As Chancellor Gary Poertner so helpfully reminded us today, there's a "Board Meeting and Audience Sleep Study" Monday night (the 5th; 6:00 p.m.) and the agenda is available here (click on "current agenda").
That means that some of you need to bring your CPAPs. The rest of you need to get some NoDoz.
It's December, and so it's time for the board's yearly "organizational meeting":
Nancy Padberg has served as board President during the past year. Maybe she wants another year? Dunno. Who would want such a job?
These days, the board seems in no mood to pursue crazy, "red meat," right-wing initiatives, and that's great. On the other hand, last meeting, Tom "red meat" Fuentes showed up to suggest, with his penultimate breaths—to "those wonderful people out there in the dark"—that he's still on the job—but (he added) things have taken a turn for the worse in recent months, district-wise and precipice-wise, and so the SOCCCD is headed for a fall to the bottom of Shit Canyon.
Maybe Fuentes sees himself as Puff the Right-Wing Dragon, slippin' sadly into his cave, oh. (Not sure who "Little Jackie Paper" is supposed to be. Sanity, maybe.)
I think Tom was sending evil vibes Gary's way when he said all that. When the noisy Mr. Wagner left (a year ago!) and Fuentes became a mere board pen pal (since March), a shift occurred, but I'm not sure exactly how to characterize it, not in any particular way. Maybe it's just the board decision to pursue ATEP, that infinite black hole? Not sure. Or maybe it's the board's failure to cancel the Humanities and to turn the colleges into trade schools and leased pumpkin paper patches.
So, on the board, things are lots better than they used to be, owing to the absence of coherent right-wing leadership. But I'm not saying this board is particularly "with clue." For instance, I don't suppose any of 'em have heard our endless fricking caterwauling about IVC VPI Craig Justice.
"Who's that?" they'll say.
Good Lord. They show up once a month, in a daze, recognizing the flags and velvet of the Ronnie Reagan room but oblivious to all else. Then they make those $half-billion-per-year decisions.
Hello?
Moving on: the board's "discussion item" concerns ATEP:
Here's a peculiar general action item that also concerns ATEP:
I suppose there'll be presentations regarding items 7.1 and 7.2: the SLO fiasco. Good Lord.
45 comments:
You might want to look at 5.5 first, then check out 5.14 to 5.17. The later items all say "funding provided by item passed at Dec 2011 board meeting. It looks like District IT needs to keep those consultants around. Maybe they are only ones who know how it all works!
What has happened to the IVC Academic Senate? It used to be a leader in the State? Where did your leadership go? It is sad to see the demise of the IVC Academic Senate. We all looked up to you. Hope you can get it back together? Where is Wendy?
Thank you, bvt, for mentioning the elephant in the room. Let's not forget that he is an evil, manipulative, lying rat, who is happily chewing away at the framework of what little shared governance we enjoyed at IVC. But, you have to applaud his methods. He has the senate in control. Everyone is terrified of him. Even Glenn won't stand up to him.
To 9:26 What happened to the senate? They sold out for a potential shot at an admin job. That is another story. Who would want to be a dean at IVC? You'd have more self-worth working as a greeter at WalMart.
As to the civility questions, WTF? Are you kidding? How about all the lies and backstabbing? What should we do about those? Oh, I know, we'll set up a committee to admonish anyone who complains and label them uncivil. Maybe the campus police (armed, no doubt) will start monitoring our conversations. Someone is already monitoring your email.
Indeed, the ones who talk about civility the most are the ones who scream, belittle, and villify for the sake of saving themselves.
It's ridiculous that anyone who shares a concern or reacts to unfair treatment is labelled as uncivil. Yet that's what happens.
6.8l SOCCCD: Claim Against the District: Kathleen Schrader
Recommendation to reject Kathleen Schrader’s claim and refer it to
the District’s insurance administrator for processing.
This is interesting. Does anyone know the basis for her claim? Is the VPI bringing the district yet another lawsuit?
Someone--named "Anonymous"--posted someone else's email, but not the whole of it, which would have revealed its full intent. So I deleted it.
I would imagine it to be wrongful termination. From the video clip I saw, she didn't do anything wrong, unless giggling at someone else's joke is somehow insubordination and punishable?
I see Jeff Kauffman is on that civility committee. So you guys are part of this?
Then what's your take on the actual intent of Gordon's email, bvt? What I saw before you took it down, was an attachment he included in his email. I believe it's fair game.
Regarding Schrader, I would imagine her complaint is wrongful termination or just plain gettin' too old to work at IVC. Tell her to get in line on the lawsuits.
Depends upon who was the butt end of that joke.
So what are we doing? Trading land at the base? For what? Is this online in our open and transparent folder?
KS was suffering from the long-in-tooth disease.
Next time you are looking in a mirror if you see some curiously yellow hair, laugh lines that are no longer funny and a stray nose hair or two cresting your upper lip, you'd better be banking osh.
I guess the democratoc process is just an illusion to keep all us little people busy while the big guys initially had their minds made up, and have already moved forward with their plans.
Seems like faculty & staff have been reduced to the same level as the student "trustees" when it comes to decision making.
KS lost her job because a certain spouse didn't like her. Let that be a lesson.
The working group on civility (at IVC) is distributing these questions among members:
Questions to Ponder in Preparation for the December 16, 2011 Workshop
1. What have been some of the issues and challenges at IVC related to civility in the recent past?
2. What are the core values related to civility that the IVC community shares?
3. What are examples of model behaviors related to these values?
4. What are the (minimal) behavioral expectations related to civility as a result of these core values?
5. Related to civility, what behaviors are considered unacceptable?
6. What are some proactive things IVC can do to foster civility?
7. What are some ways to deal with incivility when it occurs on campus?
"Civility" is a way to control and discourage robust discussion and criticism.
