Kiana and Glenn's nepotistic regime comes to a sudden end


[See 50+ comments below!]
[See follow-up: The pride of Trident U]

     Oh my. Word is that Kiana Tabibzadeh, IVC Chemistry instructor and wife of IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore, has been directed to decamp and move herself south to Saddleback College—starting in the Fall, I believe.
     The problem? NEPOTISM.
     As you know, the  board has periodically fretted over nepotism.

     I searched the DtB archives and came up with 33 posts that mention the word.

     ● One of the earliest references to nepotism pops up in my notes for the September 27 Board Meeting of October, 1999:
Sampson
     Eventually, the board moved on to "Academic Personnel Actions." [Trustee Nancy] Padberg noticed that, somewhere, a husband was about to be hired where his spouse was already working. Good Lord! [Trustee "Dot"] Fortune suggested that, as things stand, all sorts of unseemly things occur when part-timers are hired. She implied, falsely, that cronyism and nepotism were the rule and that the hiring of adjunct faculty follows no process. She declared that open positions ought to be "properly advertised." (They are.)

     [Trustee John] Williams opined that the hire of this person should not be held up just because the board hasn't adopted an adequate nepotism policy. Fortune then painted a portrait of part-time hiring in the district according to which "only relatives" know that positions are open, and so they snap them up. [Chancellor Cedric] Sampson noted that the two employees in questions are part-timers, and that nepotism, as he understands it, concerns abuses of power by one employee in favor of another. No such power relationship is involved here, he said. Fortune, ignoring such twaddle, again bellowed that current practice is "improper." [Trustee "Dandy" Don] Wagner suggested that it is unfair to discuss these two people as though they've done something wrong. We have no reason at all to think that.

     As this went on, new Director of HR, Sabrina R, had been standing at the podium to answer questions. She had had her hand raised for some time, hoping to shed light on this matter. Noticing this, El Ced alerted Dot to Sabrina's raised hand, but Dot wasn't interested in hearing from someone who might actually know what she's talking about. El Ced then looked straight at Sabrina; he shrugged and then winked, as if to say, "What can I do? The woman's an idiot."
     ● The next mention of nepotism occurs on March of 2007. In my Board Meeting Report, I note the following:
     [Trustee Nancy] Padberg worried about the high cost of the Performing Arts Center at IVC. Nobody seemed to want to join her. She did a lot of solitary carping tonight.

     She fretted, too, about apparent "nepotism" among classified mother-daughter team organizers, whatever they are. People started yawning.
     ● Next, my board meeting report for Dec. 11, 2007 notes that "Trustee John Williams, junketeer extraordinaire, requested a detailed report on nepotism in the district. Don't know what that's about."

     ● The next anti-nepotistic bleat emerged from Trustee Fuentes (SEE) in January of 2010, inspired by a new Fuentean hatred of Roquemore and his allies:
     THE OL' NEPOTISM GAMBIT. I forgot to mention that, at Monday's board meeting, trustee Tom Fuentes requested a report on "nepotism" in the district. It's been a few years, he said, since the last report, so it's time for another one.
     A cynical person (it is impossible not to be cynical upon observing Mr. Fuentes for any period) might guess that something else explains the timing of this request. There are two opposing factions in the district (well, these are the two that I know about, and they're pretty obvious): Fuentes/Mathur, et al. v. Wagner/Roquemore/Gabriella, et al. Anyone who watched last month's board meeting knows that the tension between these factions has, in the last two months, reached its apogee. On that night, Mr. Wagner, the board president, engineered (well, he presided over) a stunning power shift. After it was complete, he remained President of the board; Padberg was vice president, and Milchiker was Clerk. Lang, Williams, and Fuentes were eating Wagner's dust. 
     Fuentes was furious. Later in the meeting, he flashed some anger, leaving a thick layer of sulphur on the walls.
. . .
     Well, it's hard to deny that any report on nepotism is going to make Glenn look bad. Glenn's wife is a member of the faculty who doesn't mind throwing her weight around here and there. And so Tom asked for a report. It's like losing a baseball game and then pouring sugar in the opponents' gas tanks....
     ● Well, Fuentes persisted. Next is my board meeting report of February 23, 2010:
... Tom Fuentes wanted a report on nepotism. In particular, he wanted to know how well the district board policy on nepotism is administered "to prevent nepotism." He said he was concerned to have "the cleanest operation possible." The report, he said, is especially important in view of our economic downturn.
.....Possibly he's right about all that. Dunno. Still, I feel compelled to observe that Tom Fuentes is Mr. Hypocritical Politician par excellence. I dunno about nepotism, but Tom has got to be the most cronyistic guy the world has ever seen....
. . .
.....Tom asked that the report be as "detailed" as possible.
.....Sensing that ugly politics were afoot, Don Wagner asked for clarification. What do you mean by "nepotism"?
. . .
.....Wagner asked, "Is the report looking for violations of the board policy?" Wagner noted that the presence of relatives among employees is one thing; nepotism is something else altogether.
.....Fuentes clearly wanted the "broadest" report possible. That is, he wanted to see lists of relatives.
.....It's the usual witchhunt. Why bother with a tiny list of possible cases in which employees acted to benefit relatives when one can assemble a much longer and more impressive list of, well, just relatives?
.....Wagner noted that the presence of relatives in the workplace is not in itself nepotism--not in any meaningful sense. He decided to illustrate his point with the name of a volunteer that appeared in a footnote somewhere--a Michael Telson, whom, he said, is the nephew of Saddleback VP of SS Lise Telson.
.....Telson was in the audience. She spoke. She has no such nephew, she intoned.
.....She looked seriously pissed. I got the sense that her anger was not only about this apparent misunderstanding, if that's what it was. Emotions were running high. Naturally, there were plenty of characters in the room who could be the ultimate source of her consternation.

      ● On March 6, 2010, someone left this comment on the blog:
Nepotism reigns with the [IVC] President. Do we have to hire all of your wife's relatives?
     So let's turn to THE WIFE.

