IVC ceremonial abbondanza!

IVC denizens received these two fliers today:

     Unremarkably, completion of the Liberal Arts Building is a year behind schedule owing to various snafus, at least some of which were the fault of the contractor(s). The building looks nice both inside and out. So far so good (though students have already taken possession of it, and I've barely been inside!).

     You'll recall that Burnett of Saddleback College and Roquemore of IVC have carried on an extended pissing contest over control of ATEP. At one point, the Chancellor (Poertner, who took a powder recently) had to step in, shut everybody up, and make like Solomon, promising each college their own building with precisely the same square footage. I bet Burnett's out there right now double-checking the new building's footprint, if it even has one yet (likely not).

     Maybe I should drive out there, to beauteous Tustin, along sunny Redhill, and see if there's any hideous ooze poking up from the carcinogenic toxic waste below. I should go at night to see if anybody's glowing or puking. Or maybe I should collect some dog sh*t and leave a nice, neat pile for all to see, with a sign saying, "Raghu P. Mathur commemorative sh*tpile." (As you know, former Chancellor Mathur long imagined that the ATEP facility would be his chance to get chiseled onto Mount Rushmore. Fat chance of that now. He'll have to settle for that sh*tpile.)

     I should wear tiger pants. 

     Which reminds me: a former IVC administrator once told me that he is determined to live just long enough to piss on Mathur's grave. I do believe he meant it. I really do.

     I should do likewise when the time comes.

25 months ago (now called the "Liberal Arts Building")

The May meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees: $17K Palm Springs stay for Administrators/Managers

     [See Tere's Board Meeting Highlights.]
     6:27 - no sign of the trustees yet. The meeting is supposed to start at 6:30. As you know, the board held a special meeting today at 4:00 p.m. (See agenda.) 

     6:29 - I've looked over the agenda for tonight's regular meeting. No "discussion" item tonight. Whew!
     Today's special meeting concerned "ATEP County of Orange Amended and Restated Land Exchange Agreement, Ground Lease and ATEP Report."
     Good grief. Will it never end?
     6:33 - VC Fitz just handed me the pamphlet that went along with the 4:00 presentation concerning ATEP. She directed me to some pages. Gosh thanks!
     I see that ATEP's "mission" is "to offer applied education and training programs in current and emerging technological careers driven by innovative business, industry and education partnerships."
     The vision? "As the premier center of career-technical education in OC, ATEP will prepare students in current and emerging technological careers for a globally competitive economy." —As usual, these things sound pretty buzz-wordular and trendy, as though they were written by marketing people, not academics.
     Looks like the toxicity of soil and water at the site remains a sticking point. The Navy will continue remediation. The "Navy's most recent estimate on when fee title can be transferred if additional testing is required is late 2018."

Students hangin' at the ATEP pond

     The report comprises sections in terms of "categories":

Land Use - Category 1 - Educational (51% minimum)
Allowed uses, Supportive uses

[Partial list of supportive uses: minor retail, post office, administrative offices, medical clinics, lab/offices for applied research, testing and consulting, industrial/commercial business incubators, commercial studios.]

Land Use - Category 2 - Non-educational (49% maximum)
Allowed Uses

[Allowed: income producing, including private sector uses as defined and allowed under the Tustin Specific Plan.]

Land Use - Category 2 - Non-Educational (49% maximum)
Prohibited Uses

 [Partial list: shopping or commercial strip malls over 15,00 sf, hotels and motels, thrift stores, flea markets, farmers market, auto sales, residential (except student housing), drive-through use, live entertainment....]

     The range of "potential bldg sq footage" has "increased." It was 893,851. The potential top end is now 1,710,780 (100% educational). Somehow, this 100% education sf figure involves: 51% education, 49% non-education, max = 1,087,000 sf. (Don't ask me what this means, I dunno.) [END]

And here we thought he was
gonna get canned!

     6:54 - I just spotted trustee TJ Prendergast, sporting his newly bald head. He looks mighty sheepish. He got scalped "for children's cancer." He's big on that sort of thing. One year he grew a mustache contra cancer or something.
     6:55 - Board Prez Tim Jemal just arrived, along with Chancellor Gary Poertner--and now Trustee Terri Whitt.
     6:57 - Dave Lang and Marcia Milchiker just arrived. I do believe I spotted Babs Jay earlier, but I could be wrong.
     Looks like they could be starting soon!

IT BEGINS
     6:59 - They reconvene. Lang is asked to report any actions in closed session. "Yes, 7/0, approved resignation of classified employee at IVC."
     Prendergast does "invocation." Refers to commonness of children's cancer. Moment of silence.
     Pledge of Allegiance
     Swearing in of new student trustee, Johnathan Forde. Big smiles all around.
     Photo op, applause.

     Public comments. There are two requests. First, Jan Mastrangelo. I think she's with Saddleback's classified senate.
     She comes up, backed by three classified employees (I assume). Classified employees week. Talks about "everyday heroes." A trip to Washington, D.C. Refers to successful negotiation of collective bargaining agreement. Wants to recognize the "everyday heroes" who were on the team. Mentions Bugay, Lorch, Doolittle, Quach, Cooper, et al. "People don't realize the amount of work that's involved in this." Mentions some U.S. history.... Blah blah blah. Thanks you all. Applause.

Board Reports:

Nurse pinning and, um, candle burning

     TJ Prendergast: went to OC School Board event. Presentation about a failure to ready students for something. (He seemed skeptical.) My hair is growing back in--wife's happy about that. Large amount of money collected, etc. Looks forward to Commencement.
     Babs Jay: attended 9 events. The Saddleback Vet program--best program in the nation, founded by Tod Burnett. Many across the country visit our campus. Tod Burnett named "administrator/manager of the year" by somebody. May 10 Foundation board committee meeting. 558 Scholarships will be given, amounts to $452K. IVC's special services recognition program on Friday. A wonderful breakfast was served. Many students recognized. Attended nurse pinning ceremony. Went to Saddleback Foundation event, included special Bill Jay scholarship. A very special event, great event. Wonderful.
     Timothy Jemal: attended nurse pinning ceremony, exciting and enthusiastic affair, as always. Males actually got some awards, he notes. (Har har.) Spoke at Saddleback Scholarship awards event. Wants to thanks especially Tod Burnett, his leadership: "tireless work ethic in the community." Golly, they seem to be falling all over themselves praising the Todster (who is absent).
     James Wright: attended about seven events, most very well done. Attended OC School Board Association. Richard Holly, speaker. Women seem to be awarded most degrees these days. Holly explained his research. Ideas about helping young men, boys to succeed. Attended Vets end-of-year celebration. Special recognitions. Attended Cinco de Mayo event. Makes special note of college wide recognition of faculty and staff, informal celebration. One award in particular: IVC robotics activities group. "They won first place in the ground robot division...first responders...structural collapse." Competition held in April. Gave him a decal--that, in turn, Wright now gives to Tim Jemal, who seems bewildered.
     Dave Lang: Congrats to former student trustee Mommand. Good wishes to Johnathan Forde, new trustee. We've had wonderful student trustees, he says. We'll be recognizing a number of employees in a resolution today. Congrats to all individuals that will be mentioned there. Prez Roquemore's report: mentions various faculty. Recognized by UCI, named by transfer students--influenced their academic achievement when the went on to UCI. "Very meaningful, as far as I'm concerned." Looking forward to Commencement.
     Marcia Milchiker: attended 20 events! She reads through list. Lariat open house, One College One Book, etc. IVC student debate presentation. Newly tenured faculty event at IVC. Cinco de Mayo. Etc. She runs through list, hurriedly, in her inimitable Marcia-esque manner.
     Terri Whitt: quickly for the sake of time, she says. Networking session of OC board of Ed, blah blah blah. Tried to make it to IVC recognition event. Attended nurse pinning events. "Every single pinning ceremony comes with more integrity, more fun." Saddleback Foundation retreat. It was valuable.
     Jemal introduces student trustee Forde, who speaks. Attended student government award ceremony at IVC. Attended various events. Thanks all of the students for allowing him this opportunity to serve as trustee. Looking forward to it. Wants to serve the needs of students.

