May '98 board meeting: Mathur falsely accuses his critics of sending "threats" - by Chunk Wheeler

Mathur: notorious liar

In May of 1998, 74% of IVC’s full-time faculty voted “no confidence” in President Raghu P. Mathur. 87% of those eligible to vote voted.

Looking back, it’s clear that that was Raghu’s popularity high point, for, about two years later, he received a 90% vote of “no confidence.”

Raghu responded with the following [edited for length] address at the May 21, 1998, Board Meeting. In it, he makes some remarkable charges against his perceived faculty foes:

President [John S.] Williams, I’d like to respond to the vote of no confidence. …

For the past one year that I have served as President of the college, including interim and since I was appointed permanent, a lot of things have been said about me…and I have pretty much by and large kept my mouth shut, because I really want to be the kind of leader to try to bring everybody together. …

This vote of no confidence was politically motivated. …

I want to share with you something about the people who are at the very core…of this vote of no confidence. They want a weak president that they can control like they have done before a few times...The people of the core have already disliked me whenever I have stood up for fair and equitable distribution of financial resources, be it for supplies or equipment, staffing resources all across the board, for various educational programs and services….

[S]ome of the people here in the core have had many sweet deals in the form of reassigned (time) and other areas, which this board has cut out, and they are angry. The fact of the matter is that these faculty members were hired to teach. Instead, some of them, they just don’t want to teach and want to either perform administrative functions or have a lot of free time or both….

…Within days of my appointment as interim president, academic Senate president Kate Clark told me personally that she was going to work toward shutting down Irvine Valley College (Clark interrupts: “I never said that”). …I stand by my statement in front of God.…

This is an un American way to treat anyone not to give people a chance. This is an un American way to treat anyone, leave alone the first generation American immigrant like myself, and now a US citizen. And I’m proud to be so.

… [F]irst they stand in the way and then they say “He’s ineffective.” Well, I’d like to ask, respectfully, Where is their sense of responsibility? Where is their sense of integrity before they cast stones at others?

Bob Deegan: later, honored President of Palomar College 

[HERE IT COMES:] We should not condone anyone who embraces hate and bigotry. People have come here to speak against hate and bigotry at this board meeting many a times. None of these people have spoke against hate and bigotry implied in someone holding a bottle of [Ragu] Spaghetti sauce with my Indian name misspelled. Or hate in crimes explicitly evident in publications of professor Roy Bauer, who claims to be a professor of logic and ethics.

… People in this core in the past have sent me mail threats saying, “Go back to your country.” These threats have come from some of these people, I am confident of it….

[T]hey use shared governance as a smoke screen. They really don’t want shared governance. They want total control and power period, pure and simple.…

They’re bullies, and they want to have their way at any cost. They do not understand something that my parents taught me a long time ago that no amount of newspaper coverage, lawsuits, running to state agencies will ever solve our problems. It is us who have to solve our problems ourselves, through open, honest, and respectful communication, and [the] sooner we learn this and engage in this [the] sooner we can accelerate the healing process.

Later, President, State Academic Senate

…With 31 years in education, I have shed blood, sweat, and tears for the students, and I’m honored to do so. I have taught at high school, community college, and the university levels…I have served as president of the board of trustees in the Saddleback Valley Unified School District for five out of nine years of my service. I have served as chair for the school of physical sciences and technology at IVC for about ten years, and now serving as President of Irvine Valley College.

I’m a first generation immigrant who came to American shores some 31 years ago with eight dollars in my pocket with a dream with a strong belief in the American dream that you work hard and you will, you can achieve anything. But some people want to take that away. I have dedicated my life to service for the students, and I will continue to do so till the last breath in my body.

Let’s focus on serving the best interests of the students rather than our egos or our pocket books. Let’s get back to the business at hand and stop playing politics.

Thank you.”

JUST THE FACTS:

Pocket books? Before Raghu became IVC’s interim president in 1997, he was, according to district records, the second highest paid faculty member in the entire district, making about $124,000 a year. 

Sweet deals? For many years, Raghu received 80% reassigned time. I do believe that, at IVC, he was the all-time “reassigned time” champ. 

He also received money as the “Tech Prep” coordinator, a program that, during his involvement, failed miserably. At the same time, he invariably did overload to the max.

Contrary to Raghu’s accusations, the record will show that I (one of the “core group” identified above) have never received more than 20% reassigned time and have never sought an administrative position. 

