“I would urge caution on behalf of my colleagues,” said Don

     Here’s some more on last night's meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees. (See also Tracy’s Board of Trustees Meeting Highlights.)
     The meeting started nearly an hour late, which suggests that there was much for the board to discuss during closed session. Or maybe John Williams insisted on dessert.

     There were no public comments.
     Trustees Nancy Padberg and Dave Lang walked to the podium to display some certificates and other baubles that had been given to various persons and entities, in connection with the Saddleback College Veterans’ Memorial, during a Mission Viejo city event months ago.
     I don’t understand these people. They proudly displayed a certificate and some flags bestowed by Rep. Gary Miller, one of the most corrupt members of Congress.
     It’s like telling everybody that you got a hearty handclasp from Rod Blagojevich. "Good job," said Blago. "I think you're groovy."
     There were virtually no board reports. I don't think that's ever happened before.
     As I said last night, the two colleges’ Accreditation self-studies (reports) have been completed. The board voted unanimously to accept them.
     Why a certain person (as of last night) refused to sign the dang things remains a mystery, to me anyway.
     But none of that came up during the meeting.
     Again, Tom Fuentes asked that the two senates’ memberships in the “Academic Senate for California Community Colleges” (aka the “state academic senate”) be removed from the list for approval—until more information could be provided.
     The memberships cost $3,831.60 (for Saddleback) and $1,850.00 (for Irvine Valley).
     A little bird told me that Fuentes will likely declare that the State Senate is “partisan,” and that, in particular, it has sided against the district in the “prayer” litigation, 'cause it's down on official prayers at community college events. But, of course, the state Academic Senate has taken positions on many “political” issues. It’s also down on racism, and sexism, and potholes. So it's probably down on Tom Fuentes too.
     Bill Jay and Marcia Milchiker voted against tabling a decision, but the tablers prevailed.

Occasionally, trustee Fuentes dons his "ugly face." Here it is at half staff.

SLAM DUNK, FOLLOWED BY FEEBLE DRIBBLING:

     Eventually, the board got to item 6.5, the normally sleepy matter of “academic personnel actions.”
     Evidently, Williams’ assigned task was to motion to divide the matter, isolating the decision regarding the request for a new dean position at Irvine Valley College:

     AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH AND ANNOUNCE … DEAN OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS, STUDENT LEARNING, AND RESEARCH….

