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

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

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

Students hangin' at the ATEP pond

     The report comprises sections in terms of "categories":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here we thought he was
gonna get canned!

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

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

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

Board Reports:

Nurse pinning and, um, candle burning

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

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

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

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

     No discussion item.

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

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

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

General Action Items:

It's not exorbitant at all!

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

REPORTS:

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

8.0 Reports from Admin and Governance Groups

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

June board meeting—live and direct! (Bob Kopecky and Al Tello exit)

Al Tello

     Check out Tere's Board Meeting Highlights.
     The agenda for the June meeting is here.
     Before providing my notes from tonight's meeting, I'd like to cut to the chase. At the end of tonight's meeting, a knowledgeable fellow directed me to interesting aspects of items 6.5 and 6.6—academic and classified personnel actions. Trustees raised no questions or comments tonight re 6.5 or 6.6. They simply approved them, unmodified, and without fanfare.
     So I looked them up.
     This is from item 6.5:

     The only surprise here (I suppose) is the inclusion of Bob Kopecky. You'll recall that Bob was for several years ATEP's "park ranger" (i.e., Provost). Then, thanks to Raghu Mathur, he found himself retreating to the classroom — IVC's learning center.
     This is from item 6.6 (classified personnel actions):

     K6 is the real surprise. Al Tello has resigned as Director of the Irvine Valley College Foundation.

     And now, my notes:

Bob Kopecky

6:05
   Got here five minutes late and, for once, they've started on time. Don't know what the trustees did in closed session. I'll find out. (UPDATE: evidently, nothing of importance was reported. David Bugay was honored for his year-long service as the Acting VC of BS.)
   At present, the board is passing resolutions regarding various sports teams.
   There's a new student trustee — a Mr. Jordan Larson.
   Fuentes and Lang are absent. (Those two were seen together recently at a GOP function.)
   Typically meager Summer audience — maybe 25 people.

   I'll let you know if anything happens....

No public comments.

Board reports:

Bill Jay: no report
Frank Meldau: no report
Marcia Milchiker: no report
TJ Prendergast: mentions graduation of "early college" students.
Nancy Padberg: no report
Dave Lang: absent
Tom Fuentes: absent
Student trustee Jordan: looks forward to meeting people, etc.

Chancellor Gary Poertner's Report:
Formally introduces Dr. Debra Fitzsimons, new VC of Business Services (replacing Bugay)

Requests for reports: none

Consent calendar: nothing pulled.
Unanimously passes

6.1 Fiscal year tentative budget
   VC Bugay brags about the membership and good work of the committee. "Truly a collaborative effort," said one member.

   Fitzsimons, who seems capable, comes up, presents:

Conservatively based, with balanced budget. Beth M. did a great job, etc.
Based on Governor's may revise.
$528 million total
$200 mil. unrestricted
General Fund: $215 million
Cola: 0%, Growth funding: 0%
Property tax income: tax revenues are expected to be flat
Enrollment fees increase from $26 to $36 per unit
No salary increases included.
Basic aid receipts: trends go up and down, over the years.  43 million
$2.6 m for Retiree benefit expenses
$44.7 m future capital projects
No state budget has been approved.
It's been quiet at the state capitol.
Scott Lay has new info: A plan is in the works. We'll keep track of this in coming days
Entering 4th consecutive year of no Cola. Etc.
We continue to make prudent budget decisions. — End of overview.
Questions?

Jay: good job. Clear. Jay remembers when the district's budget was $10 million. Now it's half a billion.

Poertner: lots of work go into this budget. Some participants were mentioned. College directors of fiscal services did much work.

No further comments. They vote: 5 yes.

6.2 Tentative student government budgets:

IVC: Cheryl Christiansen presents (after intro by Gwen Plano).
Two students come up to give actual report

These kids seemed to do a good job. Hard to say. One of 'em was seriously baby faced.

Any questions? No.

Approved

Saddleback College:
Again, eventually, a student came up to present.
This kid is slicker. Seems to do a good job.

Questions? None

Approved

6.3:  board policy revisions:

Poertner: passed off to Fitzsimons. Minor changes only. No questions. Accepted for review and study.

6.4 Public hearing (recess). District initial proposal for ... CSEA
No one has expressed a desire to speak. Reconvened.

6.5 Academic Personal actions -- no changes

approved

6.6 Classified personal actions -- any questions? None

approved

7.1 Information item: two colleges, speakers invited. No comments from Poertner, et al

7.2 Basic aid report. No comments or questions

7.3 Facilities plan status report - no comments

7.4 Monthly financial status report - no comments or questions

Reports from "shared governance":
Saddleback College Academic Senate: gearing up for hiring new faculty. Several committees.
Faculty Associations: thrilled at completion of process so far, looking forward....
IVC Academic Senate: flex week calendar ready to go. Speaker series lined up.

Peebles: demolition phase 2 will begin in a couple of weeks (at ATEP)
IVC's Roquemore: thanked students for wonderful job, budget presentations...
Saddleback College (Bushe): no report. Did mention civic light opera season.
Bramucci: no report
Bugay: accreds had six recommendations. The process has been informative. Going well, positive.
Etc.

Meeting ends at 6:57 p.m.
Briefest meeting ever?

The June board meeting (aka "Where's Raghu?" or "Gary Poertner appreciation night!")

WHERE'S RAGHU?
     By 6:15, some of the trustees had finally entered the "Ronald Reagan BOT" room, and I noticed that Chancellor Raghu Mathur’s nameplate (up on the dais) had been covered with a piece of paper upon which was scrawled, “Gary Poertner, Deputy Chancellor.”
     I asked someone where Raghu was. “He is not present,” she said.
     Oh. Obviously, there was a story, but she wasn’t going to tell it. Not to me.
     Finally, board President Don Wagner arrived. The room immediately grew quiet.
     A minute later, the meeting began, with Marcia Michiker, board Clerk, reading out actions taken in closed session: (1) a 7-0 approval of Don Bushe as acting VPI (at Saddleback College) for one year. (2) 7-0 approval of Juan Avalos (?) as Vice President of Student Services, starting in July.
     Marcia’s invocation was relatively unreligious.

GARY POERTNER, RETIRING HERO
     A number of resolutions were read, including one for retiring Vice Chancellor Gary Poertner, a popular guy among trustees, administrators, and faculty, owing to his mesmerizing and sensational combo of two traits: niceness and competence.
     Upon being resolved at (upon?), and experiencing an impressive Standing O, Poertner said, “Boy, that was embarrassing.” He seemed to be breaking out in hives.
     There were no requests to speak (public comments).
     Next came board reports: Bill Jay made a pitch for recognition of those who pursue and often win grants. “Thanks,” he said.
     John Williams yammered a bit about how many hits “Mysite” and other district/college sites were getting. He congratulated Don Wagner for his Assembly seat victory—and Dave Lang, too, for his “spirited campaign.”
     Marcia congratulated the victories of Williams (for OC Public Administrator), Wagner, and Fuentes (GOP Central Committee). She congratulated Dave for a “great campaign.” She noted that everyone on the board seemed to be running for office except for her. Laughter.
     Nancy Padberg reported that she had attended an event in which the city of Mission Viejo recognized Saddleback College’s Veterans’ Memorial. MV, she said, was the first city to contribute to the effort to build the memorial.
     She also asked that the meeting be adjourned in honor of Paul Wagner, who, as you know, died a month ago.
     Don thanked Poertner for his work and noted that he and the district would genuinely miss him. He then took the opportunity to thank his colleagues and "many people in the room" who were so supportive in the last month. Nothing was said about Mathur's absence. My guess is that the fellow was told to go home and stay there.
     Tom Fuentes repeated the usual congratulations and briefly offered his condolences to Don. But he made a big point of thanking Gary P for his work over the years.
     Lang repeated the congratulations (and cursory condolences,) again emphasizing his sadness over Poertner’s departure. (Never underestimate the pettiness of certain people.)
     There were no requests for reports from trustees.

