Monday, August 30, 2010

SOCCCD board meeting—live and direct!

August 30:
6:15 p.m.:

     OK, dang. I'm sitting just outside the "RONALD REAGAN BOARD OF TRUSTEES ROOM." I got here at 6:00 for the August meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees. As it turns out, however, tonight's meeting is scheduled for 6:30, not 6:00.
     If they start at 6:30, that means that they expect to spend more time than usual in closed session (just prior to the open session). Hmmm. Don would have decided that. I bet he's expecting sparks to fly.

6:23:

     OK, since I'm just sitting out here like an asshole, I've decided to throw you some factoids. Here's a fun one: exactly one board member is requesting travel money for a conference. Guess who.
     But wait a minute! In the past, these agendas read like one of those redacted memos from the CIA--essentially, you get nothin'. But, this time, it's clear that it's our own Orlando Boy who seeks to travel (all the way to San Diego, I think) on the taxpayers' dime. Do you suppose that this is a sign of change?

6:47: meeting starts.

     Marcia: No actions to report from closed session.
     Bugay pipes up: what about… Wagner cuts him off: “the lawyers told us this is not something to be reported out.” Oh. Don glares, subtly. The death glare.
     Marcia introduces a lady who explains a service called "OC 2-1-1." It's like 9-1-1, only minus 7. It's a three digit number when you need help in human services, evidently.
     Todd Spitzer is quoted: it's “a valuable asset," says Todd.
     “Whatever happened to him?” asks Don, smiling at John.

Public comments:

     Lisa Davis Allen on behalf of the IVC Academic Senate: she reads a statement on behalf of the senate in support of continued membership in ASCCC (the Academic Senates for California Community Colleges, aka the "state senate"). Evidently, there is concern that the board will pull our membership in ASCCC tonight.
     Wagner: “can I ask a clarification?”
     Evidently, a document, submitted by Allen, says “articulation” where it should say “accreditation.” Oh. A typo.
     This item will come up tonight: 6.3. Will be discussed further then, says Wagner.
     Housekeeping details: advance the budget items. Students will be up pretty quickly to present their (student government) budgets.
     A retired faculty member named Cromwell passed away. Will adjourn in memory of her (him?).

Board Reports:

     Jay: the semester opened with a bang, says Bill.
     Williams: took a tour of the ATEP campus… Toured buildings to tear down. Big areas, big job.
     Milchiker: remembers Cromwell… Attended flex week, Chancellor’s Opening Session. Refers to Bugay’s corny “This way to the top” motif. “My debut as an actress,” jokes Marcia.
     Wagner: refers to success of Bullock and Bugay’s “opening session.” There’s “a bug or two still to work out,” jokes Wagner. Groaning. "Great job," says Don.
     Fuentes: visited Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbara. Celebrated anniversary of the "greatest tax cut in American history." Tiny American flags popped out of his ears. It was a very special day, he says. Mentions naming this room after the guy. Takes credit for it. Looks like shit.
     Lang: refers to successful opening session. Refers to trustee Wagner’s “almost stinging performance,” the second lame joke about bees of the night. Didn’t know that Bob Bramucci is such a “frustrated rock star," says Lang.
     Padberg not present.
     Students present budgets. IVC kids pithy, efficient. Saddleback kids halting, but cute.


Item 6.2: adoption of final budget (waiting for Padberg).

6.3: institutional memberships.

     Fuentes pulled this item last time. All of his questions answered, evidently.
     Not Wagner’s.
     Wagner: “How is the amount of the membership decided?”
     Allen: a predetermined calculation we have no control over. Once again, she notes that the ASCCC helps senate be helpful in Accreditation, SLOs, hall monitors, etc.
     Wagner: what about things you do that are not helpful. Seven items mentioned here that “senates find themselves involved in.” What is the benefit to us for the other things they [the dang state senate] help you with.
     “It seems to me there are other activities the senates get involved in that are either not on this list or the benefits to local academic senates are not apparent. How do you figure out how much money goes to each of the pursuits?
     How about political agendas?
     Not us, says Carmen. But state senate yes. S’pose so.
     How is this a good deal for the taxpayers? asks Don. Not necessarily in the best interests of taxpayers.
     Lewis Long: we all fund the legislature, even if we don’t agree with its legislation. By and large, as a body, they are there to advocate for students….
     Wagner: members of the legislature are elected. That’s where the comparison breaks down, dude. Also: I agree that they do good things. But what about their political decisions? They pursue a political agenda too. What ability does this board have in giving or not giving taxpayer dollars in assisting this organization in pursuing a separate agenda that may or may not have the support of this board (and this community)? How do we get a handle on that?
     Carmen D: well, we can take your message and bring it to the state senate. Carmen uses example of lawsuit of senate vs. district re development of faculty hiring policies (4011.1). (Pretty useful, I guess.)
Don didn’t like that example. Smiled it off as if to say “let’s not go there.” No freakin' wonder.
     Wagner: You're not answering the question, says Don. There are issues that are contentious in the community. So why do we have to support their pursuit of that?
     Don suggests: “What if we just give half of it.” Carmen directs Wagner to a section of a document, but Don tags her for not answering the goshdang question.
     Wagner: we don’t want the full services of the (state) Ac. Senate. Their political agenda is not consistent with policies of this board. Why can’t we give something less than 100 cents on the dollar because of some of the “services” they are providing … Example (of how to do this): state bar. You do not have to pay 100% of the membership if you don’t want to support certain political actions of the state bar.
     What’s wrong with that?
     Lewis Long: challenges assumption that senate is pursuing policies that we do not agree with. Wagner says: “They're pushing a pretty political agenda in the courts right now.” (I’m guessing this is a reference to the state Ac. Senate’s decision to provide an amicus brief for plaintiffs in the “Westphal v. Wagner” “prayer” lawsuit.)
     Lang: I call for the question.
     Underlying item voted upon: Carries on a 5 to 2 with one absence. (Four trustees, plus student trustee; Padberg absent.) So I guess this means that we get the money for membership in the ASCCC.

