Monday, May 16, 2016

Rocky's political patronage? Outrage over classified promotions at IVC


     The agenda for the May meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees (tonight) can be found HERE.
     The relevant item: 6.7 - Classified Personnel Actions (late in the agenda)
     For more on the “Mighty Oaks,” see here and here.

Anonymous said...
Woah! Take a look at the board agenda where on Monday the folks (in what they've been trying to pass off as a "marketing department") are receiving huge raises! D.O. goes from a CL16 to CL21 and her side kick, the B-Ram, range 127 to a 138! What a total waste of resources!
4:18 PM, May 12, 2016

Anonymous said...
4:18 Where is this in the Board Agenda? Maybe I am not seeing this. It looks like a 12% increase over three years, just like the faculty.
9:55 PM, May 12, 2016

Anonymous said...
Found it, item 6.7 exhibit A, pages 6 & 8
11:20 AM, May 13, 2016


Anonymous said...
D.O. now makes 123k. With this promo she gets 10% more to equal 136k. After 6 years she will max out at over 182k which equals a 32% total increase. Take THAT, you stupid tax payers!
4:04 PM, May 13, 2016

Anonymous said...
She's making as much as a dean. And we can't hire more faculty? I wouldn't complain as much but she's also horrible at her job. Really, she's horrible.
4:06 PM, May 13, 2016

Anonymous said...
People ought to show up at the board meeting OUTRAGED over this!
4:09 PM, May 13, 2016

Anonymous said...
To be fair, B-Ram will be working in a temp assignment, but everyone knows how that will end up. Strings will be pulled so she gets the position. Initially she will receive a 12% raise putting her at 64k from 57k. After the new contract raises kick in, that puts her at 72k, a 22% increase. After 6 years she will max out at 92k, totaling a 39% raise!
4:32 PM, May 13, 2016

Anonymous said...
DO and BR, hmmm.... Guess little B-Ram needs to make that beamer payment somehow.
4:45 PM, May 13, 2016

Anonymous said...
Two self-serving twits. Oh by the way D.O., I was looking for B-Ram Friday afternoon and she was nowhere to be found. Keep a leash on your dog.
11:08 PM, May 13, 2016


Anonymous said...
She was probably out on her 3 hr. lunch...
1:46 PM, May 14, 2016

Anonymous said...
I'm sure D.O.'s promotion went through the process and was approved by the appropriate strategic planning committee. Does anyone know who serves on such committees know?
6:25 PM, May 15, 2016

Anonymous said...
I know! When D is away miss B is out on her 3 hour lunches
11:23 PM, May 15, 2016

Anonymous said...
These promotions have the optics of organized crime.
12:52 AM, May 16, 2016

Anonymous said...
Me thinks these comments merit being put on a new heading/thread highlighting the ongoing waste, fraud and abuse at IVC.
11:15 AM, May 16, 2016

Anonymous said...
   6:25 is correct to ask. Who are the people on the committee that made this decision? I bet, as the caption implies, the decision was unilaterally made by Glenn without no stink'n committee! Process, schmocess! Perhaps D.O. made the decision herself, like how she was able to override the commencement speaker selection committee and exclude Gustavo...
   Then there is the question of how these promotions can be justified. Has marketing really changed so drastically that it requires new, special skills, and thus, huge increases in sallaries? I seriously doubt it. I bet no justification exists.
   On its face it looks like political patronage, so what else is new?
   On the worthiness of the promotees: all we've ever heard (and read) is about the negative experiences people had when trying to deal with these two. They both fail the worthiness test.
   This is just more in the continuing IVC saga of promoting mediocrity, incompetence and rewarding political allies.
   These bogus promotions certainty do not pass the smell test. And yes, take THAT you stupid tax payers!
4:11 PM, May 16, 2016



Anonymous said...
This is outright waste, fraud and abuse and should immediately be brought to the attention of the California Attorney General.
4:26 PM, May 16, 2016

Anonymous said...
The foundation director became an "executive director" and got a huge jump in salary, too. But who complained about that? Could this be a little unfair?
5:20 PM, May 16, 2016

Anonymous said...
   No she didn't. First a new position was created and advertized. Then E.O. was recruited from the East coast to fill that position. The rumble was mostly about the second director in that area and why they need two directors.
6:02 PM, May 16, 2016

