John Williams, single-handedly constructing the Saddleback College Health Sciences Building

First in our "claims of astounding rat bastards" series*

*Williams is running for SOCCCD trustee in area 7. On his candidate's statement (see at left), he says this about himself: "[I] proposed and built the Saddleback College Health Sciences Building to train nurses/paramedics, no new taxes or debt." 

Williams lists his "occupation" as "Orange County Public administrator"

See Locked-out public administrator [Williams] gives up fight for office (OC Reg) 

See also OC grand jury to John Williams: you stink

SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES: THE DECEMBER 13 BOARD MEETING by Chunk Wheeler

[From Dissent 40, 1/4/00] 

  “I never go to church; kneeling bags my nylons.” From [Billy Wilder’s] Ace in the Hole, 1951 

  F Troop 

 DECEMBER 13: I arrived at Library 105 just after 6:00 p.m. and, for once, I found that the room was packed. Why? Lee Walker, dressed as an American Revolutionary, was busy organizing something. But what? All the seats had been taken, and so I leaned against the right-hand wall near the main door. After several minutes, I looked to my left: Lee, now strapped to a drum, had settled in the doorway. I regarded him. He regarded me. I said, “Nice drum, Lee.” Right about then, the audience thrilled as one of the videocamera operators initiated an impressive TV studio-style countdown, culminating in the point of a finger at Dorothy Fortune, who then spoke to all the lovely voters out there in the dark. She explained that a group known as the “Sons of the Revolution” would help us to celebrate the 200th anniversary of George “Worshington’s” death. That was Lee’s group.

   The lights dimmed; then four of the Sons, including two musketeers, marched the colors up the left aisle. Meanwhile, Lee, along with a bugler and a fifist, tooted stoically up the right aisle. When they reached the back of the room, Lee played his drum. Then a woman warbled the national anthem. Trustee Padberg said something about “honoring our war dead”; this was followed by a moment of silence. 

    Boy, it was one damn thing after another. Next, John Williams led us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Naturally, this was followed by a brief address from the “great great grandson of Francis Scott Key.” The fellow spoke warmly of the Father of Our Country, highlighting his military victories. He neglected to mention our national Dad’s vast slave holdings or his questionable abilities as a military commander. 

   In general, the evening’s anniversary “activities” presupposed a Disneyesque take on American history--a Goofy history. 

    Suddenly, a Gold Star mother stood behind the podium to read a “poem.” It said that it is the soldier, not the “campus organizer” or the “reporter,” who ensures our liberties. Thanks to brave American fighting men, it continued, those darned campus protestors are free to “burn the flag.” One suspects that, if it were up to this Gold Star mom, flag burners would be skinned alive. 

   Trustees nodded and smiled approvingly. 

   Next, a student, doing an impression of Henry Gibson, got up and said, simply, “George Washington,” whereupon he recited five or so bowdlerized factoids about “the Father of Our Country.” Williams and Frogue took notes. 

    President Fortune attempted to say something: “Now we will have”--SQUONK! Apparently, the bugler, having studied Dot for several minutes, decided it was time for “Taps.” He spewed the tune all over the back of Marcia Milchiker’s head; the latter, plus its owner, fled to the wings. When the horn emitted a breathtakingly sour note, everyone thought: “F Troop!” 

    After Taps, one of the Sons took command. “Skirt the obstacle! March!”, he barked, and the color guard tramped back down the left aisle. Meanwhile, the Lee Walker Trio tramped down the right aisle. No one was surprised when the strap of Lee’s drum caught one of the legs of a video camera, briefly offering the hope of a dramatic and expensive faux pas. Alas, Lee managed to extricate himself and soon caught up with his pals, who, in typical American Revolutionary fashion, had deserted, leaving Lee to fight the camera leg alone. 

    Pam Zanelli, her brain a needle in her haystack head, preserved the moment on film. I think Lee looked up and said “cheese.” Then, as Lee marched under my nose, I briefly met the glances of the two senate presidents, who, judging by their wild eyes, were either very ill or much amused. 

    When it was clear that the Sons of the Revolution had finished their performance, the audience simply got up and left, taking no notice whatsoever of the board meeting that struggled to continue in the background. After all, they had come for flag-waving and protester-bashing, and that was now over. Why stay for the actual meeting? Why would anyone do that? 

A year of Miss Fortune 

    The board clerk, Mr. Wagner, read out the board’s closed session actions: Glenn Roquemore, an IVC geology instructor and Mathurian crony who, despite an almost total lack of administrative experience (he had been a school chair for two months), was appointed Acting VP of Instruction two years ago, was now appointed as permanent dean of Advanced Technology, a role, naturally, for which he is not even remotely qualified. (Also, a man named Deshazer, I think, was appointed the assistant director of something.) 

    Next, in another exercise in bowdlerization, Dot listed the board’s alleged achievements under her presidency. The first of these was the televising of board meetings, an act which, she said, “expresses” the board’s “openness.” (I wondered what its “persistent and defiant” violations of open meeting laws expresses?) Meetings, she said, have been productive. Plus board members are now dedicated to “civility and respect,” and they’ve “stayed on point.” Trustees, she added, asked for reports—for instance, they requested an accounting of faculty “release time,” which led to a cap on release time expenditures that, she insisted, saved the district big money. Dot failed to mention the $127,000 the district spent on its own attorneys unsuccessfully defending El Ced when he violated the Constitutional rights of a certain philosophy instructor. (Eventually, the district will have to pay his attorney, too, though they seem to imagine otherwise.) 

