"Merry holidays," he said, charmingly

Just got back from the South Orange County Community College District meeting of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES—or, as one participant of tonight’s meeting would have it, the meeting of the Board and not of anybody else--i.e., not of riffraff like college Presidents and Academic Senate Presidents, who need to remain silent and respectful down in the pit. That was John Williams, looking staunch and red as per usual. I think Chancellor Mathur said something like, “It is a public meeting but it is not a meeting of the public.” Raghu's a sucker for clever sayings.

Tonight's report will have to be quick, cuz The Cat is peevish again, and so I’ve got to feed her really soon. I’ll have more tomorrow. More of a report, I mean. Same amount of cat.

During the readout of actions after the super-secret “closed session,” we learned that stuff happened to lots of people, but no names were mentioned. No doubt I’ll learn more tomorrow. Somebody important got canned, I think.

A retired judge—a Judge "Frazee," I think, although he looked pretty normal—showed up to swear in Padberg, Milchiker, and Wagner, who were reelected by default. They looked pretty proud. They swore to support and defend the Constitution and to shoot on sight all enemies, foreign and domestic. I crouched low in my seat.

There was only one public comment, and that came from IVC Senate Prez Wendy G, who dispensed some Warm and Fuzzies, declaring that IVC’s Holiday Party was “wonderful,” what with all the dancing and joking and having a good time. It was like a real college plus togetherness. We sang Kumbaya. Wendy came close to blaming me for the whole thing. (She blamed Julie too.)

In truth, it was a great event just like the Wendster said.

The board went straight into its yearly “Organizational Meeting,” which brought out some petty trustee snipage. One faction of the board seemed to want to roll over the same three officers for the next year, but the more ruthless faction favored doing likewise--except they wanted to replace Nancy Padberg, who has been VP, with Don Wagner. Well, that’s just what happened. I don’t have to tell you how these people voted. It was all utterly predictable.


After Mathur threw a plaque at Lang, the board discussed the Chancellor’s recommendations for changes in the board meeting format—supposedly for the sake of “efficiency.” I think one of the recommendations was that the college Presidents should just turn in written reports instead of squawking. Another was moving Personnel Actions to the consent calendar (which pretty much guarantees rubber-stampitude). Another was replacing the “invocation” with an “inspirational moment.” It was a pretty superficial change, I think.

Naturally, Don Wagner hated that last idea, arguing, evidently, that invocations of the Lord are traditional and common, so back off. Padberg didn’t like the business about moving Personnel Actions to the consent calendar--I think she called it "irresponsible"--nor did she warm to the notion that the Presidents should be relegated to lowly riffraffery. Wagner agreed with Nancy P about the consent calendar, but he didn’t have a problem with the riffraffery. Mathur got defensive and prickly (some might say "unprofessional") about Nancy’s criticisms of his recommendations, and that caused her to roll her eyes, which is always great. Eye-rollery is within the bounds of professionalism, I think. I oughta write a book about trustee etiquette.

In the end, they went with Mathur’s suggestions, except the part about changing "invocation" to “inspirational moment.” These people do have their priorities. It was a tiny victory for Red-Staters in the Culture War. Somebody brought out a Confederate flag and planted it in my foot.

During reports, the trustees seemed determined to say “Happy Holidays” and the like. Bill Jay spoke of “Merry Holidays,” I think, but at least he apologized for scrambling his words. Hey, that’s his charm! He can be funny when he's self-effacing. Make a note, Don.

At one point, Wagner sang the praises of IVC’s Adopt-a-Family program, which, he said, features jolly “Bill Jay” as Santa Claus. Bill looked more bewildered than usual. Turns out it’s Bill Hewitt, not Bill Jay, behind the whiskers and funny red suit. Ho ho ho. Somehow, Wagner’s error inspired endless mirth, but I didn’t get it. I think I’m goin’ deaf or something. Somebody get the phone.

