A "lack" of writing and thinking well

     At yesterday’s Academic Senate meeting, senators were at one point obliged to read a document, evidently produced by a district committee or committees, that lists “barriers” to “Mutual Respect, Cooperation and Collaboration.”
     Yes, as I understand it, the document is yet another product of our seemingly endless and largely absurd effort to address the accrediting agency’s “recommendations.” These recommendations are in fact tasks issued by the Accreds in order to address problems at our college(s) that they have identified.
     For instance, in February, in a letter, the Accreds issued three recommendations, including this one:

[We] recommend that the district provide a clear delineation of its functional responsibilities, the district level process for decision making and the role of the district in college planning and decision-making…. 

     The letter stated that, despite recent “warnings” that it is out of compliance with the relevant standards, our college (IVC) has made enough progress that it is hereby declared "accredited." Nevertheless, the college must now produce a report that demonstrates that it has “addressed” the three recommendations, including the one above.
     I call our accreditation labors absurd in part because the process is so slow and cumbersome and generally ridiculous that, at times, the Accreds’ recommendations arrive only after the problem that gave rise to the recommendations has been largely overcome. But the Accred Machine will not stop; nor will it adjust.

     Consider: there’s been much fear and distrust—and “disrespecting”—in our district, owing in large part to the ruthlessness and pettiness and connivery of former district Chancellor (and nakedly ambitious wannabe) Raghu P. Mathur. (He's presently running for Laguna Hills City Council.)
     But Mathur left the district more than two years ago!
     Nevertheless, here we are, still addressing the absence of "mutual respect” (a euphemism, really, for prevailing Mathurian realpolitik) and the fear and distrust that it long engendered in dark, dark Raghustan. (Arguably, the atmosphere of hostility and fear was caused also by the bullying realpolitik of trustees Don Wagner and the late Tom Fuentes. But they, too, are long gone. In truth, we have a much better board and chancellor now. Admittedly, there seems to be some bullying at IVC that is unrelated to the Mathurian crowd.)
     So, do we write the Accreds, advising them that their recommendations are (to a degree) inappropriate because the source of the underlying problem is now gone?
     No, we do not. (Or we do, but this gets us absolutely nowhere.) Instead, like the Queen Mary or maybe the Titanic, we uselessly set about to turn the whole goddam operation around in mid-ocean. It’s a mammoth undertaking, and it is pretty dishonest; plus its pointless. But we are bound to do it anyway.
     Absurd.

     Back to yesterday’s Academic Senate meeting:
     In the course of addressing the Accreds' recommendations, a group (or groups) within the district have arrived at a list of five "barriers" (do these people realize that this is a metaphor?) to "mutual-respect" and "cooperation." Here they are:

Barrier 1: Unhealthy competition within and between IVC, Saddleback, and District Services.
Barrier 2: Lack of utilizing data and metrics for decision-making.
Barrier 3: Circumvention and lack of established policies, procedures, and protocols.
Barrier 4: Lack of district-wide perspective and mutual understanding and acceptance of the roles of each college and district services.
Barrier 5: Lack of district policy encouraging civility, respect, and collegial behavior

     Now, I won’t launch into a critique of the entire list, although someone really should do that.
     Nope, I want to focus on “barrier” #2 in particular. I don't really have a problem with 2, but I do have a problem with how it's expressed.
     Let’s read it again:

Lack of utilizing data and metrics for decision-making.

     Lack of utilizing data? Really?
     Suppose a man stands on railroad tracks and is fatally run down by a train. How should we describe this? Was there a “lack” of getting out of the train’s way?
     And what’s with the word “utilizing”? People who go to college learn to avoid “utilize” when “use” is adequate. Students are advised that, though there may be special situations in which the word “utilize” is appropriate, unnecessarily opting for “utilize” is pretentious. It is the writing of someone who is trying hard to sound important. (See this and this and this)
     Could it be that the crew who arrived at “barrier” #2 missed out on this familiar advice?
     If so, what are they doing in positions of authority at a college?
     “Metrics” is another word that is over-used by people who have little to say but who want to sound impressive nonetheless. The word refers to measurement or the results of measurement. And so “data and metrics” refers to—data. (See Economist style guide. See also here and here.)
     OK, let me give this thing a shot. What might the authors of "barrier 2" really be trying to say? How about:

[One impediment to mutual respect and cooperation in the district is the] failure to make decisions based on available information.

     Well, yeah.

