John Williams returning to the SOCCCD board?!

     Bad news! I've come across a right-wing (Chris Emami, Chris Nguyen, and Erik Brown) blog, OC Political, which yesterday reported that Frank Meldau has withdrawn from the Area 6 trustee race (SOCCCD) and that the utterly discredited John Williams has filed to recapture that seat! (The filing deadline was last Friday. Williams filed on Thursday.)
     Worse still, Williams might run unopposed!
     The only glimmer of hope—I'm assuming the OCP report is accurate—concerns the extended deadline for filing for Area 6 (5 p.m. Wednesday). Plus someone named Tim Jemal pulled papers, but has not yet filed (as of yesterday's report).

South Orange Community College District: Fuentes & Meldau Out, Wright Unopposed, Williams Unimpeded Return? (OC Political; August 11, 2012)

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 11, 2012

     In the South Orange County Community College District, the Trustee Area 6 race went from being one of Orange County’s most interesting to a single-candidate affair, as neither Jolene Fuentes nor Julie Davis filed, leaving appointed incumbent James Wright unopposed at the end of candidate filing. After Trustee Tom Fuentes, Chairman Emeritus of the Republican Party of Orange County, died in May, Wright was appointed to the seat in June (effective July 1) despite the efforts of Jolene Fuentes to gain the appointment to her husband’s seat. Wright was the sole candidate to complete filing, and so, his race will not even appear on the ballot.
     In Trustee Area 7, appointed incumbent Frank Meldau opted to call it quits after less than two years in office. Meldau had been appointed to the seat in January 2011 after Trustee John Williams resigned in December 2010. Williams was also the Orange County Public Administrator until his resignation/unresignation/reresignation in January 2012. With Meldau opting not to file for re-election, the filing period is extended until 5 PM on Wednesday, August 15. Williams filed to run for his old seat on Wednesday, August 8. Tim Jemal pulled papers on Thursday, August 9 but has not yet filed them. If Jemal or someone new doesn’t file, then Williams will walk back into his old seat, despite the chaos of his resignations from two elected offices in the past 20 months.

Related news:
     Dave Lang appears to have filed for Area 1. David Martin pulled papers, but I don’t think he’s filed. In any case, he doesn’t have a prayer.
     Bill Jay has at least pulled papers. So has the inevitable Arlene Greer, wife of Phil. Both appear to have filed “candidate statements.” Bates Greer is supported by the likes of Pat Bates and Dave Lang.

SEE ALSO:

The Hamlet of Orange County Politics: John Williams Pulls Papers to Run for Office He’d Resigned (OC Political; July 31, 2012)

NAME: ARLENE C GREER
OCCUPATION:Businesswoman/Arts Commissioner

As education becomes increasingly essential in our global economy, our Community Colleges are increasingly called upon to transition our children from high school to four year institutions and real world employment. As parents and taxpayers, we expect our Community Colleges to meet the needs of both high school graduates and older adults who are returning to our campuses. As your Trustee, I will hold the Board, faculty and staff to standards consistent with achieving those goals and objectives.

I have been named Woman of the Year by the California State Senate for my work in the community. I am the former Chairwoman of the Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and a current member of the Newport Beach Arts Commission.

Supervisor Pat Bates and Assemblywoman Diane Harkey endorse my candidacy because of my advocacy of community involvement. Capistrano Trustee Anna Bryson and SOCCCD Trustee David Lang support my candidacy because of my promise to enrich the academic curriculum, enhance our physical plant and extend our community outreach. SOCCCD was founded on a commitment to serve the people of South Orange County. I intend to honor that commitment.

Thank you and please vote Arlene Greer for SOCCCD Board of Trustees

www.arleneforeducation.com

More misplaced righteous indignation (on behalf of Jolene Fuentes)

     I noticed that, back on the 26th, James V. Lacy of the California Political Review posted the following:

You dare not to select me? Fool!

