The embattled Mr. Fuentes

Plus the PEEVISH Mr. Wagner:


I picked up this photo from the consultants at the last board meeting:

Trustees, Utah, Red Meat

"As with administrators in any organization, high on the list of expectations of chairs is that they will display loyalty, courtesy, and willingness to participate as a member of the leadership team….”

—John "Brownie" Williams (7/11/97)

n a recent Chronicle of Higher Education article (February 24), Piper Fogg describes problems that commonly arise in the working relationship of faculty and trustees. Fogg, of course, is writing about four-year institutions, not community colleges.

For every college trustee who complains that professors are a difficult, whiny lot, there is a professor who thinks trustees are pompous stuffed shirts.

Governing boards are packed with businessmen, faculty members will moan. They are steering institutions down the dreaded path to corporatization.

Trustees will counter that faculty members don't know how good they have it: They teach just a few hours a week, have summers off, and enjoy more benefits than most professionals.

Boards often think faculty members should be supervised by the administration just as any employees would be by their managers. But faculty members generally feel they are part of a collaborative enterprise and are entitled to a say in how it is run.

Pompous stuffed shirts? (“Spain has abandoned our fighting men and women….”)

“Corporatization”? Business? (Remember when Raghu considered setting up “consumer complaint” stations around campus?)

—Hey, that sounds like our kind of squawking!

Whiny faculty? (Remember when Trustee Lorch referred to faculty as “squealing pigs”?)

Teaching “just a few hours”? (36 hrs. a week, according to Trustee Tom.)

Managers and employees? (“Disloyalty will not be tolerated!”)

That sounds familiar, too.

Faculty and trustees who've grown distant and suspicious of each other are often advised to do lots of commingling and working together—and, evidently, that can work, as Fogg illustrates with examples from around the country. On the other hand, “Trustee organizations warn boards against commingling too much with the faculty, lest their respective roles be confused.”

Go left. No. Go right. D’oh!

It’s common, evidently, for boards not to speak with or listen to faculty. That wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for pesky administrators who fill up the info vacuum:

Some boards may not talk much to professors, but they all get an earful from the president. The AAUP's Mr. Bowen says it is common for trustees to get most of their information from the college's top administrators. That can be problematic, he says, since presidents sometimes vent their frustrations about the faculty. Trustees, in turn, take those comments at face value. "It's too damn easy to demonize faculty," he says.

At the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, faculty members say the board is getting a warped sense of reality by listening only to top administrators. "I think they don't have much of a clue about what goes on in the trenches," says Mary M. Beck, a professor of animal science and president of the Academic Senate.

A “warped sense of reality”? Clueless trustees? That sounds like the SOCCCD all right. Only our top administrator is a notorious schemer and liar to boot.

In another article, “When Trustees Blunder” (Feb. 17), Richard P. Chait asks:

Is inept governance contagious? Has the germ that infected corporate America contaminated colleges and universities, too? For every Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom, we seem to have an academic equivalent.

Egregious boards, writes Chait, tend to make the news ("Board bites college"), but they’re rare, he says. “In reality nearly all board members work diligently and contribute constructively….”

It must be swell dealing with a board like that.

On the other hand, “the manifestations and permutations of dysfunctional [trustee] governance are so plentiful.” Chait goes through a disturbing litany. We don’t get mentioned, but that’s because we’re a community college district. Or maybe we're just off the scale.

Check these articles out. Faculty, if you don’t have an account with the Chronicle, you can access it freely through “NexisLexis” on our school computers. We’ve got anything that’s ever appeared in the CHE at our fingertips.

WHAT’S NEW?

n this week’s “What’s New?”, Bob Park reports on the continuing “Dover Effect,” that is, the spreading legislative crapulosity among creationists and IDers caused by their huge court defeat in Dover.

Writes Bob, “Utah is one of the most conservative states in the nation, but on Monday, legislation favoring intelligent design lost. Alas, I'm sure the Discovery Institute will be able to find a new gimmick.”

Who funds the Discovery Institute? That would be OC’s own Howard Ahmanson. In the early to mid-90s, Ahmanson was the sugar daddy of Tustin's Education Alliance. The EA, of course, is the organization that helped bring us Nancy Padberg and Don Wagner.

