Senate capers: a ray of sunshine—plus mo' MOU fallout!

Ray Chandos
     Normally, I do not report on the actions and deliberations of the IVC Academic Senate, of which I am a member. Today, I'm making an exception.
     During the senate meeting of two weeks ago, senators were told that Ray Chandos, a long-time faculty member in the School of Math, Computer Science & Engineering, has "volunteered" to serve on the district Board Policy and Administrative Regulation Advisory Council (BPARAC). That's the committee that works to revise and improve all those BPs we keep hearing about.
     It's an important committee. Board Policies and ARs are important. Obviously.
     As things stand, Ac. Sen. Prez Kathy Schmeidler represents IVC faculty on that committee. She is permitted, however, to appoint another faculty member to serve in her stead.
María Guadalupe Villalobos Vélez
     Enter Ray.
     But here’s the problem. At least insofar as college business is concerned (Ray has been a prominent foe of development in Orange County, and I do not object to his efforts on that front), Ray Chandos is a stunningly corrupt fellow. I won’t provide a complete enumeration of Ray’s spectacular sins. I’ll mention two.
     First, Ray was a card-carrying member of the secretive group of “old guard” unionists who, back in the 90s, took control of the faculty union and pursued a series of disastrous actions that, by 1996, scandalized most of the rank and file. This group engineered the arrival of the notorious 1996 Board Majority (Frogue/Williams/Fortune/Lorch), dominated by Holocaust denier Steven Frogue, that initiated a district decline from which it has only recently started to recover. Then, in 1998, largely in secret, this group used union funds to pay for the campaigns of anti-union trustee candidates Don Wagner and Nancy Padberg, thereby bringing about the second Board Majority, one dominated by Don Wagner. (See The Board’s Unlikely Secret Allies.) Further, in 2000, the group fully supported (and helped engineer) the appointment of the rabid anti-unionist Tom Fuentes to the board. (As I recall, during the key board meeting in July of 2000, Ray, along with other Old Guardsters, spoke passionately in support of Fuentes’ candidacy.)
     So that’s one.
     Second, there was Ray’s remarkable conduct with regard to IVC’s 1998 Accreditation self-study. After Mathur appointed Ray the faculty chair of the report—against Academic Senate recommendations—the various standards committee chairs produced a draft that was replete with references to Mathur and the board’s disastrous and ruthlessness actions. Ray, as chair, simply bowdlerized those references, a cleansing so brazen that it attracted the interest of the LA Times and the OC Register, among other publications (See The 1998 IVC Accred White-Wash.)
     So, at today’s senate meeting, Schmeidler again mentioned Ray’s desire to join the BPARAC. Is it the will of the senate, she asked, to appoint Ray to that committee?
     I raised my hand. “It’s certainly not my will,” I said. I was prepared to say more, but, immediately behind me, another senior faculty member (Ms. F) spoke. She said simply, “Nor mine.”
     Not missing a beat, Kathy asked for a straw poll. How many want Ray appointed? Few if any hands arose. Next, she asked, how many want her to continue to serve on this committee?
     Hands shot in the air.

     For some reason, at today’s senate meeting, mention was made of the college's recently announced MOU with the University of Phoenix. You’ll recall that DtB objected loudly to IVC President Glenn Roquemore’s inexplicable decision to enter into an arrangement with this scandalous For-Profit. (See Clueless IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore smiles as he makes nice with the enemy.)
     From the discussion, I gathered that an administrator had asserted (to the Senate Prez, I guess) that "the counselors" backed this MOU idea. But the counselors at today’s meeting rebutted that claim. One counselor, evidently speaking for her colleagues, stated that she/they knew nothing about the MOU until the day it occurred (one of Roquemore’s grand photo-ops). Further, she seemed to say, the counselors are disinclined to encourage students to transfer to the U of P, given its track record. That led to a more general discussion, and it soon became clear that more than a few faculty at this college are scandalized by Roquemore’s noisy U of P MOU.
     I put in my two cents. In the end, a certain Chemistry instructor (who may or may not be married to a certain college president) spoke up and offered some sort of defense of this MOU business, but it was peppered with retorts by various senators. Also, a senator who is one of Glenn's vacation companions offered a defense. He suggested that, since we hire people with U of P degrees (that’s true; as I recall, Glenn’s pal Wayne Ward had a degree from that Cracker Jack Box), we can’t also complain about this MOU. –Something like that anyway. I think he said that, by hiring folks with U of P degrees, we benefit from something we seem to claim to object to.
     Well, that "reasoning" is just too ridiculous to merit a response.

