Saturday, August 13, 2011

"This is so F-ed up"

Nobody seems to know quite
what's going on. And what they
"know" often ain't so.
Whence leadership?
      I’ve been reading the comments (re yesterday's Visiting the MRC).

     Anonymous 1 seemed surprised that I was not familiar with the MRC. Alas, this philosophy instructor is indeed unfamiliar with it. A1 noted that the MRC was the “centerpiece of the BSTIC” and it “set us apart from surrounding colleges.”

     Anonymous 2 was pained by the thought that “faculty will be celebrating on top of MRC’s grave” at the 8/16 opening.

     Anonymous 3 suggested that I “should speak with your Academic Senate president. You should also ask around and see if any part-timers even received the invitation to the opening. Something is rotten in Denmark.”
     I always find such remarks as the last one amusing. What I have posted for the last week screams out that things are rotten here. (I’d start by focusing on an utter lack of transparency.) But, as usual, I need to point out that we should be careful to distinguish between differing Rottennesses:
  • That the MRC (and other facilities?) is/was closed down. (Why? Why no explanation?)
  • That the Academic Senate (i.e., the faculty) were “given” the MRC space (or part of it) as a site for their CAFÉ. (Is this the reason the MRC was closed? Answer: not likely. Evidently, senators were unaware that the closing and supplanting of the MRC was controversial. Was the Senate Prez aware? Did she fail to bring this matter to faculty’s attention?)
  • Recent changes with CIS and CIM courses. (Is there some difficulty concerning the labs with [some of] these courses?)
  • The nature and opening of the CAFÉ. (Is the manner in which the CAFÉ is being pursued elitist? Senators were told that the facility would not be costly and that it would be “for” all faculty, not just full-timers. Why then are only full-timers invited to the opening next week? [See flier.] Why isn’t this facility also for classified employees, etc.?)
  • That leadership (administrators and faculty, et al.) are utterly failing in transparency. (Things keep happening that require explanation; yet no explanation is forthcoming.)
     Anonymous 4, no doubt a devotee of Fox News, drew an analogy between “my argument” (which argument?) and “Nancy Pelosi’s” regarding a bill. A4’s point seemed to be that faculty (in the academic senate) agreed to an action (pursuit of a faculty center) before they knew what it was.
     A4 needs to read the notes I provided (a few posts back) of the senate meetings in which the faculty center idea was discussed over a period of five months. The senate Prez never presented the center as a lounge (though some wags, including me, joked that that is what it would become). The faculty can hardly be faulted for not knowing where the center would be located. They agreed to pursue the center and then worked with administration to secure space for it. (As far as I know) senators were not informed that MRC would be that space until the end of the semester (in May). Senators were told that placement of the center in MRC was agreeable to all parties concerned. (See notes.) Throughout the discussion of the center (starting in January), senators were told that it would be inexpensive and that it would be for all faculty.
     Further (a point I have not yet made): such facilities are common on college campuses. It is hardly an instance of “elitism” for faculty to have their own center to pursue grants, hold workshops, provide data, etc.

     Anonymous 5 agreed with 4, but went on to charge the Academic Senate President with rude and officious behavior toward classified. I responded by saying that Allen’s alleged personal “elitism” is not the issue, since, were elitist aspects of the CAFÉ to surface, we could rely on faculty (as I know them) to object. I suggested a focus on larger issues, such as “Why is the MRC being closed down?” “The answer,” I said, “likely has nothing to do with the faculty or the senate.”
     We shall see.

     Anonymous 6 described events that, if true, would be very interesting:
     The [academic?] senate president asked for the MRC as one of several choices when she requested the CAFE. This was well before the May 5th meeting. A faculty member representing the students went to her personally and pleaded with her not to take the MRC away from students. To her credit, she did say she would rescind the request. I'm not sure that happened, but the wrecking ball was a swinging. She absolutely knew that the MRC would be taken away from students and that the faculty did not approve [of taking over the MRC space] before the Cafe program was approved [in February].
     It is curious how this all went down over the summer when the faculty are mostly away. The senate needs to grow a set and take back ten plus. Start with number one: curriculum and programs. Was Business punished? You betcha! Punished for the actions of a prior VP. Your very reliable source has never taught a class or stepped into the lab.
     I would certainly like to get verification of the events described in the first paragraph. Re the second paragraph: I am not relying on one source. I am relying on several.