     I have to say I am more than a little puzzled by the action last night of the Board of Trustees of the South Orange County Community College District, lead by Nancy Padberg of San Clemente, in rushing to fill the vacancy created on their Board by the recent death of Republican leader Tom Fuentes, whose term was set to expire and is up for election in just four months. The Board filled the position with a candidate who has served on the faculty, by a vote of 5-1. Yet it was clear that Tom’s wife, Jolene Fuentes, a well-known community activist who is eminently qualified for the position, is set to run for the seat in the November election, and will undoubtedly have the backing of the Orange County Republican Party and just about every conservative political organization in the county rallying behind her for this bedrock conservative seat. Why the rush to appoint someone else for just a couple of meetings? The appearance is very strong that Padberg and the Trustee majority don’t want another serious Republican on the Board to replace Tom Fuentes. That issue will now be resolved in November and I am betting on Jolene.

     Lacy provides a link to Frank Mickadeit’s factually challenged column on the 25th.
     The only comment to Lacy’s piece was the clueless “follow the money.” And so I submitted the following:

     You may be correct that the board was in a “rush” to appoint someone to replace Tom Fuentes, but the board has a history of such hurriedness. This time, they appointed someone only five months before the election, but back in 2000, they appointed someone only four months before the election. They appointed Tom Fuentes.
     No doubt Jolene Fuentes is qualified for the position, but she is hardly “eminently” qualified, since she has virtually no experience in higher education or management of large budgets.
     The other applicant, however, was indeed “eminently qualified.” After his four or five years as a chemistry instructor, James Wright spent the subsequent fourteen years in administration. Before his arrival at the college, he spent 27 years in the Air Force, where he held such notable positions as Director of the McClellan Central Laboratory at McClellan Air Force Base. You can read about his background here: 

http://www.saddleback.edu/pio/documents/jimwright.pdf

* * *

Jolene Fuentes

     Predictably, “Friend of Fuentes” Matt Cunningham offered the following comments to Mickadeit’s clueless spasm of righteous indignation: “Outrageous, compounded by craven behavior. It looks like all of us friends of Fuentes have some work to do this November.”
     I responded to Cunningham as follows:

     I see, Mr. Cunningham, you have adopted the practice (in some benighted circles) of offering a conclusions sans argument. Exactly what is the "craven" behavior here? The board decided to replace an empty seat. Now, we're told, "Tom" would have said, "that's wrong; let the voters decide!" After all, the election is only five months away!
     But I was there that night in July of 2000 when Mr. Fuentes applied to replace trustee Frogue, who had resigned. He answered the interview questions and he was chosen. Fewer than four months later, he was also elected in the general election, with the "incumbent" advantage. We never heard a peep from him about the importance of letting the people decide [instead of the board appointing, then election].

     I wrote a lengthy response to Mickadeit on the 25th or 26th, but somehow it doesn’t seem to appear. (Well, I just checked and, for now, it's up.)

"Innuendo" about Tom Fuentes? Nope. OUTUENDO

     Good Lord!
     I only just now noticed a terrific Matt Coker piece (in yesterday's NavelGazing) that, well, makes yours truly look pretty damned good!

Frank Mickadeit, OC Register Columnist, Slams College Professor on Behalf of Late Tom Fuentes (NavelGazing)

     Thanks, Matt!
     Er, I mean: thanks for doing your job, being objective and fair and such.

     The upshot of Matt's post is that the Fuenteans, or, rather, one of their toadies—Frank Mickadeit, the OC Register columnist and Tomophile—responded to the board’s choosing James Wright as Tom’s replacement by screaming “disgraceful!” (see Fuentes family stung by college board)—and by going after MOI. According to the Mick, so hateful am I that I dragged out old “innuendo” to defame the sainted Tomster. (My so-called "innuendo" focused on Fuentes' close association with corrupt pols in his early days.) So I responded (says Matt) with research (old Reg and Times articles, not innuendo) that showed that Tom was a truly hinky fellow—and I'm not talking about any carnations he may or may not have worn.

