Anthony Kuo, Mathur's one-time protégé, is now Don Wagner's political pal (and they're owned by developers)

     Have you seen that campaign sign all over Irvine, the one emblazoned with WAGNER KUO SHEA in big orange letters?
     Don Wagner’s running for mayor and the other two—Anthony Kuo and Christina Shea—are running for City Council.
     You remember Wagner. Before he joined the state Assembly, he was on the SOCCCD board of trustees from 1998 until 2010, serving as Board President much of that time. A staunch religious “conservative,” he was a truly awful trustee. Still, toward the end of his run as trustee, he was burned one too many times by some Mathurian connivery, and he thus became Chancellor Mathur’s sworn enemy. It all happened in one day; he literally went around fuming and yelling and muttering how he was gonna fix that bastard. People were astonished.
     There’s no stopping Don’s wrath when you’ve crossed the line. His need for revenge will not be denied.
     Alas, Don’s newfound reason for living ran afoul of County Republican bigwig (and SOCCCD trustee) Tom Fuentes’ tidy local machine, which counted Mathur as among its cogs. Well, sparks flew. There was snortage and screaming and curious machinations. (See A new board majority? Fuentes gets hopping mad, December 11, 2009.)
     The rest is history.
     Christina Shea? Well, she’s nothing special around these parts. She’s your standard gay-bashing, Evangelical Christian Republican. (Years ago, she and her husband pursued an initiative removing homosexuals’ protections against discrimination.)
     And Anthony Kuo? Nearly twenty years ago, Kuo was a student and Raghu Mathur’s protégé here at IVC. That kid was in the catbird seat.
     Some of us old-timers will recall a dark period when the Gooster’s assorted loathsome pals kept getting prizes at the college. “Professor of the year” went to a notoriously goofy and awful science instructor—he and Mathur went way back. “Administrator of the year” went to a particularly unstable and violent Mathurian hire who was eventually dragged off campus by the cops. He was a lunatic. (See College Dean Is Abusive, Five on Faculty Complain, LA Times, 6-29-02.) Kuo got some prizes too, as I recall. Mathur seriously Republicanized the kid.
     Kuo eventually became a communications and strategy consultant. “His government relations practice has included community organizations, the hospitality industry, national trade associations, investment banks and real estate developers.” (About Me.)
     By the new millennium—Mathur started his Presidency gig in 1997—Anthony Kuo, then a student body president, emerged as Mathur’s indefatigable defender. This was at a time when virtually no faculty member or student had anything good to say about the creepy former Chemistry instructor. (Students actually sued him.) Mathur, a narcissist, made up stories about his success and popularity. Remember the time he published a “thank you” to “all the faculty” who showed up to his ill-fated “sack lunch”?
     That’s right, nobody had showed.

Kuo, Shea, Wagner

     By 2002, Kuo was still defending Mathur. Mathur, staunchly supported by the odious board (including Wagner), moved up to the Chancellor’s chair in February of 2002. But, by then, he (and the board) had been on the losing end of a series of First Amendment-related lawsuits.
     Natch, Goo and his supporters complained. They gnashed their nasty little teeth.
     In 2002, I wrote about this:

     Well, the district’s demagogic satellites are spinning again. In response to the Times’ coverage of the recent court victory against the district by students, [Mathur’s pal]… Ray Chandos—evidently, chair “for life” of IVC Accreditation—wrote the editors to say:

Your article about the South Orange County Community College District Speech and Advocacy Policy neglected certain basic facts … The policy was written in part to respond to some faculty-sponsored activities that were disruptive or life-threatening. One event called for students to smash a car with a sledgehammer as a “blow” against the administration. Students were hospitalized as a result…. (Times; 3/31/02)

     Chandos, like [Saddleback College's Ken] Woodward, can always be counted on to whitewash the Empire’s dirty linen and to invent lurid rebel atrocities. The car-smashing event (apparently, car-smashings are commonplace on campuses) was not, as he suggests, a political demonstration; rather, it was a non-political fund-raiser for the Honors Society….
     True, at one point, a peripatetic wag named Jeff spontaneously sprayed “El Presidente” on the side of the car, causing Armando Beyondo to soil his trousers, but that hardly justifies Chandos’ description of the event as an anti-administration demonstration! Further, though, at some point, a student was mildly injured by flying glass (she was not, as far as I know, “hospitalized”), nothing about this event was remotely “life-threatening.”
. . .
     Ray went on to write:

Some faculty newsletters attack ethnic background, integrity, families, religion and the gender orientation of district employees….

     Do you suppose Ray is referring to ‘Vine/Dissent? D’ya think?. . .
     At a recent Academic Senate meeting in which Ray was in attendance, I stood up to read his Times letter [in defense of Mathur and the district]; I remarked on the Rayster’s stunning disregard of the truth. I then turned to Ray and said that, if he is going to accuse people [he seemed to be referring to me and Dissent] of racism, homophobia, and the like, at the very least, he is obliged to cite concrete instances. I sat down.
     More than three weeks have passed, and I have not heard a peep from the fellow.
     Ray’s letter to the Times was accompanied by a similar epistle by one Anthony Kuo, president of the IVC Associated Students, who, despite his role as student advocate, wrote to “commend Raghu Mathur for four years of superb service to the college as president.” According to Kuo, IVC has been beset, not by a tyrannical rights-violating college president, but by “rebel faculty…and a small number of students” who “have tried to make our campus a war zone by using hate literature….”
     About two weeks ago, I wrote Mr. Kuo. Referring to his accusations regarding the use of “hate literature” by “rebel faculty,” I said:

I hereby request that you show me exactly what it is that I have written or published that constitutes “hate literature.” If I…or some unnamed person or persons…[are] to be publicly charged with “using hate literature” by you, surely you are obliged to provide evidence…I await your response.

