That’s a clear violation of an old and widely-known policy here at the college. And it was a clear violation of confidentiality.
On Tuesday, Sept. 25, I wrote the following email to the Faculty Association (union):
Kurt and Kathy:
I've been told that June M, [IVC] Senate President, was recently informed by President Roquemore that an incident occurred in which I "threatened" a student.
I find this odd. At no point have I been informed that a student has registered a complaint about me. I have received no communication from my dean or from any other administrator about a student complaint.
It is my understanding that there are procedures in place according to which student complaints first go to the relevant Dean who then asks the student to work things out with the instructor. The procedures do not allow an administrator to contact and inform other faculty about some alleged faculty misconduct prior to the above mentioned dean-level action.
Roquemore's action would seem to be a serious violation of process. I should mention that, up to this moment, I have received no communication from anyone, including any administrator, concerning a student complaint.
Is there anything you can do to determine the facts in this matter and to determine whether this violation [of process, of confidentiality] has occurred?
--Roy Bauer, Philosophy
Your understanding and characterization of how complaints are generally handled is consistent with mine.
Kathy has far more knowledge and experience than I do in these matters, so I'm going to first listen and learn.
The Faculty Association will verify what procedures are in place, ascertain the facts in this matter, help determine whether a violation has occurred, and, if a violation has occurred, proceed appropriately.
I am particularly concerned, as you are Roy, about the possibility of an administrator (in this case apparently President Roquemore) contacting and informing other faculty about alleged misconduct by another faculty, especially if in violation of policy/procedure.
More to come,
KurtOn the 26th, I received the following email from Kathy S, the IVC union grievance officer:
Then, on the 27th, I received an email from Chris McDonald, IVC’s VP of Instruction:
I certainly concur. Even were June the FA grievance chair, it would be inappropriate for any administrator, let alone the president, to contact one faculty member about an allegation like this about another faculty member. …..With your permission, Roy, I’ll ask June. Perhaps that will clarify the situation. ... If there is some other course of action you’d like me to pursue, please let me know.
Hi Roy,That day, I responded to McDonald:
We received an anonymous student complaint that I would like to discuss with you. I will ask Megan … to arrange a time for us to meet during the week of October 8. You may choose to have a Union Representative accompany you to the meeting.
Sounds good. I tend to be free from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Eventually, a date and time for the meeting—11:00 p.m., Oct 11—was determined by McDonald’s office. I responded: “Sounds good. I'll be there.”
It turned out that Kathy couldn’t make it at that time, and so I informed her that I would simply go alone.
And so I met with McDonald on the 11th. Afterward, I wrote the grievance officer, telling her that the meeting went well: “Nothing was done,” I said, “aside from Chris's noting that he had a meeting with me about an anonymous complaint.”
Naturally, I wanted to pursue Roquemore’s violation of process. I filled out the grievance form, describing the situation exactly as I had in my letter of Sept. 25. The union made some minor modifications and sent it back.
On the 13th, I wrote to the union President:
Kurt, the statement looks fine.On the same day, Kurt wrote back, saying, “I'll strongly recommend the [inclusion of the] college President's admission (per your language below).”
My only "suggestion" … is that the "relief requested" include …. the college President's admission that his action (of discussing this incident with faculty and others, thereby violating confidentiality) was inappropriate and/or regrettable.
“[V]iolating confidentiality,” someone had reminded Kurt, “is not a small thing.”
Finally, Kurt wrote: “Roy, please let Kathy know whether you want to file a complaint, a grievance, or both, and she can help if/as you wish.”
That day, I wrote Kathy, indicating that I wanted to pursue both. Kathy then set about scheduling a meeting of Roquemore, Kathy, and me.
The decision had been made by one of the union’s grievance officers (I think) not to include a “written apology” as part of the remedy. The union president disagreed, but I went along with that decision.
I informed Kathy that “I see nothing to gain in meeting with him—with my meeting with him.” And so the plan was for Kathy to meet with Roquemore without me. Eventually, a meeting was scheduled for Dec. 6—yesterday, just before the IVC Academic Senate meeting (at 2:00 p.m.).
Yesterday, as the senate meeting concluded (it had gone extra minutes), Kathy, with an air of victory, accosted me. She told me (over the din) that she had met with Roquemore and that I should look at my email where I’d find some sort of apology.
