MATHUR CENSURED FOR LYING ('94) by Chunk Wheeler

[From Dissent 11, 11/10/98] 

[Originally entitled:] 

WHAT’S ALL THIS ABOUT RAGHU MATHUR BEING CENSURED FOR LYING? 

by Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer]

      It is often said that Irvine Valley College president Raghu Mathur is the “only person ever to have been censured for lying in the history of the college.” 

     That is correct, sir! On April 5, 1994, he was censured for lying to members of IVC’s Instructional Council on March 22, 1994 . 

     At a previous meeting, the membership of the IC had agreed not to go “outside the process” with respect to the choice of chair of the IVC presidential search committee, a choice to be made by Chancellor Lombardi, who, nevertheless, planned to base his choice on the recommendation of faculty. During an IC meeting on March 22, Raghu was asked whether, despite this agreement, he had presented a petition on behalf of a particular faculty member to the Chancellor. In fact, as he later acknowledged, he had. But, on the 22nd, he answered that he had “not forwarded” a petition to Lombardi or anyone. 

     Unfortunately for the Gooster, some members of the IC were familiar with his duplicitous ways and were not satisfied with his answer. After the meeting, they determined that, on the 21st, Raghu had indeed shown Lombardi a petition in support of his crony Craig Grossman. (Perhaps on that basis, Lombardi chose Grossman as one of two co-chairs.) 

     It was clear that Raghu had betrayed and then lied to the membership of the IC. 

     Raghu’s action was brought to light at the Instructional Council meeting of April 5. In his defense, he asserted that, though he did indeed show the petition to the chancellor, he did not “forward” it to him. Hence, he seemed to say, he did not actually lie. In legal circles, this is called making a “distinction without a difference.” Outside legal circles, it is called, “being a lying weasel,” which, of course, is unfair to weasels, who are, by all accounts, extremely direct and up-front in their dealings with others. They’re no hair-splitters. 

     Here are the relevant portions of the minutes for the April 5, 1994, IC meeting: 

INSTRUCTIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES, 

April 5,1994 

Present: Terry Burgess, Shu-Yung Chen, Bob Deegan, Pam Deegan, Ron Ellison, Dave Everett, Larry Kaufman, Kathy Paukstis, Nick Kremer, Wendy Phillips, Sue Long, Chris Riegle, Margie Luesebrink, Bob Urell, Mark McNeil, Leann Cribb [Secretary], Raghu Mathur 

INFORMATION AND REPORTS [Seven items are listed under this heading.] 

OLD BUSINESS 

[The first item concerns the “Marine Base Two Year Plan.”] 

[Second item:] Presidential Search Process: 

      Terry wrote a memo on March 23 to Chancellor Lombardi expressing the views given in Instructional Council at the March 22 meeting. He asked that the Council be given the opportunity to review the job announcement before it went out and recommended that a chair from IVC be appointed to convene the search Committee. 

     The Chancellor has since appointed Craig Grossman and Jerry Rudmann as co-chairs to convene the committee and they are in the process of setting up a meeting with the different governance groups to determine the composition of the committee. 

     Also, Terry passed around a copy of the published job announcement. The position is already being advertised and will close on May 20. 

     Wendy mentioned that she had met with Chancellor Lombardi on March 25 and he indicated to her that he had met with Raghu on Monday, March 21, and was aware of the petition Raghu had been circulating. [My emphasis.] 

     Many chairs expressed anger at hearing this because, at the Instructional Council meeting on Tuesday, March 22 [i.e., one day after Raghu’s meeting with Lombardi], Raghu had been questioned regarding this petition and had said that he had not forwarded [it] to anyone. [My emphasis.] 

     Instructional Council had agreed that no one will work outside of the IVC governance structure and agreed-upon processes. They felt that Raghu had lied to the Council because he had already spoken with the Chancellor [about the petition]. Working outside our process, by anyone, undermines all of the work the Council and the Senate does and makes IVC look bad [said members of the Council]. 

     It was generally felt that the co-chairs being appointed and the announcement going out before review by IVC is directly related to the fact that the administrators at the District think we are in chaos because people keep working outside the process. 

     Margie made a motion to censure Raghu Mathur for lying to the Instructional Council regarding the petition and the presidential search process and for misrepresenting not only Instructional Council, but also the faculty. Wendy Phillips seconded the motion. 

     Raghu stated that he did not lie to the Instructional Council. He said that he was asked if he had forwarded the petition to the Chancellor and he said he had not. He did admit, however, that he had shown the petition to Chancellor Lombardi prior to the last Instructional Council meeting. [My emphasis.] He still has the petition in his possession. 

