How it works at the SOCCCD

Do you suppose that Tom will arrange for Raghu to receive another round of fabulous cash prizes?

Come See the Canyons!

EVEN THOUGH, as you may know, the Inter-Canyon League received an unprecendented ONE MILLION DOLLAR DONATION from an anonymous donor (rumored to be a reclusive billionare from Newport Beach who has a soft spot for the canyons)—more help is needed.

This weekend, two opportunities to help—and to visit the canyons.

Plant Modjeska.org is sponsoring a "plant drive" this saturday November 17th from 7 am to 4 pm. From their website:

As many of you know Modjeska Canyon is a place of sanctuary and natural beauty. The fire has been a great loss for residents, the Modjeska volunteer fire department, and the many gardens and wildlife that have existed within the community for years.

If you would like to contribute, we will be accepting native/drought resistant plants, trees, ground cover, and shrubs along with compost soil.

We will also be taking donations, selling stickers, and food for the Modjeska Canyon fire department. 100% of the money will go directly to the Modjeska Fire Department volunteers.

The Tree of Life Nursery will be accepting orders over the phone for pick-up. The list of native plants below will be ready to be delivered. Should you wish to help you may call Gene or Suzanne at 949-728-0685 and tell them you would like to help with the "PlantModjeska" plant drive. Please have all orders in by noon on Friday the 16th.

Visit their website, PlantModjeska.org, for more information.

ALSO ON SATURDAY in Silverado Canyon:

Santiago Fire Relief Fundraiser & Concert
from their press release:

“Thank You Firefighters, We Love You!” is the slogan of our canyon residents who are coming together to acknowledge the firefighters who helped save our eclectic country homes from the raging Santiago Fire which burned over 28,000 acres and destroyed 15 homes. Residents from both Modjeska and Silverado canyons have joined together in the Santiago Fire Relief Fund to raise and distribute funds to those in need of both immediate and long-term assistance.

The Santiago Fire Relief Fundraiser and Music Fest will be at the Silverado Community Center, just one mile into Silverado Canyon, and only minutes away from the cities of Orange, Lake Forest, Irvine and Santa Margarita. This very special event will feature a big community “Thank You” to the OC Firefighters, Sheriff’s Department and Canyon Watch volunteers, along with all day live Bluegrass, Country and Blues musicians, food donated by local restaurants and vendors, arts & craft booths, and a silent auction. The music line-up of this incredibly thankful day will include the Hickey Creek String Band, Rough Cut, Jeff Wilson Experience, Southern Haze, Graceland Mafia, Big Ed & The Twins, and more…plus a special evening performance by Smoked Weasel!

Date: Saturday, November 17th, 2007
Time: 10:00 am to 10:00 pm
Location: Silverado Community Center, 27641 Silverado Canyon Rd, Silverado, CA, 92676
Cost: Admission by DONATION

All proceeds from this event will go directly to the Santiago Fire Relief Fund.

Along with our November 17th fundraiser for Santiago Fire victims, we will also be providing opportunities for volunteers to assist in the recovery and coordinating services offered by various nonprofit and governmental agencies. All contributions will go directly to those in need; no overhead expenses will be deducted. The Santiago Fire Recovery Effort is part of the Inter-Canyon League, a nonprofit, volunteer organization dedicated to protecting and preserving the canyon’s unique way of life. The ICL was created after the 1969 disaster, when a mudslide killed 7 people sheltered at the Silverado volunteer fire station after 18 inches of rain in 72 hours flooded the canyon. Because the ICL is a 501(c)3 organization, all contributions are tax deductible.

Donations can also be mailed to Santiago Fire Relief Fund, P.O. Box 301, Silverado, CA 92676-0301 or visit our website to make a Paypal donation: SFRF.

REBEL GIRL SAYS: if you are thinking of traveling out this way to one event or the other or even both, drop her a line on the blog or via other channels and she'll try and meet up with you. This place is still a beautiful place. Come see.

Dealing with a Mathurian fiasco: "we'll find a way"

(A full account of last night's meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees. See the Video, jump to item 6.3., esp. hour 2:00)

BOB. During “public comments,” former Saddleback Academic Senate President, Bob Cosgrove, reminded the board that, during Bob’s tenure, citing overwhelming evidence, he argued for the need for full-time faculty hires. But evidence meant nothing to the Chancellor, it seemed.

