THE 1998 IVC ACCREDITATION WHITE-WASH

     Among the many chapters of the Raghu P. Mathur saga is his and his friends’ efforts to submit rosy and bowdlerized reports to the agency charged with assessing Irvine Valley College. 

     In the Spring of ’97, not long after Mathur’s illegal appointment as interim President of IVC, Professor Rebecca Welch, who had been serving as the chair of the college’s accreditation “self-study,” resigned in protest over Mathur. 

    At some point thereafter, Mathur appointed his crony (and union Old Guard pal) Ray Chandos as chair. By law, the chair of this committee is jointly decided by the Academic Senate and the college President. The senate held a vote in which Connie Spar was chosen by a wide margin over Ray. This did not stop Mathur from appointing Chandos as head of the Accred self-study. 

     What follows are bits of some news articles and then an article from the Dissent. 

4/2/98 

Controversy arises over Chandos appointment 

By Jason Chittenden Staff Writer [The Voice; IVC's student newspaper] 

     Contributing to the tension on campus, Irvine Valley College President Raghu Mathur appointed Ray Chandos as Accreditation Self-Study Chair on March 23 despite the Academic Senate's vote of 15-4 in support of Connie Spar for the position…. 

4/21/98 

College: Harsh report softened? EDUCATION: Committee members say south- county accreditation report was altered. 

By KIMBERLY KINDY 

The Orange County Register 

     Harsh criticisms directed at the embattled South Orange County Community College trustees were removed from a draft report prepared for Irvine Valley College's accreditation review, according to district records released Monday…. 

     [Kindy's article included the following comparison: Original draft vs. Chandos' draft:]

HOW DRAFT REPORT DIFFERS FROM ORIGINAL 

ORIGINAL 

"General community perception of the current board majority holds that (it) ... is not an 'independent body' but rather operates at the whims of a small vocal group of faculty, notably the faculty union leadership." 

DRAFT 

"...the board is an independent policy-making board capable of reflecting the public interests..." 

ORIGINAL 

"...this board has repeatedly violated the California Open Meetings Act ... such repeated violations have resulted in additional lawsuits now underway and in a general breakdown of confidence." 

 

DRAFT 

Statement was omitted from draft report. 

ORIGINAL 

"In the past, the board has interviewed the chancellor's final recommended candidates. More recently the board has instead directed the selection process itself..." 

DRAFT 

"The governing board selects the college president under the employment procedures for executive positions, and delegates the evaluation of the president to the district chancellor." 

ORIGINAL 

"The president (Irvine Valley College President Raghu Mathur) makes every effort to review budgets and expenditures, though his unfamiliarity with college-wide budgeting and state fiscal concerns requires him to rely extensively on the advice of others, notably, specific board members' preferences..." 

 

DRAFT

"The president is well informed of state allocations and other income projections early in the budget development cycle." [End] 

4/22/98 

College District's Self-Evaluation Draft Draws Fire for Its Omissions

• Education: Critics say items critical of South Orange County trustees were omitted from the faculty administration report being sent to accreditation agency. 

By ROBERT OURLIAN 

TIMES STAFF WRITER 

     …Critics of the majority of the Board of Trustees charge that a draft report of a "self-evaluation" prepared by faculty and administrators was altered to remove lengthy passages critical of trustees. 

     The editing—while not illegal—shows an attempt to cover up problems at Irvine Valley College, one of the campuses administered by the South Orange district, critics charged….

4/25/98 

College District Not at Risk, Trustees Say 

• Education: leaders offer assurances on quality and accreditation after the latest flap, over criticism edited from a report. 

By ROBERT OURLIAN 

TIMES STAFF WRITER 

     Leaders of the South Orange County Community College District hastened to offer assurances Friday that educational quality is being maintained and that accreditation is not at risk as students threatened to leave the district to attend other colleges...Criticism is intensifying over faculty contentions that a draft college accreditation report on the school system's administration was "sanitized" when criticism of trustees was removed. But administrators said the process has retained its integrity.... 

5/1/98 

OC Weekly 

A Clockwork Orange 

by Matt Coker 

     ERASER HEAD: Stinging criticism of the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees was reportedly removed from a self-evaluation prepared by a committee of faculty students and staff for Irvine Valley College's accreditation review, it was disclosed on April 20. Key passages detailed board micromanagement and violations of the state open-meeting law. Language blaming the district's state financial-watch status on the board's refusal to heed the advice of its own financial experts was apparently excised. The Irvine Valley professor who headed the eight-member committee reportedly said he edited many statements out of the report for length's sake. But it wasn't short enough for trustees, who complained the sanitized version was still too critical of them. Accreditation officials invited committee members to send them an alternative report if they believe the final version is inaccurate.... 

 * * * * * 

From Dissent 6, 4/27/98 

[UNTITLED—“CHANDOS & Press conference”] 

BIG BILL REPORTS… 

By Big Bill 

      I went to the district press conference on the 24th of April, but I was late, ‘cuz I got a speeding ticket. The cop was nice—she warmly thanked me for my cooperation. And then she handed me a big fat ticket. 

     So I entered the smallish Chancellor’s Conference Room at about 12:10—just as Williams was reading his “statement” defending IVC Accreditation Chair Ray Chandos’ edits of the assembled drafts from the various IVC standards committees. The resulting document, submitted to the Board on Monday (4/20), had received very negative media coverage throughout the week. 

     For those who don’t know, I should explain that Raghu Mathur appointed his pal Ray to the office of Chair of Accreditation against the recommendation of the IVC Academic Senate, which preferred the excellent and non-partisan Connie S. (Connie received 15 votes, Ray 4.) As usual, the Ragshire Cat dismisses the charge that he has once again ignored the Senate’s input despite the law, which, in this instance, states that the selection of an accreditation chair shall be made by the President and the Senate together. Indeed, Mr. Goo had chosen Ray and pronounced him “accreditation chair” in a memo sent [to the Senate president] before senators had a chance to vote on the two candidates. 

     Many of us fully expected Chair Chandos to water down specifically those elements of the ten committee drafts that were critical of Mathur and the Board Majority; after all, Ray has been an intimate member of a union leadership group, a gang that has declared, through its actions, contempt for any standards of decency and fair play. But few of us expected Ray’s fix to be so blatant, so naked, for Ray has sanitized the drafts of any significant criticisms of his friends. 

