★ February board meeting: "Corporate welfare!" fumes Fuentes

     (Check out Tere's highlights.)
     6:04 - Well, the meeting is supposed to start at 6:00, but there's no sign of any trustees here in the Ronald Reagan Board of Trustees Meeting Room here in beautiful Saddleback College. No doubt they're busy dealing with important business in their closed session. Back in a minute, I hope.
     6:18 - Just spotted the two rat-faced Jones Day lawyers leaving the building. They're the district's attorneys in "Westphal v. Wagner" (the prayer  case). Could it be that an announcement concerning the case is about to be made?
     Sorry, been jawin' with various varmints scattered about the room.

     (While we're waiting, lemme remind you about Westphal v. Wagner. When we last saw our heroes, they were goin' through complex litigation with various motions and such. The judge (we plaintiffs weren't very happy with him) did make a ruling. He judged that (1) Wagner's infamous 2007 Scholarship Award Ceremony "prayer"/rant crossed the line and was unconstitutional. (2) Mathur's stupid "Jesus/patriotism" video also crossed the line and was unconstitutional. (3) But, given the board's purpose, their "generic" prayers at commencement, etc., are constitutionally permissible (i.e., they don't constitute government action to "establish" religion).
     (You've got to understand that this kind of litigation doesn't comprise one simple cycle. Even a single cycle isn't really one cycle. You've got lawyers appealing some of a ruling while hangin' tight to another part, etc. In this case, there's the very real prospect of plaintiffs' appealing over that third element--and its likely they'll prevail. And then there's even the possibility of the board taking that ruling (i.e., if they lose) to the Supremes. That would take years. And big money.
     (Two or three weeks ago, despite simultaneously pressing for a settlement conference, the district announced (re the judge's ruling) that the district had "won." That was spin. Why push a settlement conference if you've "won"?
     (Back on the 17th, the settlement conference occurred. That's all I'll say for now.)

     HIDE NOR HAIR. OK, it's 6:33, and still I've seen neither hide nor hair of trustees. Brandye D is conversing with that guy "Dante" (I think he used to be one of the Belmonts), who came to the last meeting with some seriously wacky-sounding proposed financial whizzbangery in which the district sells itself ATEP, and then goes to dinner with itself. Or something. (I'll dig up my notes.) The guy's smooth, man. When he saw Brandye, he complimented her on her outfit. Good grief. Now, he's saying "anyhoo" and talkin' opera. I may have to move.
     6:41 - The room is buzzing with conversations. Quite a few suits here tonight--Dante (rather rumpled), and various other guys (yes guys). Lawyers? Financial gurus? Men in Black? Who knows.
     Somebody--no, I ain't sayin' who--came up to me and whispered his/her appreciation of my recent Don Wagner graphic--you know, the one with Don's nasty finger wavin' at some liberal. I turned that digit of his into an obscenely lengthy instrument, a probe. If Don saw it, he's pissed. But's he's eminently pokeworthy.

     6:47 - The trustees are out! One of 'em, anyway. Todd B is yuckin' it up; TJ Prendergast is walkin' around; Fuentes has appeared--looks pretty bad, I'm afraid. Bugay is smilin'. Meldau. Now The Nance. Things could start hoppin' pretty soon.
     6:52 - Two trustees still absent: Bill Jay and Marcia Milchiker. Don't know what it means. Sure hope those two were at the closed session. Aha! Jay just arrived. But where's Marcia?
     6:53 - they're all settled in up there--but no Marcia. It's getting quiet. A tomb. Sheesh.

     6:54 - RECONVENING -- Milchiker absent tonight. That's not good.

     Announcement of ACTIONS taken in closed session by VP Prendergast: nothing of consequence announced! (Nothing about Westphal v. Wagner!)
     Fuentes does the invocation: "almighty and eternal God," he says. He lays it on really thick. Mentions Ronald Reagan. "We remember him, Amen." That's what he said. Really.
     Former Saddleback College Prez Rich McCullough comes up for public remarks. Thanks various persons for a construction item (science building) tonight.

Board reports:

Jay: no report
Meldau: no report
Prendergast: attended "Astounding Inventions" event. President's Cup at IVC.
Padberg: attended "Astounding Inventions." Also President's Cup.
Fuentes: yammers about OC legislative task force. Blah blah blah. Fuentes invites one and all... to be looking for "cost cutting." Cost cutting ideas come from citizens, too. (He speaks to people in TV land.) Any ideas? "Call me, send me an email."
Lang: congratulates Saddleback's team. Mentions that Jim Gaston's been "seriously ill," but recently released from hospital.

Chancellor's report: Working with College Presidents on accreditation. A couple of upcoming issues of concern: 20/20 vision report for student success. Increase completions.

Lease/Leaseback: avoiding the "lowest responsible bid" millstone:

Discussion item (4.1) Project planning: construction delivery methods; lease/leaseback.
Bugay. Refers to Dante, I think. Brandye is up at the podium. Bugay praises, then introduces, her.
Some guy (Andreas?) comes up to explain Dante's odd whizzbangery. (It's no good; I ain't gettin' it.) He explains that this deal has been made at other colleges. Some kind of advantage over other ways of going about construction. It's flexibility, man. I like this guy's tie.
Poertner: bottom line, we are normally forced to go with the low bid, but that can really be problematic. Often the work done is unacceptable. This proposed process allows us to select contractors in advance, avoid others.  Naturally, we would want competition between contractors. Brandye says: would be a very competitive process.
Lang: asks a question about whether this approach circumvents the law. Andreas seems to have lots to say about that. This lease/leaseback thing is now "tried and true." For 15 years now, we've seen hundreds of projects--without the "lowest responsible bid scenario."
Lang: why haven't more districts taken this approach? Have there been problems? Andreas explains that there've been no problems at colleges, though some issues at K-12. Also, the Chancellor's office says its "appropriate," it's not an issue.
Any companies going bankrupt? Andreas: I haven't seen that.
Meldau: so this would speed up the process? Not necessarily, etc.

4.2: New Market tax credit program....

Fuentes: re "new markets" program. I've cautioned my colleagues about this, he says. This program needs "daylight." It continues to move forward, yet we've not had adequate open discussion with participation with the community. No dialogue in the public eye. There's been many articles about this program, some demonstrating scandalous problems across the country. [Fuentes seems to have difficulty continuing. He seems ill.] When I was a young man, growing up in OC, a student, we used to refer to Tustin as an important part of our community. People in Tustin had bumperstickers: "Tustin: the Beverly Hills of Orange County." People were very proud. Things have shifted a bit. A study of the "new markets" program under the Clinton Administration--was conceived to assist low-income communities. The ATEP project is in Tustin. We're playing a game here. It's a high-end development now (the part of Tustin where Marines were). I'm troubled we're contemplating participating in this kind of game. People have questioned "new market" moneys. High income areas have benefited. (Padbergg asks Fuentes to wrap it up; [it does seem clear he's making a speech]). We're putting the cart before the horse. This idea has not been shared enough with the community; too much of this has been done behind closed doors. "It's corporate welfare." It's to benefit the rich; it's a scam. This program is "unworthy," says Fuentes.