     No doubt “streaming video” of this discussion will be available later in the week, and I would highly recommend your viewing this discussion at that time. (I’ll let you know when its available. Buy popcorn.)
     In the meantime, here are my notes:
     Tom Fuentes seconded Williams’ motion.
     Williams stated that this matter was discussed months ago and, at that time, trustees were told that they would receive additional information, but that information has not materialized. Hence, said Williams, he seeks to table this matter until the information is provided.
     Board Prez Don Wagner then asked: what additional information do you seek?
     Williams didn’t expect teacher asking him any questions. He thought real hard (his hairpiece shifted forward slightly) and then he said that he wanted the justification for the position, how it will be funded, etc.
     Nancy Padberg said that she too wanted to hear about the issue of costs and funding.
     At some point, Don noted that such questions could be asked and answered then and there. So IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore explained that the board had approved budgets for two or three years that included the addition of this dean. Further, IVC has abolished an administrative position (a facilities manager for the Performing Arts Center whose responsibilities are now handled “very effectively” by the Dean of Fine Arts) and has thus made room for this new dean in the budget. The upshot: no net increase in costs.
     It sounded like a slam dunk.
     Fuentes then stated that he had not received enough information about this position to vote on it. “This is serious,” he added. He made his ugly face.
     Padberg declared that her questions had now been answered.
     Roquemore explained that the position actually existed until 1997 but was then abolished (something about a personnel matter, said R, wink wink). This dean reported directly to the VPI. Back then, said R, he had become the VPI and quickly came to understand how crucial the dean position was. The VPI was forced to take on the dean’s duties, but that was “tough to do.”
     But, since then, things have changed. The state has mandated all sorts of work, including the development of SLOs, program review, strategic development, and addressing basic skills. Further, the student population has increased from 12,000 to 16,000. Among state community colleges, IVC ranks 97th in the ratio of administrators to students. “We are under-administered,” said Roquemore.
     The VPI is overwhelmed and his office needs help. The new dean would be a modernized version of the dean of 13 years ago, he said.
     We’ve made all the calculations, said Glenn, regarding the 50% law (which mandates that at least half of expenditures be instructional), and we’ll be in compliance. Concerned parties at IVC all recommend adding the dean.
     Like I said, slam dunk.
     David Lang, a fellow who sold out his faculty supporters just for (apparently worthless) Fuentean support of his ambition to become OC Bean Counter, commenced scraping up objections to the proposal from the bottom of some barrel. Would adding this position take away from classes we could offer students?
     No.
     Shouldn’t you people be thinking about scheduled maintenance?
     We thought of that. Got it covered.
     If this dean position is so great, how come Saddleback hasn’t got one? Can we expect that college to request this position too?
     Saddleback College Prez Burnett acknowledged that his college is even lower on the shitlist (of administrative/faculty) than IVC. But, he said, “we do things differently.” The upshot: comparing IVC and Saddleback in this way is comparing apples to oranges. So shuddup.
     There was some confusion about who counts as a “dean.” Should someone who doesn’t have responsibility for programs and students in classes be called a dean? Blah blah blah. Clueless trustees were clued in.
     Finally, Don Wagner made a point: it is unusual, he said, for this board to delve into this kind of low level dean position—to question what the college president has recommended, and for years. It’s a deviation from past practice. The college, he said, has provided the data and the budget information to justify the position. In fact, this position has de facto been approved by this board previously. Even the acting Chancellor, he said, recommends approving this position.
     “It is very clear that something else is going on here,” said Don. And if opponents of this position (for the reason that dare not speak its name, namely, their desire to thwart Wendy G's administrative career in honor of Raghu Mathur, OC Republican Mafia toad and mascot) prevail, the board would make itself vulnerable to a legal challenge.
     “I would urge caution on behalf of my colleagues,” said Don.
     “This is a position, not a person,” he reminded his colleagues. And any questions about this position have now been answered.
     Williams then piped up. He’s been on this board for 18 years, he said, and “you bet I’m gonna ask” about an addition of a costly dean during a time of financial crisis, with faculty being laid off and blah blah blah.
     At some point, someone employed the “asleep at the switch metaphor” or some metaphor related to it. I don’t remember exactly, but maybe Don said that John must’ve been asleep at said switch during prior votes. He may even have said that someone’s lights weren’t on. It got nasty.
     This occurred in a back-and-forth that is never seen at board meetings, owing to the encumbrances of Mr. Toad's rules of order.
     At one point, an exasperated Williams affected a frozen demeanor—as if Wagner were physically preventing him from speaking. Are you finished? May I speak? yelped Williams. Something like that.
     It was a sudden and brief descent into the forbidden realm of actual conversation and undisguised emotions and assessments. I'm not sure the board will ever recover!
     We have record unemployment, teachers laid off, proclaimed the recipient of two scathing Grand Jury reports. We were told that we’d receive a report, but we didn’t receive one!, he sputtered. We’ve only received a short presentation! This is not good policy! We’re moving forward without having our questions answered!
     His hairpiece was by then akimbo (if such a thing can be akimbo).
     Bill Jay spoke. He said that, though he did not vote for the position six months ago, he now sees that it is essential. He opined that the position is well justified and well thought out. (I noticed that Marcia Milchiker commenced looking as though she were distraught.)
     Padberg chimed in to echo Jay’s remarks. “I have not heard a question that has not been answered,” she declared. This is an appropriate position. It puts the district in a good position re the 50% law. By supporting this dean we’re supporting the classroom. So she’ll support it, she said.
     Don then spoke. We’ve got thousands of new students, he said. We’ve laid off no teacher. (True enough.) The arguments have all been addressed.
     According to my notes, Don then suggested that the arguments offered by the anti-dean brigade were not “serious.” Further, the trustees ought not to “second guess” the President in such matters.
     Fuentes scraped up another tiny point: How about support elements to the position (office workers, canaries, and such)? Craig Justice laid out the facts. Hiring the dean amounts to a reorganization of his office. Classified support would be switched around. No other positions will be created.
     Another slam dunk. It was like cold water dropping horribly upon Fuentes, Lang, and Williams' fat heads.
     Fuentes scraped still lower in the barrel. He seemed to accuse Roquemore and Co. of misusing the term “dean.” Well, that was quickly revealed to be clueless bullshit. Fuentes and Co. looked like assholes.
     There was a motion to table a decision on this dean position.
     As I explained last night, Milchiker voted along with the tablers. This plainly upset Don’s apple cart. He was pissed, though this was not manifested by any of his public remarks. (Gosh, Don, you oughta send me thank you notes for my discretion.)
     It seems clear that, next month, when this matter comes up again, Fuentes and Co. will simply not have the votes to prevail.
     So please everybody. Just chill out.