Rebel Girl's Poetry Corner: "I am the horizon you ride towards, the thing you can never lasso"

Backdrop addresses cowboy

~ Margaret Atwood

Starspangled cowboy
sauntering out of the almost-
silly West, on your face
a porcelain grin,
tugging a papier-mâché cactus
on wheels behind you with a string,

you are innocent as a bathtub
full of bullets.

Your righteous eyes, your laconic
trigger-fingers
people the streets with villains:
as you move, the air in front of you
blossoms with targets

and you leave behind you a heroic
trail of desolation:
beer bottles
slaughtered by the side
of the road, bird-
skulls bleaching in the sunset.

I ought to be watching
from behind a cliff or a cardboard storefront
when the shooting starts, hands clasped
in admiration,
but I am elsewhere.

Then what about me

what about the I
confronting you on that border,
you are always trying to cross?

I am the horizon
you ride towards, the thing you can never lasso

I am also what surrounds you:
my brain
scattered with your
tincans, bones, empty shells,
the litter of your invasions.

I am the space you desecrate
as you pass through.

*

Landmark community college bill heads to governor (EdSource)

     One day after a survey warned that budget cuts have caused an unprecedented drop in enrollment at California’s community colleges, the state Legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill that could bring the first significant reforms in more than a decade to community colleges.
     The Student Success Act of 2012, by Democratic Senators Alan Lowenthal of Long Beach and Carol Liu of La Cañada Flintridge, received nearly unanimous bipartisan support. It would give new students more support early on, including orientation and better academic counseling, in an effort to improve dismal graduation rates. Only about a third of community college students earn an associate degree or a certificate, or transfer to a four-year college within six years.
     “While many students are getting out of the starting blocks at our community colleges, many fail to get across the finish line,” said Lowenthal in a written statement following Thursday’s vote. “This situation is unacceptable by any measure and demands immediate change.”
     The bill stems from the work of the Student Success Task Force, a panel established by the Legislature that developed 22 recommendations aimed at improving completion rates for students through a combination of financial and academic incentives, as well as reprioritizing resources….

Grade inflation: trustees gave themselves A's and B's. Evidence of discord

     Back in February and March, members of the SOCCCD board of trustees performed a “self evaluation” that included a survey that asked trustees to rate dozens of (positive) statements from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” (“Neutral” was the middle choice.)
     Seven people—presumably, the seven elected trustees—took the survey.
     Predictably, trustees generally gave themselves high grades. With regard to the vast majority of statements, most trustees gave the board either an A (strongly agree) or a B (agree).
     See for yourself: here (pdf)
     But there were a few exceptions. In a few cases, one trustee gave the board a D (disagree).
     More interestingly, in a few cases, multiple trustees gave the board a D. And, in some cases, several trustees selected the “neutral” (C) score:

The board expresses its authority only as a unit. Not?

Some trustees seem to think that some trustees are south of ethical, I guess.

Slow down and count the posies.

The Earth moved

     Some time after 1:00 p.m. today, I was lecturing in my Philosophy 2 (Ethics) course, yammerin' about our foolishness re earthquakes and such. Then, at 1:30, my students seemed suddenly to be highly entertained, in a wide-eyed sort of way, by something ("not me," I thought).
     Eventually, they told me that we'd just experienced a goshdarned earthquake—I must've been levitating at the time—caused by the usual tensions between sections of earthy crustiness.
     Alternatively, the Lord was briefly peeved about all that pious buggery and feculent caterwauling over in Tampa, Florida, and took it out on Yorba freakin' Linda. That's how He rolls, it seems.

Survey offers dire picture of California's two-year colleges (LA Times)
As demand increases but funding is cut, 470,000 students find themselves on waiting lists for needed classes. Things will get worse if further cuts become necessary.

     More than 470,000 community college students are beginning the fall semester on waiting lists, unable to get into the courses they need, according to a survey of California's two-year colleges that captures a system struggling amid severe budget cuts. (continued…

Rebel Girl's Poetry Corner: "the dark fertile life / You were always giving gifts to"

A poem for the first week of classes, about teachers, colleagues and students, parents and children.

