Assessing the draft: re IVC’s “college recommendation 6”

Evelyn Nesbit

The "draft" says that things are just hunky

dory among groups at IVC. Is that true?

     In January, Irvine Valley College received seven recommendations—six “district” recommendations plus one “college” recommendation—from the accrediting agency (ACCJC). Let's focus on the "college" recommendation (CR6):

Although the college and its constituent groups have achieved a collegial working relationship with the current president to address issues with a new optimism, the college does not have this same type of relationship with the district leadership and the Board of Trustees. While some progress has been made and policies have been developed, the team feels that Recommendations 7 and 8 ... of the 2004 visiting team Accreditation Team have not been fully met. (See recs 7 and 8 here.)

     Observe that the first sentence assumes that “[IVC's] constituent groups have achieved a collegial working relationship with the current president.” The "working relationship" problem, according to ACCJC's CR6, isn’t within the college but between the college and “district leadership and the Board of Trustees.”
     The draft (of the follow-up)—about which input is due tomorrow—exploits that assumption, asserting that

At the college level the [Accred] team validated a solid working relationship among the administration, faculty, and classified staff [within the college]. Furthermore, various college climate surveys provide evidence regarding this assertion. The team went so far as to commend the college for the positive change in campus climate since the last accreditation visit.

     Note that the draft does not address relationships within the college. It addresses only the relationship between the college and the district.
     Ah, yes, but things change, and that makes the glacial Accred review process vulnerable to failing to take important changes into account. The draft explicitly acknowledges this phenomenon:

Dialog at the campus level after receipt of the Evaluation Report indicated a disappointment that the snapshot in time was not taken a month or two later. With changes in Board membership, Board Leadership, and the seating of a new chancellor the relationship between the college and the district leadership and Board of Trustees had already improved markedly by that time.

Glenn, Gwen, Craig

     But if this "things change" phenomenon can happen relative to the district/college level, it can happen relative to the college level too.
     Until about two years ago at IVC, faculty and administration (and other groups) had a common enemy, namely, the Chancellor (the odious Raghu Mathur) and the board (dominated by the Fuentes/Wagner block).
     That enemy is essentially gone. Meanwhile, in the last two or so years, it has seemed clear to at least some of us—our carping has been much in evidence on this blog—that the relationship between faculty (and other groups) with administration “at the campus level” has grown increasingly unhealthy.
     I believe that one can get a good sense of the problem by reviewing the history of IVC's “Early College” Program. It was originally foisted upon faculty several years ago (during the Dennis White era), despite expressed faculty concerns. Soon after its launch, severe difficulties of the sort predicted seemed to surface, and that led to a survey of participating instructors conducted by the Academic Senate. The survey indicated that there were indeed serious problems with the EC program. The Academic Senate continues to have serious concerns about it. It is pursuing further investigation.
     IVC administration has responded to all this with a degree of reassuring blather at Senate meetings—and, apparently, a total commitment to proceed with the EC Program. Indeed, just a month or two after the dismal findings of the survey were discussed on the senate floor, Pres. Roquemore, standing before the board of trustees, celebrated the alleged success and virtues of the EC Program as though it were the Crown Jewel of the college.
     It was as though the senate and its concerns did not exist at all.
     In my view the problem “at the campus level” more fundamentally concerns these facts (that I allege):

• The VPI, an intelligent but ruthless and crafty individual, actually runs the college, instilling fear and causing low morale. He does not take others' opinions seriously.
• The President, an obtuse fellow, seems oblivious to this circumstance; he has never “connected” with the campus community and seems forever unaware of its denizens' concerns. (He responds to crises of confidence by arranging to drop out of military aircraft and then showing video.)

     That's my opinion. What do you think? Let us know.
     And don't forget to pass along your input re the draft. Due tomorrow.

So says the draft