     Well, Yeah.

     Check it out: here.

Predictably, Mickadeit attacks the BOT

     Wow. It didn’t take long for Fuentes admirer Frank Mickadeit to attack the board (and me?!) for its decision tonight to appoint retiring administrator Jim Wright as the late Tom Fuentes’ replacement on the board: Fuentes' family stung by college board.
     Mickadeit asserts that the board’s deciding, three days after Tom’s death, to proceed with the process of replacing him, was a “stunning affront”:

Tom Fuentes had been dead just 72 hours before the long-fractured community college board on which he sat decided to appoint a replacement. ¶ It seemed like a rather stunning affront to the Fuentes family.

     Was that an affront? The board needed to make a decision whether to appoint or not. They made that decision that night. The only alternative available to the board would have been to schedule a special meeting at a later date—or to wait until next month’s meeting. As trustee Prendergast pointed out (at last month’s meeting), the board was already assembled; why not make that decision now?
     Please note that, during the May meeting, the board did not decide on Tom’s replacement. No, they decided to pursue a replacement. The charge that the board “decided to replace Tom only thee days after his death” sounds appalling only if one erroneously supposes that they replaced Tom that night. They didn’t. (In philosophers' lingo, Team Fuentes was committing the fallacy of equivocation.)
     Some would say that it should have been obvious to the trustees that the right decision was to leave the question of Fuentes’ replacement to the voters in November.
     But we live in a political world—a world in which people play hardball and exploit advantages when they have them. That’s certainly how the game of politics was played by Mr. Fuentes. I have no idea what went on in Nancy Padberg’s mind at the May meeting (I haven't communicated with her; I have made no inquiries about her reflections), but it seem to me that, if the board had decided to take no action and to leave the matter of replacing Tom to the November election, that would almost guarantee the election of someone like Jolene Fuentes, should she choose to run. How do you compete with the noble widow, determined to carry her husband’s torch? –And in a heavily Republican area in which the name "Fuentes" means "Republican"?
     (And let’s face it: there are plenty of reasonable people who will tell you that Tom Fuentes was the worst thing that ever happened to this board. The man played hardball, and fairness was not among his concerns. I respect any fear a trustee might have that the presence of another Fuentes on the board would be a return to that kind of ugly and divisive hardball.)
     It is true, of course, that any appointee will also acquire the “incumbent” advantage. But the selection of the appointee can be made fairly, honestly, objectively. Even though I believe that Mrs. Fuentes did an admirable job tonight making her case for her application, I cannot see how any reasonable person could judge her to be the superior candidate when compared to James Wright. He has had tremendous experience in the community college system. She’s had virtually none.
     Near as I can figure, today, the board made the only reasonable decision, faced with these two candidates.

     Mickadeit clouds the issue with his talk of the “anguish” of TJ and Jolene. He does not object, he says, to the choice the board made; rather, “it was the manner in which the board went about it, and the dismissive, disrespectful way it treated Jolene Fuentes and her and Tom’s odest son, T.J., both of whom expressed their anguish to the board on Monday only to receive stone-cold silence or indifference from the majority.”
     Both Jolene and TJ expressed the view, a respectable one, that the question of Tom’s replacement ought to be left to voters. Does anyone really suppose that they are “anguished” that others might suppose otherwise? Does Jolene suppose that, since she was Tom’s wife (and TJ was Tom’s son), ipso facto their preference in this matter ought to be honored? That would be an absurd position.
     Mickadeit launches into some revisionist history:

The board on which Tom Fuentes was elected to serve 12 years ago was almost completely dominated by trustees whom Fuentes believed catered to the faculty union.

