The February board meeting: honoring that paragon of Bergesonian virtue

.....The board meeting was supposed to start at 6:00 p.m., but it didn’t actually start until nearly 7:30, suggesting, of course, that the board had lots to discuss in closed session. [See Tracy's Board Meeting Highlights.]
.....No noteworthy action taken during closed session was announced.
.....Next came “public comments.” Said bemused Board President Don Wagner: “No requests to speak, is that true? People are learning!”
.....This evoked some laughter.
.....Trustee reports were unremarkable.
.....Chancellor Raghu Mathur described our administrative delegation’s contributions to the recent ACCCA conference in San Francisco. He praised a presentation concerning ATEP and VC of Tech Robert Bramucci’s keynote address. (At the conference, he got people to sing. Seems like a bad idea.)

nepotism: the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, esp. by giving them jobs. (New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd edition)

.....One trustee requested a report: Tom Fuentes wanted a report on nepotism. In particular, he wanted to know how well the district board policy on nepotism is administered “to prevent nepotism.” He said he was concerned to have “the cleanest operation possible.” The report, he said, is especially important in view of our economic downturn.

.....Possibly he’s right about all that. Dunno. Still, I feel compelled to observe that Tom Fuentes is Mr. Hypocritical Politician, par excellence. I dunno about nepotism, but Tom has got to be the most cronyistic guy the world has ever seen. I won’t go into the usual examples.
.....Tell me, why are the most unchristian people always noisy, pious, self-righteous Christians? How does that work, exactly?
.....Tom asked that the report be as “detailed” as possible.
.....Sensing that ugly politics were afoot, Don Wagner asked for clarification. What do you mean by “nepotism”?
.....Fuentes turned to Mathur, who referred to the district’s board policy, which, he said, underwent a “legal review.” In his mind, that suggested that it contained legal definitions. So there you go.
.....Wagner asked, “Is the report looking for violations of the board policy?” Wagner noted that the presence of relatives among employees is one thing; nepotism is something else altogether.
.....Fuentes clearly wanted the “broadest” report possible. That is, he wanted to see lists of relatives.
.....It’s the usual witchhunt. Why bother with a tiny list of possible cases in which employees acted to benefit relatives when one can assemble a much longer and more impressive list of, well, just relatives.

I have here in my hand a list of 205 … names.  —Joseph McCarthy

.....Wagner noted that the presence of relatives in the workplace is not in itself nepotism—not in any meaningful sense. He decided to illustrate his point with the name of a volunteer that appeared in a footnote somewhere—a Michael Telson, whom, he said, is the nephew of Saddleback VP of SS Lise Telson.
.....Telson was in the audience. She spoke. She has no such nephew, she intoned.
.....She looked seriously pissed. I got the sense that her anger was not only about this apparent misunderstanding, if that's what it was. Emotions were running high. Naturally, there were plenty of characters in the room who could be the ultimate source of her consternation.
.....Next came a discussion item: Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Recovery Plans. Bramucci, Palmer, and Glenn took turns presenting. There were lots of warm and fuzzies. Even Mathur got slathered with ‘em.
.....Next came Curriculum Review for the two colleges. As you can imagine, so riveting was this presentation that, by the end of it, trustees were speechless. There were no questions.
.....A handful of items were pulled from the consent calendar.
.....Item 5.5 concerned that semi-hinky business about cosmetology program review. The item recommended the payment of $3,400 to a beauty college in Lake Forest.
.....We were told that Saddleback College contracts out to this business, but the contract does not include program review, which requires time and effort. And so the beauty college people must be paid for that time and effort.
.....Lang suggested that paying these people to review their program involves an apparent conflict of interest. Yeah, said Saddleback College President Tod Burnett (who seemed addled), but faculty routinely review their own programs. They’re paid to do that.
.....Lang offered a painful milquetoastian smile. OK, he murmured.
.....Item 5.7 was the “loop road project.” I’ll spare you the details. They’re gonna go forward with the study of this road. Gotta think of the future.
.....Item 5.19 was trustee requests for conference money. There was a solitary request to attend the “Campus Safety Conference” in Long Beach.
.....Nancy Padberg was skeptical. She said she wanted to know which trustee made this request. (Translation: “What’s that rat bastard John Williams up to this time?”)
.....There was some hemming and hawing. But Padberg did not relent. Eventually, Williams said that he’ll go, if he can--as though he had nothing to do with the request. Padberg made clear that a “request” only appears when a trustee makes a request. So who did that in this case?
.....That would be John “junket boy” Williams.
.....Next came the wild discussion of “Chancellor recruitment.” (See yesterday’s post.)
.....Item 6.6 concerned the “Marian Bergeson” award. Fuentes grabbed the mike. He gave an absurd speech about his pal Bergeson and her values. Who among us is a paragon of Bergesonian virtue? Well, that would be John “two scathing grand jury reports” Williams!
.....Eyes rolled.
.....John accepted the nomination. Aw shucks, he said.
.....The board voted unanimously in favor of the nomination. I stared at the tally of votes displayed above my head and to the left.
.....Nobody said anything.