     There’s been no response.
     Student government officers tell me that, despite the care I took to fashion my letter as a “request,” Kuo is describing it as a threat.
     I’m told that Mr. Kuo has made the best of the situation, for he has distributed copies of my letter to members of the Board Majority.…

     Kuo's bio suggests that he has long been groomed for public service in Republican World. In 2011, he was finally appointed to an office.
     By a Republican.
     According to his bio,

     In 2011, Anthony was appointed by then-Councilman Steven Choi to serve on the City’s Planning Commission. He was elected Chairman of the Commission by his peers in 2013, and has been unanimously re-elected to that post four times. As a commissioner, he has led efforts to review and advance proposals ensuring responsible and high quality development in Irvine, including those in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and at the Orange County Great Park. He has focused on ensuring the delivery of important improvements to the City’s roads and infrastructure. Anthony also serves on the Commission’s IBC Sub-Committee and previously served as the Commission’s representative to the city’s Task Force on Housing Needs for the Developmentally Disabled and the Ad Hoc Committee on Veterans Affordable Housing.

     He’s also done time with the Exchange Club of Irvine. He’s been on the Board of Governors of the Irvine Valley College Foundation. He does prayer breakfasts. (He’s a Mormon.)
     Yadda yadda yadda.
     Um, he’s got memories:

[G]rowing up, my grandmother used to live with us, and would trespass onto Irvine Valley College and steal oranges from the orange groves across Jeffrey. (An Interview With Irvine City Council Candidate Anthony Kuo)

     Golly.
     For Kuo, the hardest part of being a Commissioner is having to follow agreements:

[P]art of the challenge of being a Commissioner is being bound to rules, agreements and development entitlements which were entered into years ago. Sometimes we are faced with projects which we might not be happy with, but are guaranteed a certain unit count because of a 5-, 10-, or even 15-year old development agreement made under previous leaders. (An Interview With Irvine City Council Candidate Anthony Kuo)

     Oddly, when Kuo was asked about his (especially political) mentors, he doesn’t mention Mathur, (who, no doubt, lined up his Foundation gig, 2001-2005):

My first job in politics was with Christina Shea who was the mayor of Irvine then. I worked for her again on the city council as a policy aide and community liaison and learned how to listen to the public (our boss). My first job in the private sector was for Christine Iger who had a boutique government affairs firm; Christine was a former California Director of Housing under Governor Deukmejian and former Deputy Attorney General, so I had a great deal to learn from her about the nitty gritty of public policy. The late Marian Bergeson, who was a mentor to many, and I shared many private moments where she always encouraged me to stay involved and to pursue my love for serving the community. I will always be grateful for her friendship and leadership.

     Again, oddly, Mathur’s name does not appear on Kuo’s list of supporters (See WE SUPPORT ANTHONY KUO). As you know, Mathur loves to lend his illustrious name in support of his political pals. So what gives?
     We know that Kuo was under Mathur’s creepy wing at least up through the early 2000s. We know that, starting in late 2009, Wagner and Mathur became bitter enemies. And we know that, nowadays, Kuo and Wagner are political pals.
     Golly.

* * *

Raghu and Don

     It turns out that both Wagner and Kuo have turned out to be your standard, corrupt rich-special interests-pleasing politicos. Yeah, the thing that ties Wagner and Kuo together are certain well-healed supporters.
     Developers.
     (Remember, Kuo is on the Irvine Planning Commission.)
     The facts are nicely layed out in a recent piece in the OC Register ($1.1 million in PAC money flows into Irvine elections (OC Reg; Nov 2)):