     Consider, for example, the job he did on the draft submitted by the standard 10 (governance) committee. What follows is the committee’s work and then Ray’s bowdlerized version: 

The committee’s verbiage: 

General community perception (10.2) of the current Board majority holds that this Board of Trustees is not an “independent body” but rather operates at the whims of a small vocal group of faculty, notably the faculty union leadership. Further, as local press, lawsuits (10.3), and other documents attest (10.4), decisions made by this Board are often not seen as being made in the “public interest,” but rather are viewed [sentence cut off in duplication] manner. The unfortunate national and international attention brought on by recent Board actions is not believed to be in the best interest of the communities served. While the Board policies and state laws (10.5) dictate their need to “post agendas, establish a protocol for public comment on agendized and non-agendized items,” and to preserve minutes of all Board meetings, since December 16, 1996, this Board has been found to violate those requirements, necessitating “cure and correct” actions, and resulting in legal judgments against the district issued by the Superior Court of Orange County (10.6). Further, pursuant to seeking legal remedies, community members and counsel representing district employees have repeatedly requested relevant documents, particularly minutes of closed session meetings--which this Board does not make or retain as required by law. As the referenced lawsuits indicate, this Board has repeatedly violated the California Open Meetings Act by discussing in closed session matters expressly forbidden by law, and has conducted employee evaluations without the requisite prior notification of the individuals. Such repeated violations have resulted in additional lawsuits now underway and in a general breakdown of confidence and “trust across stakeholders’ groups” (10.8, p. 6). 

Ray’s “edited” version: 

The above mechanisms insure that the board is an independent policy-making board capable of reflecting the public interest in its activities and decisions, with continuity in membership and staggered terms of office. 

—Wow. 

[Inserted: from LA TIMES April 22, 1998: 

The Accreditation commission is aware of the district’s problems—fiscal woes, a drain of top administrators, infighting over institutional governance and a trustee recall campaign—and will not be deceived “for three nanoseconds” by an inaccurate self-study report, [Judith Watkins of the WASC] said.] 

     This, of course, is only one example. There are many others. Nor are the “expurgations,” additions, and modifications confined to Standard 10, for other standards chairs have complained bitterly about Ray’s ham-fisted “edits” of the committee drafts. (For instance, Ray deleted a reference in the standard 3 draft to “low morale” among employees despite overwhelming evidence of enervation and demoralization provided by college and district surveys.) 

     Ray and his crew of defenders—all of them FA-affiliated—have suggested that the committee drafts sometimes expressed idiosyncratic political views of individual faculty. Ray, they argue, merely sought to shorten the drafts by eliminating undocumented claims and elements that did not respond directly to the appropriate questions. Clearly, however, many of the deleted elements were directly responsive to the questions, were well-documented, and (for what it’s worth) reflected the views of many at IVC. Further, as the above example illustrates, Ray added rosy elements that did not originate with, and that even contradicted, the original committee drafts. 

     Way to go, Ray. 

     ANYWAY, I went to this press conference on the 24th. Three reporters had showed: Bob O. of the Times, Laura H. of the Irvine World News, and Bob S. of the Lariat. Williams was the only Trustee in attendance. Pam Zanelli and her hair were there, as were Kathie Hodge, Chandos, Dixie B. [I think], Dean Wormer of Faber, and Glenn Roquemore (interim IVC VP of instruction, and former IVC Accred. chair). 

     Williams’ reading of his (entertainingly underwhelming) Statement was followed by a few Q&As, but then there was a brief lull, and so I made my move: I said that I was there representing the SOCCCD Dissent and the IVC ‘Vine, and then I started to ask a question; but before I could complete it, Williams’ said he did not recognize me as a member of the media. I asked him why. He said, “‘Cuz,” or something equally erudite. 

     Not satisfied with that answer, I returned to my question; I asked, “In the case of Standard 10, Ray deleted the committee’s reference to the Board’s violations of the Brown Act; are you saying that this fact is not relevant to ‘governance’ or that it is not documented?”—or something to that effect. Williams sought to obscure or block my question through the clever gambit of loudly objecting as I spoke. I almost said, “I know you are but what am I?” Instead, I asked, “Are you gonna throw me out?” Williams said nothing. I said nothing. Everybody said nothing. 

     The other reporters eventually asked more questions. Bob Ourlian (who had read the original standard 10 draft plus Ray’s edit) noted that all of the deleted verbiage criticized the Board, and none of it praised the Board. He asked whether that pattern were coincidental. “Is that what you’re saying?” he asked. 

     The response, I think, was something like, “Bla bla bla bla.” 

     At some point, Glenn Roquemore seized upon the notion of “balance.” He said that it was Ray’s job to seek a balance, not just to present the views of one “side.” Eventually, Ourlian responded to Glenn’s theme by asking whether Glenn was saying this: to be objective, the report must have an equal measure of praise and of criticism of the board. (Later, Ourlian and I joked: “It’s a good thing these people weren’t in charge at Nuremberg: ‘Sure, these Nazi fellas did some bad things, but, hey, there were some real positives, too.’”) 

     Before Glenn could hiss “yes,” Kathie jumped in to say no; that’s not what they meant at all, she said, though, in truth, she did not shed much light on what they had in mind by this “balance” talk. 

     After a few minutes, Ourlian pointed at me and said, “Well, if Roy can’t ask questions, can I at least ask him some questions?” And he did. 

     He asked, I think, how faculty at IVC view Ray’s “edit” job. I seized the opportunity to say everything I was going to say anyway, to the horror of Williams, Zanelli, Wormer, et al. I explained that every member of the faculty to whom I have spoken thinks that Ray’s appointment was purely political. Ray is simply doing the bidding of Raghu and the Board Majority, thereby quidding the union’s pro quo. I described the dubious process by which Ray was chosen as Accred. Chair and of the resignation, 11 months ago, of the original chair, Rebecca Welch. (Rebecca had written a memo stating that, with Raghu as president, she no longer had faith in the integrity of the accreditation process.) I added that I disliked Zanelli’s ‘do, which seemed to threaten to sprout dangerously in all directions. 