   And what about the huge legal costs incurred in Brown Act II, which the district lost? And the legal expenses incurred defending the district’s unconstitutional speech and advocacy policy? The board, she said, has tried to improve its relationship with the faculty, even scheduling a “prayer breakfast.” Dot forgot to mention that only one instructor showed for the prayer breakfast, and the board’s relationship with that guy was already pretty good. 

    Evidently striving for maximum irony, she added that the board has worked to increase “accountability.” Hiring processes for administrative positions, she noted, have yielded the “best candidates” rather than the “in house” crowd. That remark was mighty strange in view of Glenn Roquemore’s appointment a few seconds earlier. And what about Armando Ruiz’s appointment? Wasn’t he “in house”? And how does all this “best candidate” guff square with the fact that almost no one is applying for SOCCCD administrative openings? And why did Patricia Spencer, IVC VP of I, flee to Fullerton College after only one semester? 

    At the end of her account of board achievements, Dot expressed relief that she could now remove the “cross” of the board presidency from her shoulders. Yeah. Everyone else was pretty goddam relieved, too.

Lee Walker at the Sons of the American Revolution confab

An uncivil action 

    Next came the organizational meeting, the chief task of which was the appointment of officers for the coming year. Trustee Frogue explained that he had witnessed Nancy Padberg’s performance as vice president over the past year and was therefore pleased as punch to be able to nominate her for the presidency. She was the only nominee. 

    Evidently relying on intuition, Dot dispensed with a formal vote and declared that Padberg was elected “by acclamation.” She then handed the gavel to Padberg, saying, “It’s in your hands.” That was Padberg’s cue: she walked over to a bag behind the table and pulled out an ugly brown plaque to which a wooden gavel was afixed. She handed the thing to Dot, who yanked the gavel from its mounting and said, “This is very handy.” 

    Next, Don Wagner was elected vice president—again, “by acclamation.” That left only the office of the clerk. Marcia, who has held every board office, nominated Dave Lang, who, despite his three years on the board (two more than Padberg or Wagner), has held no board office. No doubt she refrained from nominating Dave for the higher offices because they are powerful, and the Board Majority will not share power. 

   Marcia noted some of Dave’s virtues. Then she expressed her quite reasonable belief in the rotation of offices among trustees. It was high time, she said, for Lang to “become an officer,” even if that office was only clerk. Surely she was right. 

    Fortune, Williams, Padberg, Wagner, and Frogue were unmoved by Marcia’s plea. Indeed, they simply ignored it. Amazingly, without discussion, they made Mr. Frogue, who has already held various offices, the new clerk on a 5-2 vote. It was a clean sweep for the Board Majority. It was also a nadir of board “civility and respect.” When, a few days later, the board meeting was broadcast, TV audiences saw none of this. In the broadcast, after Wagner’s election “by acclamation,” the screen fades to black, and the following message is displayed: “Due to a loss of video during the taping of this meeting, the election of Steven J. Frogue as Clerk of the Board was not recorded. He was elected in a 6-1 [sic] vote.” How’s that for “openness”? 

    The snubbing incident seemed to anger Marcia. She spent the rest of the evening voting against Board Majority initiatives and sniping at Miss Fortune. 

    During the break, I asked the student trustee why she had failed to vote for Lang for clerk. She said, “Well, I talked to Dave. He didn’t seem interested.” “Yeah,” I said, “but Frogue’s a Nazi.” That, of course, was only a joke, a poor one. Still, Frogue never repudiated the support he received from hard-core neo-Nazis and racists (such as Joe Fields and George Kadar) in the days following his Michael Collins Piper “seminar” fiasco. Frogue’s friend Piper, of course, works for Willis Carto, who, in a sworn deposition in 1979, acknowledged that he embraces the tenets of Francis Parker Yockey’s “Proclamation of London,” a document which advocated the expulsion of Jews from Europe. Carto, publisher of the anti-semitic The Spotlight (one of Frogue’s favorite publications) and founder of the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review (one of Frogue’s favorite organizations), has reprinted Yockey’s infamous book, Imperium—The Philosophy of History and Politics, which is dedicated to—you guessed it!—Adolf Hitler. 

   But I digress. 

Lip buttoning & gratuitous prize-giving 

    When the meeting reconvened, the trustees tackled more “organizational” issues. Wagner urged the board to hold more meetings at IVC, but Dot demurred, saying that Wagner’s proposal—to hold every third meeting at IVC—was “a little excessive.” She asserted that Irvine meetings burden the staff. Marcia responded by saying, “I appreciate that Dorothy Fortune thinks she knows everything,” but on what basis was she making these assertions? In the end, Wagner prevailed—mostly, I think, because IVC’s Raghu P. Mathur, who never misses an opportunity to enhance his importance, enthusiastically supported the initiative. 

    Somehow, Study Abroad came up. Dot, who has consistently expressed contempt for such programs (she once referred to the Costa Rica program as a “surf party”), had authored an amendment, just then provided, which, in Marcia’s mind, expressed Dot’s unreasoned animus. It would be a “courtesy,” said Marcia, taking a swipe at Dot, to be provided such documents in a more timely fashion. “I think that the intent of this is to inhibit the Study Abroad Program,” she added. 

