Hammering out differences, part II

A continuation of our coverage of the Feb. 13 "technical assistance" meeting--an effort to arrive at agreement re roles and responsibilities of constituent groups, etc., in response to Accred recommendations. See previous blog.


Chancellor Mathur's suggestions

Mathur's suggestions are his usual blend of inanity, New Agery, and jaw-dropping hypocrisy. One absolutely should NOT listen to these remarks unless one is prepared to hear such suggestions as that people should "be nice." Or: people shouldn't be so dang concerned about "law." Plus: no "personal attacks" (i.e., stop describing me so damn accurately).

Senate Prez Wendy:

Pretty hard-hitting. I love the stuff about the appellate court's advice.

Senate Prez Claire:

Claire offers further suggestions. It's great to see the two academic senates working so closely together!

Union Prez Lewis:

Lewis is pretty soft-spoken, and so my camera's mike didn't pick up his voice very well. Luckily, I have his remarks in handout form (click on the image to make it larger):


...More coming tomorrow...

Hammering out differences

don't it make you smile?
don't it make me smile?
when the sun don't shine, it don't shine at all
don't it make me smile?
i miss you already... i miss you always
i miss you already... i miss you all day
this is how i feel...
i miss you already... i miss you always

--Pearl Jam's "Smile"


s you know, our colleges recently received a dismal report from the accrediting agency (ACCJC/WASC). The accreditors were mostly critical of our defiant board, its practices (especially re executive hiring), and its persistent "micromanagement." These elements plus the Board's support of Chancellor Raghu Mathur, despite his sub-Bush popularity among faculty, et al., have resulted in a palpable "plague of despair." Or so opined the two accrediting teams.


With this last action--the granting of skin-of-teeth accreditation conjoined with numerous requirements--the accreditors are turning up the heat. If, next October, the accreditors judge that our board is still micromanaging and is still embracing questionable hiring practices, very serious actions will result.

Remember Compton Community College!

In response to the new thermal environment, the Chancellor has become a fan of "technical assistance," a process whereby, with the assistance of outside agents, an attempt is made, among clashing parties, to work out differences and to come to agreement.

In the past, the academic senates have called for TA only to be spurned by the imperious Chancellor. It is remarkable how quickly he has come around to the faculty's way of thinking, now that the accreds are breathing down his neck.

The chief Clashoids are the Board/Chancellor and the Academic Senates (the faculty), though those two groups are not the only concerned parties.

In the view of faculty--and the Accreds--the Board and Chancellor have consistently ignored faculty input. They have done so even to the extent of violating the law--or so judged the courts in the specific case of the development of faculty hiring policies.

The Chancellor's sudden enthusiasm for TA resulted in last night's meeting (Feb. 13) in which representatives of all constituency groups (classified, faculty, students, mold spores) sat around a large table and attempted to arrive at agreement concerning what should now be done in response to the accrediting agency's recommendations.

Time's a wastin'! If we don't get on the stick, we'll never make the kind of progress that the Accreds require.

WALTON AND WOODRUFF. The designated outside parties were the agreeable team of Ian Walton of the State Academic Senate and Dianne Woodruff of the Community College League of California (the former represented faculty; the latter represented the district).

Walton and Woodruff outlined their proposed agenda. All parties were essentially agreeable, ceptin' for Trustee Fuentes, who seemed determined to redefine the meeting, not as an attempt to arrive at agreement, but as an opportunity for the trustees to "listen."

He even bristled at Walton/Woodruff's suggestion that participants should restrict their behavior as a gesture of respect for others (e.g., refraining for leaving until the end of the meeting).

"Who," he seemed to be asking, "are these pinheads to tell us what to do? Why, the temerity!"

One might guess that, in Fuentes' mind, the elected board is a body so exalted that it should decide, well, everything. It is difficult understanding that sort of thinking.

According to Walton and Woodruff's proposed plan, the first half of the meeting would comprise the "presentation of solutions." That is, each participant (most groups were represented by more than one person) was given five minutes to present three "constructive suggestions" for addressing the accreditation recommendations.

That opened the floodgates of blathery. Since most participants came with more than three suggestions--and some dreamt up new ones while drivin' over--the number of "solutions" mounted quickly. In the end, there may have been 100 or so. Or maybe it was a thousand. It seemed that we were in a thicket of motley suggestery.