     Anonymous 7 agreed that shit happens always in summer, when faculty are away.

     Anonymous 8 suggested that those concerned “attend the Senate meeting during FLEX week.” Sounds like a good idea. (I should note, however, that I am on sabbatical and I will likely stay away from Flex week, etc.)
     Anonymous 8 asserted that there were “over 100 computers in the MRC,” and yet I only counted about 50. “What happened to the other 50?”
     A8 seemed to allude to a pattern of (administrative) actions of exploiting retirements and such to make big changes. A8 also wondered how the retirements and the shutting down of labs would affect our ability to avoid violation of the 50% law (which requires that at least half of expenditures be on “instruction”).
     Somewhat cryptically, A8 asserted: “The whole point of shutting down the MRC was to cut costs, not to show the faculty that administators appreciate them because they do not!” –I shall assume that A8 was saying, among other things, that administrators do not respect faculty.
     A8 emphasized that these kinds of actions are “always all about the money” and certainly not about helping students.

     Anonymous 9 suggested that it is in the nature of administration to push for high productivity and lower costs; and it is the job of the faculty senate “to stand between them and the student.” A9 suggested that we ask the president questions during Flex Week (next week). Good idea. A9 also noted that there already exists a “nice faculty lounge” upstairs. A9 hinted that faculty do not want to share space with classified. [For what it's worth, I don't think that is true for the faculty that I know well.]

     Anonymous 10 asked: “Do you think the chemistry lab would have been seized for the Café?” Answer: “I don't think so.”

     Anonymous 11, making a point that DtB has made (see IVC doesn't seem to like its adjuncts), noted that the “adjuncts CANNOT use the upstairs space – at least not to meet with students.”
     In a moment of grand articulateness, A11 sums up the situation: “This is so F-ed up.”
     I’d have to agree.

     Anonymous 12 offered some interesting alleged factoids:
     Classified employees were alerted to the MRC project [CAFÉ?] when it was discussed at a campus meeting a few months back. Unfortunately we were unable to get an honest answer as to the actual use of the facility or who would have access. At a recent senate meeting, the VPI came to give us an overview. We were told

1. It would not be a "lounge" or called a "CAFE".
2. That it would be available for other groups/organizations to use.
3. There was a "misconception" that it was an exclusive faculty training/development/faculty only learning area.

It now appears that the discussion was all smoke and the smoke has cleared.
     If this account is correct, that is remarkable. Does the VPI speak with forked tongue?
     A12 goes on to suggest that the CAFÉ is really only a “lounge” and that certain parties are “pretty elitist.”
     A12 facetiously “thanks” administrators and leaders (I guess) for being “‘transparent’ with the campus.”
     I’d have to agree that “lack of transparency” is among the core problems at IVC.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

You said it.

The whole BSTIC plan is F-ed up. What about all the resources directed to the speech team on the second floor? How is that connected to the mission of the building? Shouldn't they be in the fine arts complex or theater?

If the BSTIC no longer needs to fulfill its mission because the programs are crumbling, why no dedicated office space for part-time faculty (who teach the majority of classes) to meet with students?

Or simply classrooms. I teach in AWFUL classrooms carved out of old offices and storage spaces or else temporary classrooms sans air conditioning.

WE do not need a lounge or cafe. It's absurd. We need office space and classrooms so we can teach our students.

Anonymous said...

I believe that all groups should be welcome in the new Cafe. I'm certain that was probably the plan, but it was not well executed. Let's just advocate for all to use the new lounge and put this behind us. Insist on it, or don't use it at all.

Anonymous said...

I still think this space should be used for part-time office space where we could meet with our students. Please.

Anonymous said...

What the hell was that?

Roy Bauer said...

I don't know, but it was eminently deletable.

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...