Wednesday, February 16, 2011

So, did anyone attend the gkk meeting?

Some returns in ping-pong are controversial
     Re the gkk "master planning" meeting at 3:00 p.m. today: I was unable to attend (and probably shouldn't have anyway). I do know that certain reliable folks attended. Got any reports for us? Did gkk or administrators (or somebody!) acknowledge our peevitude? Did they read our comments? What?
     PING-PONG. I see that, at some point today, faculty inputtery sent to the master planning folks—comments that seemed to fall into a black hole, for, not only have they gone unanswered, they have not been posted on the site!—have now appeared with “responses.” Check ‘em out: here.
     For what it’s worth, here’s my comment (ping) with response (pong):

PING. Transparency is a good thing, doncha think? But when you think "transparency," your mind doesn't immediately bolt to the SOCCCD. But things are changing! One way in which they are changing, we're told, is that the new round of planning of facilities for the college genuinely solicits input, etc. It's all very open and sensible, they say. It's a new day! Yeah, but, so far, the process just seems to me to be a carnival fun house, a hall of mirrors. It ain't inspiring confidence, I'll tell you for sure! How can it be that, once again, there is no plan for an H&L building? And why have the comments submitted by H&L faculty in the last few weeks been swallowed up by this machine, without a trace? Then, all of a sudden, the comments now appear, all encrusted with the bizarre remark, "well get back to you soon"! Here's what I expect. We'll get carefully written comments some time during our retirement. I'm starting a pool. My guess: feedback by 2025.

PONG. Thank you for your passionate comments regarding Humanities and Languages/Social Behavioral Sciences. Sincere discussion regarding the future of IVC and the many vital programs that make up the College does occur openly. Our strategy is combine the needs of the campus with the complexities of State approval and funding, while considering the current condition of the State budget. The facilities master plan seeks to outline a comprehensive vision of the IVC campus evolution. Project priority will be developed by administration and faculty representation while project scheduling will inevitably be a function of funding availability. Regarding delay of response, the consultant team will strive to address comments in a more timely fashion.

They must think we're awfully stupid

Immer noch kaput

     OK, it's finally really the day of the last big meeting with gkk re "master planning" for Irvine Valley College (a process that, historically, turns out always to be far-less-than-master planning, so who do they think they're kidding?), and, still, the responders-that-be have generally failed to respond (and, in many cases, even to post!) our comments (aka official solicited "inputtery"). Check out the comments page here. Note the frustration.
     And so, again, the system of inputtery exhibits kaputtery. At this point, many of us are far south of having faith in the system. We trust it not.
     Leadership? As usual: nowhere to be found.
     Decisions about long-term planning should be based on sensible and agreed-upon principles. What are those principles? In what sense are they followed?
     DtB is thinking seriously of creating a map of the campus indicating the diaspora that is Humanities and Languages faculty offices and classrooms. There's no rhyme or reason to it. There's no center. The Dean cannot be found. She has been placed in the furthest and most obscure corner of IVC-world. Her assistant is around the corner somewhere, locatable only with the help of bloodhounds.
     Is anyone in charge of this place? Do we actually have a President and VPI? I'm not convinced.

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...