   Frick and Frack immediately came to Dot’s defense. Soon, there was a discussion about the length of time permitted for trustee reports. About four years ago, in an attempt to rein in Mr. Frogue (who then devoted much board time to rants against the Anti-Defamation League, the boogeyman of choice among American anti-Semites), trustee reports were limited to 5 minutes. A year ago, they were limited further, to three minutes, an action the Froguester, who loves nothing more than to hear himself speak, opposed. 

   This night, Dot, who was ready for her closeup, sought to limit reports to one minute. We need to “button our lip a bit,” said Dot. Well, she needs to, anyway. No one supported her. 

   In the end, a more moderate “two minute” proposal passed. 

   The organizational stuff seemed to go on forever. When it finished, we returned to the regular meeting, and president Padberg asked whether there were any requests for public comments. There were none. 

   Later, there were no reports from the Academic senates, or the student government officers, or the unions. Yeah. What would be the point—what with all the civility and openness goin' on? 

   Next, a resolution praising Mr. Armando R. Ruiz for his “outstanding leadership since 1989” was read aloud. I have found no one who has worked with Ruiz who has much good to say about him. On the other hand, he’s willing to play ball with Mathur and his BM patrons. Hence, the prize. 

   They’re grooming him for something. 

   Raghu P. Mathur offered a few feeble words of praise for Armando: “reliable,” “trustworthy,” "hirsute." (Well, maybe not that last one.) Armando smiled so hard, it looked like his face might split. He spent about a half hour shaking every hand in the room. 

A very special Christmas party 

   Eventually, the trustees gave their reports. Padberg said she attended a “Graucho Banquet,” I think. Must be where everybody dresses up as a Marx Brother. She wished everyone a happy holiday. 

   The student trustee had no report. “Finals,” she said. 

   Williams, looking staunch while humming a Disney tune, reported that he went to the “Feast of Lights” concert and raised money for football by playing golf. He said something about getting a “hole in his head,” I think. 

   Good honesty. But why does he persist in dying his hair a nasty shade of “Hitler” brown? 

   In her report, Dot referred to a Christmas party, which occurred on the previous Friday at Don Wagner’s place. I later learned that the faculty’s representatives—the academic senate presidents—were not invited. The party, said Dot, was an attempt to bring together board members and district administrators. Faculty didn’t figure in. 

   But, in fact, some faculty were invited—people like Sharon MacMillan and Lee Walker. Those two, or course, are members of the union’s Old Guard—the faculty group that, despite howls of protest from the rank and file, used tens of thousands of union dollars to help get Fortune, Williams, Frogue, Padberg, and Wagner elected. 

   Wagner, looking sheepish, had nothing much to report. Frogue thanked Dot for a “fine and productive year.” He reported that he had attended an IVC ASG meeting plus a Christian Club Bible Study meeting, the “highlight of my week.” He also attended the Global Humanitarian Club’s showing of a “heart-rending film” on child soldiers. He explained that an application to join the “Sons of the Revolution” has been sitting on his desk for 28 years, and, soon, dagnabbit, he will submit it. 

   Frogue will fit right in. Maybe his pal Piper can come along and play a Hessian. 

   Marcia reported attending a performance of the IVC Wind Ensemble. Perhaps for Frogue’s benefit, she mentioned the ADL “man of the year,” who, because his children attend Saddleback College, called her and expressed concerns about our colleges’ accrediting status. Just as her two minutes ran out, Marcia, amid efforts by Padberg to shut her up, closed by saying: “I’m appalled and astounded and furious at the letter that was sent out to the U.S. Department of Education—that I never got.” 

   Dave Lang, alluding to the party, thanked the Wagners for their hospitality and wished everyone a happy holiday. As usual, Sampson, Bullock, and Mathur had nothing to say. Mathur, who, for once, refrained from referring to his “goose pimples,” yammered about a $20K challenge grant to help open a multicultural center for which matching funds have been found. 

   “Multiculturalism” at IVC: that’s when you arrange screenings of “The King and I.” Really. 

Cedric’s Big Adventure 

   Eventually, we got to the Chancellor’s items on the agenda. Item 26 concerned a proposal, by the Chancellor, to revise board policy 2100.1—“delegation of authority to the academic senate.” 

   On Nov. 27, a Times article reported the following: 

  The faculty senates at Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges vow to fight—in court, if necessary—a suggested policy change aimed at reducing their power and giving the Board of Trustees more say over academic matters... Sampson’s recommendation would change the senates’ role from “authority over” academic and professional matters to “responsibility for advising the board” on those matters...“The board felt it delegated too much authority to the faculties and it needs to clarify and correct some of the policies,” Sampson said... According to Sampson, the wording change would bring the board policy more in line with state regulations... Peter Morrison, senate president at Irvine Valley, disputes Sampson’s reasoning: “The board policy is exactly in compliance with [state] regulations.” 

   (The article cites the “soccer” issue at Saddleback as an example of the board’s failure to accept senate recommendations. I’m told that one dean took the faculty’s side in this particular dispute [Robinson]. Guess what? A few weeks ago, his administrative contract was not renewed.) 