STUDENT GOV BUDGETS:
     Next came the proposed student government budgets. The two Saddleback kids gave a brief and seemingly efficient report. There were no questions. Then came the IVC kids, who, upon receiving absurdly lengthy introductions from Helen Locke, gave similarly brief and efficient reports, though they weren’t nearly as cute as the SC gals, and one of ‘em sported a thick accent that reminded me of bad WW II movies: "Feering rucky, Joe?" But it all went pretty well, I guess.
     Fuentes quipped that maybe Don should take these young people with him to Sacramento to help with balancing the state budget. Har har.

THE CHANCELLOR SEARCH PROCESS/THE DISTRICT BUDGET:
    The usual guy (John Wilbol[?] of Chancellor Searches 'R Us) gave the update on the Chancellor search process. The committee is requiring a writing sample, he said. The committee will be asking 12-14 questions. "Blah, blah, blah."
     The upshot seems to be that there’s significant interest in the position and the search process is on track. The first interviews (of about 10-12 candidates) will occur on Sept. 2 and 3. The committee will likely have recommendations for the board by early to mid September.
     Any questions?
     Tom Fuentes wanted to know how many “recommendations” would be sent to the board. Answer: at least three, maybe more. As you know, Fuentes is a "top down" kind of guy.
     Eventually, Gary P presented the tentative district budget, which will likely be very much like the actual budget, to be presented in August.
     Gary mentioned the nature of the battle over the budget in Sacramento: Dems seek to protect programs; Repubs seek to avoid taxes. The trend, said Gary, seems to be a shifting of responsibilities from the state to local government. Because these responsibilities are costly, what we have here is a de facto restructuring of funding.
     Gary made quite a point of how fortunate the SOCCCD is amid the financial woes of virtually all other districts and institutions. While other districts are moving toward furloughs and such, we’re sittin’ pretty with money in the bank. Across the state, there was a 6% decrease in course offerings last year—but not in the SOCCCD. Nosir.
     We’ve got to keep our situation—our relative fortunatitude—“in perspective,” said Gary. He made a point of naming the people (in his office, I guess) who do the “real work”: Beth, et al.
     As he has done at previous board meetings, Gary showed past and projected Basic Aid receipts. Back in 1999, when we shifted to Basic Aid, we received $5.6 million (that's the "gravy" on top of the normal state taters). By 2009, we received $51 million. This year, it’s $38.6 million, and the projection for next year is $36 million. See the trend?
     Said Gary: OK, any questions? There were a few. In answering Marcia’s question, Gary summed up his feelings by saying, “I’m not worried about our budget at all.” (That might've been a joke; but if it was, nobody got it.)
     Tom Fuentes, looking for things to politicize inappropriately, asked if the district has ever been forced to tap into its “reserve” (which nowadays is set at over 7%). Of course, he knew the answer.
     Answer: not since Gary’s been around (he arrived about eleven years ago as part of the Cedric Sampson package). In “prior years,” however, said Gary, the board did dip into the reserve “and more.”
     A few minutes later, Williams, who is eternally identified with (besides stupidity) the sorry board that engaged in so much reserve-dipping that the district was placed on the state chancellor’s fiscal “watch list,” once again put forth the canard that that action was compelled by the “Orange County bankruptcy.” (Funny, the other OC CC districts didn’t end up on the watch list.)
     Dave Lang seemed bothered at the small amount of the budget going to “capital outlay”—which seems to be code for “new buildings.” It’s especially tiny at IVC, he said. He squinted at a spot in front of him.
     He also took some sort of swipe at faculty, which seems to be a Langian motif, now that the fellow is universally reviled and has been thoroughly rejected by OC voters. He alluded to some carping regarding fairness in allocations that he read in the Saddleback College accred self-study draft. He attributed “disingenuousness" to these writers--or maybe to others. Dunno.
     Gary was asked to weigh in on that issue, but he wasn’t going to bite. “You’re a short-timer, go for it!” joked Wagner. No doing. Poertner remained mute, a statue.
     Nancy Padberg, psychically pointing at John Williams stupid visage, reminded us that, when she arrived (late in ’98), we were on that watch list. Since then, the board has enforced a rule according to which basic aid bucks are spent only on one-time expenses, not ongoing expenses. Further, the amount of minimal reserve moola has been increased. So we’re fiscally healthy! She thanked Gary for his fine stewardship of district finances. Every word was a tiny dart flying toward John's fat head.

ILLITERACY AT THE TOP:
     Next up was the district mission/vision statements. Have you read 'em? Here goes:

Vision:
To be an educational leader in a changing world. [Wow. How' bout, "Love; it's what makes a college"?]

Mission:
To provide a dynamic learning environment and diverse opportunities fostering student success and contributing to the community. [Couldn't they run this by the English dept.? Good Lord!]

Core Values/Guiding Principles:
We invest in our students' success, employees, physical plant, and community, with wise use of our resources. [We invest in our students' employees and their physical plant?]

     Good grief. (Do you suppose Raghu wrote this stuff?)
     These verbal turds were adopted without discussion. It was unanimous. It's a good thing nobody pays attention to 'em.

ACCRED SELF-STUDIES; LANG FRETS:
     Eventually, the board got to the accreditation self-studies for the two colleges. No presentation was scheduled. Any questions?
     Again, Lang piped up. He encouraged trustees to take a close look at the reports. Since he was on the committee for Saddleback, he recommended in particular that everyone read Standard 4 (on leadership and governance), especially 327, 331, and “all the way to 360.” Lang seemed to say that that discussion concerned the resources being funneled to ATEP, our endlessly underdeveloped technical college over by the old blimp boxes in Tustin.
     It sounded like Lang wanted discussion of that portion of the accred report to be agendized soon. Don't know what that's about.

GOOD NIGHT:
     During his report on behalf of Irvine Valley College, Glenn Roquemore offered a series of words about Poertner: “calm, logical, educated, experienced, solid friend.”
     OK. At least he didn't say, "plastics."
     He looked at Gary. “Please keep your cell phone charged,” he said. Laughter.
     Bill Hewitt noted that faculty productivity has gone up significantly this year. He said he had attended a recent IVC accred discussion, and he was impressed with the collegiality on display there.
     Like many before him, he had warm words for Gary Poertner.
     The meeting lasted but an hour and a half. Amazing.