For Elizabeth Bishop

~Sandra McPherson

The child I left your class to have
Later had a habit of sleeping
With her arms around a globe
She’d unscrewed, dropped, and dented.
I always felt she could possess it,
The pink countries and the mauve
And the ocean which got to keep its blue.
Coming from the Southern Hemisphere to teach,
Which you had never had to do, you took
A bare-walled room, alone, its northern
Windowscapes as gray as walls.
To decorate, you’d only brought a black madonna.
I thought you must have skipped summer that year,
Southern winter, southern spring, then north
For winter over again. Still, it pleased you
To take credit for introducing us,
And later to bring our daughter a small flipbook
Of partners dancing, and a ring
With a secret whistle. —All are
Broken now like her globe, but she remembers
Them as I recall the black madonna
Facing you across the room so that
In a way you had the dark fertile life
You were always giving gifts to.
Your smaller admirer off to school,
I take the globe and roll it away: where
On it now is someone like you?

*

Most IVC employees say: Roquemore and Co. don’t care what we think

Summary of “highlights” of IVC employee satisfaction survey (see The 2011 IVC survey: curious results):

• By far, the largest group that participated in the survey were the full-time classified (i.e., non-instructional, non-managerial employees). They comprised 40% of respondents. Full-time faculty comprised 25%.
• 23%—that's nearly a quarter—disagree that they are treated with "respect and dignity." That can't be good, civility fans.
• 52% agree that "little effort is made to get the opinions...of people who work here." That is, most employees (who took the survey, anyway) feel that Roquemore and Co. don't care what they think.*
• A quarter of respondents judged that the environment for employees (at IVC) is poor or very poor.
• 39% of employees agree that "district administrators and managers usually make decisions that are unfair."
• 35% of IVC employees disagree that "administration at IVC provides effective leadership...."

*I should mention that the survey question (to which I am referring here: #37H) was a tad ambiguous concerning whether it was referring to IVC leadership or district leadership. On the other hand, most of 37's elements concern IVC in particular, and we have strong independent reasons to suppose that the district Chancellor is a popular leader (including at IVC). Thus I think my interpretation—that 37H opines about Roquemore and Co, not some broader field of leadership.—is fair.

The 2011 IVC employee satisfaction survey report: curious results

VPI C. Justice

     Oddly, though employees took the IVC employee satisfaction survey back in 2011, the survey's results haven't become available until very recently (Aug. 15). Many of us here at IVC had begun to think that the survey results were being suppressed.
     Not sure about that. Many of the remarks left by survey-takers were pretty negative.

     I didn’t report on these results right away (here on DtB) because (1) I was very busy at the time, (2) when I looked them over, I could think of no way of “boiling them down” to something small and digestible. Seems to me you ought to read the whole thing. Still think so.

     Well, some readers have kept yammering about the survey and so I guess I’ve got to give it a shot. What follows presents only some of the survey results, though I made an effort to focus on what struck me as important.
     I have not included the written remarks solicited by the survey. It seems to me that it's even harder to "boil down" that stuff. Any effort to do that will look like cherrypicking.

     FINDING THE REPORT. I’m not sure that everyone has access to this site, but the url for the IVC Fall employee satisfaction survey report is this:

http://inside.ivc.edu/nonacademic/rp/IVC%20Satisfaction%20Surveys/2011%20IVC%20Employee%20Satisfaction%20Survey%20-%20Initial%20Report.pdf

Prez Roquemore

     According to the communication (from the President's Office) that provided the above link, “You can find the report ... by navigating to Inside IVC > Non-Academics > Research and Planning > IVC Satisfaction Surveys.”
     They're assuming, of course, that you're starting at the IVC Website.

Interestingly, classified employees were slightly more willing to participate in the survey than full-time faculty. By far, the largest group that participated were the full-time classified (i.e., non-instructional, non-managerial). They comprised 40% of respondents. Full-time faculty comprised 25%.

A quarter of respondents judged that the environment for employees (at IVC) is poor or very poor. On the other hand, 56% judged it to be good or excellent.

It seems to me that employees at one college are typically in a poor position to assess conditions for employees at the other college. IVC employees are generally in a poor position to assess conditions for district employees.

Safe town, safe college.

The campus looks good. But there seem to be bathroom and AC issues. 23% of employees don't agree that campus lighting at night is "good." That's worrisome I think.

30% of employees don't agree that job performance evals "encourage improvement." That can't be good.
20% disagree that campus publications reflect reality. But 60% agree!
What are these people reading? I must be missin' it.