     Really? The board that Tom joined in 2000 included Don Wagner and Nancy Padberg, two arch-conservatives with a record of expressed hostility to unions. It also included John Williams, the fellow that Tom supported to the bitter end in his efforts to become (and to keep the position of) OC Public Administrator/Guardian. (Admittedly, Williams did actively court the union.) And it included Dave Lang, who has never been viewed positively by the faculty union. Does that sound like a board "almost completely dominated" by trustees who catered to the faculty union? In truth, the only trustees who could be described as pro-faculty (in 2000) were Marcia Milchiker and perhaps Williams, two Republicans.
     According to Mickadeit’s clueless revisionism,

Fuentes and a few other conservatives he helped get elected [who would they be?] believed the faculty was generally paid enough, and tried to divert more revenue to other areas. ¶ This ignited a war between the conservative wing of the board and the faculty-backed wing, a war that has ebbed and flowed over the years but has never disappeared.

El Toro Rd. c. 1970

     Who exactly comprised this so-called “faculty-backed” wing of the board? For many years, what the faculty wanted more than anything was the firing of the odious Raghu Mathur, Chancellor. And the board didn’t get around to doing that until Mathur finally pissed off Don Wagner one too many times back in 2009 (or thereabouts). The faculty finally got what it wanted, but only because Wagner could not abide Mathur. As usual, the faculty’s wishes had little to do with the board’s actions.
     Those who have observed the board over the years understand, of course, that a war between two factions did indeed ignite at one point. It was quite dramatic. It was ignited by Don Wagner’s refusal to continue to support Raghu Mathur as chancellor. That "war" had nothing to do with faculty salaries.
     According to Mickadeit’s revisionism, I am an activist in support of the pro-faculty—high salaries—position. In fact, I have never advocated higher salaries, despite fifteen years of writing Dissent (my old newsletter) and Dissent the Blog. I have, however, been attacked for my failure to put “faculty salaries” on my list of issues.

* * *

     I’ve gotta go. More, I suppose, tomorrow.

P.S.: check out the comments to Mickadeit's column

Special "trustee replacement" board meeting, live and direct! (CONTROVERSY, WRIGHT GETS NOD)

3:05: Just got here. Two people made public comments. Saw the first guy, now it's Bob Cosgrove, who is speaking in favor of Jim Wright's application. He's his usual direct and to the point self.
     Now we're turning to interviews of applicants.

     First up: JOLENE FUENTES. (Evidently, we're waiting for Jolene Fuentes to join us.)
     Trustee Dave Lang asks: will the other applicant be in the room for the interview? Yep.
     ...Still waiting for Jolene. Sounds like a country song: "My wallet's mighty lean as I sit waitin' for Jolene..."
     --Nancy Padberg explains how Marcia Milchhiker will participate from afar, I think. Via telephone, it seems.
     Lang asks: this special arrangement for Marcia Milchiker--this hasn't been afforded to trustees in the past.
     Nancy: sure it has, bean-boy. Shut up.

     3:12: "Miss Fuentes" has arrived.
     Nancy explains how this will work. "We'll now start your interview." It is timed. 1st Trustee Jay will ask question #1 (these questions have been available for weeks on the district website):
Jay: He speaks: "familiarize us with your background. Have you worked in any school or community college." -- Padberg interrupts, tells Jay to stop winging it and just read the goddam question. Jolene jokes: she's ready for anything.
Jay again: he reads the darned question. Blah blah blah. Describe experience in financial management, etc.

Michelle Fuentes

Jolene: is member of Lake Forest homeowners association, has had leadership positions ... $3.1 million budget. Pennies compared to yours, I know. (She is reading her prepared answer.) Also I'm the President of another homeowners' association. Bottom line: work without debt. That's my philosophy. (Sounds like a well-crafted answer.) Need to avoid cuts in the classroom, she says.
Meldau: #2: What is the role of special interest groups? How to respond to community member who asks you to take up his concern?
Jolene: listen to everyone, consider all ideas. Need to work on one interest group: students. (Slick!) What's best for constituents and students. Fairness is paramount.
Pendergast #3: If you are appointed, what will be your style working with others? Give evidence from previous work experience.
Jolene: I enjoy partnerships. I listen. In most groups, I've been elected to leadership positions. I'm interested in doing the right thing. (She's reading, of course.) I don't have an agenda. Not a teacher, a lawyer, janitor(?) ...