The December board meeting: wall-to-wall Republicans

It’s been a busy day. After my morning class and lunch with a friend, I headed down to the district for the December meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees—scheduled bizarrely for Friday afternoon. As usual, the meeting was held in the "Ronald Reagan board of trustees room." The open session finally got started at about 1:45, with clerk Tom Fuentes reporting the non-renewal of a dean’s contract, effective June of 2009. (Rearranging of the deck chairs on the SS ATEP?) Trustee Dave Lang gave the invocation, which included a reference to our nation, which, he said is “the greatest country in the world.” The “Honorable” Bill Campbell, one of the county supes, was on hand to swear in the recently reelected Tom Fuentes, Dave Lang, Bill Jay, and John Williams. As soon as he finished with that, Campbell booked. He's a Republican, you know.

  IVC’s Frank Pangborn, accompanied by tinny recorded music, sang Neil Diamond’s “America.” The less said about that, the better. Next, the board launched into its yearly “organizational meeting,” and, luckily, that produced no changes. Whew! The vote for Wagner and Williams to continue as Prez/Vice Prez was 6 to 1, with Nancy Padberg casting the sole dissenting vote. “Thank you all, or most all,” said Don Wagner. Mathur gave Wagner some dumb paperweight in honor of his leadership over the last year. Wagner didn’t seem to want the damned thing. When they got to setting the calendar for the year, Fuentes noted that “three of us” on the board are on the OC Republican Central Committee, and that could cause some conflicts. I looked around the room and wondered what it would be like coming to board meetings and not having to endure wall-to-wall Republicans. During public comments, three speakers objected to the rejection of Saddleback College’s student government budget at the last board meeting. Trustees wanted students to spend more on scholarships, etc.

  Bob Cosgrove, Prez of the Saddleback College Academic Senate, declared that, by tabling approval of the “study abroad” trip to Peru at the last board meeting—Fuentes carped that the trip was too expensive and demanded more information—the board had in effect “stopped the trip.” He said that the deadline for something or other concerning the trip was “today,” and so there you are. Bob objected to the trustees' grilling of student government leaders and hoped that trustees would at some point offer an apology to them. Plus Bob also went on record as approving the recommendation to increase trustee stipends (per meeting) to from $400 to $750, although I think he was being crafty. The recommendation was triggered by a rise in FTES. Well, yeah, so there's more work for faculty, too. During board reports, trustee John Williams described his stay at yet another conference—this one in Anaheim two weeks ago. Milchiker expressed her discomfort with the “excoriation” of student government leaders at the last meeting. Surely this kind of grilling, she said, should occur away from TV cameras. Lang seemed to refer to some poor recent fiscal decisions, but I don’t know what he was referring to. (I’ll have to look into this.) For his report, Chancellor Raghu Mathur lost his composure, fuming over Bob Cosgrove's remarks about trustee questioning of student leadership. Mathur defended the trustees, noting that the latter have consistently asked the questions they asked. “We need to take the trustee comments seriously!” he exclaimed. At one point, he looked directly at Bob and fumed that the board does not need to be “lectured” by—well, Bob, I guess. “It’s insane,” he said. Well, no, it's not. “You never talk to me,” said Goo, looking accusingly at Bob. He then turned to the Peru trip, and, once again, looking at Bob, he declared that the trustees don’t need to be lectured to about the importance of these issues to taxpayers! Then, abruptly, Raghu added, “Happy Holidays.” That got a smile out of Wagner, who sensed that, for once, he wasn’t the rudest asshole in the room. "Thanks, Raghu," he seemed to say. The Institutional Effectiveness report went well. Upon its completion, Trustee Fuentes noted that the number of managers and administrators hasn’t increased in recent years, which, he said, is a testament to the fine leadership of the district. Well, no, it isn't. I guess Tom forgot that, for years, Mathur ignored the 50% Law (which requires that instructional spending exceed non-instructional [including administrative] spending], placing the district in legal jeopardy and precipitating a rush to hire 38 instructors all at once. And yet, at IVC, deans are spread much too thin. That's some leadership. As per usual, the board voted unanimously to grant pay to trustees who had missed recent board meetings. Item 6.1—the study abroad trip to Peru—was pulled from the agenda. It was unclear what this meant for the fate of the program. Bob had said that, now, the trip is off; but others were singing a different tune. Dunno. Item 6.6—the recommendation to up trustee compensation per board meeting from $400 to $750—was pulled by the Chancellor so that the matter could be “researched” further. Being a trustee is supposed to be a public service, right? Well, these meetings last about 5 hours, including the closed session. So, at $750, that's $150 per hour. Plus they get paid even when they don't show up. Then there's their $16K benefits package. Gee willikers! That's some public service! Item 7.3 was the “monthly financial status report,” which Mathur took as an opportunity to wag his finger at—well, not sure who—about how, fiscally, things really suck and will get way worse. He sure hoped, he said, that everyone was on top of this and not living in “la-la land.” Whoever Raghu’s intended audience was, he sure does hate‘em. He was oozing contempt. That's leadership. Mathur made a point of mentioning the appearance of the head of the United Auto Workers at the recent hearings concerning the auto industry. He noted that union’s willingness to make “concessions.” Fuentes purred. He licked his chest hairs. “Even Barney Frank, a liberal,” was talking about the need for restructuring, said a particularly ugly Mr. Goo.

The audience winced. Eventually, we got to item 7.4, the notorious “trustee expenditure report.” Padberg, who had requested the report, said that she had not had enough time to go over this information with the staff who had assembled it, and so she advised bringing the matter back in January. That was about it. Send all cards and letters to Raghu P. Mathur.

Last night’s board meeting: eyes have been opened

.    I couldn't attend last night’s meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees 'cause I was at the Greek Theater enjoying the performances of country/bluegrass star Alison Krauss, Led Zep singer Robert Plant, and super-duper producer T Bone Burnett (plus four other musicians, including the great Buddy Miller!). If you get a chance to see the "Raising Sand" show, don’t miss it. (See Times' review.)
.....Monday night, Krauss and Co. will be warblin' in San Diego.

.    Still, I did get a brief report from someone who was there—at the board meeting I mean. (As usual, we await Tracy Daly’s fluffy “Board Meeting Highlights,” which will likely materialize soon. [UPDATE: the "highlights" are now available.] And, don’t forget, the district regularly archives video of board meetings. The video, when available, can be viewed here.)

.    Naturally, the BIG NEWS last night was the appointment of Saddleback College’s new President (see posts below). The announcement was made, I’m told, by death-defying board Clerk Tom Fuentes, who, despite recent liver transplant surgery, was back on the job, scowling (I'm only guessin' about that) and making the world safer for right-wing nutjobs everywhere. (According to Fuentes, the accreditation process is fixed and controlled by, um, faculty. [That's seriously paranoid.] Plus the fellow wants to name Irvine's "great park" Nixon Park. [Nixon was a corrupt bastard, kids.])
.    We’re glad he's recuperating. Fuentes, I mean.

.    Math professor Karla Westphal was on hand to put Board President Don Wagner’s feet to the fire for his allegedly inappropriate speechifying (re trustee prayers) at Saddleback College’s scholarship event. Trustee Nancy Padberg was supportive—of Westphal.