I hope everyone has noticed that Nancy is now battling Mr. Wagner with regard to his red meat tossage--i.e., pulling our colleges’ memberships in the American Library Association just to keep his Neanderthal constituency happy.

Plus she's on the case with regard to Trustee Williams' expensive junketing habit.

But Nancy, give us the details!

Laura Bush and the American Library Association

s you know, at the January 31 meeting of the Board of Trustees, Don Wagner led the board in ending our two colleges' memberships in the American Library Association (ALA), owing to the organization's "partisan" nature and its alleged willingness to make pornography available to children. ALA is, he said, a bunch of "liberal busybodies."

Listen to Wagner's original motion:

Subsequent discussion--Milchiker, Lang, Wagner, Fuentes:

At the subsequent (February 27) BOT meeting, however, Trustees Padberg and Jay sought to reconsider the matter. Trustees Lang, Milchiker, Jay, and Padberg rejected as inaccurate Mr. Wagner's characterization of the ALA's position concerning children and pornography.

Even so, Wagner and Fuentes managed to put off the reconsideration until the March 27 BOT meeting. They needed time to prepare, they said.

During the February 27 meeting, Trustee Fuentes expressed his grave concerns regarding "pornography." (See earlier blog.) He seemed to side with Wagner's view that the ALA favors making porn available to kids.

But other trustees suggested that ALA is not the sort of organization that would advocate that.

Trustee Jay said that he had heard that former librarian Laura Bush, the First Lady, is a member of ALA. He had heard, too, that her husband is a member.

After a Google search, I could not confirm that the President is a member of ALA.

It is clear, however, that the First Lady has many ties to that organization.

found an old website for Texas Governor Bush (Governor Bush) that informs us that wife Laura "serves on several boards, including the advisory board of the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom...."


That Laura was on an ALA board designed to protect intellectual freedom is ironic, for, as First Lady, though she has remained cozy with ALA, she has also distanced herself from the ALA's opposition to CIPA (the Children's Internet Protection Act), legislation that requires that "filters" be placed on library computers--supposedly thereby preventing access to pornographic sites.

Naturally, the ALA opposes CIPA on familiar free speech/free access grounds (it appears that CIPA filters such sites for all users, not just children). They recognize that minors' access to internet porn is a concern, but they reject CIPA's ham-fisted approach.

For similar reasons, ALA opposes elements of the Patriot Act as well. Mr. Wagner mentioned that during the January meeting.

I found an interview with Jim Lehrer in which the First Lady discusses CIPA and the ALA (Lehrer interviews First Lady):

May 11, 2001:

LAURA BUSH: Well, I think there's actually legislation or a law that has to do with libraries, public libraries or school libraries, making sure that there's a filter on the Internet on computers that children have access to. I see the point of that. I understand that people don't want their children to be exposed to pornography, for instance, that might be on the Internet. I think librarians always have picked materials that are appropriate for their audience. Children's librarians, for instance, pick good children's books that are appropriate for children, and so I can see why the - why some people want there to be Internet filters -- so that children see material that's appropriate for children.

JIM LEHRER: The American Library Association, among others, object to this very strongly -

LAURA BUSH: That's right.

JIM LEHRER: -- on First Amendment grounds. What is your own view?

LAURA BUSH: Well, I think that - I actually think that they should use things that make the Internet appropriate for children on computers that children have access to.

Despite the First Lady's support of CIPA (and her husband's administration's support of the Patriot Act), about a year ago, the ALA, citing her work to promote libraries, honored Laura with a citation, which she unreservedly accepted.

Some ALA members have cried foul and have accused ALA leadership of "sycophancy."

As far as I know, however, the "citation" has not been rescinded.