(Evidently, the trustees are scoring. Scribbling away.)

Wright

Padberg: needs of typical students?
Jolene: provides a long list, ending with "good parking" (a joke). She seems to read well, good eye contact. Short answer. She seems accustomed to being before groups. Not easily rattled.
Lang #5: what role have you played in the SOCCCD? [I think that was the question. Not sure.]
Jolene: was the a wife of trustee, so saw first hand programs, how the colleges help the community. Was on a foundation board. (Essentially a slick, well-prepared answer.) Was even judge at IVC's daffy "astounding inventions." I would use my contacts and friends to further (the interests of the colleges)....
Student trustee Park: #6: your philosophy of comprehensive community college?
Jolene: all inclusive services.... consistent with mission. Goes through list: ... academic, basic skills, technical, fine arts, etc. (Jokes: have I missed anything?) (Another slick answer, Perfectly decent. But she does read from a prepared statement, though she reads well.)
Padberg #7: anything you'd like to add?
Jolene: I was a community college student in Mesa College. My children have taken courses at SOCCCD colleges. I have a sense of the pulse of what the community is looking for. Responsiveness, responsibility. I believe I can provide this. (She pauses for some time. Odd. Then continues:) voters told us in June, by defeating change in Public Administrator [!!] to an appointment, that they'd rather elect than have someone appointed. I wasn't here last month when you made your decision about an appointment with regard to replacing Tom. The board should find a way to use elections, if that's available (in her opinion). That's what your "former colleague" would want. (Oooh.)
Padberg? That it? (She seems surprised.)
Jolene: That's it. (She seems confident.)
     Jolene gets up, removes her glasses, walks soberly up the middle. She joins her son TJ, sitting in back. They remain in the room.

Board Prez Nancy P

Nancy: 2nd applicant, Dr. JAMES WRIGHT. "Would you come forward?"
Nancy: welcomes Wright. Interview will be timed. Can use full fifteen minutes. Questions before you. The board will decide on appointee afterwards. Etc.

Question 1 (Jay): Again, asks, experience in financial management?
Wright: Thanks the board. "I'm honored." (Starts with his experience in financial management.) In last 30+ years, was responsible for..... (He says exactly what one would expect. Pretty dry but earnest and impressive. Eventually gets to his Air Force experiences. Responsible for a budget of over $8 million on last job there. Also ran a lab, spending $14 million budget.)
     They eventually declassified the nature of the "mission." (He seems to be less anchored to his notes.) "Wise and prudent use of all public resources." (He cranks up the charisma a bit. Seems to really mean it, whatever he's saying.)

AGAIN, PRETTY SHORT ANSWERS, AS WITH JOLENE.