     Political action committees have funneled $1.1 million into the Irvine mayoral and City Council races as of Tuesday, according to a Register analysis, dwarfing campaign contributions candidates are raising and spending on their own.
     Forty-three percent of that money has been used to attack Mary Ann Gaido, a candidate for mayor who has promised to halt new residential developments in the city. Gaido, a planning commissioner, said developers are pouring money through independent expenditure committees.
. . .
     “I think it really undermines the system,” Bob Stern, former president of the Center for Governmental Studies and a campaign finance expert, said about independent spending by PACs [who, unlike individuals, are not limited in the amount they can receive].
     Although independent expenditures have nothing to do with candidates, he said, they allow wealthy people to wield more influence than individuals who give money directly to candidates.
     Independent expenditure committees are pouring money into crowded Irvine city elections, featuring five candidates for mayor and 11 for council, because they are close races, Stern said.
     Four PACs have spent $466,908 in media ads, literature and mailers attacking Gaido, according to campaign finance reports. That trumps the $91,596 she’s received in monetary contributions this year, the most of any Irvine candidates.
     In addition, two of the PACs have spent $95,839 opposing council candidates Melissa Fox and Farrah Khan, both of whom are endorsed by the Democratic Party of Orange County, along with Gaido.
     It’s sometimes difficult to trace what groups, companies or individuals are funding PACs because money can go through multiple committees before being spent on candidates in various races.
     For example, the California Homeowners Association [which pays for the aforementioned WAGNER KUO SHEA signs] committee has spent over $255,305 opposing Gaido and $172,140 supporting mayoral candidate Don Wagner and council candidates Christina Shea and Anthony Kuo. The PAC received $49,000 from developer Starpointe Ventures, which has stakes in Irvine projects.
     Moving Orange County Forward – funded by such entities as the Building Industry Association of Southern California PAC, Orange County Business Council PAC and Disney Worldwide Services – has spent over $93,000 supporting Wagner and incumbent Shea, as well as contributing to PACs opposing Gaido.
     Building Industry Association of Southern California PAC received $100,000 from FivePoint, which is overseeing the development of thousands of homes near the Orange County Great Park, $75,000 from the Irvine Co., and $50,000 from Starpointe Ventures.
Starpointe and FivePoint officials said they had no comments for this article.
     Independent expenditure committees have spent $274,065 in support of Wagner, which is nearly 25 times the amount the Republican state assemblyman has spent for his mayoral campaign through Oct. 22 – $11,177.
     Despite receiving support from these PACs, Wagner said he’s frustrated with outside spending because he cannot control the messages. Candidates are not allowed to coordinate with independent expenditure committees.
. . .
     Shea also said she’s not a fan of outside spending. In the past, it was her opponents who received support from independent expenditures, she said.
     Shea said she would like to see independent expenditures banned. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech prohibits the government from restricting them.
     “I totally believe that these independent expenditures, they just don’t create a fair playing field, and it’s really driven by political agendas of people,” she said.
     Wagner blames the low contribution limit to candidates for the excessive independent expenditures in Irvine.
     Kuo said the $470 cap is too low to send out messages to the more than 119,000 voters in Irvine. Santa Ana, for instance, has a $1,000 limit per election cycle.
     Wagner and Kuo stressed they would not be beholden to special interest groups funding independent expenditure committees that support them.
     “They like things I stand for,” Wagner said. “They don’t like things Mary Ann stands for.”
     Gaido said Wagner, as a seasoned state assemblyman, must be aware that the $23,308 he has raised isn’t enough to fund a campaign in a large city like Irvine.
     Wagner says he’s raising enough to get his positive message out.
     “He’s allowing big developers to totally fund his campaign and smear my name and character,” Gaido said about Wagner. “It is very disappointing.”

     It’s nice to hear that Wagner and Kuo don’t owe anything to “special interest groups.”
     Yep.

Still shitty after all these years; —PLUS: Roquemore of ages

Mr. Goo/Mr. GOP

     As you know, nowadays, former SOCCCD Chancellor (and inveterate rat bastard) Raghu Mathur is an adjunct chem instructor at the North Orange County Community College District (Cypress & Fullerton Colleges). It's his retirement gig, I guess.

     MR. GOP.
     You’ll recall that Mathur has always presented himself as “Mr. staunch Republican,” and he can always be counted on to join the chorus of “fiscally conservative” politicos and educators, denouncing taxation in any form. For instance, he routinely joined the old SOCCCD board—dominated by Mr. Fuentes and Mr. Wagner—in its distaste for school bond measures and any other measures that amounted to increasing taxes.
     (That's pretty ironic. That the SOCCCD enjoys and has long enjoyed the liberality of the “basic aid” boondoggle—an arrangement always popular among our GOP trustees—means, of course, that South County taxpayers spend far beyond the state average per student. More money spent = more tax money spent.)
     Now get this. Back in 2014, the NOCCCD pursued a bond measure for campus improvements, Measure J (see OC Reg). Despite being "the second-largest school bond in Orange County history," it achieved the necessary 55% voter support. It did so with 15 votes to spare! Whew!
     And who was there, at a meeting of the NOCCCD Board of Trustees one year later, thanking the board for its support of this bond measure and advocating construction of a new science building? Well, it was none other than the taxpayers' friend, Raghu P. Mathur, rat bastard extraordinaire. According to an NOCCCD newsletter,

Ron Armale, Cypress College Physical Science Department Chair; Adel Rajab, Biology Department Coordinator; and Raghu Mathur, Chemistry Adjunct Professor; and Jolena Grande, Mortuary Science Instructor, all thanked the Board for supporting Measure J, and spoke in support of a new Science, Engineering, and Math building, rather than renovating the existing facility. [My emphasis.]

     Mathur's hypocrisy will surprise noone who is familiar with the fellow's history in the district.
     About the vote: according to the OC Reg (Dec., 2014), Ned Doffoney, NOCCCD Chancellor (and former Saddleback College President), stated that “We’re humbled and grateful for the tremendous support of voters who participated in this historically low-turnout election.”
     I don't know why he was pleased about the latter. Ned can be inscrutable.

