For very good reasons, IVC President Raghu Mathur got no respect, and he got little cooperation. So he resorted to the above "terror" gambit.
All that was necessary was to do something horrible to one of his "subjects." His victim: a popular and excellent but nevertheless vulnerable untenured biology instructor, Jeff K. The idea was to simply deny Jeff's tenure, despite his excellence. Everyone would fear Mr. Goo then.
Jeff's crime? Unauthorized naming of a greenhouse (or was it a garden)? I kid you not.
Dissent 30
By Chunk Wheeler
1. THE “P” IS FOR PETTY.
Back in ’79, IVC instructor (now Chabot president) Terry Burgess taught IVC’s first botany course, and, subsequently, he did much to develop botanical pedagogy at the college. Hence, when faculty of IVC’s School of Life Sciences built a greenhouse (situated on the west end of campus), they afixed to it a plaque with Terry’s name. But chief petty administrator, Raghu P. Mathur, has a hatred for Burgess that knows no bounds, and so he and El Ced brought about the issuance of an administrative order that the plaque must come down. The reason? –District regulations grant to trustees the right to name buildings. The order was obeyed; the plaque was removed.
Naturally, faculty objected, arguing that the tiny greenhouse is not a building. Further, there are other structures (and even trees) around campus that sport plaques with names on them not authorized by the board. Will the administration order these plaques removed too? Fat chance.
 |
| Terry Burgess |
✅ October 25, 1999
Dissent 34
ASK MISS FORTUNE… [a regular feature authored by Red Emma]
By Red Emma
2%20copy.jpg)
Dear Miss Fortune:
Enough already! I can handle mass protests in the streets of Belgrade and dissent at the university. I can handle attacks on my strange wife and good-for-nothing son. I can deal with NATO missiles and losing Kosovo. I can even endure international sanctions. But I will absolutely, positively not stand for further comparisons of me in the pages of the Dissent newspaper to that wannabe, Raghu P. Mathur!
—President Slobodon Milosovic
Dear Slo:
At least you understood the comparison. I’m sorry. Really. Nobody deserves what you’ve had to endure. Please, please don’t sue us. By the way, are you aware of the fine Anger Management Counseling programs available through the SOCCCD Employee Assistance Program?
Dear Miss Fortune:
As a God-fearing Christian conservative, I’m writing to explain the difference between “religious” and “religious right.” Easy. If you’re not religious, you’re wrong. If you are religious, you’re right. See? Whenever I’m confused about this, I consult with the local Fine Arts guy who attends our church, which the rest of the week is a community college we’re arranging to buy and rename “Irvine Valley Calvary Chapel (inc.com.edu.)” We’ll have distance learning and corporate sponsors and fun pancake breakfasts and the gym will be perfect for Promisekeeper events. We have big plans for decorating the campus, too. Imagine: Thousands of tiny bright lights strung on all the campus buildings, visible to South County passersby from the 405 freeway. The Fine Arts guy says this is all okay because it’s not political, it’s religious. Right?
—Funda Mental
Dear Mental:
God bless you. It’s quite a vexing problem, isn’t it, balancing one’s theocratic impulse with undermining pluralistic secular public education? Myself, I’ve taken to wearing a small button on my lapel, which, writ in small faux gold letters, reads “WWRD?” Whenever I’m feeling confused about matters spiritual or political, I look at my special pin and wonder to myself: “What would Raghu do?” Just repeating this handy mantra makes me feel positive and upbeat, though, oddly, it causes people standing near me to pick up their phones and call their lawyers. For further amplification on spiritual themes, I call the Vice President of Student Services. Although, come to think of it, I know what he would do.
Hey Miss Fortune, You G*d**n *****!
I’m a guy who likes to make threats. Oh, boy, do I love to threaten people. Frighten. Scare. Intimidate. Gee, I use dirty, filthy, horrible language. Sometimes I use such awful, terrible, extraordinarily offensive filthy language that I can’t even read the stuff I write myself! I type it on the keyboard with one hand and have to cover my eyes with the other just so I don’t offend myself. Yes, that’s how awful it is. I’m so nasty that sometimes I e-mail people, sometimes I use the telephone, sometimes I write letters. There’s no method that I haven’t used to do my nasty, awful things. That’s really how horrible a bad, nasty guy I am. So, I was wondering: How can I get a copy of Dissent, ‘cuz my secretary’s cut off my supply?
—Anonymous
Dear Anonymous:
Just stop by Raghu’s office. I hear he’s got a secret file just full of ‘em.
Dear Miss Fortune:
I’m the illegally-appointed president of a small community college, thinking positively, bringing people together and spreading the One True Light. Lately, my flock seems upset about discovering my secret files on them and a couple of the arranged marriages are falling apart. A few dark panel trucks with “Accreditation Team” painted on them have just pulled up in front of A-100, but since I’ve had all the phones rerouted through PIO Joyce Kirk’s office (“We’re pleased about all the activities going on in the compound”), few of the Chosen Ones will even know. Besides, now that I’ve had my contract renewed, we can stay holed up here for two more years.
—The Appointed One
Dear Wacko:
I’m putting down the phone now. I have Glenn here with me. We’re going to walk, slowly, across the quad and make a swap. You’ll give us the files and the keys to the Greenhouse and we’ll give you Steve. Okay?
.jpg)
.jpg)
Dissent 34
RAGHU RAISE
By Chunk Wheeler
Some of us are wondering whether Raghu really deserves a raise. After all, he’s a fiscal imbecile, he still lies like a rug, he’s sent morale into the toilet, and now he’s going after students and untenured faculty. Raise? They oughta lower the boom!
But Mr. Ed.D. has his supporters, and one of ‘em has sent us a document that makes the case for, not only a raise, but a BIG FAT one. Essentially, it’s a list of Raghu’s mounting expenses, which, for fairness’ sake, we’ve decided to reprint below:
THE TOP 10 MATHURIAN EXPENSES:
10. What with hikes in postal rates in recent years, mail-order doctorates are more expensive than ever.
9. Installation of inspirational toilet seats in the executive washrooms. (They’ll sport a likeness of Raghu and the words, “Don’t pass the buck.”)
8. Still gotta make payments on that Jumbo paper-shredder.
7. Those bastards at Who’s Who will include Raghu in their next edition, but only if he agrees to buy a hundred copies first.
6. Looks like another round of jowl reduction surgery.
5. Storage for the 20,000 complimentary “IVC-‘attitude’” tie-clips that Raghu ordered but can’t give away.
4. Costly skin graft surgery for Raghu’s feet. (“If that goddam Glenn even mentions the phrase ‘victory firewalk’ again, I swear I’ll murderize ‘im!”)
3. Printing costs for laminated wallet-sized versions of the “Ten Commandments” backed with a special “Mathurian addendum.” (Every administrator’s got one. Ask ‘em!)
2. Raghu’s lawyer now advises his attending “plausible prevarication” seminars.
—And the NUMBER ONE Mathurian expense:
1. The Raghu P. Mathur “Threat Archive” project!
 |
| Jeff and Julie |
✅ November 1, 1999
DISSENT 35
CLOCK TOWER II [i.e., the JEFF K CONTROVERSY]
By Chunk Wheeler
1. On the 21st, at a certain moment on a certain college campus, Jeff K, beloved bio instructor, painted two words upon an old white Chevy owned by the Honor Society. Minutes earlier, the Chevy, the object of festive morning sledge hammerage, had displayed, albeit inarticulately, the sentiment of a whole community, for a student had written upon it: “Mathur—injustice.” But a jack-booted Armando Ruiz quickly ordered students to obliterate it.
Enter Jeff. Confronted now with an empty and unprotected canvas—the unadorned Chevy—he expressed the sentiment again; he wrote: “El Presidente.” Much better.
The deed was reported to the Imperial Goo, Raghu P. Mathur. “Jeff K?” thought Raghu. “He’s untenured, isn’t he?” Subtly, his jowls ascended into a Mathurian semi-grin; he heard a voice. It said: “Crush him, and they will obey.” Yes!
But wait (he thought). There’s the speech thing. People get touchy about that. Pounce on a guy who’s expressing his damn opinion, even a negative opinion—even a negative opinion about me—and counter-pouncing often follows. Gotta think.
Wasn’t Jeff among those Life Sciences bastards who had named their greenhouse after Terry freaking Burgess? Yeah. Unbelievable. After all that I have sacrificed for the good of the students. Weekends, too.
2. In fact, however, upon receiving Mathur’s order to remove the “Terry Burgess” plaque from the greenhouse, the Life Sciences people had complied. Sure, the idea that the greenhouse was a “building” and that, therefore, the Board alone had the privilege to name it was bullshit. (Have you seen this puny structure? One sneeze, and it’s down.) And how come Raghu didn’t object to other plaques, also existing without benefit of Trustees, that dot the campus?
It was about then that a certain senior administrator had mused, openly, that the board “namage” policy didn’t say anything about gardens. Hmmmm.
Soon, a cheap sign stood outside the greenhouse, among plants. It was, of course, the work of the Life Sciences crowd, including tenured faculty. Upon it was written: “the Terry Burgess garden.”
3. On the day after the “El Presidente” incident, Jeff, and only Jeff, received a letter about this unauthorized namage. It informed him that he was to meet with the President on the following Thursday for a “disciplinary” meeting.
“Disciplinary”? That assumed that Jeff had done something that required discipline. Wasn’t there a need to determine the facts first, to explain the what and the why? Um…what’s going on here?
Jeff began to worry, and so did his colleagues. We didn’t used to worry so much. We used to say, “They won’t do that, ‘cuz it’s illegal.” Or: “Doing that would violate the contract” or “Doing that would go against board policy.” Nobody says those things anymore.
So Jeff and his friends called attorney Carol Sobel. And they brought in CCA’s Margaret Hoyos, too. Concerned senior faculty from around campus came by. Everyone said, “this is ridiculous. You people can name a goddam garden, for Chrissake.”
Gloom descended anyway.
At about 8:05, Jeff, accompanied by Carol, Margaret, and Dan R, walked over to A100 and entered the conference room. (Ray Chandos, Mathur’s “Dark Side” crony and the local’s grievance officer, entered with the others. Jeff had insisted on his presence.) Mathur entered accompanied by a highly smirky Armando Ruiz and a visibly mortified Pat Spencer, VP of Instruction. (Have I mentioned that, for 13 years, Armando unsuccessfully sought to be chair of Saddleback counseling? Armando, say Saddleback counselors, is incredibly lazy and stupid. Boy did they laugh when ‘Mando was foisted onto IVC, despite the unanimous objections of IVC counselors.)
Just then, students climbed atop a planter and unfurled a banner, which read,
“We ♡ you Jeff.” [Actually, my notes have “we f you Jeff.” But I figure that's gotta be some kind of typo.]
The darned thing could be seen from the conference room, which looked out upon a grassy knollette and the A-quad area beyond it. Other students distributed fliers, including one that listed ways in which student rights were “endangered” by Raghu and his patrons, the Board Majority.
People talked and peered. They asked, “What’s going on in there? What are they doing now?” They worried.
What had happened? Evidently, when faced with Jeff’s impressive entourage, Mathur “freaked out.” “[Jeff] only gets one,” he declared. Carol argued with the Gooster, but he was adamant; besides, Margaret seemed to support this notion, and so Carol backed off. Jeff chose Margaret. The diplomatic Carol now explained that Margaret was probably the right choice, all things considered. She also recounted how, at first, she had openly tape recorded the proceedings, but Mathur declared that that would not be permitted. (Carol, smiling, said, “I got that on tape.”) Very unusual, said Carol. “What’s he trying to hide?” everybody asked.
Twenty minutes later, we observed Mathur brusquely exiting the conference room; he entered his office, slammed his door shut. Then Spencer marched straight to her office, slammed her door, and shut her blinds. Ruiz, still smirking, joined Mathur in his lair for an apparent smirk-off.
Ray, Margaret, Dan, Jeff, and Carol held their own meeting in the conference room. Meanwhile, faculty fretted and gossiped in the quad. Some asked: Did you hear about that letter that the Chancellor sent to the Feds, accusing the Accrediting people of “bias” and even unprofessional hanky panky? Idiots!
 |
| Spencer |
Margaret immediately raised questions. “How do you know that Jeff did anything?” she asked. (No one had asked him what he had done.) Despite the glare of Armando’s smirkage, Raghu answered that he had reliable information—but, he added, this wasn’t the time for such questions. Margaret insisted that a disciplinary meeting was exactly the time for such questions. She persisted in inquiring into the charges and their basis. Did Mathur have a photograph? Was that it? Raghu shook his head and jowls. Was there an eye witness? Is that what we’re talking about here?
Evidently offended by Margaret’s questions, Raghu declared the meeting over and left the room. What’s next? On the union side, Margaret will pursue the grievance process. There will be an informal meeting with Raghu, an attempt to resolve the issue, but that will go nowhere. Then there will be a meeting with Sampson, but of course that, too, will go nowhere. Maybe the matter will go to the Board, too. Finally, it will go to an arbitrator, who will have no choice but to side with Jeff.
5. After the meeting, Carol, Margaret, and various others were invited for “coffee and donuts” inside A200. The Student Liberties Club presented Jeff with a gift. Carol Sobel received a “Laser of Liberties” award. Well-wishers dropped by, and everyone had a good time, despite the morning’s grim events and the fight that lay ahead.
7. In acting as he did on the 28th, Raghu emulated his hero, the stupid and ruthless Cedric Sampson. In December of ’98, philosophy instructor Roy Bauer was ordered to meet with El Ced. When Bauer arrived for the meeting, Sampson had already placed a letter of reprimand in Bauer’s personnel file (without warning, contrary to the faculty contract). It alleged that Bauer had violated district policies in the case of six elements that appeared in newsletters he publishes. Contrary to board policy, no attempt to get Bauer’s “side” was ever attempted, even during the meeting. (In fact, Bauer did not author all of the elements. No one ever asked him about that.)
In the end, a Federal Judge ruled that “no reasonable person” would have made the judgment that the Chancellor had made in reprimanding Bauer. He opined that the Chancellor had misused the policies to silence a critic. What, he asked, could administrators have been thinking?
Further, the judge declared the District’s Workplace Violence policy to be “unconstitutional on its face.” This means that the district no longer has a Workplace Violence policy.
It appears that the Board will appeal the decision, for, on the 29th, Sampson told the Register that “it’s not over till its over.” The Chancellor and his pals’ chances of winning on appeal are slim to none.
The district has suffered a string of embarrassing and costly legal defeats—at least four of them. There are other lawsuits pending, including a PERB suit against the Chancellor and a discrimination suit.
Other lawsuits are sprouting up, owing to the stupid and ruthless actions of Mathur, Sampson, et al. People are fed up. They’re fighting back.
8. Someone sent me the following story, which, he claims, is appropriate to the moment. Whatever.
A 5 year old and a 4 year old are upstairs in their bedroom. “You know what?”, says the 5 year old, “I think it’s about time we started swearing.”
The 4 year old nods his head in approval. “When we go downstairs for breakfast I’m gonna say ‘hell,’ and you say ‘ass’, OK?”
The mother walks into the kitchen and asks the 5 year old what he wants for breakfast.
“Aw, hell mom, I guess I’ll have some Cheerios.”
WHACK! He flies out of his chair, tumbles across the kitchen floor, gets up, and runs upstairs crying his eyes out. Mom looks at the 4 year old and asks with a stern voice, “And what do YOU want for breakfast, young man?”
“I don’t know,” he blubbers,“ but you can bet your ass it won’t be Cheerios.”
(Note to Cedric and Raghu: no, the above story is not a threat to “whack” someone. Neither is it an attack on Christians or donkeys or mothers or the Cheerios people. It’s a joke in which someone fails to learn the appropriate lesson from his mistake. Got it? I can come and explain it to you guys in more detail, if you want. —CW)
✅ December 9, 1999
IRVINE WORLD NEWS
Irvine Valley teachers speak out
By Laura Hayes, Irvine World News
“What is tenure for?” he said. “Never doubt that on a college campus grievances aren’t fully aired.”
But the results of an October survey of full-time Irvine Valley faculty say that 90 percent of 84 faculty members who completed it could not “express their opinions about issues at the college without fear of retribution or retaliation.”
Joyce Arntson, a 20-year business faculty member, has a different point of view. She said she doesn’t understand the argument about repression.
“I believe the climate is positively open to anyone, more now than it’s ever been,” she said.
