of our "prayer" lawsuit will claim that, in referring to “those who have caused the district to spend this money,” Fuentes is referring, not to the plaintiffs who had just spoken (and to whom trustee Lang just referred in his comment about "disingenuousness”), but to the organization Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AUSCS), who are providing the legal team for the suit.
.....But of course AUSCS are not the plaintiffs in this case.
.....I do hope that Mr. Fuentes will clarify his remarks, which could easily be interpreted as his hoping the board/district will “go after” those who have in fact caused the district to be sued, namely, the plaintiffs, which include faculty, students, and members of the community.
.....Further, Fuentes’ defenders will insist that Fuentes was referring only to “going after” specifically in the sense of gaining repayment of attorney fees. Perhaps. But given the supreme ugliness and wrongness of the notion that he seeks to “go after” those who brought this suit (plaintiffs), I think he needs to be very clear and specific about just who and how he wants to pursue this project of "going after."  --RB