The Chancellor recruitment goes forward—but only after a brouhahahahahaha

----"You could cut the tension with a knife." —So said a friend after tonight’s meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees.
----Tomorrow, I’ll have a fuller report. For now, I’ll focus on the big news of the night—and the cause of all the tension. It was item 6.1: Chancellor recruitment.

PLEDGING AN "ABOVEBOARD PROCESS"

----The agenda item made reference to the relatively new Board Policy 4011.6, which outlines the “employment procedures for chancellor” and “formalizes the process for recruitment.” And though I could not find it in the agenda, a draft of a brochure outlining a hiring process—including criteria for evaluation of candidates—became a big part of tonight's discussion too.
----As you know, I have raised concerns about the hiring process (Who will oversee the hire?), since board policy 4011.6 designates the Chancellor or a “board designee” as the overseer of the process, including selection of the hiring committee membership and its chair. My fear was that the wily Raghu P. Mathur could end up as Mr. Overseer.
----Ah, but my worries are over. Tonight, it was clear that the “new board” that emerged during the stormy December meeting is still intact. It is a board utterly divided between the odd new “majority”— Don Wagner (Board President), Nancy Padberg (Vice President), Marcia Milchiker (Clerk), and Bill Jay—and the angry and disgruntled new “minority”—Tom Fuentes, Dave Lang, and John Williams.
----Tonight, Wagner clearly hoped to initiate the chancellor “recruitment” process. Meanwhile, Fuentes and his gang plainly sought to prevent or delay that action, by hook or by crook. It was a noisy and sometimes brutal struggle. Fuentes provided all of the brutality. He was like a caged tiger. It was way cool.
----Wagner began the discussion by referring to the Board Policy, adopted three or four years ago, and the brochure, a work in progress (something evidently intended to assist the trustees; probably composed by VC of HR, David Bugay). He suggested that, for tonight, the board could discuss who would serve as “board designee” and whether the board should hire a consultant.
----And so, from the very start, no one was thinking that lame duck Mathur would oversee the process. Maybe that was decided during the closed session (which ran over by over an hour). Dunno.
----But it was great news.
----Someone suggested that the brochure, which evidently described the hire as occurring “by July,” was overly optimistic.
----Wagner then said—well, he said all that one might hope that he would say! He explained that he was committed to a process that was as fully open and exhaustive and aboveboard as possible. Speaking for himself, he pledged that there certainly were no candidates with a "leg up." He said that he was looking for a process that everyone could get behind. He was determined that the community would embrace the process as a good and honest one.
----I carefully studied his face and the faces of his colleagues. (BTW, Mathur looked like a corpse.) He really seemed to mean what he was saying. The new board majority had evidently decided that the Chancellor hire would be a model of transparency and professionalism.
----I was impressed. What could be better!
----Bill Jay said he agreed that the process should be started right away. He indicated that he supported item 6.1 (i.e., initiation of the recruitment process).
----Nancy Padberg agreed, though she acknowledged that the July date was optimistic. She motioned to approve the item.