* * *

     Upon Googling "Raghu Mathur," one finds the fellow's name popping up even more recently, this time as a supporter of the candidacy of Old Guard Republican Ken Williams for OC Board of Ed. In the “endorsements” section of Williams’ campaign website, Mathur is listed as an “educational leader”:

“Raghu Mathur, Ed.D., Chancellor, South Orange Conuty [sic] Community College District (Ret.); Professor, School of Education, Argosy University (Ret.).”

     Natch, Williams is no supporter of school bonds. In the “issues” section of his website, he declares that

I strongly support Proposition 13, and I oppose new taxes or bonds that deepen the fiscal crisis of our state and local governments. I oppose new taxes….

* * *

     THE ROQUEMORE OF AGES.
     On an even more dismal note, I wanted to remind you all that, starting July 1, Glenn Roquemore will be starting his fifteenth year as President of Irvine Valley College. (Glenn became IVC Prez on July 1, 2002.)

A blast from the past (a song about Raghu)

     From the popular musical, "'Goo' means 'shit' in Hindi!,"* offering a slightly fictionalized account of the life of Raghu P. Mathur in song:

You Did a Raghu Thing (2000)

What’s that stuff across the floor?
What’s that shit upon my door?
What’s this memo over here?
And that crap right under there?

You did a Raghu thing
You did a Raghu thing
You put that shit up on my door
You did a Raghu thing

You been lyin’ like a rug
You been dressin’ like a thug
What’s that guff you’re givin’ me?
So you bought a Ph.D.**?

You did a Raghu thing
You did a Raghu thing
You put that shit up on my door
You did a Raghu thing

I saw you grabbin’ someone’s plant
Saw you grinnin’ at the bank
You put a stink into my world
Don’t you point that thing at me

You did a Raghu thing
You did a Raghu thing
You put a stink into my world
You did a Raghu thing

Good people tellin’ me
Also Glenn is tellin’ me
Everybody listen up!
Everybody listen up!

You did a Raghu thing
You did a Raghu thing
You did a Raghu thing

*I looked it up. I had referred to Mathur as "Goo," an allusion to Mr Magoo, for quite some time without realizing the meaning of "goo" in Hindi. What a bonus!
**Yes, I know. An Ed.D. isn't actually a Ph.D. But who wants to sing about Ed.D.s?

IVC: the birth of a college with a daffy name

Saddleback North: New Name and a New Valley (LA Times) - May 15, 1985

     After a short search that yielded suggestions such as Gumby College and El Torito College--Home of the Nachos, the Saddleback Community College District board has voted to rename Saddleback College's north campus Irvine Valley Community College.
. . .
     Two of the other names offered by students, teachers and administrators were Rancho Irvine College and Modjeska Community College. Modjeska had a nice ring, [spokeswoman Susan Clark] said, but it presented technical difficulties. "There was a lot of trouble with the spelling, and we couldn't fit it into a fight song."….

     WHAT VALLEY? Some of the wise guys here at Irvine Valley College can be depended upon to note that, despite the college’s name, there is no valley here. According to experts, they say, the college sits upon an “elongated plane” not a valley.
     I came across an old article about the “dedication” of our fair college that sheds a little light on the situation. In “Irvine Gets a ‘Valley’ at College Dedication” (Oct. 23, 1985), reporter Bill Billiter explained that the “5,200-student institution had been the northern branch of the Mission-Viejo based Saddleback College.” Now, he said, it was a “newly independent college.”
     The main speaker for the dedication was State Chancellor Joshua L. Smith, who joked about the college’s name:

Smith

     Smith … noted wryly that “Irvine Valley” created a valley “where none existed before,” adding: “Irvine Valley! ‘What valley?’ we all have been asked. Let’s face it, folks, Irvine Elongated Plane College just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
     “I’m told geologists have argued against the college’s name by pointing out that it is not located in a depressed plane. I say good. I’m delighted this college is not located in a depressed anything.
     “If the ‘sun’ can have a valley; if ‘dolls’ can have a valley; if even ‘the shadow of death’ can have a valley, then surely geologists cannot deny Irvine its own valley,” he observed.

     The audience laughed, we’re told. It was a hot, sunny day. Not a negative word was heard from the people passing by.
     The article goes on to explain:

     [“]Irvine Valley[”] was selected earlier this year as the new name for what had formerly been North Campus of Saddleback College. The name was a way of using Irvine, to please that city, while attempting not to offend Laguna Beach and Tustin, the other communities the college serves, according to officials familiar with the situation.

     OFFENDING TUSTIN.* The decision to build a north campus had been made by trustees in the early 70s. The way I heard it, the people of Tustin were very excited about the possibility of a campus in their city, and, at some point, land in the vicinity of what became the Tustin Marketplace was selected for that purpose. But then (according to the story), the Irvine Company decided to give away some land for the purpose of a community college right here on Irvine Center Drive (and Jeffrey), so the decision was made to build the campus there instead, a couple of miles to the south.
     The City of Tustin has been pissed ever since. It’s like Mayberry over there, so you can’t reason with ‘em.
     That’s the story. Don’t know how much of it is true, but surely some of it is (I got it from a reliable sort).

