Remembering Glenn Roquemore, part 2

From Dissent the Blog, Dec 7, 2018
IVC President issues two apologies in one day

     Some time in September, I was told by a reliable person at IVC that the college had received an anonymous student complaint about an alleged incident in my classroom. According to the complaint, I had “threatened” a student. Further, according to my informant, IVC President Glenn Roquemore, an old political opponent (and a target of much negatory verbiage here on DtB), had taken the matter to, of all people, the Academic Senate President—i.e., a member of faculty.
     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:

Roquemore

     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

     That same day, I received a response from the union president:

Hi Roy:

     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, 

     Kurt

     On the 26th, I received the following email from Kathy S, the IVC union grievance officer:

June

     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.

     Then, on the 27th, I received an email from Chris McDonald, IVC’s VP of Instruction:

Hi Roy,

     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.

     That day, I responded to McDonald:

     Sounds good. I tend to be free from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Kathy S.

     On the 29th, the Kathy wrote me, recommending that I bring a union rep to the meeting with McDonald.
     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.
     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.

     On the same day, Kurt wrote back, saying, “I'll strongly recommend the [inclusion of the] college President's admission (per your language below).”

     On the 19th, Kurt wrote me an update after he had consulted with various union officials. I was informed that “The Grievance Chairs believe that … you should file a complaint directly with the Chancellor.” (I have yet to do that.)
     “[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:

Dear Roy,

Kurt

     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,
Glenn R. Roquemore, PhD

     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.“
     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).

* * *
GLENN LIES

     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.

Judge Feess

     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.

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.

     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.”

* * *

Glenn makes nice with the enemy: the U of Phoenix

     Roquemore was the topic of much discussion during yesterday’s senate meeting. One of the last items was: “Discussion of the use of the ‘vote of [no] confidence’ for the president of IVC.”
     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.
     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.
     Stay tuned.

     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.)

     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.
     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.

     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.
     Who are you gonna believe?
     The letter was not well received.
     Again: stay tuned.

* * * 

From Leadershiplessness, DtB, March 12, 2019

     I’m told that, at the recent IVC Foundation wingding, for over an hour, announcements were made over the PA to the effect that some lout who owned a colorful new Tesla was parked illegally and blocking the something-or-other. Whoever the miscreant was, he wasn’t moving his sled. Well, former SOCCCD trustee and current Mayor “Dandy” Don Wagner was in attendance, looking like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, and, at long last, he was finally seen running and puffing to move his goddam car.
     Typical Don.
     As you know, faculty at IVC have been working up to a vote of confidence/no-confidence in President Glenn “Plastic Man” Roquemore. We’re not sure there’s much point in it, given that odd “for life” rider in Glenn's contract.
     It’s pretty clear that Glenn’s crew of favorites on campus are mighty uncomfortable with the idea. These days, you can just feel ‘em squirmin’ in dark corners all over campus.
     At a recent IVC Humanities School meeting (they’re held on Fridays), VPI McDonald showed up to update us on this and that. At one point, one wag (it might’ve been me) asked, “How come we never hear from the President?”
     It was an awkward moment. But there’re plenty of those at IVC.
     Looks like they’ll be installing all kinds of cameras on campus pretty soon. Plus there’ll be “new keying” and lasers and whatnot. Some of us wondered whether we really want all this monitoring going on, but, at a recent senate meeting, the folks directly involved in these upgrades did a pretty good job allaying fears.

* * *

Dandy Don

     Back at the Feb 7 Academic Senate meeting, there was lots of carping about the lack of “night deans” at IVC. (Really. There’s nobody.) One issue is an old one: it’s obvious that some classes are routinely let out early. That’s fraud, man. And what happens if there’s an emergency? Health Services office shuts down at 4 or 5. What if the Big One strikes? Sheesh.
     It's plain that administration doesn’t want to hear such grumblings and they’re doing everything they can to shut 'em down.
     Item K was “adjunct faculty engagement & communication.” An old issue. We treat adjuncts like shite and we don’t even communicate with them. Can’t we do better?