     Bob S. seemed to be shocked--shocked!--at these allegations. If these charges--in particular, the “charge” that Chandos was appointed in the manner I described and that Chandos’ editing reflected bias--can be verified, he said, well, that’s pretty serious. 

     Eventually, Laura H. expressed her utter bewilderment at President Mathur’s appointment of Ray Chandos as chair of accreditation given IVC’s difficult political atmosphere. Why did he not confer with the Senate? Why did he appoint someone who, obviously, would be viewed as biased? 

     “Bla bla bla bla,” they said. 

[INSERTED: from The Register April 21, 1998: “As a student, I am very concerned that the accreditation team will potentially find major discrepancies between how the final reports portray the college vs. the actual condition of the college,” said Debie Burbridge, who attends Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges.] 

     It is possible that Williams and his allies scheduled the press conference in part because the “protest” movement at IVC is rapidly gaining momentum. Not only have three successful “marches” been staged, but students have begun to express concerns about IVC’s accreditation status in classes and in the student newspaper, the Voice. 

     I have been told that, during President Mathur’s recent visit to the School of Physical Sciences and Basketweaving, he characterized faculty and staff who have participated in the marches as “despicable.” 

     Now, some say that “despicable” is Daffy Duck’s tag line, but I am among those who demur; surely everyone knows that it is the endearing tag phrase of Sylvester Cat (contra-Tweety-Bird). Dissent would like to get this straight, so we would appreciate any help in this regard.

How I Joined the Union, Part III—OR Red Emma and the Temple of Doom

How I Joined the Union, Part III

—OR 

Red Emma and the Temple of Doom

See PART II
See PART I

By Red Emma

DISSENT 6 - April 27, 1998

Regular Dissent readers might assume editor Big Bill's [Roy Bauer's] colorful illustrations and animated journalistic style represent editorial vox hyperbolas. This is satire, right? Exaggerated, if necessary, fun-poking at people in power? Is it possible, for instance, that proceedings of F.A. representative council meetings, occur as recorded by B.B.?

Red Emma reports that, Big's creative powers notwithstanding, he is not applying them to accounts of the union's monthly organizational trysts appearing in this journal.

Brothers and sisters, Emma testifies to the verity of past reports, at least if last week's meeting is any indication.

Newly elected by the Adjunct Organizing Group (AOG) as your adjunct union rep (in fact, the only dues paying local member), Red attended the Monday meeting prepared to be seated and ask three questions: (1) What are my duties and privileges? (2) Why isn't the union actively recruiting part-timers? (3) How will much-touted (by Ray Chandos) part-time contract gains (interview guarantees and health benefits) be facilitated?

Introducing myself to Madame Chair [Sherry M-W?], I was informed that I was not in fact the union rep and that, contrary to advice offered by Chandos via another adjunct (Chandos will not call the Red line), election of adjunct union reps would in fact occur along with everybody else--nominations deadline Tuesday, 5 p.m.

Mr. Kopfstein

Eager to oblige, Red Emma dutifully wrote a letter nominating himself. When Elections Chair Bob Kopfstein arrived about forty minutes into the meeting, it was handed him with a flourish and, with the arrival of R. Chandos, the elections agenda item proceeded. I complained politely that my campus union rep wouldn't call me back and asked how election of part-timers might occur absent protocol or notification. Chandos repeated misinformation about a separate election. This time, both Madame Chair and Prof. Kopfstein interrupted, informing the meeting simultaneously that "one" and "two" positions would be filled by votes of dues paying members. After discussion about old by-laws (which suggest unwieldy and frighteningly democratic proportional representation) and the profound absence of any new bylaws, M. Chair and B. Kopfstein seemed to disagree to disagree, leaving all unclear whether one or two positions would be filled for over 700 adjunct faculty at two colleges.

I am not making this up. Red Emma swears on the graves of the Homestead martyrs and his jar of cheese Ragu.

Red then invited someone, anyone, of the twenty assembled union members to speak to part-timers at our next AOG meeting on Friday, May 8, 12:30 pm--an invitation met with silence.

Finally, I asked how part-timers applying for district jobs could know if their now contractually mandated "automatic" job interview (subject to mysterious and undefined requirements) would be granted by SOCCCD Personnel and hiring committees.

"What," I asked Madame Chair, "would you do if you'd worked as a part-timer for five years and now applied for a job with the district? Would you include that info in a cover letter or otherwise notify them of your conviction that you met the requirements?"

My mere mention of Personnel was met with much rolling of eyes and giggling. But when I asked what the union would do to intervene on behalf of this particular segment of its constituency, the answer came that the contract did not kick in till July 1, conveniently past deadlines for many current openings and perhaps full-time positions for quite awhile.

Red attempted to raise related issues, but had apparently exceeded his time, despite the singular precedent-smashing attendance of a part-timer faculty rep. Red's final, desperate plea for a union emissary to the AOG meeting this time was answered in the person of Prof. Ken Woodward of Saddleback.

Red Emma, in the flesh

At the meeting's conclusion, Red approached Prof. Woodward to thank him and confirm his attendance at the May 8 meeting. Woodward again agreed to attend, but candidly offered that "you should form your own unit because most full-timers are not concerned with part-time issues," a sentiment echoed by Madame Chair, who joined us briefly in what was for me, the afternoon's apogee. The honesty of these two union leaders seemed a welcome, if confusing, respite from the obfuscation and bafflement (to me) of the meeting itself.

Analysis: Part-timers have not been recruited, it seems, because they were not welcome. Despite being represented and bargained on behalf of, they were not the concern of a local dominated by full-timers.

There you have it. Almost. Two days later, Red Emma received a call from Elections Chair Kopfstein, who found no record of Red's membership, a fact which, if true, would correctly disqualify Red from running for anything. "Your name does not appear on my list," he said.

Red Emma supplied Prof. Kopfstein the necessary assurances and he apologized for any confusion. Red asked how many candidates there were for the job. He replied, "one." "Nobody from Saddleback?" asked Red. "Yes, one from Saddleback. One from IVC."

As Elections Chair, it seems Kopfstein bravely elected to arrange for two positions (recall the disagreement with Madame Chair). The ballot offers one candidate (me) for one position at IVC and the election involves exactly one qualified voter (also me) to elect him. Ain't democracy grand?