(Not just motley. Some of the suggestery was flat ridiculous: "respect others." "Hand your enemies a cold salmon." I think Raghu found his set of 10 inanities in Orlando, Florida, at the Disney World Hilton. More on that later.)

I can't provide even a fraction of the many suggestions (as audio files) that were presented last night, and so I've chosen to select only a few.

A "HANDS ON APPROACH"

The following audio file presents Trustee John Williams' "constructive suggestions." (About three minutes.) Here, he seems to accept all of the Accred's harsh remarks re the board.

The downside? Williams' solutiion is handing everything over to Raghu.

Some thoughts:
* The purported link between the bankruptcy and the board's micromanagement seems to be a new wrinkle. Isn't Williams singin' a new tune here? Since the 1998 Accred action cited micromanagement, one would think that this "the bankruptcy made us do it" guff would have come up then. Did it? Don't think so.
* When the district was placed on the State chancellor's fiscal "watch" list, I don't recall this blather about the bankruptcy. On the contrary, I recall a defiant board who insisted that nothing was amiss. Am I wrong?
* Williams was supposed to provide three constructive suggestions. So just what is his suggestion? "Let's stop micromanaging" is a good idea, but we need to know what that really means.

"GUIDED BY LOVE" (about 2 minutes)

Here is an audio file of Trustee Tom Fuentes' "constructive suggestions." It is notable for the remarkable contrast between Mr. Fuentes the person and the dreamy things that emerge from the Fuentean mouth. I do believed the fellow twinkled. Right into the camera. I think he was givin' me the whammy.

Also: just what is Fuentes' constructive "suggestion"? "Be guided by love," I guess. Or maybe: don't forget "Valentine's Day." I wonder how long it took him to arrive at these "solutions"?

WHAT ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO WHICH WILLIAMS REFERRED?
(Get a load of this!)

Here are excerpts from pages 9 to 15 of the Accred report for Saddleback College (which has nice things to say about the college, by the way--the problem is the BOT/Mathur):

Recommendation 4: The Board of Trustees [BOT] review and revise the "Employment Procedures for Executive Positions" so that it conforms to accepted best practices. Specifically, this process should be fair, equitable, and provide for meaningful constituency input....

...The team is concerned that for the second time, The Board of Trustees of the SOCCCD has formally ignored a recommendation that was cited by the last two accreditation evaluation visiting teams. The Board failed to have any substantive discussion on this item and they failed to review and revise the "Employment Procedures for Executive Positions" to conform to best practices as was specified in the prior recommendations of the visiting teams. It is not clear why the BOT has failed to act in a formal manner in regard to this recommendation and why they have failed to even have a public discussion of this issue at a BOT meeting....

Recommendation 5: The BOT cease their involvement in college and district operations and delegate all non-policy issues....

...Viewing a videotape of a SOCCCD board meeting or reading a transcript of one of these meetings clearly stands as proof that this board continues to engage in business that is not at the level at which a board should be engaged. Debating the merits of particular floor types, whether a speaker should be allowed on a campus, or whether or not a field trip is appropriate...demonstrate that this board has not ceased its involvement in college and district operations....

...[T]here is no written or othe substantive evidence that the board took any action in regard to their own behavaior or to comply with the spirit of the letter of the recommendation made by the 1998 visiting team and reaffirmed by the 2004 visiting team.

...[O]ne board member indicated that he had never seen any evidence of micromanagement. It is not clear to what extent this sentiment is shared by other board members but several of them seemed to be sympathetic to this point of view. As a result, it is hard to sort out in such a short meeting if SOCCCD Trustees do not understand what behaviors constitute micromanagement, if they are in denial about their own micromanagement, if some of them rationalize their own micromanagement as being appropriate in certain circumstances, if it is a habit that is difficult to stop, or if some of the trustees fundamentally believe that no outside agency has the right to regulate their behavior. [Bingo.] [I]t is clear that the SOCCCD board has not ceased its involvement in college and district operations....