    If you’ve been reading your Dissent, you know that Peter is right. Dissent 38 reprinted the language of board policy 2100.1 and Title V, section 53203. These documents make clear that Sampson’s (reported) assertion—that 2100.1 is in some sense out of compliance with Title V—is erroneous. Title V states that “the governing board” may elect “to rely primarily upon the advice and judgment of the academic senate.” Our board policy says that the “governing board...will rely primarily upon the advice and judgment of the academic senates.” 

   As usual, Sampson doesn’t know what he’s talking about. 

   Incidentally, the board has engaged in persistent and defiant violations of Title V, section 53203. The latter says that, when the board elects to rely primarily on the senate, “the recommendations of the senate will normally be accepted... If a recommendation is not accepted, the governing board or its designee, upon request of the academic senate, shall promptly communicate its reasons in writing to the academic senate.” Accordingly, our board policy states, “If a recommendation of the senate is not accepted, the governing board or its designee will promptly communicate its reasons in writing.” But, as I understand it, on several occasions, the board has failed to accept the senate’s recommendations (on matters over which it is given authority by BP2100.1). Then the board has failed to provide the required reasons in writing.

   On the 13th, Sampson announced that he will soon recommend this change to lessen the Senates’ authority. He also said that he will seek the consent or agreement of the faculty senates. If, however, the senates don’t agree to the change, said Sampson, the board can make the change unilaterally. 

   In fact, however, the board has no such authority. This is made clear by the existing board policy, which states: “This policy is a mutual agreement between the governing board and the academic senates and may be modified upon mutual consent of the parties.” It mentions no exception to this requirement.

   During the meeting, Sampson ignored our own board policy and drew the board’s attention instead to an “exception clause” in Title V, which gives to the board the right, under special circumstances, to make a unilateral decision. According to Title V, the board can indeed make a unilateral decision—when the status quo “exposes the district to legal liability or causes substantial fiscal hardship”—but only after it has made a “good faith” effort to “reach agreement” with the senate. 

   Sampson, winking and purring through his nose, argued that it is the board’s prerogative to judge whether these exigent conditions obtain; thus, if it so judges, it can make a change unilaterally. 

   There are three flaws in this reasoning. First, no such exigent conditions obtain. Second, the Title V exception clause refers, not to board/senate disagreement over the policy itself, but disagreement over “policies and procedures on academic and professional matters”—such as whether to have a soccer program. Third, and most importantly, Sampson is ignoring our existing board policy, which expressly prohibits a unilateral change of 21001.1 by the board, and which, as a definition of senate rights agreed to by the board itself, is not voided by the language in Title V, with which it is not in conflict.

  TRANSCRIPT: Here’s what was actually said during the discussion of item 26: SAMPSON: 

This item is before you today simply for notice that I will be making future recommendations in regard to this board policy. What occurred is that I brought this up for discussion in the chancellor’s cabinet, and it became something of notice to the press, and there were several articles about it in the press, and I had not brought it to the board for your attention until it was my plan to have had it discussed in the cabinet. However, because it is an item of public notice now, I’d like you to take this under advisement...[He discusses the content of the packet he has given to trustees.] In dealing with the Accreditation process and the many comments about shared governance in our district—that it is not understood and there is confusion about faculty roles—I’ve identified this policy as the center of the problem and something that the board needs to devote some time and attention to possible modification. My expectation [is] that I will bring this back to you for action in January. However, that action will be simply to request that I take this to the Academic Senates to ask them to change what is a mutual agreement and to solicit their response to that proposal.... LANG: My first question is that—assuming that this does go back to the Academic Senate, and they do not agree, mutually consent, to change the existing policy, then what would you be recommending to our board? SAMPSON: Well, I think we’ll go with an effort to solicit their support of a change. However, if they do not wish to change it, there are provisions in the code for a district to act—(LANG interjects: “unilaterally?”)—after a certain process is followed. And we will fully comply with the law. FROGUE: ...I would like to report—I won’t do it now—but just to report on certain problems that have existed in the past with the Academic Senates regarding to [inaudible] delegate to them the right to operate under the constitution. This is before—Dr. Sampson—before you came here. I think it is important that this be part of the record in understanding why there might be a lack of confidence—uh—I never meant this to be, you know, sniping—but I could never get answers to certain questions about certain operations, certain reports that were being made, replete with false information that was being passed off as fact—one or two board members trying to pass it off as fact also, and that leads to disinformation, confusion, and I think it leads to a lack of trust, an erosion of trust, over the years. I think that that brings us pretty much to the point we are at now. And I think the process resulting—we need to review the history of it and I would be happy to do that. [Frogue looks hopefully at Padberg, who says nothing.] [The Academic Senate presidents—Peter Morrison of IVC and Anne Cox of Saddleback College—are asked to comment on item 26:] MORRISON: [He distributes a packet to help trustees prepare for the January meeting.] ...I’d like to read into the record a letter on behalf of the senate this evening. It reads as follows: “Because we’ve found neither the current format nor the conduct of board meetings conducive to dialogue or fruitful exchange of views between the Academic Senates and the governing board, the officers of the IVC Academic Senate request a meeting with the officers of the board to discuss the roles and responsibilities of the senate as understood by the trustees and by us. Events of the past year have persuaded us that we indeed have a fundamental difference of opinion on this matter. If this is indeed the case, we believe the specific forms and content of that difference must be defined before the parties can agree how best to resolve it. If not, then we need to understand how best to avoid [inaudible] conflicts or potential conflicts between us. Our previous efforts to identify and work [out?] these differences have unfortunately not proved effective. And we hope that direct, frank, and informal meetings between the senate and elected board officers might reverse the situation.” [End of letter.] You have a copy of that letter as part of your packet...I have included a correspondence between our senate and the chancellor on this matter over the last year...Let me restate that, should you take action, [inaudible] proposal here, we will of course agendize that and give it all due consideration. Thanks. COX: Thank you. Of course, as Chancellor Sampson has said, he put this on the chancellor’s cabinet agenda—I believe it was November 9 and again December