     ● Here's an interesting item from October of 2010 (An administrator is fired. Over cake):
     Kiana is held in low esteem by some faculty at the college, in part owing to her reputation for unapologetically exploiting her, um, influence. Evidently, in other ways, too, she does not leave the best of impressions as a colleague and educator.
     Kiana Tabibzadeh, of course, is President Glenn Roquemore's wife.
     On Friday, someone said: "Don't wanna eat a Kiana cake." That sort of thing. Har har. There were maybe eight people in the room.
     Dean Schrader did not encourage the impromptu jocularity. Possibly, she joined in the laughter. She eventually said something to discourage it.
     In any case, it was a fleeting episode about cake--one that briefly tapped into a widely-shared scorn of an arrogant and, well, notorious colleague.
. . .
     The most commonly repeated story concerns Kiana's hiring a dozen or so years ago. Glenn was on the hiring committee. Some on the hiring committee were unimpressed by Kiana. Notoriously, Glenn championed her cause. She was hired.
     He was also dating her at the time. Or so I've been assured numerous times by persons claiming to be in the know.
     Today, I briefly spoke with a former IVC Affirmative Action officer. He told me that he had brought this episode up with then-Chancellor Lombardi, who said he'd deal with it. But, of course, nothing was done.
     I recall an incident seven or eight years ago in which it was learned that Kiana was engineering her selection as "Teacher of the Year." (I was an officer in the Senate at the time.) She had instructed her students to submit the required glowing letters. We couldn't believe it. That time, the scheme was undone, owing to forceful objections from the Academic Senate.
. . .
     An administrator told me this story: sometimes, evidently, Kiana will hole up in her office during her office hours and refuse to see students who are waiting to speak with her.
     One such time, her dean knocked on Kiana's door herself. There was no answer.
     Later in the day, the VPI (pre-Justice) visited that dean, explaining to her that, according to Kiana's husband (i.e., Roquemore), the dean's door-knocking had caused Kiana a "near nervous breakdown"!
     Evidently, efforts to have Kiana actually hold office hours were verboten, owing to Kiana's delicate nerves.
. . .
     More recently, Susan Cooper became the dean of this benighted zone of IVC instructors. She soon discovered the then-traditional abuses, including a series of manifestly hinky scheduling practices enforced by their beneficiary, Kiana Tabibzadeh. Cooper was determined to put a stop to that nonsense, but, to the degree that she pressed the matter, to that degree she experienced ferocious push-back from Glenn, who made her life miserable. In the end, she found it necessary to leave the college.
     Not long ago, I had lunch with a former IVC administrator. He or she or it informed me that Kiana's father has been working at IVC for years (admittedly, in some minor role as a test proctor or something similar)--this despite Mr. Fuentes' occasional noisy (albeit hypocritical) accusations of nepotism at the colleges.
     Some of us have complained about these abuses for many years. I recall arranging to meet with newly-elected trustee Don Wagner in late 1998. I had lunch with him at a restaurant across the street from the college. Among other things, I described some of the abuses mentioned above.
     Well, I guess he didn't believe me. Absolutely nothing was done about them. 
Hava a cuppa?
     ● On Oct. 30, 2010 (Recent comments paint a portrait), someone left this comment:
Anonymous said...
     When is Glenn going to retrieve his ***** from the jar on Kiana's desk and stop letting her run the show? I have looked through the window of the anatomy lab (wouldn't want to actually go in there!) and spotted what looked like a couple of spines hanging around. Perhaps the biologists would like to loan one to Glenn? (9:05 p.m.) 
Anonymous said...
     What is it with the chemistry department at IVC? (10:03 p.m.)
. . . 
Captain Obvious said... 
* Did the Friday meeting-and jocularity-occur as described in this post? 

* Did a secretary record the School meeting and then provide that recording to administration?
* Did Glenn's reaction to listening to the recording inspire his untimely action to have her removed from campus (and on the day in which the Chem complex was opened)? (Note: the post acknowledged that it had long ago been decided that her contract would not be renewed.)

* Has Kiana been (and is she) the sort who inappropriately and routinely uses her influence at this college?

* Has her husband essentially permitted this behavior (for years, and despite complaints)?

* Have scandalous improprieties been allowed by this and other administrations, despite efforts by some administrators to address the abuses?

-These and other questions strike me as valid. And clearly the most reasonable answers (given the evidence) of at least most, if not all, of these questions [are] disconcerting. (10:20 a.m.)
. . . 
agent provocateur said...
     People, just read the email memo that Glenn sent out -- it explains everything. He's doing his best to quell rumors and restore our sense of confidence. That's his job. He's even announced the interim dean so there are no worries at this critical time for all the schools involved. Geez, do you think he would fire someone without having a plan in place?! (9:25 a.m.) 
Anonymous said...
     Never, NEVER insult a woman's cake. 
(But I must say, pretty impressive cake baking skills from Kiana. I don't know how to bake one of those photo toppers...not that I want to eat a BLUE cake....) (9:33 a.m.) 
Anonymous said...
     9:25 - There has been no general e-mail sent out to quell the campus-wide rumors and restore his campus-wide reputation. Perhaps something was sent out only to the affected schools? If so, it shows a lack of understanding of the ripple effect of events. - 8:37 (10:19 a.m.)
     ● Roquemore's curious account of the Schrader affair: "the gene pool" - NOVEMBER 4, 2010:
     1. THE SCHRADER AFFAIR. You'll recall that, at last week's board meeting, IVC President Glenn Roquemore was smacked around by Board President Don Wagner. As he walked to the podium to make a presentation regarding IVC's 25th Anniversary celebration, Wagner suddenly declared a break to allow everyone to go to the back of the room to get a piece of celebratory cake (donated, I think, by the IVC cafeteria). Glenn never did get to show his video.
     So he showed up today (at the Senate meeting) with that very video. He played it. It was pretty good, I guess. At one point, cheerleaders seemed to be screaming something about "big boobs." That seemed perfectly natural, though a little surprising. (A colleague behind me groaned.)
     Only later did I realize that they must have been referring to "big blue" (blue is among IVC's colors).
     Craig seemed to want Glenn to stick around for a Q and A. Oh really?
     People wanted light shed on the Dean Kathy Schrader situation. Roquemore was asked several questions about it. Glenn presented quite a yarn about the episode. You'll recall that Dean Schrader was called into Glenn's office about a problem: something objectionable that was said during an Oct. 22 meeting of the School of Biological Sciences (over which Schrader presided). Yes, Glenn's wife was mentioned during the meeting, he said, but "that was not the issue." He has always had an understanding with her (i.e., his wife), he said, that she would be treated just as any instructor is treated. --That sort of thing.
     He managed to say that with a straight face. It was remarkable.
     No, said Glenn, the problem wasn't a remark about Glenn's "spouse"; rather, it was a remark concerning classified employees: something about being at the "bottom of the gene pool."
     The bio faculty have consistently told me that, when it became clear that something about the School meeting had upset Roquemore, they could not think what happened that should cause offense. What could it possibly be? They told me that Schrader has never been the type to joke about people at their expense. If anything, she attempts to suppress such talk. So what was this about? The joke about Kiana?
     I spoke with some of my bio friends after the meeting, and they expressed skepticism regarding some of Glenn's account. They remained puzzled regarding the remark during the Oct. 22 meeting that caused offense. They were sure that Schrader had not made any remark at classified's expense.

