A few years ago, Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur and the Board of Trustees—especially trustees Don Wagner and Tom Fuentes, who dominated the anti-intellectualist and right-wing core of the board (John Williams and Dave Lang rounded it out)—approached the accreditation process with contempt for faculty concerns and, at least in the case of Fuentes, with open contempt for accreditors. This produced a harsh ACCJC response that warned that the colleges were in danger of losing their accreditation—should, that is, no progress be made at long last with regard to long-standing issues and recommendations.
To his credit, trustee Don Wagner took the warning and thus the Accred recommendations seriously, and thus commenced a strong effort, including the direct involvement of trustees Wagner and Lang (on large representative committees), to respond to Accred recommendations in good faith. (Fuentes did not participate and evidently did not experience any change of heart.)
Ultimately, strong and widely-supported self-study reports were produced and submitted in July/August of 2010—a month or so after the forced exodus of long-time Chancellor Mathur, a source of much of the disquiet and low morale at the colleges and at the district.
Not long after (in October), the Accreditation Team visits occurred, and they seemed to go well.
Not long after (in October), the Accreditation Team visits occurred, and they seemed to go well.
The board election of November 2010 brought the replacement of exiting trustee Don Wagner with the faculty-friendly T.J. Prendergast. In December, long-time trustee John Williams resigned, and he was replaced by (evidently faculty-friendly) Frank Meldau.
A new Chancellor was hired: the widely respected and liked Gary Poertner. These changes promised a reversal of fortunes for the district. It was about time!
A new Chancellor was hired: the widely respected and liked Gary Poertner. These changes promised a reversal of fortunes for the district. It was about time!
* * *
In late January, the two colleges received the accreditation results, which essentially warned the colleges that long-standing difficulties concerning especially the board of trustees must finally be addressed. The irony, of course, is that the personalities responsible for these difficulties had either left the district—Mathur, Wagner, and Williams—or were now a distinct and impotent minority (Lang, Fuentes).
Indeed, the new board direction seems destined to be positive—and very unlike the turn that has brought us all this Sturm und Drang.
Indeed, the new board direction seems destined to be positive—and very unlike the turn that has brought us all this Sturm und Drang.
* * *
To see Saddleback College’s letter, go here. Find “reports and letters.” Click on "ACCJC 2010 Accreditation Notification Letter (January 31, 2010)."
Please remember that this Accred round is based on self-study reports that were submitted in August of 2010, about a month after Raghu Mathur's exodus from the district.
Below is each letter. Click on graphics to enlarge them.
Irvine Valley College:
Saddleback College letter:
17 comments:
Gee, I wonder how this happened?
Jeez, how is this possible sans Raghu?
According to Roy, I thought all our accreditation problems were because of Raghu?
I think it's BEEN happening, hasn't it? Like for 10 years. They finally couldn't ignore it anymore and now the naw board has to clean up the old board's mess. Nice pairing with the news about Williams.
I don't know about the "new optimism" with Glen and Craig at IVC though. Shoving early college down our throats doesn't feel optimistic to me. (don't get me started).
Finally.
No surprise. No bombshell. If you read the 1998 accreditation eval report, it said the same thing. The only surprise is that it took the accreds from 1998 to 2010 to get a grip. Gee, I wonder how this happened, indeed.
We are still cleaning up the Raghu-Wagner-Fuentes-Williams-Lang-Fortune-Frogue mess. This didn't happen in the last two months. Wagner stood by Raghu for years until this district was run into the mud. Wagner needs to be held accountable for this mess. He was the Board President while the colleges suffered under Raghu. Now, he is a member of the state assembly, leaving the colleges on warning status. Good job Don.
I LOVE how quickly the trolls come out!
Raghu has created a culture which we still have to deal with - it's a toxic legacy of marginal hires (incompetents) and a sense of grotesque entitlement among some and an old board majority that has used our college distict to profit and forward a poisonous agenda.
Maybe we'll finally join the America Library Association again. Maybe the board will stop praying over us and our students at every opportunity. Too bad we can't shame Williams from his double-dipping - he's done dipped and GONE.
Roy is much more careful thinker than 6:48 suggest and hell, 6:48 knows it. Dontcha?
6:48, each college's self-study report was submitted in August--just one month after Raghu's exodus (at the end of June, as I recall). The Accred letter is in response essentially to the era of Mathur and the pre-Prendergast/Meldau board.
P.S. Get a fucking clue.
Anybody who has any idea of what has happened over the past decade knows this recent "warning" status is directly related to Raghu Mathur and the four board members that supported him. This is precisely what happens when locally elected lay board members think they can run a college. This situation lies squarely on lay person board members with personal and polictical agendas who supported an incompetent and unscrupulous chancellor, Raghu Mathur.
Since we are teaching our classes and doing the right thing by our students, how do we make sure the new board doesn't follow the Wagner/Fuentes/Mathur lead? Now that Wagner, Mathur, and Williams are gone, is Fuentes out as well? Are we rid of these toxic people?
Fuentes? Time will tell.
I'd really appreciate some college leaders stepping up and admitting to the very real problems of the not-so-recent past and how they still percolate through to the colleges today BUT I fear what is going to happens is a lot of college-wide meeting filled with platitude-heavy speeches - and then the predictable exhortations to band together, etc. etc.
Me, I want to see some honest acknowledgement of what they put us through -and some changes too. Up front.
Come on, you've been here long enough to know they won't admit any wrongdoing.
They're going to try and scare us to be good and write a nice report for them - and then ignore it all later on. I cannot stand this. No one is ever held accountable. No one ever says ooops or sorry.
It's like pretending that they didn't know Carona was the sleazy crook he was all the time. Or that Williams took as much as he could get. Or that they KNOW IT IS WRONG TO RECITE CHRISTIAN PRAYERS AT SCHOOL EVENTS BUT THEY DO SO ANYWAY. EVEN THE ONES WHO KNOW IT IS WRONG BOW THEIR HEADS AND GO ALONG.
Drives me crazy.
“Raghu has created a culture which we still have to deal with - it's a toxic legacy of…”
Pardon me but...
Wasn’t Raghu’s wings clipped about 6 months prior to his exodus? As I recall he hammered out his retirement deal and then became quite the absent chancellor.
Wasn’t it your people who have been in total control of the self study process these last few years?
How could you let this happen?
2:55 if you bothered to actually read the report instead of finger pointing, you would see that both colleges presented an accurate account of the district under the former chancellor (Raghu) and the former board of trustees. The response of the accreditation team is not a surprise. Raghu had done nothing to address the issues. Folks who actually know what is going on knew that there would be lot of work to do once a permanent chancellor was appointed and the elections were over. Because of the deadline, the report had to be written while Raghu was still chancellor and before the elections...you should know this Ray.
You people truly believe you know it all and have an answer for everything, huh?
FYI: Looks like you’ve just lost your anti-invocation Westphal v. Wagner lawsuit!
“The Trustees, Chancellor, and Saddleback College President are pleased with this outcome. They consistently have maintained that the practice of including a brief, non-sectarian ceremonial invocation at significant District and college events—a tradition that traces its roots to the first graduation ceremony at Saddleback College over 40 years ago—is well-grounded in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, as well as our nation’s rich history and culture. Like the invocation given at the annual Army-Navy football game or our presidential inaugurations, the invocations that have been given at district and college events are not used to proselytize or advance one (or any) religion, but instead, to bring about a dignity, solemnity, and gravitas to these important ceremonial events.”
Post a Comment