“I feel like we are really, as faculty, failing, because the college is a team effort and one man, the president, can’t do everything and isn’t responsible for everything. Quit criticizing, jump in and try to help,” said Arntson.
“We have the best faculty in the entire world. I have felt privileged to work with our faculty and our administration. There’s always multiple ways of doing things,” she said. “The thing I would just hope is that we could appreciate each other’s point of view and take advantage of all the talent we have.”
Some, including Arntson, have commented that the faculty critics of the administration wouldn’t last long in a business environment, but academia is a world where various points of view and freedom of expression are traditionally encouraged.
When ideological divisions are noted, as by recent accreditation visitors, protocol and process are there to ensure fairness. But with recent disciplinary moves against faculty members, the president is being accused of ignoring these.
He said people should feel free to express their ideas at the college.
“There’s no reason for concern. All of us are expected to follow the board policies and administrative instructions. My general response is, when there are concerns we try to meet with people and find out the facts. We expect people to follow the administrative procedures.
“I’m trying to work my way to a system where no one feels repressed,” said Mathur.
Two faculty members who express opposition to the college leadership said the president did not follow normal channels, such as notifying their deans of any investigation into their actions, when they were called into meetings with him.
Jeff Kaufmann, an assistant biology professor, said he was questioned on Oct. 28 about posting signs not authorized by the board of trustees on a campus greenhouse and in the greenhouse garden.
The Life Sciences Department had made a mutual decision to honor former administrator Terry Burgess with a name plate on the greenhouse, said Kaufmann. When informed that it was against board policy to name a building, the group took down the plaque and posted it in a faculty member’s window.
“Nothing anyone in the school does is done in a vacuum. We do things as a group. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I’m the only one that’s not tenured. I think I was selected out,” said Kaufmann.
Accompanied by a California Teachers Association representative, Kaufmann met with the president and two administrators. Mathur read a letter that was to go in Kaufmann’s personnel file and the CTA representative lobbied for an informal meeting to resolve the issue and questioned Mathur’s accusations, when Mathur abruptly ended the meeting.
Students rallied for the teacher around the A quad clock tower and later a group of 10 to 15 students walked in an informal procession around the school, protesting the administration’s actions.
The student rally led to a second faculty disciplinary action, said Wendy Phillips, anthropology professor, who was called into Mathur’s office on Tuesday, and charged with organizing the protest.
“This is happening right before finals,” said one of her students who was upset over the president’s action.
The meeting was changed from a disciplinary action to an investigation, Phillips said.
“I think they recognized I would sue,” she said.
“He asked me questions like, ‘Did you talk to any students on Oct. 28?’ I’m a teacher, I do that for a living!”
An employee’s personnel file includes regular evaluations. If the district were to move to dismiss an employee, negative letters, such as a notice of disciplinary action from the president, help create a paper trail against them, said Phillips.
“Our evaluation process allows for recourse. You cannot accuse anybody of anything unless you can document it,” said Arntson. [Note: Mathur has accused faculty of sending him “threats.” He has failed to document any of them.]
“The way we see this is an attempt to intimidate our faculty again,” said Julie Berman, an Irvine Valley student. “We know for a fact that Wendy didn’t do what she’s accused of because we planned the protest.”
“It’s actually a painful message. I had the solid belief everyone has rights and those rights are protected. Now my beliefs are wavering,” said another student, Yana Chernobilisky, 17.
“We will continue to support each other,” said Bari Rudmann, a counselor at Irvine Valley who showed support on Tuesday for Phillips. END
✅ January 4, 2000
Dissent 40
“JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS”
by Big Bill
I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his earlobe, and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered “Oh God, let’s stop it.” And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end.
--Stanley Milgrim, 1963
1. During finals week, everyone received an electronic “Holiday Greetings” card from El Ced and the board, which sported a cheesy holiday photograph of the 8 standing together. (The student trustee, Jennifer Kalena, wasn’t shown.) Apparently written by Cedric, the card noted, lamely, that “positive things happened this year”—including the completion of “the new administrative team”—and predicted that “Saddleback and Irvine Valley Colleges will be reaffirmed as the excellent institutions they are by the accreditation process.”
I predict a probationary future. We’ll know who’s right in about two weeks.
I printed out the lovely card and took it home with me. Somehow, I came across the damn thing on New Year’s Day. I briefly examined the cheesy photograph. Some of the images had been transformed by time! (See in this issue.) What can it mean?
On another occasion, Raghu had, during a meeting, accused a certain administrator of lying (with regard to scheduling). Later, the administrator found a memo he had received from Mathur which proved beyond a doubt that he hadn’t lied. With memo in hand, he confronted Raghu and asked him to go back to tell everyone that his accusation was mistaken. Raghu studied the document for a long time. Finally, he said that he “couldn’t do that.”
Naturally, by now, Raghu--the only person ever to be formally censured for lying at IVC--has many detractors. Being a narcissist, he hates criticism, and he punishes critics whenever he can. That keeps him pretty busy.
Among Mathur’s critics is Jeff K, a popular and affable Life Sciences instructor. Jeff, along with several of his colleagues in Life Sciences, helped bring about the new Life Sciences greenhouse. When it was finished, Jeff and the others erected a sign, naming the structure after IVC’s first botanist, Terry Burgess, the popular Chabot College president, whom Mathur detests.
Mathur was outraged. He got Cedric to order the instructors to remove the sign, for only the board is authorized to name “buildings.” The instructors complied; but then a certain administrator noted (within earshot of one or some of the instructors) that no board policy forbids naming a garden. Thus, the instructors erected a little sign in the nearby garden; again, it had Terry Burgess’s name on it. Mathur fumed.
Several instructors were involved in this “outrage.” Only one instructor, however, lacks tenure: Jeff. Hence, Mathur, being the loathsome and cowardly sort of person he is, went after Jeff and only Jeff.
Jeff was called in for a disciplinary meeting. The administrator who made the suggestion about the garden attended. She said nothing. A negative letter was placed in Jeff’s file.
If you want to fire an untenured instructor, it’s best to have a negative teaching evaluation on hand. But Jeff is a terrific instructor and has always received glowing evaluations. What to do?
 |
| Dean Ruth Jacobson |
Mathur has a long history of monkeying with faculty evaluations. About two years ago, he inserted negative remarks in the evaluations of three of his faculty critics, despite contract language according to which the elements of the evaluation are to be based on the evaluation process itself.
On another occasion, when he saw the completed evaluation, which was uniformly favorable, of a faculty critic, he complained to her dean. The dean told Mathur that he had written his evaluation, and he wasn’t about to change it or add something to it, and if Mathur wanted to criticize the instructor, he had better write his own damned evaluation.
Evidently, few administrators have such gumption. Ruth Jacobson is a case in point. During finals week, Jeff was called in by Jacobson to discuss his evaluation. She showed it to him. Under the heading, “attitude to college,” the box for “needs improvement” was checked. Further, Jacobson’s written comments, which were otherwise positive, included this curious paragraph:
Over the past year, Dr. Kaufmann has worked hard and expended a good deal of time and energy in an effort to launch and complete the greenhouse project. I have been informed that the president has given him a letter of reprimand for not complying with Board Policy 1500—Naming of College Facilities. The greenhouse is an excellent complement to the instructional program in Life Sciences and will enhance student learning for years to come.
At the meeting, Jacobson asked Jeff to sign the evaluation. Jeff said he wouldn’t be signing anything right away, and asked for a copy of the evaluation to take with him. She wouldn’t give him one. (Later, perhaps having conferred with lawyers, she did grant him a copy.)
Deb has often been the target of Mathurian retaliation and the like. For instance, she was threatened with serious disciplinary action when, one morning last spring, she wrote political messages on campus sidewalks with chalk, something she has every right to do. More recently, she received a letter from Jess Craig, Dean of Guidance, Counseling, and Students; according to the letter, Craig has been “informed” that Deb has, on five occasions, violated board policy 5406 as it regards “banner posting.” In fact, her postings have been entirely legal.
Deb recently applied for “student volunteer” status for the spring semester, which requires board approval by December. It now appears that Mathur pulled Deb’s name from the list of student volunteer applicants that was submitted to the board in December. Hence, she was not approved and will not be a student volunteer.
Mathur has a history of violating students’ rights. You’ll recall that, five years ago, Mathur, in an unsuccessful effort to discredit his imagined nemesis Terry Burgess, distributed a letter (to trustees, et al.) that included a student’s transcripts. Mathur’s distribution of a student’s transcripts without her permission, according to a written opinion by the district’s attorney, Spencer Covert, violated her rights as set out by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 and exposed the district to possible litigation. The district quickly hushed the matter up; the student—Miss N—was never told that her rights had been violated.
Raghu sure is a fuck-up. No matter. A year later, he was president of IVC. --BB
✅ February 1, 2000
LA TIMES
Battles Grow, but Experts Accredit District’s Colleges
By JEFF GOTTLIEB, Times Staff Writer
The Western Assn. of Schools and Colleges accreditation panel last year placed the South Orange County Community College District campuses on “warning” status and called the district “wracked by malfunction.”
The community college district appealed the panel’s move to the federal Department of Education, the first such action in the panel’s 40-year history.
While the federal agency continues to investigate the complaint, said Pam Zanelli, the district’s public affairs director, the panel reaccredited the schools.
Loss of accreditation can cause a school to lose federal grants and hurt students’ ability to transfer credits to other schools.
Much of the accreditation panel’s concern was the continuing battle at Irvine Valley between the administration and faculty.
U.S. District Court Judge Gary A. Feess ruled Monday that the college district must pay $126,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to Irvine Valley philosophy professor Roy Bauer. Feess ruled in October that district Chancellor Cedric Sampson acted unconstitutionally when he took disciplinary action against Bauer, who had criticized the administration in satirical newsletters.
Bauer won two other cases in which he accused the district of violating state law on secret meetings by government bodies. In another battle, a lawsuit filed Jan. 24 in Orange County Superior Court by Irvine Valley President Raghu P. Mathur accuses the philosophy professor and former college Vice President Terry Burgess of invasion of privacy.
Mathur did not return calls Monday….
Burgess, who now is vice president of Chabot Community College in Hayward, called the allegations against him “unequivocally false. Personally, I think this is primarily focused on Mr. Bauer, and it’s retaliation for his long-standing publication of a couple of newsletters critical of Mr. Mathur.”
A lawsuit filed Dec. 30 pits another faculty member against Mathur. In it, professor Jeff Kaufmann alleges that the college president disciplined him unfairly as a way to deny him tenure.
The feud started last year when the life sciences department built a greenhouse and named it after Burgess, the college’s first botanist.
A college administrator informed the department that before a building could be named, district trustees must approve it.
The administrator said a garden could be named without approval, however, so the life sciences department put a sign on land near the greenhouse naming it the Terry Burgess Garden, Kaufmann said.
In October, Kaufmann said, he received a letter saying he was guilty of two acts of insubordination for putting up the signs.
✅ February 10, 2000
IRVINE WORLD NEWS
College board recognizes memorials, add administrative position
By Laura Hayes
Other plaques on campus were not among those approved Monday, including a garden dedicated by faculty members more recently to another former president, Dan Larios.
Some of the trustees could not answer why the two memorials were suddenly approved in consistency with a facilities naming policy and others were left untouched.
“Good question. I have no idea, somebody called the question before I could ask about that,” said Lang.
“Larios is a somewhat different situation,” said Trustee Don Wagner.
“It wasn’t because I didn’t want the plaques removed, I approve of plaques,” said Milchiker, who voted against the approval. “Why were they retroactively approved 10 years later? It seemed odd to me.”
“I was going to say this should be a districtwide matter, not a piecemeal matter,” said Milchiker. “I think there’s been some misunderstandings in the past, and I want to prevent that in the future.”
Irvine Valley President Raghu Mathur has disciplined an untenured professor for insubordination for his part in putting up a sign naming a campus greenhouse after a former administrator, Terry Burgess. The professor said he was unfairly targeted and has filed a lawsuit against the district.
Milchiker said she wanted an accounting of all the memorials to people on both campuses, but didn’t get a chance to ask for it, the vote was called so quickly.
The trustees also passed a resolution to receive the last monies due the district from county bankruptcy litigation in the amount of $612,750. All except 2.3 percent of monies lost has been recouped.
An Irvine Valley assistant dean position was created over the objection of campus governance groups, in a vote of 5-2, with David Lang and Marcia Milchiker voting against the new position. The administrator would assist the vice president of student services to oversee support services for students.
Bill Hewitt, a faculty member in the counseling department, has served as director for support services at the college for 14 years. The program which mainly serves disabled and disadvantaged students has grown tremendously under his direction. He was recognized last year by Mathur for attracting $17 million in grant funding to the college over the 14 years. Hewitt said all the governance groups, including the faculty union, faculty senate and classified leadership, voted against the new position.
Lang said the position was regarded outside the whole organizational structure and the change wasn’t supported by any of the governance groups. “It begs the question of whether it’s politically motivated.”
Academic Senate president Peter Morrison spoke against the new position and told the board it would cost the district an additional $96,000.
Wagner, who voted for it, said it was brought to the board’s attention that Hewitt had to evaluate other faculty members as part of his job.
“One faculty member cannot evaluate another. It seems to be in violation of the contract. God knows we don’t need to get sued again.”
Milchiker said the bottom line for her was that the college didn’t need to spend more money on administration and that the program is working quite well the way it is.
“If something isn’t broken, why fix it?” she said.
✅ February 24, 2000
IRVINE WORLD NEWS
Teacher’s job threatened at Irvine Valley
By Laura Hayes
The district board of trustees then voted 6-1, with Steven Frogue dissenting, to continue its discussion of a “dismissal/release (agenda) item” to Thursday, March 9. Any district instructor must be informed by March 15 if his contract is not to be renewed. The board’s decision behind closed doors followed a half-hour of public comments.
The board did not disclose the name of the instructor who was under evaluation, but the news around campus is that Kaufmann’s job is threatened. Kaufmann is scheduled to become a tenured professor this year. A former part-time Teacher of the Year, he has taught at the college for 12 years, and has been a full-time teacher for the past five years.
Kaufmann said earlier in the day that he did not plan to attend Tuesday’s meeting, but he heard people were rallying in his defense.
Eighteen people spoke on behalf of Kaufmann.
In October, Irvine Valley President Raghu Mathur disciplined Kaufmann for alleged insubordination over the posting of unauthorized signs naming a greenhouse and a greenhouse garden for former administrator Terry Burgess, the college’s first botanist. Kaufmann said he has been unfairly targeted and has filed a lawsuit against Mathur.
“Nothing anyone in the school does is done in a vacuum,” said Kaufmann. “We do things as a group. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I’m the only one that’s not tenured, I think I was selected out.”
Priscilla Ross, a senior faculty member of the biology department, said she was deeply troubled if the board was considering denying Kaufmann tenure.
“It is impossible to see how that can be. Why is Jeff Kaufmann being singled out? Jeff Kaufmann did not design or purchase the sign. I carried out those tasks,” Ross said.
The original sign was removed by the group within an imposed deadline. A cardboard sign was posted in the garden surrounding the greenhouse, after Vice President Patricia Spencer, whom Mathur designated to deal with the issue, told department members that there was no policy prohibiting the naming of a garden. Spencer has since left the district.
Eight students spoke about their personal experience with Kaufmann as their instructor or as faculty adviser of the campus biology club. Two instructors read statements from students who could not attend the meeting, and eight instructors spoke in defense of their colleague.
Rich Zucker, mathematics instructor and oft-named teacher of the year at Irvine Valley, told the board Kaufmann is “an absolutely remarkable teacher, admired by his colleagues, absolutely loved by his students. No one works harder for his students.”
He said that Kaufmann was “a man of integrity and social conscience,” and asked the board not to react to the direction of a “vengeful college president.”
“Rehire Jeff Kaufmann and send a message to the students,” Zucker said.
Student Salman Amir said he did not know if it was really Kaufmann who put up the sign, but that it didn’t matter.
“Basically posting a sign on grass is not a crime. Firing Dr. Kaufmann is going to be a crime,” said Amir.
Steven Rochford, chair of the instrumental music department, read a letter from a student who was the former biology club president.
“If you get rid of Dr. Kaufmann, it will be the worst decision that has ever been made in the history of this school. He is an idol that we all look up to and he is being fired?”
“I’ve never in my life had a teacher who teaches that way that he teaches. He spends all of his time for the students,” said Schur. “I hated biology. Because of him, it’s what I want to do with the rest of my life.”