     Wow. This is a bit like Little Richard railing against flamboyance.

Prendergast: notes that there is a large section of Tustin that is low income. True, things have changed on the old base. But drive down between Redhill and Barranca, you don't see that kind of development. Wants to clarify that the area (ATEP) is indeed the low income area of Tustin.
Poertner: we've been struggling with the issue of how to pay for ATEP. We have talked about new market tax credits in this room half a dozen times at least. We're not trying to force these credits in a track that may not comply. This area does comply. It's an opportunity to get $18 million that we don't have to pay back. It will help the Tustin community, help the district. It's a good program to move forward with.
Padberg: it's about the base, not the city of Tustin. It's a run-down area.
Lang: asks for Dante Gumucio to come up and deal with these concerns. Respond to the "corporate welfare" charge.
Dante: it would be corporate welfare if no purchase were required. Lang disagrees. Dante responds: [I can't follow it.] In the case of ATEP, those who benefit are community college students at ATEP. Discusses the physical boundary of the project. The Census Tract. The poverty rate of residents in 2000 was 17%. (Fuentes makes one of his classic ugly faces.) This is 39% lower than median family income. The area qualifies as "highly distressed." Dante seems to make a strong case.
Prendergast: will this change with the new census?
Dante: my expectation: the easterly part will break off and the northern part is what we'll have. We'll still qualify. No guarantees. So, yes, there's a certain "expendiency" to trying to get this transaction finished by the middle of summer.
Fuentes: asks Chancellor: if we "rush into this," tie ourselves into this new markets program. Then we come to our senses and say, we shouldn't be spending money at ATEP. Should be spending at IVC, etc. What's our commitment?
Poertner: our commitment is to build the new building. We need to decide now.
Fuentes: there's too much that goes on in this district [of this kind]: we get sucked into obligations before we've thought it all the way through. (He's loud and perhaps angry. Trustees seem uncomfortable.)

6.14 New Markets tax credit transaction. Brokerage services agreement.

All but Fuentes vote for it. (Milchiker absent.)

[It already seemed circumstantially obvious that Fuentes is isolated on this "new" board--though he still seems to have the (occasionally reluctant) support of Lang. But tonight's meeting makes clear that Fuentes is very much isolated with regard to the ATEP issue. Fuentes has always been against ATEP. Poertner favors it at least as funded by this new tax thing. Other trustees seem to support it as well. I'm especially struck by how strongly Poertner went up against Fuentes with regard to this issue.]

6.13 Project schedule and basic aid assignment

Blah, blah, blah. Charts, numbers, etc. Brandye has a proposal. [I dunno what it is. You know me and fiscal issues.] Brandye sure looks like she knows what she's talking about. Big Smile, good shoes.
Prendergast asks if other building projects can qualify for the Lease/Leaseback..... [I'm not sure what the answer is.]
Jay motions to accept.
Lang: thanks Brandye for an excellent report. Does have a question about "budget reassignments."
Poertner: this ATEP money was set aside when we thought we needed to do that. Nothing on this list is something we are depending on for current operations.
Fuentes: asks about Bill Jay's motion. Fuentes asks to divide the question. Divide off item 2 (the ATEP item, I'll bet).  All but Meldau agreed to divide the question.
They vote on items 1 and 3 - unanimous.
They vote on item 2: all vote yes but Fuentes (no). (At one point Nancy snaps at Fuentes. Good fun.)

6.15

All vote yes except Fuentes, votes no.

Consent calendar:
pulled:
Lang: 5.8
Fuentes: 5.19 (Master Architectural Services)

5.19
Moved, seconded.
Fuentes: will vote "no" because of concerns of continued expenditure at ATEP. Doesn't reflect on esteem for gkkworks.
Lang: will abstain from voting on this item; did receive contribution from gkkworks.
They vote.

6.1 - passes unanimously
. . .
6.8
Fuentes nominates his boy Dave Lang for the Marian Bergeson award. Everybody goes along with that. Dave simpers. Nancy says something like, "good luck, fool. You've got lots of competition." (Well, maybe she didn't actually say "fool." But she thought it.)
. . .
6.10
Bill Jay seems to have issues about a couple of new IVC positions.  Gwen Plano answers most questions satisfactorily. Glenn chimes in. One position concerns veterans on campus. Bill wants to table "2 and 3." Bugay explains that one position involves removing one position to create another. Nancy chimes in to say that it isn't new money. Gwen explains that there have been negotiations with CSEA. We need to stay within our current budget, she says. Critical for accreditation. We have no one at IVC right now doing this work. Critical. No one offers a second to Jay's motion. So they vote on 6.10. Unanimous yes.

6.11 probationary faculty - tenure - passes unanimously.
. . .
Went through "reports," without comments--except 7.8.

7.8 Retiree (OPEB) Trust Fund
Lang asks for elaboration. Bugay asks to come back with report next time.
Fuentes: Gary, maybe provide comparative overview, with other districts in OC. We are proud to say that we have no "unfunded liability." Poertner: this does not deal with pensions. It's medical benefits owed to employees, etc. Not related to what you will call "pensions."  Fuentes: how do we match up compared to our colleagues? Could you come back with answers? Poertner: sure.

8.0 reports from constituent groups
Blah blah blah
Burnett: Congressman Gary Miller was on campus (oh good). "He's a wonderful man."
Me: No he isn't. He's a corrupt rat bastard. Get a clue, Tod.
Blah blah blah
Blah blah
Blah

9:12 - finis

Heads up: meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees tonight

     Open session is set to start at 6:00 p.m.
     The agenda is available at the district website.

"Inside Job" wins Oscar

‘Inside Job,’ Documentary That Skewers Banks and Economists, Wins Oscar (Chronicle of Higher Education)

     The Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature was presented Sunday night to Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs for the film Inside Job, about the causes of the 2008 global financial meltdown. In his remarks from the stage of the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles, Mr. Ferguson said: “Not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that is wrong.” Mr. Ferguson, the film’s producer and director, wrote about the former Harvard president Lawrence H. Summers and the convergence of academic economics, Wall Street, and political power for The Chronicle Review last year.

gkkworks video, etc.

     A brief video about gkkworks, the firm helping our colleges with future construction planning. One of the firm's people appearing on screen (at 00:58) is David Hunt, who gave $500 to then-trustee Don Wagner's assembly race back in May.
 (See here
. Scroll into document.)
     Not that there's anything, um, wrong with that.
     Among the gkkworks projects flashing across the screen: ATEP.


     This video concerns the head facilities guy at the Los Angeles Community College District.