* * *

     I looked for an article that tells the story of the first appearance of the Irvine “campus.” I found “North Saddleback Campus: It’s Small, Has No Name, but a New College It Is” (LA Times, January 15, 1979), by Tom Fortune. It says

     It will start out the size of a junior high school. And it’s a long way from getting a name of its own.
     But students will begin taking classes next Monday at Orange County’s newest community college, known as the north campus of Saddleback College.
     College officials say they expect to enroll about 1,500 persons at the outset, many of them taking courses both at the new campus … and at Saddleback College (14 miles south in Mission Viejo).
     For a few years, the new school will be merely a satellite campus. No attendance boundaries will be drawn to separate it from Saddleback College. It will not have its own name or a football team.
. . .
     The plan is to develop the campus in 20-acre increments. Each new cluster is to have its own educational theme and central architectural focus.
. . .
     Only two of the three academic buildings in the first cluster will be ready for the start of classes next Monday. A late start on the science building … will delay its availability by a couple of months....
     During a press preview last week, the campus was still very much a construction site. The raw buildings were surrounded by mud. A workman was painting a door through which visitors entered.
     Campus administrator Ed Hart had his full-time faculty there for introduction—all 11 of them.
. . .
     The buildings are of brick with mostly flat roofs. A clock tower is the focus of the central plaza. Lots of outside windows are intended to show off a business machines center and a reading and language lab and entice students inside.
. . .
     Greater things are ahead, promised District Supt. Robert Lombardi. He said the new campus probably will be one of the last community colleges built in the state….

     Eventually, of course, “attendance boundaries” were established. I do believe that El Toro Road is used to divide the district neatly in half.
     And, in 1985, the college did become independent and was indeed named—an unfortunate name, for a college, if you ask me. (“Not really correct, but close enough!” said the politician.)
     I’m not sure what Fortune meant by “educational themes” and “architectural focus” distinguishing the college’s “clusters.” It all looks kinda random to me. The campus does look good, however, and so I don’t mean to complain about its appearance.
     Those buildings were not made of brick, dude. The brick is veneer, like the fake wood on a Walmart office desk. Oh, how shitty it is to tear open the veneer and to behold the particle board beneath!
     Our leader, Pres. Glenn Roquemore (a protégé of Raghu F.U. Mathur), tore out the clock tower about ten years ago—supposedly cuz he and his predecessor (Mathur) had let it become rotten. (The Reb and I deftly liberated the hands of the clock. We occasionally break ‘em out and do performance art.) So the “central plaza” no longer has a focus, unless it’s that goofy sculpture smack dab in the middle.

     The science building? Well, that will soon be gutted and transformed into the new Humanities & Languages/Social & Behavioral Sciences building.
     Twenty years ago, owing to the high percentage of IVC instruction that occurs in that School, H&L was slated to get its own building. But then the odious Raghu Mathur happened (1997). Since his chief critics were among H&L faculty, Mathur, a petty sort, continually contrived to prevent the School from getting new facilities. Luckily, he finally got booted a couple of years ago cuz he had really pissed off trustee Don Wagner. (The initial story was that Mathur had deviously written to the Accred maven, Babs Beno, in an effort to get her to pressure the district not to create Accred committees that mixed faculty and trustees. Mathur had long presented trustees with a negative caricature of faculty and did not want his distortions refuted by trustees' exposure to reality.)
     In recent years, we’ve been promised a temporary “new” building. It is the remodel of the old “science” building (A400). "Gosh thanks," said H&L faculty, warily.
     For months, our School has been meeting with administration and architects to plan the building. At first, the plans looked pretty impressive. Gradually, they've been whittled down.
     By now, we just call it the “incredible shrinking building.” Cynicism and skepticism reigns supreme.

Smith (contemp pic)

*In late 1973, Tustin residents sought to move Tustin out of the Saddleback District and into the Santa Ana District—on the grounds that the distance to Saddleback College was too great for residents. The matter was taken to the Saddleback District trustees, who rejected the proposal. Tustin residents then sought the “petition” route: enough signatures were collected, and then the matter was taken up by the state. (See “Petition Asking District Shift Nears Goal,” LA Times, Nov 25, 1973.) The only other article about the matter I have found (“Tustin Bid for College Shift Suffers Setback,” LA Times, April 18, 1974) states that “The Orange County Committee on School District Organization has Recommended that Tustin remain in the Saddleback College attendance area and not be switched to the Santa Ana....” At present, parts of Tustin continue to be in the SOCCCD.

SEE ALSO
 New College Born: Irvine Valley Becomes Official, Independent Entity (LA Times, July 2, 1985)

Irvine Valley President Plans to Retire Nov. 1 (LA Times, Aug. 26, 1986)

What fresh Hell is this? Some clown to replace Habermehl

Raghu the Creepy Clown

Cast of Clowns, Including Former Santa Ana Unified Head Al Mijares/SOCCCD Chancellor Raghu Mathur, Apply for OC Department of Ed. Head Role (OC Weekly/NavelGazing)

     Our pal Gustavo "no IVC commencement speech for you!" Arellano reports this morning that former SOCCCD Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur is one clown among several applying for the chair of OC Clown College—er, OC Department of Education:

Earlier this month, Superintendent of Schools at Orange County Department of Education Bill Habermehl resigned after a decade of doing shit other than promoting the Republican view of history by brainwashing kiddies. His departure from the elected position means the Orange County Board of Education must now appoint someone to fill the role, which means a cast of clowns will inevitably put forth their resume, cover letter, and letters of recommendation.