“Professor Kaufmann is the victim of a political smear,” said Traci Fahimi, political science instructor. “The charges against him are a lie.”
Students spoke of Kaufmann’s dedication in tutoring students, developing curriculum, leading field trips, fund-raising for the department, and serving on the academic senate.
“I find it unbelievable that his tenure is being questioned. You should be awarding him teacher of the year,” said English teacher Julie Willard.
This past week, a plaque in another campus garden adjacent to the biology department was removed without explanation from where it was bolted to a rock. It honored former college president Dan Larios. The Larios plaque was not among similar plaques that were retroactively approved at the last board meeting. END
✅ February 29, 2000
Dissent 45
BOARD MAJORITY BLINKAGE?: MATHUR AND SAMPSON’S CRITIC-FIRING JUGGERNAUT IS STOPPED—TEMPORARILY
By Big Bill B [Roy Bauer]
Greenhouse:
Last summer, after much time and effort, the IVC Life Sciences faculty erected a greenhouse on campus. They named it after Terry Burgess, IVC’s first botanist. Priscilla R, a senior member of the department, installed the plaque.
But Raghu Mathur is nothing if not petty, and he hates Burgess. Hell, he hates ‘im even more than he hates me. So when he caught wind of the greenhouse namage, he had El Ced tell the LS faculty that only the board can name facilities--and the greenhouse is a facility. Never mind that it’s no bigger than an outhouse. Never mind that unauthorized plaques adorn various other “facilities” on campus. Those plaques don’t have Terry’s name on ‘em.
For some reason, the Chancellor opted to send a message specifically to Jeff Kaufmann, an untenured member of the department who had no special role in the “naming.” Jeff duly passed the message on to his department chair Kathy S, who duly responded on behalf of the LS faculty, which had collectively made the namage and plaquage decisions. The LS faculty then complied with Sampson’s instructions, removing the plaque several days before the deadline El Ced had given.
Garden:
In the course of these events, then-VP of Instruction Pat Spencer slyly mentioned to Jeff that no board policy prohibited the naming of gardens. Jeff passed this along to his colleagues, and so, with the tacit consent of the VP of Instruction, the LS faculty now erected a cardboard “Burgess” sign in the garden next to the greenhouse. The decision to do so had again been made by the entire group. Jeff did not attend the installation of the sign.
Sledgehammer:
Not long after, Jeff and another instructor wandered by the car and were told about the Ruiz incident. He and the other instructor explained to the students that they had every right to spray those words, and express that sentiment, on the car. After all, we’re livin’ in America, ain’t we? Jeff patriotically headed to his office for some spray paint.
When Jeff returned, “Tailgunner” Ruiz had also returned, evidently to ask students for the names of those who had done the earlier offending sprayage. (They didn’t know who did it, they said.) About then, Jeff sprayed “El Presidente” on the derelict, an admirably subtle phrase suggested by a bystander. Ruiz reacted with anger and shouting: “Stop that! Stop that! I know what President you’re referring too!” He even briefly attempted to take the spray can from Jeff. (Ruiz’ semi-violent conduct inspired Jeff to later file an “unusual occurrence” report.) Ruiz then announced that the Honor Society event was over. There’ll be no goddam criticisms of the college president as long as I’m around!, he thought.
The Big Chill:
As I said, Jeff had no special role in the ill-fated “naming” incidents. And he did not instigate the “sledgehammer” fundraiser or the spraying of Mathur’s name on that junked car. Nevertheless, soon after Oktoberfest, Mathur took actions in apparent preparation for denying Jeff’s tenure, which would normally be granted in mid-March. With an indifference to due process that is now customary in the district, Mathur ordered Jeff to a meeting, where he informed the instructor that he had been insubordinate with regard to the “naming.” Mathur placed a disciplinary letter in Jeff’s personnel file. He then pressured Jeff’s dean to insert a negative remark in Jeff’s teaching evaluation--a turd in a punchbowl of glowing remarks. He even inserted Jeff’s “unusual occurrence” report in his personnel file!
Mathur’s purpose in all this is manifest: to frighten critics (and potential critics) into silence — by crushing a critic. Jeff, an untenured instructor, is eminently crushable.
Rumors:
Consequently, faculty and students launched a campaign to disabuse the trustees of any Kaufmannian misconceptions or misunderstandings. Those efforts would largely come to fruition during the “public comments” session prior to the closed board session of Feb. 22 at IVC.
Show of support:
FEBRUARY 22: Trustee Padberg opened the meeting at 4:08. Trustee Milchiker hadn’t arrived yet. —No matter; the Majority was present.
 |
| Armando "Boots" Ruiz (Jackass) |
The remarks that followed were impressive. The students expressed love and respect for Jeff. He is “inspiring,” “caring,” “exceptional,” and so on. He routinely goes out of his way to help students. “He changed my life.”
Math instructor Rich Z noted that Jeff is the latest victim of a “vengeful college president.” Traci F spoke of a “political smear.” Brenda B, as per Brenda, testified to Jeff’s wonderfulness. Julie W noted that the board should be making Jeff “teacher of the year.” Others spoke, and spoke well. Letters and petitions were presented on Jeff’s behalf. It was clear that everyone loves and respects the guy.
Eventually, Priscilla spoke. She explained that the entire Life Science faculty were involved in naming the greenhouse. Jeff, she said, did not initiate the naming: the Life Sciences dean did. The faculty as a group came up with the name, not Jeff. Priscilla, not Jeff, “designed and purchased” the plaque. She installed it by herself. When contacted by the chancellor, the group duly responded to his communication, complied with his demands, etc.
Next, Kathy S. spoke. She presented a very strong letter on Jeff’s behalf signed by all of the IVC Life Sciences faculty. She explained why she, and not Jeff, had responded to the Chancellor’s communication about the greenhouse: she was the chair of his department and, as such, she was the appropriate respondent, chain-of-command-wise.
Some of the board members seemed surprised. Mathur squirmed uncomfortably and El Ced seemed to sink into his chair.
Wendy P (of Brown Act fame) spoke. She clarified the signage business (two signs, one made of cardboard, etc.). She reported her telephone conversation with Pat Spencer over the weekend. According to Spencer, said Wendy, she told Jeff that there were no board policies prohibiting the naming of gardens. Hence, though she never said “You can put up the sign,” she had indeed consented to the LS faculty’s putting up the sign.
More students spoke. As Padberg and the others stared uncomprehendingly, one student pointed to the flag to assert that it represents “freedom of speech.” Throughout the remarks, Fortune, Williams, and Padberg gave off seriously unsympathetic vibes. Williams even affected the manner of a toad, seemingly perched upon his toadstool, stoically awaiting mosquito action.
When the 30 minutes were up, Padberg stopped the show. She asked the board if they wanted to allow the last speaker to speak. With a great display of magnanimity, they did. The student then suggested that the board shouldn’t “misuse” its “power.”
.jpg)
Some of us went over to Tijuana’s. When we returned to the Student Services Center at about 6:25, the closed session was not yet over. Someone spotted Armando Ruiz sitting in the Counseling lounge and commenced singing “I’m Your Puppet.” We watched Armando read. His lips moved.
Read out:
At about 6:47, the open session commenced, but not before Padberg again nearly killed someone by shoving open a door with absurd force. Mr. Wilion, the district’s illiterate “speech and advocacy” lawyer, sat in the cheap seats, wearing his best shoes--Hush Puppies, I think. His tie was somehow caught under his arm pit. Other lawyers were scattered about the room, but we weren’t quite sure who they were, though we were sure they were lawyers.
Trustee Frogue, the board clerk, read out the closed session actions:
1. Someone—a “Pat Flanagan”—was appointed dean of something. No one cared.
2. On a 5/2 vote, the board decided to appeal Roy Bauer’s recent attorneys’ fees victory for his successful 1st Amendment suit against the Chancellor. (He had been awarded $127,000.) So what else is new?
3. On a 6/1 vote (Frogue dissenting), the board decided to “continue” the “instructor” item—that was Jeff—to the March 9 special meeting. WOW!
4. Kathie Hodge was terminated as Vice Chancellor; she will “retreat into the classroom.” (No surprise there. The chancellor’s rule: get rid of anyone more competent than yourself.)
After that, there was an amazing exodus from the room, as students asked, “What happened?” The commotion soon subsided.
Trustee Williams did the invocation: “Oh, heavenly Father…,” he said. If the Lord exists, surely he’s pissed off about John and his friends. Why doesn’t the Deity throw a thunderbolt or two? Just a suggestion.
Liars!
Next, board “resolutions” were read. What could be more worthless than a board resolution--especially from this board? Only an idiot could fail to notice that these “resolutions” and their attendant photo ops were a ploy to counter negative press. Of the 5 “recipients,” I think only two showed up for their certificates, and one of ‘em had to be there.
My favorite honoree: Lincoln Mercury.
A very bored teenager got “resolved at” for winning a prize during the “Astounding Inventions of the Future” competition, held at IVC. Wow: she gets a prize for getting a prize. But does that mean she now gets another prize (for that prize), and then another, and so on? Apparently, these trustees don’t understand infinite regresses.
Poor Don R. He got a resolution, too, but he was pretty gracious about it, I thought. Naturally, Pam “Same Sex” Zanelli, Brownie in hand and haystack on head, snapped away amid all the silly “WHEREASes.” “It’s a job,” she said, in her head. “You’re a hack,” I said, in mine.
The last resolution was about measure F, which the board supported as part of their ongoing anti-airport blarney program. They smiled cunningly into the camera, as the huge plume of toxic waste below us--courtesy of the Marine Corps--reeked imperceptibly, slowly eating at our brains.
During Trustee reports, Lang spoke about free speech. Faculty, he said, now fear losing their jobs if they speak out. That’s not good.
Marcia Milchiker implored the board to “listen to faculty.” Then she went on about the infamous “missing 4 minutes.” (The portion of the December meeting in which Marcia nominated hitherto office-less Dave Lang for clerk—and the Board Majority ruthlessly rammed through their choice [one-time board president Frogue]—was deleted when the meeting aired on cable a few days later.) When Marcia’s 2 minutes were up, Padberg furiously pounded her gavel, causing some in the audience to cover their ears. Marcia resolutely continued for about 15 seconds, offering a delicate aural counterpoint to the booming Padbergian poundage. I thrilled, but it all ended when Frogue commenced twaddling.
The Froguester was in rare form, lashing out at unnamed “liars” and “disgruntled self-serving employees,” who, he said, sought the colleges’ loss of accreditation. These are the same liars, he added, who pursued the recalls against him. The “board majority and the chancellor,” he said finally, will not be deterred from the one truth path, or something to that effect.
Wagner, who always leaves the impression that he’s slumming, said, unenthusiastically, that he wanted to bring all the factions together.
Padberg made gratuitous congratulatory noises about the positive accreditation outcome. Then she spoke of dissent. Dissent’s swell, she said, but it should be “responsible and constructive.” You faculty, she said, “come from the atmosphere of thinking.” I guess that was supposed to be a contrast with her own atmosphere, the atmosphere of unthinking.
Fortune then joked, in her oafish manner, that it “sounds like we’re all running for office!” Actually, she was right, especially with regard to those trustees who speechified about the airport and Measure F. In contrast, Fortune addressed parking—the real issue, she said.
Williams, looking particularly toad-like, croaked once again about the bankruptcy . Plus: if measure F fails, we’ll be “devastated.” He opined regarding the airport’s likely affect on property values.
So much for trustee campaign speeches.
Pattern:
It was necessary to do some “housekeeping,” said Padberg. She indicated that IVC president Mathur had pulled student Julie B’s name off of the list of prospective student volunteers. (She had applied to do volunteer work for the school of Humanities and Languages.) By this action, Mathur had effectively blackballed her. Curious. At the Feb. 7 meeting, Julie had distributed letters of support for instructor Roy Bauer, a Mathur critic. Do you suppose there’s a connection?
Not long ago, Mathur had similarly blackballed prospective volunteer Deb Burbridge, who happened to be one of the petitioners of the student lawsuit against Mathur. He hasn’t blackballed any other students.
I’m sensing a pattern.
Anti-aircraft guns:
After a few minutes, Wagner started in on Jane Fonda. Months ago, he objected to the district’s membership in the American Association of University Women (AAUW) on the grounds that the group had recently honored “Hanoi Jane” Fonda. On the 22nd, Wagner went after Fonda again, no doubt for the benefit of all those lovely right-wing lunatics out there in South County TV Land. My God, he said, there she was with the VC, manning an anti-aircraft gun! The trollop!
I guess the Wag Man hasn’t heard about Jane’s recent conversion. She won’t be manning any more anti-aircraft guns, ceptin’ for the Lord.
The sound system occasionally made unpleasant electronic popping noises. Perceiving this, president Mathur approached the “tech guy,” who seemed to be on a date, in order to investigate the problem. Though Mathur’s efforts bore no fruit, they were eminently appropriate.
--There. Don’t say I never said anything positive about the guy.
Speculation:
During the break, I spoke with several people, including the excellent Kathie Hodge. It was clear that, during the closed session, something had happened to stop or slow the “fire Jeff” juggernaut. But what? Well, there was the obvious: the expressions of support during public remarks clarified Jeff’s admirable standing among his colleagues and students. How can you fire a guy who’s obviously doing his job and doing it well?
But that wasn’t enough to explain what happened. I speculated that Wagner had perceived the disparity between what the Mathurians had told the board and what the Life Sciences faculty had just told the board. The disparity was too clear and significant to ignore.
Perhaps Wagner, fearing another embarrassing round of litigation, had advised launching some sort of investigation. Fortune, Williams, and Padberg would go along with that, I speculated, knowing that they could still fire Jeff, as per plan, at the March 9 meeting (6 days before the tenure decision deadline).
I didn’t stay for the rest of the meeting. Evidently, the board discussed the proposed “speech and advocacy” policy again, and made clear their intention to ram it through (perhaps on March 9). These people are unbelievable.
Lang questioned the pulling of Julie B’s name. A problem with paper work, said Raghu. So that problem will be resolved? Mathur answered equivocally.
That was about it, I guess.
Inwestigation:
A lot has happened since the meeting. I’m told that, the day after the board meeting, Sampson treated Trustee Milchiker to lunch. Hmmm. Lobbying, I bet. Maybe these people are getting desperate.
Two days after the meeting, first Kathy S and then Jeff’s dean met with lawyer Wilion and Glenn “Toady” Roquemore. Evidently, an investigation is afoot.
Could be the board is headed for a 4/3 vote. But boards don’t like to fire someone on what appears to be a split vote. 5/2 is much better. So maybe there’s hope.
I’m told that, on March 1st, Mathur will be deposed in connection with Jeff’s suit against him up in LA. I bet Mathur’s scared gooless. [Evidently, in Hindi, “goo” means “shit.” I had taken to referring to Raghu as “Mr. Goo,” an allusion to Mr. Magoo. Mathur evidently thought I was calling him Mr. Shit. –RB]
Stay tuned.
I look forward to seeing you all at the March 9 meeting, where you will no doubt come out in great numbers to support your colleague Jeff and also to speak against the passage of BP8000, among other outrages. —BBB
✅ March 16, 2000
The Irvine World News
“I’m sorry, but you guys have no direct influence on my life. I’d like to keep it that way. Please don’t get rid of Dr. Kaufmann.”
—Salman Amer
College trustees pass on firing biology professor [HAYES]
By Laura Hayes
His teacher’s contract had been the subject of a board discussion behind closed doors on Feb. 22.
The board was facing a March 15 deadline to decide whether to fire Kaufmann or allow renewal of his contract, thereby granting him tenure.
Many made the trek from Irvine to the meeting at Saddleback College to testify and await a decision.
Mark McNeil is an economics instructor on sabbatical leave from the college who came to show support for Kaufmann.
“You know, the Lily Thomlin saying, ‘No matter how cynical I get, I just can’t seem to keep up’?” he asked.
Since the Feb. 22 meeting, the show of support for the teacher had grown.
A 30-minute period for public comment on the topic was not enough to allow all who had signed up to speak, but more time was not allotted. For the second time in two weeks, it was apparent that the untenured professor had a wide range of support. Many said he was being unfairly targeted because he criticized the policies of the college president, Raghu Mathur, and the board.
“You might have to rent out the Arrowhead Pond if you want to throw another meeting,” said Salman Amer. “I’m sorry, but you guys have no direct influence on my life. I’d like to keep it that way. Please don’t get rid of Dr. Kaufmann.”