"Anyone who has remodeled a kitchen knows that there are always unanticipated issues"

LaVista

     The Reb and I have been doing some research into the Los Angeles Community College District Sustainable Building Program, and it’s HUGE. I’m amazed just at the number of firms cashing in—er, participating.
     You might try Googling “LACCD” and “construction,” see what you get!
     I came across an important "state of the district" letter from LACCD Chancellor Daniel J. LaVista, evidently promulgated just two months ago. It focuses on these construction projects (see Chancellor letter). The letter is remarkably upbeat about LACCD’s building program, though it does acknowledge the LA Times’ ongoing investigation (which resulted in the series currently running in the paper).
     In the letter, LaVista, who has been on the job only since August, explains that

I’d like to do two things: First, I’d like to explain my plan for the LACCD. Secondly, I’d like to give you an update on our incredibly successful construction program.

     Incredibly successful? Well, yeah, that’s what all those firms are saying too. Gosh, they're awfully positive about the whole dang thing!
     Here are a few of Dr. LaVista’s more memorable remarks (from that letter)*:

• Of course, anyone who has remodeled a kitchen knows that there are always unanticipated issues, and in a $6 billion construction program, we’ve had our share.

• The wise spending of taxpayer dollars is critically important, so we need to continue the strong management of this program….

• As many of you know, the Times has been looking into our building program since July 2009. When [former chancellor] Dr. [Tyree] Wieder sent her letter [announcing the investigation], we thought publication was imminent. Since then, we have been told many times that an article would be published any day. ¶ While the long and continuous investigation for more than 18 months has sometimes become a distraction from our core mission of serving the needs of our students and surrounding communities, we cannot deny the right of the Times to look into the spending of public monies.

Wieder

• Our construction program management team provides the necessary program, project and construction management expertise to properly manage the program and consists of District and consultant personnel selected from many of the best known and qualified firms in the industry. ¶ We have organized that management team with one set of consultant firms at each of the nine college locations where the construction takes place and another set at the District office to support the overall contractual, financial, and reporting of the program. [My emphasis.]

• Oversight is provided by a number of separate entities that report to the Board of Trustees and the District Citizens’ Oversight Committee, which is required by law to monitor bond funded construction. By law, the District is required to conduct regular independent audits…. The results of those audits have been uniformly positive, endorsing the effectiveness of our management, as well as demonstrating our willingness to look for and to make continuous improvements.

• The overall quality of construction on the program’s projects has been first rate.

• A few of our projects … have faced some challenges. Those were some of our very first projects, and on those the challenges have been resolved.

• We have thousands of construction, architectural, engineering and specialty firms working on our program. Sometimes they make mistakes or do not perform as well as we expect.

—Gosh, I've got an idea. It's kinda madcap. Maybe the community should look into all the money that's gone into the development of our own district's issue-laden kitchen remodel: ATEP!

Oops

Is gkkworks involved in the LACCD mess?

     Re our earlier post about the incompetence, waste, and sleazitude of recent Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) construction project(s):
     gkkworks, an Orange County firm, is assisting Irvine Valley College and Saddleback College in planning future construction. Some of us have asked: is gkk involved in the massive LACCD fiasco?

     That gkkworks has the LACCD among its clients is revealed here: gkkworks: clients (click on "clients").
     It could be that this relationship exists through CCS Group (and LHA, etc.). These firms were purchased by gkkworks in 2007. (See below.)

     On this page (click on "projects"; then "LACC capital outlay support"), one finds various gkk projects, including:

Los Angeles Community College District:
[gkk's] CCS Group has been advising the District on Facility Issues; Funding and Space Utilization to assist them overall with their bond and capital outlay programs. CCS Group provides support to individual colleges as well as to the District. CCS Group completes Final Project Proposals, Five-year Construction Plans, Initial Project Proposals, and facilitates Master Planning and serves as Chancellor Office Liaison. We continue to assist various colleges within the District to align bond projects with established goals and objectives. Reference: Larry Eisenberg, Executive Director of Facilities

     I found the following OC Reg article, from nearly four years ago, reporting gkk's acquisition of CCS Group and LHA, two names that come up in various sites I have come across when Googling* "gkk LACCD":

Gkkworks in Irvine buys CCS Group (OC Reg; 7/20/07)
     Gkkworks, an Irvine architecture and construction management firm, said today that it has bought CCS Group in Sacramento.    
     Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Gkkworks has 270 employees in nine offices. CCS has 20 employees and specializes in community college projects. CCS President Shaun Blaylock will remain with the company in charge of the Sacramento office.    
     It is gkkwork’s second acquisition in the past year. It acquired the Glendale architectural firm of Leidenfrost Horowitz & Associates Inc. [LHA] last July.

THE UPSHOT: gkkworks, which now owns CCS, seems to be involved in the bond and capital outlay programs that have gone so wrong for LACCD. And our district is currently relying on the same company to plan its construction projects.

     That the LACCD construction programs have gone badly may well be the fault of other parties than gkkworks (and the companies that gkkworks has acquired).

     Still, it is fair—and it is important—for us, in the SOCCCD,  to ask: does gkkworks have any share in the blame for the LACCD fiasco?

*See:

• LACCD Contractors job report: Quarterly look ahead

• Measure J project snapshot

• LACCD new construction

☁ Community college construction projects can go very, very wrong

     Today's Times article about the stunning waste and abuse involved in a massive construction project for the Los Angeles Community College District is well worth reading in full. Some excerpts below.
     (7:05 p.m.: Based on a reader suggestion, I Googled gkk & LACCD and found numerous connections, including projects related to measure J, referred to in the Times article. gkk is currently working with Irvine Valley College, helping the college plan its future construction. I'll let you know what I come up with. Obviously, that gkk was/is involved in recent LACCD construction does not imply that they have been guilty of anything.)

Waste throws wrench into Los Angeles community colleges' massive project (LA Times)

     The effects of decades of neglect were all too visible at the nine far-flung campuses. Roofs leaked. Furniture was decrepit. Seismic protections were outdated.
     In 2001, leaders of the Los Angeles Community College District decided to take action. With support from construction companies and labor unions, they persuaded voters to pass a series of bond measures over the next seven years that raised $5.7 billion to rebuild every campus.
     The money would ease classroom crowding. It would make college buildings safer. New technology would enhance learning. And financial oversight would be stringent.
     That is what was promised to Los Angeles voters.
     The reality? Tens of millions of dollars have gone to waste because of poor planning, frivolous spending and shoddy workmanship, a Times investigation found.
     Bond money has paid for valuable improvements: new science buildings, libraries, stadiums and computer centers. But costly blunders by college officials, contractors and the district's elected Board of Trustees have denied the system's 142,000 students the full potential of one of California's largest public works programs.
     This picture emerges from scores of interviews and a review of thousands of pages of district financial records, internal e-mails and other documents.
     At East Los Angeles College, construction of a grand entry plaza with a clock tower degenerated into a comedy of errors. Heating and cooling units were installed upside down, inspectors found. Concrete steps were uneven. Cracked and wet lumber had to be torn out. A ramp for the disabled was too steep for wheelchairs, and the landmark clock tower listed to one side.
     Fixing the problems helped drive construction costs from $28 million to $43 million.
     A new health and science center at Valley College was marred by defective plumbing, cracked floors, leaky windows and loosely attached ceiling panels that threatened to crash down in an earthquake.
     The district paid a contractor $48 million to build the complex, but had to hire others to correct the problems and finish the project — for an additional $3.5 million.
     At least those buildings were finished, eventually. At West Los Angeles College, officials spent $39 million to design and begin construction of four major buildings, only to discover that they didn't have the money to complete them.
     Just as crews were starting work last summer, the projects, including a $92-million athletics center, were abandoned.
     "This is astounding," said David Beaulieu, president of the District Academic Senate. "How could this have happened?"
     At Valley College, workers renovated a theater complex, installing new seats, lighting and sound equipment in time for a 2009 student production of "Alice in Wonderland." But even before the $3.4-million job was done, officials decided to build a new theater complex. The renovated one is slated for demolition.
     "I think it's obscene, given what's going on in this economy," said Pete Parkin, former chairman of the theater department. "It's mind-boggling."….
. . .