* * *

     Item P was the vote of confidence/no-confidence in Roquemore. As you know, the IVC Senate recently voted to censure Roquemore for his recent unsavory machinations in support of the ailing Photonics program (a hobby horse of his).
     But the vote of C/N-C is a more serious matter. It has been inspired by a laundry list of Roquemorian sins, including favoritism, abuse of power, ineffective leadership, failure to protect faculty, etc. Nevertheless, some senators reported that some of their faculty are clueless about these problems/issues; they want a list of points. They’re peevish, I guess.
     Some in the room suggested that we don’t need no stinkin’ list; we should just focus on the President’s job description and vote on whether he provides effective leadership. Well, obviously, he doesn't.
     The Senate Cabinet seemed to favor that approach.
     The Senate Prez alluded to an obvious point: apathy (cluelessness) among some faculty. You have a responsibility to pay attention, she almost said. Get with the goddam program, I heard, in my head.
     Some spoke about Roquemore’s utter lack of the vision thing. Some of our best faculty look for support from administration and get the opposite. Roquemore seems determined to push against our best initiatives.
     He's got anti-vision.

     And these complaints aren’t just coming from the usual suspects in Humanities. There are junior faculty from elsewhere on campus who object to various dastardly Roquemoreisms, but they’re afraid to speak up. Or so said the Senate Prez.

     Some noted the sad fact that “community” is in short supply these days at the college. Things used to be better. Nowadays, we're all hunkered down in our silos.
     One senate officer suggested that, elsewhere, administrative leadership comes and goes all the time. If someone isn’t doing the job, you get rid of ‘em and move to someone else. Why are we afraid to do that at IVC? Why are we stuck with Roquemore?
     Said J, one need not identify heinous crimes on Roquemore’s part (although he does seem to commit those too); we just need to ask, Is he doing his goddam job? Does he lead? Does he inspire and support? (Nope, nope, nope.)
     The Senate Prez reminded the senators that they’re supposed to keep the faculty of their schools apprised of goings on here at the senate. They been doing that?
     One Senator spoke of the dynamic and inspiring leadership provided by the Prez at her last college. Why can’t we have that? Why do we settle for so much less here at IVC?
     Rebel Girl was on hand to provide copies of the notorious threatening letter (sent by an unbalanced former student, warning the college of the Reb’s alleged outrages) that the President failed to warn her about for several weeks.
     I do hope they read it. They need to see what a clueless bastard Roquemore is. Roquemore and Fontanilla. They're a real pair.
     We have some responsibility of oversight as a Senate, said someone. Why are we afraid to take it?
     Somebody used the “m” word (malaise). Others spoke of the President’s unwillingness to engage with the faculty or with anybody (aside from his favorites, the wielders of lasers and crafty makers of moola).
     So it was decided, more or less, to agendize this “no confidence” vote for the next meeting. We need to decide whether to have this vote or not. Dang!

* * * 

     Two weeks later (i.e., five days ago), at the March 7 senate meeting, there was considerable discussion about the rise of anti-Semitism and similar phenomena at the college in recent months. (You’ll recall that someone had scrawled a swastika in one of our restrooms. Similar graffiti was scrawled on a Temple down the street.)
     We bellyached about students’ apparent ignorance about the most basic factoids concerning the Holocaust.

     We grumbled about the State Chancellor’s recent decision—evidently made on no discernible basis—not to fund the long-awaited Arts complex here at IVC.
     The Arts faculty have been waiting for this building since the 90s. They’re pissed.
     We briefly discussed interesting new changes in the allocation of funds to the colleges in the district.
     According to our budget guy, Davit, the 2020 budget for IVC is “healthy.” J, however, noted that some big issues re our retirement system will be coming up. What about that?

* * *

     Once again, we discussed the possibility of a vote of confidence/no-confidence in President Roquemore.
     Shall the Rep Council (i.e., the senate) give the Senate Cabinet authority to explore faculty concerns with the President of the College?
     We voted. It was unanimous. YEP.

Aim for the body rare, you'll see it on TV
The worst thing in 1954 was the bikini
See the girl on the TV dressed in a bikini
She doesn't think so, but she's dressed for the H-bomb
(For the H-bomb)

I found that essence rare, it's what I looked for
I knew I'd get what I asked for

From The Chihuahua asks, "Why not bite?", 
DtB, December 19, 2009

OK, I’m caught between a rock and a hard place.

