Friday, November 22, 2019

The IVC faculty do not support the veterans' memorial clock tower project


     AS WE REPORTED Nov 9 (Another one of Glenn Roquemore’s hobbyhorses), the issue of construction of a veterans’ memorial clock tower has come up again at the college (IVC).
     The college once featured a “beloved” clock tower—a tribute, not to veterans, but to time, or maybe wood—inside its original central quadrangle, but it was torn down in 2006 owing to the structure's deterioration. Soon thereafter, the college indicated that a “new clock tower” was planned (Register, 2006). By 2008 and 2009, district (SOCCCD) documents referred to plans for a “Veterans Tribute Tower” at IVC. An IVC “Veterans Memorial Clock Tower project” was discussed in 2010, and a “Foundation Veterans Memorial Clock Tower Project” was referred to (by the President’s office) in 2013.
     More recently, an “IVC Veterans Tribute Tower Project” is referred to in district documents that indicate that a call for bids for construction has gone out. (That period is now over.)
     But, really, who wants this thing?
     Now that Glenn Roquemore has resigned from the IVC Presidency ("Woohoo!"), planned college expenditures seem to be under review, and this “million dollar” tower project has quickly come under scrutiny.

A tribute to time, and wood
     Item L of yesterday’s Academic Senate meeting was the planned clock tower. According to the meeting’s agenda, “recent administrative change ha[ve] led to a review of the plan to build a clock tower at IVC for over a million dollars.” The question before the group is: “[Do] IVC faculty want to go forward with the plan to build a clock tower?”
     During discussion of this item, I asked whether community groups or other groups would be disappointed (or worse) should the project be cancelled. Evidently, the answer is “no.” I was told that campus veterans were consulted and they indicated that they had no desire for the construction of this memorial.
     One wag noted that architectural renderings of the proposed tower seem to depict something that looked like a massive "guillotine."
     We all stared at the rendering.
     Senate VP Jeff told us that plans for a new student services complex are underway, and there is no reason why some sort of clock couldn't be included as part of that project, when the time comes to plan the dang thing.
     That was reassuring to fans of big timepieces.
     It became clear, too, that cancellation of the current "clock tower" project would free up the money, that hasn't been spent, for other campus projects.
     With such factoids before them, the Senators resoundingly defeated the agenda item.
     For what that's worth.
* * *
     IN OTHER NEWS: widely detested IVC administrator Linda Fontanilla (Vice President for Student Services) recently received a new contract, but it was only for a single year. Most other administrators and managers received 2-year contracts.
     I attended last week's meeting of the School of Humanities. During the meeting, we were treated to a presentation by one of the college's chemists, who was there to discuss ongoing efforts to compose "learning objectives." Since he was a chemist, and since he asked if we had any questions, I said, "Is it true that  Kiana Tabibzadeh will be returning to IVC?"
     Kiana, you see, used to teach Chemistry around here. And she's Glenn Roquemore's wife.
     The question seemed to throw the fellow a bit. Then he said, "at yesterday's department meeting, we were told that that might happen." —Something like that.
     You'll recall that, after years and years of nepotistism-based Kianistic high-handedness and abuse over in the B200 Building, our Kiana was sent packing to the other college, Saddleback. But now hubby has resigned the IVC Presidency, and he'll be returning, in the Fall, not to IVC, but to Saddleback. (Why there? Dunno.)
     So I guess that led to Kiana's direction to go north.
     —Or maybe these events are unrelated.
     Dunno.
     Question: why did Glenn resign and not serve out the rest of his contract? What was that about?
     And: is he getting paid in the Spring (while he enjoys home life)? Even though he resigned?


19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Didn't Glenn want to add emblem of Trump's Space Force to the design?

Anonymous said...

That does sound like Glenn.

Anonymous said...

I think our board is now better than "clueless and defiant" - at long last.

Roy Bauer said...

Really? They've known about the Roquemore problem for YEARS. They need a kick in the ass, not warm and fuzzies.
Yeah, after 17 and a half years of Roquemorian incompetence, they finally make a move when he "goes too far."
They're ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Credit goes to the new chancellor. The board looked away for too many years about too many things. Remember Rodney Poindexter? Howard Gensler? (They put him in a classroom, for god's sake!) Richard Moreley? Al Tello?

Anonymous said...

I’m with Roy on this one. 10:39, by your logic the Chancellor and this Board are as complicit as any other. “They put him a a classroom, for god’s sake!” applies equally to both Gensler and Roquemore. Ridiculous, indeed.

Anonymous said...

Roy is generally right. Someone should check out those policies that allow retreat rights.

Anonymous said...

By law Glenn had retreat rights. He went from a tenured faculty position into admin. He gets to go back.

Anonymous said...

Gets to retreat ONLY if there’s an available position. Was there?

Anonymous said...

Really? Then how did Bugay get to IVC? Or Gensler to Saddleback?

Anonymous said...

There was space for him in the schedule. Killed off all the PT faculty though...
Gensler and Bugay had it in their contracts. Those are different and I do not believe the board puts that in contracts anymore though.

Anonymous said...


Quick question for Lisa: Is putting linda fontanilla's picture up on your blog the direction you want to go in? Why invoke professionalism when a student identifies Fontanilla as a threat to student wellbeing, if you're completely fine when your colleagues mock her for a cheap, partisan laugh?

Roy Bauer said...

Lisa did not put Linda's mug on this post; I did.
What's wrong with including this picture? By what logic is including a flattering picture of LF here an instance of "mocking" her " "for a cheap, partisan laugh"?
Do try to make sense. Sometimes a picture is just a picture. —Roy

Anonymous said...