Meldau #2: Role of special interest groups?
Wright: as a member of BOT, you have rules, responsibilities. Would encourage groups to come forward. We'll listen to them. We need to share what we learn with other board members. We need to determine whether any of these concerns relate to our misison, etc. (A good answer, well- composed. He reads most of this. A short, strong statement.)
Prendergast (#3): What will be your style of work, working with others?
Wright: Discusses teamwork. Believes in open dialogue. I'll be new, so I'll listen at first. But will express my own views. I understand faculty concerns, but also the perspective of administration. (Lists committees he's worked on. Pretty impressive list, covers much ground. He's obviously very richly, widely experienced. He reveals that he is knowledgeable about issues in the CC system.) In the 1980s, was asked to put together a team of high school students--chemistry Olympics. In Germany. We brought in the best students in the U.S. Ran the program for three years. Very involved in that and in Boy Scouts (Assistant District Commissioner, merit badge counselor, etc.) Local church. Did much working with other people. (Pretty impressive. Not afraid to list his virtues and accomplishments. Very to the point.) "Outstanding" career in the U.S. Air Force. Have been a team player. Can do same here.
Padberg (#4): nature and needs of our students.
Wright: we need to focus on students. Students need to complete the degrees, certificates. (Shows that he is knowledgeable about these larger issues. A soft-spoken guy, but serious. Gets to the point. I won't go into the details here; you can imagine.) "Greater efficiency." Students need to take remedial courses. Need to focus on basic math and English instruction. [Nancy: you need to watch your time, dude.] A lot will be required of us to meet these goals.
Lang (#5): how use the position to positively impact the community?
Wright: again lists experience, offices, roles. Mentored students. Thorough knowledge of district, college operation. "I have the experience and enthusiasm to make a positive contributions.") Short and sweet.)
Student trustee Park (#6): philosophy of comprehensive cc?
Wright: high quality courses, programs. Meeting student objectives, degrees, employment. (Sometimes gets hung up a bit while reading his prepared stuff. But very solid. Says just what you'd think he'd say; knows the issues, the buzz words, terminology.) We cannot be all things to all people.
Padberg, final question (#7): anything you'd like to add?
Wright: I have the experience. I've done all these things, been a team player. I'm thoughtful, care about people, etc. Desire to excel. Students need to learn how to study. They need a plan, to organize. They need to make a commitment. [That all sounds on target.]
     He's got some "Be's" on his wall or something at home: Be positive, be cheerful, be complimentary, be non-condemning. [Padberg winced at that last one.]
Nancy: Is that it?

Next a 15 minute break to gather up "our scores." It's 3:49. Come back at 3:55.

TJ Fuentes

     It's 4:00. Things could get started soon. My sense of how things have gone: very well for both applicants, I think. Neither would be an absurd choice, Wright would likely be an uncommonly propitious choice--with regard to knowledge, experience, being a known quantity as a "team player" and such. Smart, earnest, experienced guy.
     Jolene actually seemed perfectly reasonable, and I could detect no negatives, aside from the fact that she has virtually no experience in school or community college affairs. But she has had some experience, it seems, working with others in organizations. She certainly has an interesting presence as a person. Strong person, it seems. No apologies. Here I am, take it or leave it.
     I would be very surprised if JOLENE got the nod. Don't know where those votes would come from. Lang will vote for her, I think, because he sold his soul at the crossroads years ago, and that dead chicken had an F written on it. If he does and she isn't chosen, he'll likely make some comment about how wonderful she is.
     But what do I know.
     Bill Hewitt is up there jawin' with the trustees.
     Just looked at the back of the room. I see FRANK MICKADEIT there. (He's the OC Register columnist who seemed to be a Fuentes sychophant.) Jolene seems to have stepped out again. Maybe she's got a bladder the size of a pea. Dunno. Nothing's happening here, for some reason. It's 4:08. Sheesh. (I think I see FUENTES' DAUGHTER as well.)
     Burnett, and Roquemmore, and Peebles, and Fitzsimmons are crowded together in the center of the room, gossiping. They seem to be enjoying themselves.
     Any bets out there? I think it's gonna be 5 to 1 in favor of Wright. If it's Wright, well that's likely great news for the future of the SOCCCD. If it's JOLENE, well then, at least I've got a great story!
     I expected Jolene to come across as nicer. I just assumed that, Tom being the

     4:13 They've restarted. Waiting for Trustee Jay, evidently. Where's Bill?
     Nancy's announcement: There was some miscommunication from district to candidates about questions to be asked. They were told would be same questions as on applications. Because of this miscommunication, we'll have to reinterview the applicants!
     Nancy now explains to Jay, who just wandered in: miscommunication. So will have to redo interviews! This decision made based on attorney advice. Go through again but with questions on application.

TJ Fuentes makes public remark.