.    During his report, Trustee Wagner, who, for several months, has been working with faculty (and administrators and classified—and even a student) on Irvine Valley College’s accreditation problem, went out of his way to praise these faculty. Working with this crowd, he said, has “opened my eyes.”
.    I’ve followed this saga carefully—early on, I was a detractor of the "focus group" idea—and, in my view, there is zero reason to suspect that Don’s remarks were anything but sincere. Later in the evening, an appreciative IVC Senate Prez Wendy G had an opportunity to return the compliment, which she did, or so I’m told.
.    Again, I do hope that members of the IVC community are keeping tabs on the doings of the IVC Accreditation focus group, for they have worked very hard and intelligently and seem to have generally hovered about consensus on some difficult issues (trustee micromanagement, roles and responsibilities of officers & groups, the climate of “despair,” etc.). Their biweekly (i.e., twice a month) meetings will continue for a month or two.
.    If our college manages to avoid accreditation disaster early in 2009, it will be largely because of the efforts of the focus group.
.    Be not oblivious.
.    Not sure what's going on with Saddleback College's more laid-back focus group, which includes trustee Dave Lang and whose motto appears to be, "What, me worry?" Or, again, so I'm told.

.    There was some discussion of the board's curious decision, a few months ago, to adopt a high level of "reserve" funds. Efforts last night to reconsider the matter were obliterated, I believe, by Trustee Fuentes, who made clear his firm opposition to lowering the percentage.
.    (Ten years ago, our district was placed on the state chancellor's "watch" list when our reserves dipped below the required percentage. Nowadays, however, our district is swimming in extra moola, owing to our "basic aid" funding plus high local property values, to which this funding is keyed.)

.    The ATEP thing passed. (Submittal of long range plan to the city [of Tustin].)

.    (Did you know that the city of Tustin, aka the "City of Trees," has peskified this whole ATEP business in part because certain Tustinites embrace a view of county history according to which Irvine Valley College was supposed to be Tustin's community college [to be located where the Tustin Marketplace now sprawls], but then that dastardly Irvine Co. showed up with "free land" along Jeffrey? [According to this yarn, the Irvine Co was in dutch over some seriously hinky deal, but they made that problem go away with this highly opportune giftage.] So, despite ultra-clear state rules to the contrary [proximity issues], Tustin wants its own friggin' community college [at long last!] there along Redhill, and, so, there you are: inveterate stink-eyed Tustinary peevitude!)

.    That’s all I’ve got. --CW


And here, for no particular reason, is one of my favorite semi-obscure tunes, "Here Comes My Baby," done by the Tremeloes in 1967. (The song was composed by Cat Stevens.)

I don't know why I like this version so much. The band is obviously a bunch of idiots. --Still....

Peevitude in Detail (Dec. 12 transcripts)(Board meeting)

Transcript from the Dec. 12 board meeting (edited; italics by Chunk): 

  INVOCATION [Apparently, the last one]: 

  TRUSTEE DON WAGNER: Lord our God, as we meet in this season of Advent…be present with us here tonight. Move within us and grant to us a resolve and powerful direction to do Your will…. 

….. PUBLIC COMMENTS: MARY WILLIAMS [with apparent near consternation]: 

…I wasn’t going to say anything tonight, and then I looked around at this crowd of dedicated, hard-working classified employees…These individuals have believed sincerely that you are interested in fairly negotiating with us and in coming up with a contract that was acceptable to both sides. We feel we’ve bent over backwards … to bring this to closure and we understand that you’re just not comfortable moving there. I tried to explain to my landlord—he wanted another hundred dollars a month, and I’m not comfortable with that, and he didn’t care…We just want a fair contract, and we wanted it six months ago, and we certainly deserve it now. Thank you. (Applause.) ….. 

TRUSTEE REPORTS: TRUSTEE NANCY PADBERG: I just want to say to the classified staff that we’re working very hard to try to come to some resolution [of contract negotiations], and while I’m wearing red for the holidays, it’s also supportive of you. ..... 

THE [YEARLY] ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING: TRUSTEE BILL JAY: I would like to nominate the present board leadership for a repeat performance next year. That means Mr. David Lang nominated as President, Mrs. Nancy Padberg nominated as Vice President, and Mr. Tom Fuentes nominated as Clerk… [Nominations are closed. These three win unanimously.] ..... 

CHANCELLOR RAGHU MATHUR: …I would like to recognize our board president, David Lang…President Lang, … you have been consistently fair and respectful of all people, including me ...You have been genuinely interested in team building…You are always willing to recognize excellence and promote best practices in all of our transactions and in our service to students. Therefore, on behalf of the district faculty, the staff, administrators, managers, the students, and the taxpayers, it is indeed my privilege to thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your wonderful leadership…We present this plaque to you. [Tracy takes a snap. Notoriously, Lang’s was the swing vote in the board action, of June ’05, to renew Mathur’s contract.] ..... 

TRUSTEE JOHN WILLIAMS: I’d like to address the issue of the removal of the invocation. Would you like to wait until the vote, or should I present my thoughts now?— TRUSTEE DAVE LANG: This would be the time to comment on that. [Williams makes a motion, but it is not seconded, and it apparently dies. Unless I am very much mistaken, the board approves a new “agenda format” that excludes an invocation.] .....

TRUSTEE LANG: I would like to make a few comments…I recognize the seriousness of the challenges and the opportunities that we face together to represent our communities…I believe that this board as a group has much to be proud of…Our district employs, in my opinion, some of the best faculty and staff in the state, and compensates them accordingly. I believe we have strengthened our communications among us, and are beginning to concentrate more of our efforts on significant issues…We’ve established district goals and board goals. We’re currently conducting a study to update the district’s educational and facilities master plan. These are all worthy and laudable accomplishments, but, of course, we’ll not be allowed to rest on our laurels. … We’ve got significant work to do to address and discuss recommendations that have been raised by the accreditation teams. We’ve got tremendous challenges ahead associated with balancing our current programmatic needs of the colleges with both the current and long-term infrastructure needs for both colleges and ATEP...I look forward to working with all of you in the year ahead and I thank all of you again for your support. 

 ..... THE REGULAR MEETING RECONVENES: THE “CONSENT CALENDAR” SHOOTOUT: PADBERG: 

I want to pull items from the consent calendar…Items 12 to 35 all deal with the [construction of the] IVC theater…. [Consent calendar items are approved in one fell swoop, without discussion. Pulling an item from the CC means devoting meeting time to discussing it and then voting on it. In the past, when a trustee has asked to pull items from the CC, that request has always been honored. That, now, board members urge the chair not to honor such a request is curious.] ….. 

WILLIAMS: Well, I don’t know why we need to pull half the consent calendar. The board should have some discretion on honoring these requests. I think we need to move on with the people’s business here. To pull thirty items from the consent calendar—I’d like to know if fellow trustees made telephone calls to staff to have their questions answered. The chair has discretion here….My question is, why are we pulling approximately thirty items from the consent calendar, when trustees have had at least a week to ask questions of staff if they had any questions?