Check out C. 39% of employees agree that "district administrators and managers usually make decisions that are unfair." Wow.
On the other hand, item C's statement strikes me as easily misread (one expects it to say "fair," but in fact it says "unfair"). Agree?
35% of IVC employees disagree that "administration at IVC provides effective leadership...." Wow again.
That question was pretty straight-forward. I don't see how one could misread it.
Those are high negatives, dude.

Re 35: people really like to work at IVC. That's always been true, I think, despite the nuttiness at the top.
But 31% don't agree that they have the opportunity to participate meaningfully in shared governance at IVC.
That's pretty high, if you ask me. I.e., that's pretty bad.
23%--that's nearly a quarter--disagree that they are treated with "respect and dignity." That can't be good.
Re 36: 80% feel that they are informed about "what is happening" at IVC. I wonder why?

This is item 37: "Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about communication." The above results surprise me somewhat. Many employees feel that they are informed, but just where do they think they're getting the information? (Who informs them?) 65% are "content" with the info they get on major issues being addressed by the college Prez.
On the other hand, 28% are not "content," info-wise.

Continued:

Item H is curious, given the large number of employees who feel "informed" about college issues. 52% agree that "little effort is made to get the opinions...of people who work here." That is, MOST employees (who took the survey, anyway) feel that Roquemore and Co. don't care what they think. Wow.
Further, about the same proportion of employees say they are "rarely informed about budget decisions" that affect their work area.

What strikes me about these data is the large percentage of respondents who select "don't know." (Compare with questions above.) Are these processes effective? Always, a substantial proportion of employees say they "don't know." That can't be good.

• Cal State Fullerton welcoming over 37,000 for fall (OC Reg)

…Fullerton is admitting more students this fall because admissions will tighten up in the spring, when the California State University system limits enrollment because of ongoing budget cuts, officials said. Fullerton might admit as few as 200 transfer students this spring, according to some estimates, compared to 2,000-2,500 transfers typically taken each spring….

• Jeb Bush to GOP: Time to change the tone on immigration (LA Times)
• California State University, Online, coming soon (Associated Press)
     California State University will launch a systemwide online university in 2013 that could eventually expand enrollment by 250,000 students.

Long-awaited theater finally rises on UC Irvine campus (OC Reg)

The Irvine Valley College bookstore relocation adventure (the return of the Mold Monster)

A few "goo" men

     [See UPDATE at the end of this post.]
     I visited the Irvine Valley College Bookstore today, hoping to find someone there who could tell me why it has become "necessary" to move that facility out of the temporary building it has occupied all these many years and into B100, one of the campus's older permanent buildings. (B100 was originally the campus library. These days, it houses an art gallery and classrooms.)

     But I got nowhere. As I wandered around inside, two or three employees came up to me, asking if they could help me find anything. "Nope," I said. I asked them about the move. They didn't know a thing about it. "We don't know anything," said one.
     I accosted a lady who seemed to be further up the chain of command. I asked her what she knew about the move. She told me that the bookstore was moving because the new building (rooms B101 and B102, presumably) was "better." I said, "Yes, but I was under the impression that this building [I gestured downward] is somehow deficient."

     She didn't seem to like that. "And who are you?" she asked. I said, "Roy Bauer. I teach philosophy."
     She directed me to John Edwards, the Director of Facilities—which makes sense. He'd be the one to talk to all right.
     But it's Friday and I decided that that's all the detective work I want to invest in for now.
     I took a few snaps.

Note the removal of the skirt

     The bookstore has long resided in this mildly hideous temporary building (above), occupying, really, a part of the parking lot. Alternatively, one might view it as a particularly ugly annex, jutting outward from between A300 and A400 of the original A-Quad of the campus. 

     The bookstore is, of course, one of the more visible examples of the residual half-assery that often plagues campuses in their beginning decades. Other temporaries, such as the CEC buildings (see below) are somewhat less visible and thus detract less from a sense of permanence. (I.e., they do less to suggest shabbiness and crapitude.)

     Inside, the bookstore screams temporary: it seems cheap, as though it were built upon a flimsy plywood box, like a stage for a Li'l Rascals production in a barn. The ceiling is too low, the lights too artificial and bright, and the walls look as though they would cave in upon colliding with my elbow.

Lurid lighting, Walmartian decor

     A temporary building, such as the old bookstore, arrives on wheels and a rudimentary suspension. That stuff (see above and below), plus the Rube Goldbergian piers and two-by-fours, wiring conduit, plumbing, and whatnot, is normally veiled by a cheap plywood skirt.