TJ: I'm the son of Tom and Jolene. Just wanted to say, very disheartened by decision of board to appoint an interim trustee.  [Nancy asks him to repeat his slam] Just 3 days after he passed, made announcement. As son and former student would like to make the statement that the people should vote. Not appointment.
Nancy: the people will vote. Will be an election in November. Asks, does everyone understand what we're doing.
Dave makes comment: I was adamantly opposed to appointment. We are close to the election. Not had a funeral yet, and already started process (last meeting). Precipitous, disrespectful action (three days after his death). We have two candidates. Either one, would be honored and privleged to serve with. But any candidate would be advantaged and tainted by this appointment. And one applicant (Wright, evidently), if appointed, wouldn't even begin serving until June(?)--he must've said "July"--(owing to retirement just occurred). So he makes plea not to do this. The incumbent advantage is the issue. The electorate strongly values right to elect officials. A majority of the board is acting in a way that slants in favor of appointee. Thanks all members for "hopefully reconsidering."
Padberg: the board has decided. Lang tries to interrupt, she cuts him off, yelling into the mike, asking that Jolene come forward yet again.
     There's some dialogue, and Jolene indicates that she would rather go second this time. That's OK with Wright.

So Wright comes up. The first question is asked. (Board Prez Nancy Padberg now asks all questions.)
Wright: gives the same sort of answer. Goes through list of things he's done, committees he's been on.
#2: other activities
Wright: Veterans memorial, scholarships, chemistry events, etc. A very long list. I won't bore you will details. Adds "and local church group."
#3: why do you want to be a member?
Wright: team player, blah, blah, blah.
#4: basic purpose of CA ccs
Wright: provide quality lower division...... Blah, blah, blah. This second round seems strictly pro forma.
--I'll wait until the end of this nonsense.

     It's 4:27, and it's been pretty wild. The first round of interviews (of two applicants) now being redone owing to some "miscommunication" about the nature of the questions. Weren't the same as questions on app. Something like that.
     Lang pipes up with plea to reconsider this whole course: appointing a replacement. That replacement would have the strong INCUMBENT ADVANTAGE come November. Not right. Should leave this matter to the voters in November. Then Tom's son TJ comes up to make the same plea. During her remarks, JOLENE also suggested that she would not have made the decision to appoint. Leave it to the voters; that's what TOM would have done.

     4:29: now JOLENE comes forward for the rest of this absurd excercise. Evidently, the trustees are now "rescoring". That is, scoring this round. Student trustee has questions about what they're doing. Nancy tries to explain.

Ron Caspers the friendly ghost

#1: ever participated in activities...
Jolene: I've always been involved. Served at "several levels" in public education. She seems even better prepared for these questions than for the last round! Perhaps, then, she is the one who got the wrong idea in the "miscommunication," and this is her chance to shine. Dunno.
She seems very well prepared.

#2:
Jolene: again speaks about homeowners group. She's reading her answer, which is slick, well-written. She does a good job speaking, eye-contact, etc. She seems at times to give exactly the same answers as before. Her little asides seem effective.

#3:
Jolene: again, does a good job. Seems highly prepared. Reads her answers, but reads well. Sings the praises of CCs. Their importance. Came to realize impact of CCs with Tom's dozen years on this board. Professors, I learned, worked diligently, not only teaching, but mentoring students. Our last child graduated from high school this year. He'll likely be going to one of these CCs. I have no agenda. I want to cultivate the community's growth.

#4: basic purpose of CC
Jolene: skilled workforce, etc.

#5: role of trustees
Jolene: set policy.... Oversee hiring.... Adopt strategic planning. Working with other trustees.

#6: relationship between BOT and administration
Jolene: should be based on trust, mutual communication. Proper channels. Open communications between BOT members is important.

#7: strengths of the SOCCCD?
Jolene: three campuses offer wide..... high transfer rates. Commitment to basic education, etc. commendable. Utilizing basic aid is "fiscally sound." Greatest strength: good people. Good administrators, teachers, staff, students. SOCCCD colleges successfully prepare students.