PADBERG: It is within the discretion of any board member to pull items off the consent calendar. These are significant items having to do with the construction of a multi-million dollar building at IVC. [Putting these items on the consent calendar, as the chancellor has done] I don’t think does good service to the public who watches this meeting. They need to know how millions of dollars are being spent…This [construction project, including the selection of contractors] should probably not have [been placed] on the consent calendar. 

  LANG: …I happen to agree with Trustee Williams…In my view, there is adequate time for board members to ask the Chancellor and staff members about items that are on the consent calendar….[One might speculate that Padberg is not comfortable phoning the Chancellor, an individual who, reportedly, show holds in very low regard.] ….. 

WILLIAMS: …What I think is unnecessary in doing the business of the people is approving over and over the expenditure of the same dollars…I don’t think the viewing audience wants to hear us debate the contractors [for this project]…I would ask the board chair to use some discretion as to whether or not we should pull 29 items from the consent calendar. 

  PADBERG: [Though the expenditures have already been approved,] the contractor selections have not been [approved by the board]. We’re talking about [hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars]. I‘m just looking for some comment from the Chancellor … about the selection [of contractors] process—I understand they’re all the low bidder. However, we’re talking about millions of dollars, and we need to let the public know that. [At this point, Chancellor Mathur explains the process whereby contractors are selected. It would appear that this is all that Padberg wanted in the first place. Mathur explains the oversight involved. Mathur closes by inviting trustees to call him if they have any questions.] ….. 

WAGNER: …I am urging you [i.e., President Lang] to exercise your discretion to move this meeting along…[W]e’ve had all this information in front of us for over a week…and any member of the public who’s interested…can…come on down to the district [to get this information]…Everything here has been done in public, in a completely above-board manner, and any trustee who has a question about a particular sub-contract is free to, and is encouraged by our Chancellor, to contact administration…Let’s make a decision and move on. 

  TRUSTEE MARCIA MILCHIKER: I have to weigh in on the side of Trustee Padberg…[These items add up to over] $18 million…I remember in the past, that the board has been much more hands-on [about the construction of buildings], and every step of the way…we would look [in] every nook and cranny; we would have monthly meetings [about] how the building was progressing. And this is the meeting to conduct the business of the [district]…we’re not… [here] to speed through, to make sure [we]… get out of here by 9:00. Now, we have had this information in front of us for a week, but if there are questions to be asked…a trustee has the ability as an elected official—a million people elect us—[to handle?] the fiduciary responsibilities of the taxpayers to ask questions at the board meeting. So if there are questions, I think they should be answered at the board meeting. 

  PADBERG: …The Brown Act does not allow us to get our questions answered in private and to conduct the business of this board in private…[All that] I want is some comment from the Chancellor about the process. When you’re spending $18 million to do it in a ‘slam-dunk’, it’s just disgraceful. WILLIAMS [clearly peeved]: …There’s absolutely nothing [in the Brown Act] to prevent a board member from doing his or her homework and preparing for a board meeting by reading the agenda, and if you have a question, ask staff….[Williams turns to Mathur:] I have to ask the Chancellor: did any board member contact you about questions about these agenda items? [Mathur answers: “no one.” But then Lang reminds Mathur that Lang had called to ask him about some agenda items.] Yet trustees are saying they want to hear a presentation from you, but they didn’t ask you in advance? …So this is kind of a surprise on the chancellor to all of a sudden come in unprepared and to make comments about numerous agenda items. This is not the way the people’s business was intended to be conducted…This is ridiculous. WAGNER [with Wagnerian peevishness]: …What’s happened here, and what a majority of the board I think objects to, is a wholesale polling of every item….The issue here is not [that?] Trustee Padberg has a particular question with issues, it’s she’s got a philosophical objection to dealing with these on the consent calendar. But with all due respect to Trustee Padberg, this board feels differently, and a majority agrees that it can be handled on a consent calendar. Therefore I say to you…if you have questions, address them to administration in the proper channels in the proper time, and if you don’t get your questions answered about a particular agenda item, raise it here. Don’t screw up the whole business of this board when you are clearly in a minority. The board has voted and has determined to handle these on a consent calendar.

  PADBERG: There has never been a vote about how items are to be placed on the consent calendar, and every single item on the agenda should not be on the agenda unless there’s a staff member prepared to discuss it, consent calendar or not…We’ve debated for probably twenty minutes whether the item should be pulled. We could have been through talking about the item…. 

  WILLIAMS: As the maker of the motion, I don’t accept any changes in my motion…and my motion was to approve the consent calendar. 

  LANG: …I want to have a brief recess while I consult with legal counsel about this matter…

  [After a few minutes:] I have decided that it is appropriate for us to follow our past practice tonight and respect those trustees that have removed items from the consent calendar…Before our next meeting, however, I do intend to consult with district counsel to verify that we [i.e., the majority of trustees] have the authority essentially to approve a consent calendar without having to pull all of the items off in the future. [Lang pushes forward with a vote on the motion to accept the consent calendar—with Padberg’s items removed as per her request. Williams and Wagner dislike the decision. “I can’t support that,” says Williams. The Board votes with their electronic gizmos.] [The student trustee explains that, somehow, his vote is not registering with his gizmo.] 

  LANG: That does not surprise me based on the way this has gone so far. [Much laughter. Then there is a “re-vote.” Fuentes, Padberg, Lang, and Milchiker vote in the affirmative. Jay, Wagner, and Williams vote in the negative.] 

  LANG: It passes 4 to 3. --More (i.e., the debate re the hiring policy) later. --CW 

  THE "HIRING POLICY" DISCUSSION: As you know, the Hiring Policy has had quite an interesting history here in the district. (See the Dec. 13 blog for a review.) To make a long story short, two or three years ago, Chancellor Mathur and the Board Majority unilaterally developed and approved a new hiring policy that shifted power and authority away from faculty and toward administration. This occurred despite the law, which plainly requires that such policies be developed “and agreed upon jointly” by the district and faculty. After a coupla years of litigation, it was (conclusively) determined that the law means what it says and, hence, the district’s unilaterally imposed hiring policy was invalid. Thus it came about that a new policy was developed—this time truly jointly—and approved by the faculty (i.e., the academic senates) and the district’s representatives (namely, the Chancellor and Board President Lang). By Dec. 12, all that remained was board approval. Were the board to reject the new document, the district would be compelled to work with the last hiring policy jointly agreed to (i.e., the 1994 policy). In other words, were the Board to fail to approve the new policy, it would be forced to honor a policy that is even more “faculty friendly.” Under the circumstances, one might suppose that the new policy would be approved without controversy. But no. Trustee Fuentes objected to some of its elements. (Technical note: I did not bring enough videotape to the meeting, and I ran out just as Mr. Fuentes began his remarks. I quickly rewound the tape and started videotaping. Evidently, I did not remind far enough, and so I have no tape of the beginning or the end of this discussion. [The district keeps videotapes and broadcasts the meetings twice.]) 