● The professionals! (Just Gimme Some Truth) - NOVEMBER 15, 2010
     President Roquemore, who ascended to administrative ranks back in 1997 owing to his sudden willingness to work with the hated Raghu P. Mathur (until then, Roquemore had worked with administration to remove Mathur as chair of his School; the nakedly ambitious Mathur had used unscrupulous means to retain that position, one that the equally nakedly ambitious Roquemore desperately coveted), --as I was saying, President Roquemore called Schrader to his office a couple of weeks ago to call her on the carpet over her alleged unprofessionalism as evidenced by some of her instructors' banter, during a Biological Sciences meeting, regarding Mrs. Roquemore's planned cake-baking (or cake-buying) efforts for the opening of the new Chemistry buildings. (Kiana, Roquemore's wife, is an IVC chem instructor.)
     (I'm told that Schrader was very clear about the object of Roquemore's consternation in conversations she had with friends in the immediate aftermath of her untimely "firing.")
     PLAN B: No doubt after a session with "legal" (or HR) at the district, Roquemore developed a new sense of what occurred during his meeting with Schrader: no, he did not meet with Schrader about snarky faculty comments about Kiana's cake; it had nothing to do with that! (don't be silly! Glenn has always scrupulously treated his wife as just another instructor!*); it was, he said, about an alleged offensive remark made during the same meeting about classified employees: something about the shallow end of the gene pool. (Efforts to hear this comment on a tape recording of the meeting have yielded no evidence that classified employees were the target of the "gene pool" remark. Faculty who were at the meeting continue to scratch their heads over what about the meeting could be construed as evidence of Schrader's unprofessionalism--unless it's Glenn's notorious customary unprofessionalism and kneejerkery re Kiana.) 
     *I've spoken to some highly reliable people at IVC who swear that Glenn has--well, let's just say that they report numerous and amazing incidents of a kind that Glenn seems to say have never occurred! Some of these people are talkin'. And not just to me.
● Bio faculty proclaim: Roquemore's characterization "was absolutely wrong" - NOVEMBER 18, 2010
     At the time, Bio faculty who had attended the meeting in question could not imagine what Schrader had said or done that would earn the emnity of the President. That day, Schrader (reportedly) was under the impression that Roquemore was infuriated by the Kiana-cake-related remarks. But Bio faculty explained that Schrader's only participation in the "Kiana" jocularitude was her efforts to discourage such remarks.
     A week later, to everyone's surprise, Roquemore showed up at the Senate Meeting to say: what was problematic during the Bio School Meeting was not remarks re Kiana and her cake--indeed, he explained, he has always been terribly scrupulous to treat his wife as he would treat any other faculty. [Ha ha ha.] No, the problem concerned alleged objectionable remarks about classified employees: something about their being at the shallow end of the gene pool.
     Oh my!
     Immediately after Glenn's remarkable Senate performance, I spoke with Bio faculty. One instructor told me that he had made the comment about the gene pool, but that it was not directed at classified employees. Further, he could not think of anything Schrader had subsequently done or said that amounted to expressing or permitting objectionable remarks about classified employees. Later (he told me), when he listened to an audio tape of the meeting, he realized that his recollection had been accurate: Schrader had done nothing that could be construed as stating or condoning or allowing objectionable remarks about classified employees.
     So, today, that instructor, a member of the Rep Council, explained that President Roquemore's characterization of the School Meeting two weeks ago "was absolutely wrong." He explained that he had made the "gene pool" comment, not Schrader, and Schrader's subsequent comments were in no sense made at the expense of classified employees.
     He had not come alone. Another senior Bio instructor, who had also attended that fateful School Meeting, next explained that Schrader's comment--the one that, Glenn now claimed, was problematic--"had nothing to do with classified."
     Many faculty that I speak with at IVC are already under the impression that the President's odd Senate performance of two weeks ago was an after-the-fact attempt to rewrite history and thereby to shore up the miserable case that he (and VPI Craig Justice) had against Schrader.
     Stay tuned.
● The Kiana file - OCTOBER 19, 2011
     Speaking of civility, I've heard for weeks now that Kiana Tabibzadeh (recommended mnemonic: "Ki-a-na-Boomz-de-ay"), IVC President Glenn Roqemore's chemistry instructor wife, is now the chair (co-chair?) of her school, Physical Sciences and Technology.
     Usually, such appointments are noted on the board agenda (doesn't the board have to approve them?). But I don't recall seeing her appointment. I'll take a closer look.
     As I've mentioned previously, Kiana has a reputation for abusing her circumstance--that her husband is the Prez of the college who is liable to be unhappy if Kiana is unhappy. Reliable sources tell us that she has been involved in some difficulties with her deans (over her schedule, cake, etc.), of which there have been several in recent years, some of whom ceased deaning amid a large din of Sturm und Drang.
     I've been told that, given this history, and given the obvious potential for conflicts of interest, the wise among us had recommended that Kiana not pursue the chair position.
     Let me know where in past agendas her appointment appeared, if ever.
● Tri-tip scandal rocks Irvine Valley College!? (What's the beef?) - JANUARY 12, 2012
Anonymous said...
     On Friday Glenn hosts a campus BBQ and 15 mins. into the event, runs out of food…
     -12:33 PM, January 07, 2012 
Anonymous said...
     There was poor planning regarding the Friday barbecue -- they should have been cooking the stuff BEFORE people showed up. That was part of the problem -- the quantity was, uh, a bigger problem. But I heard Kiana's cake was FAB.
     -5:45 PM, January 11, 2012 
Anonymous said...
     I'm curious: why does Glen close his email with that strange quotation by "Unknown" -- "Never confuse who you are with what you do." ????
     Certainly what one does (one's actions) is part of who one is (IS in that BIG sense), right? How could it not be so? (You're a philosopher Roy, please explain.)
     Does anyone know why this statement is near and dear to Glen's heart?
     6:10 PM, January 12, 2012

B. von Traven said...
     "Never confuse who you are with what you do."
     Prima facie, the remark is odd, for there exists a familiar bit of reputed wisdom very much to the contrary: that the only real measure of who you are is, well, what you do--as opposed to the conduct you endorse, which, obviously, can diverge dramatically from one's conduct--especially among Republicans. "You are what you do" may seem to be worth saying.
     Naturally, in a world in which people are often forced or compelled to "do things"--accept jobs or assignments--that they find disagreeable, it might be comforting to be told that that's not who you are, really. But that's a lot of context, and none of it is provided by the bare remark.
     Perhaps the remark is making a point about the way in which one makes a living. Among businessmen, lawyers, salesmen, advertisers, and various others whose profession invites suspicion that they lack a soul, it might be nice to be told that, at the end of the day, when one arrives home to reunite with one's jaccuzi or mistress, one can, at long last, really be oneself. Hmmmm.
     My guess is that Glenn scraped this saying from the bottom of a barrel found among the refuse of a business management course.
     All in all, I'd say Glenn's saying is rubbish.
     6:40 PM, January 12, 2012

Anonymous said...
     Yes, I too have noticed Glenn's odd bit of alleged wisdom. Naturally, it is paradoxical; it seems to be the opposite of anything a wise person might say. I think we have all grown accustomed to this. Speaking for myself, anyway, I fully expect Glenn to own a plaque, sitting on his desk, that says something like, "the only lasting riches are, not in family and friends, but in one's bank account." No doubt, next to his toilet, there sits a book of wisdom, starting with the profound, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (Star Trek) and ending with the pithy "beam me up, Scotty!"
     6:49 PM, January 12, 2012
Irvine Valley College professor Kiana Tabibzadeh hands out slime during a demonstration at
 the 25th annual Astounding Inventions competition at Irvine Valley College Saturday.