Wagner got all worked up over something about the Dean of PE and Athletics (I think that was it). He seemed to say that the process whereby this person was hired was irregular and just plain stinky. Plus he seemed to want to eliminate the position. I wasn’t paying much attention, so don’t ask me. (Luckily, I got most of this discussion on tape.) In the end, nobody seemed to agree with Wagner, judging by the vote. It was a rare moment of Wagnerian solitude. Heard some Valkyries.

The discussion of the “fix” of the disastrous “$50 Zillion” liability insurance decision for Study Abroad programs was interesting. Chancellor Mathur made a point of indicating that the disastrous action was originally recommended by Bill Jay over there. I detected snickering in the audience. Padberg seemed to draw attention to the presentation given by VC Serban last month regarding how much insurance is really appropriate (namely, 5-10 million). Maybe Nancy was saying, “don’t give Mathur any credit for fixing this thing.” (Not sure.) Jay expressed something like regret about the 50 Zillion SNAFU, which really messed things up, although why didn't Ragu step in or mention what was happening? Good for Bill. Mathur accepted no responsibility whatsoever.

Fuentes engaged in some spectacular historical revisionism about how this whole STUDY ABROAD FUBARITUDE got started. More about that tomorrow.

The trustees referred to all the dying that’s been going on lately at the colleges. Four kids have died in the last month or so. I’m told that one student died the other day when he fell from the Saddleback College Library.

The meeting was adjourned in honor of those poor kids.

More tomorrow. Gotta feed that cat.

Despite the EAC

▲ For a preview of tonight's SOCCCD Board Meeting, go to

● Board Meeting. See also
● Chunk's open letter to the Chancellor &
● IVC's holiday party a success &
● Official IVC Holiday Party Photos

▲▲ The editorial in this morning’s New York Times—The Road to Reliable Elections—concerns desperately needed electronic voting reform. As you know, Trustee Tom Fuentes is on the Elections Assistance Commission (EAC), the body that was supposed to fix what is broken (post-2000 election fiasco) but that has refused to do that. Gee, I wonder why?

Turns out that’s OK because individual states are gradually making the fixes themselves. Plus Dianne Feinstein and her pals are riding to the rescue:

…The Election Assistance Commission, whose role is merely advisory, long ago missed the chance to take the lead on electronic voting reform. The states that adopted paper requirements have done that. And it now looks as if Congress may finally resolve the matter for the whole nation.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, plan to introduce legislation to require voter-verified paper records. That legislation has a good chance of passing. If any members of Congress are uncertain why such a law is needed, the [new] NIST report makes the case convincingly.

Chunk's open letter to the Chancellor

Cook: I was against it, you know.
Moore: Against what?
Cook: The Second World War.
Moore: Well, I think everyone was against the Second World War.
Cook: Yes, but I wrote a letter!

—Someone’s imperfect recollection of a famous Peter Cook/Dudley Moore sketch. Those guys had their moments!

AS YOU KNOW, some VIPs of the South Orange County Community College District are in the habit of making decisions on behalf (they proclaim) of the long-suffering "taxpayer."

Taxpayers do have it bad. For instance, it's hard for them to get reliable information about what goes on in the SOCCCD, what with unscrupulous politicians claiming that our faculty have "36 hour work weeks" or that they make on average 100 grand a year. I've met South County taxpayers who seem to think that SOCCCD faculty spend their days "teaching" the "gay and lesbian lifestyle." That's what they tell me, anyway.

Part of the problem is that the system makes it hard for citizens to monitor how decisions are made in the good ol' SOCCCD. As you know, in our district, the trustees "are the decider." Even when they're not supposed to be the decider, they're still the decider. OK. So how is the poor taxpayer to keep track of all this trustee decidery?

It ain't easy. Consider our board meeting agendas--composed, I assume, by Chancellor Mathur. The typical taxpayer must have trouble reading them. (They are readily available here, though the district makes no effort advertising that fact.)