“Just because we’re different that doesn’t mean one of us needs to terminate the other person,” said Reza Roghani, a student at Irvine Valley.
Kaufmann’s firing would “slay the very soul and purpose of Irvine Valley College,” said Stephen Rochford, head of the instrumental music department, in a letter to the board. English instructor Lewis Long submitted 51 signatures of tenured faculty members who support Kaufmann’s continued status at the college.
Other professors took responsibility as Kaufmann’s superiors for the group decision to put up the unauthorized plaque on the green house. The plaque and a sign in the garden were removed when so ordered by the college administration.
The five-hour closed-door meeting ended with the trustees taking no action, which meant Kaufmann would automatically be granted tenure.
“They’ll be no surprise announcements,” said Chancellor Cedric Sampson, upon the board’s reentry at 9:35 p.m. “The notice would have been tonight.”
When the news began to sink in that nothing else was planned before March 15, the deadline for the district to notify Kaufmann if his contract were not to be renewed, supporters moved to the parking lot with whoops and cheers.
Trustees, on the other hand, were hesitant to discuss the closed-door session.
“Obviously we were very careful and thorough in our deliberations,” trustee Nancy Padberg said. Kaufmann filed a lawsuit against Mathur in January over the disciplinary actions taken against him.
END
[NOTE: there was also a 3/12 Times article that appeared as a graphic]
✅ March 20, 2000
COMMUNITY COLLEGE WEEK
Bitter Legal Battles Hurting Morale at Irvine Valley College
IRVINE, Calif. — A Superior Court judge late last month dismissed an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit brought by the president of Irvine Valley College against a renegade professor who has relentlessly criticized him in print.
Judge Michael Brenner, determining that Dr. Raghu Mathur is a public figure and therefore not protected from such criticism by state law, ruled that allowing the lawsuit against professor Roy Bauer to proceed would violate a state law supporting free speech.
The ruling is the latest in a string of legal confrontations that the troubled South Orange County Community College District and its top administrators have lost to Bauer, a tenured philosophy professor who has taught here since 1986 and publishes two biting newsletters.
Bauer has successfully sued the district — with 32,700 students, one of the nation’s 20 largest two-year college districts — over issues ranging from Mathur’s illegal appointment as interim president to an attempt to discipline the professor for his satirical commentaries.
A federal court judge late last year ordered South Orange officials to pay Bauer $126,000 in attorney’s fees in one of those cases, and Bauer says he will seek a similar ruling on legal costs stemming from this latest lawsuit.
“I’m very pleased, but I’m not very surprised because this lawsuit obviously had no merit,” Bauer said of his recent court victory. “These people have consistently sought to suppress expressions of dissent — they are ruthless and unprincipled.”
In an unusual twist, Mathur is also suing the president of another California community college in connection with his privacy case against Bauer. The suit names Terrence J. Burgess, the president of Chabot College in Hayward.
Mathur contends in court records that Burgess, Irvine Valley’s former vice president of instruction, stole damaging information about him and leaked it to Bauer so that the professor could print it in one of his biweekly newsletters, The Dissent.
The judge has scheduled a hearing this month. Burgess told a local newspaper that he will ask for the case to be dismissed. The suit, he says, is “preposterous. I’m alleged to have purloined these confidential personnel documents, and there’s not a shred of evidence.”
Mathur, through a college spokeswoman, declined to comment. He referred questions to his attorney, Michael Corfield, who did not return telephone calls.
An Unhealed Rift
The legal wrangling here indicates the embattled South Orange district is still far from resolving the conflicts that have created a rift between faculty and the district’s leadership. The schism has also prompted regional accreditation officials to issue the district a warning.
The Western Association of Schools and Colleges’ Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges put the district’s two colleges on warning last year, primarily because of the polarization between faculty and administrators.
In response, South Orange officials filed a first-of-its-kind complaint last December with the U.S. Department of Education, accusing the accrediting commission of unnecessarily becoming enmeshed in internal politics and showing prejudice against the district (see Community College Week, Dec. 27, 1999, and Jan. 10, 2000).
In the past two and a half years, the district has been rocked by several controversies over Bauer’s lawsuits. Those included open-meetings law violations, a faculty vote of no-confidence against the president, limits on students’ free-speech rights and two failed recall election attempts against a trustee.
The trustee, former board chairman Steven J. Frogue, in 1997 proposed holding a seminar on fringe conspiracy theories regarding the Kennedy assassination that led to critics accusing him of anti-Semitism. His detractors tried to have him recalled.
So far, the courts have sided against South Orange officials. A judge last fall issued an injunction against the district that prevents it from enforcing most of its policies to control student demonstrations and speeches on campus.
Three students had taken the district to court over the policy, which required students to receive prior approval from administrators before posting notices and limited where students could hold campus demonstrations.
Dr. Cedric A. Sampson, the district’s chancellor, has defended the policy as a way to “try to satisfy the tension between freedom of expression and desire for an orderly campus where education can take place.”
Sampson noted that district officials have filed appeals on most of the unfavorable court rulings. Several are pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but a final resolution could take several years.
“None of these cases has been definitively decided,” he said, “and we are defending ourselves vigorously in court.”
The situation has grown so tense that a poll of Irvine Valley faculty by the college’s academic senate last fall found that 90 percent of professors and instructors reported they were afraid to speak out for fear of retaliation by the college’s administration.
Kaufman and other faculty in the college’s life sciences department last year attempted to name a small, newly constructed greenhouse after former administrator Burgess because he was the college’s first botanist.
But college officials squashed the movement, contending that only the district’s trustees have the authority to name buildings. Not to be outdone, faculty members promptly named a garden next to the greenhouse after Burgess and placed a sign there bearing his name.
The greenhouse, little bigger than an outhouse, remains nameless.
Past Allegations Still Fester
Mathur’s lawsuit against Bauer stems from an item that the latter published in his districtwide newsletter, stating that before Mathur ascended to the president’s post, he had been disciplined by the college for allegedly violating a federal student privacy law.
“He apparently distributed copies of a student’s transcripts in an attempt to discredit another administrator whom he considered an enemy,” Bauer said. “He tried to have the administrator censured by the academic senate.”
The administrator in question? Chabot President Burgess.
Bauer declined to reveal how he got hold of the damaging records about Mathur, saying only: “You know how a college is. Documents tend to float around. I got them. The charge that they were somehow stolen is just absurd.”
Sampson, the district’s chancellor, declined to comment on Mathur’s lawsuit against Bauer, saying it was a private matter that did not involve the district. But he agreed to discuss the confrontational relationship between Bauer and the district.
“The board moved to reorganize the administration of Irvine Valley College and they installed a president who was in line with their goals and directions,” Sampson said. “There has been a group of faculty who have attempted to reverse that decision by challenging every policy and every board action that exists.
“Mr. Bauer’s political commentary and politics were not an issue here for a number of years,” Sampson said. “It was only when he violated our policy on work-place violence that we acted upon this.”
Last year, Sampson disciplined Bauer for items published in his two newsletters, The Dissent and The Vine, which he started in 1997. He ordered Bauer to tone down the newsletters’ content and to attend counseling for anger management.
Bauer regularly lampoons South Orange’s administrators in the newsletters. But Sampson said a fictional account of the violent death of trustees and a piece that described Bauer’s desire to drop a chunk of granite on top of Mathur made employees fearful.
Bauer sued in federal court. A U.S. District Court judge ruled in October that Sampson had violated the professor’s First Amendment right to free speech because “no reasonable person could have concluded that the written words of Bauer constituted a serious expression of an intent to harm or assault.
“Bauer was speaking out on matters [of] public interest, and his speech was a substantial (perhaps the only) motivating factor in the proposed discipline,” Judge Gary Allen Feess wrote in his ruling.
But Sampson insists Bauer’s actions forced him to act.
“There are serious principles involved here,” he says.
“And if we were not in court with Mr. Bauer, we would be in court with the people who feel that he threatened them and that he was creating a hostile work environment.
“We don’t believe that an employee has a right to fantasize about killing other employees in print,” he adds.
“And we are going to have our day in court.” END
✅ March 20, 2000
DISSENT 47
HELLO, MR. CHIPS: THE MARCH 9 “SPECIAL MEETING”
By Chunk Wheeler
In the March 9 issue of the Irvine World News, we are told: “The community college board of trustees must decide at a special meeting today, Thursday, whether to allow an Irvine Valley biology teacher’s tenure [to] go forward…Or, they may fire the teacher, Jefferey Kaufmann, for alleged insubordination for his role in posting unauthorized signs naming a greenhouse he helped students build…Kaufmann’s contract will go forward unless he is notified otherwise by March 15.”
Here’s my account of that special meeting. —CW
The door is locked:
4:05: The door opens, and evidently on Ced’s orders, Harry now ushers in the hoi polloi, who line the walls. Now, it’s standing room only. Apparently, the door is again locked, exiling more Rebels to the Trans-Siberian hallway.
Students had hoped to bring a camcorder for the public comments, but, somehow, that didn’t happen. No problem: Wendy E accosts a wandering camcordsky and recruits him on the spot. Wow! Other students take charge of the room: “Get your gold slips!” they announce—a reference to the public remark forms. “Last call!” shouts Didi, an apparent leader of the student Kaufmanniacs.
The unbearable lightness of Nancy:
4:10: BOOM BOOM BOOM! Board president Nancy Padberg mercilessly hammers her gavel, spraying splinters, and the meeting begins. Speakers will be “limited to 30 minutes” on the dismissal topic, she proclaims. She calls names in groups of three.
Peter Morrison’s name is called, and he immediately gives his time over to Jeff.
–Ah, but there’s a problem. Has the fellow filled out a slip? asks Padberg. (Are you kidding? murmurs the crowd.) “You didn’t fill out a slip!?” she asks. As the 30-minute clock ticks away, and amid derisive crowd mutterage, the Jeffster fills out a goddam slip. Even Wagner seems annoyed, momentarily putting down his reading material to glare at The Nancy. Finally, Jeff speaks:
Naturally, Jeff is in no hurry to make his points, and he is not yet finished when his two minutes are up—BOOM!—Time’s up; move along.
Then, as an afterthought, Padberg decides to invite Jeff to closed session to complete his remarks. Jeff walks back to his part of the wall, and the audience breaks into furious applause, which lasts for about 25 seconds before it is drowned out by Padbergian poundage. She announces the next speaker:
DAN (a student): Naturally, he sings Jeff’s praises, and, again, the audience breaks into applause, but Padberg demurs, reminding us that the clock is ticking, and we’ve only got 30 minutes. Boom! NEXT! Hurry!
KATHY S: She says she was gratified that the board paused back on the 22nd of February, the night of the first Kaufmannian encomia. She reminds the trustees that the district is “an institution of higher education.” We are a college, she says, not a military or a corporate organization. (Wagner seems confused.) Kathy speaks of the need for process and reasonable decision-making “without whim or vagary.” When you go “outside the process,” she says, you do an “injustice…at all levels”—BOOM!—Time’s up; move along.
—So forceful is Padberg’s galvanic gavellage that some in the audience actually cower and scatter. NEXT!
His face is red:
JULIE W: Jeff deserves to be tenured, offers Julie. Facts must guide your decision. She refers to a letter sent by attorney Carol Sobel to the trustees, which is filled with facts that undermine Mathur’s case against Jeff.
Some trustees aren’t listening. Williams, for one, concentrates instead on having as red a face as is humanly possible. NEXT! Hurry!
DEB B (a student leader): She’s presently in a Masters program in biology at Cal State Pomona, she says, and she’s doing quite well. I attribute my success, she adds, to Professor Kaufmann, among others at IVC. Noting that the trustees often begin their meetings with a prayer, Deb reads from 1st Peter 3:8—something about compassion—BOOM!—Time’s up; move along.
WENDY E (a student leader): She sees Jeff’s excellence “in the faces of [his] students,” she says. She compares the “good teacher” with the “truly great teacher.” The latter “inspires students,” and that’s Jeff all over.
PRISCILLA R: She has two sons who have taken biology at IVC. One son has a learning disability; the other, at 22, is finishing his Ph.D. What does she think of Jeff? Sometimes, says Priscilla, people use the expression, “Put your money where your mouth is.” (She now hunkers down and looks straight at the trustees.) “Well, I gave Jeff my two sons!” This brings down the house. As Priscilla stalks off, the audience goes wild.
I look around. Almost everyone’s in tears. –NEXT!
The rubber band:
A STUDENT: She’s an OC taxpayer, a voter, she says. It’ll be a “great detriment” to the school to lose Jeff, ‘cuz he makes the complex seem simple, etc. Another student refers to the “huge line” of Kaufmann supporters outside. Jeff’s a great teacher, he says. “You,” he adds, looking directly at the board, “don’t have an impact on my life…You have no direct influence on my life—none. I’d like to keep it that way.” It’s a put-down, and everyone loves it. The kid’s a comedian!
During these speeches, Armando Ruiz, sitting next to Glenn Roquemore, plays with his special rubber band, which, at one point, he administers too strenuously, causing it to snap and smack Glenn.
These guys run IVC.
MORE STUDENTS: Jeff’s an “inspiration,” says one student. Another student—a “scholar athlete”—explains that Jeff works damn hard for the college. Jeff’s loss would be our loss, says yet another student.
Julie nudges me. “Look!” she says. “Wagner isn’t listening, ‘cuz he’s reading.”
“Hey!” says someone else. “He’s reading a Dissent!”
Podium teeterage:
JOE (a student): Though Joe has never taken one of Jeff’s classes, he was the president of the Bio Club, and Jeff really helped out, settin’ up field trips that weren’t lame, what with the tracking of coyote and fox turds.
Another student, a rather imposing former Bio Club president, explains that Jeff’s the cat’s meow, the bee’s knees. As he speaks, the Big Guy becomes increasingly emotional, even distraught. “You don’t understand what you’re doing!” he bellows. In the end, he shoves at the heavy podium hard, causing it to teeter! Then he stalks off to receive hugs. Whew!
–NEXT!
KAY CLARK: Kay, who explains that she is not Kate Clark, is not Steve R either, but she is here to read his statement. Jeff, writes Steve, is exactly what a Bio instructor is supposed to be. He has made an “unimpeachable” contribution to the college…BOOM!—Time’s up; move along.
LEWIS L: Dr. Kaufmann, says Lewis, is an exemplary faculty member, loved by all. Lewis presents a letter of support for “this outstanding teacher,” signed by 51 of Jeff’s colleagues at IVC—all tenured. Untenured faculty, of course, were not asked to sign.
TRACI F: She reads statements of three students who could not attend. One notes the “moral support” that Jeff provided when she was ill. Another expresses bafflement and bewilderment regarding Raghu Mathur’s recommendation to withhold Jeff’s tenure. The recommendation is, she says, “beyond comprehension.”
I try to observe the trustees, but my view is mostly blocked by the crowd. I see glimpses of hideous glowing red flesh—that must be Williams. I also catch a glimpse of Wagner, who’s still reading his Dissent. Hey, he may be a right-wing lunatic, but he knows a good newsletter when he sees one.
“How can this be?”:
4:42: Just as the excellent Lisa A prepares to speak, Padberg declares that time’s up, and that’s that. She adjourns to closed session. Frogue, rubbing his hands with anticipation, mutters: “Mmmmm, dinner,” and scampers upstairs.
Meanwhile, Didi is visibly distraught, for she wasn’t allowed to address the board, and neither were many others. How can this be? she asks. Someone suggests to Didi that she go to the Chancellor to ask him how it can be. She does so.
Sampson informs her (says Didi, later) that all of the testimonials to Jeff’s excellence were irrelevant. “His teaching isn’t the issue.”
Wanna cookie?
I wander outside, joining the impressive crowd, which remains.
I find Jeff and, with Wendy, urge him not to speak to the board without his lawyer, Carol, who is in Los Angeles. Jeff seems determined to have his say, and he waits to be called in. The hold up: the district’s clueless “dismissal” lawyer, Allan Wilion, is stuck in traffic. In the meantime, the trustees are chowin’ down on the 3rd floor.
As the crowd mills about, Wendy and I get Carol on the phone and then ask Jeff to speak with her, which he does. Not long after, Jeff is taken upstairs and led into the trustees’ banquet room, where, evidently, he informs them that, on his lawyer’s advice, he has decided not to speak with them sans lawyer. Some of the trustees say they understand.
Jeff now notices the impressive spread upon which the trustees are feeding. Padberg offers Jeff a cookie. He takes two.