More about the Feb. 13 meeting coming soon. I've only scratched the surface. --CW

The Technical Assistance shindig

Went to the "Technical Assistance" shindig yesterday/last night. Tables were configured in a big square (with one end open) and the various constituency groups were seated around it. There was a weird little audience zone facing into the open part of the square. Woodruff of the CCLC and Walton of the state senate used a podium which poked into one corner of the square. From 3:00 to maybe 4:45 Woodruff and Walton held forth with big picture concepts about shared governance--although they pointed out that "shared governance" is not a legal phrase and its somewhat misleading. Well, CCLC's Woodruff made that point, cuz she represents trustees, and she's a subtle enemy of the concept, near as I can figure. (Nice lady though.)

Man, that Walton has one exotic accent. I think he's a Scot, cuz I overheard a brief discussion he had with Fuentes, who asked if he was Irish, I think. "Nope," said Walton. A Scot. Or maybe a Druid. My hearing isn't too good.

Woodruff was the slicker of the two, but both did a good job, I suppose, spelling out the nature of "governance" in the community colleges. No surprises, although Woodruff seemed to cherry pick to emphasize that the Board is the ultimate decision maker and entities such as the academic senate are mere "advisory bodies." Walton--and especially faculty who engaged in a brief Q &A--made clear that, in fact, the academic senate (and other bodies) are more than mere advisory bodies. Consider faculty hiring procedures, etc. In that area, faculty are equal partners, though no one dared say quite that.

After the brief Q&A, there was a break; then, at 5:15, the more interesting half of the presentation commenced. The various groups got up to offer their "three suggestions." Well, almost nobody stuck to three, and so, by the end of all this yammering, there were maybe 100 "ideas." It looked pretty hopeless, given all the suggestions and their genral goofiness. "Respect others." "Emphasize the postiive." "Just say 'no.'"

I've gotta go, but I'll just mention that Trustee Fuentes was the standout trustee, if standout means "obnoxious." That was mostly because Trustee Wagner had to go, starting about 6:00. He took his new beard with him.

Classified and especially faculty reps did a great job contributing to discussion. Very impressive. Hooray for the A-team.

Much more later. (I'm hoping to fashion some interesting audio clips.)

--Chunk

Another "suspicious object" menaces Irvine campus

Lasik Danbury
For the second day in a row, Irvine Valley College officials faced a “time of crisis” at the normally quiet Irvine campus, when, on Thursday, an object was found on a campus sidewalk.

On Wednesday, for over an hour, classes were disrupted by evacuations as authorities examined a canvas bag rolled up and taped to hold about two pounds of sand in the “shape of a hotdog.” The object was originally discovered in a closet inside IVC’s administration building and was immediately tossed out into the A-quad, whereupon it was instructed to “move along.”

When the object refused to move, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department’s bomb squad was called to the scene. At about 9:30 a.m., officers evacuated the four buildings surrounding the A-quad and, using a sophisticated mobile robot system, carefully secured the object and X-rayed it.

By 10:30, the object, which proved to contain only sand, was declared to be “unremarkable,” and students and instructors were instructed to return to their classes.


At about 2:00 p.m. today, at a location near yesterday’s incident, yet another object was discovered. College officials immediately cleared the area around it and poked the object with a stick.

Glenn Roquemore, president of IVC, then called the bomb squad to the scene, and again, the object was manipulated and examined using the mobile robot.

After about fifteen minutes, the object was declared to be “perfectly unobjectionable.”

Said Randy Sturgeon of the Sheriff’s Department, “I told the college president that if he found any more objects, he should just leave them there and try to forget about them.”


UPDATE:

Thursday's odds 'n' ends

RADICAL ART REMAINS "DISAPPEARED." You'll recall that, not long ago, a painting was stolen from a wall of the Humanities Center at IVC. (See pic.) Given that it was the only object stolen, that more valuable objects were left unmolested, and, finally, that the work had a "radical" theme (concerning the plight of Latino men in California), it is reasonable to suppose that it was stolen--and subsequently destroyed--by a right-winger who was offended by its message .

As you know, the opponents of free speech and academic freedom on college campuses these days are a rude and crude bunch, and they aren't leftists; more often than not, when there's a brutish or ruthless freedom-stomping incident afoot, the culprit is a right-winger, like that UCLA knuckle-dragger who sought to pay students for recordings of "radical" professors' lectures.

The latter effort flamed out in a blaze of inglory. The knuckle-dragger lost most of his high-profile conservative supporters (Al Rantel, et al.), and he's having more trouble than ever acquiring "dirt" on left-leaning professors.

As far as I know, to date, the painting that was taken from the Humanities Center has not been recovered.