     By the 1990s, however, many campus buildings had fallen into disrepair. So in 2001, the board placed before voters a $1.2-billion bond measure, followed by another for nearly $1 billion in 2003.
     Both passed by wide margins.
     In one respect, trouble was inevitable: Voters had put $2.2 billion under the control of seven of the region's most obscure elected officials. They would be spending it with almost no public scrutiny — despite their promise of "strict oversight" by a citizens committee.
     Nearly all of the trustees are longtime players in local politics. To fund their election campaigns, waged largely by mail, they typically solicit donations from college administrators, unions and contractors.
     Voter approval of the construction program opened a spigot of new campaign money by turning the trustees into powerful figures in the world of California public works. All but one of the trustees — Tina Park — have accepted donations from builders, architects and engineers who have won contracts from the board, records show.
. . .
     By 2007, it was clear that the $2.2 billion in bond money would run out long before the district had finished all the projects on its list. The trustees decided to go to voters once more, this time with the biggest bond measure of all — a $3.5-billion proposal, Measure J, on the November 2008 ballot.
     Contractors put up nearly two-thirds of the $1.9 million raised for the ballot campaign. Measure J passed with 70% of the vote, more than doubling the size of the construction program.
     Taxpayers will be repaying the debt until at least the 2050s. With interest, the bill is likely to exceed $11 billion.

     Overwhelmed by the program's scale, the trustees mostly let [construction chief Larry] Eisenberg run it as he saw fit.
     "He was in charge of everything, all the money," said former Pierce College President Thomas Oliver. "Because the district wasn't good at building anything, everybody kind of followed his lead."
     Eisenberg played to the trustees' thirst for recognition, pursuing construction awards that they liked to publicize. Even after problems spilled into the open — such as the loss of several million dollars when a financing plan for solar power projects collapsed — the trustees rarely questioned his leadership.
. . .
     By Eisenberg's account, the program has been "remarkably clean in terms of relationships and ethical behavior and those kinds of things."
     But district leaders have not hesitated to help family members land jobs, The Times found.
. . .
     After Times reporters began asking questions about waste, construction errors and other problems, the trustees in November 2009 commissioned a special audit of the program by a management consulting firm, Capstone Advisory Group LLC.

. . .
     In addition to the Capstone audit, the district ordered a review of the program by its bond counsel, Fulbright & Jaworski. The law firm reported that millions of dollars in bond money had been spent in violation of state law.
     The money went, among other things, to public relations, food, travel and aerial photography for promotional videos. The law allows bond spending only for construction and the purchase of property or furniture.
     The law firm's review led officials to lay off at least 15 people, including a woman whose main job was to book speeches for Eisenberg and the trustees. Also dismissed was an avant-garde Swedish photographer hired to take what one official, in an internal e-mail, called "glamour shots" of new buildings.
     In theory, such excesses should have quickly been flagged. In all three ballot measures, the district had promised that a citizens committee appointed by the trustees would rigorously monitor spending. But the panel was starved for money, staff and information and failed for eight years to file annual reports to taxpayers, as required by law, Fulbright & Jaworski found.
     James Lynch, chairman of the committee from 2006 to 2009, said of the construction program: "Quite honestly, it was run so well that it would be a model for any place."
     Lynch, a former chief executive of the Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and Century City chambers of commerce, said he had heard nothing about construction errors, misspending or nepotism. "It seemed like everything was pretty transparent."….

Monday: a Lego H&L&S&BS building

     Reportedly, in an effort to assuage the frustration and anger of the forty-some-odd members of Irvine Valley College’s Schools of Humanities & Languages and Social & Behavioral Sciences, college administration is expected to unveil a “Lego® model” of a proposed H&L&S&BS building at its much-heralded “all college” meeting on Monday.
     When asked, however, when the real building will be built, administrators eventually acknowledged that it is "unlikely" that it will be built “before the middle of the century.”
     "But the Lego version should be ready by Sunday," they said.

     Meanwhile, a team of visiting faculty could not find a single business instructor in the new “Business Science” (BSTIC) building. 

Lego® President Roquemore and Lego VPI Justice

     Said one denizen, "Well, most faculty don't teach on Fridays. Besides, there's only a couple of full-time business faculty left at this college. What can I say?"

Lego® rendition of proposed "Excellence Center"

"You had me at hello," said the County gasbag

Supervisors to slash the Gordian Knot that ties the OC to John Williams! (Vern's OJ Blog)

…Ah, I remember one sunny afternoon in Santa Ana last summer, when a ragtag gang of four – two anonymous whistle-blowers and two bloggers (myself and Professor Bauer of Dissent) met with brand-spanking-new Supervisor Shawn Nelson, to convince him to slash this Gordian Knot. The logic was impeccable: Remove his plum PG gig, and when all he has left is the dismal low-paying PA gig, the dopey grinning kleptocrat will surely bugger off to Orlando (where he already likes to spend half his time on the taxpayer dime.) Shawn was all, “You had me at hello.” But still the wheels turned so slowly….

Yeah, I remember too. It's all turned out pretty well, I think, despite that gasbag Nelson.

Read my peevitude!

     If you’ve been paying attention, you know that Assemblyman—and former SOCCCD trustee and pro-prayer bloviator—Don “Mad Dog” Wagner has begun to leave his peevish mark on state politics. This week, his dyspeptic bloviations manifested themselves on the radio (John and Ken) and in a press conference on the Capitol steps:

California GOP group takes hard-line stance against tax hikes (Sacramento Bee)

     Two-thirds of Republicans in the Legislature took a hard-line stance Wednesday against California Gov. Jerry Brown's budget plan, forming a new group and pledging to block the governor's efforts to let voters extend tax hikes.
. . .
     At a news conference on the Capitol steps, Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine, a co-chairman of the caucus, said the message to Brown was clear: "You're not getting Republicans to go for tax increases."
     Brown has proposed deep cuts in state services and wants to ask voters to agree to extend for five years billions of dollars in sales, income and car taxes. The governor needs at least four GOP votes, two in the Assembly and two in the state Senate, to place a tax measure on the ballot.
     Conservatives are already branding the group's nonmembers as potential GOP traitors. The two chairmen of the caucus, Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark, and Wagner, went on the popular "John and Ken" radio show Wednesday as the conservative duo posted phone numbers and photos of the nonsigners and rallied listeners….