#8: areas most needing improvement.
Jolene: comments I encounter are generally positive. Parking and class availability come up, but that comes up everywhere. I will be careful listener, learn at first. "Our clients are constantly changing." We should ask them what they want.

#9: Is anyone in your family employed with the district?
No.

#10: three people to contact. (1) Marian Bergesen, (2) Tony Rackaucas (OC DA), Pat Bates (one of the supes)
"Wish you well on your deliberations."

Nancy declares another 15 minute break.

5:09 we're back. Tally of points per questions

1st round:
Fuentes: 145.5 points,
Wright: 187

Second round:
Fuentes: 218
Wright: 267

Grand total: 367.5 for FUENTES,  454 for WRIGHT.

     Student advisory vote: did not go into tally.
     Now open, says Nancy, for any comments.

Lang: I'd like to motion, not appoint either, let the voters decide in the November election.

     Any second? None.
     Anyone else?

Meldau: I'd like to move that we appoint Dr. Jim Wright, effective July 1, 2012.
Jay seconds.
     Any comments? None.
     Vote: Roll call vote (electronic not working)

yes, no (Lang), yes, Milch: yes, yes, yes, student trustee: abstain.

So that's 5/1. (Abstention counts as yes vote, but student vote doesn't count)

5 to 1 in favor of James Wright.

Nancy: Congratulations. Thank you Mrs. Fuentes for applying. Meeting adjourned.
     I see the Fuentes group in back. They look grim. Mickadeit is still with 'em. We can expect a column in the OC Reg tonight or tomorrow morning. Won't be positive.

Maybe it’s Jolene

Jolene c. 2009

     At last week’s board meeting (or, rather, the special meeting held immediately after), the board voted to go forward with an interim appointment to replace the recently departed Tom Fuentes, who represented Area 6. The discussion over whether to appoint someone or to leave the vacancy until November was mighty strange. The trustees seemed to lurch awkwardly from motion to motion, and I suspect that some of 'em remain unclear concerning their decision. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, the district didn’t videotape that special meeting, and so you’ll have to take my word for it.
     The district has posted a Notice of Trustee Vacancy, visible at the district website. The notice says that applications for the position will be accepted until the 11th of June (in two weeks) and candidate interviews (conducted by the board, I believe) will start on the 18th.
     At last Monday's meeting, Board Prez Nancy Padberg revealed that a “relative” of Tom’s had expressed an interest in this vacancy. At first, I assumed that the interested party was Tom’s son, TJ, whose political career Tom promoted during the last six months or so of his life (see).
     But TJ is 25 years old. And I suspect that he does not live at home—which means that he likely doesn’t live in Lake Forest or Trustee Area 6.
     That would disqualify him.
     Tom had two other children: Joey, the youngest, and Michelle, the eldest. Joey’s still a kid, so he can’t be the interested party. And Michelle, it seems, is finishing her doctorate (in Poli Sci) back in Alabama.
     But, of course, there’s one further family member: Tom’s widow, Jolene.
     I don’t know much about Jolene. She seems not to take an active role in politics or the party, although she certainly accompanied Tom to many party events.

The happy couple c. 1990

     I know people who have met her and who say she’s “very nice.”
     Such information causes cognitive dissonance. How can she be nice? I mean, Tom was among the few people on Earth who was routinely referred to as “the Prince of Darkness.” The two other Ps of D that I can think of—Mike Schroeder and the late Robert Novak—were close friends of Tom’s.
     So Jolene is nice. Near as I can tell, daughter Michelle is nice, too. Even her politics are nice!
     But, obviously, such moral prodigies are actually fairly common in our world. Hell, I’m even beginning to think that Tom himself had a strong decent side to him. He was careful always to hide it from the outside world, it seems.
     So maybe it’s Jolene. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.