After spending a few minutes with his supporters, Jeff heads home to a bottle of merlot.
Meanwhile, some of us go to Chili’s, where we have chips and beer. When we return, at around 7:35, we find a still-large crowd dispersed between Library 105 and the elevators. Harry P announces that the board won’t be emerging from closed session for at least another hour. (According to the law, closed session “actions” must be announced in an immediately subsequent open session.) No one budges.
8:40: The crowd has thinned to about 30-35, but the die-hards are having a good time. Someone hands me the latest OC Weekly. I read aloud Matt Coker’s story describing Roy Bauer’s Feb. 29 court victory against Raghu Mathur and something called the “Trustee Accountability Project of Laguna Beach.” The crowd loves it.
9:05: A jovial Vice Chancellor Poertner emerges from the elevator, telling the Tustin Base guy that the board isn’t gonna discuss the base tonight, that’s for sure. (Naming the base facility is on tonight’s agenda.)
9:25: The trustees begin to emerge from the first floor elevator, starting with Wagner and Lang. Wagner seems surprised to see so many people; he shouts: “People! Go home!”
We file into 105, waiting for the “read out” of closed session actions. I study the faces of the trustees as they emerge from the back room. One trustee flashes a subtle cock of an eyebrow. It seems to say, “It’s good.” I turn around and tell everyone, “It’s good!” “How do you know?” they ask. “I don’t,” I answer. They become peevish.
I study Mathur’s face: he smiles like a lizard. Someone says: “That’s no smile. That’s his look when he loses.”
A feeble mantra:
At 9:30, the board reconvenes to open session, announcing that “No actions were taken.”
That’s it. The board took no action, and so, apparently, Jeff’s tenure will occur, unopposed, in a week. At first, the crowd is unsure and wary. “No action?”
In the milling chaos that follows, I wander up to the trustees’ table and find Marcia. I ask: “So, is Jeff’s job safe?” “I think so,” she says.
I ask Dave Lang the same question. His lips say, “Well, we didn’t take action,” but his expression says: “Jeff’s job is safe” plus “leave me alone.” He then declares, for all to hear, that the chancellor will make “an announcement.”
The crestfallen Chancellor does no such thing, but he submits to questions from IWN reporter Laura Hayes, who, at first, encounters a feeble mantra: “no action was taken.”
So why did the trustees decide not to fire Jeff?
“Whadya mean? No action was taken.”
Yeah, but…
“Nothin’ happened; no action was taken.”
Laura, undeterred, presses for answers. Sampson explains that there’s more to being an instructor than teaching. Someone asks: so, will there be a surprise meeting some time before the 15th? Is that it? “No surprises,” he says.
Meanwhile, Mr. Frogue is determined to leave the building in a hurry. Everyone knows that he’s Mathur’s biggest supporter, and, tonight, Mathur lost bigtime, as did Cedric, who backed Mathur 1,000%. Avoiding all eye-contact, Frogue packs up his stuff and runs out the door, this time not even stopping to invite me to his house for dinner!
I ask (or someone asks) Trustee Wagner whether any action was taken concerning the PERB agreement, which was hammered out on the 29th. It had been ratified by the union on the 6th, and now awaited final ratification by the trustees. No action was taken, says Wagner. He seems to imply, however, that the matter was discussed.
And that was about it. —CW
✅ March 23, 2000
Letter to IVC full-time faculty [from Peter Morrison as IVC Academic Senate officer]
Colleagues:
As you know, the trustees met in special meeting on March 9th to consider a recommendation from Raghu Mathur that Jeff Kaufmann be dismissed from the faculty. The board eventually declined to take this action. As a consequence, Jeff will be granted a permanent appointment (tenured).
The senate officers wish at this time to express our considerable gratitude to the many students and colleagues who made an urgent effort to see that this injustice was not done, as well as to those trustees who would not support a recommendation that should never have been conveyed to them at all.
Despite the welcome fact that Jeff’s dismissal was averted, we believe the faculty should take careful note that the approved faculty evaluation procedures wholly failed to protect Jeff from administrative allegations contrived for the specific purpose of seeking his dismissal from the faculty.
This deliberate abuse of the evaluation process took the form of a single critical comment inserted by a dean, at the instigation of the college president, in Jeff’s final probationary evaluation. This criticism (that in one instance Jeff failed to observe approved policies and procedures—in itself flatly untrue) was then inflated to a status the administration claimed should outweigh four exemplary years of teaching, scholarship, collegial and community service, including a unanimous recommendation for tenure from his tenured peers in the discipline, and an overwhelmingly strong set of student evaluations.
Not a single administrator spoke out against the recommendation for dismissal, including Jeff’s dean and including the acting Vice President of Instruction. Neither did the Faculty Association.
It is our view that Jeff’s case has explicitly revealed the considerable dangers that lie in the absence of effective and collegial tenure review and faculty evaluation procedures in the district. This failing must be remedied. Consequently, the officers have begun working on a proposal for new procedures and hope to be able to set recommendations before the faculty in the fall. We will appreciate any assistance you might be able or willing to provide in this effort. Regarding the indefensible actions of the administration, it is obvious that nothing more need be said.
—Peter Morrison
for the IVC Academic Senate cabinet
[NOTE: Morrison’s letter initiated a series of public replies and rebuttals between Morrison and the Old Guard’s Ray Chandos.]
✅ March 23, 2000
Lariat (Saddleback College student newspaper)
Guest Column
Trustee disputes accuracy of Kaufmann articles [WAGNER]
by Donald P. Wagner
Joey Coburn’s article, “IVC instructor survives battle for tenure after board no-vote” and commentary, “Board should be more open to listening to students, and ASG should help” concerning the Prof. Kaufmann tenure decision (March 16 Lariat) contains factual errors and seriously distorted the board’s action.
Coburn reports that I had, “previously” to Prof. Kaufmann’s remarks to the board, “announced” that the board took no action. This is factually incorrect and logically incoherent. I made no such announcement—announcements come from the clerk—and, in any event, no announcement of the decision could be made until after the decision itself was reached. This was certainly not “previous” to Prof. Kaufmann’s remarks.
Second, Coburn incorrectly says that the board heard only half an hour of comments. We actually considered over an hour of comments in two separate sessions, including one at IVC where Prof. Kaufmann’s supporters could more easily attend. By omitting this significant fact, Coburn distorts for rhetorical advantage the actual process used and the amount of careful consideration given to Prof. Kaufmann.
Third, Coburn wrongly reported that the board took five hours in closed session—while also taking time to eat “din-din”…—only to then make no decision. The meeting agenda shows more than just the Kaufmann issue was discussed by the board in the admittedly close[d] but still less than full five hours of the session. Thus, in no way can the board truthfully be said to have spent five hours in closed session discussing Dr. Kaufmann.
And finally, we did take action! Coburn’s factually erroneous and distorted reporting almost wholly ignores the fact that, after careful consideration, the board made the decision to grant Prof. Kaufmann tenure. We took no vote to deny tenure; by any reasonable interpretation that is a clear decision to grant tenure. Readers are left to wonder why does Coburn care how long it takes the board to finally reach the right decision? Coburn should have correctly reported that the board listened closely to Prof. Kaufmann and his supporters and granted him tenure.
—Wagner is a district trustee.
✅ May 15, 2000
DISSENT 49
Takin’ Out the Trailer Trash [Note: only section 6 of this post is relevant to the Kaufmann affair]
By Chunk Wheeler and Sherlock
1. The SOCCCD Illiterati
il•lit•er•ate adj. 1. a. Unable to read and write. b. Having little or no formal education. 2. a. Marked by inferiority to an expected standard of familiarity with language and literature. b. Violating prescribed standards of speech or writing…. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Of course, no one expects trustees and HR directors to be literate; on the contrary. But surely, you say, instructors are a different matter.
Don’t count on it. In a recent letter to the Lariat, instructor Lee W offered the following sentence: “Many of the Old Guard has retired….” –Many has retired? Well, at least Lee doesn’t teach English or journalism. Whew!
For my money, the King of district Illiterati—the Duke of Dunces, the Earl of Errors, the Sultan of Swill—is Mr. Raghu P. Mathur, who can usually be counted on to issue several mangled missives to IVC employees in any given week. He signs this junk, “Dr. Raghu P. Mathur.” Recently, you see, he received a doctorate from Nova Southeastern, an innovative institution that has dispensed with the dissertation requirement for its doctoral candidates (in their mail order Ed.D. program). I believe the candidates, instead, take a multiple-choice test like the one at the DMV, only it isn’t so damned hard, and there’s no limit to re-takes.
How may I “service” you?
My favorite example of Mathurian scribblage is a bitter little Nixonian squawk that appeared in a local newspaper a few days after The Gooster lost his bid for reelection to the Saddleback Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees. I have reproduced the vinegary epistle below and have added notes:
From The News, 11/18/92
Guest View:
A school leader’s farewell [MATHUR]
[or: “You won’t have old Goo Mathur to kick around anymore”]
by Raghu P. Mathur
People have voted and have spoken in the school board election of the Saddleback Valley Unified School District. While I respect and accept their decision, I feel shocked and saddened by the result with respect to my re-election bid. [Translation: “since you failed to reelect me, I hate you, though I also respect you, cuz I might run again, and, in that case, would you vote for me? PLEEZ, PLEEZ, PLEEZ?”] I feel shocked and saddened because education is my career and my life and I am proud of my contributions in education and as a trustee. [Oops, a non sequitur.] I have 25 years of experience in education, having taught at the secondary, college, and university levels. I know what the education system needs to do and have worked hard to deliver it [“it” being what the system needs to “do,” I guess. Good grief.].I know we have outstanding schools in the Saddleback Valley Unified School District because I have seen excellence in the classrooms through my visits to all 31 schools in the district. I have poured over thousands of pages of educational reforms [do reforms really come in “pages”?] and school district reports. I have attended school district and community meetings too numerous to mention. [You just mentioned them.] I have enthusiastically returned hundreds of telephone calls from parents and have followed up on their concerns and suggestions. Students come first to me. [What? They don’t come first to their teachers or parents? These kids are obviously lost. Also: you oughta start a new paragraph here, Mr. Goo.] I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to the people of the Saddleback Valley Unified School District for electing me twice to the school board. [I’m confused; I thought you were “shocked” and “saddened” by their failure to reelect you? You’re grateful to them, too?] I have always run a clean, positive, and honorable campaign. [Non sequitur again.] I want people to know that the prevailing circumstances throughout my term, I have left no stone unturned in doing the very best I could do to strengthen the quantity and quality of education for all students in the district. [Good Lord!] People of this valley deserve no less. No doubt the board has to make many difficult decisions, but we made them based on data and information available, and in the most deliberative, fair, and compassionate manner possible with a clear focus on meeting the best educational interests of all students at the classroom level [as opposed to, say, the playground level, I guess]. My conscience is clear. [Conscience? Hmmm: the lady doth protest too much. That’s Shakespeare, Goo.]
I am particularly proud of our accomplishments in the following areas: stronger academic foundation for all students; highest SAT scores [Highest where? This sounds like bullshit] and lower dropout rate; county, state, and nationally recognized schools; among the very lowest administrator-to-teacher ratio of 28 school districts in Orange County [Lee W did the proofreading here, evidently]; responsible resolution of teacher and staff contracts; tough gang prevention, alcohol abuse programs; curriculum articulation among schools, colleges, and universities; enhancement of student learning values [What’s a “student learning value”?], such as, honesty, integrity, responsibility, respect, and patriotism [the latter, of course, being the last refuge of a scoundrel]; acquisition of $90 million locally for construction of new schools; greater partnerships among schools, community and businesses; and prudent use of education tax dollars.
These accomplishments occurred as a consequence of cooperation and teamwork among students, parents, teachers, administrators, support staff and board members. [Admit it, Mr. Goo: you’re taking all the credit here.]
I talked with Marcia Birch, Debbie Hughes and Frank Ury on November 4 and congratulated them on their election to the school board. I offered them to feel free to call upon me if there was any way I could assist them. [He’s offering someone else’s feelings; now, that’s quite an offer.]
My wife and I have two children, ages 6 and 4. I will return to spending more time with them and the family [his wife, kids, AND his family? I don’t get it]. I certainly thank and honor them for their understanding and support in my many years of service to students and the community. [Stunning.]
I thank you, the public, for bestowing upon me the opportunity to service [!] you, your children and the community. I hope I have done you proud. I will always remain available to serve my fellow human beings whenever called upon. [“Yeah, and if you don’t call me, I’ll scheme and connive my way back into power, you just wait!”]
—All I can say is, it’s a good thing Raghu isn’t the president of a college!
2. Bailing out IVC
Have you been keeping up with the great budget debate?
You know Mathur’s desperate when he starts whacking on Peter M about the budget. The basic problem has always been that Mr. Goo simply does not understand how the district budget model works or where IVC fits in—and Peter does understand. Even as a chair, the Gooster didn’t understand budgets, and, as the (twice illegally appointed) president, he has demonstrated a decline in understanding. Now, Mathur’s budget bumbling has finally come home to roost. So, what does he do? He blames Peter. It is really a very old story.
In ’93, the District Budget Committee developed a plan to put an end to the routine and large IVC bailouts of Saddleback College. You see, IVC had been bailing out SC (Saddleback College) for years. Sometimes these bailouts were written right into the budget as a “Bailout,” but, usually, they used fancier and more obscure terms like “SC Augmentation”. The problem was simple. SC spent more than it earned. In CC-speak, “earning” means students or attracting enrollments. At that time, SC’s enrollments were declining while their costs were increasing. Meanwhile, at IVC, enrollments were increasing and faculty costs were low because IVC relied primarily on adjunct faculty. As a result, IVC was forced to subsidize the high faculty costs at SC by sending them money—a bailout.
In order eventually to stop the SC bailouts, the plan developed in ’93 centralized faculty salaries. The highest cost of any college budget is its faculty salaries, particularly in our district, what with John “Let’s Make a Deal” Williams on the negotiating team. By centralizing faculty salaries, all salaries (full-time and part-time faculty) would be funded from a central pot or a salary pie. If IVC and SC had proportionately the same number of FT and PT faculty, the costs of the faculty salaries would be normalized between the colleges and each college would get a proportionate piece of the salary pie.
 |
| Jeff K. |
Two things had to happen in order for the costs of faculty to be normalized. First, the ratio of full-timers to part-timers had to be the same at the colleges, and, in the beginning, it wasn’t. SC had more full-time faculty and less part-timers. The reverse was true at IVC. So, when this plan was first adopted, IVC still bailed out SC because we had less full-time faculty. SC was getting a bigger portion of the salary pie. But the beauty of a long-range plan is that at some point it would change—we called this PARITY. That is, if IVC kept hiring more full-time faculty and Saddleback hired less, we would eventually hit the same number—parity. Then each college would be getting a piece of the salary pie proportionate to its student enrollment. Some of us called it “Peace in The Middle East,” never for an instant believing that it would happen. The target date for parity was 1998. Well, lo and behold, parity was achieved in 1997. I’ll be dipped—Peace in the Middle East.
The second issue relates to the more senior faculty at SC. Because SC has more senior faculty, they have higher average salaries and so SC would still get a bigger piece of the salary pie. But again the beauty of a long-range plan is that this would change as well. As old SC faculty retired, newer lower-paid faculty would be hired. So even the difference in higher paid faculty at SC would be mitigated. –Peace in the Middle East.
—Not quite so fast. In the great “Reorg” of ’97 (the “Big Sloppy”), the Board decided to put an end to administrative competence within the District. Now, there are folks rowing the boat who have never had a single day of senior administrative experience. The ’93 plan was predicated on competence, understanding, and expertise, none of which exists at IVC or the District now. In order for this parity thing to work well, both colleges had to continue to grow or at least meet enrollment targets and closely monitor their spending. And there’s the rub: IVC hasn’t. Despite Mathur’s rhetoric about “thinking positive [sic] and moving forward”, IVC has not been moving in any direction but backward, particularly in the area of enrollment and expenditures. Anyone can look up the numbers and see that IVC has been suffering enrollment declines since Mathur took the helm. Peter provided those numbers in spades. Additionally, IVC has continued to spend, hiring innumerable administrators, hoping to find someone who can figure this stuff out.
Again, budgets are very simple. IVC is spending more than it is earning and is also declining in enrollment, which means less income. Elimination of the centralized faculty salaries provision will only make it worse for IVC, since parity was achieved in ’97 and, with IVC’s enrollment decline, it is now overstaffed relative to SC. By keeping salaries centralized, the cost of this overstaffing is covered. The real budget crisis at IVC is really the enrollment decline and the spending on its bloated and incompetent administration (and Mathur wants to add another administrator!).