     Chancellor's Report: Gary Poertner: a large number of end-of-year activities. It's always a rush. Wants to take this opportunity to thank all of our employees (3600 of 'em) to help those students who are sitting in those chairs. Particularly the faculty. Those who won't teach during the summer, I wish you well, hope you come back refreshed!

     Prez Glenn Roquemore (IVC): blah blah blah. Introduces a new director, who stands. He reads the usual biographical factoids.
     Prez Tod Burnett (couldn't attend). Somebody (Juan) pinch hits. Highlights the scholarship event. 450 students received scholarships! Major increase. Employee/student recognition on Wednesday (this is a new thing). Commencement: the ultimate celebration of student success. Welcomes new student trustee.
     Saddleback College student government kid thanks everybody. Now I can go to UC Berkeley, he says. I've learned so much, I'm very grateful. Our big needs at Saddleback: facilities, the cafeteria, some restrooms need repair, the vet center (too small). Hopes the stadium will be built. Very excited about water refill station project. Thanks Tod Burnett for great help. Thanks Marcia Milchiker for attending events. "Go Gauchos," he says, upon Jemal's prompting. Some kinda inside joke.

     No board requests for reports. Haven't forgotten about Workday, says Jemal. Report will be given at June meeting. Due to the ATEP hearing today, we had to delay this.

     No discussion item.

     Now: consent calendar. Jemal pulls 5.5. [Turns out it's been removed.] Others: 5.13, 5.2, 5.14, 5.19. Balance is approved. Unanimous yes vote.

     5.2 - Marcia: instead of reading these resolutions, we put them on consent calendar. (She doesn't like it.) We should recognize these people in public. Let's have this item on the regular agenda so we can blather about it.
     Jemal asks for the Chancellor to address that, since this request (to move the item to consent calendar) came from colleges.
     Gary: the Presidents concurred. Takes a lot of time at a board meeting to read many resolutions as we have here today. Etc. The new recognition events are for this purpose. So that's the rationale. We still give employee of year awards, teaching awards. They are honored at meetings.
     Jemal: you want some kind of public recognition. (Marcia: don't need to read the whole resolution. Yes that takes time.) Prendergast suggests discussing this issue at "Saturday's retreat."
     Unanimous yes vote.
     5.13 - do we have replacement boats? Yes. Unanimous yes.
     5.14 - Marcia: Neudesic involved in this. She's unclear. Guitar boy (Bramucci) explains. Jemal: how much business do we give to Neudesic? Blah blah blah. They vote: unanimous yes.

     5.19 - ADMINISTRATORS AND MANAGERS RETREAT IN PALM SPRINGS. Babs Jay: April contracts. She mentions something about Workday. Fitz explains. A contract with Workday, employ their recruitment module. Jay: was this included in original agreement? No. Hyatt Hotels and Resort mentioned. Why Palm Springs? Fitz: that's the decision of managers' retreat. Jay: sounds like an awful lot of money. Fitz: "yes it is." Juan says something, "that's where we always go." Jay: how many people are going? A: 40 or 50 managers.
     Prendergast: back on Workday thing. Wants to know if it is like such-and-such program. Bugay explains about the module. Recruiting service module. Accessible from our college website. Blah blah blah. Bugay: we use the "registry." State-wide for CCs. They vote: unanimous yes.

General Action Items:

It's not exorbitant at all!

6.1 - consolidated Elections for members of Gov boards. Unanimous yes.
6.2 - District emergency operations plan. Bramucci: have to have on file according to state. They vote: unanimous yes.
6.3 - IVC Barranca Entrance Project. "Long awaited," says Jemal. There's some laughter in the audience. $1.5 million. They vote: unanimous.
6.4 - Board Policy Revision - accept for review, study. Blah blah blah. Unanimous yes.
6.5 - Board Policy Revision - Unanimous yes.
6.6 - Academic Personnel Items. - Unanimous yes.
6.7 - Classified Personnel Items. - Jemal has a question. Could you discuss the reclassification? Roquemore: college has been faced with issues, meeting the "thirst" of our institution for market and outreach. Over 600 jobs in the cue. We're finding it difficult for this dept to keep up with this work. Creates stress. There's an importance to marketing. Trying to solve that problem, did research, worked with outside firm to get combination....
     Jemal: do you feel confident in this? Is it a Reorg? Roquemore: a reclassification, not a reorg. Jemal: OK. Prendergast: the jump in salary range seems high. 16 to 21, 8 to 10. Seems like a big leap. Is it that much more work? How does that work? Roquemore: more work and more responsible work. The dollar amounts are...we've been able to find budget for that. An executive director, similar to foundation ex director. "There's some dollars there," but it's not exorbitant at all. Prendergast: different kind of oversight for new role? Jemal: yes, should be different. Roquemore: will add a report for a total of 12. Will report to me. Jemal: got it. They vote: unanimous.
6.8 - Sabbatical rescindment, a faculty member. Unanimous
6.9 - destruction of records. Marcia: do codes tell you which records are being destroyed? Bugay: we have sophisticated system. Annual item. We're following the laws. Prendergast: is this shredding? Do we do it? Bugay: we do it for the most part. Some electronic. They vote: unanimous.
6.10 - Equal employment opportunity plan. Bugay explains. Lang: how does this plan differ from prior plans? Bugay: we've not had such a detailed plan before. This is the template we're supposed to have across the state. They vote: unanimous.
6.11 - CSEA tentative agreement, master agreement. Move approval. They vote: unanimous.

REPORTS:

7.1 - Profs of the year. Juan identifies them. (For names, check out Tere's Board Meeting Highlights in a couple of days.) Wright: praises an instructor: second time he's won. "A wonderful instructor."
7.2 - SC and IVC speakers.
7.3 - Basic Aid report - no changes since last month.
7.4 - Monthly financial status report
7.5 - Facilities plan status report. Brandye suddenly appears, ever-so-slightly less smiley than usual. Wright is worried about some project. Brandye: projected completion date not impacted at this time, she says.
7.6 - Quarterly investment report

8.0 Reports from Admin and Governance Groups

...I'm outa here! [8:04 p.m.]

Fireside Chat #2

     South Orange County Community College District Chancellor Gary Poertner has issued yet another of his “Chancellor’s Perspectives,” which, coming within memory of his predecessor's 8-year reign of (essentially) Republican misrule (see The Wrecking Crew), come across like goshdarn Rooseveltian fireside chats. I present an abridged version. (Do use the link to read the whole thing.)
     The upshot is that, in the last year, substantial steps have been taken to remove obstacles (apneas?) to what I’ve called the “ATEP dream," i.e., the flowering of fancy and impressive technical whizbangery, including partnerships with Big Money People, out where the Marines used to keep their helicopters in Tustin. 
     Perhaps most crucial were the two acts of clarification—regarding ATEP “ownership” (between the two colleges)—that occurred at Monday’s meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees. 
     For IVC, it was a "good news/bad news" development. On the one hand, the notion nurtured at the college that IVC has special ownership of ATEP is now, officially, toast. On the other hand, Poertner's Solomonic decision to cut ATEP in half--each college gets half of the baby, including matching pink and blue buildings of equal square footage!--really favors IVC, given that Saddleback College is twice IVC's size. (On the third hand, there's so much space out at ATEP, each college can pretty much pursue its own projects and programs; but the money's still gotta come from the district, and it's hard to imagine that that moola will be equal. It'll likely go to whoever's got the tastier plans to sell to the BOT. Am I wrong?)