Comments

Anonymous said…
It's the new sheriff in HR town. Just wait until the sheriff discovers what many already know about, well, the opposite of nepotism at IVC. What happens when, after all your efforts, someone is hired who well, others just do not like because of WHO they are - their identity. What a person to do? Give me an E, give me another E, now an O and a C: EEOC. Someone please.
Anonymous said…
As I recall there was something fishy with a full-time hire in Physical Sciences a few years back - the chosen candidate got spooked and declined. Something about contact with Kiana and the demands that were made...can you imagine? You get hired and your chair is the president's wife and she starts telling you how it's going to be... GEEZ. why did it take HR so long to figure this one out? Teddi????
Anonymous said…
How can this happen since Glen was on her hiring committee? I thought she was chair for life like he is president for life? Couldn't he go to Saddleback instead since their new president doesn't even want to live here?
Anonymous said…
As I recall they were NOT married when Glenn was chair of her hiring committee. they were living together and during the interview period, he moved out. That is what I was told. I feel bad for the other finalists who didn't have the opportunity to live with the chair of the hiring committee.
Anonymous said…
Worse yet is David Bugay and wife!
Anonymous said…
This is fricking unbelievable! Did this happen for real or is this a joke? And GR is still President??? WTF!!!!
Anonymous said…
Well, Bugay and Lorch are gone. Good riddance. It sounds like the District may finally have an ethical VCHR with a spine. About time.
Anonymous said…
Isn't Bugay returning to the classroom????
Anonymous said…
The new VCHR should be given authority to fire Glen. David Bugay wanted to become the next chancellor, so instead of doing his job, he was busy sucking up to the board.
Anonymous said…
My guess is GR isn’t around for long. It takes time but the truth always shines through.
Anonymous said…
What Hastag should be given to the events occurring in the district, but especially at IVC?
Anonymous said…
On hiring committees we have to sign a paper attesting to our ability to treat each candidate fairly and review a list of candidates for possible conflict of interest. How did this happen?
Anonymous said…
I am glad someone somewhere FINALLY recognized the problem with Kiana being chair AND senator - how her presence stifled honest discourse from many. So often she got what she wanted not on the merits of the argument but because of who she was and how she appealed to Glenn. The situation with the "done deal' on her hiring has been played out many times over the years at IVC -including recently. Glenn and others' bias and prejudices are well known. They do not hesitate to sideline candidates they have no intention of considering in order to hire pals and would-be pals. Check out that tenure fiasco a few years back when Glenn was in a bind about his NON-support of a candidate at the same time he was supporting another candidate who he vacationed with... He doesn't feel like he has to recsue himself because he feels like he can do whatever the hell he wants.
Anonymous said…
It's possible for spouses to work together and we have examples of this at both colleges and in the district. But I do not think this has been one of those exemplary examples mostly because of how both of them approach power and process. The egregious lack of intervention up until now has always, even in the SOCCCD with its troubled history, surprised me. I don't think they would have gotten away with this for so long in the business world that Glenn so loves to court. Now that The Nepotism Mystery has been solved, someone should take on The Case of the Disappearing Female Administrators.
Anonymous said…
That's easy. Glenn is intimidated by strong, considerate, intelligent and honest women.

Glenn is what remains of the "old guard" and the pathetic men who have attempted to dominate education, business and politics. May that soon be ancient history.
Anonymous said…
When I think of what the men at the college said to me when I was first hired...unbelievable. Some of them, too many of them, still work there.
Anonymous said…
#Time’sUp #RoqueLessIVC
Rebel Girl said…
I was at UCI a couple weeks ago for a lecture by Alice Sebold,. Among other topics, she spoke passionately about the MeToo movement and PTSD and how to be in a world that continue to assault women. I ran into a former IVC student who started telling me about his wife, who, years ago, took classes at IVC in the Math department with one of the FAMOUSLY ABUSIVE MATH INSTRUCTORS...you know who. He told me stories of what that guy said in class, how he disrespected female students time and time again, how he humiliated them. His wife just endured it because she needed the class to move on but she couldn't believe it. Did anything ever happen to that guy? the student asked. No, I told him, he had friends in high places who cared more about him than they cared about students. His wife has felt guilty all these years for not speaking out more. I reassured him that his wife was not at fault, that she shouldn't feel guilty. It was the institution that failed her. Get that - HIS WIFE felt guilty because WE tolerated someone who EVERYONE knew humiliated female students. OPEN SECRET! SHE feel bad. HER.

Afterwards, at the special VIP gathering for Sebold, fancy wine, food, photographers, I told others about my encounter with my former student. Oh yes, they said. We heard about IVC. Word gets around.

What do you call an administration that protects someone like that? An administration that EMBOLDENS someone like that, a culture like that?

They never say anything about what they know has happened. They never say sorry. They never say they were wrong.
Anonymous said…
Do not under estimate GR, my guess is his counterpart at SC will soon feel the pressure to protect his wife.

There is much more to be researched about management at IVC, - this - is very important to understand, IVC's long standing
issues, (and frustration with the Board & District for ignoring it), did not start nor will it end with moving one person to SC.
For Starters, A100 & Publications & perhaps half the Deans need to cleaned out. Then the district must help the college recover and
Move forward in a trustful way and one where the Board & District actually listen and respond to the multitude of issues
still causing stress at IVC. Trust has been shattered and gone for years at IVC. The Board & District frankly owe it to IVC to ensure such values have a fertile ground to grow and be care taken so IVC can get its institutional center and health back after 21years of
administrative hell and abuse.
Anonymous said…
If Kiana is leaving IVC, maybe Diane Oaks can try once again
to be the specially protected Queen of the College and Policy Violating (?),
Autocratic overruler of the Commencement Speaker Selection Committees
final Selectees.
Anonymous said…
Is the Dean (sort of, in name only) of the IVC School of the Arts, (formerly at OCC still
underhandedly trying to pressure people in or out of serving as Department Chair?
(Something, BTW, that is a Departmental decision),

He apparently only wants other, (as he sees it), like-minded lazies who get nothing done.
Then he can more easily quietly get nothing done. Especially since he has lost his former OCC colleague
and minder. It seems like he's just a balloon with a pony tail floating around campus, is what hear
from colleague in that School.