I'm not saying that they're terrible. They're not. It's just that no effort is made to make them intelligible to the taxpayer, who likely has no idea what a "governance group" is or what "basic aid" is about. I can just see him or her asking himself, "Why is there a 'closed' session in the middle of this 'open' session?" "What on earth is 'reassigned time'?" "What are all these different 'senates' they keep referring to? Shouldn't there be just one?"

People who bother to get ahold of our agendas must get frustrated. After a while, I'll bet, they just give up trying to figure out what the next meeting is about.

Imagine if, instead, we made it easy for 'em!

So I've decided to write a letter:

Dear Chancellor MATHUR:

If you need help writing a taxpayer-friendly agenda, I am available to assit you. You know where I am.

Here's an example of my work. On the agenda for tomorrow's board meeting, regarding item 26, YOU wrote:

26. SADDLEBACK COLLEGE: ACADEMIC STIPENDS – SPRING 2007 - Approval of extra-contractual faculty assignments [sic] for Spring 2007.

Now, me, a guy who likes to look out for his fellow citizen, I would have written something like this:

26. WE'RE PAYING FOR SPECIAL WORK. Some Saddleback College faculty have agreed to do work next semester beyond their regular teaching duties—for instance, hiring and evaluating part-time instructors. This item informs the trustees about that [or it informs the trustees that these instructors will be paid for this work].

No doubt you can whip up a mean beaker of weird green chemicals. But let's face it, Raghu—you're no writer. Please note the obvious flaws of your own verbiage:

● The agenda says that item 26 is "information only"—that is, the trustees are not being asked to approve anything. And yet the above verbiage "informs" the board of "approval" of "assignments." That's confusing.

● Item 26's description indicates, in capital letters, that it concerns "stipends." And yet the verbiage that follows refers to "assignments." Aren't those two different things? Again, this is confusing, even to an insider! I think you're confused, dude, and when a writer is confused, his reader is even confuseder.

● Item 26 refers to "Academic" stipends. As opposed to what? Isn't everything at a college "academic"? —'Ceptin' for mowing the lawn, I guess.

—In general, taxpayers must find it hard to understand our agendas as they are now organized and written. It wouldn't take much to make them UTTERLY INTELLIGIBLE. Why not do that? I MEAN, DO WE CARE ABOUT THE TAXPAYER OR NOT?

Raghu, let me know if I can help. You won't even have to give me a stipend. I'll do it for free. Honest. But don't you be goin' to the board taking the credit, or insisting on being paid for MY WORK!

I know you, dude. I've got your number. Bigtime.

Yours truly,

CHUNK

Board meeting on Monday

Here's my report on the AGENDA for the December 11, 2006, meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees.

CLOSED SESSION (5 p.m.—6 p.m.)

Nothing here jumps out at me. Section A is

1. ...Appointment/Employment
a. Assistant Dean, Student Services, SC

2. ...Evaluation of Performance
a. Chancellor

3. ...Discipline/Dismissal/Release

We're still waiting to hear about the fate of IVC Chief of Police Kreza and his assistant, who were placed on "administrative leave" a couple of months ago. Do you suppose the board will ever tell us what's up? They've really kept a lid on this one. Impressive! Disconcerting!

● Section D concerns litigation:

1. Anticipated Litigation/Significant Exposure to Litigation

2. Initiation of Litigation – Three Cases

Do bear in mind that some agenda items—e.g., the two above—appear repeatedly without yielding reported actions.

OPEN SESSION (6:00 p.m. to—God only knows)


Immediately after public comments, the board will recess (before the public) to its “annual Organizational Meeting.” That's when the trustees elect their officers.

As I have indicated previously, if TOM FUENTES wants to preside over the board during the next year, then the job is likely his for the asking. But I’m told that he does not want it. According to my sources, the AMAZING MUSTACHIOED QUISLING will continue as President of the Board.

As long as it isn’t Fuentes, I’m happy. His contempt for, and distrust of, faculty is palpable. (I've decided to employ understatement for a change.)