But never in a million years did I expect two disgraced former education officials in Orange County—Al Mijares, former superintendent of the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD), and Raghu Mathur, former chancellor of the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD)—to apply for the job. And they have a cast of morons writing letters of recommendation for them, according to documents obtained by the Weekly.

Mijares: the Clowniest

     Well, at least Steve Rocco hasn’t applied. I think.
     Gustavo quotes Raghu’s cover letter, which proclaims that the Gooster “strongly believe[s] that every student is a beautiful and important human being and he/she deserves the opportunity and needed encouragement and support to succeed in his/her education and chosen career, vision and goals.”
     That’s Raghu all right. Blecchh.
     According to Gustavo, the GOP establishment is lining up behind a clown even clownier than Raghu—namely, Mr. Mijares, who, writes Gustavo, once allegedly “organized Bible-study meetings [for students] during school hours….”
     Why him? Cuz he's Mexican.
     (Uh-oh. We all know how much Raghu hates to "be discriminated.")
     Gustavo ends with a recommendation that “parents now more than ever should pull their kids from OC public schools.”

TOD BURNETT:

Naturally, the ever-obsequious Tod Burnett Wrote Raghu a letter of rec.

DAVE LANG:

--And, of course, so did Dave "Benedict Arnold" Lang

RAGHU:

To illustrate his prowess as a writer and thinker, Raghu submitted the above

SEE ALSO:

•  "I feel discriminated" (Raghu is always ready with that charge)
• “I feel shocked and saddened” (Raghu is a seriously sore loser)
• Be friendly to Mr. Goo (He came to these shores, he tells us, with eight dollars in his pocket; plus people who don't like him are racists.)
• Mathur censured for lying (Raghu, always the liar, the conniver)
• Mathur is disciplined for violating federal law (He distributes a student's transcripts in an attempt to discredit one of his perceived enemies)

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

Mathur footnotoriety

     I just came across a two-week old announcement on something called “NRI Internet.com.”

INDIAN AMERICAN REPUBLICANS OF CALIFORNIA (IARCA) FORMED

     As near as I can tell, "NRI" refers to “non-resident Indians,” a complex concept that seems to include Indian-born persons who have become citizens of other countries.
     According to the announcement,

A meeting of Indian Americans from different Organizations was held on October 12, 2011, at the Haveli Restaurant, Artesia to form and elect a Board for IARCA. K.V.Kumar was unanimously elected as the Statewide Chairman….

Mathur: planning a return?

     The article goes on to list other officers, including committee co-chairs.
     Among the latter: Raghu Mathur.
     As I recall, Mathur has long been listed as the chair of the Indo-American Republican Club (or something very like that) on the Republican Party of Orange County website. (Nowadays, the website’s “join a club” button doesn’t work.)
     There’s a long-standing rumor that Mathur seeks a seat on the SOCCCD board of trustees. Unless I am very much mistaken, Mathur resides in the area now represented by Marcia Milchiker. (Is that right?)
     But Marcia was just elected in 2010: she isn’t up for reelection (should she seek that) until 2014. Hmmmm.

The real problem at Irvine Valley College

     Irvine Valley geology Professor Glenn Roquemore said his campus is in turmoil not because of [Trustee Steven] Frogue's leadership but because faculty have chosen to be at war with one another over his decisions.
     Because Roquemore supports the appointment of [Raghu] Mathur [as IVC President] and the reorganization [that eliminated IVC's school chairs], he is treated as a leper, he said. He walks through the hallway and no one makes eye contract [sic].
     "All this because they have lost their power base. I keep asking myself, 'How far will they go?' They have stepped over the line of common decency, and the wounds are so deep they might never heal," Roquemore said.

OC Register, Sept 18, 1997

     In my view, the chief problem at Irvine Valley College is top administrative leadership—President Glenn Roquemore and Vice President of Instruction, Craig Justice.
     In part, the problem with these two is a problem of character.