Now, of course, owing to the Gooster’s remarkable incompetence, the district faces likely and deepening noncompliance with the 50% Law—and the unknown legal consequences thereof—and so the fellow is pressing for 45 new hires ASAP, with emphasis on the S.

Why, asked Bob, are CEOs in Public Education not held to account for their screw-ups?

During trustee reports, Tom Fuentes praised the “spiritual and patriotic” musical performances offered during the recent IVC Performing Arts Center Gala. John Williams, in a prelude to his later advocacy of “safety and security cameras,” reminded us of the alarming wave of violence and horror that is washing across colleges throughout the land.

As you know, John isn't the brightest bulb on the tree.

The man of the hour—Chancellor Clouseau—gave a report that left an impression of districtular normalcy and wonderfulness. It was but the first act in a delightful, multi-faceted performance offered this night. Where's Kato when you need 'im?


INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS REPORTS. The Chancellor chose this night to reveal, “for the first time,” Institutional Effectiveness reports for the two colleges. Predictably, these reports, compiled by Vice Chancellor Andreea Serban (and team), revealed our colleges to be more or less accomplishing what they are supposed to be accomplishing. As if reporting accomplishments were the same as achieving them, Mathur talked up “his” reports. “It’s about time” we did something like this, he said.

“It’s about time,” he was really saying, “that I am duly recognized for my achievements.”

I can’t speak for Saddleback College, but it is no secret that Serban developed her report on IVC without consulting the college. Indeed, the IVC Academic Senate first heard about this report about a week or two ago.

That’s our Raghu. He writes his own report cards. It’s Mathurian quality assurance!

OK, but now get this: I’ve been studying Don Wagner’s facial expressions for years, and I do believe that his look whilst Serban sauntered back to her seat set a new standard for “manifest incredulity.”


SAFETY AND SECURITY CAMERAS. The next discussion item was a report regarding campus safety and security cameras—the purchase of which is advocated by Saddleback College Police Chief Harry Parmer.

And John Williams.

Tuesday night’s discussion proceeded on the assumption that, next month, the board will decide whether to purchase the camera equipment. But wait! Trustee Fuentes was under the impression that the board would first decide the relevant “philosophical” issues regarding privacy and whatnot and only then contemplate the purchase of equipment. That's only logical!

Mathur seemed caught sans trou. “Your point is well taken,” he said.

Fuentes dryly observed that we’ve seen some of these campus tragedies unfold in classrooms while somebody is “filming the quad.”

Marcia Milchiker agreed that we should not put the cart before the horse.

Parmer said something helpful and intelligent. The most common crime at Saddleback College is petty theft. It’s a high probability crime with low consequences. The chances of a major act of violence are very low, but the consequences would of course be very high. We need to come to a “rational understanding,” said Harry, of this matter of low probability crimes with high consequences.

But Williams can’t abide rational understandings. He'd rather shout "boo!" He commenced railing against the “it can’t happen here” mentality. It’s like “having your head in the ground,” he said. I do wish he would keep his there.

At one point, Bill Jay recalled an incident in which Parmer spotted some guys on campus “with guns.” Gosh! It’s a good thing Harry was on the ball!

“They turned out to be cops,” said Harry, utterly deflating Jay’s point, whatever it was. We all had a good laugh, Jay included.


THE 50% LAW. That brought us to the discussion of the 50% Law. In his introduction, Chancellor Mathur asserted that the law was "backed" by “unions.” He then stated that “at least one turd" of all colleges in the state have had some difficulty with this law.

Earlier, IVC Academic Senate President Gabriella had distributed a packet of fiscal facts and charts that had been provided to some by the district. That data makes abundantly clear that Mathur’s assertion about “one turd” was at best a gross exaggeration.

Heroic Raghu explained how he labored to put together a special committee (informally known as DRACULA) to study our 50% situation and to offer recommendations. He carped, however, that the committee’s recommendations thus far have been “general,” not specific.

Finally, he mentioned once again that, in dealing with this situation, there can be no “sacred cows.” This was Mathur’s way of saying that he’s gonna target faculty reassigned time if it’s the last thing he does.