Anonymous said...
   So, the Foundation has an Executive Director and another Director position and you are complaining about Diane Oaks and the PIO Office. I dunno about you, but at least there are publications, flyers, TV and movie advertising, multi-media, etc. coming out of that department. Believe it or not, there is a lot being done by that staff.
   The Foundation on the other hand, not so much (or in current terminology "crickets")
6:14 PM, May 16, 2016


Anonymous said...
You don't have your facts straight, 6:02. The foundation director position was changed to an executive director long before E.O. came from Saddleback College, not the east coast. Either way, nobody complained about the huge increase for that position.
6:32 PM, May 16, 2016

Anonymous said...
   So the argument made at the board meeting was that marketing is key and therefore needs to be expanded. IVC has a student population of roughly 13,000 which is the result of a healthy, steady growth. One can easily make the case that this steady growth occurred and will continue at the same rate regardless of an enlargement of "marketing," unless we're missing something here. Is the real goal to increase the student population to that of Saddleback's?
   When the economy busts and things tighten up IVC will feel the pain of poorly allocated resources. Only then will they be forced to contend with a bloated and overly expensive administration. I think this needless promotion was a bad decision that will only lead to future regret.
10:54 PM, May 16, 2016

Anonymous said...
Can't believe this action was approved. No way this was justifiable in level of work and volume. What a waste of $$$$$$.
11:16 PM, May 16, 2016

Anonymous said...
Bad bad decision.
1:04 AM, May 17, 2016

Anonymous said...
Crappy decision. Graphics use the same software, same macs. Nothing has changed. No need for oaks to add another manager. Waste of taxpayer's monies. Takes weeks to get a flyer completed. Adding a new manager position is so that she can promote one of her two pets britany ram and brenda costtoomuch plys give herself a promotion. BS!!!
1:42 AM, May 17, 2016

Anonymous said...
So in 6 years Oaks will be raking in over $182,000 per year. Rewarded for crappy performance, bad PR and anti service attitude. Irrational because it is pure patronage.
8:18 AM, May 17, 2016

Anonymous said...
I want to know what the 600 jobs in the cue are. That seems rather inflated. Actually, a lot inflated. is this over the course of a year, or constantly ongoing? If we all added up every single little thing we are asked to do, we'd all have 600 items in the cue. The only difference is most of us just get the job done, rather than talk about all the work we have to get done. That's always a sign of someone who is really not as busy as they claim to be.
12:03 PM, May 17, 2016

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

6:25 is correct to ask. Who are the people on the committee that made this decision? I bet, as the caption implies, the decision was unilaterally made by Glenn without no stink'n committee! Process, schmocess! Perhaps D.O. made the decision herself, like how she was able to override the commencement speaker selection committee and exclude Gustavo...

Then there is the question of how these promotions can be justified. Has marketing really changed so drastically that it requires new, special skills, and thus, huge increases in sallaries? I seriously doubt it. I bet no justification exists. On its face it looks like political patronage, so what else is new?

On the worthiness of the promotees: all we've ever heard (and read) is about the negative experiences people had when trying to deal with these two. They both fail the worthiness test.

This is just more in the continuing IVC saga of promoting mediocrity, incompetence and rewarding political allies.

These bogus promotions certainty do not pass the smell test. And yes, take THAT you stupid tax payers!

Anonymous said...

This is outright waste, fraud and abuse and should immediately be brought to the attention of the California Attorney General.

Anonymous said...

The foundation director became an "executive director" and got a huge jump in salary, too. But who complained about that? Could this be a little unfair?

Anonymous said...

No she didn't. First a new position was created and advertized. Then E.O. was recruited from the East coast to fill that position. The rumble was mostly about the second director in that area and why they need two directors.

Anonymous said...

So, the Foundation has an Executive Director and another Director position and you are complaining about Diane Oaks and the PIO Office. I dunno about you, but at least there are publications, flyers, TV and movie advertising, multi-media, etc. coming out of that department. Believe it or not, there is a lot being done by that staff.
The Foundation on the other hand, not so much (or in current terminology "crickets")

Anonymous said...

You don't have your facts straight, 6:02. The foundation director position was changed to an executive director long before E.O. came from Saddleback College, not the east coast. Either way, nobody complained about the huge increase for that position.

Anonymous said...

So the argument made at the board meeting was that marketing is key and therefore needs to be expanded. IVC has a student population of roughly 13,000 which is the result of a healthy, steady growth. One can easily make the case that this steady growth occurred and will conrinue at the same rate regardless of an enlargement of "marketing," unless we're missing something here. Is the real goal to increase the student population to that of Saddleback's?