CHANCELLOR’S PERSPECTIVE:

     It has been 13 months since I became Chancellor and promised in my first opening session to facilitate a resolution on issues related to ATEP, including what its focus would be and whether it would involve one or two colleges. Over the past several years, the district and colleges have struggled with ATEP issues that caused unnecessary friction district-wide. I have worked diligently to facilitate discussions with the college presidents and board of trustees in order to resolve these issues that impede progress. I am happy to report the following accomplishments and outcomes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND APPROVALS
     There were many policy decisions that needed to be made in order to pave the way for progress. Over the past year, the board of trustees:
     Reaffirmed their values and commitment to all students in the SOCCCD service area by reiterating that ATEP is, and always was, intended for both colleges to develop career technical education, workforce development and advanced technology training in order to meet the priorities set by the Board of Governors and State Chancellor’s office and contribute to the economy. At the board meeting earlier this week, the board approved two agenda items related to this. The first was to re-affirm the colleges’ original service areas and to identify ATEP as an independent service area for use by both colleges for career technical, workforce development and advanced technology training. The second agenda item specified that the land at ATEP would be available to both colleges in equal proportions.
. . .
     Reallocated and approved $12.5 million in basic aid to help pay for the next buildings.
. . .
     Supported discussions with the City of Tustin and County of Orange to facilitate land swaps of equal proportion that will provide an improved land configuration and allow for increased square footage build-out and better traffic flow. It is estimated that we could build between 900,000 and 1.7 million square feet on the 68 acres. That is enough square footage for the two colleges to do just about any programs they want, and it will also provide the district with ample land to develop partnerships to help pay for it….
     Heard presentations from the colleges in September and December about proposed programs and partnership development for the site….

No fireside chats for Mathur, unless
he was roasting someone on a spit

DELINEATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
     At this point, policy decisions have been made, barriers have been removed and the board has signaled its support to accelerate the development at ATEP. Who will be responsible for what? District Services will continue to oversee site development, facilities planning, future partner ground and space lease agreements and funding efforts as is the case with other district/college development projects. The colleges will be responsible for identifying instructional programs, developing curriculum and offering classes at ATEP through their own planning processes. The college presidents are providing leadership to collaborate on a mutual agreement that will define the programs each college will offer at ATEP. As soon as this is accomplished, architectural programming, site planning and pending funding pursuits for the next buildings can continue.
     The work that was appropriate for District Services, putting the foundation in place for the project to proceed, has been accomplished for the initial college building phases. Now the responsibility lies with the college presidents, academic senates, faculty and staff to make this goal and board direction a reality.
     Everything is now in place for real progress to be made at ATEP and I hope that resolving these lingering issues will pave the way for increased cooperation and collaboration district-wide so we can move forward to better serve the needs of our community….

p.s.
     In his “OC Politics” blog, occasionally self-destructive and routinely off-the-wall local politico, Art Pedroza, has written a semi-critical (and vaguely laudatory) “good-bye” to Tom Fuentes: O.C. Republicans Fuentes and Royce, Sr. wrap up their political careers. You might find it semi-amusing. Probably not.

January's meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees: despite some friction, ATEP moves forward

     (See Tere's Board Highlights. Also: streaming video.)
     It’s time once again for the monthly meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees—that clueless crew that gets together exactly once a month to make decisions that they seem perennially incompetent to make. Well, at least the board is much less political than it used to be. How come? Fortuity, mostly.
     Luckily, these days, we have a Chancellor who is very familiar with the colleges and who generally steers the board clear of folly.
     Presently, the colleges await their fate at the hands of the accreditors, a crew that manages to be as clueless, in their own way, as trustees. Thou shalt devote many hours per faculty to SLOs, saith the accreditors. Would any intelligent being approach college accountability via SLOs? Absolutely not. Will that factoid slow the SLO speedwagon? Absolutely not. Can one find otherwise intelligent people defending this SLO cluster****? Yessireebob.
     Plus there is our district’s (i.e., our board’s) continued embrace of the ATEP "dream," aka tossing big chunks of taxpayer money at the dirt 'n' derelicts of the old Tustin helicopter station in hopes of yielding—well, we-know-not-what. Reminding one of Sayre’s Law, in recent years, the ATEP “dream” has inspired a turf war between the district’s two colleges. It appears that, tonight, Chancellor Poertner will make like Solomon and cut that baby clean in two.
     Long-term, the district faces serious money issues, like everyone else (see We need a $billion), but, short-term, we’re in high cotton—though said cotton (the basic aid gravy train) is projected to shrink with each year. Further, there are those in this state who, with increasing passion and focus, seek to toss us into the weeds along with everyone else.
     About that, nervousness prevails.

* * *

     It's 6:27, and the meeting is supposed to start at 6:30. A jacket hangs over Board President Nancy Padberg's chair, but no Nancy. Hmmmm.
     6:40 — looks like the trustees are emerging. Roquemore and Poertner are huddling together. Looks pretty serious, i.e., Glenn doesn't have his usual plastic grimace.
     6:44 — Nancy arrives.  Aha! Bill Jay has returned (he's been absent for months). Now, if Tom Fuentes shows up, I'm just gonna freak! (He doesn't.)
     6:46 — Nancy looks like she's ready for business. TJ Prendergast is talking with her. Everybody's here but Tom Fuentes, who I half expected to show up tonight just to piss me off. He's like that.
     6:48 — Silence! The meeting begins!

     Actions taken in closed session: nothing of consequence.
     Lang does non-religious invocation. Pledge of Allegiance.

     Resolutions:
     (1) IVC comes up to receive a "resolution" for being selected as a "military-friendly school." So, as usual, somebody's getting a prize for getting a prize. Later, no doubt, IVC will get a prize for getting this resolution, ad infinitum. We get to use a "military-friendly" logo. I wonder if the logo will get a prize?
     8 or so people stand up there near Glenn Roquemore basking in their resolutionariness. Marcia reads the resolution. "Very exciting," says Marcia, with little excitement. (She makes up for that a moment later by saying "aye" with such staccato violence that I have gone deaf.) There's applause. Speechifying occurs.
     Glenn shows the plaque; he says he won't read it cuz it repeats what's already been said seven times. A photo op.
     (2) Saddleback College President's Award for "leadership and innovation." Marcia produces much confusion over who should mention recipients—to the amusement of all. One of the honor recipients "passed away recently," says Burnett, which kind of takes the starch out of the thing. Some of the usual suspects up there: Claire, et al. No doubt they are deserving. Burnett explains that they're "all nominated by their colleagues."

     PUBLIC COMMENTS:
     Anna Maria Cobos — librarian, chair. Speaks in support of Academic Senate resolution (see later) re name of Library. She hopes that everyone will return in the fall to what is "really a new building." Let's embrace this by renaming it. (She joins the SC academic senate in asking that it no longer be named after James B. Utt, right-wing lunatic.)
     Joseph Hassine and Shireen Ebrahim — two student leaders. An issue has been brought to us. UCLA has John Wooden. Boston U has MLK. Saddleback C has Ronald Reagan. Here we have "James B. Utt." He explains Utt's record. He quotes Utt's notorious remark about "barefooted Africans," etc., and mentions his opposition to Civil Rights legislation, etc. As a student, says Joseph, I believe that the college promotes diversity. James B. Utt doesn't stand for those things. Encourages the board to rename the library.

     BOARD REPORTS:
     Bill Jay — Glad to be vertical for a while. Thanks for the get-well cards, letters, etc.
     Frank Meldau — wants to take a personal moment to introduce daughter, Anna, in the audience (she's very embarrassed, but she stand up; very attractive young lady). Looks forward to meeting with Chancellor. Will attend games, etc. Looking forward to "Astounding Inventions" this weekend at IVC.
     Marcia Milchiker — we're delighted to have you back, Bill. Attended budget workshop at Saddleback College. Fitzsimons ran it, did a great job. We're doing great compared to many other colleges. We hire the best, and they're doing a great job. You can watch a video of the presentation.
     TJ Prendergast — Got to attend staff holiday event at IVC. There's a photo out there of me wearing antlers. Attended intersession BBQ at IVC. Will be at Astounding Inventions.
     Nancy Padberg — Missed the Presidents' cup games (IVC vs. SC basketball). The Academic Senate gave to SOCCCD services a plaque. She holds this up. Went to some event where our new trustee area boundaries were approved. Astounding Inventions this Saturday.
     Dave Lang — Happy New Year. Wasn't aware of Trustee Jay's health travails — I'm glad that's he's back. Lang says there are some commentaries out there about areas and constituencies—driven by "student success" mandate that we now have. We'll need to spend more time on these areas as a board. Core (?) constituences—Emeritus, Community Education—I would hate to see reductions there. Those areas are important to us, especially to Saddleback College. Looking forward to those discussions.
     Student trustee: (Nancy briefly skips this kid's turn and he either feigns or actually has a look, unmistakebly communicating offense. Sheesh.) Goes on about how he has managed to avoid buying textbooks, and yet has a 3.3 GPA. (Golly.) Goes to the Library and rents textbooks. Asks the board, please enable books to be rented. That would help lots of students.
     Chancellor Poertner: two areas, already mentioned. One, redistricting approval from OC committee on school district organization. Student success task force? We'll wait to see what this means to us. We do not know yet.
     Board requests for reports? None.