Meantime, Diane Fernandes-Lisi, CTA Staff Consultant, offered to help part-timers work to secure their own separate dues-paying bargaining unit (again, me). Red Emma assumes Prof. Woodward will advise on May 8 how to remove ourselves from his unit, even as Red Emma appears to be on the verge of an astounding elections victory finally guaranteeing adjunct faculty representation in same.

Lesson: Join the union!

* * *

Finally: It's backlash time. The opposition, such as it is, is summoning all of its modest energy toward pulling down student protest fliers, distributing their own giddily oblivious circulars and, contrary to their man Mathur's saucy memo, talking campus politics (yikes!) in class!

That's predictable and, in fact, welcome. What's alarming is that some part-timers, now apparently disturbed by any political "disturbance" (where have they been for 18 months?), seem to have taken Mathur's thoughtfully intimidating memo to heart and further distanced themselves from students and their teacherly responsibility to act, to speak, to teach. Instead of seeing this injustice for what it is, they seem to blame those trying to fight it. Folks, Red Emma reminds you that this is not only an IVC issue. The ghettoization of adjunct faculty, the corporatization of the academy and the "temp"-ization of labor is a trend, along with "downsizing" and the exoticization of technology. This is not going away. Who's going to fight it? Who's going to organize? If not part-time teachers, who? If not now, when?


The union leadership does not want to explain to the membership why it is revising the bylaws only a year after the last (so-called) revision. (You will recall that Dissent has raised this issue in the past.) During the last Rep. Council meeting, however, faced with a direct question, Sherry at last provided a clear explanation: it is being forced to make changes by the CTA, for the CTA has judged that our so-called bylaws contain many illegal elements, a point that critics of the leadership have made repeatedly to no avail.

The ratification election is rapidly approaching. Predictably, the leadership has decided not to provide copies of the current bylaws to members (in preparation for that event). Further, it has decided not to hold a meeting to explain the revisions to the membership. Finally, for now, it won’t show anyone the revisions.

No problem; WE’LL do it.... –RE

FROGUE AMBUSHES A YOUNG CRITIC--WITH HELP FROM THE CHRISTIAN COALITION by Tom (Roy)

Frogue

From Dissent 6, 4/27/98

[“Tom” of South County, a cat, was one of Chunk’s alter-egos. (Roy Bauer)]

by TOM OF SOUTH COUNTY

Got no time for foolin’ around, kitten, but I wanted to tell you one thing before I blow, ‘cuz it offends my sense of justice, and usually I ain’t even got a sense of justice, you know that.

It’s a fact that maybe a dozen former Foothill Froguers have signed affidavits swearin’ Frogue said and did some nasty shit in their classrooms--way back when plus more recently, too. One of those students, Pam B.--she’s 24--is on the Frogue Recall Steering Committee, an’ she’s in charge of roundin’ up these affidavits, among other things, which ain’t easy, ‘cuz nobody wants to get involved--like always, baby.

Well, it turns out that Pam works for some dog-faced fool belongin’ to the Christian Coalition, and that rat bastard found out about Pam and the Recall. So he tells her he’s concerned about her involvement--’cuz he’s a right-wing Frogue-lovin’ asshole or somethin’--and that she should meet with his Christian Coalition pals some time to talk it over with ‘em. She says OK--she doesn’t wanna say “no” to the Boss Man--and he sets it up.

When she shows up to this thing--it’s at some restaurant--she’s amazed to find this rogue’s gallery sittin’ around a table breathin’ heavy Christian breath at each other: Zanelli, Williams, the Boss man, the head of the local OC Christian Coalition, a plastic Big Boy, and Frogue. She couldn’t believe it! It was an ambush at the KK Korral!

But this kitten’s got nerve, baby, and she walks up and says, what’s goin’ on? So they have this pow-wow where Frogue’s sayin’ he never said that shit they said he said, and she’s sayin’, “Yes you did,” and Frogue’s comin’ back with, “Who’s makin’ you tell them lies?”, an’ she’s sayin’, they’re not lies, they’re truth, fool, and you know it!

Well, this thing kept goin’ nowhere--and she had no friends there, baby; they were gangin’ up like dogs—and Pam tells ‘em after a while, “You’re wastin’ my time,” and she up and leaves. That’s one cool kitten. --Take some notes, baby.

Hey, I may be just a cat, but five big butt-ugly dogs barkin’ at one lonely kitten just ain’t right.

Know this, Frog Man: I’m savin’ up some seriously nasty feline fluids just for you.

--MEOW, baby

Some Crazy Shit Down at the District, Baby

by Tom of South County [Roy Bauer]

Dissent 5 – April 14, 1998

Listen up, kitten, ‘cuz I’m only sayin’ this once, and then I’m outta here. I was down at the district offices on the 6th of April—that was a Monday. I was tryin’ to get some ZZZs behind a box in the Chancellor’s Conference Room, but, man, the Chancellor and her Chancellorettes came in for a meetin’ and things didn’t let up in that room all day!

So, anyway, these people came in the room, and they were joined by Patrick Lenz, who’s Vice Chancellor of Fiscal Policy up at the state, and his sidekick, and also the new district fiscal guy, Newmeyer, I think. It was some pow-wow, baby, and your Tom was right in the middle of it as usual.

But then things started hoppin’, ‘cuz [Dot] Fortune and [John] Williams—don’t hiss, baby—came in, and this time they dragged somethin’ in with ‘em. It was a court reporter!

So Lenz says “No fuckin’ way,” but Fortune’s prepared, see, ‘cuz she whips out a letter for Lenz to sign sayin’ he won’t let ‘em do the court reporter thing like they wanna. But Lenz, he’s on top o’ things, see, and he just says, “I ain’t signin’ that shit!” or somethin’ to that effect. So, now, Fortune and Williams are steamed more than you can imagine, but, the way I remember it, they stay in the room, even though they’re not set to be under the Lenz until like 3 o’clock. That’s some pushy shit.

So, anyway, Fortune and Williams joined [Kathie] Hodge in her office at some point—it’s all gettin’ fuzzy in my head—but, after a coupla minutes, they stomped out again still hissin’ and steamin’ like before. Yuh see, Fortune and Williams came back into the Conference Room and thought they could sit there all day for this string of meetings, but the Lenz Man coughs up this big hair ball and says, No Goddam Way. I mean he says they’re just not welcome, OK? So like Fortune fills her shorts and runs around like a goddam dog, ‘cuz she’s gotta stay on the outside lookin’ in. And that’s just what she does--glarin’ and glowerin’ and snarlin’, I mean. And she’s somebody who can do that, baby.