The University of California and online degrees

UC professors raise doubts about online degree plan (Sacramento Bee)

     The University of California's interest in offering an online degree is opening a new chapter in the debate over online education.
     Many professors question whether the state's premier university system should tread so deeply into cyberspace, where other prestigious universities have failed – and where some less selective colleges have thrived, sometimes with programs of questionable quality.
     The professors are concerned that a virtual UC will waste limited resources, compromise the university's academic reputation and divert it from its primary mission of educating California's top-performing students.
     The plan's creator – Christopher Edley, dean of UC Berkeley's law school – says the opposite is true. He contends UC can maintain its rigor online and that doing so will allow the university to reach more of those stellar students at a lower cost.
     …Edley acknowledges his biggest hurdle is getting buy-in from UC's academic senate, the formal voice of the faculty. Their support is critical to any major educational changes….
     Edley envisions steadily expanding UC's Web presence: adding upper-division courses, then offering a bachelor's degree online, and eventually allowing people around the world to enroll in the virtual UC.…
. . .
     Not so fast, say many UC profs.
     "Are we in the business of making money by selling services to non-students?" asked Dan Simmons, a UC Davis law professor who is vice-chair of the statewide academic senate. "People have created a set of expectations about the potential for online education that is not really there."
     Even professors who support a greater use of technology say the plan has flaws. Some like the idea of expanding online offerings, but don't think UC should offer an online degree. Others think online curriculum should be developed and controlled by academic departments on each campus – not by UC's statewide bureaucracy.
"I think they're looking for a one-size-fits-all model, and I don't think that's the way to go," said Cynthia Carter Ching, a UC Davis education professor.
. . .
     UC Davis professor Robert Blake uses live video chats to teach Spanish. The videoconferencing software allows students to break into small groups and practice their language skills.
     "We're dealing with students more and more who are very used to social computing. They're used to getting online and doing projects together," Blake said.
     He is developing Arabic and Punjabi classes that will be available online to UC students across the state. Still, he's not sure UC should rush into offering an online degree.
     "Fortunately, the University of California has a governance structure that will allow the faculty to determine what is the appropriate way to mix these things," Blake said.
     "I trust my colleagues to put on the brakes at the right time, and also stick their noses out and experiment."

The rats guarding the cheese: it's Orange County

TINCUP committee wants to gut campaign finance restrictions (OC Register) [See update below]

