Fight over shared governance in CA

Shared Governance Feud in California Continues (Inside Higher Ed)
     The new chancellor of California's community colleges, Brice W. Harris, has written in opposition to a legal challenge to the system's shared governance structure. California Competes, a nonprofit group led by Robert Shireman, says local academic senates have illegal veto power over board actions, which contributes to a "tangled bureaucracy." Harris, however, said the shared governance regulations are lawful and good public policy. And while he said the group's intentions are well-meaning, they are "seriously flawed." [End]

     The legal challenge at one point (p. 5) refers to “Irvine Valley College Academic Senate v. Board of Trustees of the South Orange County Community College Dist.” That successful suit focused on a statute, which is cited by the challenge to illustrate the intention of legislators in the case of AB1725: “If the Legislature had intended to limit the District Board’s power to those issues on which it could secure mutual agreement from the academic senate, it would have said so explicitly as it did in another provision of AB 1725. Education Code Section 87360 states that 'hiring criteria, policies, and procedures for new faculty members shall be developed and agreed upon jointly by representatives of the governing board, and the academic senate, and approved by the governing board.' (Cal. Ed. Code §87360).” Chancellor Mathur and the board violated that statute when they unilaterally established a new faculty hiring policy, leaving the academic senates out of the process. See “How rude are you!”: the senates sue the district. See also Boom! —RB

SOCCCD CHRONICLES: Saddleback College claims that particular part of the color spectrum

IVC's PAC: Saddleback north?

     As you know, among the construction projects at Irvine Valley College is the new biology building, which, after the inevitable snafu (problems with bankrupt contractors, as I recall), got back on track and is well on its way to completion, I guess.
     Recently, a colleague dropped by to explain the latest absurdity concerning the project. There’s very little color in the building, he said, and what color there is is some kind of red.
     But there’s a problem. Those red accents must be replaced, it seems.
     Why?
     Said the friend: “evidently Saddleback College claims that particular part of the color spectrum.”
     “Huh?”
     “Red is Saddleback’s color. We’re blue.”
     “Yeah, like those goddam balloons they put up all the time,” said another colleague.
     "You're kidding!" I said. "We can't use any red?"
     “Nope. No red allowed.”

PAC: there were so many options

     There was silence.
     “Evidently, black is OK, too. They’re gonna go with black. Beige and black.”
     After a second or two, another colleague mentioned the curious factoid that our celebrated Performing Arts Center (PAC) is colored red, more or less. It looks like a big, rusty collision of geometric shapes.
     “Yeah,” said the friend, “but that’s because the building was supposed to be brick, but they fucked up and the project ran out of money, and so they went with the usual cheapy stucco and painted it ‘brick’—i.e., a particularly ugly shade of red chosen by Glenn [Roquemore, IVC’s Prez].”
     "I heard that he chose that color 'cuz the paint happened to be on sale," I said.
     We stared into space.

Note: I am not suggesting that Saddleback College has somehow interceded to prevent the use of red in the building. My assumption was that some district or college official imposed some sort of district rule or understanding to the effect that red is for Saddleback, blue is for IVC. C'mon.

From IVC Facebook page

Tenure Time

At this time of year, a number of faculty hired a few years ago approach their "tenure time"—the date in the academic calendar where their tenure is approved, or not, by the Board of Trustees.

Old hands will remember a time in the thankfully distant past where the tenure process was vulnerable to political pressure and petty vendettas of personality. Some may recall its nadir which culminated in a dramatic standing room only Board of Trustees meeting and almost cost us a fine colleague. Over the years, our union leadership labored to reform the process to make it meaningful and to protect the faculty as well as the institution.

Recent hires have expressed the predictable concerns one might expect and have been reassured that the institution can now distinguish between those worth retaining and those not. Of course, this is also the result of reformed hiring processes as well.

Today the district is, of course, more risk averse than ever. One wonders about the lawsuit that might have been had Mathur and company prevailed that March evening and denied the tenure of that faculty member in question.

For the play-by-play of that unforgettable evening see: Mathur Goes After Jeff for Naming a Greenhouse (aka "Hello Mr. Chips"). Yes, it's all true. You can't make this stuff up though some would really like for us to forget it all. But we can't do that either. We're too academic. Plus, it's way too entertaining and instructive. Was the instructor almost denied tenure despite his excellent teaching record? Yes. As the then Chancellor Sampson said, "His teaching isn't the issue." Again, one wonders about the lawsuit that might have been. 

Of course, even the reformed process is only as sound as the good faith of all its participants.

Let us know how it goes out there.

SEE ALSO:

• The infamous “greenhouse” affair, part 1 - Feb 29 2000
• The infamous “greenhouse” affair, part 2 - Mar 20 2000
• Tales of Snafuery - Sep 07 2006
• Some Mathurian tales of pettiness and ruthlessness - Jan 04 2000

*