Dissent the Blog is a lot of things, but, to me, it is first and foremost a watchdog. There isn’t a heck of a lot of internal watchdoggery in this district, that’s for sure. And there is no effective external watchdoggery. The Accreds? It is to laugh. The press? They're a skeleton crew on a sinking ship.

There's DtB. We’re a scruffy little Chihuahua, yapping in the corner.

We’ve got full-time jobs as teachers, and so it isn’t easy keeping DtB going. We do the best we can.

We have “friends” (who are sometimes unfriendly) who just don’t get the watchdog thing. They keep coming at us with “don’t say that! It’ll hurt the college!” or “Who the f*ck do you think you are!”

Well, sure. But the problem is that people with power will make mistakes and, beyond that, they will do things they shouldn’t be doing. We understand about mistakes. We’re all human. But sometimes the only way to get powerful people to stop doing things they shouldn’t be doing is to drag their hinky endeavors into the light of day, cuz you can’t appeal to some of these people with reason or morality or decency. Hey, don't think I haven't tried.

(Remember those "Brown Act" lawsuits? Wendy and I (et al.) didn't just suddenly sue the district. We came to the board and apprised them of their error. We explained how they could fix it. They stared. Then they said "fuck you." And consider this "prayer" lawsuit. Did we (I joined the effort recently) just up and sue the district? Hell no. We made efforts to moderate the board's behavior over a period of several years. The board resented our persistence, our criticisms. So what did they do? They laid on the religion even thicker. It was that same "fuck you." --People With Power, man. Just try to reason with 'em. See what you get.)

I don’t want to hurt the college or the district. But there are people with power who think they’ve got Gyges’ Ring. And they do things, man. There’s nothing unusual about this. It is the way it is. You can try to work with these people and, sometimes, they’ll cooperate. Most often, though, they’re just gonna do whatever they can get away with. They change only when you bring their actions out into the open--or smack 'em over the head with a lawsuit. (Remember the senates' "hiring policy" lawsuit? Same thing.)

So let’s talk about this “Lutheran high school” business. [See December 17, 2009
IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE: CONTRACT ED AT A LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL* [CREAN & FUENTES] ]

It all started like this, see. On Thursday, F, a historian, walked over to my office and asked about a history course being taught at a Lutheran high school. What’s that all about?, he asked. I’m in the senate, so he figured I’d know.

I didn’t know. Increasingly, things go on that seem to operate below the radar. I couldn’t recall anything about it. I looked up the course on the online schedule, and there it was, apparently a regular 3-unit history class, taught by one of our adjuncts.

Odd.

I did a little research on this Crean Lutheran South High School and found pretty much what you’d expect to find. “Decidedly Christian, Distinctly excellent.” That’s how they describe themselves. OK.

On their webpage, they trumpeted their arrangements with Irvine Valley College (and Concordia U, which is Lutheran). They said, “CLS and IVC offer a partnership that provides Crean Lutheran students the opportunity to take college courses at IVC, at no cost, to bolster their academic resumes.”

When I had a little time, I researched the history of Crean Lutheran South (CLS), and I learned that it was largely bankrolled by John Crean, the founder of Fleetwood Enterprises. I recalled that Trustee Tom Fuentes had some sort of association with Fleetwood, and so I dug that up. The story of Fleetwood’s rise to the top, Crean’s acrimonious exit, and Fleetwood’s slide to the bottom seemed interesting to me, especially given that Crean was a local character and one of the right wing movers and shakers of OC. Plus I always enjoy adding pieces to the enormous jigsaw puzzle that I call the Fuentesphere, a sprawling rogues' gallery—Carona, Rackauckas, Street, Schroeder, et al.—punctuated with the occasional decent dupe.

To me the issue here, if there was one, concerned the apparent fact that we were using CLS as a site for instruction. These Crean courses did after all appear in our schedules of courses — without apparent restriction or qualification.

(As it turns out, their inclusion there was a mistake. They are in fact courses that IVC has contracted to offer at Crean, for Crean students, paid for by Crean.)

Still under the (I think reasonable) impression that IVC’s Crean courses were regular offerings, I posted the story, gently (yes, gently) raising the question of whether it was appropriate to use a Lutheran high school as an off-campus site.