     Discussion item: none tonight.
     Consent calendar. Only one item pulled.

Solomon's wisdom

   6.1 Service areas. IVC, Saddleback, and ATEP
     Gary Poertner: board actions requested to help define development of ATEP. We're trying to answer the question: is ATEP within any particular service area? What about on ATEP campus?
     Last spring, there was much discussion about whether there is a boundary line that defines the service areas. The notion of El Toro Rd. as boundary line came up. (We see crude map.) Research was done. The board defined this boundary in 1985, when IVC was first approved as an independent college. Foresaw possible difficulties.
     This issue did come up to some degree. Well, if this is the line, does it follow that ATEP belongs to IVC? This agenda item reaffirms the line, but says that ATEP is not included in this definition. Back in 1985, there was no ATEP. Probably want to act on this first.

Lisa Davis Allen

     IVC Senate President Lisa Davis Allen: some concerns expressed by IVC faculty. I'm requesting that we delay this item for one month for opportunity to get clarification for concerned faculty.
     Padberg: this isn't about programs. I don't see the problem.
     LDA: faculty have concerns about the service areas. The notion that IVC has area to north, etc.
     Prendergast: can we wait a month, Gary?
     Poertner: one month will likely not matter, unless it concerns the "new market tax credits." We need a program design for that. So we need to settle who has programs at ATEP. I don't know if this makes a difference.
     Fitzsimons (Vice Chancellor of Business Services): yes, a month would make a difference. We need to show progress, and we're behind. Waiting could jeopardize our funding.
     Poertner: Is it one college or two colleges at ATEP? 6.1 settles only that. (I'm not sure I understood his point.)
     Padberg: I don't think we ever intended that the whole thing (ATEP) would go to one college! It would be very unfair to have all of that acreage controlled by one college.
     Prendergast: we've been given clear presentations from both campuses—a month ago—so I don't understand what IVC faculty are concerned about.
     LDA: I have received concerns from IVC faculty. They seek clarification on the service area inside ATEP—how it will create problems for the larger service area of IVC.
     Padberg: I don't hear you saying the type of concerns.
     Lang: I'm a bit confused about why IVC faculty need more time. This has been a long-standing issue in the district. I realize that there are lots of internal politics about this issue. But the Chancellor is only asking for clarification: are both colleges participating here, programatically? How would feedback in a month change anything?
     LDA: Saddleback College senate was not made aware of programs until December. This hasn't been "shared out" to our senate either. Faculty have not been informed of programatic decisions(?). (I think that's what she's saying. Not sure.)
     Padberg: this has been on agenda repeatedly. If faculty haven't paid attention, they bear some responsibility. We need to move forward. Nothing here will impact either college.
     Meldau: the board wants to allow both campuses to make use of the facility, have programs.  All we're asking here is to agree that there is an interest in having both colleges have access to land at ATEP. (Meldau has definitely been speaking up more in recent months. A good thing, I think.)
     Matter carries unanimously.

Exhibit B: ATEP à la Solomon. Saddleback pink, IVC blue

     6.2. Next question. How will each college participate in the ATEP property? Shows a map (exhibit B; see above). We don't actually own the property below the pink line on the map. We've been told for years that this would be settled. In the short run, we'll try to avoid land we can't build on. So we asked planners to plan so that both colleges share the land that we can build on. There's so much square footage here, there's lots of room for both colleges. Two sections: one for IVC, the other for SC. They are equivalent. Pink and blue on the map. We designate the "pink" building as SC; and the blue as IVC's building. For as long as there's disagreement, we can't go forward. We can always go back and repair our decision if it proves problematic. So 6.2 concerns these two 5 acre sections only (above the pink line).
     Lang: I do have a problem here. Why can't we share the space of two buildings between the two colleges. Why are we locking into each college getting its own building?
     Poertner: Saddleback's proposed use will be harder to share. Joint use of the facility would not be possible.
     Lang: let's leave our options open here. Those with the best plans and programs should get set up first. Why lock into this two building idea? I have a problem with this concept plan.
     Padberg: seems angry: Why don't you make an amendment to the motion? she shouts. Or so it seems to me, but I'm sensitive, as you know.
     Lang: tries to speak, Nancy says no, others get to talk, dude.
     Milchiker: we've been discussing ATEP for "way too long." (Understatement of the century.) We learned that ATEP cannot be run by the district. So each college has to have their own programs on ATEP, if there is to be accreditation. So we should give a portion to IVC, a portion to SC. Let's get moving. We can change things later. This will force the two colleges to start planning. So let's approve this. (I'm weirded out by how sensible Marcia sounds tonight.)
     Poertner: another thought: when we begin building this out, there's nothing stopping us from sharing the first building and working out an agreement until the other building is built, etc. It is not absolutely necessary to have two buildings, but we've got to say there are two colleges, and here's each one's space. We need to make this decision. Let's go forward.
     Prendergast: there's plenty of space out there. We don't have to worry about equity between the colleges. This is just getting the ball rolling.
     Meldau: I like the idea of splitting the land. We have to get started. The process is taking way too long — it seems to drag out. Nothing we're doing here will inhibit process going forward. We want to get moving.
     Lang: I don't want to delay the project any further either. I want to ask the Chancellor: how important is exhibit B (the map with two buildings) to the item?
     Poertner: if we don't make a decision, we'll get in dutch with the tax credit thing.
     Fitzsimons: we need parameters here. She goes into the tax credit stuff and my eyes are glazing over. We need to provide specific detail to give confidence to investors. We don't have that now.
     Jay: this gives maximum flexibility, so will support it.
     They vote: unanimous.

     6.3 Nomination of blah, blah, blah.
     6.4 review and study of policy revisions. Accepted, unanimously
     6.5 Sabbaticals....
     Milchiker: read all of the 19 sabbatical proposals. Fascinating. Can we have a presentation to the board of these sabbaticals?
     LDA: it's a requirement to report results. Some of these can be presented to board. Sure.

     6.6 Academic Personnel actions. Carries unanimously.
     6.7 Classified Personnel actions. Carries unanimously.
   
Reports: (little or no discussion throughout)
     7.1 Speakers
     7.2 Basic Aid report
     7.3 Retirement trust fund
     7.4 Facilities plan status report
     7.5 Financial status report
     7.6 Interfund transfer of cash

Written reports: shared governance groups, etc.

James B. Utt

     Saddleback College Academic Senate: resolution read. (See it here.) Senate recommends that the Library be renamed. Mentions Utt's record and remarks. The Library was never properly named. Senate Prez wants to "encourage" this as agenda item.
     IVC Academic Senate, LDA: mentions lecture series, etc.
. . .
     IVC President Roquemore: presentation before accreditors (ACCJC). Based on smiles in the room, seemed to go well. (Uh-oh.)
     Saddleback Prez Burnett: also presented before the ACCJC. We hired a new financial aid directors. "We stoled him." Blah, blah, blah
   Etc.

     I should add that at least one student group (Saddleback College student government) supported the Saddleback College Academic Senate "library" resolution. So the trustees were getting it from all directions.
     That was about it.

SEE ALSO: The December board meeting: ATEP of the mind

North blimp hanger to be saved? Et cetera

     LOOKS LIKE the north hangar of the old Tustin base might be saved after all.
     According to this morning’s OC Reg (County has plans for north blimp hangar), “OC Parks Director Mark Denny will be presenting a concept plan outlining a future for the north hangar during an Orange County Parks Commission meeting in January.”
     It’ll become a park:

Denny said the county is looking at creating a park on the 85 acre site with space for parking, grass, picnic shelters, exercise space, a trail and possibly a lake. The park also should preserve the historic nature of the site, he said.