Never understood former VPI Justice's hard-on for OCC Deans and apparently wanting to
steal what he could from them to bring to IVC. CJ coveted his neighbors deans..., and GR
gave him the cover needed for the coveting.
Anonymous said…
I have heard that Bugay is coming to IVC Business in 2019. Good luck to all the wonderful colleagues in BSTIC.
Anonymous said…
Why hasn't Dianne sent out a cheerful announcement about this new move?
Anonymous said…
Was this on the board agenda? Does it have to be approved? Can she be transferred against her will? What about the Chem dept. at Saddleback? Were they involved with this or was it imposed upon them?
Anonymous said…
Believe it or not, sometimes employees face things they don’t like. It’s called work for a reason.
Anonymous said…
We are not college employees (teachers) but district employees.
Anonymous said…
What are the consequences of violating the hiring process in order to hire your fiancee?
Anonymous said…
In some districts and businesses I'd say a lot, but not here until recently. But that is to be seen.
Anonymous said…
What are the consequences of violating the hiring process in order to ensure that a particular person is NOT hired? Not to say that the process is sacred, but are we NOT a public institution governed by processes and regulations that prevent discrimination and favoritism?
Anonymous said…
David Bugay’s wife not only got a job at SC due to pressure by David, but he arranged for her reclass too. And I heard that it’s been a terrible situation in that department ever since.
Anonymous said…
How can this happen? Is everybody at the top in on it or what? Had anyone noticed that Kiana's recent PhD came from Trident Univ. International in Cypress (online degree program) and one of the committee members on her dissertation is a fellow IVC professor? Are we just one big scam at the SOCCCD feathering family and friend's nests? Where is the oversight?
Anonymous said…
Didn’t GR hire his friend Dan Scott? Didn’t they go on vacation to Hawaii together? Did GR disclause his relationship to DS before the interview? Did he offer to recuse himself?
Anonymous said…
6:03 - Are you suggesting there is a pattern here that violates the HR regulations governing a public institution in order to benefit friends and family and oneself?
Anonymous said…
Glenn Roquemore: Game Changer. LOL.
Anonymous said…
Why on Earth does the board keep renewing this man's contract?
I do believe that he's been President longer than anyone in the Cal community college system!
I think of myself as living in a country run by the BIG FAT IDIOT Donald Trump; and when I arrive for work, I work at a place run by the BIG FAT IDIOT Glenn Roquemore.
It's a hard life.
Anonymous said…
I feel badly for those finalists for the position Dan Scott got who didn't get to vacation with the college president's family in Hawaii or be a guest at parties at his house where he could shmooze with college employees. Imagine, they applied for jobs in good faith only to be treated in bad faith.
Anonymous said…
It's very challenging to object to the conduct of so-called "superiors" at the college level which is why leadership at the district and HR needs to be better. I guess it is heading that way. Finally. At the college level people tolerate this because they don't think they have any choice, any power. They are afraid for their jobs - or their perks, those cushy stipends the president approves for special projects etc. Take a look in that direction.
Anonymous said…
GR: you are not going to be Chancellor so retire.
Anonymous said…
I miss Debra. She’s the one that got us steered in the right direction. It took a lot of effort on her part. I was very sorry to see her leave. I fear we are reverting back to old days. The new acting chancellor only works part time for goodness sakes. The board is clueless.
Anonymous said…
I do not miss Debra. Jekyll and Hyde, and only transparent to the degree that she wanted everyone to see. We should have admitted our mistake with Workday early on and moved on to something else rather than continue to spend millions on a system that does not meet our needs. We'll be paying for this for many years to come, whether it is for more consultants or additional permanent staff, because no one can deny that Workday takes longer to do the same work we used to do. Workday doesn't work, but don't be caught saying so. Toe the party line.
Anonymous said…
I miss Escape!
Anonymous said…
Debra would’ve gotten rid of GR had she stayed.
Anonymous said…
I think she would have too!
Anonymous said…
I agree that Debra would have pried GR out of the presidency. A number of BOT members were ready.
Anonymous said…
Diane and Brittany of Publications need to go. Diane has given special favors to Brittany including promotions for all the wrong reasons. Two that should never be trusted.
Anonymous said…
Can’t we finally do ANYTHING about Glenn ???!
Anonymous said…
Yeah, quit.
Anonymous said…
Glen is going to be chancellor that's why Kiana agreed to go to Saddleback.
Roy Bauer said…
Don't think so, dude. Glenn Roquemore's days in this district are numbered;
Anonymous said…
CM has had to do so much cleaning house and deserves more credit. He stepped into this mess and has done so much to fix it. People dislike him because he has to make tough decisions but it is helping the college. I am still unclear how this BP was violated for so many years!!!!!!! Why are there no consequences for Glenn? I also am confused why the tenured faculty and classified staff haven’t rallied for change. After all, unionized folks are the most preotected! Stop accepting working in a fear-based environment and do something!!!!! Haven’t you seen in the Board agenda that Davit is getting a raise?! Seriously?! The finances and spending at IVC are a joke. Agreed with the above statement on wasted resources and unjustified spending of tax payer dollars. Why don’t we come together and demand change? #enoughisenough #Glennshouldbefired #overbeingafraid #loveIVC
Anonymous said…
CM might try treating people with a bit more respect, especially instructors and their disciplines. He seems to have inherited Glenn's bias toward certain programs and his very public disrespect and disregard for others. That's a real motivator to be putdown by your VPI - NOT. Yes people need to speak out more but once again there is fear - whether grounded or not - about what happens if you do. PLUS so little has changed when people have. They just keep smiling and sending out press releases about Glenn getting "reinstalled" on some board or another. Big whoop. Meanwhile check out Transparent California to see what kind of $$$$ Glenn and his pals and favored ones are raking in. They need a very big rake! Someone should sit down with the board and take them on a tour of the salaries posted there. Disgraceful.
Anonymous said…
I don't understand how he could get away with hiring his fiance and his friends. Why didn't HR call him on this stuff? Did they know? Did they not know? Was he truthful when he signed those documents? Isn't this stuff on file? Can the public request it from HR? Who has oversight over HR?
Anonymous said…
10:20 - There are consequences for speaking out. They are subtle and veiled, and the union cannot protect you. Try it. You will notice the results quickly enough. The only way to affect change is to unite.
Anonymous said…
And there is so much $$$ in shutting up! Check out Transparent California! Look at those salaries for folks who head home each day at 2 or 3!

https://transparentcalifornia.com/
Anonymous said…
Is this also part of what's fueling the Vote of "No" Confidence in Glenn on this week's Senate agenda?
Anonymous said…
It’s that and CM who’s plotting against him.
Anonymous said…
CM?
Anonymous said…
9:34, are you clueless?
Anonymous said…
9:34, CM is Chris M.

Roquemore and U of Phoenix

From Clueless IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore smiles as he makes nice with the enemy DtB, 8-26-14

Vice President, Western Region, Workforce Solutions/University of Phoenix, Chuck Parker, President, Irvine Valley College, Dr. Glenn R. Roquemore

Members of the Irvine Valley College community just received this gushing email from the President:

Irvine Valley College Signs Memorandum of Understanding with University of Phoenix

Irvine – Irvine Valley College (IVC) administration, faculty and staff held a formal signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Phoenix, Inc. (University) on Wednesday, August 20, 2014.

Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore said, “This partnership will expand the many transfer opportunities available to the IVC students and staff. One of the major benefits of the MOU is the tuition discount."

Irvine Valley College students transferring to University of Phoenix into an undergraduate baccalaureate degree program … will be considered as having satisfied the general education requirements for the breadth of the liberal arts degree program….

IVC students get 10% off Phoenix tuition, which is way pricey.

Evidently, President Roquemore is not aware that entities such as the U of Phoenix exist to make huge profits by taking advantage of students who typically receive federally insured loans, putting them in serious debt. Those students, upon graduating, typically fail to find the work they were expecting and often default on their loans, forcing the taxpayer to pay. (It's a massive bubble that, one day, will pop.)

You’re fine with all that, are you Glenn? You're a Republican, aren't you? Yeah. I see you smiling with those vets you claim to love!

Alas, the "predatory for-profits" problem is especially egregious in the case of Vets, who pay their way via the new GI Bill:


GI Bill funds failing for-profit California colleges

(Desert Sun)

The ever-clueless Glenn R

Over the last five years, more than $600 million in college assistance for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans has been spent on California schools so substandard that they have failed to qualify for state financial aid.

As a result, the GI Bill — designed to help veterans live the American dream — is supporting for-profit companies that spend lavishly on marketing but can leave veterans with worthless degrees and few job prospects, The Center for Investigative Reporting found.

. . .

Financial records analyzed by CIR show that California is the national epicenter of this problem, with nearly 2 out of every 3 GI Bill dollars going to for-profit colleges.

The University of Phoenix in San Diego outdistances its peers. Since 2009, the campus has received $95 million in GI Bill funds. That's more than any brick-and-mortar campus in America, more than the entire 10-campus University of California system and all UC extension programs combined.

. . .

The school's large share of GI Bill funding reflects more than just the number of veterans enrolling. The programs are expensive. An associate degree costs $395 a credit, for instance — nearly 10 times the cost at a public community college.

The University of Phoenix won't say how many of its veterans graduate or find jobs, but the overall graduation rate at its San Diego campus is less than 15 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education, and more than a quarter of students default on their loans within three years of leaving school.

Those figures fall short of the minimum standards set by the California Student Aid Commission, which dispenses state financial aid. The commission considers either a graduation rate lower than 30 percent or a loan default rate of more than 15.5 percent clear indicators of a substandard education.

No such restrictions govern GI Bill funds. And nearly 300 California schools that received GI Bill money either were barred from receiving state financial aid at least once in the past four years or operated without accreditation, CIR has found.

. . .