     When I arrived at the scene today, the entire skirt had been removed—seemingly recently. This seems to support the notion that the decision to move the bookstore into B100 was a response to something discovered recently under the building. For some reason (did someone get a sinking feeling?), they looked under a part of the building, got worried, and then looked all under it. 

     Then their hair was on fire.

     Here's what I found under the building.

     

     I think you've got to be an expert to make anything of the mess depicted in these photos. Should there be two-by-fours (or two-by-sixes) between the piers and the building? Dunno. Maybe that's standard.

     In any case, by about Wednesday, one of the English chairs (I'm told) was led to believe (by Craig and Co.?) that an inspection of the area under the bookstore revealed an alarming situation, an emergency. The conclusion: the bookstore would have to move out, and fast.

     If that's true, the lady in the bookstore was blowin' a little smoke. No biggie, I guess. But what's wrong with being honest? Why can't everybody tell it like it is?

     (Nearly) adjacent to the bookstore are the CEC temporaries (above)—where the courses now occupying B101 and B102 will be moved on Monday. Even when new, such structures are cheap and inferior. Instructors who teach in them generally pine for permanent digs, yearn for first-class citizenry, and curse The Man for sticking them in a glorified outhouse, to be contemned and forgotten by all.

     One problem with upper administration at IVC is that they are so secretive and so utterly uninterested in communication (and, arguably, are deceptive besides) that, even when they're telling the truth, nobody believes them. I'm not at all surprised that some in the Humanities and Languages suspect that the decision to bump instructors/classes from B101 and B102 was less-than-optimal. 

     Earlier in the week, one of our readers predicted that the art gallery in B100 would be sacrificed to deal with this supposed emergency. That decision, they suggested, would reflect a failure properly to weigh the importance of art! It now appears that that did not occur and the art gallery is safe. (Update: not sure about this.) But I'm not surprised that some of the Fine Arts folks were wary and suspicious.

     Roquemore and Justice just don't get it. You've got to communicate with people, and you've got to be honest with them. But that's not how it is at IVC. And so suspicion and distrust surrounds every administrative decision. Even good ones.

     Did you know that the contractor for the new Bio building went bankrupt? Yeah. 

     How come we're not told such things? If indeed that contractor went belly up (I've not verified that), that will have an impact on other construction planned at IVC. But this factoid is not mentioned in meetings between faculty and top administration about future construction. How come?

 * * *

     I just spoke with Rebel Girl over the phone, and she reminded me that, long ago, B100 housed the dinky IVC Library. Fifteen or so years ago, the new library was planned, and our former colleague Kate Clark was on a committee tasked with naming the new building. 

     Evidently, there was a contingent who wanted to name the library "The Library."

     "No," said Kate. "You can't call the library 'The Library.'"

     Why not?, the others asked.

     Kate's brain began to hurt. "Just trust me," she said. "You can't call the library 'the Library.' It just won't do."

     As near as I can tell, in the end, they didn't call it "The Library." They called it "Library" instead. 

     Whew!

UPDATE: just after 5 p.m., IVC President Glenn Roquemore sent out the following email to the campus community. (A little late, Glenn, but OK):

Colleagues, 

     During scheduled maintenance of the College Book Store floor, a potential mold growth was discovered below the building. John Edwards immediately engaged mold testing in partnership with Follett. The studies verified mold in the sub-floor but the air in the building was found to be cleaner that [sic] ambient outside air and deemed safe for staff and students. Since the Bookstore needs to be vacated during remediation, it was determined that it was more cost effective to permanently move the College Bookstore to the B-100 building as prioritized in the IVC Facility Master Plan. The bookstore move to B-100 required moving ESL classes to CEC 5 and 6. Professor Jeff Wilson and [Dean] Karima Feldhus worked closely with Craig Justice, John Edwards and Jeff Hurlbut to manage this urgent project effectively. The primary concern was to avoid the disruption of classes and to provide a superior teaching and learning space. Through the sustained attention to this matter by IVC Facilities and Maintenance, CEC 5 and 6 are nearly completed. Although the cause of the mold in the bookstore floor does not exist in the CEC buildings [?], we are testing anyway to alleviate any concern. No classes have been disrupted.
     Repurposing the CEC building also requires temporarily moving an IUSD special education program to Lib 201. This move is nearly complete. The bookstore move is scheduled to occur next Friday.
     I would like to personally thank John Edwards, Jeff Hurlbut, Karima Feldhus, Jeff Wilson, and Craig Justice for their excellence in planning and execution of this critically time sensitive project. In addition, a big “thank you”, goes to the ESL faculty and staff for their cooperative spirit in this emergency situation.