 

2. He asked the presidents of the Academic Senates to go back to their respective constituencies...[Cox goes on to explain that “the discussion that ensued” among the Saddleback senators “was overwhelmingly opposed to these changes.” She then reads a unanimous senate resolution which rejects Sampson’s proposal in no uncertain terms. Finally, she reports two unanimous petitions from two divisions that also oppose the proposed changes.] SAMPSON: [Smiling unctuously:] Well, I would just like to respond that, happily, the board and the board item before you complies fully with the request here from the Academic Senate in that no change will be made—uh—the board has not yet had an opportunity to study or discuss this. The board has not yet given any direction, and I have not yet requested a change from the Academic Senates. However, when I do, then we will be in consultation on this item. We are recognizing this as a mutual agreement. We’ll deal with it as such. [Naturally, at this point, some trustees are confused. “We,” says Sampson, are recognizing this as a “mutual agreement”; and yet “we” can--and apparently should--unilaterally change the policy?] WAGNER: ...In the event one or both Academic Senates absolutely refuse to change the existing mutual agreement, is there a process by which this board can then implement changes in the policy or not? SAMPSON: Yes, there is. FORTUNE: [She asks for the specific language in the “state law” that would permit the board to change the policy unilaterally. Sampson spends a few seconds looking for it. Then he reads:] SAMPSON: “in instances were the governing board elects to provide for mutual agreement with the academic senate, and agreement has not been reached, existing policy shall remain in effect unless continuing with such policy exposes the district to legal liability or causes substantial fiscal hardship. In cases where there is no existing policy, or in cases where the exposure to legal liability or substantial fiscal hardship requires existing policy to be changed, the governing board may act, after a good faith effort to reach agreement, only for compelling legal, fiscal, or organizational reasons.” [Sampson fails to read the crucial section of Board Policy 2100.1 that expressly forbids a unilateral change of 2100.1 by the board.] What this says to me is that, if the district has compelling legal, fiscal, or organizational reasons, it may change this policy—and of course in the conversation and the discussion of this, the board would be the group who would determine whether you had those compelling reasons. PADBERG: O.K. [End of transcript.]

“They made us do it” 

   Item 32 concerned the Saddleback soccer program. President Bullock expressed her support for soccer. Uncle Steve explained that he was once a soccer coach. John, looking especially staunch, pressed the chancellor for resolution of the “soccer” issue. Sampson agreed that resolution is necessary, but offered none. Bullock, despite her support of soccer, expressed the faculty worry that, by pursuing soccer, other sports, which are often underfunded, will be hurt. John blathered about the “huge demand” for soccer among women. Dot silently tore away at some jerky treats, occasionally spitting a fragment into the camera. 

   Items 33 and 34 concerned faculty stipends. Trustee Fortune seemed to suggest that faculty are getting paid for work they are not doing. 

   Item 35 was “reports” from constituency groups. There were none. 

   After the meeting, out in the parking lot, Trustee Frogue approached me, saying, “When are we gonna get together at my place?”—or something to that effect. It wasn’t the first time. 

   I shook his hand, but I affected reserve. I said: “I was surprised by your vote to appeal the judge’s ruling in my First Amendment suit. I thought you believed in the First Amendment. You always say you do.”

   Frogue seemed flustered. I said something like, “I’m not violent or threatening [as the district, seeking to silence me, absurdly asserted], and you know it.” 

   He said, “Of course not! But these lawyers. They made us do it. We could get sued if we don’t pursue this.” 

   Williams walked up. “Good evening, Roy,” he said. I said “good evening,” and walked away, into the night and into a new goddam millennium. —CW [Roy B.]

Frogue's witch hunt; Fortune thinks she smells nepotism; Johnny & Steve visit Claremont; fee hikes

[From Dissent 32, 10/4/99] 

     I arrived at Saddleback College for the “open” portion of the board meeting at about 6:00 p.m. Outside room 105, five or six grim souls sat around the solitary cheesy plastic bench, while cop Harry Parmer and some of his pals leaned against the cement wall, sporting cop-like attitudes of stoicism and resignation. Parmer also sported a wicked new beard; I told ‘im that it was obvious to all that he was trying to look just like me. Someone pulled out a gun and pointed it at me, and we all laughed. (Just kidding, Ced.) 

     As we waited for 105’s door to open, more of the usual suspects gathered, and buzzage commenced about that day’s federal court hearing on the “students’ lawsuit”—the one that challenges the Constitutionality of the district’s speech and advocacy policy, a policy intended for students but extended to faculty during the summer months by a ruthless Raghu P. Mathur, prevaricator extraordinaire. Earlier, I had been told that Raghu and his booted boot-licker, Armando, had left for court in the morning and had returned in the afternoon with poker faces and sweaty suits. Now, the word was out that the students had essentially won. To everyone’s delight, a story about the lawsuit was running on OCN, which, as usual, made district officials look like real assholes. 