AUDIO FILES: (1) "ALA" resolution, (2) philosophical opposition to "bonds" for funding construction

Dissent offers two 4-minute audio clips of two issues discussed at Monday's meeting of the district board of trustees:

1. IVC FACULTY RESOLUTION RE THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

Part 1: IVC Academic Senate Prez Wendy reads a strongly-worded resolution
Part 2: Trustee Padberg explains that the matter will be reconsidered
Part 3: a lighthearted moment during presentation of plaque to IVC instructor Kate Clark (who recently served as President of the Academic Senates of California Community Colleges)



2. BOARD DISCUSSION OF CONSULTANTS' MASTER PLAN (COST) REPORT

Part 1: Trustee Fuentes expresses his philosophical opposition to our district's pursuing a bond to make up the estimated $300 million shortfall for construction envisioned for phase 1 of the master plan. He suggests that the colleges should do less building and more teaching at High Schools and other off-campus sites.
Part 2a: Trustee Wagner offers more of the same perspective
Part 2b: Wagner has difficulty understanding the report (I do believe that the consultants' subsequent answers seemed satisfactory to Wagner)
Part 3: Trustee Fuentes sings the praises of Chancellor Mathur, to whom many, he says, owe a debt of gratitude

FUENTES: nobody sets our agenda but us!

t last night's board meeting, the board was scheduled to discuss the Accediting agency's recommendations. As was made clear during the special meeting on the 13th, our two colleges will have to move quickly if they are to produce adequate responses to the agency's demands on time.

Chancellor Mathur seemed to take that advice to heart, and so he was prepared to facilitate the board's discussion of the recommendation last night. So the discussion was agendized:

25. SC/IVC ACCREDITATION TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS
Item for discussion as approved by the board 1/31/06.

But Trustee Tom Fuentes had other ideas. Take a listen.

THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION--AND PORNOGRAPHY:


ater in the evening (item 49), the board's recent action of ending our colleges' memberships in the American Library Association was discussed. Padberg and Jay wanted the matter reconsidered. Clearly, they were prepared to vote in support of institutional membership in the ALA.

Here we find Trustee Fuentes arguing that the discussion of reconsideration of this matter should be put off until the next board meeting. (It seemed clear that he and Wagner needed to prepare.) Fuentes frets about the specter of "pornography" in our libraries. Padberg briefly responds.

Last night's board meeting

Dear Gabacho:

Q: So, what happened last night?

A: Well, it was pretty groovy.

Wendy G, on behalf of the IVC Academic Senate, read a resolution to the board, asking the trustees to keep their goddam noses out of college business. She was referring, of course, to the Board's January action of discontinuing the two colleges' memberships in the American Library Association--owing, apparently, to the ALA's "liberal busybody"hood.

The resolution was pretty hard-hitting. I'll provide an audio file soon, I hope.

The board voted to approve the new contract for classified. The latter seemed very happy.

The board got an earful of a report from the usual outside experts about the master plan. These experts said that phase 1--this involves 15 years or so--would cost almost half a billion dollars, and they weren't exaggeratin' neither.

The experts, who, as always, seemed quite competent (how refreshing to be able to say that!), said we can scrape up about $155 million from the usual sources, but then we're $302.6 million short. What to do?

Gotta pursue a bond issue, they said.

Yeah, but them are fightin' words to the fiscally conservative Wagner and Fuentes. No No No No No, they said, and more than once, too. You see, they are the friend of the taxpayer, and the poor taxpayer has paid enough!

In the meantime, everybody else stared blankly into the harsh brute fact that we've gotta get this money from somewhere--if, that is, we wanna accomodate reality, and not just the fascist oldsters who watch the SOCCCD BOT show. You can yammer all you like about bonds, Satan, and taxpayers, but, in the end, you've gotta come up with the scratch.

We need to update our IT, too, said IT maven Alan M. As it turns out, said the rumpled Alan, lots of our IT faces "end of life"--a phrase that seems to refer to the dying years of software that is so old, that the companies that produce it will no longer recognize it, like those Eskimos that send their old people out into the snowstorm.

Fuentes and Wagner went after the SANTANDER, SPAIN trip again. It's too costly; it serves only the elite, etc. People sure do go way out of their way to save face.

Everybody else seemed to say, "hey, the college and student government have scraped up all sorts of money to help out the students who can't afford the trip!" But even that wasn't good enough for the Doublemint Twins, cuz that money's comin' from somewhere, even if it isn't coming from these students, and how come it costs so much? (It's about $5k, and that includes transportation, hotel, etc.)