     Meanwhile, the southern hanger is still slated for destruction.
     Some of the buildings near the north hanger might be preserved as well.
     A firm was hired back in 2010 “to create a conceptual site plan, technical and cost analysis related to development of the former base site.” Tait and Associates is one of trustee Fuentes’ old employers. Yeah.
     The good old SOCCCD gets a mention:

Empty space across the county fence could also become a future 40-acre high school site adjacent to another city park. In another spot, land sits waiting for the South Orange County Community College District's Advanced Technology and Education Park and a 5-acre animal shelter.

• Catholic League Bashes Gustavo for Pedo-Priest Articles; Gustavo Responds! (Navel Gazing)
• Let's make textbooks affordable (LA Times)
• Cal State campuses overwhelmed by remedial needs (Contra Costa Times)
     Wracked with frustration over the state's legions of unprepared high school graduates, the California State University system next summer will force freshmen with remedial needs to brush up on math or English before arriving on campus.

Our pal G spotted recently jogging in O'Neill Park

• Of Hume and Bondage (New York Times)
• Detailing the For-Profit Lobbying Campaign (Inside Higher Ed)
     The successful lobbying campaign by for-profit higher education to scale back the Obama administration's "gainful employment" regulations is no secret, but an article Saturday in The New York Times provided an in-depth look at the effort:

• For-profit colleges and associations spent more than $16 million on lobbying, with much of the money going to Democrats with ties to the White House.
• The biggest spender in the lobbying effort was The Washington Post Company, owner of Kaplan University ($1.71 million), followed by the Coalition for Educational Success ($1.65 million), Career Education Corporation ($1.60 million), the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities [Devry, ITT, National, Kaplan, etc.]  ($1.45 million), and the Apollo Group [University of Phoenix] ($1.43 million).

• Key Congressman Begins Inquiry Into Executive Pay at For-Profit Colleges (Chronicle of Higher Education)

The December board meeting: ATEP of the mind

 

     6:06 p.m. – The meeting starts!
     Nancy Padberg's invocation begins, "Dear heavenly father, we honor this blessed season tonight in recognition of the birth of Jesus Christ." She throws something in there, too, about Hanukkah.
     Marcia Milchiker reads out actions taken in closed session: (1) a full-time student was expelled.

Yearly organizational meeting (upshot: they roll over the existing leadership team):

• TJ Prendergast nominates incumbent Nancy Padberg for board Prez. Unanimous (with Tom Fuentes and Bill Jay absent; Jay was absent for the last two meetings, I believe. Fuentes has appeared only once since last March).
• Marcia nominates incumbent TJ Prendergast for VP. Unanimous.
• Frank Meldau nominates incumbent Marcia M for clerk. Unanimous.
• Etc. Things proceed agreeably. No "no" votes on anything. [Dave Lang did not mess with the ducks, so carefully placed in a row.]

Special meeting of the Board of Directors, etc.
. . .

[ATEP LAND EXCHANGE]
     6.1, 6.2, 6.3 advanced: public hearing, change of properties with County of Orange, at ATEP.
     Andy Bernstein, our counsel, speaks, presents "land exchange agreement." It concerns two ten-acre parcels. The County land is actually owned by the Navy. According to this plan, the Navy would give the ten acre parcel to the City of Tustin; and Tustin would give it to the district. Then the district would bury it with a bone.
     Various steps must be completed. One has occurred. We have a period of time to complete other conditions.This exchange would benefit both the district and the County, says Andy. (It appears that the current district 10 acres is adjacent to the Rancho Santiago CCD parcel of 15 acres. Maybe we just don't wanna be near those guys. Could be.)
     Dave Lang mentions that members of the public, too, can ask questions. Jeremy Something-or-other now discusses details of the exchange. Blah, blah, blah about environmental this and that. "Impacts" for the two parcels are the same!
     TRUSTEE QUESTIONS?: None. They're obviously really on top of it.
     Nancy opens the "public hearing." No one wants to speak. (Well, the public didn't show.) She closes the public hearing.
     They move on to 6.2, a "resolution" concerning this land exchange. Trustees vote. Unanimous.
     6.3, another resolution re land exchange. Unanimous.

     They advance 6.4 (district annual audit report)
     A suit walks up, presents. Says: counted those beans, and it's all good. The audit followed the usual standards. No restrictions placed on us; we could get anything we asked for. We're giving an unqualified opinion. We're external auditors: examining analysis provided by management.
     With regard to medical: no unfunded liability. Good.
     We found some items that should be corrected and management agreed. Not material to financial statement. Hunky dory.
     LAB ISSUE. State compliance finding (special areas examined based on state requirements): [Note: a "finding" appears to be a finding of fault or noncompliance.]
     Only one. TBA hours. Where a student has taken a lab, attached to a course. The existing tracking system didn't meet state requirements, in our opinion. Management has reviewed that, agreed to that finding.
     Yammers about earlier findings and corrections.
     Any questions? No.
     Motion to accept (for review?) Unanimous.

     Foundation audit: Sounds good. No identified weaknesses in two foundation audits.
     Lang motions to accept: unanimous.

RESOLUTION: Saddleback College Student Winners, College Broadcasters, Inc., National Student Production Awards. (October) — One member of the team has a blazing pink Mohawk. The others are relatively subdued. (Some leather.)
     Marcia offers a long preface to the resolution (Nancy is quietly peeved). Then she reads it. In Orlando, F'L, blah, blah, blah.... "From Bullets to Bubbles." Disabled veterans, scuba diving. Jazz radio program.
     Trustees do a roll call vote. —It's the usual: these kids are getting a prize for getting a prize. Later, they'll get a prize for getting that last prize for getting a prize. Repeat.
     Mohawk Girl comes up to speak. She's a good speaker. Excellent earrings. Has to run to her radio show, she says. She's actually landed a real job owing to all this! "You can tell that I'm the DJ," she says.

Public comments: none

Board Reports:

     Frank Meldau: no report, but wishes everybody happy holidays. (I hear a single cricket chirp.)
     Marcia Milchiker: draws attention to holiday programs at the colleges. She Marcia-izes awhile about all of the "wonderfulness" she has experienced at the colleges. What would that woman do without the word "wonderful"? She's like Lawrence Welk.
     TJ Prendergast: he says he went to a dance event at IVC. Especially liked the "dancing turtles." Thanks for rating my "mo," he says.
     Nancy Padberg: wishes everyone a wonderful holiday season.
     Dave Lang: wanted to "announce" those public schools that did so well on test scores (see the papers). Wished everyone happy holidays.
     Student trustee Jordan Larson: got accepted to CSU Fullerton. Took a bow. Happy holidays.
Chancellor's report [Gary Poertner]: mentions upcoming presentation of proposed programs, etc., for ATEP. Etc.
     Says he has a plaque for Nancy Padberg—honoring her service as President. He reads the plaque. "I suspect you'll be getting another one of these," he says. Laughter.
     Nancy: "hey, the last one I got had a gavel!"
     "These are difficult financial times...," says Gary. Laughter.

     Board requests for reports: Prendergast asks, can we plant a tree to replace all the paper we use for these dang meetings? Nancy notes that he'll have to ask for a report about the cost, which will entail grindin' up that very tree. Laughter.

PROPOSALS FOR ATEP:

[Upshot: IVC will focus on emerging technologies; Saddleback will focus on health care.]

     1. Craig Justice (IVC VPI) comes up to present proposals for ATEP [for IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE]. Nancy stares at him for a moment and then says something like, "Who are you?"
     Craig introduces himself. He discusses "emerging technologies and a "world class workforce." That's IVC's focus for ATEP.
     He throws out the usual buzz words re ATEP. Pretty old stuff, old promises and plans. It's like he ate one of those ten-year-old pamphlets.
     Mentions ATEP's proximity to other areas in the County. A significant advantage to be so central. "We don't make any decisions without data at Irvine Valley College," he announces, without irony. (Some tittering. Just in my head, I guess.) He's joined by Lisa Davis Allen (IVC Ac. Sen. Prez) and Dr. Werle.
     LDA: happy to be part of this. Mentions "multimedia green technology" and something-or-other.
Talks about using "anchors." Yammers about digital media and 3D animation. "A good anchor as we spread to ATEP," she says. These people like their buzzwords, man. What's the matter with 'em?
     Good numbers in OC for projected openings in multimedia arts jobs/needs.
     Recording technology and entertainment businesses. Simulation and gaming design. These areas are hot.