None of my “publications” has ever included “hate crimes,” implicit or otherwise. Surely, comparing Raghu to Mr. Magoo is not a hate crime. 

During campus protests in 1998, some participants held up jars of Ragu spaghetti sauce. I was not among them. But surely this act was not a hate crime either.

Most of Raghu’s prominent critics (including me) have never sought administrative positions. Meanwhile, from the very beginning of his career at IVC in ‘79, Raghu repeatedly sought administrative positions.

And when he did not secure them, he immediately played the race card. For instance, when, in 1989, he failed to secure a deanship, which went to Clella Wood, he wrote a letter to Chancellor Sneed. He said: “I am the best qualified to do the job 100 times better than Clella Wood or any other dean in this position at IVC on any day of any week, month, or year…I, as a past candidate for the dean position, cannot help but honestly feel that [Clella Wood] was hired for the position not because she is knowledgeable and competent but because she is white.” 

As always, Raghu offered no support for his accusation.

DEPO:

The estimable Carol Sobel

On Sept. 28, 1999, Raghu was deposed in connection with my successful 1st Amendment lawsuit against the district. In the course of the deposition, Raghu acknowledged that, despite repeatedly claiming to have received threatening e-mail, voice mail, and letters, he had not kept or printed the alleged e-mails, he had not recorded the alleged voice mail, and he had not kept the alleged letters. He had ZIP.

Despite his inability to document the threats he alleged, in 1999, the board voted to give Raghu a $200/month “security stipend.” He is still getting that money.

Later, Raghu sued the district for failing to protect him—after he lost a lawsuit he brought against me. In the end, the district gave him another $40,000.

In the above speech, Mathur seems to accuse Bob Deegan, among others, of sending him “threats.” During the 1999 deposition, my lawyer, Carol Sobel, pressed Raghu to explain the grounds of that charge:

CAROL: What about Bob Deegan? Did you make the allegation that he could be the source of these communications? 

RAGHU: I may have mentioned his name. 

C: Do you know Bob Deegan? 

R: Yes. He worked at the college…. 

C: What were the anti-Mathur comments you believe he made that led you to conclude he might be the source of these communications? 

R: Mr. Deegan has been pretty hostile to me in college meetings. 

C: What were the comments that he made that caused you to believe that he was hostile to you in college meetings and [that he] might therefore be the source of these communications? 

R: Well, on one occasion, in a meeting, he was [asking]…about if I were going to be a candidate for the permanent [president] job. This is when I was acting president. [He asked me] whether I was going to be a candidate for the permanent job. I said, “I don’t know.” I mean this was a college-wide meeting held within two or three weeks of my appointment as acting president. And that if I were offered the position, would I accept it…. 

C: What is it about that exchange that caused you to form the belief that Bob Deegan might be the source of these communications that you have identified as anti-Asian…? 

R: It was just the manner in which he was asking the question in an extremely hostile manner. 

C: Describe for me what you mean by that. What was it about him that caused you to form the conclusion that he was extremely hostile? 

R: He was trying to humiliate me. 

C: What was it about asking whether you intended to be a candidate for the permanent position that was intended to humiliate you? 

R: He was trying to create an environment where I would be pressured to say, “No, I would not accept the position. I’m just here for the acting job.” 

C: Why was that intended to humiliate you, in your perception? 

R: Because I’m not aware of any such questions being asked by any—by someone like him or anyone else. 

C: And that’s it? That’s the sole basis on which you reach that conclusion?

[District lawyer] DAVE LARSEN: I think that misstates his testimony. 

C: Do you have any other facts to give? 

R: No. 

In the course of the deposition, Carol repeatedly pressed Raghu for grounds for supposing that I or Kate or Bob were the source of the alleged “threats,” as he suggested, publicly, in May of ’98. Raghu offered no grounds except to say that we were “unfriendly” to him: 

C: …I will ask a different question. Is it your contention that the individuals you have identified—Roy Bauer, Kate Clark, and Bob Deegan—may be the source of the letters you received in 1990 that you took to the sheriff’s department? 

R: Maybe. 

C: And on what do you form the belief that they may be the source of the 1990 letters? 

R: There has been a group of faculty members who have not been friendly to me, and these individuals have maintained [a] certain distance or hostility toward me.

THE MORAL: if you are “unfriendly” to Raghu, or if you maintain a “distance” from him or exhibit what he views as “hostility” to him, you will soon be accused of a racist hate crime. 