     CHARACTER. Glenn has always managed a nice-guy veneer, evidently one made of plastic. But we must always remember who he really is—an unprincipled opportunist.
     At the start of the dismal “board majority” era—circa 1996—Glenn was a new faculty with strong administrative ambitions. That this is so is easily established. He was actively working with administration (my source: the person Glenn was working with: IVC’s then dean of instructional programs) to unseat Raghu Mathur as chair of Raghu and Glenn’s school. (Mathur had used unsavory means to retain an iron grip on the chairship for about a decade. Glenn wanted his turn.) Then, in April of 1997, to most everyone’s surprise, Mathur was chosen interim President of the college. Old timers will remember that, among faculty, no one of any quality wanted anything to do with the scheming and narcissistic Mathur. And so Mathur desperately sought “allies” among faculty.
     All of a sudden, Glenn became Mathur’s greatest supporter. Then, that May, he got the Accred Self-Study chair gig, despite Academic Senate objections. Nine months later, he hit the jackpot: Mathur named Glenn "acting" Vice President of Instruction, despite his utter lack of administrative experience.
     Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching!
     (Tea Partiers, please note that I do not object to faculty seeking administrative careers per se. My point concerns the manner in which Glenn became an administrator. For the meaning of "per se," consult a dictionary.)
     In more recent years, Glenn has set his sights on the Chancellorship. (One question we should ask ourselves is, what might he be willing to do to get that prize? What fresh infamy might emerge as a means to achieving his personal goal?)
     As President, Glenn has long protected familiar faculty abuses and excesses such as the notorious “large lecture” scam (scare most students away immediately after census; then pocket the big bucks teaching tiny "large lecture" classes) and various dubious arrangements designed to produce massive paychecks for relatively little work. No doubt, for years, he did that at the direction of Mathur, a notoriously lurid schemer from whom Glenn had no problem taking marching orders—until, that is, the fellow developed the unfortunate desire to actually make the decisions for his college. That ambition, which emerged in mid-decade, was perhaps the main source of ultimate Mathur/Roquemore conflict.
     As President, Glenn has always protected his (professor) wife from efforts by administrators to rein in her legendary “Listen, my hubby is the Prez” excesses. (Ask the administrators.)
     I’ll leave it at that, except to say that, for me, this circumstance—in which the worst of us are rewarded and protected—undermines feeling warm and fuzzy about one’s workplace more than anything else I can think of. It's a serious morale buster. ("Create a culture of mutual respect" my ass.)

Glenn, leading

     CLUELESS. Beyond the serious problem of character, there is the problem of Glenn’s legendary cluelessness. Observe his "leadership." (That is, try to find it.) I will not belabor the point. I will say only that, evidently, Glenn remains largely unaware that the college is actually run by a vindictive autocrat—his VPI.
     Craig Justice knows how to talk the talk of collegiality when he’s out making the rounds. He purrs. He smiles. But by all accounts—I’ve spoken with some former administrators and some faculty who have exchanged testy emails with the VPI—a different Craig often (i.e., routinely) emerges. That Craig barks and snarls unpleasantly. No purring. Biting.
     I don’t think he gives a damn what faculty or any other group think or want. I've read the emails. I've heard the eye-witness accounts. He's a seriously cynical and two-faced guy.
     Am I wrong? (More importantly: am I right?)

     I RECALL A COUPLE OF YEARS ago discovering, along with some of my colleagues, that the college was teaching (contract ed*) courses out at Crean Lutheran High School. We were amazed. As a long-time senator, I know that, if the idea of such a program had been run by the Academic Senate, senators would have noted its obvious hazards; they likely would have sought to nix the deal. But Craig (and Glenn?) ran this whole thing below the Senate’s radar. Nice. It's a pattern.
     So the program was launched sans faculty oversight or involvement—virtually all instructors were adjuncts, who typically stay out of senate business. Given the lack of oversight, a scandal could and did occur. Pretty soon, unqualified faculty were assigned courses by Crean officials (this meant, ultimately, that students could not receive credit for having taken them) and Crean officials were pressuring faculty (adjuncts) not to stray too far from Lutheran doctrine. Good grief!
     I commenced reporting the situation at Crean, and IVC administration went into damage control mode—as if my reporting was the damage. (I never got the sense that they understood a simple fact: the "damage" or "problem" was that they had f*cked up, and in characteristic fashion.) It became very clear, as I communicated with Craig and Glenn indirectly, via Wendy and my dean, what Craig and Glenn wanted: if at all possible, the whole matter should be neatly and quietly “fixed,” and the program should simply proceed. It was clear to me, too, that administration viewed my reporting as an assault on the college, not a case of (as I called it at the time) "watchdoggery."*
     In the meantime, I had communicated with some adjuncts who taught at Crean and they told me how bad things were. It wasn't just that the college was running classes at a Lutheran high school under the faculty's radar. No, there were some seriously hinky things going on, such as the pressuring of faculty not to teach against doctrine, etc. Good Lord!
     I wanted to report that hinkitude. But I was subjected to great pressure from administration to minimize my description of it in DtB. I cooperated, to an extent (I did not then report Crean's assigning econ courses to history faculty and its pressuring faculty to teach within doctrine—and other things that I have yet to mention in DtB!), though not to the extent desired.
     Now, at the time, if Craig and Co. had shown any indication of a desire to really do things right—for starters, to agree that, henceforth, such programs would at least be run past the Academic Senate—I would have been more cooperative. But it was clear, or so it seemed to me, that Craig had no such intention.
     Craig thinks faculty are morons. Sure, some of 'em are. (I'd start my search in B200.) But faculty know enough to avoid such fiascos as occurred at Crean. Craig doesn't understand that.

     TWO YEARS AGO, the “noise” about problems in the Early College Program got loud enough for even me to hear. I made some inquiries, and it became clear that, likely, there were severe and widespread problems in the program (high school administrators meddling with instruction, insisting on use of inadequate labs, etc.). But then we learned from our new senate president/cabinet that there was no reason for alarm, for committees were forming that would investigate matters, etc.
     Ah, but those committees were not Senate committees; they were essentially administration's committees that would likely be dominated by administrators. And so some of us made a big stink.
     Thus, plan B arose: the senate itself would form an independent committee that would attempt to assess the situation in the EC Program. And that’s what happened. (The committee ran a survey, and it revealed serious problems.)