When the economy busts and things tighten up IVC will feel the pain of porly allocated resources. Only then will they be forced to contend with a bloated and overly expensive administration. I think this needless promotion was a bad decision that will only lead to future regret.

Anonymous said...

Can't believe this action was approved. No way this was justifiable in level of work and volume. What a waste of $$$$$$.

Anonymous said...

Bad bad decision.

Anonymous said...

Crappy decision. Graphics use the same software, same macs. Nothing has changed. No need for oaks to add another manager. Waste of taxpayer's monies. Takes weeks to get a flyer completed. Adding a new manager position is so that she can promote one of her two pets britany ram and brenda costtoomuch plys give herself a promotion. BS!!!

Anonymous said...

So in 6 years Oaks will be raking in over $182,000 per year. Rewarded for crappy performance, bad PR and anti service attitude. Irrational because it is pure patronage.

Anonymous said...

I want to know what the 600 jobs in the cue are. That seems rather inflated. Actually, a lot inflated. is this over the course of a year, or constantly ongoing? If we all added up every single little thing we are asked to do, we'd all have 600 items in the cue. The only difference is most of us just get the job done, rather than talk about all the work we have to get done. That's always a sign of someone who is really not as busy as they claim to be.

Anonymous said...

what a bunch of BS! Those two do NOT deserve or have they earned it! This is so very ugly and adds to the stench on this campus.

Anonymous said...

The CA Attorney General ought to open an investigation on the Board of Trustees!

Anonymous said...

12:03 is right. They should've been required to show the board and the College community the evidence (600 jobs in the cue), or the board should've tabled it. This was wrong, wrong, wrong! Total waste of resources.

Anonymous said...

A few more points:


With the cost of living adjustments over 6 years, D.O's sallary will probably exceed $200k per year.

How does increasing D.O's sallary by over 32% and giving her an executive title resolve the suposed backlog of 600 jobs? It doesn't. Wouldn't it make more sense for her dept. to just hire 2-3 more permanent staff, ya know, the people who would actually do the work? Her large sallary increase would cover half that cost.

This looks like nothing more than a self serving move that won't be solving any problems.

Anonymous said...

600 jobs in the cue. So why hire another manager? Managers do not perform the work. Classified Staff do the work. Where will the new person reside?

Anonymous said...

This burns especially as saddleback is paying department chairs summer pay while IVC says it does not have it in the budget.

Anonymous said...

How many people work over in publications to have a second manager?
One editor, three graphics, one social media, two tv, one web, and one office assistant. A second manager is needed??? wtf? Maybe the current manager needs to be replaced. 600 jobs is not that many considering less than one hundred jobs person per year. Stop the nonsense.

Anonymous said...

So much for trying keep things fair between the two colleges. How does ol' GC, and the board, think this will make the strife between the two colleges any better? Instead of finding ways to bring both together, he's allowing actions that further wedge the two apart. This "promotion" is not warranted in the least! And talk about administrative bloat. This is not what's best for the district, the college or those they're marketing to, the students. Bad form.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait until Diane Oaks' coronation. What do you say, three, four years from now?

Anonymous said...

I say bring in the Attorney General. This is waste, fraud and abuse!

Anonymous said...

You are right 4:21. Hire another staff member to perform work not another finger pointer. I looked at last years classified staff resource list. No request for additional staff.

Anonymous said...

You are right 4:21. Hire another staff member to perform work not another finger pointer. I looked at last years classified staff resource list. No request for additional staff.

Anonymous said...

I asked one of the employees of the marketing department if she knew of this promotion for diane and adding another manager. She said that she not heard of anything. Wow making major changes to a department and not talking with the employees. Lack of communication.
TOTAL LACK OF INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER. DIANE NEEDS TO GO!

Anonymous said...

That is precicely the problem with managers hired in the last 10 years, NO INTEGRITY.

Anonymous said...

The state Chancellor's office for CCs should be informed.

Anonymous said...

In the board agenda it clearly states this was Diane's promotion. How can this be? Promotions are given when one demonstrates going well beyond, they're supposed to be earned. Diane's is the complete opposite. She is like a blonde, female version of Raghu. Mendacious. Incompetent. Conniving. Mean spirited. Why the huge reward? Patronage.

Anonymous said...

One though: CA State Auditor.

The origins of our college district, Part 7: <i>the Tustin-ness of the district's early years</i>

Shirley Lampart, Democrat      Having read hundreds of cool old Tustin News articles and editorials—plus the Times' coverage, i...