–CW [Chunk Wheeler, aka Roy Bauer]

State GOP joins Frogue Recall Effort

During the 1996 trustee campaign, the Faculty Association (faculty union) fully supported the candidacy of incumbant STEVE FROGUE, despite the clear indications (see Register article, March 1995) that he routinely made racially insensitive and Holocuast-denying remarks in his High School classroom. When, in 1997, Frogue made troubling remarks to the LA Times (The ADL killed JFK!) and then further embarrassed the district by inviting four conspiracy nuts, including some with strong ties to the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby, to a JFK-assassination forum at Saddleback College, a recall effort was born. As you can see below, the State Republican Party joined the effort. Despite gathering a record number of signatures, the effort ultimately failed. Frogue decided to resign from the Board a few months before the 2000 election, in part, perhaps, because he was persuaded that he would lose. But that's just a guess. With the help of the union Old Guard (Sharon M, Ray C, et al., addressed the Board in this regard), Frogue was replaced with extreme anti-unionist Tom Fuentes. Having already funded the victory of the anti-teachers union Padberg and Wagner in 1998, the union Old Guard had, through these actions, helped bring about a board dominated by anti-unionists who are largely hostile to faculty interests. (Nancy Padberg seems to have come around quite a bit in recent years to the faculty perspective. Indeed, it is likely that she will be supported by the Reformed union when she's up for reelection.) Why did the Old Guard do it? Don't know. Why don't you ask them? (Click on the graphic to make it larger.)

PART-TIMERS ATTEMPT TO ORGANIZE by Red Emma

From DISSENT 7, 5/12/98 

Originally entitled: 

WHERE WE’VE BEEN, WHERE WE’RE KOAN by Red Emma 

First, good news: Revolutionary adjunct mega-congratulations to unfailing AOG organizer MARIE ("No Bull") CONNORS on being chosen IVC PART-TIME TEACHER OF THE YEAR! We're proud of you, Marie. 

 * * * 

Q: A tree falls in the woods. There’s no one around. Does it make a sound? 

A: Red Emma, opponent of deforestation, has no idea, but suspects Faculty Association council member Prof. Ken Woodward is putting away his power saw just now, a satisfied smirk on his face. Woodward was, you may recall, lone taker of Red's plea for a union visit to our AOG meeting. Woody failed to attend the Friday, May 8 meeting. He called to cancel, offering no substitute representative (who else would come?) from the F.A. 

This is hardly the stuff of solidarity building, union comrades, illustrating the esteem with which part-time faculty are held by the union which (mis)represents them. 

 * * * 

"A spectre is haunting Irvine Valley College...the spectre of adjunct faculty organizing." 

The Academic Senate informs us that Adjunct Assembly members Tamiko Washington (Fine Arts), Harry Mersmann (Social Sciences), Michelle Mitchell-Foust (Humanities), Bruce Anderson (Bus sci), Helen Maughan (Phys Sci/Tech), Jo Anne Noyes (Math), Mikel Bistany (Phys Ed) and Valerie Gold-Neil (Guidance and Counseling) can VOTE in this week's Senate elections. R.E. suggests they vote NO CONFIDENCE in El Presidente. Why? Faithfully mimicking the F.A. and the board it elected, Mathur shows woefully little interest in part-time faculty, allying himself with the cadre of F.A. full-timers which recently counselled adjunct instructors to form their own bargaining unit. 

Q: What is the sound of one hand clapping? 

A: A union dominated by a majority of part-timers, but represented by a minority of full-timers.  

* * * 

A.A. Senate rep Harry Mersmann has agreed to organize a part-time presence during orientation week activities in Fall. Red Emma will produce the requisite commercial tie-in. Look for a stick-on lapel tag you can wear proudly: "Part-time Faculty are Full-time Professionals." A.A. rep Bruce Anderson pledges to explore building an adjunct Web site. 

 * * * 

Misfortune: Trustee Dorothy Fortune, doing her part to build goodwill between part- and full-timers, took a moment from her busy schedule to attack Saddleback College adjunct organizer Richard Lewis, expressing concern over Saddleback's "irregular Senate representation." Lewis serves as the singular adjunct officer on SB's Senate, a position for which he is meant to receive, not reassigned time (hard enough for full-timers), but a stipend. P/T participation in academic governance should of course be rewarded and encouraged, but Ms. Fortune apparently thinks otherwise. 

 * * * 

Finally, as that great union organizer Joe Hill wrote in Emma's high school yearbook: "Don't mourn, organize. And have a bitchin'‘ summer." --RE

Andrew Tonkovich

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