     THE WALL. At about that time (I don’t have the relevant documents with me, so I hope I am remembering correctly), one of the Senate cabinet officers was essentially “fired” by the cabinet. The “fired” person was very upset about, among other things, how she had been "fired."
     It seems to me that that was the first time that the wall came up. "What's this?" I said.
     Evidently, the cabinet had met without that officer and then made a decision that, in view of her performance, she had to go; she was then informed of the committee’s decision. From the beginning, my concerns regarded, not the justice of asking her to resign, but the evidently brutal manner in which this was carried out. (Why hadn’t the president informed the officer of dissatisfaction with her performance so that she could resign quietly, sans cabinet action—and sans a creepy secret meeting?) When senators (perhaps it was only me; I don’t recall) pressed for details, the wall came up. As I recall, members of the cabinet revealed nothing about the meeting.
     That was something new.
     I spoke with some cabinet members in private, and it became clear that some (at least one) of them were very unhappy with the manner in which this firing occurred. Nevertheless, they said, the President had asked them to say nothing about the deliberations during the meeting, and so they refrained from doing so, at least in public.
     I tried to suggest that this kind of action was ugly and unnecessary; it was a bad precedent. My efforts seemed to go nowhere.

     THE LETTER. Not long after, I wrote the President (privately), noting (as I recall) three ways in which, it seemed to me, the senate was “dropping the ball,” failing in its role to hold administration to account. I cited the Crean fiasco and I cited the initial approach to the EC problem (namely, the administrator-controlled committee); and there was a third thing that I honestly can’t recall. (Perhaps it was the “firing” business.) The President—who, I should add, is a friend—responded with great (and, it seemed to me, hysterical) defensiveness and, soon, after she shared the letter with the cabinet, I heard from defensive (and, again, sometimes hysterical) cabinet members as well.

     OK, HERE'S THE THING. My complaint then and my complaint now are essentially the same. As a Senate, we are dropping the ball. I firmly believe that top administration is highly objectionable in the manner earlier described (with emphasis on the VPI). Essentially, we're being blown off. But it is clear, I think, that the Academic Senate President does not view administration in that light. Not at all.
     That’s a problem.

     LET ME COUNT THE WAYS. There are, of course, several ways in which I could be mistaken.
     One is that administration is not the Loutish Thing I have depicted. Glenn isn’t really (so) clueless and opportunistic. Craig is not nearly so crafty or two-faced.
     Another is that, though administration is indeed that Loutish Thing, LDA and the cabinet understand this and, contrary to my “ball droppage” thesis, they are taking appropriate steps.
     “Roy, we really know what we’re doing.”
     Are there other ways? Let me know.
     In all honesty, if I am mistaken, I would like to be persuaded of that. Please show me the error of my ways.
     As you can see, in my view, the fundamental issue here is not LDA. The Senate should hold administration to account. It should fight the unworkable EC Program. It should at least express strong reservations about the Crean arrangement. It should demand that faculty always be consulted about new instructional programs. It should demand more clarity about ATEP—another potential set of new educational programs. It should shine the spotlight on what administration does (especially when no one is looking) and demand explanations. It cannot do its job (in my view) if the President and/or the cabinet do not acknowledge the extent to which administration blows off faculty.
     So, that's the logic of the situation, in my opinion.
     I recognize that I could be mistaken.
     Again, please show me how I’m wrong, if such is the case. —BvT

* * *

     …By March of '98, Board members explained that they were considering a proposal to officially adopt the hiring procedure used to hire Mathur. In an interview for IVC's Voice, trustee Dorothy Fortune opined that the proposed procedure would be "more inclusive than ever." Said trustee John Williams: "This is a much fairer process" (3/5/98). On the other side, in a letter to the Times, trustee Milchiker explained that the new procedures "will invalidate a long-standing collegiate district policy which offers all college constituencies a voice in the selection of administration. This subversion of the hiring process comes at a crucial time"--given the ongoing administrative exodus.
     Eventually, the Accrediting Commission (ACCJC) cited the new procedures as evidence of the board's micromanagement and subversion of shared governance, and thus they were abandoned. This, however, did not end the [Board Majority’s] manipulations of administrative hiring. When Glenn Roquemore didn't survive the final cut in the screening for the permanent VP of Instruction position at IVC, trustee accusations of unfairness again surfaced, and so, again overturning the search committee's decision, Roquemore was interviewed at the second level…. 

—From the Dissenter’s Dictionary, 12/99

     *Because the Crean courses were listed in IVC's schedule of classes—a big mistake that—in my early reporting, I did not recognize that the program was a case of "contract ed," a fact of some relevance, I suppose. On that basis, Craig and Co. took the attitude that I had f*cked up by failing to note this circumstance.
     A typical Craig red herring.
     In fact, the real issue here was, first, that Craig and Co. were pursuing this program without faculty oversight and that, consequently, seriously hinky things were going on at Crean—e.g., that unqualified faculty were being assigned courses, etc. See HERE for details.