So Fuentes started singing the praises of a Cypress College trip to Tijuana that costs about $2,000. (It wasn't to Tijuana, but to Guanajuato. I just wanted to say Tijuana. Tijuana, Tijuana, Tijuana.) Dave said that Fuentes wasn't comparing apples to apples, etc., cuz the units earned and the duration weren't the same, etc. (Cypress' Mexico program I've gotta admit: this Guanajuato place looks great. Check out the pic below. I wanna be there.)

In the end, the board approved the Santander trip, I think, with Fuentes and Wagner stinking up the stage with their rank peevitude and their general negatory theatricality.


There were lots of unpleasant and fun comments about the Accrediting recommendations. You know: stop micromanaging; deal with the plague of despair; stop acting like a "banana Republic" (I seem to recall somebody using that phrase a while back).

As per usual, but with a more explicitness, Fuentes complained about outside agencies telling the board what to do. He sounded just like the Norman Fell character--the suspicious guy who ran the rooming house in Berkeley--in the Graduate:

Proprietor: Are you a student?
Benjamin: Not exactly.
Proprietor: What's that?
Benjamin: I said 'Not exactly.' No.
Proprietor: What are ya then?
Benjamin: Oh, I'm just sorta travelin' through....
Proprietor: (He stops at one of the landings) You're not one of those agitators?
Benjamin: What?
Proprietor: One of those outside agitators?

The look on Fell's face is priceless. Fuentes had that look.

The board was nicely divided about whether they were ready to start discussing the recommendations, and, in the end, thanks mostly to the Doublemint Twins, it acted to put off this discussion, despite warnings from Wendy and Claire, et al. Fuentes blew hard about how nobody tells the board what to do. After all, they are elected by the "good people."

This foot-draggin' won't look good to those outside agitators--um, I mean, to the Accreds. Wendy warned that we could be headed for "warning" status. Fuentes gave her the stink eye.

Kate Clark got a prize for her years of work with the Academic Senate of Cal (for about five years, including a stint as Prez).

It was a rich moment. There she was getting all this praise--with Raghu Mathur standing immediately behind her. I'm told she refused to shake his hand, but I'm not sure about that.

Years ago, Raghu, then President of IVC--and recent recipient of his first massive vote of "no confidence"--accused Kate, Bob D, and me of sending him "mail threats." He didn't have a shred of evidence: he just said it. That's the Raghu way.

The board responded by giving Mr. Goo a "security allowance."

Years later, when the fellow was deposed in connection with my 1st Amendment suit, it came to light that, despite Mathur's reference to about a dozen mail, email, voicemail, threats, he hadn't kept any of these supposed artifacts. I mean, if you were sent threatening mail, wouldn't you keep it?

It was pretty clear that there was nothing to keep: Raghu had simply made it all up.

There was quite a discussion about the American Library Association. It turns out (said Bill J) that Laura Bush and her stupid husband too (maybe) are members of the ALA. When Bill says "maybe" I think that means "not."

That the INCREDIBLY POPULAR First Lady is a member of ALA didn't deter Mr. Fuentes from going on and on about "pornography." The ALA, he seemed to suggest, wants to show kids pornography, right here in our libraries. Every time he said that word, he seemed to live in it. Everyone was transfixed in horror. It was like listening to Pamela Anderson roll her tongue and lips around the word "breast." --Well, it wasn't that good.

In the end, Wagner and Fuentes managed to put off the ALA discussion until next time. So this issue lives.

As I left, a classified employee noted Fuentes' awful way with S's. It's disgusting, she said.

"Yeah, it's reptilian," I responded.

Later, I felt bad for saying that. What did snakes and gila monsters ever do to me?

Why not me?

RAGHU AT HARVARD:

From the May 15, 2000 Dissent:

A Dunce at Hahhh-vud

A few months ago, Board Majority flack and former union consultant Pam “Same Sex” Zanelli issued a press release that said:

COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENT SELECTED FOR HARVARD SEMINAR

Irvine Valley College President Raghu P. Mathur has been selected to attend the Institute of [sic] Educational Management (IEM) at Harvard University. The institute provides high-quality professional development experiences to executive level leaders of colleges and universities. More than 700 colleges [sic] and university presidents have participated in a Harvard Institute for Higher Education program.

