8:22 — A friend who attended tonight's meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees just informed us that nothing of earth-shattering importance occurred. She noted, however, that the meeting was very brief and that at least one trustee focused on "efficiency." He thus requested reports concerning our colleges' efficiency and the efficiency of other colleges.
As you know, in a few days, video of the meeting will become available at the SOCCCD website. We encourage readers to view tonight's meeting when video becomes available. You might wanna drink some coffee though.
The SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT — "[The] blog he developed was something that made the district better." - Tim Jemal, SOCCCD BoT President, 7/24/23
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Ominosity?!
Ominous: giving the impression that something bad or unpleasant is going to happen; threatening; inauspicious
Anonymous said...What do you mean? Are you talking about the board meeting?
4:41 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...The board members are at each others' throats. They've never been more divided and angry. And at the center of it all.....?
4:52 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...Recently, the chair of Curriculum went to a senate cabinet meeting and was asked to resign. Just like that. Out of the blue. No explanation. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence, trust. Even if there were some sort of reason for this action, surely there was a better way!
5:19 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...No one knows what happened. It's all just speculation.
5:30 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...5:19 to 5:30 -- Nope. I got it from the horse's mouth. That's not speculation.
5:42 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...Can the cabinet do that? Didn't we just vote Kathy in a few months ago?
5:55 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...What would go so wrong that they would ask a longtime faculty leader to resign - overturning the will of the faculty who had just voted her into office? (I thought the wording of the announcmrnt email was a bit cold, by the way. It sort of stung. A bit rude.)
6:04 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...I don't see why this happened the way it did. Why wasn't it brought by to the Senate as a whole for discussion?
6:08 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...I was told (from a very reliable person who was in the room) that the request was attributed to the entire cabinet. Is that right? It's hard to believe that those people (or a majority of them) would go along with this. They might go along with a change of "curriculum" leadership, but they would never go about it in this way, after K's many years of service. This just doesn't add up. And it stinks. This is the kind of stuff that discourages faculty from participating in governance. I sure hope cabinet members come to their senses and clear this up.
6:29 PM, November 17, 2009
[A gossipy comment was deleted.]
Anonymous said...Kathy has earned a plaque and the gratitude of her colleagues. So much for integrity.
7:04 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...
Great graphics, Mr. von Traven. Snake Pit indeed...
6:08 AM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
There are at least three issues re the sacking (resignation) of the Curriculum chair: (1) The reason for the decision (to request the resignation); (2) The treatment of the chair with regard to the cabinet decision and communicating that decision to her; (3) The transparency/propriety of the entire process (or lack thereof), including notification and involvement of faculty. 1. It is entirely possible that grounds for the decision (1) were adequate. The concern about this incident is not about (1). 2. If what reliable sources tell us is true, the failure to bring the chair into the discussion/decision and the sudden/abrupt manner in which the decision was communicated to her is unfortunate and less-than-collegial. It appears unnecessarily harsh and sneaky and opaque, and it may have involved questionable assertions regarding the decision process. 3. The manner in which this occurred reeks of unprofessionalism and opacity and inspires (further) distrust of senate leadership, which has, this semester, inspired suspicions of a too cozy and trusting association with administration, which, in recent months, has been conniving and dishonest (yeah, right: we "found some extra money" to hire part-timers as full-timers for a semester; yes, chill out, we're really on top of this "early college" mess).
11:45 AM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
Don't committee chairs serve at the pleasure of the IVC Senate president?
2:17 PM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
They had it all planned in advance which is how/why they had some one ready to take over just like that.
2:30 PM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
Careful folks. Those of you who don't like the idea that a faculty member was asked to step down from a post in a cabinet meeting should consider the alternatives you're suggesting: (1) that it be done privately one on one or (2) that the decision be aired and discussed on the floor of the senate. The first method could be construed as a personality conflict between two people, rather than a thoughtfully considered decision of a leadership group. The second would involve a very public discussion of a faculty member's performance in a position--which is why it is common, at all levels of governance, to hold such discussions in closed sessions and private meetings. The cabinet is the appropriate arena for the discussion and the decision about the most important role of the senate: overseeing curriculum.
10:53 AM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
10:53 - I think that's a prime example of an either/or fallacy if I've ever seen one. Either THIS or THAT - no other options that might preserve integrity and transparency? Like so much lately, this all feels contrived, staged, managed. (see, reading Dissent does teach you something!)
11:16 AM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
Well, "either/or" fallacy: those were the alternatives people were suggesting. I didn't engage in the fallacy, I merely addressed people's comments on how it should've been handled. Rather than incorrectly accuse me of engaging in a logical fallacy, why don't you explain a "third way" that is not contrived, staged, or managed, and that preserves integrity and transparency. Perhaps then the senate cabinet and the rest of us can learn something from reading the Dissent. I for one would like to know how to balance a faculty member's need for dignity and privacy, and the faculty at large's desire for transparency. How do you suggest that one be handled?