WHAT'S THE RUSH! they said

----John Williams pushed back. This should be done slowly, he said. Commencement is only 12 weeks away, and that time is too short to properly advertise for the position. It doesn’t make sense to “rush” the process, he said. He said that, normally, Chancellor hires start in the fall. “We’ve missed the window of opportunity,” he declared.
----Williams struck me as confused. Despite his verbiage, his point wasn’t that Wagner sought to initiate a rushed process; his point was that they need to wait for the optimal recruitment season. This equivocation caused a fair amount of confusion, I think.
----Wagner explained that the process is already defined; it is defined by the board policy. The process is what it is whenever we start it. One reason to start the process now, said Wagner, is to shorten the interim period (between Mathur’s exit and the new Chancellor’s arrival). It is best to have a short interim period for the sake of stability, he said.
----That seemed right.
----Williams then reiterated that “now” is not the optimal time to start a Chancellor recruitment process. To optimize the process, one would choose a search committee by late spring and then proceed with hiring early in the fall. Again, he said that they mustn’t "rush."
----Wagner then reiterated that no “rush” was being suggested. All that was being suggested was that they follow the policy, which essentially defines the pace of recruitment and hiring.
----Williams then repeated his point that we’ve missed the window of opportunity. Mid-year hires are not very common, he opined. He referred to some ads in the Chronicle of Higher Education. He noted the timeline of a hire in Australia.
----Freakin' Australia? That example produced quizzical and annoyed looks.
----Tom Fuentes, already in Bully Mode, then spoke. With customary Gigantor candence, he bellowed that he was very concerned about the “rush in this process.” He noted, with great and and oozing passion (rage?), that the board hadn’t had a presentation on the hiring process. Such a presentation was necessary, he said, to “expose” it to the trustees’ constituencies (i.e., the wonderful TV people out there in the dark). Oddly, he then blasted the “draft brochure,” calling it "very disappointing." It doesn’t reflect, he said, his priorities, such as the Chancellor’s responsibility to the “taxpayer.” The brochure refers to a requirement of five years of specifically community college administrative experience. Why exclude 4-year college experience? Fuentes then repeated that the board needs a full presentation from the Vice Chancellor of HR (David Bugay). Item 6.1, he said, was premature, and it was very poorly presented.
----Then Fuentean minion Dave Lang weighed in. We’re proceeding “a bit hastily,” he burbled. He said he didn’t understand quite what was being recommended by 6.1. Plus we need to consider whether people are comfortable with the process that’s in place (a reference, I suppose, to the 2006 board policy).
----Wagner then argued that revisiting the policy in the middle of a Chancellor search undermines the idea of having a policy. The policy tells us what to do when these circumstances (i.e., needing to hire a new Chancellor) arise. It would be improper to change the rules in the middle of the process.
----Wagner couldn't figure out what sort of presentation Lang and Fuentes wanted. The policy already exists (and it is pretty clear). We should now use it, he said. The brochure, he said, is not finished. It can still incorporate trustee suggestions. Right now, we need to consider who should serve as the board designee and whether a consultant should be hired.
----Marcia Milchiker then stated that hiring a Chancellor is the one thing that the board does. There is no reason to expect a presentation from administrators—unless the board asks for one. She did not object to a presentation on the process. She did not object to having a special meeting (within two weeks) in which the board could define just what kind of Chancellor they wanted to hire. We need to get the word out what a fabulous district this is and what a fabulous place this is to live, she said. But none of this, she seemed to say, is a reason not to get started right away.
----Nancy Padberg agreed. We can make adjustments along the way as necessary.
----Lang, ignoring Wagner's argument, then stated that just because we have a policy doesn’t mean it is "cast in concrete." Our starting point, he said, should be "looking at the policy."
----Williams then said that he was troubled by the lack of a “timeline” in the agenda item. We need to adequately "expose" this job in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, he said. What upset him the most, he guessed, was the July date.
----Wagner then noted that, according to the policy, 50 days (of advertising?) are specified, but that period can be extended. What I’m hearing, he said, is “not yet!”—but we can make adjustments as necessary.
----Wagner noted that the policy actually addresses some of the concerns that were being expressed. (It did seem to me that few on Team Fuentes had actually read the policy.) He said he couldn’t see a reason not to start the process. We should empower administrators to get started right away (with forming the committee, etc.).
----Bill Jay chimed in to say that there’s nothing wrong with hiring a Chancellor during the summer. He cited cases in which the board had hired Chancellors during the summer and that turned out well. He noted that the Chancellor hire is important to faculty and that they would be willing to serve on a committee even during summer. (I nodded, hoping that that would matter to someone.) We need to move forward as quickly as we can, he said. If we don’t like the first group of applicants, we can always extend the recruitment period.
----Fuentes then boomed that they were “putting the cart before the horse.” He was visibly angry. They had received a poorly written brochure, he said. We’re expected to vote on a process that we haven’t had presented to us, he repeated. Constituencies and the media deserve seeing that presentation. He said that this process shouldn’t be “railroaded.” He moved to table the matter.
----That failed: 3 to 4.
----I smelled sulphur, heard faint screams.
----Lang again suggested that it is unclear which action is being recommended.
----Milchiker then explained that nobody is ramming anything down anyone’s throat. They're merely initiating the recruitment process. We need to hire a chancellor. That's clear. So let’s do it.
----Wagner stuck to his guns. We can also have a presentation; but, in the end, we will follow the existing board policy. He indicated that trustees were assuming that the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources (David Bugay) should be the board’s designee. So we now need to consider whether they'll need the services of a consultant. We’re just trying to get the process started, he said.
----The motion was clarified: the board would initiate recruitment. Bugay would be the board's designee. There would be a special meeting within two weeks to clarify what sort of Chancellor the board wanted.
----Fuentes, now in full Bully Mode, roared: “I’ve never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life! We’re going to put an ad in the newspaper, ‘Chancellor wanted,’ but we don’t know yet the qualifications for the job.” He played the "I've been in the public sector" card. He got seriously ugly.
----“What is the rush in this!” he snarled.
----Lang then stated that he preferred Gary Poertner to David Bugay as board designee.
----Wagner then explained (I didn’t really follow this) why Bugay is a better choice than Poertner. (I think it had something to do with the possibility that some of our administrators might be interested in the Chancellor gig. Bugay was clearly not among that group.)
----Wagner again attempted to hold the vote on the item.
----But Marcia wanted to make sure that everyone had had their say.
----Lang said he had a question seeking clarification.
----Wagner said no, they were finally going to vote, goddamit.
----Fuentes bleated that the board has never done that “discourtesy” to a board member before.
----Wagner relented. Lang wanted to know if we were talking about Bugay as the “chair” or as the “board designee.” (Actually, the board policy makes clear that the board is to choose a designee, not a chair. The chair is chosen by the Chancellor or designee. Gosh, did these people bother to read the policy?)
----Finally, they voted: item 6.1 passed, 4 to 3. The process had started.