It looks as though the District will be forced to bail Mathur out and provide some “assistance” or “relief” to IVC just like it did to Saddleback for years. And where do the Clueless Twins—Mathur and Toady Roquemore—stand? They urge eliminating the plan, obscuring the real issue, which is their bumbling incompetence, and blaming Peter. This brings up one of my favorite Mathur sayings: “when you point fingers [sic], three fingers are pointing back at you”.
We always predicted that it would take about two years for Mathur’s bumbling to catch up with him relative to the budget, and now it’s happened, with elections just around the corner and the Board Majority’s little puppet in deep yogurt. This is fixin’ to be a great summer, cuz we can watch Mathur running around, pointing fingers and accepting no responsibility for the dismal state of affairs at IVC.
3. A Dunce at Hahhh-vud
A few months ago, Board Majority flack and former union consultant Pam “Same Sex” Zanelli issued a press release that said:
COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENT SELECTED FOR HARVARD SEMINAR
Irvine Valley College President Raghu P. Mathur has been selected to attend the Institute of [sic] Educational Management (IEM) at Harvard University. The institute provides high-quality professional development experiences to executive level leaders of colleges and universities. More than 700 colleges [sic] and university presidents have participated in a Harvard Institute for Higher Education program.
South Orange County Community College District Trustee Dorothy Fortune and Chancellor Cedric Sampson recommended Mathur to the Harvard IEM admissions committee. In Fortune’s letter to the committee she refers to Mathur’s “daunting challenges” and “remarkable accomplishments” since his appointment as president in 1997. She details his success in fulfilling the Board’s goals “to reduce IVC’s excessive expenditures on administration, cut the huge allocations paid faculty for non-instructional assignments, increase course offerings with the savings, address nepotism in hiring and expand technology offerings.”
“I feel honored and pleased to have been selected to attend this highly prestigious program. I look forward to discussing contemporary challenges of higher education with colleagues from around the country,” said Mathur.
The Harvard IEM program, to be presented July 9 to 21, takes advantage of the diverse experiences of participants to create intensive, highly interactive learning environments. IEM’s goals are to introduce useful new perspectives on institutional leadership; challenge routine thinking; help leaders anticipate critical issues; clarify institutional mission and vision; and improve the quality of the higher education enterprise….
It turns out that there’s an “Institute for [not “of”] Educational Management” website, which includes a very informative brochure. The latter explains that IEM’s goals are to
introduce useful new perspectives on institutional leadership; challenge routine thinking; help leaders anticipate critical issues; clarify institutional mission and vision; and improve the quality of the higher education enterprise.
Gosh, that sounds familiar. Do you suppose Pam works for IEM, too?
Just what goes on at this seminar? According to the brochure, “Case study discussions, formal lectures, videos, practitioner interviews, and role plays are all part of the program design…You will be expected to make a full-time commitment to the institute while at Harvard. A typical IEM day begins with breakfast at 7:00 a.m., followed by class sessions and group activities, which end around 4:00 p.m…The daily schedule often does not end until late evening, when participants complete readings, attend optional presentations, or prepare assignments for the following day.”
Sounds pretty rigorous, what with assignments and readings and all. Luckily for the Gooster, “there are no writing assignments during the program.” Whew! Now, if only he can keep his trap shut!
Zanelli’s press release leaves the impression that acceptance into the program is highly competitive. Is that true? Well, the IEM brochure does tell us that “Participants are selected on the basis of their scope of responsibility, depth and breadth of experience, and potential for continued leadership. When making selection decisions, the Admissions Committee also considers the overall profile of the class and seeks to maximize learning by assembling as diverse a group as possible.” (Yeah, with Raghu, they’ve got the “liar” and “autocratic lout” categories pretty well covered. Good.)
The brochure goes on to explain that some people who apply are not accepted. Garsh, that does sound awfully competitive.
According to the brochure, “Applicants are expected to participate in IEM with the full endorsement of their institutions.” (In truth, the only “endorsement” of Mr. Goo’s participation that he is liable to get from the IVC community stems from a deep and abiding desire for his absence.) “Ordinarily, such endorsement is reflected in full financial support…The comprehensive program fee of $5,500 covers tuition, room, most meals, and all instructional materials. Payment is due following acceptance into the program.” –OK. So IEM selects only those whose institutions pony up 5 1/2 K. That is selective.
This means, of course, that IVC will be paying Raghu’s way. I sure hope that Mr. Goo’s two-week, $5,500 Ivy League adventure won’t interfere with his ceaseless efforts to address our latest budget crisis, which is occasioning a bailout by Saddleback College. You people paying attention down there?
I’ve been told that Raghu’s teaching a 5-hour chemistry course this summer, too. What do you suppose that’s all about? Maybe he’s incurred some big expenses recently. Could be.
4. A part-timer pays the price for “extramural utterances”
You’ll recall that, a few weeks ago, the full-time faculty of the School of Humanities and Languages walked out on a school meeting when it became clear that Acting Dean Howard Gensler intended to prohibit discussion of an apparent change in adjunct hiring policies, among other forbidden topics. (Re Gensler, see Dreaming BIG and SECRETLY too! The most unappreciated person in the history of humankind.)
The real issue, of course, was academic freedom—specifically, the right of an adjunct instructor to criticize the college president in a local newspaper, as he had done in December.
Well, a few days after that meeting, I emailed the Acting Dean, requesting that he agendize the policy change, among other topics, for the next meeting, which was scheduled for May 2, a Tuesday. He never got back to me. On the day of the meeting, however, I sought him out to ask about the agenda, and he seemed agreeable to any topic.
At the meeting, Howard showed up with two retired UCI geezers in tow. One geezer called himself Myron; the other called himself Frank. We all regarded the two, wondering what they were doing there.
Myron introduced himself, saying, I think, that, as an instructor, he had been active in the American Association of University Professors (the AAUP); Frank, sporting a John Deere cap, sat at the other end of the room, and he had little to say. Apparently, Howard had asked the two to attend the meeting, and their task, it seemed, was to “monitor” it. (Afterwards, Frank explained that Howard had been his attorney in a dispute with UCI administration.)
I began the discussion by identifying our long-standing “seniority” assignments policy for adjunct faculty. I asked Howard if it was his position that he could change the policy unilaterally.
Others chimed in to confirm my understanding of the policy’s pedigree. The Acting Dean seemed to profess ignorance of, and indifference to, the policy’s long history in the School. “That’s not my policy,” he said, adding that, yes, he can indeed make a unilateral change.
What, then, was our new policy? We sought an explanation of the bases upon which, in general, the Acting Dean might now act to fire an adjunct. Howard’s answer was disappointing; he said that the continued employment of adjuncts was a matter of his “discretion,” and that he planned to use a “broad standard” in making these decisions.
Faculty pressed Howard for details of the “broad standard.” He responded by offering three “examples”: (1) teaching performance, (2) “attire,” and (3) whether the instructor has violated the academic rights of another instructor.
“Attire?” asked Jim. “Yes, attire,” replied Howard. We all stared in disbelief.
Howard’s “examples” were curious, for, as a matter of fact, the adjunct instructor whose treatment at Howard’s hands occasioned this discussion—Professor T—had at one point written a letter to the editor of the school paper and its (temporary) faculty advisor, offering unremarkable criticisms regarding a student editorial and the paper’s news coverage, which seemed often to miss the campus’s political struggles. Some full-timers had expressed similar sentiments in similar communications. Apparently, the faculty advisor took offense to these criticisms and notified the dean.
Anyway, we all listened to Howard’s “examples” in polite silence. If Myron and Frank expected a food fight, it did not materialize.
Faculty explained to Howard that the “seniority” adjunct assignment policy—which presupposes that “senior” faculty have received positive teaching evaluations—has worked well for the School for over twenty years. The policy emphasizes teaching performance, not attire, not politics. By what logic, we asked, could something like “attire” be placed alongside the question of actual teaching performance?
Howard’s answers to our many questions were at times evasive. At other times, he betrayed a failure to comprehend our queries, thereby causing waves of quizzical expressions across the room.
I raised a second issue: was it true that the School’s long-standing practice of basing scheduling on faculty recommendations was now vulnerable to the whims of the Acting Dean? Earlier, Howard had expressed the intention of making decisions based on what he called the “totality of circumstances” test. He repeated this intention. Essentially, the Acting Dean was saying that he would not be pinned down regarding the bases of his decisions.
Naturally, faculty again expressed concern: wasn’t the Acting Dean in effect embracing an arbitrary and whimsical decision-making procedure? Someone asked how, given the vagueness of Howard’s criteria, an instructor who had been fired would ever be in a position to remedy an erroneous judgment?
Even Myron seemed concerned. Normally, he said, the dean’s recommendation is only “one step”; it isn’t the whole process. Also, when a dean makes a decision, he is obliged to give reasons. That’s just part of “adequate consultation” between the dean and the faculty.
Lewis, Kate, Richard, Frank, Marjorie, Rebecca, and others spoke and spoke well. They asked: are you ultimately justifying this policy change on the ground that, legally, you get to do that? Do you really mean to deny that teaching performance is the central and overriding criterion for the hiring and continued employment of adjuncts? Do you really intend to place your own judgment—the judgment of a non-expert (who has never held a full-time teaching position at a college and who has no advanced degrees in the Humanities or Languages)—over the judgment of faculty experts?
The ensuing “dialogue” did nothing to move Howard from his curious stance. At one point, Dale, an elder statesman among faculty, suggested to Howard that some of his decisions “baffle” faculty. “There’s an element of bafflement among us,” he said. Howard responded by explaining that he works closely with the chairs and that they help him to arrive at decisions. He seemed to suggest that the chairs “own” his decisions, too. But one chair clearly took exception to the suggestion, noting that, in truth, she had explicitly protested the decision not to schedule a history course in the fall that had been recommended by the faculty of the relevant department. Frank raised other concerns regarding this particular decision and the grounds that Howard had given for it.
Someone suggested that the top administrators of the college “don’t have a clue” what they’re doing, resulting in a decline in enrollments, among other things. She suggested that Howard should help turn the tide by supporting and empowering faculty, who have some experience and expertise regarding scheduling and adjunct assignments and all the rest. Howard appeared unreceptive to this suggestion.
A senior instructor raised further concerns about Howard’s new adjuncts “policy.” She asked: if this is how we are going to treat adjuncts, just who is going to work for us? We’re going to get the “dregs,” she added. That’s what we get now, she said, for administrators. The dregs.
We all looked at the Acting Dean. He looked back.
Ken, the only part-timer present, listened concernedly. Toward the end of the meeting, he was asked to offer his view. He responded with a statement that was both eloquent and impassioned. He reminded everyone what is at stake. It isn’t easy, he said, losing half of one’s employment in one fell swoop, as sometimes happens to a part-timer, for one reason or another. He explained that, at one time, IVC valued and respected adjuncts. Full-time faculty were supportive, and administrators were very fair, willing to do right by adjuncts. In his experience, he said, adjuncts were hired or fired on the basis of merit, and the system worked well.
But now, he said, he was “scared to death.” Based on what he had been hearing, it was clear that he and other adjuncts had no protection based on criteria. Clearly, now, there is no “process,” only “whim.” Sadly, it is now a “different school.”
Ken closed by saying that, in his estimation, he was a pretty good instructor, and he wasn’t sure he wanted to continue to teach for IVC, not under these conditions.
Someone added: “Howard, you should know that Ken is our best philosophy instructor, and that includes full-timers.” He was right.
Howard then consulted his watch, said “Thanks,” and left the room. The meeting was over.
* * * * *
As things now stand, Professor T, despite having received excellent evaluations, will not be teaching for us in the Fall. No word yet on whether he has found alternative employment.
Did you hear what happened at Orange Coast College? They just hired a new dean of literature and languages. Michael Mandelkern, most recently the chair of the Humanities Department at the College of New Rochelle (Brooklyn Campus), has 12 years of teaching experience at the college level, and he’s a scholar and writer. He’ll start work on July 1.
Soon, at IVC, we’ll be hiring the permanent Dean of Humanities and Languages. Who do you suppose will be hired?
5. Relevant AAUP Statements
As Dissent readers know, the AAUP—the organization with which Myron is (or was) associated—has long been an important voice in the debate about rights and standards for instructors in higher education. Indeed, the “shared governance” movement derives from a 1966 AAUP position statement. No organization is more influential or respected in academia.
Recently, I visited the AAUP website to see what the organization has had to say about some of the issues raised by Howard’s actions and statements. What follows are remarks culled from the AAUP’s “statements”:
[EXTRAMURAL UTTERANCES BY FACULTY:]
“The controlling principle is that a faculty member’s expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness for his or her position. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty member’s fitness for the position. Moreover, a final decision should take into account the faculty member’s entire record as a teacher and scholar.”
[FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY:]
The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. On these matters the power of review or final decision lodged in the governing board or delegated by it to the president should be exercised adversely only in exceptional circumstances, and for reasons communicated to the faculty. It is desirable that the faculty should, following such communication, have opportunity for further consideration and further transmittal of its views to the president or board….
[FACULTY HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO JUDGE COLLEAGUES; THE NEED FOR “ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES”:]
Faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty responsibility; this area includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal. The primary responsibility of the faculty for such matters is based upon the fact that its judgment is central to general educational policy. Furthermore, scholars in a particular field or activity have the chief competence for judging the work of their colleagues; in such competence it is implicit that responsibility exists for both adverse and favorable judgments. Likewise there is the more general competence of experienced faculty personnel committees having a broader charge. Determinations in these matters should first be by faculty action through established procedures, reviewed by the chief academic officers with the concurrence of the board. The governing board and president should, on questions of faculty status, as in other matters where the faculty has primary responsibility, concur with the faculty judgment except in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail.
6. Lap Dog Journalism
Things have not gone well in the IVC journalism program of late. Our journalism instructor, Olga B,who is away on sabbatical leave, recently submitted her resignation, despite the provision (in the sabbatical leave scheme), according to which the instructor who takes a sabbatical leave agrees to remain with the district for a period of time afterward. (That’s my understanding.) Under Olga’s advisement, the school paper (the Voice) has tended to report actual college and district issues, which, of course, embarrasses the Board Majority and their toady, Raghu P. Mathur. Some have speculated that the board accepted Olga’s resignation, despite her being on leave, to rid themselves of yet another faculty critic.
Sadly, this year, in Olga’s absence, the journalism program at IVC has settled into a new role: apologist for Mathur and his execrable “team.” For instance, in a piece that appeared in the May 4 Voice, Glenn Roquemore, Mathur’s chief lickspittle, is described as arguing “vehemently in favor of student rights and programs.” –That would be the same Glenn Roquemore who has helped Raghu violate students’ speech rights. On the other hand, two prominent Mathurian critics are attacked for allegedly having “sold out IVC.” The charge is irresponsible nonsense.
In the program’s glossy and expensive (and largely dreadful) new magazine—I’m told it cost $5K—the same writer lists the year’s good times and bad times. The “bad times,” he writes, include “student protests” and “free speech disputes.” (Gee, you’d think a journalist would want to support an attempt to preserve and protect free speech on a college campus.) Mathur and Roquemore, whose actions the students were protesting, are described as “pro-student.”
Oddly, the writer goes on to bemoan “threatened termination of some of our faculty” and to praise instructor Jeff Kaufmann, the fellow who, in fact, was threatened with termination. Wendy Phillips is also praised—as a teacher who “genuinely cares.”
Ironically, Phillips was President Goo’s first victim, having been fired (as chair of her School) in 1997 for her critical remarks, and Kaufmann was Goo’s most recent victim (almost).
These Voice kids oughta read their Dissent more often.
7. David Irving and Uncle Steve
The ruling was a huge victory for thinking people and for free expression.
We at the Dissent thought it might be interesting to see if there are any David Irving websites and if they mention our illustrious district. In fact, there are many such sites. The chief site, called “David Irving’s ‘Action Report,’” provides an extensive collection of Holocaust-denial related articles, arranged chronologically. Here’s what’s listed for September, 1998:
Posted Tuesday, September 22, 1998
September 21, 1998
Foes join forces in calling for ouster of allegedly racist college trustee Political foes joined forces to fund the recall of a college trustee accused by former students of being racist.