Beth Mueller presented some background regarding the 50% Law. She showed us a chart of spending “hurts and helps” re the Law. Right at the top of the list: reassigned time. That’s a “hurt.” (In fact, our noncompliance with the law is so great that any adjustment in RT will be utterly inconsequential. It's exactly this sort of Mathurian gambit that makes life with Goo demoralizing.)


It seemed to be Beth’s job to portray our district as an unsuspecting victim of the crafty and stealthy 50 Percent Monster. “When we realized that we were having” a problem with it, she said, the fiscal staff jumped on their horses and road in all directions! They met with their equivalents over at Rancho Santiago and Coast. They redid recalculations. (Nothing dishonest, though.) In the end, for 2006-2007, they managed to hit 50%. (Things don’t looks so rosy, though, for 2007-08.)

How did this happen? Beth blamed it on “coding.” Plus reassigned time, of course. Then there was the 2004 retirement incentive. And of course, “last but not least,” startup costs for ATEP. Sometimes, she added, “you’ve got to spend money to make money.” (Mueller and company failed to note that, each year, the chancellor must sign a document with the instructional/total spending ratio emblazoned upon it. Mathur watched us drift down toward the 50% line for five years and did nothing—except push us way over the line. For 2007-08, we are projected, by the district, to be at 46%.)

What happens if we actually fall out of compliance (which seems certain)? Blah, blah, blah, said Beth. The law seems geared to districts that get state apportionment. But we’re one of those wacky “basic aid” districts that gets local property tax money. So how will the state go about penalizing us if we fail to comply with this law?

Evidently, the state has told us. "We’ll find a way,” said the state.


Gary Poertner explained that we can address this problem in three ways. First, we can spend more on instruction—that is, we can hire more full-time faculty. Or we can “reduce the denominator expense,” i.e., spend less on the non-instructional. (Yikes!) The most efficacious approach is to do both: spend less on the non-instructional and use that money to hire new faculty.

Williams noted that the 50% law does not include librarian and counselor salaries as “instructional.” “Something’s wrong with the law!” he opined.

Gary responded by saying that the purpose of the law is to insure that districts spend their resources on “classroom activity.” Get it?

Trustee Fuentes thundered: “this is a bad law, this is a hurtful law!” (You'll definitely wanna see the video when it becomes available Thursday. Look for item 6.3, hour 2:00.) He attributed the law to “the special interests” (that’s Fuentean code for: the teachers union). Maybe, he said, we ought to take a leadership role and gain the cooperation of other districts in an effort to “roll back” this law!

Lang seemed to indicate agreement with that. Not sure. Wagner noted the “perverse nature of this law.”


ON THE OTHER HAND, Wagner seemed skeptical about Mathur’s faculty hiring initiative. It is not a “realistic solution, not a timely solution,” he said. That sentiment turned out to be a Wagnerian motif.

Bill Jay noted that, in truth, our district shares 50% Law difficulties with “bush districts,” including “Copper Mountain.” And Compton, of course. He further noted that, in the state he comes from, the law demanded 60% on instructional costs! There’s a reason for the law, he said. Boards load up staff with administrators, not instructors.

In any case, said Jay, we must comply with the law "as it is now.”

Bingo.

Wagner definitely didn’t like Mathur’s big hiring initiative. Maybe, he said, we’re better off losing the $4.7 million (that’s the amount we’re projected to be out of compliance for 2007-08) rather than going for this “quick fix.”


Saddleback’s Academic Senate President, Carmen D, noted that the hiring initiative entails setting aside the college’s carefully considered “strategic plan.” We don’t even have offices for 30 more faculty, she said. This whole business seems half-assed, she seemed to say, and Wagner was right there with her.

Wendy G noted that, at the two colleges, instruction accounts for well over 50% of expenses. (The problem, it seems, is elsewhere. In Gooville.)

In the end, Mathur declared that the discussion about the 50% Law had been “extremely helpful.” Yes, he said, we must appeal this silly law. Yup, that’s the problem. Not me, nope.

45 NEW HIRES. Later, as a separate item, the board discussed Mathur’s plan to hire 30 new faculty at Saddleback and 15 new faculty at IVC.

Wagner asked: are we hiring all of these faculty at once just to satisfy the 50% law? He didn't like that. Mathur's plan didn’t strike him as being sufficiently thought out.