John and Ken and Don

☀ “He would do everybody a big favor if he would just resign”

Supervisors to vote on stripping public guardian role from Williams (OC Reg)

     County officials formally moved Wednesday to strip embattled Public Administrator John S. Williams of his public guardian duties, setting for hearing on Tuesday an ordinance that would remove Williams from his public guardian role and appoint a successor.
     The Board of Supervisors earlier this month agreed to hire an executive manager to overhaul the culture of the troubled department and make immediate personnel and policy changes. Now county Chief Executive Officer Tom Mauk has proposed having that manager take over the county’s public guardian role: Overseeing the affairs of the elderly or ill who have no one to watch out for them.
     Supervisors will begin the discussion at their March 1 meeting. If they agree to move forward a final vote will be March 15. If the change is adopted, a new public guardian would be in place April 14.
     A replacement could be in place sooner if Williams, who has repeatedly been criticized for the way he runs his agency, steps down from the position.
     Mauk tried to split the offices in December 2009 in the wake of two back-to-back Orange County grand jury reports that criticized Williams for “egregious” mismanagement, including dubious internal promotions that cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. The proposal lost on a 3-2 board vote.
     Williams, who is elected public administrator and appointed public guardian, has been repeatedly warned he needs to make significant changes to his agency. He is paid $153,206.40 a year to head the combined department.
     The Board of Supervisors can remove Williams from the appointed position of public guardian at any time. His elected position of public administrator is a position which the Board of Supervisors cannot take from him.
     What remains unclear is whether Williams will continue to be paid his full salary if he loses control of the public guardian’s duties. Williams was re-elected in June and began a new four-year term in January.  The Board of Supervisors began appointing the elected public administrator as the county’s public guardian in 2003. But it wasn’t until 2007 that supervisors approved a county ordinance which made the elected public administrator the ex officio public guardian and established one salary for the two positions.
     The filing fee Williams paid to run for public administrator was based on the combined salary for the elected public administrator and the public guardian, county Registrar of Voters staffers confirmed. An elected official’s salary cannot be reduced during his or her term….
     The county’s Chief Executive Office has been researching whether Williams’ pay can be reduced if his appointed duties are removed.
     “I think the board better find a way to bifurcate the pay so the taxpayers aren’t continuing to pay this guy his salary for the next umpteen years,” said longtime county watchdog Shirley Grindle said. “It would be a unlawful use of taxpayer money.”
. . .
     “He would do everybody a big favor if he would just resign,” Grindle said.
     Neither Williams nor his private attorney, GOP insider Phil Greer, immediately returned calls for comment.
     While trying to negotiate his own future, Williams is negotiating with the county to save the jobs of his political appointees if he leaves office before his term is up, county officials confirmed.
     Among Williams’ political appointees is Peggi Buff, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas’ fiancee, who was promoted by Williams from executive assistant to his second-in-command five years after she began working for the office. Williams has political ties to Rackauckas and longtime Orange County Republican Chairman Tom Fuentes.
. . .
     Wresting control of the agency from Williams is a result of two county grand jury reports and the county’s own investigation which exposed “serious concerns” about the department’s operations, according to the county’s chief executive office.

     Williams has been repeatedly criticized in the past few years for unnecessarily taking control of people’s estates. He was also criticized in back-to-back Orange County grand jury reports in 2009 for “egregious” mismanagement, including dubious internal promotions that cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands. In the wake of those reports, Williams narrowly escaped having the Board of Supervisors strip his appointment as public guardian….

BOS agenda: Williams will soon lose his "Public Guardian" gig

     Pen Pal informs me that the agenda for the Tuesday, March 1, meeting of the Orange County Board of Supervisors includes item 51:

Consider first reading of  "An Ordinance of the County of Orange, California Repealing Ordinance No. 07-008, Which Designated the Public Administrator as the Ex Officio Public Guardian"; and set second reading and adoption for 3/15/11, 9:30 a.m. - All Districts

     This means: assuming that this repeal occurs (it will), Williams will soon be stripped of his role as public guardian. At long last, he's getting shoved off the gravy train.

The “criteria” clarified

     OK, I’ve studied those “criteria” for prioritizing facilities projects (see criteria), and I think I’ve produced workable "translations" aimed at improved clarity:

1. “Consistency: College’s Established Vision, Mission, and Goals.”
   Whatever we do, it had better be consistent with the college’s plans (defined mission, goals, etc.)—insofar as we take that BS seriously.
2. “Instructional Program Need”
   Facility use plans should take into account likely changes in the ebb and flow of instructional programs—i.e., don’t be planning an expansion in VCR repair and newspaper production.
3. “Student Support Services”
   Natch, student support services facilities had better expand and improve as the college grows.
4. “Facilities/Program Consolidation”
   Maybe reorganize stuff to improve efficiency? Maybe try to herd all those writing instructors into one building and put all those corpse/dead-cat classes in one “formaldehyde” zone?
5. “Facilities Condition: Safety and Compliance”
   Maybe get a jump on all those facilities that are about to collapse owing to rot, initial cheesery, and tightwaddery; make sure we’re not getting way out of line with accommodation and equity laws; make sure parking lottery keeps up with student enrollery!
6. “Campus Amenities: Benefit to a Student Centered Culture”
   Let’s not forget to leave places for kids to stand and sit and eat and party—so they don’t keep running off to OCC.
7. “Campus Development/Compliance”
   Gotta be sufficiently green. No Hummers or swimming pools. Veggie burgers!
8. “Funding Feasibility/Coordination”
   Let’s keep our eyes on where the money really is (and isn’t). Gotta get tricky here.
(9. “Sequencing”
   Don’t forget! Sometimes you’ve gotta tackle a low-priority item first just to get at one of the cool high-priority items!)

Click on graphic to enlarge it

IVC un-prioritized projects list

     Below is the "other" document attached to a recent email sent to denizens of Irvine Valley College concerning next week's all-college meeting about the master plan (aka future campus construction). Evidently, some DtB readers had formatting issues with this particular file, which purports to be a list of un-prioritized "projects." I've attempted to resolve those issues.
     Presumably, job 1 is prioritization of these very projects. Evidently, the prioritization will involve the wielding of the peculiarly opaque "criteria" listed on the first attachment (see Jargony "Criteria").