Then the shit hit the fan. Friday morning, I got word that the paragraph about Crean and IVC was “wrong.” Well, yes, there was a problem, for the post proceeded on the assumption, inspired by the college's own published schedule, that they were regular offerings.

Throughout the day (Friday), I made changes to the post, setting the record straight, but noting the schedule snafu. I would get word that the changes were “OK” with administration.

That annoyed me. This whole business was caused, not by my poor reporting, but by the rather massive error of publishing a schedule of courses that included “contract ed” courses that are NOT open to the community to take. As usual, I got the feeling that my real sin was shining a spotlight on something that normally chugs along quietly, unnoticed, unexamined, like our "early college" program (though, with some effort, the latter has finally come under scrutiny).

They don't want no stinkin' watchdog stirring up dust.

Over the years, we’ve not been pure, watchdog-wise. That’s all down to me and not my partner, the Reb, who, re monitoring the Powerful, is all watchdog, zero puppy. I’ve often sat on “stories” (i.e., held back reports). I have tried to compromise with certain faculty leaders and administrators about our watchdoggery. I’ve bent over backwards for them.

Now, that would be tolerable (to me, not to Reb), I suppose, if these people were to appreciate the nature of the sacrifice we are making and the position we are in. But it seems that they don’t. Again, yesterday, I found myself getting the word from on high that my corrections and deletions were acceptable to them, as though I had entered the scene only to paint erroneous pictures.

Well, that’s just bullshit. 

The college is pissed because we’ve shined a spotlight on a hinky corner of their operation. Noting that the IVC’s Crean courses are “contract ed” settles one issue. But there are other issues here. There are facts, simple incontrovertible facts, not opinion, that are, well, unfortunate. If some of us in the college community had been included in the decisions about this program, we would have said: don't go there. This is trouble.

But no.

These facts. Now, just why shouldn't I state them?

[Note: (1) I am NOT stating them and have not stated them. I have, however, contacted someone with the VPI's office. (2) N.B. In my view, this "episode" points to the folly of administration's new practice of leaving faculty out of the loop, as they seemed to do in the case of the "early college" program. If this Crean business were to have been pursued with normal faculty involvement, none of the unfortunate circumstances/facts would have arisen.]

Pics: taken today at Jan's

Comments:

Anonymous‬ said...

Thank you, Chunk. Over the years, the fair shake you have so often given this college and district has sometimes actually revived my old love of IVC.

About your current post, I have a couple of questions that I think any department chair would ask. How is it that the thinly disguised F did not know that HIST 20 and 21--6 units of osh--were being offered at this off-campus site? And if these units do not represent osh taken from the department's allotment for the semester, who is paying the adjunct? And if the adjunct is being paid from a pot different from the instructional budget, is he held to the 9-unit limit?

3:30 PM, December 19, 2009

‪Anonymous‬ said...

Yes, whose dime are we spending here? And why?

Where is the Academic Senate on this: Saddleback just went after HS students taking classes without paying.

7:17 PM

‪Anonymous‬ said...

Please note that an instructor who regularly teaches History for IVC (Hist 1) teaches Poli Sci (PS 1) over at Crean HS - curious discipline shift.

8:10 PM

‪B. von Traven said...

3:30, I just got home. I don't have an answer to your questions, though, as I explained yesterday, our courses at Crean are "contract ed," which means that Crean, not the taxpayer, pays for them. ¶ At some point, a request went out for volunteers to teach at Crean. Adjunct faculty got this email, but possibly all faculty did. This, of course, is not the same thing as running this arrangement past the academic senate. I don't recall it being presented there, but it is possible that it was and I missed it somehow. We'll see.

9:21 PM

‪Anonymous‬ said...

Someone is pulling something here - the question is just what and why.

9:32 PM

‪Anonymous‬ said...

Who is in charge of articulation now that Kate Clark has retired?

10:22 PM

‪Anonymous‬ said...

Do the instructors who teach Contract Ed need to be credentialed or qualified in the same way we are? or are there difefrent standards? I expect if the courses are being offered for college credit need to be taught by instructors who meet the same standards otherwise the courses are worthless - in terms of college credit anyway.

9:14 AM, December 20, 2009

‪B. von Traven said...