“This is being driven by the 50% Law,” he said. “In good conscience,” he said, “I can’t see hiring 45 faculty just to solve a ‘crisis’ that might not be a crisis.” He was referring to the possibility of getting some sort of waiver or reprieve from the state. (That doesn't look promising.)

In the end, only Wagner voted against the faculty hiring plan. He's my new hero.

The board also discussed the “2% rule” regarding Reassigned Time. But I’ll leave that for another time. --CW

• See Look at the data!
• Tracy's highlights have some cool links (e.g., to Andreea's presentation).

Tonight's board meeting: the 50% law is "bad"

It seemed to be a bad night for Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur. He didn't seem to get what he wanted. Not about Reassigned Time, not about the 50% Law. Essentially, he just looked like an asshole.

The discussion about our struggles with the 50% Law was interesting. There was an effort to sell the idea that it is a new-fangled and "bad" law, and, gosh, how were we supposed to know about so goofy a requirement?


In truth, the 50% Law is more than 40 years old. That Mathur and Co. were caught by surprise by it suggests gross incompetence. No, it is not true that a third (or, as Mathur put it, a "turd") of community colleges have run into difficulty with this law. Compton College and Beaver Fang College (I think that was the name) had a problem with it. And us.

And, no, we won't be able to solve the problem by reducing Reassigned Time.



Remarkably, some trustees seemed to understand the situation perfectly. Fuentes, Wagner, and Williams, however, seemed to come from somewhere out in left field. Evidently, they intend to launch a state-wide effort to rid the state's community colleges of this "bad" law!

No, I'm not kidding.

More tomorrow.


P.S.:

Trustee Fuentes’ (and Chancellor Mathur’s) remarks about the nature and origins of the 50% Law are curious. Mathur referred to unions. Fuentes referred to "special interests."

I have endeavored to look into the legislative intent of that law, which seems to trace back to 1961.

• My inquiries are preliminary, but I did find this “legal opinion” issued by Ralph Black in 2000, the General Council of the State Chancellor, regarding the definition of “Salaries of Classroom Instructors” contained in Education Code Section 84362, the ‘Fifty Percent’ Law”:

…There is also ample evidence that the Legislature enacted Section 17503 (the predecessor to Section 84362) in 1961 with the intention of reducing class size by having instructors time being devoted to instructional activities. [The law was then applied to K-12 "teachers."] The report, “An Analysis of School District Expenditures for Certificated Personnel Salaries” by the Senate Fact Finding Committee on Governmental Administration (which gave rise to the introduction of Assembly Bill 1789 which amended former Section 17503) explained that, “The proposed revision of Section 17503 is designed specifically to encourage the reduction of class size. The alarming trend toward larger class size in California must be reversed if we expect our children to be able to compete with equal advantage with children from other states and nations. …” As a result, while the Legislature in enacting Section 17503 did not mandate the amount going to teacher salaries, it is abundantly clear that they sought to compel districts to spend more on teacher salaries precisely because they believed there was a direct relationship between money spent to pay teachers and class size….”

• And this is CA senate testimony from three years ago:

Education Code Section 84362 requires that community college districts expend during each fiscal year fifty percent of the district’s current expense of education for the payment of salaries of classroom instruction. … This provision of the Education Code was adopted in 1959 at a time when community colleges were part of the K-12 system. The law was originally adopted to address K-12 class size issues as well as to limit the number of guidance counselors. (Arnold Bray, ACCCA)

• Check out this CCLC "background paper" from 2000 (a pdf file).

Meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees: tonight

MEANWHILE...

Another one of Trustee Tom Fuentes’ pals is—what else?—dogged by evidence of corruption: Chriss Street traveled well on bankrupt trust: Before he became OC treasurer, Chriss Street billed, and in some cases, double-billed a bankrupt trust for tens of thousands in expenses and travel:

Chriss Street double-billed a bankrupt trust for thousands of dollars in expenses, including a $3,584 laptop computer and $1,200 in office supplies, according to newly released court records….

In yesterday’s OC Reg: Minuteman, activists to debate on campus:
Students and professors at California State University, Long Beach will protest Jim Gilchrist's views on immigration.