Of the $1.5 billion in GI Bill funds spent on tuition and fees in California since 2009, CIR found that more than 40 percent — $638 million —went to schools that have failed the state financial aid standard at least once in the past four years.

Four of those schools were University of Phoenix campuses, which together took in $225 million….

An Enemy In Common? The Case Against For-Profit Colleges

(Cognoscenti [NPR Boston])

… As Americans, we should all be concerned that veterans are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous profiteers. As taxpayers, we should be aware that we are paying for this disservice. Approximately 85-95 percent of the for-profits’ revenue comes from taxpayer-supported benefits….

For-Profit College Investigation--Is the New GI Bill Working?: Questionable For-Profit Colleges Increasingly Dominate the Program

([Senator] Harkin newsletter)


…Senator Harkin's HELP Committee investigation found:

. . .

  • Most for-profit colleges charge much higher tuition than comparable programs at community colleges and flagship State public universities. The investigation found Associate degree and certificate programs averaged four times the cost of degree programs at comparable community colleges. Bachelor's degree programs averaged 20 percent more than the cost of analogous programs at flagship public universities despite the credits being largely non-transferrable.
  • Because 96 percent of students starting a for-profit college take federal student loans to attend a for-profit college (compared to 13 percent at community colleges), nearly all students who leave have student loan debt, even when they don't have a degree or diploma or increased earning power.
  • Students who attended a for-profit college accounted for 47 percent of all Federal student loan defaults in 2008 and 2009. More than 1 in 5 students enrolling in a for-profit college-22 percent-default within 3 years of entering repayment on their student loans....

Hey-Diddly-Ho, Neighbor!

Oldie but Goodie [2012]: See Senator Harkin’s For-Profit College Investigation: U of Phoenix

Glenn Roquemore, the Pacifica Institute & women's "primordial nature"

Glenn Roquemore, the Pacifica Institute & women's "primordial nature" May 21, 2013

Delivering factoids for

Turkish anti-feminists

Here’s a curious factoid. I came across the following press release, evidently dating back to April of 2008. It was posted by the “Pacifica Institute,” which has a dozen or so offices, including one in Orange County (Irvine):


Glenn R. Roquemore-Irvine Valley College President Speaks at PI - Orange County

Today Pacifica Institute hosted Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore. Before this luncheon forum in Irvine , New Zealand Consul General Rob Taylor and Irvine Mayor Beth Krom were the keynote speakers. Consul General Rob Taylor spoke about Welcoming Diversity as a Path to Peace and Mayor Beth Krom’s topic was How to Create a Balanced Community. Dr Glenn Roquemore’s topic is the Role of Community Colleges in Higher Education.

Dr. Glenn Roquemore is President of Irvine Valley College….

Dr Roquemore gave very important statistics of the Community Colleges in California….

You’ll recall that, in the past, we’ve kidded Roquemore over his tendency to approach speaking always as an occasion to dispense the merest of statistics as though they were astonishing jewels. "Two percent of our students," he'll say, "sport a vestigial tail." Huh?

What’s the matter with ‘im? Dunno.

But just who are these “Pacifica Institute” people?

According to PI’s website,

Pacifica Institute was established in 2003 as a non-profit organization by a group of Turkish-Americans. Pacifica Institute designs and executes projects covering social welfare, education, poverty, and conflict resolution issues in collaboration with scholars, activists, artists, politicians, and religious leaders-communities….

. . .

The Institute seeks to …[engage] in a variety of civic activities and [seeks to invite] others to generate and share insights, thereby removing barriers to confidence-building and trust….

Gosh, it sounds as though that illiterate pseudo-educator, Raghu Mathur, may have had a hand in writing this stuff.

Elsewhere, PI presents “Frequently Asked Questions about Pacifica Institute and Fethullah Gülen.”

One naturally assumes, then, that Mr. Fethullah Gülen and his ideas are important to PI. Sure enough, in the Q&A, Gülen and his movement are central:

Fethullah Gülen

Q: How is the Pacifica Institute involved with the Gülen movement?

A: Some of the founders and donors of Pacifica Institute are participants of the so-called Gülen, or Hizmet movement. Pacifica Institute was inspired by the movement’s philosophy and goals….

. . .

The Gülen/Hizmet movement is a values-driven social movement and following a philosophy that advances interfaith dialog, education and community service as tools to build a better and more harmonious society. The movement was inspired by the philosophy and teachings of Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish scholar, author and advocate….

. . .

Q: Who is Fethullah Gülen?

A: Fethullah Gülen is a Turkish scholar, preacher, thinker, author, opinion leader, education activist, and peace advocate who is considered by many to be one of the world’s most influential religious thinkers. He is regarded as the initiator and inspirer of the worldwide civil society movement, the Gülen Movement, which is committed to education, dialogue, peace, social justice, and social harmony….

Well, I’ve done a little looking, and this Gülen fella is mighty controversial, in some circles at least.

I skimmed a couple of sites, which suggested that Gulen is, among other things, a conservative and a vocal opponent of feminism (although I ask that readers judge for themselves based on his writings--and the writings of his mouthpieces).

So I went to the Fethullah Gülen website. There, I searched the term “feminism” and that brought me to a page with links to various relevant essays, evidently by Mr. Gülen, including The Gülen Movement: Gender and Practice.

I clicked on that. That essay includes this passage:

Although he promotes equality between the sexes, Fethullah Gülen's views on gender can indeed be described as complementary. He sees women and men as having equal value but inheriting different roles and characteristics due to physical and psychological differences. He classifies men as "physically stronger and apt to bear hardship" and women as "more compassionate, more delicate, more self sacrificing" (Gülen 2006: 1). Although he does state that women can be involved in any field of work he idealizes the mother as the pure educator (Gülen 2006: 2) implicitly implying that the man should be the family provider. This may open up for critique on behalf of Western feminists or scholars of religion and gender. According to this relatively new academic discipline[,] gender is a social construction. Human beings are born with different sexes, but social roles and expectations of fulfillment of these are constructed and emphasized by the norms that prevail in society.

Another link takes one to an essay entitled Women Confined and Mistreated. Here are some excerpts:

As a reaction to all the injustice done to women … a movement to claim women's rights emerged, particularly in the West. Even though this movement is considered an awakening of women, it occurred as a reaction and was doomed to imbalance like all other reactionary movements and ended up in extremism. Although the starting point was to defend women, in time it deviated from the original aim to the degree of being full of hatred towards men and to feeling a grudge against them. The movement named feminism, which was born from the idea of protecting women and providing them with rights equal to those of men, has only left behind longing, sorrow, and wreckage as a movement of discontentment….

. . .

According to Islam, women's role in this world is not only restricted to doing the housework and raising children. In fact, as long as it does not conflict with her primordial nature or with observing religious requirements, she is responsible for carrying out the duties that befall her in every area of society and making up for shortcomings where men fall short in social life. However, this reality was ignored in time, even among Muslims; rough understandings and crude thinking upset this system based on women and men's mutual assistance. After this upset, both family life and the social order were also upset. Different peoples' perception of their own historical heritage as a part of Islam, their seeing and reflecting their folklore and traditions as essentials of religion, and making judgments pertaining to this issue at certain periods all resulted in the usurpation of women's rights; they were pushed into a more restricted area day by day, and in some places they were totally isolated from life without consideration of where this issue leads. However, the source of mistaken thoughts and deviations in this matter is not Islam whatsoever. The mistakes belong to those who misinterpret and misapply the religion. Such mistakes in practice must definitely be corrected.