The standards depend on the courses. It appears that the courses offered at Crean are transferable (i.e., "credit") courses, and so the usual standards apply. In fact, the instructors sent to Crean by IVC are part of the existing pool of instructors at IVC, and so they are prima facie qualified. All is well unless Crean starts assigning these instructors courses that they are not qualified to teach--e.g., if a historian, who is qualified to teach transferable history courses, commences teaching, say, transferable econ courses.

9:30 AM

‪Anonymous‬ said...

But CREAN should not be assigning instructors to courses - that something that IVC (chairs and deans) should do - RIGHT????

3:21 PM

‪Anonymous‬ said...

Roy, the entries to your blog have been and are remarkable. We applaud you for the questions you have raised, the research you have done, and the closer to the truth on a number of issues that never would have come to light that you have delivered to us.

We are not "community" colleges any longer. The transparancy that would be wonderful if our District and college administrations shared matters that affect the intergrity of the colleges. We are fortunate to have not just a philosopher who teaches that subject but a man who practices philosophy--the pursuit of questions, the answers of which might improve the quality of our lives and the work we do.

Community bespeakes a communion between and among the members of it. We have very infrequently found that in the SOCCCD. That does not mean that we can't get better at becoming a community. I hope that we do.

Thank you, Philosopher Roy.

4:01 PM

‪Anonymous‬ said...

Hear, hear!

4:07 PM

Anonymous said...

Something is fishy. 

Generally (generally, not all - take the Jesuits for example) parochial schools have their own standards of behavior one must observe - some of these would be at odds with the academic freedom we enjoy. 

Keep barking.

8:29 AM, December 21, 2009 

Anonymous said...

Who IS in charge of articulation?

I can't find anything on the website about who took over from Kate.

9:27 AM

B. von Traven said...

9:27, I believe that Tam Do is our articulation officer. I'm not sure what would be gained contacting Tam, however. This semester, near as I can tell, qualified instructors are teaching the IVC Crean courses. I'm told, however, that universities sometimes balk at college courses offered at high schools. (I'm not sure if this is a significant concern.) But, as I have said, in this case, IVC (adjunct) faculty are teaching the courses. My understanding is that this "program" (if that is the term for it) is being run out of Dave Anderson's office. [My source: two of our Crean instructors. Anderson--a nice guy--is the Director of Extended Education.]

10:04 AM

Anonymous said...

Sorry to be stupid BUT who's assigning the adjunct instrcutors to these courses? The dept. chairs or Anderson or both? Who decides if they're qualified to teach the college credit classes? Faculty or admin? Why would someone who teaches history at IVC teach Poli Sci at Creaon?

10:24 AM

B. von Traven said...

10:24, with regard to your last question: someone with a masters in history can, I believe, teach political science courses if they also have a bachelors in political science (I looked up the rules). Whether the instructor to whom you are referring has the requisite BA--well, I just don't know. Further, I would think that the relevant IVC dept/school (faculty/dean) would determine whether a person with these credentials should be teaching one of our Poli Sci courses. Re your first query: As of this moment, I don't have a clear picture of who was involved in assigning faculty to Crean courses. My communications with some of our Crean instructors makes clear that the man with the answers is Dave Anderson, Director of Extended Education (at IVC). He would know about Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 (see online schedule).

10:39 AM

Political science:

Master’s in political science, government, public administration, or international relations OR

*Bachelor’s in any of the above AND Master’s in economics, history, social science, sociology, any ethnic studies, JD, or LL.B. OR

*The equivalent

From Minimum Qualifications for Faculty and Administrators in California Community Colleges, February 2008

B. von Traven said...

Above (at 10:04), I wrote: "I'm told, however, that universities sometimes balk at college courses offered at high schools." I checked my notes, and I should have said that universities sometimes balk at college courses offered at high schools that are not open to the public. One of my sources, who is very reliable, seems to think that these courses are NOT open to the public, but only to Crean Lutheran students. But, again, I do not know whether this is a significant concern. No doubt experts do know.