  FUENTES: [As I recall, Mr. Fuentes began his remarks by noting the composition of the “search committee,” i.e., the group that evaluates applications and then interviews worthy candidates in the hiring process. That committee normally recommends three finalists, who are then interviewed by the President, who makes the final selection. If the committee sends fewer than three names, the President has the power to restart the entire search process. Hence, committee members have a motive to send three when there are three worthy of recommendation. Mr. Fuentes’ objection to the faculty’s choosing four of the seven search committee members flies in the face of that fact and other facts that give to “management” (as he calls it) considerable power and influence in this process.] …I would like to know how many finalists would the committee forward to the [college] President…[according to this new policy], and What would the President do if the committee forwards less than three finalists? And I’d also like to know, What would the President do if cronyism is involved in the hiring process, and he observes it? 

  MATHUR: Let me try the first [question], and I’ll defer to the college presidents about some of the other questions. With respect to the committee composition, I understand that the academic senate will be recommending four…faculty, and the college president will be appointing three [members], including the appropriate dean…. 

  FUENTES: So it is, for the record, to be stated that union membership–the academic senate “slash” labor union—appoints four in the selection process, and the management side of the equation, in the minority of three. [Mr. Fuentes displays a look of mild incredulity.]

  MATHUR: Well, as I stated, the academic senate will be appointing four, and the college president will be appointing three members out of a seven-member committee. [That wasn’t much help, so Lewis offers a comment:] 

  LEWIS L (faculty union president): As the president of the faculty association “slash” labor union, I just want to specify that the labor union has no role in appointing faculty members in the hiring committee at all— 

  FUENTES: Are all the senate members not likely members of the labor union? 

  LEWIS: They may or may not be, but… 

  FUENTES: [Interrupts:] But they could be. 

  LEWIS: But they certainly wouldn’t be functioning in that capacity while they [serve on the committee].  

WENDY G (IVC Academic Senate Pres.): To add clarification: the Education Code is very clear that hiring policy issues and procedures are between the board and the academic senate, not between the faculty association— 

  FUENTES: [Interrupts:] How do labor union members separate themselves in—in that. How do you take one hat off and put another hat on, when you go into that meeting? 

  WENDY: The Ed Code is clear that this is a role of the academic senate and [the] faculty association or the labor union has no role whatsoever in any procedure or provision of the hiring policy. 

  FUENTES: If the Academic Senate members are members of the labor union, how do you separate that?   You 

WENDY: That’s another issue, [one] that has nothing to do with hiring policies. 

  FUENTES: (after a pause): my next question is, Who will write the job description of each faculty vacancy?... [Deputy Chancellor Gary Poertner is called upon to answer the question. Poertner was on the committee that developed the new policy.] 

  FUENTES: [This?] faculty hiring committee, dominated by four members of faculty will have a significant review in the process of developing the description of each faculty vacancy? 

  POERTNER: Yes, it would be the faculty—primarily faculty in the department of the position that’s being hired. They would be the ones who know most about the position and would provide input about what’s needed in its description. 

  WENDY: [The new policy:] …provides that the college president has the final authority in decision-making on all job descriptions, so the management has the final authority and say on all job descriptions. The faculty simply have input into the process. 

  FUENTES: Thank you. My next question is, How many finalists would the committee forward to the President, and what would the President do if the committee forwards less than three finalists? 

  MATHUR: As a general rule, the committee forwards the names of three finalists to the President, and under rare circumstances, the committee may forward less than three, but the President has the option of asking— That’s where my tape cuts out. As I recall, it is next made clear that the new policy gives to the President the power to insist on three names for final interview (by the President). If the committee then asserts that there are not three candidates worthy of recommendation, then the President has the option of going forward or starting the search from scratch. Some of Mr. Fuentes’ questions seem to suggest that he has not read the new policy document carefully, and someone suggests that he should study it. Fuentes responds by suggesting that he can’t do that if he does not have the policy “before” him. It is then noted that the policy is indeed before him. In the end, Mr. Fuentes explains that he cannot “in good conscience” vote for a policy that is biased against “management.” The new policy is adopted on a 6 to 1 vote. I left the meeting soon after, but I have been told that the subsequent discussion of a possible required student evaluation of faculty was “interesting.” You might wanna catch that on TV.

Mathur goes after windows & doors; Special board meeting

Obstructed Views
Window Cleanup Order Angers IVC Teachers
LA Times
August 02, 1999

Mathur

     On a campus already strained by deep tensions, professors at Irvine Valley College are in an uproar over a new policy that they say threatens the time-honored practice of decorating office doors and windows with the cartoons, clippings and fliers that reflect their humor and passions.
     Faculty representatives are threatening legal action over a memo teachers received last week telling them to remove any posters or signs they have displayed on their office windows or external doors.
     The college president, Raghu P. Mathur, says he is seeking only to protect the school from unsightly clutter.
     But professors allege the policy is a ploy to stifle their ongoing criticism of the school's leadership.
"This is such an absurd attack on the academic environment," said political science professor Traci Fahimi.
     Writing professor Andrew Tonkavich [sic], who advises the student liberties club, says the restrictions are "more representative of a homeowners association than a vibrant community college."
     Like at many college campuses, the hallways and windows of Irvine Valley College are a panoply of personal expression.
     Signs on professors' doors and windows range from cartoons, newspaper clippings and announcements about grades and scholarships to sharp blows at Mathur. In one window, which faces the campus and can be seen from a distance, large signs proclaim "Mathur Must Go" and "Raghu Must Resign."
     And now, at least a dozen professors have added to their displays a large statement accusing district and school officials of "engaging in the political doublespeak common to totalitarian leaders—who want to brainwash the populace into accepting assaults on civil liberties and personal freedoms." To that statement, professors have signed their names.
     Mathur has been the target of faculty dissent since he took the school's helm in 1997. Even his selection was a matter of contention; he was chosen president on a 4-3 vote by the South Orange County Community College District's board of directors.
     In the aftermath of a blistering accreditation report that criticized the process leading to Mathur's appointment, the academic Senate—the faculty's elected leadership—called for his removal in February.
     Mathur denies that the policy memo, which was issued by the school's new vice president of student services, Armando Ruiz, under his direction, was meant to silence his critics.
     "We have opportunities available for people to post things, and we are trying to expand those opportunities by providing specific spaces for . . . expression of different ideas and so forth," Mathur says.

     According to the written policy, which was adopted by the board in April, students must have approval from the office of student services before they can display any sign or poster on campus. But even with a stamp of approval, displays are limited to certain bulletin boards.
     Although the policy does not specifically mention faculty, Mathur says instructors are covered by the policy's reference to members of the district community.
     Irvine Valley College officials say the policy is modeled after rules at UC Irvine.
     Indeed, fliers, signs and banners are limited to certain places on campus at UCI. But according to Randy Lewis, associate dean of students there, professors are free to post papers on their doors. And at UCI, neither faculty nor students are required to seek university approval before posting signs.
     “I don’t think any of the academic departments or schools have regulations against putting an announcement or flier on the door,” Lewis said….
     “We’re just trying to balance out the needs for freedom of expression along with maintaining a campus which is appealing and attractive to students, faculty and staff alike,” Mathur says….
     According to the Irvine Valley College memo, professors have until Sunday to remove their displays or the college will remove them….