Justice

     Partnerships: mentioned Boeing, Raytheon, Blizzard. Pipe dreams?
     Werle: 2nd anchor area: Alternative energy systems." Will "burgeon" in the future.
     As the economy gets stronger, green technology will explode in terms of jobs. Solar. Zero waste management. Green is profitable. Toyota, Edison, US DoL looking for energy efficiency, partnership opportunities. Synergies. (That word should be banned.)
     Applied technology is another "hub area." Biomedical, etc. Product development.
     Justice: re facilities: 30K square feet facility (to be built).
We were invited to stare at these words: Flexibility. Innovation. Exhibition. Not sure why. [Kill me now.]
     Gives a "virtual tour" of the "space." Welcoming area. Administration, reception, conference room. Discusses future state-of-the-art media labs with computers. Multimedia labs: students working with instructors on computers. (They shoulda put a cam on some kid's head—or maybe on an ATEP rat—for a day and then showed it at X10 speed. Show some imagination, man!)
     A 30K square foot building will have 16-17K square foot classroom space, says Craig. We'll be able to schedule efficiently. Projected yield: 650-700 FTES. A large auditorium, 75 seats. We've got a room like that at BSTIC, very flexible, etc.
     We anticipate 4-6 state of art computer labs. Discusses outdoor solar lab.
     Mentions government agencies that have an interest in partnering with us. (Dept. of Synergy, etc.)
     And so IVC is poised and ready to "deliver the goods," says Craig, proudly. We want to be that workforce training hub. Our Academic Senate has endorsed it with a "position paper." Happy about that. That closes our presentation.
     QUESTIONS: None.

     2. SADDLEBACK'S presentation: she [the woman didn't identify herself] refers to a handout that trustees will get later, when they can go through it slowly. IVC has focused on emerging technologies. We've chosen to focus on an old area:health care. We'd like to share vision for a center for innovation blah, blah, blah.
     Uses example of Capt. Sullenberger landing that plane in the drink—he had only done that before on a simulator. [Ooooh.]
     Vision: to establish a regional simulated healthcare center. She shows a picture with all of the elements pointing to the middle. So Cal is in need of this facility. Mentions: medical records, wellness center, training center, emergency dept. Patient care. Labs. Patient services.
     Blah, blah, blah.... This gal is really into the dynamics of pausing and getting hushed, and then building up to something dramatic. You know, it's a kind of rhetoric, a style. I think she would have done as well discussing peanuts and gravel. I guess that's good. I hated it. She was really selling this thing, relying greatly on Saddleback nursing's established shiny reputation and morgue of old pics. (It's the old, "We're Saddleback nursing. Nuff said. So genuflect and step out of the way, fool!")
     Turns it over to Tammy Rice: she says they'll focus on three areas of training: allied health students, health care professionals, community participants. (Huh?) Blah, blah, blah. I guess she's discussing "revenue and funding opportunities."
     QUESTIONS?: Prendergast: any plan re epidemics, that sort of thing? Yes, through EMS.
     Diane Pestolesi now jumps up to discuss the "simulation idea." DP cheerleads the heck out of this thing. Now, she gravely discusses medical errors and resulting tens of thousands of deaths per year. "This center addresses that," she says. Blah, blah, blah. "We can contribute to positive outcomes in our community," she says, passing the baton to yet another gal, but shorter.
     That gal briefly discusses the simulated environment. Lots of industry partners excited about this. She's done.
     Larry [Grihalva?] now comes up: he seems very excited. Reminds me of Chris Farley. I was afraid he'd launch himself at me, destroying the chairs and tables, and me. I guess he really cares. I have no idea what he's talking about, but I'm damned sure he's excited about it. (He's discussing EMS, paramedics, etc.)
     He's got a joke: What do you call it when you're caught in a hurricane and tornado at the same time? It's a wind-wind situation.
     He's very excited. He's led away to his chair.
     This stuff will be up for approval next time. Gosh, it's so good that faculty were consulted.
     There's a five minute break.

Watch IVC and Saddleback reports: proposed use of ATEP

     7:59: now to consent calendar
     Lang pulls 5.1, 5.5, 5.6. Nancy pulls 5.12. (5.14-5.18 must be included.) That's it. The rest is approved. Unanimous.

     5.1 Lang corrects some points on meeting minutes. He's pickin' nits again.
     5.5 Lang: says he's in support of those IT projects we're pulling. Blah, blah, blah.... Lang says something, Padberg repeats it, but she's somehow annoyed. I don't care. Nancy is plainly annoyed to have to stop and think about motions and seconds and blah, blah, blah. I know how she feels. Get out the rubber stamp!
     What would this district be like without peevitude? Unrecognizable, is what.
     Burnett now launches into something, chattering like he does. It's like he gets paid by the word (per second). He's into style, too. It all sounds very reassuring, whatever it is, even if he's actually talking about beans and lint and, who knows. Nancy nods. All is well.
     Fitzsimmons says something with her usual pithy competence. TJ says something too, but it wasn't funny. I stopped listening, started just sensingstyle. I think the trustees are happy now.

Congrats Brandye!

     Glenn speaks. "Blah, blah, blah," he says. "I have only a superficial understanding of this, or anything else, but all is well," he seems to say (I mean the sound of his voice, like a babbling brook, said that; not his actual words).
     I'm growing weary. Prendergast points at somebody. LDA now speaks. She says soccer fields are dangerous. Huh? I have no idea what they're talking about. This discussion is a metaphor for lives of quiet desperation in fucking OC.
     Lang now murmurs. "Policy and regulations" he says. I do wish he'd shut up. I bet this item is about linoleum or nits. He's peevish about something. Wow! He actually says "pet peeve!" Nancy peeves back.
     OK, this is about basic aid and the board's old rule that BA money should go to one-time expenses for "unforeseen maintenance issues." I guess there's been some fudging about that. Too bad Fuentes isn't here to grumble and guffaw and make disturbingly ugly faces to lend to this topic the correct staunchular gravity. He's the master.
     Suddenly, everybody seems lost. Meldau says something, then Gary does. Gary looks like he's gonna clear everything up, i.e., shut everybody up. Says the state forces terminology on us but that's just BS. Something like that. The semantics of "deferred maintenance." Fitzsimmons jumps in.
     They vote: Lang votes no, but it is approved.
     Strike out the automatic trigger: that's how they change it. --I don't care what that means. (Something about the trustees retaining their right to approve something or other. They're makin' a power play.)
     5.12 — Trustee requests for conference moola. Nancy says she's interested, and so is Marcia. They vote on the item: unanimous yessireebob.
     5.14 — New software. Lang says let's approve all of these IT things. Unanimous.

     Next: general action items:

Administrator/manager

     6.6 Something about "reorganization" and administrative salary schedules. Blah, blah, blah. David Bugay yammers for a while. I'm sure it's terribly important. Something about salary schedules (for administrators and classified managers).
     Nancy: how come our consultant isn't here? It comes out that there hasn't been a change in the salary structure since 2007. ( I guess these people aren't getting raises.) Lang asks for the ultimate fiscal impact. They turn to Fitzsimmons. Doesn't feel comfortable providing draft info. Nancy asks for the "ballpark." Fitz: $20K per month.
     Lang: what's the urgency?
     Poertner: this has been planned for a long time. Blah, blah, blah. He's trying to get the trustees off this thing.
     Prendergast: just because other districts are doing this, that's why we should? I guess I don't know the context. Nancy asks for College Prezes to weigh in.
     Roquemore refers to a confidential matter that has delayed "it." Mentions two positions.
     —Looks like I just can't pay attention to this stuff any more. I oughta go home and watch House.
     Burnett weighs in. He too seems to say, come on, we've waited long enough. Let's move forward. I stopped listening to words. I'm going by the babble of each brook. He must've babbled effectively.
     —Well, no. Lang says we're putting the cart before the horse. Don't know what these changes are going to be. We've already waited a year and half, so let's get these answers.
     Poertner: we do know what these positions will cost. 8K per months per position, says Fitz. Fitz's babble is euphonious. Lang is actually nodding to her music. "Blah, blah, blah." Very pleasant. Hell, I'd vote for it, whatever it is.
     Prendergast mentions the consternation that recent faculty salary increases produced among trustees. Gosh, he says, we'll want to move slowly with these $25 k raises! Nancy yammers. Bugay looks pained. I guess they're waiting for a study to get done. Turns out if they approve this thing it will only affect these four people.
     Any motion to approve? Prendergast makes the motion. Any second? After long seconds, Marcia seconds. They vote: Meldau and Lang vote no. They needed four votes. Thus isn't approved.
     8:38 – OK, I'm goin' home, goddamit.