Why is it wrong to encourage civility? We could certainly use more of it. Problem is, those who are most uncivil don't think they have a problem, and their supervisors don't seem to want to go through the trouble of telling them.
We have some very weak administrators.
We've got ruthless administrators (at least one of 'em, at my college) messing with people, hurting them, making lives miserable. We've got the usual little ambitious monsters, putting their dreams of office and power before important responsibilities, doing a poor job, and that hurts people too. We've got a system in which virtually every group surrenders before the SLO mandate, going along that vast waste of resources and time, like polite "contributors to society." And on and on.
So, yeah, let's stop and talk about civility. Civility rule #1: nobody gets to call a spade a spade. That simply won't do. Much too unpleasant, that.
I remember when John Williams retired. I kept thinking: OK, so now they'll give him awards and dinners and such, even though he's a total rat bastard--and by then nobody with half a brain could deny it. And that's what they did.
And I have no doubt that some people who noticed me looking at John with contempt in that big dumb room with all the cake and punch and smiling faces--I have no doubt that I was a very uncivil fellow and that they judged me so.
Oh my.
There is nothing wrong with encouraging civility. We could all use a big dose of it. It just seems so unimportant in comparison to the very real issues underlying the problems at IVC. It is like putting talcum powder on a festering, gangrenous wound. Say please and thank you, and you'll feel better in the mornin'.
The only tool left is our uncivil disobedience.
Related to civility, what behaviors are considered unacceptable?
Lying and manipulating the facts.
What are some proactive things IVC can do to foster civility?
The admin at the college needs to do what they pretend to do. Be honest, open, transparent, and be accepting of diversity of opinion. Foster and protect academic freedom.
Lying and manipulating facts? That's considered uncivil?
Gosh, isn't that what every one of those people running for the Party's (you name it) nominee for President does every single day? And we all know it. And we applaud. And we would never condemn. That's because we're civil.
And we deserve the government we get.
Mike Carona was very civil And they were very civil to him. See how it all works out?
1. What have been some of the issues and challenges at IVC related to civility in the recent past?
Answer: How about certain male faculty and staff members district wide who often and publicly berated and demeaned female staff, faculty and students in the classroom and in meetings? And were protected for years and years by those men still in power? The complaints of the women laughed or shrugged off OR WORSE acknowledged but then ignored.
I would rather have a communication policy first - then, if needed a civility policy.
Yes - a communication policy is in order. Perhaps the perceived "incivility" comes from a lack of communication. There is little true, honest open dialogue on campus - just enthusiastic press releases and emails and meetings where orders are given. People in power tell us what is best (and what they want us to know - not what we need to know)- and to our shame, most of us just nod our heads.
3. What are examples of model behaviors related to these values?
Er, NOT forcing your religious views on people in a public forum?
IVC is a perfect image of what a college looked like a few decades ago, back when the senate had little if any power. I liked it better then. I didn't hold the misconception that faculty had a say.
"We've got ruthless administrators (at least one of 'em, at my college) messing with people, hurting them, making lives miserable."
That's right. And when the victims object or resist, they're deemed "uncivil" and subject to the punishments being presently concocted by the civility police, perhaps commitment to an insane asylum as in the old Soviet Union.
When is his contract up? For goodness sake, we need to make sure the board does not renew it.
In Stanley Milgram's discussion of his famous "obedience" experiments, he lists several reasons given for why the subjects, who fully believed that they were administering painful, dangerous, and lethal shocks to the "students" they were instructing, simply went along and didn't protest. One of them was that people didn't want to be *discourteous,* or to *hurt the scientist's feelings*!
Better to kill, torture, or ruin lives than to be "rude"?----well, no.
So I agree with those who find the recent focus on "civility" on your campus dangerous and offensive.
MAH
I'd like to know more from the blogger who possted about the negative comments about women. I'm unaware of it, but not surprised.
It is a historical and open fact - at least at IVC - that the admin and the deans excused inexcusable behavior from male staff. Their lack of action over the years only encouraged those boors to act out even more.
If you have difficulty in math and want to learn, don't take his class. Ninety percent of the time his back is to the class and when he does address the students, he only faces the left half of the classroom. By the way, he doesn't like questions. He'll most likely make fun of you for not knowing the answer, especially if you are female.
The worst teacher I have ever had! He plays games and has a attitude when he teaches. Other times he trys to be funny in class. He will trick you while teaching. He hates on women and is very prejudice towards most people. Bottom line....he SUCKS!!!!!!!!!
That particular guy is gone -- but yes they tolerated his actions because he was one of them. That's how it goes. They treated him very, uh, "civilly."
I recommend the following:
Do not renew the VPI's contract.
Move Werle to the VPI position temporarily.
Eliminate the Dean of Ed Programs position.
Save money and solve some big problems at the same time.
I feel Ike the focus here on the meaning of civility is off-base. Has anyone really said that you can't question administrative decisions? That would be entirely unreasonable to expect.
But can't our tone and words be civil while we question decisions? Intimidation and name calling cannot be acceptable in what should be a professional environment.
I think the problem is a few, but administrators don't want to deal with those few, so we all need to be a part of the civility exercise.
Move Werle to the VPI position permanently. That way we don’t have to worry about another “hot shot” lose canon coming in to be the new VPI
Post a Comment