     Raghu felt that the members of Instructional Council were making too big of a deal out of the situation. He also stated that he never said he was representing Instructional Council or the faculty; he was only representing himself and that he has every right to talk with the Chancellor. 

     Nick said that he was opposed to the motion on the floor because he did not feel this was the appropriate forum to deal with this issue. Ron also stated that he did not [see] the merit in this motion. He felt that Instructional Council was allowing this to pull the unit apart, which is exactly what we have been working against. He said that we needed to pull together and act as a unit. 

     Shu-Yung asked what it meant to censure Raghu. Margie responded by saying that she has been a long-time colleague of Raghu’s and has always treated him with respect, and hopes to continue such a relationship with him. However, this motion states that we are unhappy with his actions and wish to protest his misrepresentation of our faculty. 

     Bob Urell stated that he agreed with Raghu in that Raghu, or anyone else, does have the right to speak with the Chancellor, but that he did not agree with what Raghu had said to the Chancellor or his misrepresentation to the Council at its last meeting. 

     The question was called and the motion passed with 8 ayes, 3 noes, and 4 abstentions. [END OF QUOTATION] [My emphases throughout.] 

     Observe that, in order to conclude, regarding this episode, that Raghu lied (among other sins), one need only appeal to his own admissions. They are damning all by themselves. 

 * * * * * 

     Raghu is big on petitions. You’ll recall that it was one of Raghu’s petitions that caused the Gang of Four to appoint him IVC’s interim president in April of ’97—one month after the decision had been made to appoint then-Chancellor Lombardi to the position. Oddly, the signatories of the petition have never been made public. (Raghu’s gang of supporters are unfailingly cowardly.) —CW

Saddleback College North opens

North Saddleback Campus

It’s Small, Has No Name, but a New College It Is

By Thomas Fortune

LA Times, Jan. 15, 1979

     IRVINE – 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 (carved from an orange grove at Irvine Center Drive and Jeffrey Road) 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.

     But it is planned that eventually the north campus will become a full-fledged community college.

     The initial $6.6 million development is on 20 acres. The college district has a five-year option with the Irvine Co. to buy 80 additional acres at $45,000 an acre.

Groundbreaking, 1977

     The plan is to develop the campus in 20-acre increments. Each new cluster is to have its own educational them and central architectural focus.

     Since passage of Proposition 13, the Saddleback College District has lost the capacity to fund that plan locally. But college officials say they have not abandoned the idea.

     “We’re dependent upon the state, the munificence of the Irvine Co., somebody,” [sic] Board president Larry Taylor said late last week. “But I am convinced this is only the beginning of a 100-acre plant. Our board and the people in the area will not allow it not to happen. I’m sure enrollment will justify our planning.”

     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—held up until the college district could secure state money after passage of Proposition 13—will delay its availability by a couple of months. An administration facility also is behind schedule.

C. 1978

     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 introductions—all 11 of them.

     Proposition 13 also cut into staffing. But there will be more school here than at first meets the eye.

     There will be 85 daytime class offerings, Hart said. Another 50 classes will be given at night on campus, and 25 more classes will be held at affiliated locations—including Tustin and Laguna beach high schools.

     The campus has a 150-seat classroom, with curtain and stage, that will be turned over on weekends for community use.

     Some who live at the north end of the district will get all their schooling at the new campus. Others may go there two days and three days to Saddleback.

     After the first three days of registration, classes already were filling. Continuing students from Saddleback took all the photography slots. Math, spelling and business management courses were popular.

     Staff size is going to keep the initial enrollment to about 1,500. But Hart said the first cluster of buildings will accommodate 40 to 45 faculty and up to 4,500 day and night students before bursting at the seams.

c. 1979

     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. The buildings feature solar heating.

     White chalkboards in the classrooms double as movie screens and also conserve light.

     Student services will be handled on an umbilical cord concept. Library books ordered from the Saddleback College library or a student file that a counselor might need will be brought to the campus in a van making a freeway shuttle.

     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 and will have an opportunity to do what others should have already done—establish close ties with local industry.

     He said chemistry, pharmaceuticals, electronics and computer science are prominently represented in the Irvine Industrial Complex and the college could develop specialties in those fields. He said that if things develop well, the college might even take over some of the industrial training within the plants of local firms.

Memorial Scheduled for Edward A. Hart (LA Times, March 20, 1990)