A SPECIAL MEETING FOR SPECIAL PEOPLE
By Chunk Wheeler (Roy Bauer)
Dissent 27 - 8/16/99

     I attended most of the recent “special” board meeting, held on the 11th of August, which was not long after the media—first the Times and then OCN—covered Raghu Mathur’s amusing attempt to ban all signage from faculty windows and doors (at IVC)—especially those pesky anti-Mathur signs. He based his action on a preposterous reading of the district’s new “speech and advocacy” policy, a policy all parties had understood to apply only to students, not faculty and staff. The new policy, approved in April, is acknowledged by all parties to be a rip-off of UCI’s new rules, which, in fact, are not used to ban window and door signage from faculty doors at UCI, according to the Times.
     Media coverage especially on the 2nd and 3rd made Raghu and the district look like jerks. The situation was so bad that the Chancellor was forced to make a special damage-control trip to IVC (on the 3rd). Immediately after the visit, new Mathurian super-crony, VP of Student Services Armando “Glad Hand” Ruiz, issued another memo, this time rescinding the earlier order (to faculty) that had required removal of all signage by the 8th. It was only a temporary reprieve; the matter would be brought to the Board, wrote Ruiz, for review at the next meeting. The next meeting, of course, was the one on the 11th.
     The board meeting started at 3:10 with three-minute public comments. Leo Galcher (a unionist who, in November, had run against the faculty union’s anti-unionist candidate, Nancy Padberg) attempted to make a point about the Y2K problem but was ruled “out of order” by a thrillingly forceful Dorothy “Dot” Fortune, board president. Galcher, turning now to plan B, distributed literature about the Brown Act (i.e., the California anti-secrecy in government law), implying that the Board needed guidance in that area. Next, he commented on tonight’s hot potato, the speech and advocacy policy (5406) and Mathur’s stunningly stupid and transparently self-serving interpretation of it. Galcher found the timing of Mathur’s action—the dead of summer—interesting and suggested that this whole flap probably cost the district some enrollments.
     Next, a guy named “Mike” came up and didn’t say anything; not sure why. He seemed pleasant.
     Next, Traci Fahimi, IVC’s full-time Poli-Sci instructor, remarked on the new policy and its new Mathurian interpretation. In that connection, she asked the board to consider the meaning of the 1st Amendment. Alluding to the “debate” about Mathur, etc., that rages at IVC, she noted that the Constitution especially protects the challenging speech of minorities, not the speech agreeable to the majority. She added that the policy of banning signage from faculty windows and doors would have absurd consequences—no maps, etc.—and surely she was right. When she finished, the small crowd of about 20 applauded, causing Dot to glare and glower and hiss.

Fahimi

     The Dotted One then announced that the “regular meeting” would begin. Three recommended actions—concerning the Saddleback Community Ed. Schedule, a mentoring program, and Saddleback staff development—were each unanimously approved by a visibly Bored Board.
     This brought us to the main event—the “speech and advocacy” policy. According to the agenda, it was recommended that the policy be “reviewed” “to clarify intent.” (That, therefore, was the motion.) Fortune blathered forth some introductory remarks. Mathur, it seems, had taken upon himself interpreting the policy as applying to faculty, and so the “intent” of the policy is now at issue, said she. Sampson weighed in by noting that the policy’s language starts out sounding as though it has “general” application, but then, later, it speaks exclusively of students. (Quod erat demonstrandum, baby.)
     Mathur said nothing during this discussion. Wonder why.
     Fortune quickly established a redolent peevitude that never dissipated. We had discussed this damn business for over a year, she said. Everybody was involved—a lawyer, the ACLU, students, my Aunt Minnie, et al. We did everything right, she declared. In the end, we adopted UCI’s new policy, and, she noted, at the time, no complaints were heard from the two Academic Senates. So what’s all this infernal caterwauling?!
     Naturally, Dot didn’t know what she was talking about. For instance, she implied that the ACLU had embraced the UCI-based policy. Nope; in fact, the ACLU lawyer expressed serious misgivings about it and never ceased doing so.
     Fortune also implied that, having agreed to the policy in April, the faculty now suddenly objected to it. That’s nonsense. In April, the approved policy was understood by all parties to apply to students, not faculty. Indeed, the policy’s number is among those reserved for student policies, and the whole damn business of writing a new “speech and advocacy” policy emerged from a suit brought by two students who said that their right to speak was being violated (by Mathur). Dot’s remarks, therefore, were offensively misleading.
     Trustee Milchiker noted that she had voted against the policy back in April and still didn’t like it. It certainly shouldn’t apply to faculty, said she.
     Trustee Padberg seemed to say that, since the policy resulted from litigation, the board is prevented from making any changes to it. We can’t change 5406, but we can clarify it, she said, absurdly. She recommended the following: for now, faculty offices should be excluded from the policy. The Chancellor, however, should take up the matter of the policy’s intent with a committee in order to produce a “companion policy.” Williams seconded Padberg’s proposal (which was an amendment to the motion to review the policy in order “to clarify intent”).
     Fortune whined and squawked. She said that the Board had followed the “shared governance process” and so things should be left alone, goddamit. She took umbrage at the suggestion (Traci’s?) that the policy violates IVC faculty’s 1st Amendment rights. After all, said she, no one is freer in this world to speak and write than those boisterous IVC instructors! (Unless, that is, they happen to be instructors who edit a newsletter named “Dissent.”)
     A befuddled Trustee Frogue expressed unclarity about this talk of a new policy. He was quickly apprised of the main facts. Then, popping briefly into lucidity, he asked whether the UCI policy had been tested. No clear answer emerged, as I recall.
     Next, Trustee Wagner spoke. He seemed OK with Trustee Padberg’s proposal, but he noted that there already exists a policy (4054, I think) that speaks to some of these issues. He seemed very frustrated. He rocked his chair, tapped his feet, and played with his pen even more frenetically than usual.
     Tamara C, representing IVC classified staff, chimed in by asking if Padberg’s proposal means to exclude, for now, classified staff from the purview of 5406. She noted that, when the original order was rescinded, it was made clear (at least to her) that it was rescinded for staff, too.
     The answer was, I think, that only faculty would be excluded and that the “no signage” order would now apply to staff big time! (That was exceedingly odd; why should only faculty, and not staff, be excluded from a policy that, prima facie, doesn’t apply to faculty or staff, but only to students?)
     Trustee Milchiker hoped that all employees could be treated equally, if possible.
     Peter M of the IVC Academic Senate urged the board to “be clear” about one point: had the senates thought that the policy applied to faculty, they would never have approved it or failed to object to it back in April. 5406 was always understood to be a student policy, said he. Saddleback’s Maureen Smith agreed. Tamara nodded agreement. So did I, but nobody cared.