Today, I ran into Mr. Eugene Debs, who is familiar with the work and who offered me the following drawing of the piece for use in the blog:


In an effort to recover the piece, Mr. Debs will post signs around campus that display his drawing and the following message:


A HANDICAPPED HANDICAPPED RAMP. Last week, we learned that several members of the board of trustees intend to spend as much as $20,000 (total) of taxpayer money to "conference" in sunny Florida in a fancy schmancy four-star hotel (March).

In the meantime, back at the colleges, there isn't enough money, evidently, even to maintain walkway safety!

Consider the "handicapped" ramp for the CEC temporaries at IVC. It's rotten and full of holes! Check out the pics:




I took these pictures a week or two ago. Last I checked, nothing's changed.

Hey, fixing the ramp isn't expensive and it isn't rocket science. Go buy some wood, cut it to size, and hammer it in. Then paint it. My old pop could do it for about a hundred and fifty bucks. Give 'im half a day. Sheesh!

The bomb scare

t was mighty crazy at IVC today. On my way to class at 8:00 this morning, just as I walked past the front of the Administration Building (A100), I spotted two IVC cops staring down at a small canvas bag with tape wound around it. I joined them in silent downward staring. Then I said, "So what's this?" One cop said the object was mighty suspicious. He indicated that he might have to rope the area off.

I went to my classroom, which was maybe one hundred feet from the "suspicious" object, and when class was over at 9:15, I found that an area fanning out maybe one hundred feet from the object was taped off with yellow emergency tape, including the entrance to the building in which I teach. I made my way to the other exit of the building. I crossed the edge of the A-quad over to A200, but I found that I couldn't use my usual entry into that building, owing to more yellow tape and another grumpy sugar-coated cop. I went around to another entrance.

People were buzzin' about something, and I figured it was the suspicious object. I quickly typed a quiz for my 9:30 class--a Plato quiz! what could be more absurd?--and when I went to duplicate it (in the now-infamous Gensler Memorial Duplication Cubicle), an administrator told me that everybody had to evacuate the building. "Now," she added.

Turns out, all four of the A-quad buildings were being evacuated. I went way around to nearly the flagpole/parking area, and I spotted an Andros F6A multi-mission mobile robot--the kind that bomb squads use. (See pic.)


Just then, I ran into somebody who said they just saw the robot pick up the suspicious object--and drop it. Twice.

"Jeez," I said.

"Yeah. Jeez."

Naturally, lots of students and faculty, et al., were gathering outside the zone of death, marked out by yellow tape and grumpy cops. I counted two cop cars, two fire engines, and I don't know what else, near the A100 flagpole area. I spotted Glenn running around saying important things. At one point, I spotted Dennis, too. He was talking to Glenn on a walkie-talkie. He kept shouting into the phone, "the Bullhorn? the Bullhorn?"

I ran into somebody who said that, originally, "they" (the cops?) found the suspicious object in the conference room, just inside the entrance of A100. That must've been just before I ran into those cops. I guess "they" grabbed the object and just plopped it down, right there, in front of A100, creating a zone of death that included four buildings full of classrooms.

I went to one of the tailgate parties--the one near the bookstore--and listened to rumors, jokes, and semi-official pronouncements. I heard that the Foundation committee had met in the conference room at 8:00 a.m., and, somehow, the object was found there in a "suspicious spot."

What's that mean? Nobody seemed to know.

I spotted Glenn again. Someone said that, right about when the Foundation people found the "object," the fire department had been called by someone who said there was a bomb on campus. When the cops learned of this, they decided to create the big yellow zone of death. (Turns out the "phone" story wasn't true.)

Glenn told somebody (who told me) that we've got nothing to worry about, cuz he's set up a command post in the temporaries.

That must've inspired broad smileage.

By then, it was clear that my 9:30 class--and lots of other classes--would not be held this morning. I hadn't even met yet with my 9:30 group, and I wondered what they must be thinking. A few of my students found me and asked what all this craziness meant. "It means that our class is cancelled, I guess," I said. The students thrilled. They squealed and giggled. I nearly joined them.

The crowds seemed to grow over time, and a festive spirit set in. Some people created little bomb discussion groups and wandered into the cafeteria. Others sat under trees, picnic-style, and wondered who would pull a "prank" like this. I heard a cop say, "the guy who did this, he better hope we don't catch 'im!" I nodded agreement, stupidly.