The agenda looks pretty light. The Consent Calendar items are 2-17, including

• #2: Saddleback guest lecturer honoraria. ($100 bucks a pop. The trustees control the purse strings! On the other hand, you could probably scrape up a hundred bucks just picking up change around the Saddleback vending machines.)
• #12: approval of the district 2008-2009 Academic Calendar. Snore.
• #16: payment of bills.

For some reason, over five and a half million dollars in checks is listed without description. Aren’t agendas supposed to give the public a heads-up about what the trustees might do? What kind of heads-up is that? Who writes these agendas? Dennis Hastert?

I know, I know. The item is likely a bunch of innocent expenditures. But just how hard is it to write something like, "Several dozen routine expenditures such as XXX"? Mathur is so focussed on pleasing his "bosses" (namely, the trustees) that he does nothing for the poor "taxpayer," who will surely learn little from the above verbiage. It might even make him/her suspicious.

Among the Deputy Chancellor’s items:

• #18: SOCCCD: BOARD POLICY REVISIONS: BP5505: GRADE GRIEVANCE POLICY

It’s just for “review and study.” The Academic Senates seem happy with the changes. The existing policy, which is old, is a potential litigation magnet, among other things. It goes out of its way to invite issues and problems.

• #19: SADDLEBACK COLLEGE: AWARD OF BID: REMEDIATION AND REPAIR OF THE BGS BUILDING

This is for six and a half million dollars. Is it just me or does it seem as though the board has been working on the BGS MOLD project for decades?! Folks in the trenches (er, the fungi) have been grumblin' all the while. Do the trustees care? "Let them eat mushrooms!" they say.

• #20: SOCCCD: BOARD POLICY REVISION: …BP 1600: PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS, PB 4056: CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING… Is this good?


VAGUENESS AGAIN

• #21: ACADEMIC PERSONNEL ACTIONS [including]

….Administrator Contract Extension; Additional Compensation: General Fund; Additional Compensation: Categorical/Non-General Fund; Resignation.Retirement/Conclusion of Employment. [My emphasis.]

I don’t know about you, but I sure don’t know what the italicized stuff is about. How vague can you get?

You’ll recall that, recently, Chancellor Mathur tried to sneak his raise through, unnoticed, in this "Academic Personnel Actions" section (see Blow by blow). As I recall, back then, he (or Bob King) used two little words—“additional compensation”—to describe the item. Compensation for whom? How much? How come? When the item's nature was finally revealed (on the day of the board meeting), IVC Academic Senate President Wendy G complained about this connivery, as did some trustees.

In the end, owing mostly to Wagnerian peevitude, King was told to reagendize the COLA item, only properly next time. (No wonder everybody was pissed. Nevertheless, this board stands behind Mathur like George W stands behind his disastrous war.)


My problem is with the vagueness of the agenda. In this instance, as before, you can't tell what this item is about. As near as I can tell, that's illegal.

The Brown Act prohibits (among other things) undue vagueness. Why? —In order to permit genuine HEADS-UPPERY for all the poor taxpayers that Fuentes pretends to care about. (See The Ralph M. Brown Act.) According to the Brown Act,

”…[P]rior to a regular meeting, the [board] must post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item to be discussed or transacted at the meeting…. The purpose of the brief general description is to inform interested members of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting of the body….” (Brown Act—This link is to a smallish pdf file)

Seems plain enough to me.

You'll recall that the SOCCCD board is notorious for its "persistent and defiant" violations of the Brown Act (seven or eight years ago). You'd think they'd learn. (The most egregious violator back then—Williams—is still on the board.)

Item #23 concerns a Memo of Understanding between the district and the faculty union. Maybe our unionist bretheren and sisteren can tell us what that's about.

At a recent "open forum" with the Chancellor, the fellow seemed to take credit for the faculty contract. (See "A 'thankless job'.") That's rich, boy. He was the reason that negotiations were bogged down for years.