11:36 AM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
As I suggested elsewhere: What bothers me is the odd and seemingly brutal way that this decision (to request resignation) was made. I can see no reason why the cabinet could not have arranged for a discussion (formal and otherwise), including the chair, concerning the advisability of new leadership--leading to a suggestion that she resign--something that she could choose to accept or not. It is highly likely that she would go along with the suggestion if it were backed by enough of the cabinet. (In fact, knowing the chair, I find any other scenario almost inconceivable.) The approach that was taken seems sneaky and cowardly, and it involves reference to a cabinet that made a decision--even though the Chair was a member of that cabinet and yet excluded from the decision-making. Evidently, the senate Prez imposed a gag order regarding much of this. Wow. That's some transparency. With faculty already suspicious that the real decision-making is going on somewhere else (trust Craig's committee!), this is a poor time to make these kinds of "black box" moves. And so, yes, someone above plainly committed a false dilemma fallacy. They ignored the alternative that would first come to mind for most of us who've had experience serving on the cabinet. Why get ham-fisted and mysterious when collegiality and openness are available?
11:53 AM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...What do you mean? Are you talking about the board meeting?
4:41 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...The board members are at each others' throats. They've never been more divided and angry. And at the center of it all.....?
4:52 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...Recently, the chair of Curriculum went to a senate cabinet meeting and was asked to resign. Just like that. Out of the blue. No explanation. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence, trust. Even if there were some sort of reason for this action, surely there was a better way!
5:19 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...No one knows what happened. It's all just speculation.
5:30 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...5:19 to 5:30 -- Nope. I got it from the horse's mouth. That's not speculation.
5:42 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...Can the cabinet do that? Didn't we just vote Kathy in a few months ago?
5:55 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...What would go so wrong that they would ask a longtime faculty leader to resign - overturning the will of the faculty who had just voted her into office? (I thought the wording of the announcmrnt email was a bit cold, by the way. It sort of stung. A bit rude.)
6:04 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...I don't see why this happened the way it did. Why wasn't it brought by to the Senate as a whole for discussion?
6:08 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...I was told (from a very reliable person who was in the room) that the request was attributed to the entire cabinet. Is that right? It's hard to believe that those people (or a majority of them) would go along with this. They might go along with a change of "curriculum" leadership, but they would never go about it in this way, after K's many years of service. This just doesn't add up. And it stinks. This is the kind of stuff that discourages faculty from participating in governance. I sure hope cabinet members come to their senses and clear this up.
6:29 PM, November 17, 2009
[A gossipy comment was deleted.]
Anonymous said...Kathy has earned a plaque and the gratitude of her colleagues. So much for integrity.
7:04 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...
Great graphics, Mr. von Traven. Snake Pit indeed...
6:08 AM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
There are at least three issues re the sacking (resignation) of the Curriculum chair: (1) The reason for the decision (to request the resignation); (2) The treatment of the chair with regard to the cabinet decision and communicating that decision to her; (3) The transparency/propriety of the entire process (or lack thereof), including notification and involvement of faculty. 1. It is entirely possible that grounds for the decision (1) were adequate. The concern about this incident is not about (1). 2. If what reliable sources tell us is true, the failure to bring the chair into the discussion/decision and the sudden/abrupt manner in which the decision was communicated to her is unfortunate and less-than-collegial. It appears unnecessarily harsh and sneaky and opaque, and it may have involved questionable assertions regarding the decision process. 3. The manner in which this occurred reeks of unprofessionalism and opacity and inspires (further) distrust of senate leadership, which has, this semester, inspired suspicions of a too cozy and trusting association with administration, which, in recent months, has been conniving and dishonest (yeah, right: we "found some extra money" to hire part-timers as full-timers for a semester; yes, chill out, we're really on top of this "early college" mess).
11:45 AM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
Don't committee chairs serve at the pleasure of the IVC Senate president?
2:17 PM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
They had it all planned in advance which is how/why they had some one ready to take over just like that.
2:30 PM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
Careful folks. Those of you who don't like the idea that a faculty member was asked to step down from a post in a cabinet meeting should consider the alternatives you're suggesting: (1) that it be done privately one on one or (2) that the decision be aired and discussed on the floor of the senate. The first method could be construed as a personality conflict between two people, rather than a thoughtfully considered decision of a leadership group. The second would involve a very public discussion of a faculty member's performance in a position--which is why it is common, at all levels of governance, to hold such discussions in closed sessions and private meetings. The cabinet is the appropriate arena for the discussion and the decision about the most important role of the senate: overseeing curriculum.