10:42 AM, December 21, 2009

* * *

From Dissent the Blog, Nov. 20, 2009
CREAN LUTHERAN AGAIN: "PLEASE...INDICATE YOUR DEGREE OF SUPPORT" IN THE STATEMENT OF FAITH

 Nov. 20: Crean Lutheran High School campus opens in Irvine (OC Reg)

     What started as a dream became a reality Saturday. ¶ Crean Lutheran High School – Irvine's first Christian high school – held a ribbon-cutting ceremony to officially open and consecrate its new 28-acre campus, located at the corner of Sand Canyon and Portola Parkway. ¶ About 900 people – including students, parents, teachers and Irvine city officials – filled Crean's new gymnasium and event center Saturday morning to celebrate the occasion. Irvine Mayor Sukhee Kang was on hand to present a declaration; school administrators delivered speeches and prayers; and various student groups offered performances….
. . .
     The mayor said it was also raining when he attended a groundbreaking earlier this year. "I think this is a sign of Lord Jesus Christ's blessing, an outpour of continuous blessing to all of you."
. . .
     ...The school is named after John Crean, an entrepreneur and philanthropist whose foundation donated $10 million to the school in 2007.

     Sure, and John Crean was a good pal of (SOCCCD trustee and notorious thug) Tom Fuentes’ too!
     You know how pious Tom is. He once even performed a liver miracle. Even I was amazed.
     Remember the time that Crean officials asked Irvine Valley College instructors to fill out forms indicating their level of agreement with Christian and Lutheran doctrine? Sheesh! Yeah, and those zany Crean people even unilaterally monkeyed with staffing so that IVC instructors were actually teaching credit courses that they weren't qualified to teach! Gee willikers, it took a lot of doing to untangle that fur ball.
     IVC officials did a boffo job keeping our attention off of those monumental f*ck-ups, didn't they? You've got to hand it to 'em.
     I'm only mentioning this since, well, those guys are so excellent in so many different other ways. Have you noticed?
     And they're really great about transparency too. Some under-medicated kid flashes sharp objects on campus while muttering dark sentiments about faculty—and what do our administrators do? They don't tell anybody about it! Not even the student's instructors!
     Yeah. I could go on, but I won't. (But, um, recall Roquemore's "Early College" brainwave? Did he and the VPI listen to faculty then? Not so much. Are they listening to faculty now? Guess.)

From Crean Lutheran High School’s website: 

Early College Course Program 

Crean Lutheran has a relationship with nearby Irvine Valley College in which college professors come on to CLS campus and teach courses for high school AND college credits. In our first year of offering this program, 23% of our student body took at least one college level course.

From Crean’s Vision Statement:

By the grace of God, …Lutheran South [Crean] High School is committed to providing Christian teachers and educational leaders who are empowered by the Holy Spirit and dedicated to establishing an exceptional educational framework that is innovative, future-oriented and responsive to the changing demands and needs of high school students in an increasingly complex and technologically advancing world….

     Golly, many faculty at IVC have expressed grave concerns about the college's relationship with Crean/Lutheran South. (Naturally, the program was created without soliciting faculty input.)  But, as usual, top administration have blown us off. Gosh thanks. How's that working out for you?

     Crean is serious about keeping things Christian. Check out its Teachers Application. That app includes the Lutheran Church's lengthy "statement of faith"—and the following:

Click on graphic to enlarge

     It's OK by me that Crean teachers are made to fill out this application, indicating their relationship to dogma, for Crean is a Christian/Lutheran high school. But they gave the dang thing (or something very like it) to some IVC faculty to fill out, too. They were part-timers, and so, being as vulnerable as a body can be, they figured they'd better go along.
     Yeah, but remember the U.S. Constitution? The First Amendment? The establishment clause?
     Irvine Valley College, unlike Crean Lutheran, is a public institution. Its instructors shouldn't be pressured to keep things "Christian" or Lutheran.
     Or maybe you think otherwise.
     Tea Partier, eh? 

* * *

     IVC is part of the South Orange County Community College District. During SOCCCD's Fall 2009 "Chancellor's opening session," a patriotic video was played that ended with a message: that "Jesus Christ" offered to die for our souls. Really. (See Wagner v. Westphal; see also Non-believers are going to hell.)
     At IVC and Saddleback College commencements, nothing happens until there's a juicy prayer to "our heavenly father."
     But, hey! This is America! They're not supposed to ram religion down our throats. We weren't too pleased when others did that to us. Remember?