Horribly over the top (who's more to blame? Nicholson? Sorkin? Reiner? I blame 'em all.)

Our moldy past:
"COLONIES OF MOLD" AT IVC by Chunk (Nov. 1, 2005)
Mold pie with mouse turd topping (Dec. 9, 2005)

Classes yanked out of classrooms, stuck in temporaries

     Last night, I reported that, owing (evidently) to the poor condition of the temp building housing the Irvine Valley College Bookstore, the latter will be moved into building B100—where, of course, there are classrooms presently in use (by writing instructors, among others).
     A few minutes ago, I learned that instructors who use rooms B101 and B102 have been informed, via email, that, “effective Monday, August 27, your classes in B 101 and B 102 will not meet in these rooms. All Classes in B 101 will meet in CEC 5. All Classes in B 102 will meet in CEC 6.”
     CEC5 and 6 are inferior temporary buildings located just southwest of the Bookstore.
     The move is permanent: “These classes will meet in these rooms for the remainder of the semester.”
     CORRECTION: an earlier version of this post suggested that the decision to move these classes occurred without due consideration to instructors involved. I have been assured (by people directly involved) that the decision occurred because of an emergency and that an effort was made to take this action with the cooperation and assistance of the relevant dean and chairs. I will make an effort to gain clarity about the emergency.
     See UPDATE of subsequent post.

Spitzer spanks that rat bastard John Williams

Spitzer slaps down Williams’ ballot statement (OC Reg; Total Buzz)

     Challenged in court by crusading county Supervisor-elect Todd Spitzer, ex-Public Administrator John S. Williams caved in Thursday, agreeing to modify what Spitzer termed an “incredibly misleading” ballot statement and to pay Spitzer’s court costs…. (continued)

Excerpt of Judge Sanders' finding

Spitzer sues Williams, wins (No, John, you don't get to lie on your candidate's statement)

     Our old friend "Pen Pal" just sent this:

[OC Supervisor-elect Todd] Spitzer sued John Williams yesterday over his ballot statement, which stated [that] he (Williams) was praised by the [OC] Grand Jury. They had a hearing this morning at Central Court in Santa Ana. Spitzer won! [Williams] will have to remove the grand jury [claim]from the ballot statement! Oh, and pay court costs!  Too funny!  Apparently the press (OCR) just happened to be there, so there should be something online later today. 

     For background, read this or this.
     That Williams would claim to have been praised by the Grand Jury when, in truth, they slammed him illustrates his vicious character.
     As you know, the faculty union PAC, led by residual Old Guardsters (Channing, MacMillan, Miller-White, Woodward, et al.), recently voted to endorse the utterly disgraced Williams for the 7th area seat of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees.
     In early September, the union's Rep Council will meet to decide whether to accept the PAC's recommendation.

Pants afire

     I have advocated that the Rep Council refrain from endorsing anyone for this race and to let the chips fall where they may. A Rep Council decision to endorse Williams would surely divide and polarize faculty. To what end? We don't need Williams. We need to have nothing to do with the guy.
     Many of us remember the Old Guard era (roughly, the 1990s), when a secretive and corrupt group of faculty controlled the union. Stunningly, they chose to use homophobic fliers and to support a Holocaust denying trustee to secure a lucrative contract. It took years to wrest control of the union from that group.
     It was led by the same people who brought about the recent PAC recommendation. (See PAC.)
     Good grief.

Wednesday evening maundering

Is there any "there" there?

• Sources at Saddleback College tell me that the remodel of the “James B. Utt” Library has been allowed to cause tremendous and sustained disruption that is, for some, intolerable.

• We keep encountering murmurings—from many sources—about the IVC Foundation. Something’s afoot and amiss, but we don’t know what. You’ll recall that, last Spring, the student scholarship process was revealed to be fubar, though good work was then done to start to turn things around. Stay tuned.

• We hear that the crummy temp box that has housed the IVC bookstore is finally falling apart and that the store will be moved into B100—which, of course, has long housed classrooms.

• The mother of a student contacted me, hopping mad about expensive textbooks that her kid bought, mostly for math courses. Somehow, the kid had to drop those particular courses, but then the bookstore wouldn’t buy back the books. The instructors, I'm told, are selling very special (and expensive) editions that can only be used in their own classes. We’ve been hearing about this sort of thing—and worse—for years.