IRVINE, California—Some 100 Republicans and Democrats attended a Saturday fund-raiser to back the recall of Steven J. Frogue from the South Orange County Community College District board.
Critics say Frogue, a history teacher at Foothill High School in Tustin, was insensitive for proposing a seminar on conspiracy theories that would have included a view about the Israeli government assassinating President John F. Kennedy.
Dozens of newspaper stories and affidavits from Frogue’s former students quote him as claiming the Holocaust is exaggerated, denouncing the Anti-Defamation League and referring to Asians as “yellow people.”
Frogue has denied the accusations.
Reps. Christopher Cox, R-Newport Beach, and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, said Frogue—a registered Republican—must go….
—Ain’tcha proud?
8. The April 24 Board Meeting/campaign stop/TV show
At the April 24 Board Meeting, trustees put on quite a show, playin’ to the camera, runnin’ for office, and generally carryin’ on. John Williams, for instance, made a meretricious request designed to please the voting public. It concerned those dastardly faculty—not me, brother—who make really big money:
TRUSTEE REOUEST FOR A STAFF REPORT [on reassigned time]
Submitted by Trustee Williams, April 24, 2000
Fellow Board Members:
I am making a request of staff for a complete report on release/re-assigned time and extra duty days granted for faculty members at both colleges, with the written report to be presented at the May, 2000 meeting. The report should not name individuals since it will be made available to the public and contain the following information:1. A detailed list of faculty members who made $100,000 or more who received release/re-assigned time from teaching duties and taught overload courses for additional pay. The listing should be by position/department, not by name. Faculty who received no release time need not be listed.
2. The report should include the years of 1990-99, base salary of the faculty member, and a complete breakdown of additional monies paid.
3. Who approved the requests for release time? Include written reports submitted by the faculty members that indicate what was accomplished on the release time. For example, if the time was to write a grant, what was accomplished and was the grant approved/implemented? Was the grant federal or state funding?
4. What hours were the faculty members released from for the special assignment? If the release time was during the day, were overload courses taught during the evening hours or weekends outside of the release time hours?
Concerned senior citizen taxpayers have contacted me regarding my letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times published last month regarding release time and faculty making over $130,000. An agenda item appears this month regarding this matter and I want to ensure that this information is prepared and publicly discussed at a future meeting. It is my belief that the significant reductions in release/re-assigned time from over $2 million dollars just a few years ago to several hundred thousand dollars now has resulted in significant taxpayer savings in our district. This report should provide concise information in this area.
Thank you for considering my request for information.
So Williams [who later exited public life with outstanding ignominy] is concerned about faculty who make over $100,000 and receive reassigned time? Hmmm. He is oddly uninterested in faculty who make over 100K but who don’t receive reassigned time. This group, which relies on the “large lecture” flimflam, includes some of his more ardent supporters in the Old Guard Axis.
It is interesting to note that, among those who made over 100K and who did receive big hunks of reassigned time is Raghu P. Mathur, who, before becoming IVC’s president in 1997, made over $120,000 and had 80% reassigned time. That didn’t prevent him from championing, on behalf of his slimy patrons, the cause of eliminating that horrible “reassigned time.”
In the years prior to his ascendancy, Mathur had a lucrative gig running “Tech Prep,” which managed to have no students at all. Most people who got reassigned time and other compensation worked hard for their money. Not our Goo. Why doesn’t Williams investigate THAT?
At the board meeting, Williams failed to mention that some of the charges he made in his Times letter were handily refuted in a subsequent letter (“Community college trustee is distorting the truth,” 4/4, by Bill Hewitt). He also failed to mention his role as the Old Guard’s chief ally in efforts to push for higher faculty salaries. What a dishonest fellow.
Here’s a (or the) letter that, apparently, Williams received from a “senior citizen taxpayer.” It inspired some angry words from IVC’s Academic Senate president, Peter M, who noted, on the 24th, that Ms. DeFranco did not have her facts straight:
Letter to BT from Virginia DeFranco:
I have requested to place this item on the agenda for the Board of Trustees meeting for the month of April pursuant to Education Code 72121.5 which allows public participation and commentary at community college board meetings.
I have read with much concern recent coverage by the Los Angeles Times of the faculty member who spoke to the Board of Trustees several meetings ago regarding approval of an Assistant Dean position at Irvine Valley College, carrying a salary of $96,000 per year. Apparently this new administrative position would replace many duties the faculty member performed under release time from his teaching duties. What this faculty member did not publicly reveal when he spoke was that his salary approached $130,000, including all perks and release time from his teaching assignment. No wonder he did not want to return to the classroom and his $75,000 salary with a full teaching assignment. I also understand that the Irvine Valley College Academic President spoke at this same meeting in support this faculty member with the high salary and against the administrative position being proposed.
I am told that this faculty member is not the only one who continues to make a salary in excess of his/her college president. Apparently some faculty continue to receive release time, lucrative “extra duty days” and other perks that allow them to make salaries that far exceed $100,00 for 178 days of work. That is only 35 weeks of work while most taxpayers work 52 weeks per year. I am a senior citizen and must continue to work full –time [sic].
Therefore, in the best interest of the taxpayers of this community college district I am asking that you, the Board of Trustees of the South Orange County Community District [sic], conduct an investigation into all faculty members making in excess of $100,00 [sic] per year for the last four years. I request that this investigation result in a detailed public report at a future board meeting that reveals the employees’ base salary, overload hours taught, stipends, release/re-assigned time, extra duty days received and other perks that allowed the $100,000 + salary. I understand the confidentiality of personnel records and therefore, there is no need to list the individual’s names on the report.
Thank you for your many hours of service to the citizens and students of yow community college district. You do a wonderful job as our trustees.
[Signed:]
--Virginia DeFranco 4/12/00
Evidently, Ms. DeFranco has also sent a letter to the OC grand jury, requesting an investigation into a “possible criminal conspiracy at IVC.” The letter is hilariously ill informed. Expect nothing whatsoever to come of it.
Fortune takes the low road:
Also on the 24th, awards were given to several employees. Each was presented with an “Outstanding Service Award Resolution,” a certificate that provides a place for the signature of each trustee. Pam Hewitt, Senior Administrative Assistant for the School of Humanities and Languages, was honored as the IVC “Classified Employee of the Year.” Oddly, one signature line remained blank from among all of the certificates, for Miss Fortune refused to sign Pam’s.
I asked Pam about this and she said that she guesses that Fortune’s pen ran out of ink or something.
9. PETRACCA experiences the Dark Side: “That just doesn’t happen.”
Recently, Friends of Dave Lang (Trustee Lang seeks reelection in November) set up a talk by Professor Mark Petracca of UC Irvine, a well-known observer of the local scene. The entire community was invited. Petracca said he would speak on the topic of Orange County Politics.
I had distributed fliers at Saddleback College two days earlier, unknowingly initiating the scurrying of rats. A day later, Petracca received odd phone calls from some Saddleback faculty who seemed disturbed that he intended to speak at an event sponsored by Lang’s group. I’ve learned that Lee W was among the disturbed callers. Evidently, he indicated that he would attend the talk, and some expected trouble. I expected amusement. But Lee never showed. I was disappointed.
The theater in the medical complex (on Sand Canyon) is a fine venue; alas, only about 25 people turned out for the talk, which, perturbed Professor Petracca a bit, though he seemed perfectly comfortable with us and happy to share his thoughts, once he got rolling.
He began by commenting on the phone calls he received—five of them. That had never happened to him before. He was intrigued by this curious attention, and also a bit put off, I think. On the other hand, after the phone calls, he had indicated to us that he now looked forward to the talk, perhaps hoping to discover what the hell was really going on in this goofy district.
Petracca explained that he often watches broadcasts of the board of trustees meetings, which he called “the best show in town.” Though he did not say so in so many words, it was clear that Professor Petracca holds the Board Majority in very low esteem.
“I give these talks all the time,” said Petracca. “Why did these people call me?” Why should they care if a political scientist comes to talk about politics? “This just doesn’t happen.”
I looked to the back of the room. There sat Mr. Chandos and Mr. Welc. I nearly pointed to them to say, “Let’s hear from THEM.”
Petracca, a funny and engaging speaker—I’ve occasionally spotted him on OCN, makin’ people look like assholes—who dresses like a stereotypical university prof, noted that OC Republicans are fighting among each other; for this and other reasons, it seemed that “change is in the air,” a healthy thing.
He noted several specific changes that the county is undergoing. Obviously, a huge demographic transformation is afoot, and that’s not good for the Republicans, who’re falling all over themselves to say, “I’m sorry” to Latinos, some of whom will likely join the party of money and power anyway.
Further, an economic transformation is afoot, from Military/Industrial/Land Development to Biotech/Info Entrepreneurial. This will bring us a new “power elite.”
Then there’s the “permanent division” caused by the El Toro Airport debate. Though Measure F may have driven a stake through the heart of the airport plan, many chapters are left to be written in this saga, he warned. People’s viewpoints are being shaped by this debate, and once it is decided, there will be residual “hostility.” He seemed to allude to a North/South rift in OC.
That would make us the Rebs.
We will never be able to “put the Genie back in the bottle,” said Petracca. (That’s true about the mistrust created by the Board Majority, too. Things will never stop sucking, now.)
Petracca, flashing his teeth amusingly, noted our county’s increasing “urbanization,” which, he said, frightened him a bit. We’re only one recession away from “serious deprivation,” he added. He worried, too, about the divisions and distrust in the county, insofar as it fragments government. It is not good, he said, when government can’t act decisively. (I do wish, however, that our board would be a tad less decisive.)
Nevertheless, on balance, he was optimistic. I guess I didn’t take notes on the positive stuff. But I guess there was some of that in there. Wonder what it was?
Professor Petracca had interesting things to say about long ballots. There is evidence, he says, of enormous voter “drop off” as you go down a ballot to the races for judge and dogcatcher and school board trustee. Recently, elections were consolidated, and everyone assumed that voters in these more infrequent elections would vote on everything on the ballot—but no. It is possible, however, he added, that the voters who actually get to the bottom of the ballot—the trustees races, etc.—tend to be more interested and informed. That’s the possible bright side, but there’s no real evidence of it. Maybe only dumbshits go all the way to the bottom. That would explain a lot.
In the case of low-on-ballot issues, the media won’t help at all. Forget about it. No one cares about these races.
In terms of practical politics at the local level, the upshot of all this is (i) that one must remember that not everyone who votes is actually voting in your race cuz they don’t get all the way down the ballot, where you are, like an asshole, (ii) that you will need lots of money to get the message out cuz the media is out to lunch (and, besides, you really gonna count on the Register?), and (iii) that you’ve got to find ways to get attention for yourself. Nude press conferences would be a good idea, especially if you can get Board Majoritarians to do one.
Money, of course, is the key. Lots of it. If you get it right away, it shows you’re serious and it scares away the competition. Plus money begets money. People invest in your campaign, and then, by some illogic, they are willing to invest again, like the chumps in Vegas, throwing good money after bad. But you gotta love ‘em.
Petracca warned those of us who are interested in regime topplage—that would be us all right—not to try to kill the king all at once. It’s just not gonna happen, he said. (We groaned.) The battle’s long-term. Also: don’t waste money on consultants, who only do what you can do but they expect to be paid. Concentrate on getting qualified candidates.
After the talk, some of us gathered around to speak to the man from UCI. We asked him what he thought of the Board and such characters as Raghu P. Mathur—because, of course, we already knew, and we hoped to be amused. He said amusing things, all right, that I had better not repeat. I will say this: he was surprised that the Academic Senates put up with their rude and hostile treatment at the hands of the Board Majoritarians and El Ced. This spectacle seemed especially to bother him. It was as though he were asking, “Why don’t you schmucks fight back against these bastards? Why march in like ‘lambs to slaughter’?”
We talked about all the free publicity we’ve received (and generated) in our fight with the Board Majority and its allies. The board has received shitloads of negative press, but the public has a very short memory, said Petracca. In the end, people might vote for a guy like Frogue simply because his name is kinda familiar. They’ve completely forgotten that they only heard about him in the first place cuz he’s a Holocaust denying wacko.
We groaned some more. I thought: “You mean to tell me this guy might get reelected because he’s an asshole?!”
As we joked, someone remarked on the cable airings of the trustees’ meetings. Someone said, furtively, “Frankly, these trustees of yours look like trailer trash.” We all laughed because it’s true.
As the good professor left the building, I slipped him a copy of the Dissent. Later, in an email, with tongue in cheek, he wrote:
It’s not often that I get to meet a folk hero, so I was quite pleased to make your acquaintance on Friday afternoon. Thank you for the most recent issue of Dissent, which I enjoyed reading in preference to the LAT this Saturday morning. Is it possible to subscribe to Dissent? If so, I would very much like to be put on such a list (and please let me know what sort of a contribution is necessary to have it mailed—presumably to my home address). Thank you again for coming to my talk and for everything you’ve done to [cast] some light on the darkness at IVC.
Someone independently sent Petracca a sampling of old Dissent issues, and he again wrote back, offering high praise for our little efforts. I’ve decided that these words of praise are no longer tongue in cheek.
Months ago, I got a fine letter of support from Michael Schroeder, Immediate Past Chairman of the California Republican Party. (That’s right. I’m not makin’ this shit up.) He referred to “the severe problems at the South Orange County Community College District.”
So I’m feeling a lot better these days about the Pulitzer snub.
10. Request for info/Cal. Public Records Act
A few weeks ago, I sent a letter to Casey Crabill, President/Superintendent of College of the Redwoods, requesting information, pursuant to the California Public Records Act:
This is a request under the California Public Records Act, codified at Government Code section 6250 et seq., for copies of documents created and/or maintained by you in the following categories: (1) All Complaints filed in state and/or federal court in which the College of the Redwoods and/or Cedric Sampson is named as a defendant and alleging that former College of the Redwoods administrator Cedric Sampson violated a contractual, statutory and/or constitutional right of any employee of the College during the time he served as president. (2) All documents containing the terms of settlement of any lawsuit identified above. (3) All documents setting forth the verdicts in any lawsuit identified above. (4) All depositions taken of Cedric Sampson in any lawsuit identified above. (5) All documents setting forth any payments to any attorney/law firm to defend any of the lawsuits identified in response to Request No. 1, including any payments made by any insurance company or joint powers entity on your behalf.
I also sent a letter to President Padberg of the SOCCCD board of trustees:
This is a request under the California Public Records Act…for copies of documents created and/or maintained by you in the following categories: (1) All documents showing any payments made by the South Orange County Community College District between 1996 and the present to the attorneys and/or law firms listed below, including all documents that identify the amount of any such payments and the lawsuit, if any, for which such payments were made…(2) All documents showing any payments made by the South Orange County Community College District for legal services and costs related to any of the cases listed below…(3) All documents which identify any payments made between 1996 and the present to any of the law firms listed above by any insurance company acting on behalf of the SOCCCD, its agents and employees, in any of the cases listed in request number two. (4) All documents which identify any payments made between 1996 and the present to any of the law firms listed above by any joint-powers entity on behalf of the SOCCCD, its agents and employees, in any of the cases listed in request number two. (5) All documents which identify any employee of the SOCCCD, whether employed as a faculty member or under contract as an administrator, who received total compensation in the amount of $100,000 or more, in any year from 1995 to the present. (6) The current employment contracts for the Chancellor and the presidents of Irvine Valley College and Saddleback Colleges.
On the 8th, I received a response from Padberg. She wrote: “I have forwarded your request to our district staff for a response and production of all documents which are not privileged or exempt from the Public Records Act.” We’ll let you know how this thing goes.
If Padberg and Crabill comply, we’ll need some serious bucks to pay for the duplicating. Let that be a hint to you, oh fine and loyal readership.
11. Old Guard follies: Patrick asks me to kiss his ass; I decline to do so
A few days before the union meeting (which was on the 1st), we had received reliable reports of a landslide victory of Reform candidates in the internal Faculty Association elections. Not only did the Reformers win, they won BIG. Plus Sherry couldn’t even get herself elected as a member of the Rep Council. Essentially, the election drove a stake through the heart of the union Old Guard, and I couldn’t be more pleased. (The part about the stake is a “metaphor,” Ced. Look it up. I don’t actually own a stake, OK?)
(SHERRY WATCH: Recently, the SJ Knitted One was spotted at the CTA conference in Costa Mesa, where she was a delegate or something. Guess what? During the conference, which was held in freakin’ Costa Mesa, Sherry stayed at the hotel, presumably at CTA’s expense! You’ve gotta give her credit: that’s chutzpah. I am impressed.)