Item 6.4: Five year construction plan, ATEP.

     Fuentes: at the recent special meeting, I expressed the end of my patience with ATEP. Do not favor going forward: it's a white elephant; a deep, dark hole. So it’s important that we can still vote against these ATEP projects in the future, despite accepting this item (five year construction plan). Passes unanimously (Padberg is now present).
     So now they go back to 6.2: adoption of the final budget. David Bugay, then Beth Mueller, present.
     Good grief. Half a billion dollar budget! Am I seeing that right? That's, like, the budget of a tiny country in Europe.

     Much discussion about remaining unfunded liability. (Unfunded amount, $5 million.) Fuentes is very concerned/surprised about that. They are proposing to use basic aid for eliminating remainder. Marcia says “that’s fantastic.” Fuentes is surprised that we’ve got this unfunded liability at all, I guess.
     Marcia asks: do I have this right? The budget is close to half a billion dollars? Beth and David nod. An absurd moment. I sense the coming apocalypse.
     Gosh, our expenditures sure have increased over the years, says Marcia. Yep. I stare at the gold-plated screws on the crummy plastic chair in front of me.
     Jay: gives an evidently accurate review of the liability issue, the tanking economy and investments, etc. Recent investments have turned out well, he says. The current unfunded amount is “certainly acceptable” compared to other districts. It’s huge in other districts. He grins.
     Williams: blathers, echoing Jay.
     Wagner: troubled by an apparent discrepancy (again). Numbers don’t quite add up. Why are you asking for $8 million? Answer: we have to add blah blah blah. (You know me and fiscal stuff. I'm hopeless.) Wagner remains perplexed. You have to set aside 2.5 million, says Beth. Don's still perplexed. Fuentes: attempts to make sense of the numbers. (There’s obviously some sort of miscommunication here. Beth and David don’t seem to understand Don’s confusion. It’s not clear to me that other trustees share his confusion or are being patient with it. Probably the former.) Fuentes: offers what appears to be a knowledgeable question concerning how we might act prudently. Bugay says something that doesn’t seem to help. Jay has been trying to help. Finally, he speaks: “These are moving targets,” he says. He gives his Turbotax story. Jay gets a figure of $5 thousand owed in taxes. But the tax guy says it's $11 thousand. The numbers are mysterious. Deal with it. Beth nods. I am bewildered.
     It’s voodoo community college district economics, I figure. Waddoo I know.
     Lang says: yeah, there are lots of moving parts here. Mixing apples and oranges. Blah blah blah. He seems to be saying, "Yeah chill. Numbers get zany, wacky, goofy. Blah."
     Item passes unanimously. Don has a look of resignation. (He'll go to Sacramento not knowing what the f*ck these people are talking about.)

Republican art

Item 6.6: ATEP: agreement for real estate services....

     Lang says it seems a little "generous." Some suits came up and blathered a bit. Gray, expensive. Nice cut. Good hair. They had a look like they might lose some money.

Item 6.7 Board policies for review and study. Passed Unanimously.

     Boom, boom, boom—to the end of the agenda.

8.0 reports (now 9:00 p.m.)

     Blah, blah, blah
     Burnett rings bells, blows whistles
     Roquemore: presents the mystery of the low number. Everybody on campus reports that the campus is a third more crowded, and yet the number of students we're getting is 14,400 (I forgot the exact number; something like that). Trying to figure out the discrepancy. (I think they just stopped counting the rabbits.)
     Peebles: golly things are swell.
     (God, will it never end? Do these people actually want to be here?)
     Davis Allen: preparing for accred visit. Whoopee cushions at the ready. Stink bombs almost completed.
     Carmen D: blah blah blah site visit blah blah blah accred blah. Passes out cards. Some kinda BS.
     Lewis: no report. Etc.
     Gotta go home. Tired of this. It continues: infernal, endless. Adjourned at 9:14. I'm outa here.
     (For the record: the trustees were not at each others' throats tonight. As I left, three or four of 'em stood around and laughed about something, just like regular people. Go figure.)

OC is No Longer Nixon Country!


This just in from the New York Times (front page no less):

Orange County is No Longer Nixon Country

Orange County has been a national symbol of conservatism for more than 50 years: birthplace of President Richard M. Nixon and home to John Wayne, a bastion for the John Birch Society, a land of orange groves and affluence, the region of California where Republican presidential candidates could always count on a friendly audience.

But this iconic county of 3.1 million people passed something of a milestone in June. The percentage of registered Republican voters dropped to 43 percent, the lowest level in 70 years.

It was the latest sign of the demographic, ethnic and political changes that are transforming the county and challenging long-held views of a region whose colorful — its detractors might suggest zany — reputation extends well beyond the borders of this state.


To read the rest, click here.

*

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...