Yikes! Ash + wind = pseudo-smoke

THIS MORNING, from my place in Lambrose Canyon (in Live Oak Canyon), I noticed lots of ash on my car. Uh-oh!

I looked toward nearby Hamilton Trail—one of the areas hit by the great Santiago fire—and I saw something that looked like smoke.

But wait. Is there anything over there left to burn? Not much. (Check out my pictures from yesterday: Visiting Hamilton Trail.)


It soon became clear to me (I think) that I was looking, not at smoke, but at the result of winds picking up ash. That's all.

I hope.

MEANWHILE, the Santiago fire is "contained but not controlled," which means, I think, that there's no fuel around the remaining fire, but that not all flames are out. (The Orange County Fire Authority issued its last update three days ago, when it announced that the Santiago fire was fully "contained." OCFA did not mention that the fire was not yet "controlled." See OCFA. Near as I can tell, that announcement is the OCFA's "final" announcement.)



(All pictures taken this morning, about 11:00 a.m.)

UPDATE:


Since my post (above), the OC Reg reported as follows: Santiago fire smolders in forest: No flames, but hot spots remain, officials say:

Four days after the Santiago fire was contained by firefighters the blaze continues to smolder in an area away from homes and residents.

Dark clouds today looked as if smoke were visible in the direction of the 28,400-acre blaze, but officials said it was the result of increasing winds that picked up ash and dust particles left behind by the fire.

The remaining fire continues to be confined to a steep 300-acre area inside the Cleveland National Forest which currently is monitored by about 150 firefighters from the U.S. Forest Service, said Frank Romero, of the U.S. Fire Services' fire prevention patrol.

Two fire engines remain on the scene to monitor remnants of the fire, and a helicopter is on standby to keep the fire in check, Romero said.

Firefighters set blazes in a 300-acre area close to the eastern containment lines as the Santiago fire was losing strength but before full containment was reached. The area was burned in a controlled setting in order to keep the fire from regaining strength by the thick vegetation.

Today, that area continues to slowly burn.

Fire officials continue to monitor the area and allow the fire to burn itself out, Romero said. The steep area prevents crews from climbing deep inside because they could be surrounded if the flames are fed by thick brush and wind. The steep terrain would prevent a speedy retreat, officials said.

Because of increasing winds, firefighters have been monitoring the area during the day and night in case the fire picks up.

Officials also are using heat sensors to spot burning areas. Hand crews follow up by going through and looking for hot spots, some of which are hidden underground in the roots of vegetation, Romero said.

Engaging and retaining community college students

From this morning’s Inside Higher Ed: Rules of (Community College) Engagement:

It’s no great secret that community college students spend much of their time away from campus. As this year’s report on an annual survey of the academic experiences of students at two-year institutions puts it: “Most students simply are not on campus enough for engagement to occur spontaneously. They rarely bump into instructors on campus and have serendipitous informal conversations.”

Thus, the report argues, community college faculty need to take advantage of their limited classroom time, and administrators need to think about ways to create opportunities for students — and particularly part-timers — to engage with instructors and their peers while on campus.

The Community College Survey of Student Engagement, released Monday, reached that conclusion after tracking data compiled over the past five years (700,000 students, 548 institutions) on how students spend their time and interact with people at their institutions.

In addition to the wide-angle view, the survey provides its usual look at a three-year cohort — those who responded from 2005 to 2007, a group that includes more than 310,000 students from 525 institutions.

The students responded to survey questions in the spring after having several months’ worth of experiences from which to draw. Those who are included in the report are the “survivors,” as the report says. But, as CCSSE notes, many more students don’t stay past the first semester — and researchers want to know what factors into a student’s level of engagement and satisfaction at the start of college.

That’s why, in the “special focus” survey section, questions this year asked students to think back to their first four weeks of college. (Questions asked to beginning students this fall about their first month will be released as part of a separate report in the spring.) The results from this year’s focus section show that:

• Fewer than half of students met with an adviser to discuss academic plans in the first four weeks.
• Slightly more than half completed an assessment test for course placement.
• Thirty-two percent didn’t attend an orientation program, and only one in three who did said they were “very satisfied” with the experience.

Kay McClenney, director of the survey, said that some of the engagement results are alarming, given that the first few weeks of college are essential in capturing students’ attention…. (My emphases.)