2011 IVC Facilities Master Plan Projects (Un-Prioritized Draft):
February 17, 2011

Project Description/ Plan Legend/  Footnote

New Parking Structure 102
New Humanities/Social & Behavioral Sciences Building (Replace A-300) 103 1
New Student Services Expansion 106 1
Remodel B-100 Building – (Bookstore and Conference Center) 107 1
New Life Sciences Building 108 1
Remodeled Facilities Building 111
New Bell Tower 112
Auxiliary Gymnasium Annex 114
New Library Annex / Success Center 117 1
New Fine Arts Building / Gallery 118 1
New Joint-Use Soccer Stadium (includes Field, Bleachers & Field Enclosure) 119 2
New Baseball Bleachers 120
New Baseball Restrooms/Support Building 121
Secondary Effects - Remodel A-100 (Co-curricular) A-100 1,2
Secondary Effects - Remodel A-400 A-400 1,2
Secondary Effects - Remodel B-300 (Math & Sciences) B-300 1,2
Secondary Effects - Remodel B-200 (Science Labs) B-200 1,2
Secondary Effects - Remodel SSC Building (Student Services/Café) SSC 1,2
Remodel A-Quad Plaza (Including Remodel A200) 101
New Surface Parking Lot 102
Fine Arts / Pedestrian Promenade 105 2
Remodel B-Quad Plaza 109
New Pool / Fence Enclosure 110 2
New Irvine Center Drive Drop-off/Transit Plaza 115
New Irvine Center Ingress/Egress Drive 116
Relocate Sand Volleyball Courts 122 2
Practice Field Upgrades 123
New Surface Parking Lot 124
New Barranca Parkway Entrance 125
New Surface Parking Lot 126
Remodel - Expand BEES Garden / Outdoor Laboratory 127 2
Remodel Field Observation Area 128

Footnotes:
1. Impacted by WSCH assessment
2. Project sequenced with/following another identified project due to location conflict

Confusing and jargony "criteria" (as transparent as a bowl of sludge)

Delightfully clear

     Yesterday, denizens of Irvine Valley College received an email from campus leadership, announcing an “all-campus meeting to discuss [the] current status of the educational and facilities master plan” (i.e., the plan for, among other things, construction of new buildings on the campus).
     The meeting is scheduled for noon next Monday, in the middle of teaching “prime time” at the college.
     This means that many of us—including me—can’t attend or can only attend part of the meeting.
     The email came with two attachments, including “The 2011 Prioritization Criteria.”
     “These two documents,” we’re told, “are the result of numerous hours of interviews, open meetings and discussions, and significant amounts of data gathering and analysis.” How all this confabulation produced these documents is not explained. My guess: the gkk team relied heavily on intuition. And hallucinogens. And the Lexicon of Jackasses.
     “The goal of this open meeting,” we’re told, “is to enable faculty, staff and students to provide input prior to ‘pouring the concrete.’”
     Below are the “criteria.” Evidently, the author(s) of these criteria have not yet heard that, in written expression at the college level, clarity is a virtue and jargon should be kept to a minimum. An abundance of jargon usually indicates that the author has disguised from himself a failure to have anything to say.
     You try to make sense of this blather:

Click on graphic to enlarge it.

"Hey fellas, here's where they'll put that 'benefit to a student centered culture' and 'pedestrian orientation.'"

Grizzled Adamsophile dances with 11-year-old Abigail at Nixon Library; Lincoln zombie hands toddler a dead fish

"Gosh, I feel as though I'm recreating history, Abby" said the old gent. 

Resurrected presidents, first ladies appear at Nixon Library (OC Reg)

"That's not a piece of me," noted Abe. "Go ahead and eat it!"

As always, members of the Nixon Foundation were on hand to provide the needed "balance."

The latest re master planning; American ignorance

A recent post with info people need:

 Master Planning at Irvine Valley College: correspondences (Saturday)

MORE ON THE IGNORANCE OF THE AMERICAN VOTER:

1. COWARDLY "LEADER" REFUSES TO LEAD. A special challenge for you Birthers out there. Please explain why Republican leader Boehner is convinced that Obama is a U.S. citizen. Evidently, he's no birther. Or is his stated position part of a pro-Obama conspiracy? How does the conspiracy work exactly? Or maybe he's "going along" with a "lie" for some reason consistent with understanding "the truth." Please spell out the reasons.

2. GENERAL POLITICAL IGNORANCE. Americans cannot even name the leaders of their own government. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Fewer than half of Americans could tell you her name during the length of her entire tenure. William Rehnquist was chief justice of the Supreme Court. Just 40 percent of Americans ever knew his name (and only 30 percent could tell you that he was a conservative). Going into the First Gulf War, just 15 percent could identify Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or Dick Cheney, then secretary of defense. In 2007, in the fifth year of the Iraq War, only 21 percent could name the secretary of defense, Robert Gates. Most Americans cannot name their own member of Congress or their senators.

—From Rick Schenkman’s Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter

Niece Natalie, Saturday night.
Natalie doesn't believe in witches.

3. 20% BELIEVE IN "WITCHES."According to a section of the [National Science Board] report on pseudoscience, only around 14 percent of Americans believed in witches in 1990, according to a Gallup poll. Witches rallied for a decade, convincing over a quarter of Americans of their existence by 2001, before about 4 percent of those reneged, putting the believers at just over 20 percent in 2005.

—American Ignorance (Inside Higher Ed, 2006)

4. WHAT IS MOST TROUBLING. Long-time readers of DtB know that we have long chronicled the ignorance of Americans and where that ignorance predominates (viz., toward the right & toward the religious−roughly, toward the Tea Partiers and the so-called "Republican base").
   What is most troubling about these trends is the apparent fact that many Americans, especially on the right, now seem incapable of distinguishing reliable from unreliable sources.


   Birthers: How does Senator McCain fit into your Weltanschauung? Why does he believe that Obama is a citizen? Is he a traitor? A dupe? A liar? Please explain.

5. SO SAYS THE NATIONAL REVIEW. Over the weekend David Gregory asked Speaker Boehner…whether he would “stand up” to the birthers’ “ignorance” beyond saying that he believes Obama to be a Christian and a citizen. I am fairly certain that these Republican leaders are not trying to advance birtherism surreptitiously. They just don’t want to have to say that a large portion of the Republican base is evil or crazy. And they resent the fact that they’re asked these questions when Nancy Pelosi was never asked if she thought Cindy Sheehan was a nut (for example). ¶ But isn’t there a simple solution here? Some of the birthers clearly are crazy. But the millions of Americans who think Obama is a Muslim, for example, are just misinformed, misled by his name, aspects of his background, and the enigmatic profile he has cultivated. So why not say something like this? “David, I have already said that I think questioning Obama’s religion and citizenship is deeply misguided. I disagree with it. It’s no part of my critique of Obama’s administration. I don’t think everyone who holds these views is malicious or nuts. A lot of people hold a lot of mistaken views. You know, back in 2008, a lot of Americans thought Obama was a moderate!”

—From the National Review Online (Feb. 14)

Well, at least they're reading!

What They're Reading on College Campuses (Chronicle of Higher Education)

1. The Girl Who Played With Fire
by Stieg Larsson
2. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
by Stieg Larsson
3. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner
4. Eat, Pray, Love: One Woman's Search for Everything across Italy, India and Indonesia
by Elizabeth Gilbert
5. Sh*t My Dad Says
by Justin Halpern
6. Mockingjay
by Suzanne Collins
7. Are You There, Vodka? It's Me, Chelsea
by Chelsea Handler
8. Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace . . . One School at a Time
by Greg Mortenson, David Oliver Relin
9. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Presents Earth (the Book): A Visitor's Guide to the Human Race
by Jon Stewart
10. Assholes Finish First
by Max Tucker

Cat burglar

     65% of domestic cats (including Barney here) agree that this is a cool video.