10:53 AM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
10:53 - I think that's a prime example of an either/or fallacy if I've ever seen one. Either THIS or THAT - no other options that might preserve integrity and transparency? Like so much lately, this all feels contrived, staged, managed. (see, reading Dissent does teach you something!)
11:16 AM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
Well, "either/or" fallacy: those were the alternatives people were suggesting. I didn't engage in the fallacy, I merely addressed people's comments on how it should've been handled. Rather than incorrectly accuse me of engaging in a logical fallacy, why don't you explain a "third way" that is not contrived, staged, or managed, and that preserves integrity and transparency. Perhaps then the senate cabinet and the rest of us can learn something from reading the Dissent. I for one would like to know how to balance a faculty member's need for dignity and privacy, and the faculty at large's desire for transparency. How do you suggest that one be handled?
11:36 AM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
As I suggested elsewhere: What bothers me is the odd and seemingly brutal way that this decision (to request resignation) was made. I can see no reason why the cabinet could not have arranged for a discussion (formal and otherwise), including the chair, concerning the advisability of new leadership--leading to a suggestion that she resign--something that she could choose to accept or not. It is highly likely that she would go along with the suggestion if it were backed by enough of the cabinet. (In fact, knowing the chair, I find any other scenario almost inconceivable.) The approach that was taken seems sneaky and cowardly, and it involves reference to a cabinet that made a decision--even though the Chair was a member of that cabinet and yet excluded from the decision-making. Evidently, the senate Prez imposed a gag order regarding much of this. Wow. That's some transparency. With faculty already suspicious that the real decision-making is going on somewhere else (trust Craig's committee!), this is a poor time to make these kinds of "black box" moves. And so, yes, someone above plainly committed a false dilemma fallacy. They ignored the alternative that would first come to mind for most of us who've had experience serving on the cabinet. Why get ham-fisted and mysterious when collegiality and openness are available?
11:53 AM, November 19, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Tomorrow's board meeting
The SOCCCD Board of Trustees is scheduled to hold its November meeting tomorrow (closed session: 5:00 p.m.; open: 6:00 p.m.).
(As per my earlier announcement, I won’t be attending or reporting on the board meeting.)
The agenda, a pdf file, is available here.
The closed session agenda includes an evaluation of various administrators, including several IVC deans.
The last closed session item is “Anticipated Litigation/Significant Exposure to Litigation.” This seems to concern the Brown Act: GC Section 54956.9[b][1] and [b][3][A]. See Brown Act.
The board’s “discussion item” is
Photo: Lela and Bertie Bollinger, Anaheim, 1887
P.S. [Tuesday morning]:
Item 7.1 is a report requested by a trustee on the Saddleback College Communications Arts and Film Program.
The page for 7.1 refers to Exhibit A.
But Exhibit A is a mere promissory note:
The report…has been distributed as a separate item on the agenda. A copy of the report may be viewed in hard copy in room 334, Office of the Chancellor and Trustee Services. HSB, Saddleback College.
Distributed to whom? Trustees, I guess. Why no characterization of the contents of A?
(As per my earlier announcement, I won’t be attending or reporting on the board meeting.)
The agenda, a pdf file, is available here.
The closed session agenda includes an evaluation of various administrators, including several IVC deans.
The last closed session item is “Anticipated Litigation/Significant Exposure to Litigation.” This seems to concern the Brown Act: GC Section 54956.9[b][1] and [b][3][A]. See Brown Act.
The board’s “discussion item” is
SOCCCD: SustainabilityItem 5.11 comprises trustee requests for travel to conferences, including $2,150 for a trustee’s stay at the Orlando Hilton.
Discussion on Sustainability Efforts at Saddleback College, Irvine Valley College and the Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP).
Photo: Lela and Bertie Bollinger, Anaheim, 1887
Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, 1915
P.S. [Tuesday morning]:
Item 7.1 is a report requested by a trustee on the Saddleback College Communications Arts and Film Program.
The page for 7.1 refers to Exhibit A.
But Exhibit A is a mere promissory note:
The report…has been distributed as a separate item on the agenda. A copy of the report may be viewed in hard copy in room 334, Office of the Chancellor and Trustee Services. HSB, Saddleback College.
Distributed to whom? Trustees, I guess. Why no characterization of the contents of A?
Wanted: A New Mascot for IVC
For nearly 25 years, IVC has distinguished itself as a college with an element as a mascot: the IVC Laser.
While our sister school is home of the mislabeled racist stereotype (Go Gaucho!) and UC Irvine long ago embraced an anteater named Peter, IVC chose the Laser to promote the college as a cutting edge technological campus.