     The door finally swung open at about 6:40, and, after a few minutes, the board meeting “reconvened” to open session. Marcia M led us in a pledge “to our great country.” Meanwhile, I espied Pam Zanelli standing around in the back room; she was wearing a pink outfit and big hair and chewed gum like a $5 flack. No pledge for her. 

     The Froguester’s prayer included the usual snide remarks and unpleasant allusions. (He evidently thinks the Lord is a Republican.) Everyone was aghast, regarding Frogue as they might regard a turd in a glass of milk. 

     Next, Board President “Dot” Fortune begrudgingly invited speakers to come up to the podium to make public remarks, if they must. Bob C went first. He complained of the Board’s failure to honor “process” in its pursuit of its new dream of soccer at Saddleback, a dream for which no shared governance groups at the college had even the slightest enthusiasm. (Bob reminded the board of its earlier dream of a minor-league baseball team, which proved to be a costly fiasco.) 

     Then someone named Kent spoke on behalf of the Costa Rica summer program at IVC. Remember Dot’s first time out as trustee in December of ’96? That night, she gave early indication of her loutishness, implying, groundlessly, that, in actuality, the Costa Rica program is just a “surf party.” 

Trustees’ reports: 

     The Trustees’ reports were mostly unremarkable. As usual, John Williams talked of sports, the only thing he knows. (Has anyone else noticed that his once boyish manner has been replaced by inveterate peevish disgruntlement? Also, he now looks like hell.) Our future is “bright,” he said. By the fall, he added, we’ll be off that darned fiscal watch list! Plus the accreditation thang is gonna be swell, you watch. 

     Jeepers! 

     Johnny Boy [Williams] mentioned his having attended something called “Constitution Day” at the Claremont Institute, which, I’m told, is a right wing think tank. During his report, Frogue said he showed up for that one, too, and he even asked questions. I bet the people at the Institute were impressed by these two dolts from south OC, one bouncing a soccer ball on his head, the other quoting Spotlight. 

     Frogue also reported that he had attended “Club Day” at IVC, where he brought flowers to the MECHA table. (He said they were intended for Professor Alvarez.) He had also visited the tables of the Christian Club, the Chinese Club, the Student Liberties Club, and the Hair Club for Men. He signed rosters. A couple of days later, he said, he actually showed up for the Student Liberties Club meeting. The club, he noted, flirting with incoherence, is affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union, though its name didn’t have the word “civil” in it. No one had a clue what he was talking about. 

     Marcia M talked about her visit with the generous American Association of University Women, an organization that, despite having given many thousands of dollars in scholarships to our students, was recently attacked by Trustee Wagner, owing to its association with that Commie Rat Bastard, Jane Fonda. 

     Wagner, who, despite his right-wingedness, has been pretty darned good at meetings in recent months, reported that he had met with various governance groups, especially at IVC. He noted that enrollments are up, which is good, but that the colleges had budgeted for a far greater increase, which is bad. He noted that other colleges experienced much higher growth rates, so what are we doing wrong? Everybody stared at Raghu, whose jowls twitched involuntarily. 

      Lang spoke of the need for the district to institute various financial reforms, including an outside legal review of contracts and the like. 

     Padberg spoke of beautification. 

     Fortune, true to form, prefaced her remarks by saying, “Last but not least.” She then demonstrated that her report was not only last but least. At about that moment, the vivacious and charming Sabrina R, Director of HR, introduced herself to me as we sat in pain in the audience. When I explained who I was, she said, “Promise you won’t write about me!” She was kidding, I guess. 

     The Chancellor had nothing to say. Ditto for President Bullock. Mathur furiously patted himself on the back about something that someone else had done. For some reason, he insisted on pronouncing “Irvine” as though it were spelled “Irwine.” Nobody cared. He noted that Ray “Whitewash Willy” Chandos is once again in charge of writing the report for the Accweditation Commission. 

     Soon, Marcia objected to the minutes of a previous meeting. The minutes said that she had voted for some measure; in fact, said Marcia, she had abstained. Dot, exhibiting her usual graciousness, then suggested that, during the meeting in question, Marcia had blundered by failing to speak up. Nope, it’s not that she had failed to speak up, said Marcia. Rather, it’s that Dot had failed to ask if there were any abstentions. Dot hissed unpleasantly. Just then, a rat ran across the lens of a light fixture immediately above her head. 

Fee hike: 

     After a while, the trustees discussed the proposed 3% fee schedule hike at IVC’s Child Development Center. As Raghu’s jowls drooped, Wagner explained that this is the second 3% hike in two years. He complained that no “background information” to justify the hike had been provided. (Background information? You’ll recall that, back in June, Mathur had submitted a tentative budget for his college without mentioning its failure to include a $4,000,000 expenditure! Thanks to IVC’s senate, this “background information” came to light in August, whereupon Wagner expressed consternation at Mathur’s failure to inform the board.) Wagner noted that, during the ’98 campaign, voters had often expressed concern about the cost of child care. 

     Fortune responded by saying that the Child Development Centers of both campuses lose money, and so the hike is justified. Lang expressed concerns about access to the services of the centers. Is preference given to some parents? (Yup.) 