Well, these meetings went on all day, like I said, and, ki-TEN, they were somethin’ else. When all those trustees finally met with Lenz in the afternoon, they got real hissy, and I was afraid the hair’d start flyin’. So, I just bolted right outta there. And I don’t bolt, you know that.

Well, when all was said and done, a letter of reprimand was placed in Hodge’s file, I guess ‘cuz she didn’t grab Lenz by the neck and slap ‘im around or somethin’. Piss on it, I say.

One thing more, baby. This district is in some serious shit. I may have to drag my feline ass to greener pastures real soon. What’s more, some accreditation big wigs are comin’ to visit on the 13th, an’ what’s THAT about?

You’d best listen to Tom, kitten. Get your financial and governance shit together, and do it soon too, ‘cuz some o’ these days, somebody’s gonna kick your big ol’ litter box clean across the room. And then the shit is gonna fly, baby.

MEOW

INVISIBLE INK MEETS INVISIBLE REP—or HOW I JOINED THE UNION – PART II

Red Emma: "Look to the sky!"

By Red Emma

Dissent 5 - 4/14/98

News flash #1: Nobody from the union showed up at last week's meeting of the IVC Adjunct Organizing Group (AOG). Surprise. Yet despite its apparent lack of interest in, even disregard for what is numerically the majority of its potential voting membership, half of the dozen part-time faculty attendees left with the union's membership forms, vowing to join up pronto.

Here's a frightening thought: What if part-time faculty joined the union, used their new political power, and played a role in contract negotiations, workplace issues and the life of our academic community? Scarey, huh?

Yes, there is a price. No, it's not $14.00 a month. You may recall Red Emma's previous report, when he left readers on a precipice of curiosity regarding whether he'd be charged full or part-time dues. Payroll botched it, but happily, caught its own error. A kind staffer from SOCCCD took responsibility for the error and called to inform me that I would in future have $18.00 removed from my walloping big adjunct faculty remuneration.

$18.00. That's it. And, of course, getting involved.

Reminder: The AOG meets pretty much bi-weekly. We're prioritizing concerns, so please attend or communicate your interest to 497-3876 (Andrew's home number).

News flash #2: We did it! IVC Adjunct Assembly elections, facilitated by the A.S., now allow us to, among other things, elect Adjunct Faculty to two positions on the Senate. That's a start.

News flash #3: Telephoned by a part-timer last week, Red Emma found himself lacking information sufficient to answer questions regarding the newly passed contract and much-touted part-time faculty health benefits. The contract is meant to be retroactive, so that, figures R.E., Adjunct Faculty who qualify and have already worked five semesters should immediately query Personnel and the union rep, asking for details of enrollment in a health plan.

Some questions: Is summer session teaching included? Consecutive semesters? How soon can we enroll?

These questions should be directed immediately to SOCCCD Personnel and your Union Rep.

Finally, it's Springtime and, like the swallows of Capistrano, the urge to threaten somebody with libel returns in the form of a whimsical photocopy from an anonymous wag superimposed over Red Emma's previous communique. Interesting that the local cannot produce its own part-time faculty newsletter, instead apparently choosing to mess with Red Emma and Dissent.

As regards the Red One's report, he stands by all material and points out that the only legitimate potential slander issue here has to do with privacy. In fact, Red Emma's article effectively blew full-time Prof. Ray Chandos's (R.C.) well-protected and profoundly deep cover as Union Rep, a position thus far successfully concealed from over two hundred IVC part timers by him and the union local for years.

To that offense, Emma pleads, of course, guilty. —RE

SEE PART III of this series

Andrew Tonkovich

Contract ratification: "What a pr*ck," I thought (Chunk Wheeler)

Counting the ballots

by Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer]

Dissent 5 - April 14, 1998

Quote of the week:

     “The board put that provision in the contract so that it could hide from the state the fact that they’re giving teachers a raise.”

–Sharon MacMillan, FA President-elect, in OC Weekly, 4/10/98

Pat Fennel

On Tuesday, the 31st, I headed down to Saddleback College for the Counting of the Ballots—the final episode of our union’s shabby contract election. Unfortunately, a week earlier, a fit of generosity caused me to assent to Sharon M’s request that I participate in this event. So, I had to go.

I arrived at Saddleback a few minutes late—largely because I put off leaving from IVC until the very last minute, so eager was I to participate. Upon finding the designated room, I entered from the rear, where the odious Mr. [Patrick J.] Fennel was sitting alone, chewing his lip and growing his hair. He spotted me, and with his usual flair for the ugly, he spit forth something like: “Well, c’mon, Bauer! They’re waiting!”

“What a pr*ck,” I thought.

Just then, an unfamiliar man—evidently, the imported “mediator” or “neutral party”—started the proceedings. He announced that he was there to authenticate the ballot-counting, not the entire election, which, obviously, he could not do. I walked, warily, toward the front of the room, hoping that my obligation to participate had somehow been rendered moot by the leadership’s usual sequence of unexplained changes in plan; but then Pete E noticed me and directed me to my assigned position next to the mediator.

So I walked up to this fellow, whose name, I believe, was Hart, and shook his hand. “How are ya!” he shouted. “Nice day, doncha think!” he said. “Stand right there, fella! That’s it!” Later, he asked me if I ever played football. No, I said, and his eyes communicated bewilderment.

Kopfstein

I suppose that, among my critics, there are those who believe that I am always unaffected by their occasional signs of hostility toward me. Not so! On this day, I had had quite enough of that sort of thing to last me a while, and so I tried to do the job at hand without regard of any expressions of hostility. I was relieved to find that Mr. [Robert] Kopfstein, another of Mr. Hart’s little helpers, was behaving almost courteously. I felt so warm and fuzzy inside, that I almost gave him a hug.

Before I could do that, however, I noticed that the voting instructions taped to IVC’s ballot box were distinctly different from the instructions taped to the Saddleback box. I recall in particular that the IVC instructions required that the voter show her photo ID and sign a roster prior to voting, while the Saddleback instructions made no such demands. I apprised the audience of this peculiarity.

