Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Pro IVC: moving the goal post, declaring victory?

Note the goal: $350,000

Oddly, the goal has changed: $200,000

     A reader has sent us the following alleged factoids:
     This year’s PRO IVC Goal was $350k (see top left on original webpage flyer).
     After the campaign was over, the Foundation/Administration crowed that they had exceeded their goal. Hooray!   
      But wait! They only collected $204k. How then could they have exceeded their goal?

     Answer: they simply changed it, after the fact. See the more recent page (above) where the "goal" has somehow shrunk from $350k to $200k. No explanation is offered.
     But it gets worse. The $204k collected for 2012-13 was $25,000 less than the amount collected during the 2011-12 campaign ($229k). [A close paraphrase of remarks I received.]

* * *
     OK. I Googled "Pro IVC" and quickly found this "announcement." [Note the date]:

Pro IVC

     The Irvine Valley College Foundation PRO IVC Committee proudly announces the results of 2011-2012 PRO IVC Campaign. The Pledge drive began in October 2011 and ended April 2, 2012.
     A total of 91 campus organizations participated in the 2011-2012 PRO IVC campaign and a total of $229,477 was raised by the groups and their donors, sponsors….and the hard work of IVC faculty, staff and supporters.
     The IVC Foundation matches a total of $75,000 toward the PRO IVC campaign, meaning that a total of $304,477 will be distributed among the 91 organizations that participated for 2011-2012. The amount each organization will receive is based on the amount they actually raised plus a pro-rata portion of the $75,000 of the IVC Foundation funding. The total allocation for all organizations, including the foundation match and the amount raised by the campus organization ranges from $50 to a whopping $9,352.
     PRO IVC campus chairs Steven Rochford and Dennis Gordon deserve high praise for their leadership and undoubting efforts to garner and fulfill pledges from all of the campus supporters.
     "I know of no other program statewide that is initiated and run by campus faculty and staff that is as successful as PRO IVC" states Richard Morley, IVC Foundation Executive Director. "The work of our faculty and staff in helping to fund programs and scholarships for our students through PRO IVC is unprecedented.
     "As the IVC Foundation ramps up staff and fund raising efforts, we hope to continue further support this very important IVC campaign each year."
     Congratulations to all who participated!
     —So, you be the judge. Are Morley and friends pulling a bait and switch? Or no? 
     If you have information that sheds light on the situation, let us know.
     Remember: those who object to this post have recourse beyond whining. They can simply comment on the blog, offering explanations or refutations or whatever. (We only delete comments when they are beyond the pale: racist remarks, mere name-calling, etc.) Or they can contact me and explain their complaint, which will be taken seriously. (I can easily be contacted qua faculty at IVC.) 
     We're always interested in getting the facts straight. 

Dennis Gordon writes:
     Roy, just some clarification. The PRO IVC campaign you raised an issue about is the current campaign (for the 2012-2013 year) which according to the masthead raised $204,504. It is odd that the Goal was $350,000 on one masthead and $200,000 on another. However, the PRO IVC announcement you quoted is for the prior year campaign (for the 2011-2012 year) which raised $229,477 and also provided a $75,000 match as stated in the announcement. 
     Neither Steve Rochford or I were involved in the current 2012-2013 campaign, so there must have been other (as you state) "Morley and friends" involved. As co-chairs of PRO IVC for a number of years, we always posted the goal and actual results and even had a thermometer on the Student Services Building to display the results to the campus. I hope this clarifies the situation you raised about the current campaign for 2012-13 and any confusion with individuals involved in prior PRO IVC Campaigns
Dennis, as always, thanks. --RB

15 comments:

Dennis Gordon said...

Roy, just some clarification. The PRO IVC campaign you raised an issue about is the current campaign (for the 2012-2013 year) which according to the masthead raised $204,504. It is odd that the Goal was $350,000 on one masthead and $200,000 on another. However, the PRO IVC announcement you quoted is for the prior year campaign (for the 2011-2012 year) which raised $229,477 and also provided a $75,000 match as stated in the announcement.
Neither Steve Rochford or I were involved in the current 2012-2013 campaign, so there must have been other (as you state) "Morley and friends" involved. As co-chairs of PRO IVC for a number of years, we always posted the goal and actual results and even had a thermometer on the Student Services Building to display the results to the campus. I hope this clarifies the situation you raised about the current campaign for 2012-13 and any confusion with individuals involved in prior PRO IVC Campaigns.

Anonymous said...

Ah...you caught Morley in the old "bait and switch" again! Kind of like the $100,000 match for PRO IVC this year that turned out to be much less (I think $60,000) Evidently words like "transparency" have a different meaning for him. I wonder what else is he not honest about? Saw his presentation at the Prez opening session...didn't believe those numbers either.

Anonymous said...

Morely has friends?????

Anonymous said...

I miss the big red thermometer. It was such a classic phallic symbol.

Anonymous said...

Dear 6:32PM of course Morley has friends. You can find them in the A100 building.

Anonymous said...

More funny numbers from the Foundation. Reminds me of last year's fiasco with the numbers from the Veteran's Gala. By the way, did our Vet's ever get their 16,000? Someone should ask.

Anonymous said...

vets NEVER saw a cent!

Anonymous said...

Please do show more pictures of Glenn as a bunch of empty, but attached cardboard boxes. I think it is very fitting.

Anonymous said...

Please provide proof of your assertion, 8:38. Or a name or something.

Anonymous said...

You're wasting your time. Glen supports Richard no matter what he does. Let's just wait for something big to happen for Glen to open his eyes and see the light.

Anonymous said...

Glenn is the fundamental problem. Morley is one of several instances of bad hires and Glenn's "loyalty" to worthless managers and administrators.

Anonymous said...

Hey 7:08 you want 8:38 to prove the Vet's didn't get any money? The Foundation held a Gala to support the Vet's...simple question for the foundation...how much was raised from the event and how much was given to the Vet's. It's called transparency and it has never been displayed in regards to the Veteran's Gala.

Anonymous said...

Look at the Foundation on the IVC website. The Foundation is controlled by Richard and Glenn. The majority of the Board members were appointed by Glenn with only a few outside members, so there is little independent oversight.

Anonymous said...

7:13,

The average reader of this blog can't "ask" the vets nor the foundation - that's why I asked the commentator to offer proof that he seems to certain of. I am not doubtful of his assertion but it would be a lot stronger if it was backed up.

Anonymous said...

7:34 You have every right to ask the Foundation. The names all the foundation board members can be found on the IVC website. Most of them are your collegues...just send them an email and ask the questions. The foundation is not a secret society, it is supposed to be supporting the campus.

Half-staff: ten days and counting.

The flags outside A-100 has been flying at half-staff for ten days now. Even the one of the regular Jehovah's Witness women noticed i...