Item #24 concerns the board’s effort to help fix the ROYAL MESS they’ve made of our Study Abroad programs. They’ll change the liability insurance level from the current $50 million (ridiculous! disastrous!) down to “within the limits of $5-10 million per program occurrence,” as per VC Serban’s recent recommendations.

I think the board owes the "taxpayer" a public apology.

At the aforementioned open forum, I complained about the Study Abroad SNAFU. Mathur responded by noting that good things are happening, e.g., this agenda item. Yeah, I said, but what about causing the SNAFU—or, in his case, allowing it to occur—in the first place?

The Chancellor seemed to say that we should focus on the positive, not the negative.

Sometimes, though, negatives are very positive. Imagine the joy in Mudville were Mr. Mathur to resign? As Raghu might put it, it would be a "win-win."

Raghu, please bring us joy!

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there'll be no joy in Mudville—'till Raghu Mathur's out!

Making Kings

Have you followed the George Jaramillo case? It tells you a lot about Orange County and the Machine.

Until a few years ago, Jaramillo was corrupt OC Sheriff Mike Carona’s right-hand man. (Recall that, a few years ago, Carona received the IVC Foundation’s “Hometown Hero” designation.) Everyone expected Jaramillo to succeed Carona as Sheriff.

Then, in 2004, things changed. As this morning’s OC Register explains (Jaramillo trial):

Jaramillo…is accused of profiting from a relationship with Newport Beach businessman Charles Gabbard, who has also come under fire for raising campaign money for Carona. Gabbard's company, CHG Technologies, was marketing an anti-pursuit device and hired Jaramillo as a consultant. Jaramillo is also charged with improperly using the Sheriff's Department helicopter for a personal trip taken by him and his wife, Lisa.

This morning’s Times (Ex-O.C. sheriff's official) explains that

George Jaramillo still faces … charges related to his work as a paid consultant for CHG Safety Technologies Inc., including charges of taking a bribe and obstructing justice…He is … accused of lying twice to a grand jury, using a department helicopter for personal travel, and ordering deputies to develop his film, research convalescent homes for his mother and attend a relative's graduation ceremony.

Michael Shroeder’s name comes up a lot in this case, which is now set to go to trial in January:

At the pre-trial hearing, the talk centered mostly on Jaramillo's recently filed motion to recuse the Orange County District Attorney's Office from the case because of the possibility he would get an unfair trial.

The motion also alleges Carona and his lawyer, Michael Schroeder, influenced Rackauckas to file charges, and that prosecutors had some evidence in the case given to them illegally by Schroeder.

Jaramillo's motion said he was viewed as a political threat to Carona and Rackauckas, who he termed the "frontmen for the notorious Orange County kingmaker, Michael Schroeder."

[Jaramillo’s lawyer Robert] Corrado said he is ready to go to trial and call on Schroeder, who advises both Carona and Rackauckas, and their wives, to testify. Schroeder's wife, Susan, works for the district attorney. Rackauckas' former wife helped Lisa Jaramillo raise money for several candidates.

"Let's get them on the witness stand before God and everybody and the news and see what they have to say," Corrado said after the hearing.

Yes, let’s do get them on the witness stand. Let’s let everyone see just how things work in this ridiculous county.

Back in 2000, when then-OC GOP chief Tom Fuentes was selected to replace Steven Frogue, who had resigned from the SOCCCD Board of Trustees just five months prior to election, Fuentes called for a meeting with a group I was then working with. Don Rickner and I showed up at the meeting. At Fuentes’ side was Michael Shroeder. Schroder and Fuentes seemed joined at the hip. The purpose of the meeting was never made clear.

A year or so earlier, Schroeder had sent me a very complimentary note, thanking me for my efforts in opposition to Frogue. At the time, Schroeder was the chief of the state GOP, and he had gotten the state party to join our (ultimately unsuccessful) efforts to recall Trustee Frogue. I had no idea who Schroeder was and why he would bother to send a note.

At about that time, current SOCCCD Chancellor (and then-IVC President) Raghu P. Mathur was meeting with Fuentes and Schroeder.