Tonkovich

     Trustee Lang suggested an amendment to Padberg’s proposal: for now, all members of the district community (aside from students) should be excluded from the purview of the policy, until the needed clarification is achieved. Padberg thought Lang was making the exclusion “pretty broad.” “Intentionally so,” replied Lang.
     Fortune broke in to read endlessly from the policy, and then she said something. I’m not sure what she said, ‘cuz I tuned out, but it had that “you mean to tell me!” feel to it. Everyone ignore her and rolled their eyes, which only increased her agitation and peevitude.
     Chancellor Sampson suggested that Lang’s amendment would make the policy difficult to interpret. (I don’t know why.) He noted that, traditionally, faculty doors and windows are viewed as private zones, but the public does not view staff offices as private. That may be unfair, but that’s the way it is, he said.
     Milchiker again expressed her fluffy egalitarian notions. The staff can be trusted not to exceed the bounds of decency, she suggested.
     The Chancellor responded by saying, again, that it’s just a “reality” that staff offices are different from faculty offices. He then described his visit to IVC on the 3rd, where he found, he said, “inappropriate and unidentified” statements about threats to IVC’s accreditation in a public place. In fact, the offending fliers (posted in A200 by the Student Liberties Club) assert that “our accreditation is in jeopardy” and that students need to “speak up and take a stand” against the Mathurian regime, which is the locus of the Accrediting Commission’s worries about IVC. Sampson fretted that someone might interpret these fliers (which look unofficial and are clearly identified as belonging to the Student Liberties Club) as “official” statements.
     Lang’s proposal, 2nded by Milchiker, to amend the motion to exclude all employees for now from the policy’s purview failed.
     Fortune returned to Padberg’s original proposal. Dot assured the Senates that it was not her intention to restrict rights—that, for now, the policy would not be applied to “faculty offices.”
     Peter asked if he understood what was being proposed. A body will now meet—and invite faculty—and come up with a policy? Is that it? Tamara expressed unclarity about the proposed plan. Classified employees had been told that the policy would not apply to classified afterall, at least for now. Are they now being told something else? She also noted that no memo had ever been sent to Saddleback faculty and staff about broad application of the “speech and advocacy” policy. What’s that all about? (Bullock was asked to respond; I don’t know what she said. Probably: “You can count on me, whatever.”)
     Lang ventured that the entire policy should be reviewed, not just this “application” issue. He reminded everyone of the debate, last April, concerning whether the new policy should be adopted as administrative regulations or board policy (v. Irvine World News, 4/29/99). That problem needs to be straightened out, he said. This suggestion took flight like a lead balloon.
     Eventually, Wagner noted that, in his view, faculty belong in the discussions of the policy.
Fortune restated Padberg’s proposal: for now, faculty offices would be excluded from the policy’s purview. In the meantime, a “companion” policy (for faculty/staff?) would be worked out. The proposal passed. (It seems to me that the proposal, as it was worded, did not guarantee faculty involvement in this “review” and “clarification” process.)
     Peter noted that the “exception” clause of the motion did not extend to other areas beyond faculty offices—e.g., classrooms. “Is that right?”, he asked. In response, Fortune kept saying, in her most patronizing manner, that, “We can work it out, Mr. Morrison.”
     Frogue seemed befuddled again. “Is this a motion or an amendment?”, he asked. Someone said, “Good God.” A snore ripped through the night.
     Wagner addressed Peter’s question, saying that educational materials would not be affected. Peter said he appreciated the clarification.
     And that was about it.
     Peevish Dot then rushed everyone on to item #5, something about grant applications (which ultimately concerned the district’s forming a relationship with a private company to set up a “Center for Digital Innovation.”). A woman named Marlee B was asked to come to the stand and answer questions, and she did, but, soon, she was even more peevish than Dot. Some seemed to feel that it is unclear whether Ms. B is a Director or a Dean, and nothing would be right in this world until that matter were settled decisively. Such thinking caused others to roll their eyes and snort. “Who gives a sh*t!” said a patrician woman sitting near me.
     The nature of the Trustees’ discussion of Ms. B’s job seemed mightily to annoy her at one point. She opined that the discussion was “inappropriate.” Wow.
     At another point, speaking mostly to Dot, she said, I think: “Do you want me to pursue grants or not?” Cool! Later, Dot said to Marlee: “I don’t want to debate this with you!” Later still, Dot spoke of her desire not to be a “rube,” a reference to the district’s recent bad experiences with private companies. Throughout, Chancellor Sampson seemed to side with Ms. B, noting that no venture is risk-free, but to no avail. At one point, he declared that one of Dot’s issues was “a trivial item,” and Dot hissed at ‘im.
     “We’ve been misused!”, declared Dot. “It’s not asking too much to get good information!” Dot yammered in that vein for some time. Ms. B sporadically responded to such sentiments by identifying misconceptions and misunderstandings that seemed to burden Dot and her Dotettes (Frogue, et al.). This went on and on for hours, it seemed. My eyelids became very heavy.
     At one point, John “Union Boy” Williams intoned, “If we build it, they will come.” He was referring, I guess, to a 45,000 square foot facility at the Tustin base, which was at the heart of item #5, I guess. I was in a coma, so I’m not sure.
     In the end, they put the whole matter on the back burner and Marlee stalked off as Cedric preened and cooed and Frogue stared into a corner with a quizzical expression.
     During the recess, my pal Steve came up and told me that he had met my Doppelganger in Austria this summer. I didn’t know what to say. So I said that I’d never been in Austria.
     After the break, Wagner dived into the issue of “district institutional membership”—that is, the district’s paying memberships to various organizations. This had come up during the previous meeting, which I missed—a real doozy, I’m told. I’m also told that Mr. Wagner was bothered by the fact that one organization to which the district paid dues (the American Association of University Women?) had “Hanoi” Jane Fonda as a spokesperson. Good Lord! Imagine that!
     Wagner raised this issue again on the 11th. But he also told the board that there is an anti-airport organization—ETRPA—that the district ought to consider a membership in. After all, he said, an airport would have an impact on learning, etc., what with the swooping and roaring of jets, and so forth. He also seemed to say that we should not have memberships in organizations that are basically political, especially if their political goals don’t jibe with the agendas of Trustees’ constituencies.
     Lang noted, dryly, that ETRPA itself is clearly political. So there would seem to be a conflict here. Laughter.
     Padberg repeatedly suggested sending a letter to organizations asking that our dues not go to political activities. Sampson seemed to say that such a letter would be “confusing” to organizations we sent it to. He also noted that, as members of the Community College League (or some such thing), we support lobbying in Sacramento.

     At some point, it was noted that the AAUW has given many thousands of dollars in scholarships to district (especially Saddleback) students. President Mathur noted that IVC has not given membership dues to the organization, a claim soon rebutted (and maybe refuted) by Mr. Wagner’s data.
     Trustee Wagner proposed that the district not give dues to AAUW, since its sole reason to exist is to promote a particular political agenda. He said he wants to be utterly consistent about this, so we should not give dues to conservative groups with a political agenda either.
     Trustee Milchiker said that it is best to weigh the good done by an organization (e.g., scholarships for students) against the “bad” of its political activities, which she characterized as “errors in judgment.” So, in that spirit, she supported AAUW. So did Frogue, who noted that the organization “supports women.”
     Dot explained that many other organizations to which the district pay dues are also political: the California Bar Association, the Society for Ecological Restoration, MLA, the Flat Earth Society, etc. In the end, Wagner’s motion failed, 5/2.
     At about that point, drool formed in one corner of my mouth, and so I got outa there fast. Who knows what else these jokers did.