Here it is:
I became aware of an anonymous student complaint that involved one of your classes. Normally your dean would notify you of this complaint. Your dean, at the time, was an applicant for the full time position in your School and you were one of the committee members. As a result, it was determined that the dean, in this instance, should not be the one to notify you. In seeking advice on who should provide you with the complaint (just for information and no action indicated), I found the VPI and the academic senate president meeting alone and decided to pose the question to them. I shared the matter with the academic senate president because, in part, there was a potential issue with a hiring committee. Faculty participation on a hiring committee is an academic senate responsibility. No information was shared regarding the details of the complaint, other than a student was claiming to be disturbed by language being used in the classroom by you. I also stated that this information should be treated as confidential and that no action was being considered but you should be informed. I understand that the VPI shared this information with you.
Today [?!], I learned that you are concerned that I shared this information with the academic senate president. In retrospect, I realize that the best choice would have been to discuss the matter with the Faculty Association (President, Grievance Chair). I apologize for any concern that this issue has caused and I will seek advice from the Faculty Association on matters like this in the future.
Very Respectfully,This is a ridiculous letter. “[I]t was determined” (note the passive voice), he says, “that the dean, in this instance, should not be the one to notify you.“
Glenn R. Roquemore, PhD
Why? Because her informing me of the existence of an anonymous complaint would cause me to resent her?
Why on Earth would it do that?
|Glenn vacations with probationary faculty (Mr Scott, at left).|
* * *Like his hero, Donald Trump, Glenn Roquemore is not averse to prevarication, when convenient.
Back in 1998, we produced the precursor to “Dissent the Blog,” a newsletter, called “Dissent,” that routinely criticized board members, the IVC college president, union officers, and various others. (They were closely allied.) People read it, liked it, even loved it. The district eventually responded by putting a letter into my personnel file that asserted that, in Dissent (and the ‘Vine), I had violated the district’s "discrimination" and "workplace violence" policies.
The charges were absurd.
The District expected me to shut down the newsletter. Instead, we continued publishing, saltier than ever.
And I went to court (with the estimable Carol Sobel), appealing to the First Amendment.
On Oct. 25, 1999, the case finally made it to Judge Gary Feess of the U.S. District Court, in Los Angeles. Roquemore was part of the team that attempted to shore up the defense of the district’s preposterous action against me. He was among several Mathurians that provided lurid declarations, accusing me of threats.
Roquemore declared that I had threatened him in his office. In fact, there was no threat. I had told him that if he continued to hitch his wagon to the odious President Raghu Mathur, he would “go down.” Roquemore argued that such language was a threat of violence.
Judge Feess wasn’t buying it:
FEESS: …even if you take into account this so-called threat that "You're going down"—which is kind of street talk for meaning: when this administration fails, you're going with it—now, I don't think anybody necessarily would interpret, under the circumstances that they may reasonably interpret "you're going down" to mean that Mr. Bauer was going to engage in violence.Later, Feess declared that “this is a case where that concept [“workplace violence”], a legitimate concept, is being stretched for the purpose of taking a vigorous critic of the administration and the board of trustees and trying to keep them quiet. That is how this case hits me.”
Do you have some evidence that Mr. Bauer actually, in fact, on any occasion has assaulted anyone? [They had none.]
MR. LARSEN [the district’s lawyer]: You know, I think we submitted in declarations incidents which were fairly close. [He once told someone:] "You fucking asshole." Violent in other people's face. [This is a reference to an incident, described in a declaration by Ken Woodward, in which Bauer, upon being treated to one of Woodward’s infantile needlings, muttered, “You fucking asshole,” as he walked away.]
. . ..
FEESS: Well, "You fucking asshole," if that's an assault, then the courts of the state system would be filled to overflowing …I've actually even heard that in the courtroom directed at somebody in a black robe.
* * *
As reported previously, Roquemore has recently monumentally dropped the ball, failing to respond adequately to a series of incidents concerning campus safety (see Roquemore: a failure to lead).
Before that, he stunned the Senate (i.e., the IVC faculty) by overstepping his authority in his actions last summer to protect one of his pet programs, Photonics. As we reported back in August (IVC President Glenn Roquemore seriously oversteps his authority),
Rumors have been swirling that Roquemore recently overstepped his authority in promoting the curriculum of one of his curious hobby horses, the "Laser" or Photonics program.Well, the senate has been inching up to a vote of confidence (or “no confidence”) ever since. (A senate vote might actually occur in the Spring.)
I have made inquiries. Here’s what I’ve learned—from very reliable sources.