Anon@8:29: I am not sure what you are talking about but if you are concerned with "threats" and how certain administrators on this campus do and don't respond to them (or even recognize them as such), I am sure Lisa is one to talk to about that subject. Go for it.

Anonymous said...

Lisa has criticized students for using LF's very flattering picture in a presentation about why the school doesn't respect lgbt rights, and in fact often participates in further harassment if you try to report something.

In fact rather than actually criticizing this student directly, she went behind their back and started gossiping with an unrelated student about how fucking gauche that was using this unrelated student's personal email. This exchange was then posted semi-publicly in an online forum.

It's hypocritical of her to allow this content on a blog that she co-hosts when she clearly disapproves of putting up Linda's picture.

Clearly you guys only care about LF because she's a conservative, and ha ha it's so funny that she's incompetent twat who likes "big clocks", and you fail to understand the gravity of what it means to have her as YOUR ONLY POINT OF CONTACT after you have just been raped, or discriminated against because you were the wrong sex or sexuality, or had your friend go through these things. Which is more important?

Anonymous said...

Also, to the anon, I think I may know who you are, and you should really consider thinking twice before sending vulnerable students
her way. Or just before you speak in general, if you are that person.

Lisa has outed people in the past without their permission and to people she knew to be hostile to their specific identity. The student she outed had been very clear in the past about their boundaries related to outing them to others. And she thought that 30 seconds of gossip was more important than that kid's privacy and dignity as a human.

Hopefully she is not the best person to talk to at IVC. But if she is, that says more about IVC than anything else.

Anonymous said...

(To the anon at 6:18)

Roy Bauer said...

2:19, what are you on about?
You write: "Lisa has criticized students for using LF's very flattering picture in a presentation about why the school doesn't respect lgbt rights"
That just doesn't make any sense.
Students used LF's "very flattering picture"?
In what presentation?
And Lisa criticized these students?
WTF?

Anonymous said...

@bauer ask her next time you see her.

1) This happened at a GSA presentation on the incident reporting processes last spring. 2) I can't out students to you as lgbt. 3) The photo was a professional photo that Linda definitely posed for.

Of course Lisa's actions don't make sense. WTF is exactly right. It's called hypocrisy, a very common phenomenon among humans. The fact that I'm describing someone doing 2 different behaviors that don't match up... doesn't necessarily mean I'm lying, it may just mean she treats students one way and you another way.

8-14: do you regret all the lying?

✅ Trump Encourages Racist Conspiracy Theory on Kamala Harris’s Eligibility to Be Vice President NYT ✅ Orange County Sees Overall Coronavirus...

Goals and Values and Twaddle

blather: long-winded talk with no real substance*
The whole concept of MSLOs [measurable student learning outcomes] as the latest fad in education is somewhat akin to the now discredited fad of the '90's, Total Quality Management, or TQM. Essentially, the ACCJC adopted MSLOs as the overarching basis for accrediting community colleges based on their faith in the theoretical treatises of a movement.... After repeated requests for research showing that such use of MSLOs is effective, none has been forthcoming from the ACCJC [accreditors]. Prior to large scale imposition of such a requirement at all institutions, research should be provided to establish that continuous monitoring of MSLOs has resulted in measurable improvements in student success at a given institution. No such research is forthcoming because there is none….
The Accountability Game…., Leon F. Marzillier (Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, October, 2002)
In the summer of ’13, I offered a critique of the awkward verbiage by which the district and colleges explain their values, goals, and objectives —aka SOCCCD'S G&V (goals and values) blather.
I wrote a post each for the district, Saddleback College, and Irvine Valley College efforts. (See the links below.)
This verbiage—stated in terms of “values,” “missions,” “goals,” “visions,” and whatnot—is often badly written. It is sometimes embarrassingly trite.
It occasionally communicates something worthwhile.
No doubt you are familiar with the usual objections to jargon. Higher education, too, has its jargon—an irony, given typical college-level instruction in writing, which urges jargon eschewery.
Sure enough, SOCCCD G&V blather is riddled with jargon and with terms misused and abused. For instance, in the case of the district’s dubious blather, the so-called “vision” is actually a purpose. Why didn't they just call it that?
As one slogs through this prattle, one finds that "visions" tend to be awfully similar to “missions,” with which they are distinguished. The latter in turn are awfully similar to “goals,” which must be distinguished from “objectives.” But aren't goals and objectives pretty much the same thing?
These perverse word games will surely perplex or annoy anyone armed with a command of the English language. In fact, readers will be perplexed to the degree that they are thus armed. Illiterates, of course, will be untroubled.
Here's a simple point: the district and colleges’ G&V blather tends to eschew good, plain English in favor of technical terms and trendy words and phrases (i.e., it tends to be bullshitty and vague). Thus, one encounters such trendy terminological turds as “dynamic,” “diversity,” “student success,” and “student-centered.” Even meretricious neologisms such as ISLOs and “persistence rates” pop up, unexplained, undefended.
Does anyone see a transparency problem with all of this? Shouldn't the public, or at least the well educated public, be able to comprehend statements of the colleges' goals and values?
In the case of the district, to its credit, all it really seems to want to say is that it wants to teach well and it wants students to succeed. Admirable!
So why all the ugly, common-sense defying, buzzword-encrusted claptrap?

Districtular poppycock: our “vision” and our “mission” and our tolerance of twaddle - July 31, 2013

THEY BUZZ: Saddleback College's "Mission, Vision, and Values" - August 4, 2013

IVC’s vision, mission, and goals: nonsense on stilts - August 5, 2013

THE IRVINE VALLEY CHRONICLES: no ideas, just clichés & buzzwords - Sep 30, 2013

*From my Apple laptop's dictionary