* * *

From Roquemore: a failure to lead, 
Dissent the Blog, October 29, 2018

    6:15 - Well, the country is roiling in heavy seas right now, and most of us are anxiously on the lookout for more rogue waves. But I'm here, after a long absence, at the October meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees. It's a spittoon in that vast sea. But it's our spittoon. And it's roiling too.

Pres. Roquemore

     The faculty union's expected to show tonight all pissed off about the lowball tactics of the district negotiating team re the contract. So, there's that.
     But there's plenty more to be pissed off about. We at Irvine Valley College are sick to death of our incompetent and corrupt president. His latest atrocity? Well, he seems unconcerned about threats to his faculty and even about swastikas scrawled on campus bathroom doors. He doesn't communicate about that stuff. Doesn't feel the need too.
     And those faculty? They were investigated. Unbelievable.
     I could go on.
     The trustees are starting to show up. I've seen two of 'em so far. Prendergast, Jemal, Lang. --More in a moment.

     6:21 - The union crowd is lining up in the back of the hall. Some of the usual suspects—staff—are stalking the room and warming seats. There are some unfamiliar faces, too. Newly hired administrators?

     6:23 - A week or two ago, a student was seen scrawling a swastika on a bathroom stall door (or somesuch) here at the college. There'd been a few other Neanderthalic spasms on campus recently: students with knives, haters of various kinds. At the Senate meeting, senators got steamed: how come we're not informed of this kinda thing? How come the President of this Goddam College in the Orange Groves doesn't SAY something?
     WTF! we said (or some said). Other colleges (and High Schools, etc.) know what to do, but, no, not the clueless Trump-voting , anti-intellectualist Roquemore.
     Here on the pages of DtB we started carping about all this last week. Then Pittsburgh happened.
     Gotta go.

     6:28 - Looks like all of the trustees are in the room—though two of 'em aren't in their seats. Things will start jumping' in just two minutes.
     Whitt finally sits down. Prendergast is talking with somebody in front of me.  —I see our new Chancellor. Haven't met her yet....
     Looks like the union crowd are mostly a no-show. Maybe they got what they wanted?

     6:30 - Jemal opens the meeting. Prendergast: "no report" - actions in closed session.
     Wright does prayer: "our father who art in heaven, ... Amen"
     Jay leads the pledge. It's all very lurid.

     One request for public comment: Kathy Schmeidler.
     Schmeidler: (wearing an FA shirt). The board, she says, seems to be pursuing a philosophy that was appropriate twenty years ago, but it hasn't been modulated appropriately in intervening years. Taxpayers expect something different now. Sometimes you adjust beautifully (!), but some of the time, you don't, board. (Use of district resources.)
     Two items. At one point the district negotiating team pushed idea that the district should own anything produced by faculty on district time. Absurd. The other issue: our foundation. The board can make it easy or hard to support the good work at the colleges. I do hope the board will take that into account and support foundation efforts—doing things outside the normal budget and support student learning and activities—things that are impossible to do without the foundation. Thank you.
     Jemal: any other requests? Nope.

Board reports:

     Trustee Dave Lang: he blabs about football games. Teacher of year awards at Disneyland Motel. THEN: Personally dealing with attack on synagogue in Pitsburgh. President's remarks disgraceful and embarrassing. We don't need more armed guards.
     Trustee Barbara Jay: Doug Barr's history of Saddleback College. Appreciate that. Trustees self-evaluation, blah blah blah. OC Business council conference, blah blah
     Trustee Tim Jemal: attended groundbreaking, Health and Wellness center, IVC. Attended the Economic forecast. Joining Lang: condolences re Pittsburgh Tree of Life center...
     I recently heard about the swastika business at IVC. Deeply concerning. Symbol of fascism, racism, etc. The 1st Amendment allows citizens to freely express themselves. That doesn't preclude our board rejecting bigotry and violence. I am greatly concerned about this resurgence of white supremacy and Neo-nazis. Appreciate Irvine Police chief Hamel and city councilwoman Melissa Fox response. (And where was the IVC response? It came belatedly.) Both condemn the acts of vandalism, etc. at IVC. But we should lead too. It is the responsibility of our leadership to lead too. (Yeah, he's spanking Roquemore.)....