THE BIG QUESTION:

----To me, the only question here was: what does the Board Minority have to gain by delaying the recruitment process? Their arguments were weak. As Wagner said at one point, the Minority seemed determined to object to the item no matter how it was formulated. All of the Minority's worries were already addressed in the policy or could be dealt with by ad hoc adjustments.
----Why were Fuentes and his Gang desperately scraping up any reason they could think of to delay or prevent the hiring process?
----I smell a rat.

Comments:

----Anonymous‬ said... - The rat? If the minority can get the process of a chancellor's hiring delayed and IF Don gets the nod to serve as a state political representative, then the new BOT member to replace Don might go with the current minority and reappoint—guess who? - 5:36 AM, February 23, 2010
----Anonymous‬ said... - yes, my thoughts exactly – they are waiting for Don to resign then they'll appoint his replacement (at the ready, no doubt, Probolsky?) and well, that's all she wrote.
"gigantor cadence" – love it, Roy. ha ha ha.

Thanks for hanging in there and giving us such gems—and reportage. - 10:08 AM
----Anonymous‬ said... - Thanks for the good and bad news.
Clearly they're hoping Don makes the jump to Sacramento – and then, a la their attempt to ram Norby down our throats via Fuentes – well, they'll fill Don's seat with a Fuentes' flunky and then undo what's been done.
I hope the union has a candidate in the wings for Don's seat...or is prepared to recall again.

(and yes, thanks Roy for this and everything you do, the recent shabby treatment by the Senate's leadership aside – what's GOT into them anyway? Or is it WHO? Dang. Can you imagine Peter Morrison acting like that? Even with his opponents? He honored the institution.) - 10:16 AM
----Anonymous‬ said... - Raghu's laying the groundwork for his reinstatement – he was talking it up last weekend about how he signed his "resignation" under duress – watch out. They're up to something. - 10:41 AM
----Anonymous‬ said... - Why hire a new chancellor when we have the best one money can buy right here, right now???? - 5:19 PM
----‪Anonymous‬ said... - I smell a rat. Several rats. - 9:08 AM, February 24, 2010