The curriculum specialist is the (non-faculty) employee at IVC who assists the Office of Instruction and faculty in creating and approving curriculum. Supervised by the VPI, he works closely with the (faculty) Curriculum Chair, managing curriculum at the College. (The specialist has permissions in the curriculum system [CurricuNet] at a high level, able to move programs and degrees through the system.)
The Laser Technology (Photonics) program at IVC, a program in which President Roquemore seems to take a keen interest, recently lost its only full-time faculty member, Desiré Whitmore; unable to make load due to low enrollment, Whitmore took a job elsewhere. The program has few students, and, in truth, there are few or no laser tech jobs in California. Meanwhile, California Ed Code now requires Career Technical Education programs, such as Photonics, to demonstrate, with Labor Market Data, that they are educating students for an actual job. (Such data should be presented to the board.)
I should mention that the current Curriculum Chair, who was appointed in Spring, is new and untenured. The Academic Senate is presently working with him to fix a very confused and troubled curriculum process.
Over summer 2018, Roquemore emailed the Academic Senate president, asking about the curriculum status of the Laser Technology Associates degree. The Senate Prez responded, saying that she would check. Summer was a busy time for curriculum because of AB 705 and other pressing curriculum matters. The curriculum chair was alerted to the President’s concern.
Later this summer, the college president asked the curriculum specialist for an update on the Laser Technology curriculum. The specialist informed him that the curriculum was then at the board level and would not be moved forward—not until a process was developed in collaboration with Saddleback College for how Labor Market data should be presented to the Board.
Roquemore said he would look into the process and get back to the specialist. A few weeks later, Roquemore informed the specialist that he had spoken to Saddleback and that the requirement to show Labor Market data was waived for this program; hence, he said, the specialist should move the Associate degree forward.
Is Glenn once again helping one of his worthless pals?
The specialist believed he should comply with Roquemore's direction and did so. Education Code gives academic senates (i.e., faculty) primary responsibility for making recommendations regarding curriculum. The Curriculum Chair was not part of this action and was not consulted. Beyond the summer email, neither was the Academic Senate President.
In our system, no administrator may touch curriculum; it is the faculty’s purview. Roquemore has clearly overstepped his authority. This, at any rate, is the view of many faculty and others at the college.
The Saddleback Senate has been alerted to the situation. They too are alarmed. It is my understanding that IVC's Academic Senate President is now pursuing an appointment with the Chancellor to discuss the matter.
Some members of the IVC Academic Senate are discussing the possibiity of at long last pursuing a vote of no confidence in Roquemore.
Feeling the heat, Roquemore yesterday offered a (preemptive?) apology in a letter to the Senate:
This letter clarifies my position regarding the unfortunate matter regarding Photonics. Please share it with the entire Academic Senate.So Roquemore continues to insist that that he “did not direct the Photonic curriculum to be processed through to the Board.” Others testify to the contrary.
I thought I was doing good by helping a faculty member that carves time away from family and his fulltime job, commuting many hours each way to spend a few hours teaching at IVC. However, in doing so I made a mistake. Although, I continue to stand on my words that I did not direct the Photonic curriculum to be processed through to the Board, I now realize that there is another factor that I have not considered. When attempting to assist the faculty member, I should have waited for the VPI to return from an accreditation visit or consult with the academic senate president or curriculum chair. At minimum this would have avoided the confusion and misunderstanding that existed between me and the curriculum specialist. I know how this happened, but I do not want to offer an excuse. Instead, I apologize and promise that such a mistake will never occur again. The curriculum process is the full and undeniable purview of the faculty. I should not have put myself in a position where my understanding of this fact is questioned by the faculty. A breach in trust has occurred and I hope that this error can be forgiven. I hope that healing can occur and, once again, we can join arms in the collegial and transparent work of the college.
Please have a warm and peaceful Thanksgiving.
Who are you gonna believe?
The letter was not well received.
Again: stay tuned.
Come down off your throne and leave your body alone.
Somebody must change.
You are the reason I've been waiting so long.
Somebody holds the key.
Buying bread from a man in Brussels
He was six-foot-four and full of muscles
I said, "do you speak-a my language?"
He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich
Oh, ma-mama, mo-ma, mo-my mother
I would love to love you, lover
City is restless, it's ready to pounce
Oh, here in your bedroom, ounce for ounce
lust corrodes my body
i've lost count of my lovers
but i can count my money
for ever and forever