     Wagner suggested that perhaps now is the time for the district to step back to ask some basic questions about our purpose or purposes with these centers, which are expensive. The Chancellor, fresh from sticking a wet finger in the air, acknowledged that the centers are “historical legacies,” and that it is perhaps time to raise these fundamental questions. He simpered. 

     Williams then began to speechify idiotically. “We’re here to serve our students,” he intoned. He endorsed child care centers. He declared that the district’s centers provide plenty of “bang for the buck.” (Later, it was revealed that only about 100 children per year are “served” by IVC’s center. So much for buck bangage.) 

     Wagner, looking desperate, made a point of logic: the wonderfulness of IVC’s Child Development Center doesn’t imply that the board has been given enough information to make the decision at hand, namely, whether to approve this goddam 3% fee hike. (Wagner may be a right-wing lunatic, but he’s smart.) It was hopeless. An oblivious Padberg joined Williams in singing the praises of child care centers. Frogue joined in, warbling, irrelevantly, that he’s heard only good things about the Center. The motion passed 5-2, with Wagner muttering “morons” in his head. 

     Soon, Alan M spoke about the district’s Y2K readiness plus a minor snafu in that department. Marcia said that the head of the FAA will be in the air to usher in the new millennium—apparently a ploy to reassure the public; would Alan be on campus manning the district’s computers when the clock strikes twelve? Yuk Yuk Yuk. Yuk Yuk Yuk. 

Soccer moms: 

     Everyone expected the discussion of item 31—“Declaration of intent to develop women’s and men’s intercollegiate soccer teams at Saddleback College”—to be contentious, and so Dot declared a ten-minute break. 

     After the break, Sampson, as usual, tried to bland everyone into a stupor, for he dislikes controversy . With utter indifference to the truth, he declared that, in his opinion, there’s widespread support for soccer at Saddleback College. He denied that there has been a failure to consult with governance groups. Contrary to the language appearing before us on the agenda, he now implied that the resolution entails no decision to introduce soccer at Saddleback College. So what’s the big deal? 

     Taking no notice, the monomaniacal Williams spoke passionately in favor of soccer at Saddleback. Presenting his entry in the evening’s “blatant obfuscation” derby, he said that a vote for soccer is a vote for gender equity. Huh? 

     Frogue referred, as always, to his 33 years as an instructor. “I remember soccer when it was still a little ball,” he seemed to say. He couldn’t imagine our not supporting soccer for Saddleback. You can’t argue with logic like that, no-sir-ree. I sat in a state of stupefaction. So did Armando Ruiz, who, sporting pointy gray boots, sat next to me, but he’s always that way. 

     Marcia Milchiker said that she would not be supporting the resolution. She had heard no requests for soccer from her constituents. Besides, the district already has soccer at IVC, and, even there, there isn’t enough interest to sustain a full team, she said. She worried that, by chasing after soccer balls, the district might be spreading its dollars too thin. 

     Next, the redoubtable Anne Cox, president of Saddleback’s Academic Senate, stepped up to the podium, an outrage that inspired an outpouring of Dottular peevitude. According to Dorothy, Cox should have made her intention to speak known at the start of the discussion. Anne had. (During the break, I believe.) But that didn’t matter to Dot, who grunts and thunders and pounds her fists just to keep in practice. 

     Anne noted that the soccer resolution had nothing to do with “gender equity.” The issue here, she said, is the curriculum process. Where there’s a new program, there’s need for curriculum, and in this district, there exists a long-established curriculum process, approved by the board, in which faculty take the lead. The board’s soccer initiative “stands the curriculum procedure on its head,” said Anne. 

     Trustee Padberg seemed to take these remarks—and Bob C’s earlier remarks—to heart. She suggested changing the language of the resolution to make clear that the board isn’t bypassing the shared governance process. El Ced then insisted, inexplicably, that passage of the resolution would not bypass that process. 

     Saddleback’s President Bullock noted that, in some areas of athletics, her college is underfunded. She asked: Shouldn’t we cover those holes before initiating a new program? She seemed to disagree with the Chancellor’s peculiar interpretation of the resolution, which she read as a plan to pursue soccer at Saddleback. 

     Padberg reiterated her “shared governance” worries, whereupon Fortune grunted a stupid remark. Then Williams again began to speechify. He said he had pledged to streamline bureaucracy. Besides, the senate represents a handful of faculty while he, an elected official, represents tens of thousands of goddam voters. So let’s “move this item along.” 

     At about that point, Anne Cox offered a remarkable display of gumption, a trait that is rare among south campus personnel. Without the blessing of the Dotted One, who runs meetings with an iron fist and an empty head, Anne now spoke, saying that the faculty were only asking that the board follow their own policy. Dot, who could not believe her eyes and ears, shouted into her mike, “You’re out of order! You’re out of order!” But Anne calmly continued, saying, “It’s your policy.” 

     The effrontery! 

     Soon, the Froguester, who had been daydreaming whilst twiddling his thumbs, harrumphed himself into consciousness and then expressed concern about the emphasis on the part of “certain groups” on “process over product.” Inexplicably, he cited the case of wait lists. “I have looked in vain,” he said, “for governance groups to say, ‘we’ve got to do something about these wait lists!’” Finally, he added, the board was forced to take the initiative on wait lists. 

     Wait lists! Wait lists! Wait lists! 