On the other hand, while correcting these mistakes, approaching the issue from a feminist standpoint will upset the balance again and an opposite extremism will replace the former. For instance, just as it is very ugly to see women as merely child-bearing objects and is insolence towards them, it is equally unbecoming and unnatural to build a society where women are unable to bear and bring up the children they wish for, or for a woman to feel a need to rebel against marrying and to avoid bearing children in order to show that she is not a machine. As a woman is not a dirty dish, her place at home is not confined to the kitchen with the dirty dishes. However, a woman who claims to have no household responsibilities and thereby turns her home to a quarters for eating and sleeping is far from being a good mother, a good teacher, and a good spiritual guide to her children.

Besides all this, it is another form of oppression to make women work under difficult conditions, such as mining and road-building. It contradicts human nature to push women into heavy tasks like agricultural manual labor, or military field operations, and other harsh pursuits, just for the sake of proving their equality with men; it is nothing but cruel torture. It shows ignorance of women's qualities and conflicts with their primordial nature. Therefore, just as an understanding which imprisons women at home and takes them completely away from social life is absolutely incorrect according to Islam, likewise, depriving women of financial support, preventing them from bearing and raising children in security, and forcing women into the labor force to do uncongenial work is also oppressive. A woman, like a man, can have a certain job as far as her (and his) physiology and psychology are taken into consideration; but both women and men should know that a good life consists of sharing and division of labor. Each should assist the other by doing tasks in compliance with their nature.

Yikes.

I’m in no position to judge this “take” on feminism relative to the various Muslim communities (e.g., in Turkey) and the possibility of discourse within them. But it’s pretty plain that Gülen’s philosophy, as expressed here, is antithetical to some of the core tenets of Western feminism, broadly understood. It seems clear that Gülen is not likely to gain many adherents or followers among contemporary Westerners, with their commitment to the ideal of equality, as they understand it at least, between the sexes.

The Wikipedia article on Gülen is alarming—if, that is, it can be trusted. It asserts that

...Gülen's views are vulnerable to the charge of misogyny. As noted by Berna Turam, Gülen has argued:

"the man is used to more demanding jobs . . . but a woman must be excluded during certain days during the month. After giving birth, she sometimes cannot be active for two months. She cannot take part in different segments of the society all the time. She cannot travel without her husband, father, or brother . . . the superiority of men compared to women cannot be denied." [35]

Berna Turam, Northeastern

Wikipedia is quoting Berna Turam, a serious academic at Northeastern U. She herself seems to cite a work from 1996 entitled Fethullah Gulen Hocaefendi ile ufuk turu (Aktuel kitaplar dizisi). It is written in Turkish.

One should be careful to note that the superiority that Gülen is discussing is physical, not moral, or at least that's how I read it. Even so, his remarks are mighty offensive, at least to these Western ears.


Gosh Glenn, you really oughta be more careful who you hang out with. Philosophically, these Gülenites are a problem, at least relative to most of our community on these shores.

I'll see if I can shed more light on the Pacifica Institute and what it means for the likes of Glenn Roquemore and Beth Krom (a Democrat) to be hanging out with 'em.

Votes of "no confidence" - 1999

from the Dissenter's Dictionary, Dec. 3, 1999


MATHUR, RAGHU P.



In April of 1997, in an action later judged a violation of the Open Meetings law, the Board Majority appointed chemistry teacher and campus joke Raghu P. Mathur as Interim President of Irvine Valley College. At the time, Mathur had no experience as a full-time administrator. Five months later, through a process that violated board policy, and amid strong faculty opposition, the BM appointed Mathur permanent president. That action, too, was later voided owing to violations of the Brown Act. Two years later, despite his miserable record, which included a vote of no confidence and the palpable contempt of nearly all IVC faculty and staff, the board majority renewed Mathur's contract, giving him a raise and a $200 a month "security stipend."

Mathur was hired as an instructor in 1979, and he quickly established a reputation as a schemer and liar who would stoop to anything in order to secure an administrative position. Owing to his manifest unsavoriness, however, that ambition was consistently thwarted both inside and outside the district.

His intrigues soon gained him the hatred of Ed Hart, IVC's first president. In 1986, Hart retired, and the college adopted a "faculty chair" model, partly for fiscal reasons. Soon, Mathur "ruled" the tiny school of Physical Sciences as its chair. During the "chair" era, he was, without doubt, the chief abuser of that office, engaging in endless machinations while arranging a lucrative schedule that netted him a salary far in excess of the college president's ($124,000 in 1996-7).

During this period, Mathur continued to seek administrative positions. When he was passed over, he played the race card, charging everyone in sight with "discrimination," apparently on the sole grounds that he had not been selected.

Mathur's habit, as chair, of circumventing the governance process eventually yielded an official censure of him by IVC's "Instructional Council' in April of 1994. Earlier, the IC membership had all agreed not to go outside the process--particularly with regard to the selection of the IVC presidential search committee chair. During an IC meeting in March (of 94), Mathur was asked whether, despite the agreement, he had presented a petition, urging the selection of a particular faculty member, to the chancellor. He answered that he had "not forwarded" a petition to the chancellor or anyone. In fact, he had and, apparently on that basis, the chancellor did appoint the faculty member as (co)chair.

When this came to light in April, Mathur was censured. According to the minutes of the April 5 meeting, "Instructional Council had agreed that no one will work outside of the IVC governance structure and agreed-upon processes. They felt that Raghu had lied to the Council...[One member] made a motion to censur Raghu Mathur for lying to the Instructional Council regarding the petition and the presidential search process and for misrepresenting not only Instructional Council, but also the faculty...Raghu Mathur stated that he did not lie to the Instructional Council. He said that he was asked if he had forwarded the petition to the Chancellor and he said he had not. He did admit, however, that he had shown the petition to Chancellor Lombardi...Raghu felt that the members of Instructional Council were making too big of a deal out of the situation...The question was called and the motion passed with 8 ayes, 3 noes, and 4 abstentions."

Classified employees, too, have at times found it necessary to complain about of Mathur's conduct. For instance, in August of 1995, IVC administration received a letter from Leann Cribb, Executive Secretary (and formerly secretary for the School of Physical Sciences), in which she wrote: "Mr. Mathur routinely revises facts and manufactures innuendo to suit his objectives." During the January '98 Board meeting, classified employee Julie Ben-Yeoshua explained that Mathur was the reason she was seeking employment elsewhere: "Since you first appointed Raghu Mathur as the interim president, the atmosphere at IVC has changed drastically; morale is in the gutter...[Mathur's] inability to tell the truth is so natural that I have come to gauge everything he says and writes by believing the complete opposite...."

By the mid-90s, Mathur had come to regard Terry Burgess, then-VP of Instruction, as his nemesis, and, in 1996, he tried to discredit Burgess with the board. In the spring of '96, a student sought to enroll in a chemistry course without enrolling in the concurrent lab, and the matter came before the chair--Mathur. Though the student provided documentation proving that she had done the equivalent work at UCI, Mathur denied the request, whereupon the student asked for a review of the decision by the Office of Instruction. Mathur agreed to go along with the Office's decision.

Later, however, he accused Burgess of signing the student's admittance card despite non-approval by the instructor. Mathur convinced his school to send a resolution of complaint to the board (and also to the senate and the union), appending the student's transcripts, without her permission, an action that violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and district policies. When then-IVC president Dan Larios learned of this, he requested an opinion from the district's attorneys regarding the legality of Mathur's action. The opinion, dated March 18, 1996, indicates that Mathur acted improperly, violating FERPA and board policy 5619. Larios was fed up.