South Orange County Community College District Trustee Dorothy Fortune and Chancellor Cedric Sampson recommended Mathur to the Harvard IEM admissions committee. In Fortune’s letter to the committee she refers to Mathur’s “daunting challenges” and “remarkable accomplishments” since his appointment as president in 1997. She details his success in fulfilling the Board’s goals “to reduce IVC’s excessive expenditures on administration, cut the huge allocations paid faculty for non-instructional assignments, increase course offerings with the savings, address nepotism in hiring and expand technology offerings.”

“I feel honored and pleased to have been selected to attend this highly prestigious program. I look forward to discussing contemporary challenges of higher education with colleagues from around the country,” said Mathur.

The Harvard IEM program, to be presented July 9 to 21, takes advantage of the diverse experiences of participants to create intensive, highly interactive learning environments. IEM’s goals are to introduce useful new perspectives on institutional leadership; challenge routine thinking; help leaders anticipate critical issues; clarify institutional mission and vision; and improve the quality of the higher education enterprise….

It turns out that there’s an “Institute for [not “of”] Educational Management” website, which includes a very informative brochure. The latter explains that IEM’s goals are to

introduce useful new perspectives on institutional leadership; challenge routine thinking; help leaders anticipate critical issues; clarify institutional mission and vision; and improve the quality of the higher education enterprise.

Gosh, that sounds familiar. Do you suppose Pam works for IEM, too?

Just what goes on at this seminar? According to the brochure,

Case study discussions, formal lectures, videos, practitioner interviews, and role plays are all part of the program design…You will be expected to make a full-time commitment to the institute while at Harvard. A typical IEM day begins with breakfast at 7:00 a.m., followed by class sessions and group activities, which end around 4:00 p.m…The daily schedule often does not end until late evening, when participants complete readings, attend optional presentations, or prepare assignments for the following day.

Sounds pretty rigorous, what with assignments and readings and all. Luckily for the Gooster, “there are no writing assignments during the program.” Whew! Now, if only he can keep his trap shut!

Zanelli’s press release leaves the impression that acceptance into the program is highly competitive. Is that true? Well, the IEM brochure does tell us that “Participants are selected on the basis of their scope of responsibility, depth and breadth of experience, and potential for continued leadership. When making selection decisions, the Admissions Committee also considers the overall profile of the class and seeks to maximize learning by assembling as diverse a group as possible.” (Yeah, with Raghu, they’ve got the “liar” and “autocratic lout” categories pretty well covered. Good.)

The brochure goes on to explain that some people who apply are not accepted. Garsh, that does sound awfully competitive.


According to the brochure, “Applicants are expected to participate in IEM with the full endorsement of their institutions.” (In truth, the only “endorsement” of Mr. Goo’s participation that he is liable to get from the IVC community stems from a deep and abiding desire for his absence.) “Ordinarily, such endorsement is reflected in full financial support…The comprehensive program fee of $5,500 covers tuition, room, most meals, and all instructional materials. Payment is due following acceptance into the program.” –OK. So IEM selects only those whose institutions pony up 5 1/2 K. That is selective.

This means, of course, that IVC will be paying Raghu’s way. I sure hope that Mr. Goo’s two-week, $5,500 Ivy League adventure won’t interfere with his ceaseless efforts to address our latest budget crisis, which is occasioning a bailout by Saddleback College. You people paying attention down there?

I’ve been told that Raghu’s teaching a 5-hour chemistry course this summer, too. What do you suppose that’s all about? Maybe he’s incurred some big expenses recently. Could be. [END]


Notes:

1. I'm told that, at weekend retreats, Raghu never misses an opportunity to wear his "Harvard" sweat shirt.

2. The end remark is an allusion to Mathur's then-recent legal troubles. You see, he sued me (and former administrator T. Burgess) for invading his privacy. How so? Dissent had reported that, in a scheme to discredit an administrator, Raghu had violated a federal law by distributing a student's transcripts (that's a violation of FERPA). That, at any rate, was the determination of the district's legal advisors, who produced a legal opinion. That violation occasioned a reprimand from IVC's president.

So Raghu sued us. But that blew up in his face.

Using California's anti-SLAPP statute (i.e., protection against "strategic litigation against public participation"), we counter-sued, and won. Raghu had to pay our legal expenses ($32,000, as I recall). Who knows how much he spent on his own attorneys.