In response, Sharon MacMillan briefly explained how the disparity had come about. I think she said that, at first, Saddleback faculty were asked to show IDs and so on, but some objected, and so the Saddleback, but not the IVC, instructions were changed in mid-election. Naturally, union leaders saw no problem with this change at one campus but not at the other. For his part, Mr. Hart seemed particularly uninterested. “I’m just here to count ballots, ya know!” he said.

“Hey, everybody, I’m practically worthless!” he added, in my imagination.

No doubt Mr. Hart was in danger of being late for his weekly poker game. Under his direction, we hastily recorded names, ripped open outer envelopes, ripped open inner envelopes, and studied the occasional electoral curiosity (unknown voter names, etc.). I watched with amusement as the Neutral One rashly threw the inner envelopes into a trash barrel, for the separate piles of white paper that we created were almost indistinguishable, and we helpers could easily have placed ballots and envelopes in the wrong piles.

“Pretty half-assed,” I thought.

At times, the four or five of us on the counting crew were in ridiculous independent uncoordinated motion, like bumper cars or ants, and it was clear that neither Mr. Neutrality nor anyone else could keep track of us all. (Not that it mattered.) Out of the chaos, I think I saw one envelope pop into the air, fly across the room, and land in Sherry’s hair, but no one noticed. I bet it’s still in there somewhere.

Sharon M

When some in the audience complained to Mr. Hart that he was not making the meaning of our efforts clear, he responded by picking up the pace and explaining things loudly and with many gestures. It was as though he had been told that the audience comprised deaf simpletons who were growing impatient. For what it’s worth, the process was clear to me, and it seemed indeed to be on the up and up, albeit unnecessarily confusing to the audience.

When all the ballots (except for a handful of mutant instances) were counted, 104 proved to be “pro,” while 86 proved to be “con.”

Some in the audience made celebratory gestures and sounds. Others glowered. I glowered.

And thus it was that the contract was ratified.

Diane Fernandes-Lisi:

Reporters began to buzz around. I talked to a Lariat reporter for a few minutes and then walked over to Diane Fernandes-Lisi (of CCA/CTA), who, earlier, had been studying my every action as though I were a grifter counting the day’s receipts. I asked her if she was concerned about the various irregularities of this election—the union leadership’s failure to provide a ballot box at IVC during the first few days of the election, their numerous bewildering changes of the election closing date, their failure to sunshine some elements of the contract to the membership, the failure of the union’s negotiating team to understand, or even to read, the terms of the restoration of steps 26-30 until negotiations were over, the exclusion of eligible voters (new members) from the election process, etc.

She was, she said.

I asked her if she understood that, until recently, the union leadership had planned to hold the bylaws ratification election among the Rep Council, not the membership, contrary to the FA’s current bylaws. I asked if she knew about the illegal “refusal ballot” scheme that the union leaders were now contemplating applying to upcoming elections. She grew glum and glummer.

In the background, I could here Ken [Woodward] declaring to all who would listen to him that this election was the most honest and above-board event that had ever occurred in the history of the entire world and of all possible worlds, too.

I left.

AFTERMATH

By the next morning, word had spread that a press conference was scheduled for the purpose of announcing the attainment of a faculty contract. It was to be held at 5:30 that day.

That same morning, I received a call from Trustee [Marcia] Milchiker. Among other things, we discussed our alarming mutual pen pal [a reference, I think, to Michael Collins Piper]. She told me, parenthetically, that she had just read about the press conference in the paper. Evidently, Pam Zanelli, the hapless board majority-hired media consultant, did not judge it necessary to invite Marcia or some of the other trustees to this event.

Later, on my way home, I dropped by the district offices shortly after 5 o’clock; I left copies of the Dissent with the usual suspects. At one point, I espied Teddi Lorch, who was conferring with Zanelli in her office, and John Williams, who was conferring with unfamiliar faces inside Chancellor [Kathie] Hodge’s office. A pyrotechnics team, perhaps?

I was aware that, just by standing there outside the Chancellor’s office, I would inspire a conspiracy theory or theorette in Williams’ feeble brain, even though, in reality, I was merely waiting for the Chancellor’s secretary (I’ve forgotten her name) to finish her phone call. Sensing an opportunity, I assumed a conspiratorial air by raising one eye brow. Williams, on the other side of the glass, unconsciously felt for his weapon.

As I walked away, I noticed that the Chancellor’s conference room just down the hall was all decked out for a major PR event: microphones were set up, name plates were displayed, tasty beverages were set out, and a band was practicing in the corner. (Well, I made up the last part, although I think I saw a John Tesh cassette on the table.)

But nobody was around. Something told me it was time to blow.

The next day, I found out that not one reporter showed up for the press conference.

The Register had covered Tuesday’s ratification vote-count in its Wednesday edition. The story started like this: “The state’s highest-paid community college professors approved a new contract Tuesday that will cost the South Orange County Community College District at least $5 million in raises and perks over the next five years.”

It went on to explain that “Some professors are angry with their own teachers union and say the fighting began during the November [1996] elections for four seats on the district’s board of trustees.” Pete E was quoted as saying that “There wasn’t an agreement on how to go about choosing which candidates we would advocate for. A small group made decisions for us.”

Mr. Woodward, however, was quoted as expressing a very different view about the source of conflict within the union: “[He] said the bitterness stems from a board decision several months ago [July ‘97] to reorganize the district...Professors who chaired their [schools] were removed from these quasi-administrative posts and sent back to the classroom. The teachers union didn’t protest, which angered some of the professors...‘Nothing bad happened,’ said Woodward. ‘They just had to go back and teach.’”

This analysis of the union’s internal problems is demonstrably false. Among that group of persons who have been most active in challenging our union’s leadership, only one was ever a school chair—me. My quarrels with the union leadership began way back during the campaign of ‘96—eight months before I started my two-month stint as a school chair. Finally, the letter of complaint about our union—signed by 109 full-time “concerned faculty”—was sent to CCA/CTA eight months prior to the “reorganization” meeting to which Ken refers. That letter ultimately caused the CTA to send down a “leadership team” to investigate the union early in 1997. Again, all of this occurred before the Trustees’ infamous (re)organizational meeting.