I think Schroeder and Fuentes were making Kings, as usual.

Let's hope that the Jaramillo trial goes forward and that a little light can be shed on the Machine and how it works, and how it occasionally breaks down.

The IVC Holiday Party is a smashing success

Couldn't ask for better weather.

The Ashley Johnson Trio sounded great.

There was a seriously good vibe and everybody seemed to have a great time.

What a great turnout!

Lots of good people, big smiiles.

A good number of classified employees. Lots of faculty, too.

"California Santa" was a big hit.

About $680 was raised for student scholarships. That's great.

Happy Holidays, everybody!

The Chancellor's Open Forum or "We all Have a Role to Play"

How Rebel Girl saw Tuesday afternoon (with apologies to Chunk):

Schoolhouse Rock. All the boys sat on one side of the room and the girls sat on the other and neither seemed ready to ask the other to dance. It's true! You should have been there. Natch, like all those grade school dances there were more girls than boys but dang if the fellas still play shy. There they were, all seven of them, including Chunk, huddled along two sides while the ladies filled out the rest. What's that about? Granted most of the fellas, except for Chunk and S.R., were what Rebel blithely calls "suits," so maybe it wasn't a boy vs. girl thing, cooties and all that, maybe it had more to do with hierarchy and patriarchal privilege in the institution…in other words, a boy-girl thing.

Smokin' in the Boys Room. In the back of the room, having arriving fashionably late, slouched K.S. and Rebel Girl, the two stalwart female profs who close the place down most Thursday nights, Rebel with her writers, K.S. with her cadre of mostly female students wielding scalpels above the prone forms of small, dead animals. The two lobbed a few questions – stipends, reassigned time, the justice of the DRAC model and the possibility or lack thereof of increased justice in the future. They watched as the Chancellor, as is his wont, unspooled his vision, a tapestry of aphorism and narcissism.

The two were inspired by the Chancellor's visiony vision. What we need, he intoned at one point, is a clearinghouse of ideas and goals. The two quickly responded to his challenge and spent the remainder of the meeting building just such clearinghouse of ideas and goals. They used popsicle sticks and Elmer's Glue-All and plan to place it in the parking lot near the mobile home that serves as our bookstore. It can also operate as a birdhouse. It will be a perfect neighbor, quipped one Eng prof, to the beloved marketplace of ideas.

Back in the Day. The Chancellor told a heartwarming story about his days as a teacher. Once he phoned an absent student to let her know of her earned A on an exam. He disabused the poor thing of her own notion of her own mediocrity. Implied moral: if we all could be more like Raghu, student retention would go way up. Start dialing.

Wasted Days and Wasted Nights. The Chancellor made several elliptical comments about how the board, or members of the board, would object to alcohol being served at on-campus events such as the Foundation Dinner and the Summer Jazz picnic. Don't go there, he seemed to be saying. Please. Pretty please. Keep serving that sparkling apple cider at 99 cents a pop from Trader Joe's. Don't violate the sanctity of the college.

They're Making a List and Checkin' it Twice. Sometime during the discussion of ad-hoc student retention strategies, the office of budget management revealed that when students come to them for refund for dropped classes, they ask the students which class it is, the name of the professor and the reason for withdrawal. They put this information on a list and forward it to the Office of Instruction.

In the Still of the Night. Rebel Girl minded her tongue for once and didn't ask about the state of security of campus, especially late at night. She didn't mention the student who recently died in the middle of the night in the parking lot, whose death went unnoticed for over 10 hours and who had to be found by his father the next morning. She thinks about that event often and wonders what went wrong here that night, what other matters were so pressing that no one noticed a car sitting in a well-lit narrow strip of the parking lot with its windows rolled down and a young man inside.

All the World's a Stage. Throughout the meeting, the Chancellor repeatedly told everybody how we each have a role to play.

His role, he said, in response to a pointed question from Chunk, is to put things on the table.

- Rebel Girl