It was like a carnival, a celebration. I saw somebody dance. A girl who looked like Britney Spears was wigglin' around in the parking lot. It was, well, beautiful. I do believe that today's IVC bomb party will go down as this generation's Woodstock.

By 10:15, it was clear that this little "bomb scare" was seriously cutting into the teaching day. It seemed clear, too, that some students, upon hearing about the "bomb scare," planned to miss even classes held later in the day. They were enveloped in a fine "hooky" spirit, and who could blame them?

About then, I spotted the OC Sheriff's Department bomb crew helping Mr. Robot into his van. The fire engines drove off, one sporting a big American flag. I saw a bus with a picture of Adam Carolla on it. "This is what you get after a year and a half of Junior College," screamed the ad.

At 10:30, they sounded the "all-clear," and the fun was over. I hummed the Star-Spangled Banner in silence, as I watched people scatter and disappear.


ours later, President Roquemore sent everyone a fine memo, which included some of the photos displayed here. He wrote:

Colleagues:

As you might have heard by now, the college evacuated the A-Quad this morning after an unattended and unusual looking bag was found in Room A-126 during a Foundation meeting. It appeared to be a canvas tote wrapped tightly with vinyl tape. Because of its suspicious appearance, IVCPD Chief Owen Kreza responded by calling the Orange County Sheriff’s Department Bomb Squad, which arrived around 9:30 a.m. to have a look at the object. The Bomb Squad x-rayed the bag using a remote-controlled robot before determining that there was no threat. The tote turned out to be filled with two bags of sand, which the Fire Department speculates might have been used by someone—perhaps one of our students—as a makeshift barbell. I am sure we are all relieved that it turned out to be nothing more than homemade exercise equipment. Incidentally, there is no truth to the rumor that a bomb threat had been called in to the college when the bag was found.

I would like to extend my sincerest appreciation to Owen and our campus police for their swift and very necessary response to the situation. And thanks also to Wayne Ward and the Facilities staff who worked jointly with him to set up a perimeter to control the crowd and traffic in and near the A-Quad. Job well done. I appreciate efforts of all who calmly and professionally came together during this time of crises to handle what had the potential of being a very serious matter.

As I was leaving for home, I spotted the latest issue of the Lariat. Boy, those Lariat jokers are something else! How on earth did they manage to get this "bomb" scare story out so fast?

They do such a good job, I decided to reproduce the Lariat's front page below. (Click on the image to make it bigger.)

The Lariat "gaucho"

bout a week ago, Rebel Girl seemed particularly peevish, and so I asked her what was up, and she showed me the Sports page of the latest Lariat (Jan. 31). Evidently, some knucklehead on the paper had made an unfortunate choice to represent the Saddleback College mascot, the Gaucho.

Here's a portion of the Sports page, sporting two "Gaucho" images:


According to Rebel Girl, the Lariat's "Gaucho" bears an unfortunately close resemblance to the "Frito Bandito," a character used to sell Fritos corn chips in the 60s--until Frito Lay was pressured to drop the bandit, owing to complaints that he presented a negative stereotype (the sneaky thief).

Oddly, Rebel Girl remembered the Frito Bandito song, which she proceeded to sing:

Aye, yii, yii, yiiii,
I am the Frito Bandito.
I like Frito's Corn Chips,
I love them I do.
I want Frito's Corn Chips,
I'll get them from you.

Aye, yii, yii, yiiii,
Oh, I am the Frito Bandito.
Give me Frito Corn chips
And I'll be your friend.
The Frito Bandito
You must not offend.

The Frito Bandito was sly and sneaky, but the Lariat's Gaucho appears to be more angry and cross-eyed. Still, the two characters are cousins.

Like the Frito Bandito, the Lariat's "Gaucho" appears to be Mexican, for he is wearing a sombrero. Mexican cowboys ("vaqueros") wear sombreros, I guess. But the Gaucho is not Mexican, but Argentinean, and he doesn't wear no stinkin' sombrero. (Students, Argentina is on a different continent, the one to the south.)

I found a website dedicated to the Argentinean Gaucho, where I found this image:


I showed the Lariat Gaucho to knowledgeable Latino colleagues, who assured me that that "Gaucho" causes OUCHO followed by GROUCHO.