(Agenda here. Tere's board highlights here.)

A "filmmakers' village," but not at ATEP

A kind of "Filmmakers' Village" was once envisioned for the SOCCCD's ATEP campus; after over a dozen years and many millions of dollars spent, SOCCCD still doesn't know what ATEP will be

     As you know, in our district, the usual suspects are once again hard at work “envisioning” what ATEP—sixty-eight acres of the former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station—will be. We've certainly heard that before. Lots of times.

     Did you see the OC Reg article yesterday about the film complex that will be built at Chapman U (for the Dodge College of Film and Media Arts)? Looks impressive.

     $100 million Filmmakers' Village announced

     The Chapman "village" sounds a bit like the complex once envisioned for ATEP. Perhaps you'll recall that, for a while (c. 2006), district leaders were working on a plan to bring a film/TV/soundstage/studio complex to the Tustin property. That came to grief by mid-2008 but seemed to be revived soon thereafter (with different Money Men). But the economy soon tanked; then the revived Media Complex plan came to grief also. Sheesh.

     I've pieced together some of our (and others') coverage of ATEP and the old "film complex" (Camelot) proposal since 2000. It's pretty revealing, I think. Not in a good way.

• The Fall “Opening Session”
Dissent 50, August 21, 2000

     Ced [Chancellor Cedric Sampson] closed by promising, as he had done a year ago, that we will soon “convert” the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station. The political machinations of the Feds and other school districts have delayed conversion, he noted peevishly....

• "Cox channel 3 to air trustee forum"
The Lariat, October 5, 2000

     Power, money and education came under discussion Tuesday night as candidates for the South Orange County Community College District, (SOCCCD) board of trustees gave views of their intentions for Saddleback and Irvine Valley College.
. . .
     [Incumbent Tom Fuentes] said he opposed the El Toro airport and that, since the acquisition of the Tustin Air Base had to do with the “peace dividend” under president Ronald Reagan and that we have benefited under conservative leadership, a conservative leader should be involved in the process of developing the base.
     “We could call it the Ronald Reagan Campus,” Fuentes said.

• From Dissent 54, October 23, 2000

The District Mailer
. . .
     Have you seen the $50,000 district mailer, that proud monument to puffery, sophistry, incompetence, and illiteracy?
. . .
     Page 4. Here, next to a silly photograph of El Ced [Chancellor Cedric Sampson] and a Marine, we find a description of the “Advanced Technology and Education Park of South Orange County.”….
     Alas, the writing is less than lucid:

• “ATEP will provide multiple career study opportunities. Special certification through graduate study will be offered to launch new ventures through a business incubator.”
• “The ATEP will provide in residence and distance education train-the-trainer component for the foreign, non-physician health providers affiliated with this project.” [Huh?]

• A pitcher, no catchers March 9, 2007

     ... Chancellor [Mathur] explained the “Camelot” proposal. The Camelot Group proposes a film/TV/soundstage/studio complex with a radio and, possibly, a TV station. CSU Fullerton has a film (production?) program, and they, too, are very interested in using any studio/soundstage facilities we might have.

• It’s Camelot! February 2, 2007

THE BIG ATEP MEETING
     Eventually, I made my way to Saddleback College for the special SOCCCD board of trustees meeting concerning the “Advanced Technology and Education Park” (ATEP) in beauteous Tustin, along lovely Ant Hill Boulevard. Tonight was the night for presentations of the “partnership” proposals submitted for use of our 68 acres, which are located just three or four blimp-lengths from one of those big Marine helicopter hangers.
. . .
     After some folderol, Chancellor RAGHU P. MATHUR introduced the ATEP business. He explained about the 13 proposals that had been submitted. For tonight, he said, only three of the groups who had submitted proposals would be making presentations. CSU Fullerton would present two of them, some outfit called the SEIS Group would present a third, and then Camelot Entertainment Group would present the fourth.
. . .
     The idea seemed to be that these four are the top of the heap.
     According to whom? Mathur made a point of explaining the process whereby the use of ATEP was being determined. According to Mathur, the “governance groups”—faculty, et al.—are a part of the decision-making process! (Don't think so.) The 13 proposals, he said, were duly assessed by the Chancellor’s Executive Committee—a group that included no reps from the governance groups. The Committee, he insisted, “not only invited input” from the governance groups, but “their input is expected!”
     Well, that’s bullshit. We stared at him.
. . .
     Then came CAMELOT Entertainment, the 800 pound gorilla of the evening. Camelot hopes to spend $800 million on a studio complex with sound stages and back lots.
. . .
     ...Camelot...man, they were slick. Plus they were determined to WIN THIS THING.
. . .
     The last proposal was called “Young Americans.” They’re patriotic and cheerful or something, and they used to be on Ed Sullivan….

• Do hemorrhoids dream of pineapple sheep? February 3, 2007

CAMELOT, DO A LOT?
     As you know, the star of Thursday’s ATEP board meeting were the Camelot Group, a crew of business suits that showed up with a whiz-bang presentation complete with Star Wars music and slick visuals.
     A friend writes

     Thanks for the info on the ATEP proposals the other night. Camelot's website…sure doesn't have much—and you'd think that a film group…should have their website completed. Still can't find a single title of anything they've ever produced—though their proposal and their website is really eager to tell you all about "investments" and "portfolios" and "incentives.”

     The friend quotes from Camelot’s webpage:

     By combining the production efficiencies of the early studios with the creative advantages leveraged by today's independents, Camelot Films seeks to consistently combine financial success with artistic success.

     My friend is unimpressed:

     Efficiencies of the early 1900s?????...So...where's the education?

     Yeah, what about that? No word yet on what the board made of Camelot and their presentation. Trustees did ask some good questions though. For instance, What happens if you guys miss a payment? And: will Camelot be producing pornography?....

• Board meeting February 27, 2007

     Mathur seems determined to go with the "Camelot" project ….

• A skosh, a dollop, and a plague! April 22, 2007

     Item 4.1 is “Approval of Exclusive Rights to Negotiate Agreement (ERNA) with Camelot Entertainment.” Maybe you know what this means. I don’t. Does it mean that the district is zeroing in on the Camelot deal?
     Camelot, of course, is the investor group who proposed a super-duper studio complex to take up much of our ATEP acreage in Tustin. Some people worry that we’ll get fleeced by these guys. Could be.
     Mathur seems to have taken over the ATEP project. He imagines, I think, that he can envision a success at ATEP so spectacular that his mug will eventually get blasted onto Mount Rushmore.

• Last week's board meeting: sandwiches described and machinations exposed April 30, 2007

     5.1 The board approved the “Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement…with Camelot Entertainment.” It was unanimous, and there was no discussion….

• "Real cop donuts": the Saddleback College Trustees Forum May 14, 2007

     There was another horrible lull, and so I stood up and asked about ATEP. Park Ranger Bob explained that construction is moving forward at the Tustin facility and they’ll be offering about 35 classes in the fall. There’s a big marketing campaign, too, and the “partnerships” are moving along. The Camelot people are working with the district on agreements and such. That Bob sure can be pithy….

• Monday’s board meeting: machination SNAFU August 28, 2007

     After a brief break, Park Ranger Bob Kopecky and his crew made a presentation regarding the recent opening of ATEP in Tustin. Bob showed lovely pictures of the new facilities. He showed charts and graphs. He explained about the ongoing conversations with potential partners Camelot and the “Young Americans,” who, he said, are “spreading the American spirit around the world through song and dance.”….