Chirpy, vacant


Anonymous said…
Good work Senators!
Anonymous said…
We need to find out how the UoP treaty came about and how faculty's views were represented or misrepresented. This wouldn't be the first time views were distorted.
Anonymous said…
Ray did disgraceful things as grievance chair.
Anonymous said…
What did he do?
Anonymous said…
"Ray Chandos is a stunningly corrupt fellow" (Roy Bauer, 2014).

Well, gee Roy, how civil of you! Not to mention, soooo professional...
Wonder how your Faculty Association would take your public defamation of a colleague. Don't they stress professionalism and ethics?

Just because your pals over at the inherently biased LA Times made some false accusations 20 years ago doesn't make it so.
Roy Bauer said…
5:28: first of all, fuck you. And I mean that.
Second, the notion that civility and professionalism preclude noting that a colleague (with power or authority) is corrupt (when he or she is corrupt) is manifestly indefensible.
Years ago, I would cite and amply illustrate Pres. Mathur's many lies and distortions. Amazingly, some colleagues called that "name-calling." No, it's not name-calling, it is rational discourse in a free society. You would have every right to object to my imputations (re Chandos) if I were to fail to provide evidence or arguments for them. But, unlike you, I exhibit no such failing.
As for ethics: I'm always amazed by people who imagine that ethics require that one remain silent when people with power or authority abuse that power or authority. It's a damned good thing that good people generally ignore your kind of "ethics" advice. Doncha think?
Also: fuck you. Is that name-calling? In any case, it succinctly expresses the degree to which I hold you in esteem, you cowardly, unprinciple, witless shit.
Yeah, that's name-calling, I suppose. Ah, but is it also accurate? And if it is accurate, exactly what is the objection to it?
Anonymous said…
Yep, Chunk. You assert that Chandos is corrupt, and then you provide ample evidence, complete with citations from newspaper articles (I love the way your critic fails to notice that the conservative OC Register was among the newspapers!). Evidently, your critic takes the view that one can never call a colleague corrupt, even when he is, well, corrupt.
No need to label such a person. The facts speak for themselves.
Jim C said…
What amazes me is that those who feel that "their side" is not represented (I'm being charitable here) never seem to get their F-ing acts together to offer any rebuttal. Was the Register mistaken in citing all those changes and deletions? Really? How so? Was it mistaken in reporting that Wagner and Padberg's biggest doners and supporters were the group that controlled the war chest of the faculty union? Really? How so exactly?
The bald assertion that Bauer is "unprofessional" for noting the sleaziness and dishonesty of a colleague is not a rebuttal. It is utterly logically empty. It is, in fact, a case of responding to someone with a point by focusing on that someone and attributing failings to him. There's a name for that: ad hominem.
Anonymous said…
Exactly! Is it true that the U of Phoenix has an unusually high rate of government-backed loans? Is it true that it is much more expensive than alternative institutions? Is it true that the rate of loan default at the U of P is much higher than at other kinds of institution? These are questions of fact. If people feel that Pres. Roquemore is being treated unfairly by this blog, then why aren't they citing facts in defense of the U of P and this MOU? Why is it that, time after time, this blog makes claims and then supports them and then the so-called "other side" remains utterly mute, offering nothing except charges that a critic is "unprofessional" for daring to criticize?
Anonymous said…
Ask Jeff Kaufmann.
Anonymous said…
The UoP - everyone knows what they stand for, even Glen.
Anonymous said…
Interesting. This "blog crowd" is always complaining about admin's lack of inclusiveness in decision making, AKA shared governance, yet they themselves relentlessly work to exclude Mr. Chandos. How does that square?

Unprofessional to say the least. My kid will not be taking any class with Mr. Bauer. I do not trust that he will receive a fair grade.
Roy Bauer said…
It squares like this. Chandos is corrupt for reasons cited. Chandos' record, which is no secret, is the reason senators declined to support appointing him to the committee. Inclusiveness doesn't require placing the worst among us on important committees.
Anonymous said…
What about your record, Roy?
Roy Bauer said…
What about it, oh brave, brave Anonymous?
Anonymous said…
Roy, you're a fucking joke!
Roy Bauer said…
Doncha just love how so many of our critics are self-defecating?
Anonymous said…
Roy's confidence level among his peers has been slipping.
Anonymous said…
As usual, the defenders of the status quo have nothing to offer beyond ad hominems.

Popular Posts