I arrived at the Saddleback library for the meeting just before 3:00 and spotted Lee W, who was fuming once again about the Dissent to CTA’s David Lebow, a man of many exits. (Didn’t Lebow give his farewell address at the last meeting? Why doesn’t he just go away? His stickin’ around is positively unseemly.) I smiled pleasantly. Then Sharon walked by in her sherbet peach outfit and nurse shoes. She seemed morose.
The meeting finally started at about 3:15. It was Lee H’s first as union president. He’s into openness and stuff, so we went around the room introducing ourselves. Naturally, Lee W managed to screw it up, speaking out of turn. I think he got his name right, though.
As we reviewed the minutes for the prior meeting, Ray alerted us to a serious misspelling. He also objected once again to the “editorializing” of the Treasurer’s report, which had been entered into the minutes. Nobody cared.
Roni then gave her last Treasurer’s report, though she had already ceased her Treasurership, cuz Bill Hewitt just got elected. She noted that the Old Guard still hasn’t coughed up crucial PAC documents for the CTA audit, an enterprise which, it seems, has been proceeding for years. This eventually led to a motion to encourage CTA to pursue a subpoena. (More on that later.)
Margaret H (of CTA/CCA) referred to problems with the Old Guard’s accounting. There were, she said, “lots of unauthorized transfers” going on—transfers that had not been authorized by this body (the Rep Council). Of course! Then it came to light that, for a lengthy period, dues were coming in, but it isn’t clear what happened to the money.
Of course, there’s the ongoing audit. Margaret explained that CTA isn’t “out to look for illegal activities” that occurred in the past. Of course not—that would be the right thing to do. Someone said that none of the past presidents (who, until recently, were the only members of the PAC) was willing to inform CTA who was on the account whose records are missing….
We moved on to a report of the recent internal election—the lovely landslide. Evidently, Lee W (and Ray?) had shown up to observe the ballot counting. Lee now bitterly complained of the “rude” treatment he had suffered at the hands of the CTA staff on that occasion. He came to observe the guy who did the ballot counting, but “all we ever saw was his backside.” Lee knows about backsides. Occasionally, he flashes his own backside. Don’t know why. Please stop.
David Lebow countered by saying that “observers are only observers, not counters.” Lee had been asked to sit “off to the side.”
Lee responded to David’s comment by saying that “it’s an attitudinal thing.” Then someone said something, and Lee became unpleasant; he said, “You’re not such a nice person yourself.” We all marveled and stared. Someone muttered that Lee must be off his rocker. I didn’t understand that. Lee was just being Lee. Maybe he was a tad more Lee-esque than normal, that’s all.
Though I had been as quiet as a church mouse, my marvelment was like a beacon, I guess, and Lee noticed it. So (?) he shouted across the room, “Hi, Roy!” Naturally, I responded with a cheery “Hi, Lee!”—whereupon, he said: “Write that down!” I did. Again, we all marveled. That Lee’s a card, ain’t he? Gotta love ‘im.
Roni then discussed the budget plan. Lee Haggerty yammered about conflict resolution. Sharon declared that 34 people quit the union in the last year—which is demonstrably false. (She tends to say things that are flat false. That’s what I like about Sharon.) People discussed the “withholdings” issue again. Sharon started tellin’ more yarns. Roni got around to refuting Sharon’s remark about member quittage. Caroline said what she always says, whatever that is. I heard a faint cackle through the wall, from deep within the Library.
Generally, things were not going well for the Old Guard, or what remained of it, so Lee W headed for the door; but it so happened that I sat right next to the exit, and so, as Lee approached, we could not help looking into each other’s eyes. I swooned. (Well, no.) He commenced swaggering and said, “So long, baby.” I was stunned. Everyone stared at Lee, wondering what the hell that was about. But I knew.
 |
| El Toro, 1970 |
This time, he didn’t drop his pants; he just left. –But no. We weren’t out of the woods yet. Suddenly, the door opened again. “Bye, Sweetie,” added Lee, tenderly. I was thunderstruck. Why, oh why, was I being treated in this hideous manner? Someone whispered: “He’s just lucky he didn’t drop anything.” Someone else said, “The guy’s nuts.” Wendy’s jaw dropped. I feigned woundification. We were having a good time.
Soon, we moved on to other matters, and the few remaining Old Guardsters trailed out, including Patrick J. Fennel, who, as he got to the door, glared at me and said, for all to hear, “You can kiss my ass.” I responded with my best Bemused Smile. He hates me more than he can say. Don’t know why. Once, at a restaurant, he saw me, commenced quaking and pointing, and yelled, “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword!” I asked him if he had a sword. He stalked off, trembling.
People complained about the recent balloting regarding “improved health benefits.” The episode was, in fact, a total screw-up on Sharon’s part. She tried to defend herself, but no one was buying it. She kept saying, “I don’t care what you do.” She tends to say that. She thinks its worth saying. Others indicated that there really should be a period of discussion before a vote like this is undertaken. Obviously.
There was a discussion about tryin’ to get that awful CTA to subpoena PAC records. Margaret, I think, said that the organization is a “massive bureaucracy, and it moves very slowly.” The point seemed to be that you can’t expect CTA to actually do anything, so be patient. We all stared impatiently at her. If I could destroy CTA, I would. (Just kidding, Ced.)
In the end, we passed a resolution that asked the CTA to pursue the audit thing harder, including maybe takin’ the subpoena route.
For some reason, David L then declared that “Saddleback” has been on the agenda of the CTA board at every meeting (except for one) for THREE YEARS. I don’t know why he said it, but I’m glad he did. We’re famous.
Other stuff happened, I suppose. But that’s all I remember.
12. Screw civility
Recently, my good friend Kathie participated in a symposium at Kent State University, entitled, “The Boundaries of Freedom of Expression and Order in a Democratic Society.” It was designed to help commemorate the events of May 4, 1970, in which Ohio National Guardsmen attacked student anti-war demonstrators, leaving 4 dead and 9 wounded.
During the conference, Kathie spoke with an old colleague from our graduate school days, Dave Estlund, who now teaches at Brown and who presented a paper at the symposium entitled, “Deliberation down and dirty: must political expression be civil?” Kathie, who loved the paper, said that it relates to dissent at the South Orange County Community College District.
Intrigued, I went to the website to find the abstract:
DELIBERATION DOWN AND DIRTY: MUST POLITICAL EXPRESSION BE CIVIL? [ESTLUND]
David Estlund
Brown University
Which kinds of sharp political expression are morally permitted, and which are not?….
Public moral condemnation of a political opinion or of its public expression is itself an exercise of social power, but liberalism’s protection of political expression from interference does not typically reach this far. Moreover, even if it did, it could still contend that much political expression is morally wrong, whether or not it should be publicly condemned. My interest in this essay centers on this last level, the moral standards that apply to political speech, whether or not public condemnation is appropriate. How permissive or restrictive are the appropriate moral constraints on political expression?….
…Even within the liberal approach to political legitimacy, there are many occasions on which sharp, subversive, nondiscursive, disruptive, offensive, and even subversive political expression is within the appropriate moral constraints, and may often be among the citizen’s duties. That they are to be protected from social and legal interference is a liberal truism; my claim is that they are also often morally permitted or even required….
Though they have never engaged in disruption, SOCCCD dissenters have on occasion done unusual things, such as call Mr. Frogue a “coward,” plant strident protest signs in the grass, walk out on a dean during a School meeting, march with jars of Ragu spaghetti sauce, or name gardens.
“How very uncivil,” some will say.
My own view is that, under existing circumstances, actions of this kind are not only civil, but morally required, and Professor Estlund, I believe, would wholeheartedly agree. Matters might be different if Mathur and his allies were not ruthless evildoers. If they were not, some of our dissent might indeed be objectionable.
But, as Bishop Butler wrote, “everything is what it is, and it is not another thing.”
13. Districtular prevarication
The Dept. of Ed finally sent its report in response to the district’s complaints against the Accrediting Agency (ACCJC). Essentially, the DOE found three technical problems with ACCJC policies. Over and over again, it sided with the ACCJC and against the district (i.e., Sampson and Fortune). Just goin’ by press releases and Board Majoritarian statements, you’d swear that some kind of vindication of the district has occurred. Bullshit.
It’s now late, and I don’t have time to type out the report. If you’d like a copy, call me. I’ll try to get you one.
Same goes for the recent Raghu Mathur deposition concerning the Jeff Kaufmann case, which is pretty juicy. I never got around to preparing that for Dissent. It takes a lot of time and effort to edit a depo down to something readable, and, well, I’ve been too busy doing my job, which is teaching.
Still, if you’d like a copy of the deposition, call me.
Bye, for now. Have a great summer. And don’t forget about the trustees campaign.
–CW
P.S.: Below, I’ve included Nancy Padberg’s “statement” regarding the DOE report, which she distributed at the recent press conference. It’s really quite stunning.
STATEMENT BY NANCY PADBERG [contra ACCJC]
As President of the Board of Trustees of So. Orange Co. Community College District, I am extremely pleased by the findings of the US Department of Education addressing our complaint against the ACCJC’s treatment of our district. The US Department of Education handled our complaint in a professional and forthright manner. Individuals in authority at the ACCCJC Western Division attempted to subvert the public trust and erode local community control of our tax-supported Colleges. The ACCCJC is a private accrediting institution operating in secrecy yet supported primarily with tax-dollars. They deliberately engaged in a political agenda designed to thwart reforms instituted by the SOCCCD elected Board of Trustees and along with certain disgruntled employees of the District and ex-employees of the District operated to damage the reputations of both colleges and to threaten accreditation of our fine colleges. Indeed the ACCJC contributed to a negative climate on our campuses and then held up our accreditation based on this negative climate to which they contributed.
SOCCCD filed the first-ever District complaint against the ACCJC since it was founded in 1962. The US Department of Education found that in three critical areas the ACCJC operated outside of acceptable standards and that they engaged in biased deceptive and unfair practices in evaluating our District. Certain disgruntled employees and ex-employees of the district with financial ties to the ACCJC threatened to shut down our colleges when our Board instituted reforms. This is unacceptable in an institution purporting to be an objective evaluating body with broad-ranging powers and little accountability.
It is our sincere hope that no other institutions of higher education under the purview of the ACCJC will ever have to endure the prejudicial and unfair treatment that SOCCCD has suffered and that only established criteria strictly limited to maintaining high academic standards and quality education will be used to evaluate our tax-supported institutions. END
✅ May 18, 2000
Irvine World News
College trustees adopt policy regulating speech on campus [HAYES]
By Laura Hayes
The trustees for Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges approved on Tuesday a speech and advocacy policy on a 4-3 vote, with David Lang, Marcia Milchiker and Donald Wagner casting the dissenting votes.
Board Policy 8000 spells out how, when and where students and members of the public can conduct events and post written material on campus property. New student trustee Jason Wamhoff, 32, and a student at Saddleback College, also voted against the policy.
“Our main issue, because we’ve been racked by a lot of protest, is free speech,” said Patrick Hardy, 20, the vice president elect for the associated students of Irvine Valley College.
“We don’t want to put any antagonism between us (students and administration). We want the free speech to be given in an impartial way.”
The 32-page policy was pending for months after distribution to governing groups on both campuses, and has been criticized by many, including both academic senates. It is long and prescriptive compared to other board policies. A version distributed in January included faculties and staffs in the regulations, but the version adopted Monday exempts them while they are acting within their employee roles.
Free speech became an issue after two students filed a lawsuit in 1998 against Irvine Valley president Raghu Mathur, saying Mathur had tried to put time and place constraints on rallies protesting the president’s administrative policies and those of the board of trustees and the district chancellor. Students were upset over changes, faculty and administrative strife, and news that accreditation was threatened.
The resulting policy attempts to handle every campus speech situation, including when students can stand on the grass and how many inches a table can be away from a wall.
“Dave Lang and I have never voted for the speech and advocacy policy,” said Trustee Marcia Milchiker. “This doesn’t prevent future litigation, I think it may foster future litigation. Free speech is important on a campus.
“It looked to me like the president and the chancellor have too much power. We’re wasting so much taxpayer money in lawsuits, this will just be a lightening rod for more lawsuits,” said Milchiker.
The policy is inequitable, Milchiker added, making rules for students and public members but not applying them to the district or those who enter into contracts with the district, and she wonders if it is enforceable. The policy gives a college president discretion over speech issues, she said.
 |
| Carol Sobel |
“Ultimately you look to the presidents of the colleges and chancellor of the district to make the final decision. That’s normally fine. When it’s the president who’s the one under fire, it presents the appearance of a conflict of interest,” said Trustee Wagner.
Wagner said he thought the district could have handled the situation by allowing a rally to go on, smiling, then moving on, “rather than have Raghu be the one ultimately charged with shutting it down. It begs for trouble.”
“My concern is it’s not going to end the litigation,” he said. “The district could have come up with policy that was a lot shorter. The policy could have permitted more in speech.
“Faculty members are not covered by the policy as teachers,” Wagner continued. “Once they step out of the role not in the scope of their employment, they’re members of the public. I suspect we’re going to see some problems with that definition.”
“The policy as it was passed does provide for some appeal rights to the chancellor, and provides for prompt judicial review. There are plenty of ways to challenge if you’re so inclined,” said Wagner.
The policy was written by attorney Alan Wilion of the Los Angeles firm Wilion Kirkwood and Kessler.
“This policy is designed to enhance the first amendment while also protecting the rights of students as to their education,” said Wilion, who said he wrote it in response to a judge’s ruling that portions of a previous policy were invalid.
When amendments were made, the students filed another suit against the amendments.
“Since that time we have filed an appeal to the ninth circuit and tried to settle the lawsuit by adopting the new Policy 8000,” said Wilion.
The board also voted, 5-2, in closed session Tuesday to pay Wilion for his services. The district’s insurance carrier has not authorized payment for writing the policy, contending it had nothing to do with litigation, said Wagner, who disagreed with the view and voted to pay Wilion. The chancellor will take the bills back to the insurance company for review, Wagner said.
“My main objection was that we shouldn’t be enacting policy in this kind of fashion,” said Trustee Lang. “Policy should be broad statements about procedures. We should be affirming the belief of the district in freedom of speech, but within constraints of making sure students who are there to get an education are free to do so,” Lang said.
“Frankly, I don’t think we should be passing policy just to address certain lawsuits. In any case, I don’t agree with his (Wilion’s) interpretation of the judge’s decision.
“Are we saying we shouldn’t have any administrative regulations supporting policy?” Lang asked.
“A policy should not be a moving target, it should stand the test of time,” he added.
✅ May 18, 2000
Irvine World News
Largest Irvine Valley class to graduate
The Irvine Valley College commencement ceremony will honor 592 graduates and candidates on Friday, May 19, at 6 p.m. in the Student Services Center quad…This year’s faculty commencement speaker will be Jefferey Kaufmann, professor of biology….
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Mathur unsuccessfully attempted to block Kaufmann’s tenure last spring. Kaufmann has been a Mathur critic.]
✅ August ?, 2000
Excerpt from unpublished “Dissent” article
SOCCCD – Land o’ Lawsuits
Roy Bauer
During the summer, the life sciences faculty had managed to construct a small greenhouse on campus to be used for instruction. Indicating their desire to honor IVC’s first botanist, they afixed a plaque upon it, which said, the “Terry Burgess Greenhouse.” Mathur alerted Sampson who informed relevant parties that, according to board policy, only the board can name campus buildings. Amid protests—for the policy had never been enforced before--life sciences faculty complied with Mathur’s demand that the plaque be taken down. When a senior administrator hinted that there are no policies regarding the naming of gardens, the life sciences faculty, including Kaufmann, named the garden after Burgess.
Attorney Carol Sobel and CTA’s Margaret Hoyos accompanied Kaufmann to the disciplinary meeting, but he was informed by Mathur, who was accompanied by two administrators, that Kaufmann would be permitted only one companion. (Kaufmann chose Hoyos.) Despite the absence of any inquiry, Mathur had come to the meeting with a letter, citing insubordination, that, he said, would be placed in Kaufmann’s personnel file in 10 days. When Hoyos asked for the grounds for the action or an explanation of the evidence upon which the insubordination charge was being made, Mathur refused to answer and abruptly ended the meeting.
Mathur’s action will likely result in litigation…
* * * * *
✅ March 3, 2000
RELATED DEPOSITIONS (taken March 3, 2000)