• Did I miss an email? November 6, 2007

     Plus I keep hearing that the city of Tustin is none too keen on Mathur’s BIG PLANS for ATEP—you know, Camelot and Young Republican Hoofers for Christ (or whatever they're called). The word is that the Tustin folks have been giving us the slow stink eye and, if they’re sufficiently unhappy with us, they’ll pull the plug….

• Get with the goddam program December 2, 2007

     Everybody’s been pretty tight-lipped about the ATEP meeting, but there are numerous indications that it was way stormy and/or unhappy (if facial expressions & grumpitude are any indication). Could it be that things are not going well re Mathur’s grand plan to place his mug on Mt. Goomore via the "Camelot" deal? I keep hearing that there exist big tensions among the three concerned parties: (1) the City of Tustin, (2) the Camelot people, and (3) the District.
     If the city is unhappy enough, they'll pull the plug on any BIG ATEP DEAL.
     (NOTE: In my report for the September board meeting (see), I wrote

David Hunt (of gkkworks) presented the “short-range plan” for ATEP.... Our continued use of those 68 acres depends on the city’s confidence that we are making progress in its development. The “long-range plan” is the as-yet-undefined partnership now being negotiated with such entities as Camelot. The “short-range plan” is what we’ll be doing with the property in the interim, which, I gather, will be a period of years. ¶ The short plan’s chief element appears to be demolition of buildings, the projected cost of which is about $7 million. The projected cost of the entire plan, not including some as-yet-to-be-determined elements (e.g., maintenance), is $9,231,610. ¶ Hunt opined that this plan should be enough to satisfy the City of Tustin.

     At the time, I wondered: where's all this money gonna come from?)
     We’ll let you know as soon as we hear anything definite.

• The further adventures of a world-class f*ck-up: board meeting December 8, 2007

     The discussion of the 50% Law fiasco is scheduled for the end of the meeting. That could be interesting. It is no secret that Mathur’s failure to understand that law whilst spending BIG on ATEP has put us between a rock and a hard place. Meanwhile, there are indications that negotiations between SOCCCD, Camelot, and the City of Tustin are going badly. It is conceivable that the plug will be pulled on the Deluxe Edition of ATEP. (If that happens, it will be because Mathur is incompetent, not because ATEP was a bad idea.) But who knows….

• The board meeting: faculty address the board re the contract & Nancy carps about a seal March 24, 2008

     Decisions were made about ATEP, but no effort was made to explain them to the public. Curiously, trustees Milchiker and Fuentes voted "no" on item 6.5: "reimbursement agreement: Camelot Development Tustin" ($786,100).

• Will ATEP be home to the "Young Americans"? May 18, 2008

I have a secret plan

     One of these days—within a few months, I think—faculty will suddenly be “informed” that they must start developing an impressive range of programs and courses, as per the SECRET PLAN that will at long last be revealed. Naturally, everything will happen in a big rush, like the recent attempt to hire 38 new faculty (caused by the Chancellor's failure to attend to the 50% Law). Judging by the latter effort, the ATEP whatchamacallit curricular/programatic initiative will be a rush-job, a fiasco.
     No doubt, someone will be inspired to intone, "This is no way to develop programs and curricula."
     —True, faculty are not entirely sans clue. We do know that “Camelot Entertainment” is in the entertainment industry: lights, cameras, action....

• Tiny newsberries June 17, 2008

     Speaking of ATEP (i.e., the Advanced Technology and Education Park, in Tustin), I keep hearing that things are FUBAR with the ATEP confabs. Is Camelot a buttnugget? If so, plan B will look nothing like plan A, and SOCCCD will look like SHIT once again P.D.Q. (The Young Americans want to put up their tents and park their clown cars at ATEP. Is that part of plan B?)
     As you know, some of our trustees (and trustee Tom Fuentes in particular, who has philosophical misgivings) are unhappy with Big ATEP. When, a few months ago, things got rocky Big-ATEPwise, the board was barely able to scrape up a green light for continued efforts.

• Tonight’s board meeting July 28, 2008

     During group reports, IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore thanked the various participants of the IVC Accred Focus Group. Of the report they have drafted, he said, “I think it hits the mark.” Glenn also reported that ATEP enrollments have been very high (about 600 this summer). He indicated that Chapman U, CSU Fullerton, and even UCI are “excited” about working with us at ATEP. (I got confirmation tonight that “Camelot” is out of the picture. One source told me that other groups [with big money, I assume], though, “have been standing in line” to get involved.)

• Williams' last term? Hope so December 12, 2008

     ATEP FUBAR. Yesterday, at IVC's Academic Senate meeting, President Glenn Roquemore updated faculty on developments at the district's ATEP facility in Tustin. The Camelot group is long gone, we were told, but two new groups seek to take their place, and a decision about that will be made soon.
     Glenn was very upbeat, but I've been reading documents and letters regarding negotiations between the district and the City of Tustin, and it seems clear that, come April, the city will declare that SOCCCD's progress and planning regarding ATEP is unacceptable to them.
     Expect litigation. Lots of it....

• What if they gave a democracy and nobody came? Board meeting notes, part 2 March 27, 2009

     ATEP 2.0 was once supposed to be a center for “Homeland Security” training. Then, I think, it was supposed to be a center for the study of gizmology (well no) and Young Republican Hoofers 'n' Crooners (yes, sorta). Anyway, in recent years, efforts have been made to work with Money Men (and Money Women I guess, though I never seem to spot any of those) to create a film and TV pre- and post-production complex and underwater basket-weaving appreciation module.
     For a while, the “Camelot” people seemed likely to put this thing together, but they turned out to be Money Men sans Money. Nowadays, there are two bigtime developers in the running (they seem to be avec money), and they’re still talking about that Film and TV studio, which, I'm told, is desperately needed in OC. One wonders why these Money People need us, cuz leasing property has got to be cheap in OC by now—I mean, what with the country hitting the skids and all.
     In the meantime, the City of Tustin is essentially a crew of hayseeds who keep falling off of a turnip wagon—and those people are pissed because, way back in the 60s or 70s, they were slated to get their very own community college right there where the Tustin Marketplace now stands, but then that wily old Irvine Company arranged one of its slick deals to avoid paying taxes by giving away that orange grove upon which IVC now sits.

• ATEP bushwackery? A tiff over turf April 14, 2011

It's a money pit

     …Contemporaneous with Dixie’s Accredular adventures, the SOCCCD board of trustees had about reached their limit with regard to ATEP, a project that, despite many years of district effort and expense, never seemed to really get off the ground. After all of these years of struggle, the trustees just felt worn down.
     They were about to pull the plug.
     Meanwhile, trustee Fuentes, who has never liked the idea of ATEP (his libertarian ideals produce occasional spasms of bilious spewage; he projectile vomited last summer), had reached the conclusion that ATEP was a “black hole,” a money pit. He said so publicly, noisily. He demanded action…. [END]

Finally....

     Fuentes did not prevail. Somehow, the pro-ATEP (i.e., pro-BigATEP) contingent on the board won the day.
     As I recall, the decision to embrace ATEP occurred some time during the summer of 2010. That was about when Raghu Mathur was run out of Dodge--during Dixie B's brief tenure as temp Chancellor. Wagner and Williams were still on the board, but they were short-timers.
     Recently, Fuentes--seemingly with his last breath--alluded to a fateful wrong direction taken by the district that places us on a precipice, etc. Perhaps he was referring to the Big-ATEP decision. Not sure.
     --Ironically, a fair number of faculty critics of the board and of Fuentes in particular--including me--have come to agree that ATEP is a money pit, that we should cut our losses to the extent possible. But it looks like the board has made its decision, and that's that.
     I do hope that we don't lose sight of the central faculty issue concerning the ATEP saga: that, despite faculty's authority over program development (etc.), from the beginning, the board and Chancellor have developed ATEP unilaterally. The big decision I mean, not the details.
     I certainly understand that faculty could not pilot that ship. But the pilot should have allowed faculty to sit nearby, advising. That never happened.

The notorious ten minute tour of ATEP