“Master planning” for Irvine Valley College: correspondences

Feb. 2
     [Re our meeting today with architectural firm gkk:] I would like to thank and acknowledge X for attending the meeting.... Also, special thanks go out to Steve R and Lisa DA for advocating on our behalf….

Feb. 3
Dear Colleagues,
     I attended the SPOBDC [Strategic Planning Oversight & Budget Development Committee] meeting February 2nd. Here is my summary.
     First, on communication, transparency, etc. . .
     I think those involved in the decision-making process have heard our concerns and seemed eager to reassure us that the process has been, and would remain, open and transparent….
     Steve R. and Lisa D-A. were rather outspoken in expressing their desire to make sure our needs [in Humanities and Languages] were considered. I might say they even seemed to be leaning towards prioritizing our concerns. XX especially stressed that in the past the Humanities and Languages, and to some degree the Social and Behavioral Sciences, with regard to new buildings, had been screwed over [by Raghu Mathur] time and again for political reasons and that this explains … the cynicism many of us feel regarding the process.
     Brandye [D.] stressed her desire and commitment to communicate clearly what the administration is thinking and doing at each step in the process.
     The new Life Science Building is going to be built. It has been planned, approved, and funded….
The new Fine Arts Buildings is going to be built next. It has been planned and approved for state funding, but the state does not yet have the funds to fund it….
     After those projects are completed, any future buildings for the college will depend on state approval and funding. Such approval of funding is based on a variety of factors that boil down to “do you really need more buildings?” This depends on the factors you would expect—growth, room use, load-capacity ratios, etc.—and is tallied for the college as a whole. Getting approval for any new buildings depends on demonstrating that need as a college, but the building that is actually constructed can be assigned to any unit. So, even if the biggest growth was in School/Department A, that doesn’t mean the new building needs to be assigned to School/Department A if the college feels School/Department B needs it more. This point is crucial for us to understand. Even if we demonstrate that we are the largest unit on campus, projected to experience astronomical growth in the next five years, that doesn’t mean a building will be constructed for our use. It might be that our growth will make it possible for the Beer and Ale Brewing Technology Department to get a new building.
     With the completion of the Life Sciences Building, and the completion of the Fine Arts Building, the college will need to grow significantly before new construction could be justified (i.e., win state approval and funding). This may be further hampered by the fact that the square feet at ATEP [the district's troubled third facility--former Navy property] are now IVC’s….
     [One of the gkk guys guessed that] by 2020 [the college] might qualify for a 33,000 square foot building. This guess was offered in the context of trying to provide some sort of frame for understanding the scale involved in this process. Perhaps that building would be ours, but perhaps it wouldn’t. No priorities, or criteria for establishing such priorities, have yet been set. (See below.)
     I know this might be a bitter pill for some of us to swallow. Since I’ve been here (six years?) we’ve seen a whole list of buildings—PAC, BSTC, CHEM Lab, Life Sciences, and Fine Arts—win support and approval while we, a large, significant school, find ourselves scattered all over campus, facing at least one more decade of life in the [decrepit] A Quad….
     So, the next steps for us. . .
     The next step in the process, underway right now, is for the members of the SPOBDC to develop the criteria by which they will prioritize future development projects. We should put some thought into what we think such criteria should be. While appeals to “fairness” and “productivity” might be influential, I suggest we think more concretely as well in terms of needs (in general) and benefits (for our students)….
     Finally, gkk is supposed to have posted (somewhere online) a “Facilities Assessment.” I can’t find it on the website, but I’ll try to find out when and/or where we can get a look at these. We need to review gkk’s assessment of the buildings we use, especially A Quad buildings, and see if they are correct. (By the way, JE told us that the A Quad was not originally designed for educational use. It was more “storage and store-front” because they weren’t sure the college would make it. I’d never heard that before, but it explains so much.)
     Once the criteria for prioritizing future development are set, it seems the SPOBDC will then work through developing some kind of priority list. I don’t know if the final decisions will be reached by vote, consensus, or fiat, but I’ll try to find out….

Feb. 3
     I rather hope that the Beer and Ale Department gets a building first. I am going to need some [beer] just to swallow the notion that I will have spent 40 years at this institution and will have not seen a Humanities Building. And yes, X, the story about the A quad being built for possible conversion into a small shopping mall is true.
     Thank you for such a complete and concise (considering the complexity) summary….

Feb 8:
     At last Wednesday’s gkk meeting, I brought up the delay in posting comments [on the master planning website] issue. I strongly suggested they post the comments shortly after they’re submitted. They seemed to be receptive to the idea….
     Yes! This is the time to speak up or forever hold our breath. At the next gkk meeting, scheduled for Feb. 16th, the group will create a set of priorities by which the projects will be prioritized….

Feb. 10:
     As I look at the criteria and try to make sense of the categories and listings, it occurs to me that one of the major problems with the college plant for the programs in English is the absence of what I can only term academic logic. In English classes in particular, students are learning and practicing a skill that is fundamental to all other learning. In the text and assignment choices for writing classes in English, instructors endeavor to demonstrate to students this fundamental relationship between writing, reading, and all other academic endeavors. These skills are the groundwork of study and, likewise, of success in study.
     Yet here at IVC, the programs in English—its classrooms and faculty—are dispersed so widely that when students ask where they can find the “English Department,” I have no answer. At the far end of the narrow hallway in A200 where the department co-chairs are crowded into one room? At the back of the Library where the dean’s office may be found at the end of another hallway? On the second floor of B300, still designated the Business and Science Building? This geographical dislocation distorts communication for the faculty. Imagine what it does for students, those who are just learning that the network of academic study in which they are engaged is based on a logic of interrelatedness. Here at IVC, however, that logic is confounded by an irrational landscape.

Feb. 16:
     I know we are all busy, but you might want to go to the Master Plan website and look at the "Projections" presented as the minutes for the February 2nd SPOBDC meeting. Especially note pp. 13-20. There they offer their predictions regarding which departments will grow faster, on average, or slower than the college. I don't know how these figures were generated. For example, they predict ESL will be in decline, while journalism will be an area of rapid growth. [Both predictions are prima facie implausible.]