A successful student protest—designed to call attention to the actions of the Board Majority and Raghu Mathur and the threat these actions pose to students—was staged at IVC on Thursday, the 2nd. The day before, President Mathur and at least one other administrator met with the students who were organizing the protest. If the organizers encountered pressure at that meeting, they withstood it successfully, for the demonstration proceeded more or less as planned at noon on Thursday. It was, by all accounts, a great success.

At first, a handful of students with signs marched alone around the A-quad near the administration building. Soon, however, others joined them, including numerous full- and part-time faculty and even some brave classified employees. At least fifty marchers snaked through the quad area and the environs for thirty minutes (as planned); they chanted, waved signs, joked with the many onlookers (perhaps 100), and generally had a great time.

At the end of the “march,” the still-intact group silently paraded through the administration building. Afterward, the students explained that they would resume the protests (on Thursdays) after the Spring break.

The event was reported in the OC Register’s Metro section, page 2, on Friday, April 3 and the Irvine World News, April 9.

[Early April, 1998]

On Thursday (4/3), the Irvine World News, the (IVC) Voice, and the (Saddleback) Lariat came out, and each covered recent district events and related matters.

An article in the IWN announced that “Gay and lesbian groups” have joined the Frogue recall effort. According to the article, “gay and lesbian organizations...are upset because Pamela Zanelli, a political consultant who gave advice to a Faculty Association political action committee campaigning for Frogue’s reelection in 1996, is working for the district [as its public affairs consultant] and may apply for a newly created public affairs position.” The article goes on to explain that Zanelli has been accused of authoring the infamous “same-sex marriage” mailer of the ‘96 campaign. (The mailer, sent to South County Republicans, got [Steve] Frogue, [John] Williams, and [Dorothy] Fortune elected.)

Jeff LeTourneau of ECCO (Elections Committee of the County of Orange, a gay political lobbying group) described the mailer as “the most deplorable, awful, homophobic piece of garbage that I’ve seen in 25 years of political activity.”

Zanelli denies having written the mailer. I am told that, during the last Board meeting, she told a reporter that she would never write such a thing, for a relation of hers “died of AIDS.” Zanelli’s reasoning is reminiscent of the puerile moral logic often embraced by the current union leadership (“We’re not responsible! The consultant made us do it!”--Remember?), for, though, evidently, she would never “author” homophobic literature, it appears that she advised our union to author and use it:

Zanelli...said she was hired as a consultant in October 1996 by the Faculty Association political action committee to help target issues for campaign, purposes. The domestic partners benefits issue was among the polling topics of discussion during the summer and fall of 1996, said Zanelli. Polls showed that 70 percent of voters in the area would have voted against domestic partners benefits, she said.

LeTourneau said the flier came about based on Zanelli’s advice.

“Whether she sat down and wrote the flier is irrelevant. She designed the hit piece attacking gays and lesbians. That’s not tolerable,” he said.

Zanelli was hired by the district board earlier this year as a temporary public affairs consultant, which, according to some college officials, has resulted in an ethical conflict of interest.

Trustee [Dave] Lang, who voted against the move to appoint Zanelli as a consultant, said, “It is inappropriate for a person to be writing political cover for four trustees (Fortune, Frogue, Williams and Teddi Lorch).

“She wrote, or helped write, Dorothy Fortune’s (commentary) for the Times. In my view that represents a theft of public funds. I’ve called for a full investigation of her activities since she was hired to work for the district.”

In an article concerning the faculty contract, Trustee Williams’ involvement in the contract negotiations—unprecedented among trustees, as far as I know—was discussed:

Williams took criticism for being a member of the negotiating team. Fellow trustee Joan Hueter said, “Whenever a trustee goes into a negotiating situation like that it puts a whole different spin on things.”

She said trustees have to make the final decision and shouldn’t have an influence over the bargaining process.

Williams said he had to get involved as president of the board.

“I did involve myself when the process was bogging down as a last-ditch resort, to break a log jam,” he said. [Wow, mixing three metaphors. ]

What’s “extortion” mean?

Negotiations had gone on for more than a year, he said, and he felt that he had direction from the board to bring back information to them.

Also in the Apil 2 Irvine World News was a guest editorial by Trustee Williams, accompanied by Williams’ high school graduation picture, evidently. Here, Mr. Williams says that Terry Burgess “was not informed his contract would not be renewed and...was not fired.” Consider this: Mr. Williams’ recently-alleged attempted quid pro quo depended on the understanding that Mr. Burgess’ contract would not be renewed in June, for, allegedly, Williams suggested (to at least one minority board member) that he would arrange for Burgess’ (and Deegan’s) contract to be renewed (contrary to everyone’s expectation)--if the minority would agree to refrain from voting against Raghu Mathur (for IVC president).

Mr. Williams offers the fact that the chancellor of the Chabot-Las Positas Community College district offered Burgess the Chabot presidency as evidence that Burgess was not fired. Huh? In fact, knowing that his contract would not be renewed, Burgess sought other administrative positions and was offered one by Chabot. Obviously, that he sought the position and got it is not evidence that he was not told that he would be fired!

Mr. Williams defends his violations of the Brown Act by suggesting that he is not accountable; rather, the district’s legal counsel is accountable:

The part-time board relies on the full-time chancellor and district legal counsel, who said we were in compliance with the Brown Act Open Meeting law.”

This from a man who, elsewhere in his article, asserts that “actions taken by the board of trustees are not about ‘politics and power and winning.’ They’re about accountability.” Evidently, in Williams’ view, everyone should take responsibility for what they do—everyone, that is, excepting the Gang of Four.

Williams implies that the board’s Brown Act violations involved mere technicalities. If so, why then did Judge McDonald render null and void every action that had been based on the illegal appointment of Raghu Mathur as interim president of IVC?

Williams asserts that “no attempt was made to keep the proceedings secret.” Really? In fact, for the meeting in question (April 28, 1997) the board failed to indicate on its agenda that it was considering an interim presidential appointment. Further, it failed to allow the public to comment on this action before the meeting. Finally, the names of the signatories of the petition upon which Mathur’s appointment was based were not made public.

