Thursday, August 5, 2010

The SOCCCD board pulls an agenda switcheroo: IVC dean position approved

     I just realized that the board had at some point revised the agenda for yesterday’s special meeting. The following item had been added:

     I’ve been told that the discussion yesterday was very heated and that, in the end, there were four votes in favor of the dean position (i.e., it was approved). I don't know, but, based on the discussion of the July 26 meeting, it would seem likely that the vote would have been Wagner/Padberg/Jay/Milchiker in favor with Fuentes/Lang/Williams against.
     At last week’s board meeting, the discussion of this item became quite ugly. The item (actually, a portion of a larger item) was tabled. See "I would urge caution".
     Assuming that the board followed the Brown Act, this agenda revision illustrates one of the weaknesses of that law. I had assumed that the originally posted agenda was final. If I had known they were going to discuss the dean position, I would have attended the meeting. Sheesh.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Having witnessed the Dean of Deans' position verbal punching match, IVC, I believe, lost a lot of capital with several BOT members. Glenn stumbled along, Craig exaggerated, Don W. went too far--urging an interim position until the FT one was filled. He also asked for the stars at IVC and Wendy's name came up several times. Glenn was in an awkward position. Only Jerry Rudmann spoke to the importance of this position.

Be careful for what you wish for folks.

Anonymous said...

Now Gwen, don't be silly. IVC has no "capital" to lose with the trustees who voted against the position. They're going to continue theirs and Raghu's vendetta against Wagner, Glenn, Craig, and Wendy no matter what the facts are. Why weren't you standing up there, supporting your president? Glenn and Craig did a great job speaking substantively to a position every shared governance group has supported. You should be ashamed to have not supported your college. Maybe you think you can be president once Fuentes succeeds in firing Glenn. You'll do almost as good a job as Raghu did.

Anonymous said...

I'm not Gwen, but do keep guessing. There were so few of us in the room!

Anonymous said...

Sure you are.

Anonymous said...

The whole hire is tainted.

Anonymous said...

The position is needed - just as it was when Pam Deegen occupied a similar office. But the process stinks - deals, trades and who-knows-what - all to benefit one person whose considerable talents are well known as is her temper and other issues. Too bad.

Anonymous said...

If the Brown Act was not in fact followed with this switcheroo agenda, do you think Wendy might sue the board?

Anonymous said...

The "Bait and Switch" was alive and well. I came to hear about ATEP.
Item 3.1 was pulled because it was not "ready". Item 3.3 was advanced to the front.
Fuentes was in fine form. His comment about "you can put lipstick on a pig", "this feels like it is being railroaded", and "the heavyhanded" comments were spot on. BvT's observation about the vote was correct except for Williams abstaination.
The ATEP presentations were uninspiring. Peebles *IS* a fool.

Item 3.2: Looks like a hi-tech money laundering scheme. Daunte is a pompous *ASS*. The best he could explain it was: "It's complicated".

End comments:
Fuentes went on record; he wished it were televised:
ATEP is:
"A White elephant"
"A black hole for basic aid money"
"A ghost town project"
"The district should walk away and abandon it"
"Don't use accreditation as the Boogeyman"

Dixie:
The reporting structure at ATEP needs to change to satisify the Accred's.

Anonymous said...

Ghost town project. Spot on. Too bad there aren't gun fights and saloon girls to at least make the project exciting.

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...