     Someone got the discussion back on track. In the end, Padberg’s amended resolution, which added the phrase “through appropriate processes,” was approved. Fortune declared that the discussion demonstrated the board’s magnanimity and openness. Sensing a need to undercut herself, she then bellowed that the board is “within its rights” in initiating and pressing this soccer business. 

Trouble understanding “nepotism”: 

     Eventually, the board moved on to “Academic Personnel Actions.” Padberg noticed that, somewhere, a husband was about to be hired where his spouse was already working. Good Lord! Fortune suggested that, as things stand, all sorts of unseemly things occur when part-timers are hired. She implied, falsely, that cronyism and nepotism were the rule and that the hiring of adjunct faculty follows no process. She declared that open positions ought to be “properly advertised.” (They are.) 

     Williams opined that the hire of this person should not be held up just because the board hasn’t adopted an adequate nepotism policy. Fortune then painted a portrait of part-time hiring in the district according to which “only relatives” know that positions are open, and so they snap them up. Sampson noted that the two employees in questions are part-timers, and that nepotism, as he understands it, concerns abuses of power by one employee in favor of another. No such power relationship is involved here, he said. Fortune, ignoring such twaddle, again bellowed that current practice is “improper.” Wagner suggested that it is unfair to discuss these two people as though they’ve done something wrong. We have no reason at all to think that. 

      As this went on, new Director of HR, Sabrina R, had been standing at the podium to answer questions. She had had her hand raised for some time, hoping to shed light on this matter. Noticing this, El Ced alerted Dot to Sabrina’s raised hand, but Dot wasn’t interested in hearing from someone who might actually know what she’s talking about. El Ced then looked straight at Sabrina; he shrugged and then winked, as if to say, “What can I do? The woman’s an idiot.”

Failed witch-huntery:

     Item 35 concerned reports that had been requested by board members back in July. Vice Chancellor Hodge presented them, one at a time. You’ll recall that Frogue had asked whether faculty are doing their committee work as their contract requires. Hodge now reported that every faculty member is assigned a committee. Indeed, she said, the data suggest that faculty are exceeding their committee obligations. 

     Frogue, who had hoped to uncover massive misconduct, was clearly disappointed. He asked: Are faculty actually showing up to these committee meetings? Is there access to chairships by faculty who are not part of the elite group? And what about these stipends for chairs! If faculty are required to serve on committees, then, in providing stipends, aren’t we “double tipping”? Frogue concluded these stupid and offensive remarks by saying that he needed “more information.” 

     Padberg, who seems to share Frogue’s weakness for conspiracy theories, concurred. At one point, Frogue’s purpose in asking for this kind of information was questioned. Someone said that some committees meet just once a semester—what about that? Fortune said she had heard “a lot of complaints” about the way in which committee assignments are made. There are certain people who always seem to be on interesting and powerful committees, she said. She implied that the senates should not have the only say in committee assignments. At that moment, she reached up through the lens of the light fixture above her head, pulled out a rat, and bit off its head. This seemed to calm her. 

     Sampson noted that faculty don’t “punch a clock.” Further, if you wish to track the activities of individual faculty, you need to leave that to deans. 

     Frogue said that in his seven years on the committee, no such request for information has ever been made, and so it isn’t asking too much to for staff to provide the information now. He said that the “same six people” are on every major committee and that they dominate everything. Everyone talks about shared governance, he said, but these people don’t want to share it at all. 

     Hodge repeated that the faculty in fact exceed the committee requirement. She noted that no effort by the district is made to “take roll” regarding committee meeting attendance. She acknowledged that the Academic Senates have a key role in determining committee assignments and the like, but, she added, recommendations can come, and often do come, from other sources. 

     The next report concerned “demand-driven class offerings.” The trustees seemed to like that one. Frogue said that he’s glad he finally got the report that the board had been asking for for years. He said he was “puzzled” that it had taken so long to get it. Mathur, with jowls aflappin’, chimed in to sing his own praises. 

     Dot Fortune asked about wait lists. Are there wait lists for all classes? Are these lists archived? Have we been using all this fancy new equipment we keep buying to keep track of this stuff? 

     Another report concerned “employment of relatives” and the district’s nepotism policy. That’s Padberg’s baby. She was disappointed to learn that the data in the report involved only full-time faculty. Sampson explained that the district might not be able to get the information that Padberg wanted concerning part-timers, since the forms filled out by prospective part-timers don’t ask about relatives and such. Until recently, even the forms filled out be full-timers haven’t asked about that. Padberg insisted that the requested information be provided. 

     Frogue made one of his “general comments.” Nepotism lowers morale, he said. So do witch hunts, Steve. 

Clown: 

     Eventually, the board turned to the customary “special reports.” Saddleback’s Christian Berrera spoke of recycling bins. Anne Cox gave a report on behalf of Saddleback’s Academic Senate. She objected to the way “Partnership For Excellence” funds are spent, for faculty have no say. 

     Sharon M, a candy-colored clown, got up to speak of recent favorable press for the district. (Huh?) Apparently on the verge of tears, she said that the majority of faculty are pleased to provide good instruction, or some such blather. She forgot to mention that she and her friends, including Frogue, Williams, Fortune, and Mathur, have nearly destroyed our once-great district. 

     Pleased with herself, Sharon sat down. And that was about it. —CW