An article in the 4/2 Lariat reports that, according to Saddleback student Antonio Aguilar (the student who, months ago, challenged an explicit Holocaust denier during a board meeting), he was ‘spit at’ by English instructor Tony Garcia on March 30. Evidently, Garcia responded to the charge by saying that “I cleared my throat as [Aguilar] went by.”

The article ends with a masterpiece of understatement:

Richard McCullough, Saddleback College Interim President, said he would not condone this type of behavior from faculty if it did, indeed, occur.

“That’s not what they should be doing,” he said.

In a letter to the editor, Lynn Wells responds to a comment that had been attributed by the Lariat to Sherry Miller-White:

...I address a response attributed to Sherry Miller-White that “the association (membership) had its chance to object to the provision (an increase in salary steps 26-30 for Doctorates) before it went into the contract. She says, “A lot of times, people don’t read the information...”

A South Orange County Community College District Faculty association newsletter (2/98) reports “salary scale steps 26-30. One step movement will be allowed per year.” In that document there is no mention made as to which full-time faculty this will apply.

After reading this and reading the contract proposal, I made phone calls to negotiators, who claim they had been misled by administrative negotiators (the chief of which was a former association president and negotiator [Bill Jay].) Right up to the first Contractual Explication meeting, association representatives claimed steps 26-30 did apply to the entire faculty. During that meeting (March 2) negotatiors claimed that they negotiated a contractual item which clearly alluded to a prior contract (specifically the 1980 contract) without having even read that contract. In fact, they begged that anyone with a copy to bring it forth.

Appalling words; appalling behavior.

In a story concerning the contract that appeared on the front page of the April 2 IVC Voice, English instructor Lewis Long is quoted as saying

“The contract makes it difficult for there to be any faculty participation in shared governance...The contract does not serve the interest of the college nor does it serve a majority of the interests of the faculty. The qualified people with teaching experience might not want to come here because it limits what they might be paid as compared to other campuses.”

The article briefly discusses alleged “inconsistent voting practices”:

“...according to Paula Jacobs, Saddleback’s faculty development chair and professor of counseling and special programs, there were two different voting procedures at Saddleback, depending on when one voted.

“On the first day, each member had to mark their ballot and put it in the master box. There was no second envelope, no signature, no social security number, nothing,” said Jacobs. “Beginning the second day, each ballot had a number on it. Members then had to put the ballot inside of a sealed envelope, place it inside of another envelope, seal it and write their name and social security number on the front. If you deviated from that process at all, they wouldn’t count your vote.”

Jacobs raises another issue:

“There are two deans at Saddleback who are members of the union. For years, the association has continued to take their dues and allowed them to vote. During the ballot counting, the union refused to count their votes. If they are not allowed to vote, why did the union continue to collect their dues? Or, if they are members, why weren’t they allowed to vote?” she said.

DOROTHY FORTUNE TRIES TO INTIMIDATE A BEANCOUNTER FROM THE STATE CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE, BUT IT DOESN’T WORK by Tom of South County

In 1997, the Board Majority (Williams, Frogue, Lorch, and Fortune), those "fiscally responsible" trustees, managed to run the district into the ground. The district was placed on a Priority 2 fiscal watch list in 1997 because of low reserves. Naturally, this meant that state auditors showed up and insisted on looking at the books. This article describes how Fortune and Williams behaved during one of those visits. 

From Dissent 5, 4/14/98 [“Tom from South County” was one of Chunk’s alter-egos, a cat.] 

Originally entitled: 

 

Some Crazy Shit Down at the District, Baby 

by Tom of South County [Roy Bauer]

Listen up, kitten, ‘cuz I’m only sayin’ this once, and then I’m outta here. I was down at the district offices on the 6th of April—that was a Monday. I was tryin’ to get some ZZZs behind a box in the Chancellor’s Conference Room, but, man, the Chancellor and her Chancellorettes came in for a meetin’ and things didn’t let up in that room all day! 

So, anyway, these people came in the room, and they were joined by Patrick Lenz, who’s Vice Chancellor of Fiscal Policy up at the state, and his sidekick, and also the new district fiscal guy, Newmeyer, I think. It was some pow-wow, baby, and your Tom was right in the middle of it as usual. 

But then things started hoppin’, ‘cuz Fortune and Williams—don’t hiss, baby—came in, and this time they dragged somethin’ in with ‘em. It was a court reporter! 

So Lenz says “No fuckin’ way,” but Fortune’s prepared, see, ‘cuz she whips out a letter for Lenz to sign sayin’ he won’t let ‘em do the court reporter thing like they wanna. But Lenz, he’s on top o’ things, see, and he just says, “I ain’t signin’ that shit!” or somethin’ to that effect. So, now, Fortune and Williams are steamed more than you can imagine, but, the way I remember it, they stay in the room, even though they’re not set to be under the Lenz until like 3 o’clock. That’s some pushy shit. 

So, anyway, Fortune and Williams joined Hodge in her office at some point--it’s all gettin’ fuzzy in my head—but, after a coupla minutes, they stomped out again still hissin’ and steamin’ like before. Yuh see, Fortune and Williams came back into the Conference Room and thought they could sit there all day for this string of meetings, but the Lenz Man coughs up this big hair ball and says, No Goddam Way. I mean he says they’re just not welcome, OK? So like Fortune fills her shorts and runs around like a goddam dog, ‘cuz she’s gotta stay on the outside lookin’ in. And that’s just what she does—glarin’ and glowerin’ and snarlin’, I mean. And she’s somebody who can do that, baby. 

Well, these meetings went on all day, like I said, and, ki-TEN, they were somethin’ else. When all those trustees finally met with Lenz in the afternoon, they got real hissy, and I was afraid the hair’d start flyin’. So, I just bolted right outta there. And I don’t bolt, you know that. 

Well, when all was said and done, a letter of reprimand was placed in Hodge’s file, I guess ‘cuz she didn’t grab Lenz by the neck and slap ‘im around or somethin’. Piss on it, I say. 

One thing more, baby. This district is in some serious shit. I may have to drag my feline ass to greener pastures real soon. What’s more, some accreditation big wigs are comin’ to visit on the 13th, an’ what’s THAT about? 

You’d best listen to Tom, kitten. Get your financial and governance shit together, and do it soon too, ‘cuz some o’ these days, somebody’s gonna kick your big ol’ litter box clean across the room. And then the shit is gonna fly, baby. —MEOW