• It’s a little thing, really. Denizens of IVC’s Bldg. A200 are wondering why both the building printer and photocopy machine were allowed to be so fouled up during the crucial first two days of the semester (things seemed better today)—a period in which, obviously, many important documents (APCs, rosters, syllabuses) must be printed or duplicated.
     As usual, there is no sense that anyone has heard the complaints, recognized their gravity, and issued reassurances. The people with power at IVC lack people skills bigtime. They leave us all hanging, wondering why things go the way they do. We're forever in the dark. Things just happen.

     Here at IVC, at the top, there's a permanent leadership vacuum. Both the college President (who, you'll recall, got his start owing to a compact with the odious Raghu P. Mathur) and the VPI are, in different ways, utter non-leaders. The Prez seems never to have a freakin’ clue. (Chronic cluelessness seems to define him for most of us.) The Vice Prez, meanwhile, runs the college, and he rules through fear. Mouths are shut tight. People are unhappy. Especially classified.
     Meanwhile, the IVC Academic Senate is a new entity, with mostly new leadership, after a three-year period of largely dismal leadership from a president who had curious values (the CAFÉ—the Center for the Advancement of Faculty Excellence—was repeatedly hobbled by weird spasms of elitism, and it sits essentially unused; despite substantial faculty concerns, the scandalous Early College Program was allowed to proceed, robbing resources from our students; the Senate actually went to bat for Prez Roquemore over his turf war re ATEP, that amorphous money pit par excellence) and who obviously proceeded with her longstanding administrative ambitions firmly in mind. Good grief.
     Will the new Academic Senate step up? Think so. We’ll see.

• And then there's the faculty union. If the Faculty Association chooses to endorse that über-creep John Williams—evidently on the meager grounds that Williams will likely support the contract—then I would love for someone to explain to me the difference between this FA and the nasty old FA that got all homophobic and Frogue-loving in order to protect "life as we know it" back in 1996.
     To quote an infamous Alabamian, there ain't a dime's worth of difference.
     If.

DtB’s “curious moments in SOCCCD history,” part 2: the specter of "school slaughter"

Mr. Knoblockhead

     1. During the September 24, 2007 meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees, San Clemente City Councilman Steve Knoblock addressed the trustees concerning the specter of school violence with its “burgeoning body count." The Republican politico ridiculed the nation’s feeble efforts in addressing violent outbreaks (he mentioned reliance on "sensitivity training," among other things).

     Knoblock's recommendation: reject the “strategy of duck and cover” in favor of a strategy of “self defense."
     Said he,

Tod Burnett's personal arsenal

"We may see less school slaughter if students are trained and encouraged to protect themselves. On hand in every classroom and on every school campus there are innumerable books, chairs, backpacks, laptop computers, shoes, etc., that can be used at a moment’s notice as defensive projectile weapons against armed assassins…."

     Afterward, trustee Tom Fuentes, former chair of the local Republican Party, noted that Mr. Knoblock is an “esteemed” member of the community (i.e., he's a Republican).
     You can view Knoblock’s comment here: streaming video.
     Jump to section 2.5 (public comments).
     And, no, I'm not making any of this up.

2. “Stop living in an ivory castle!” –Trustee John Williams, chastising trustee Dave Lang concerning the latter’s opposition to arming campus cops, September 14, 1998

Williams: seeking "a new level of honesty" about himself • Cal State Goes Online, Slowly (Inside Higher Ed) • An Academic Ghostwriter, the 'Shadow Scholar,' Comes Clean (Chronicle of Higher Education) • Rick Warren cancels Obama-Romney forum at Saddleback Church (OC Reg) • Fullerton PD 'Culture of Complacency' Led to Beating Death (Voice of OC) • Williams comes out, no longer a “closet moron”: and he feels “really swell” about it (USA Heute)

DtB's "curious moments in SOCCCD history," part 1

The well-known "Williamsian" flow chart. 

John has his priorities. Cake is, like, #1

The usual suspects basking in the glow of their hero, Mike Carona.

These days, the Mikester resides in federal prison. 

Check out the detail of this pic.

(Click on graphic to enlarge it.)

Proximity to Nancy sometimes brought out the worst in Tom

Like Nietzsche said, sometimes it gazes back at you

I sympathize, Nancy, I really do

Nope. Don't sympathize.

All pics from the "DtB collection"