Realizing that Larios now planned to deny approval of him as chair of his school, Mathur, as per usual, scrambled to lobby board members for support. On March 29, Larios met with Mathur; he explained that he had lost confidence in Mathur and that Mathur had better "change." In the end, Larios wrote a memo (May 14) expressing his serious reservations about Mathur's leadership, owing to his repeated circumventing of established processes and his violations of board policy, and placed him on probation. If there were any further violations of process, wrote Larios, Mathur would be removed as chair.

In the meantime, Mathur asked the senate to censure Burgess. It declined to do so, citing Mathur's misdescription of crucial facts. Larios, troubled by Mathur's misrepresentations, sent out a memo explaining that Burgess had in no sense acted improperly.

In December of '96, the Board Majority era began, and Larios sensed that it was time to move on. Normally, the VP of Instruction—Terry Burgess--would serve as interim president, but the BM blocked his selection, and, in March, Lombardi was chosen as a sort of compromise. But in April, Frogue presented another one of Mathur's petitions--this time, an “anonymous” petition urging Mathur's selection as president. On that basis, Mathur became IVC president.

Mathur's outrages while president are too numerous to recount here. Suffice it to say that in the early months of 1998, the IVC academic senate instituted a Special Inquiry into “abuses of power.” By April, it became necessary to abandon the investigation, owing to the number and the complexity of the charges against Mathur. Said the committee’s chair: “It’s like bailing water out of the Titanic with a tea cup…Every time we put an allegation to bed, another one jumps up” (Voice, 5/7/98). Soon thereafter, Mathur received a 74% vote of no confidence by his faculty.

Mathur has sought to rule through intimidation, punishing his critics in every way available to him. In early November of 1999, the IVC academic senate released the results of a survey of full-time faculty (78% participated). 90% disagreed with the statement, "I can express my opinion about issues at the college without fear of retribution or retaliation." The 90% figure will likely go up soon, for Mathur intends to fire an untenured instructor--a critic--for his involvement in the act of naming the plot of dirt next to the Life Sciences greenhouse. It was named the "Terry Burgess garden."


Huge Vote Against College Chief (LA Times, May 18, 2004 | Jeff Gottlieb)

Faculty in the South Orange County Community College District overwhelmingly voted no confidence Monday in Chancellor Raghu Mathur.
Of the full-time professors at Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges who cast ballots, 93.5% voted in favor of no confidence, and 6% were against the union-sponsored measure. One person abstained.
Out of 318 faculty eligible, 246 -- 77% -- voted, according to the district faculty association….

Clueless IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore smiles as he makes nice with the enemy - August 26, 2014

Vice President, Western Region, Workforce Solutions/University of Phoenix, Chuck Parker, President, Irvine Valley College, Dr. Glenn R. Roquemore

○ Members of the Irvine Valley College community just received this gushing email from the President:

Irvine Valley College Signs Memorandum of Understanding with University of Phoenix

Irvine – Irvine Valley College (IVC) administration, faculty and staff held a formal signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Phoenix, Inc. (University) on Wednesday, August 20, 2014.
Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore said, “This partnership will expand the many transfer opportunities available to the IVC students and staff. One of the major benefits of the MOU is the tuition discount."
Irvine Valley College students transferring to University of Phoenix into an undergraduate baccalaureate degree program … will be considered as having satisfied the general education requirements for the breadth of the liberal arts degree program….

○ IVC students get 10% off Phoenix tuition, which is way pricey.

○ Evidently, President Roquemore is not aware that entities such as the U of Phoenix exist to make huge profits by taking advantage of students who typically receive federally insured loans, putting them in serious debt. Those students, upon graduating, typically fail to find the work they were expecting and often default on their loans, forcing the taxpayer to pay. (It's a massive bubble that, one day, will pop.)

○ You’re fine with all that, are you Glenn? You're a Republican, aren't you? Yeah. I see you smiling with those vets you claim to love!

○ Alas, the "predatory for-profits" problem is especially egregious in the case of Vets, who pay their way via the new GI Bill:


GI Bill funds failing for-profit California colleges

(Desert Sun)

The ever-clueless Glenn R

Over the last five years, more than $600 million in college assistance for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans has been spent on California schools so substandard that they have failed to qualify for state financial aid.
As a result, the GI Bill — designed to help veterans live the American dream — is supporting for-profit companies that spend lavishly on marketing but can leave veterans with worthless degrees and few job prospects, The Center for Investigative Reporting found.

. . .

Financial records analyzed by CIR show that California is the national epicenter of this problem, with nearly 2 out of every 3 GI Bill dollars going to for-profit colleges.
The University of Phoenix in San Diego outdistances its peers. Since 2009, the campus has received $95 million in GI Bill funds. That's more than any brick-and-mortar campus in America, more than the entire 10-campus University of California system and all UC extension programs combined.

. . .

The school's large share of GI Bill funding reflects more than just the number of veterans enrolling. The programs are expensive. An associate degree costs $395 a credit, for instance — nearly 10 times the cost at a public community college.
The University of Phoenix won't say how many of its veterans graduate or find jobs, but the overall graduation rate at its San Diego campus is less than 15 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education, and more than a quarter of students default on their loans within three years of leaving school.
Those figures fall short of the minimum standards set by the California Student Aid Commission, which dispenses state financial aid. The commission considers either a graduation rate lower than 30 percent or a loan default rate of more than 15.5 percent clear indicators of a substandard education.
No such restrictions govern GI Bill funds. And nearly 300 California schools that received GI Bill money either were barred from receiving state financial aid at least once in the past four years or operated without accreditation, CIR has found.

. . .

Of the $1.5 billion in GI Bill funds spent on tuition and fees in California since 2009, CIR found that more than 40 percent — $638 million —went to schools that have failed the state financial aid standard at least once in the past four years.
Four of those schools were University of Phoenix campuses, which together took in $225 million….

An Enemy In Common? The Case Against For-Profit Colleges

(Cognoscenti [NPR Boston])

… As Americans, we should all be concerned that veterans are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous profiteers. As taxpayers, we should be aware that we are paying for this disservice. Approximately 85-95 percent of the for-profits’ revenue comes from taxpayer-supported benefits….

For-Profit College Investigation--Is the New GI Bill Working?: Questionable For-Profit Colleges Increasingly Dominate the Program

([Senator] Harkin newsletter)


…Senator Harkin's HELP Committee investigation found:

. . .

  • Most for-profit colleges charge much higher tuition than comparable programs at community colleges and flagship State public universities. The investigation found Associate degree and certificate programs averaged four times the cost of degree programs at comparable community colleges. Bachelor's degree programs averaged 20 percent more than the cost of analogous programs at flagship public universities despite the credits being largely non-transferrable.
  • Because 96 percent of students starting a for-profit college take federal student loans to attend a for-profit college (compared to 13 percent at community colleges), nearly all students who leave have student loan debt, even when they don't have a degree or diploma or increased earning power.
  • Students who attended a for-profit college accounted for 47 percent of all Federal student loan defaults in 2008 and 2009. More than 1 in 5 students enrolling in a for-profit college-22 percent-default within 3 years of entering repayment on their student loans....

Hey-Diddly-Ho, Neighbor!

Oldie but Goodie [2012]: See Senator Harkin’s For-Profit College Investigation: U of Phoenix