     A committee charged with evaluating the county’s campaign finance law has recommended a new ballot measure that would substantially reverse the reforms of the voter-approved law and potentially benefit some of the committee members by injecting more money into county political campaigns.
     County supervisors will consider tomorrow whether to put the measure on the November ballot.
     A majority of the committee’s members had pushed to repeal the county’s campaign finance law—TINCUP, short for Time Is Now, Clean Up Politics—but that idea ran into substantial opposition. Most of the members on the committee are aides to county supervisors, political strategists, or pollsters who could benefit from more spending.
     “As far as I’m concerned, this is a case of the rats guarding the cheese,” said Orange political activist Shirley Grindle..., one of the authors of the original measure and a member of the committee.
. . .
     “A clear conflict of interest exists between those who are on the committee,” said Bill Mitchell, a San Juan Capistrano attorney and the former chairman of OC Common Cause. “Those who the law seeks to regulate are revising the law….They make their money on fundraising. The more money that can be raised, the more benefit to them.”
     Under the proposed amendment to the law, the district attorney will continue to be responsible for enforcing the restrictions. Grindle charged that DA Tony Rackauckas has been unwilling to prosecute violations. So as long as the DA remains unwilling to enforce the policy, she said, the act will be effectively toothless.
     Grindle said she has sent cases to Rackauckus, including apparent violations by former sheriff Mike Carona and former supervisor Chris Norby, but said he has yet to prosecute any of them, instead sending them on to state officials for review.
. . .
     Among the committee members who may directly benefit from the changes:
     Committee member Adam Probolsky…. Probolsky declined to comment for this story.
     John Lewis, another political operative appointed to the commission by Supervisor Bill Campbell, received $27,022 in fees from the campaigns of Campbell and former supervisor Chris Norby, according to Grindle’s analysis. Lewis could not be reached for comment.
. . .
     Most of the other members of the committee are beholden to county politicians with a vested interest in the committee’s findings.
     Matt Petteruto, one of the committee members, is Bill Campbell’s chief of staff. Eric Norby, another member, is Chris Norby’s brother and served as his chief of staff while he was a county supervisor. Committee member Chip Monaco is a former staffer in Supervisor Pat Bates’ office.
     Phil Greer, another member of the committee, is also intimately connected with the county’s political establishment. He has represented three of the five member of the Board of Supervisors and disgraced OC Treasurer Chriss Street. Over the past four years, Bates has paid Greer $6,500 in fees. Greer has faced multiple ethics complaints by the state BAR association and has been ordered to take ethics classes.
     The Watchdog began calling the supervisors about this on Friday; resumed calls on Monday, but as of noon had yet to get a comment from the supervisors or any kind of explanation from the committee members who supported the changes. As soon as we get that, we’ll give it to you here….

UPDATE: Watered-down TINCUP won’t see November ballot

Groups condemn UCI ban of Muslim union (OC Register)

     A coalition of civil rights groups and professional bar associations have condemned UCI's recent decision to ban the Muslim Student Union after students disrupted an Israeli ambassador's speech on campus earlier this year.
     Fifteen groups throughout the country – including the Asian Law Caucus, Afghan-American Bar Association, Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, South Asian Bar Association – Northern California and National Lawyers Guild – are urging UCI officials to abandon all efforts to suspend the Muslim student organization.
     "Taking the unprecedented step to ban this group will memorialize UCI as a campus that violates its students' constitutional rights, and will have negative repercussions that will reverberate around the country," according to a letter signed by the groups and sent to the chancellor's office late last week.
     "Such a decision would amount to selective punishment of a group whose ideas are disfavored by the U.C. administration, and sets an extremely dangerous precedent that threatens all Americans who exercise their Constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association."….

Demolition begins at college on former base (OC Register)

     The Advanced Technology & Education Park on the former Marine base has gotten approval to tear down old military buildings, making way for a campus expansion.
     Buildings and utility infrastructure on about 68 acres at Valencia and Red Hill avenues will be demolished, officials said. The campus offers classes leading to high-tech jobs for students from Mission Viejo to Tustin. The campus opened in Aug. 2007 at Tustin Legacy and is part of the South Orange County Community College District.
. . .
     The South Orange County Community College District will now begin bidding for the demolition. The expansion can bring the campus to 305,000 square feet on about 30 acres. Planning is ongoing for another 38 acres. The school sits on 68 acres on the former Marine base.
     In April, the Advanced Technology & Education Park received a $440,000 economic and workforce development grant to train companies in environmental design an compliance and create green jobs, stated Tere Fluegeman, director of public information and marketing. The grant is from the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office.
     To demolish the buildings, the community college district had to gain approval from Tustin, the U.S. Department of Navy Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, officials said.