Feb. 16:
     [At today’s gkk meeting,] Jeff pointed out a mistake. I'll let him tell you about [it] if he wants to….
…The gist of [Glenn’s] suggestions seemed to be aimed at making B100 into the site for the bookstore and some kind of meeting area. B300 would then be a math/engineering building (eventually). Further complications followed. gkk guys scribbled like crazy.
     There IS a Humanities (and Social Sciences?) Building in the Master Plan. It is supposed to sit on top of the A-300 building. "Why do that?" asks Lisa DA, when we've just spent so much money renovating it? Why not build the Humanities and Languages Building on top of the A-400 building"
     Because, they explain, by the time they get to building the H&L Building, the newest and best A-Quad building will be the A-400 building.
     …When Life Sciences vacate A400, they're going to go in there and make an "entirely new building … on the inside." The outside will remain the same. This will include some new offices and several new classrooms designed for class of 25 or 30. By building these classrooms, they can improve the "fill-rate" on our campus which should help to demonstrate to the state our need for a new building and thus hasten the construction of the new H&L building.
     JE also seems to want to get rid of all the portables (thus demonstrating further need for new buildings) and cut the size of the new ATEP building in half (again, to make the numbers work better for us).
     In the meantime, almost everybody seemed to be floating the idea that the next new building might be a "Library Annex" or a "Student Services Annex." A dean seemed to advocate using the Library Annex to house the Writing Center and Reading Lab until the H&L building could be constructed. Everybody seemed on board, until somebody (I forget who) said hey, what if we took A100 "off-line" and rented the space to Kaplan and/or used it for "co-curricular" groups and activities (thus creating more "need" for square footage to help us get a new buidling). Well, then where would the college president and VP's go? The new Student Services Annex.
     …Don’t take any of this too seriously. It all seems up in the air. What seems to be driving the thinking at this moment is how to manipulate space usage on campus in ways that will improve our chances of getting more buildings funded.
     The brightest spot was an unofficial conversation I had with JE. He seems pretty convinced that he can really get this building for us, but it's going to take time….
     NOTHING HAS BEEN DECIDED YET. I think our comments have been heard. I don't know what, if anything, we can do at the moment. We definitely should show up for the informational meeting when it occurs…. –X

Feb. 17:
     X, thank you for writing such a good summary of yesterday's long meeting! … Some further details:
     1. Unlike the previous meeting, yesterday's meeting had A300 Bldg as the future new H&L Bldg. … The Health Sciences are scheduled to move to their new building in approximately two years. While it is probably too soon for our new building, it is likely that we're able to build a new two-story classroom building with Basic Aid funds….
     …[R]ecently, the State, due to its budgetary constraints, put a freeze on new buildings (and hiring for that matter), which means that the Fine Arts Bldg is delayed by two or more years….
     2. The Library Annex was on the last Master Plan and would have probably been built by now if the District hadn't intervened…. I think this is the piece that X was missing. The Library Annex is now back in the picture, which means it will probably be built in the near future using Basic Aid funds. The B100 Bldg was designated as a future Math Bldg on the old list. However, Glenn [Roquemore] suggested that the College would be better served if the bookstore and the "Convocation Center" (or community center) were moved to the B100 Bldg. This project would go forward sooner because the Bookstore would probably finance the bulk of the renovations.… How about Math? The B300 Bldg is the logical future location for Math and Sciences. How about the Centers on the second floor of the B300 Bldg? Glenn suggested moving them to the new Library Annex….
     3. [N]othing has been decided yet. Now is the time for the campus community to be involved in this process. The team seemed very sensitive to our needs and demands. Brandye, in particular, brought up the importance of consulting with faculty a few times. [Some] recommended to Craig that he or Glenn call an all-campus meeting to share the new information and solicit feedback from all employees. March 2nd meeting with gkk will be the final and most crucial meeting. The architects plan to take the prioritization list to the March Board meeting.

Feb. 17:
     [Re the projection of areas of rapid growth:] It turns out, it's pretty-much meaningless. It was generated by a spreadsheet using data … based on the last five years of program growth. The reason journalism looks like a significant growth area is because it went from having zero students to having four … students in a short period of time.
     When it comes to getting state funding and approval for a building, numbers indicating how fast our school is growing mean nothing. The funding and approval depend on the relationship between our WSCH [weekly student contact hours] and the square feet we have as a college.
     If and when they approve an H & L building, they will then go and do a real study of the needs in the school department by department.
     Sorry for the confusion.

Feb. 17
     Thanks for these notes and explanations. Thanks all of you, too, for your comments and suggestions.
     It seems to me that most of the arguments for a new H & L building I've heard so far fall into two categories: (a) [Humanities and Languages] are the biggest program on campus, so why are we being ignored when it comes to allocating resources? (b) we are currently scattered all over campus, a situation that hampers collegiality, stifles communication, and makes it nearly impossible for students to navigate their way around H & L. It seems to me that arguments like (a) don't necessarily make a case for a new building. To make that case we need to clarify why existing classroom facilities do not, or could not be made to, serve our needs. I think this has been an easier case to make for other schools that require special equipment and spaces in order to do what they do. Arguments like (b) (actually only?) make the case for pulling us all back into the A Quad after Life Sciences and Fine Arts vacate those spaces, but I don't see how that necessarily makes a case for a NEW building. My personal view is that the A Quad was not initially designed for instructional purposes and that it's a waste of money to keep using Basic Aid to renovate these buildings a few million dollars at a time. I don't think the administrators buy this argument because they understand that its easier to get $3 million than $30 million out of the board. At least that's the impression I get from just listening to them talk. But if we are eventually going to have to replace these buildings, it just seems smarter to do it now in one large, painful step, and have a building (or two) that really work, than to keep pouring money into them over the next twenty years and then do the expensive, painful thing. That said, there IS a new Humanities and Languages and Social and Behavioral Sciences Building on the Master Plan.

Feb. 19:
     ...I think the position has been that it is desirable to structure the campus around academic groupings: H&L and SS in A Quad. Math and Science in B Quad. PE where they are right now. Fine Arts in a Fine Arts Complex built behind and including the PAC. Library, Student Services, and Administration in the middle. BSTC where it is now. By placing [H&L] in the A Quad (which probably does make some sense) we can't get a new building without making a case for destroying an old one.
     ...I worry ... that the numbers will always make more sense to build other buildings first, so that if our building isn't prioritized it will get built last... [People respond as though I'm insolent when I say this,] so maybe I'm wrong. There is a building on the current Master Plan that is described as a humanities and social science building. It will sit on the current site of A300.
     A400 is slated for some kind of remodel. "It will be a completely new building on the inside," they say, but the same shitty building on the outside (I say).
      ... There has not been any sort of priority list set for any new projects. That is to be determined on March 2nd. As the plan stands now A100, A200, A400, and B100 are meant to be standing to 2030 (and beyond). In addition to the humanities and social science building, the Master Plan calls for a new Student Services/Admin Building, A Soccer Stadium, a big multiple-purpose gym, a swimming pool, another fine arts building (for a total of three, including the PAC), an art gallery (for a total of four fine arts buildings including the PAC), a library annex, and some parking structures (I can't remember if the baseball stadium is still in.
     ... I think everybody is saying there is going to be a building for [H&L or H&L and Social Science], but funding is tight, the economy is bad, etc. We have to consider the needs of the whole campus. Both now and in every projected horizon (2015, 2020, 2025, 2030) humanities and languages has the highest WSCH, but is near the bottom in ASF (assigned square footage). In other words, in terms of the quantity of square feet things are not at all equitable, though, admittedly, PE and Fine Arts need more space to teach their classes. In terms of quality of facilities, if we assume A200 is the shittiest building on campus, and A400 the second shittiest, once again we are the bottom of the list. That said, we certainly can teach in the A Quad. We've been doing it for years....