But the mascot choice has been a challenge. Unlike more traditional mascots, the Laser defies cuddly representations or fierce warrior-like depictions.
After all, it's difficult to get excited about a utilitarian mascot mostly associated with hair removal or eye surgery or failed first strike missile tests.
Rebel Girl remembers one sad Laser mascot foray into public life: a student, clad in a bright blue unitard emblazoned with a silver thunderbolt, walked quickly across campus, maybe ten years ago, during one of those student club days. The Laser waved. No one waved back.
Now the Laser's unlikely tenure is coming to an end.
from the college webpage:
*
While our sister school is home of the mislabeled racist stereotype (Go Gaucho!) and UC Irvine long ago embraced an anteater named Peter, IVC chose the Laser to promote the college as a cutting edge technological campus. 
But the mascot choice has been a challenge. Unlike more traditional mascots, the Laser defies cuddly representations or fierce warrior-like depictions.
After all, it's difficult to get excited about a utilitarian mascot mostly associated with hair removal or eye surgery or failed first strike missile tests.
Rebel Girl remembers one sad Laser mascot foray into public life: a student, clad in a bright blue unitard emblazoned with a silver thunderbolt, walked quickly across campus, maybe ten years ago, during one of those student club days. The Laser waved. No one waved back.
Now the Laser's unlikely tenure is coming to an end.
from the college webpage:
Irvine Valley College, as part of our 25th anniversary and in the spirit of a vibrant and growing college, is inviting students, faculty, staff and alumni to review the college mascot – The Lasers.
The Associated Students of Irvine Valley College are asking you to nominate your idea for the next generation’s College Mascot. Nominations may be made by anyone involved with our campus by submitting the required information via e-mail. Nominations are currently being accepted and close on December 11th. All nominations will be reviewed by the ASVIC Executive Board and IVC Marketing and Outreach Committee, and student voting will be conducted in early February to determine the mascot.
Nominations are encouraged to include the following information:
● Nominator and/or organization (name and e-mail)
● Affiliation with the College (student, alumni, donor, etc.)
● Mascot & a suggested name
● Supporting rationale (uniqueness, history, utility, etc.)
● Use of official school colors (blue, silver and white)
● Examples (pictures, drawings, attachments are permitted)
● Suggested uses (athletics, marketing/recruiting, letterhead, costume, apparel, bookstore, etc.
Nominations must be submitted no later than December 11th.Let's go.
All submissions must be made by e-mail (attachments are permitted) to kshackleford@ivc.edu
*
Sunday, November 15, 2009
In these mountains
Earlier this evening, along El Toro Road.
Santa Ana Mountains, 1913
1913
Tin mine in the Santa Anas, 1903
Somewhere in the Santa Ana Mountains, 1945
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Southwestern College scandal over?
Yesterday, Save Our Southwestern College reported the following:
SWC Drops Case Against Suspended Profs Shortly Before Free Speech Protest
See also Congressman Filner, ACLU blast college restraint of free speech (the Sun)
Photo: Newport Beach, 1920
Flier: 1937
SWC Drops Case Against Suspended Profs Shortly Before Free Speech Protest
At 9:44 am this morning, Acting Superintendent/President Nicholas Alioto issued a message addressed to "the college community," informing us that the District has decided not to pursue criminal charges against Dinorah Guadiana-Costa, Philip Lopez, and Andrew Rempt. In the message, sent to college employees globally via email, Alioto wrote,
"in consultation with the College Police Department, . . . administration has demonstrated its desire to move forward together and the College Police have agreed to discontinue the investigation."
The email came out roughly an hour and fifteen minutes before the start of a Free Speech Rally scheduled to begin at 11:00 am.
The protest continued as planned….My guess: President Chopra is toast.
The well-attended rally was marred only by the district's refusal to allow those speaking to use a microphone because the rally fell outside the college's sanctioned "free speech" hours of 11 am-noon on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
…
Meanwhile, no word yet on how the recent turn of events will affect the letters of reprimand placed in the three professors' files.
See also Congressman Filner, ACLU blast college restraint of free speech (the Sun)
Photo: Newport Beach, 1920
Flier: 1937
Laguna Beach, C. 1913
"Dad" as in "Baghdad"
Good Lord, the man’s awesome!
"Dad" as in "Baghdad."
Royce Hall, built in 1929
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"
This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...
-
Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox OCC Trumpsters/GOP A professor called Trump’s election an ‘act of terrorism.’ Then she became the vict...
-
Recently, I spoke with a veteran who’s been part of the vet community here at IVC for some time. He too has complained about Mr. Ma...
-
I don’t know how anyone could learn about the way our colleges are funded and how their budget decisions are made without thinking...













