More on Mathur

OC Reg Mission Viejo reporter Niyaz Pirani has updated his article on Mathur: College district chancellor resigns.

Here’s what he’s added:

...Under the terms of the settlement, Mathur’s last day at the helm of Saddleback and Irvine Valley colleges will be June 30. His contract would have expired on June 30, 2011.

He will be paid a base salary of $237,261, plus cost-of-living adjustments, for the remaining year of his contract. Expense reimbursements, a $700 monthly car allowance and electronics equipment for a home office will cease.

Additionally, Mathur will recoup up to $25,000 in attorney’s fees he paid in relation to the separation agreement within 30 days of signing the deal.

If he desires, he could return to the community college district as a part-time faculty member after June 2011.
. . .
[Don] Wagner, who was one of the five in support of the resignation, said he wouldn’t talk about personnel issues or his job satisfaction regarding a district employee.

In the separation agreement, it is made clear that neither [Raghu] Mathur nor trustees are allowed to talk publicly or privately about the terms of the separation, and that neither party may make disparaging remarks about the other.

“He was a faculty member, and a fine one for a number of years,” Wagner said. “He may come back to teaching at some point. It’s entirely up to him whether he does that or pursues something else in the future.”

John Williams, a trustee who disagreed with the resignation, said he voted for it “to protect Chancellor Mathur’s interests.”

“I voted for the agreement because I was looking out for his best interests, knowing that the majority of the board favored his departure,” Williams said.

“I’ve known Raghu for some time and I thought he did a good job,” Williams added. “ … You work for an elected board and you need a majority of those board members to vote to keep you. In this case, the majority of the board felt they wanted to have a change, so they voted to.”

Roy Bauer, an IVC philosophy professor named in Mathur’s 2000 lawsuit, said he was pleased by the announcement.

“We have attempted to get the board to see Mr. Mathur’s limitations and his character for many years,” Bauer said. “I think I’ll just leave it at that. There’s no point, now that he’s going, to lay it on thick.”

“We now look forward to a careful and honest search for our new chancellor,” he said.

He's decided: it's an ideal time to move on

ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO, the word was out: Board President Don Wagner was furious at the Chancellor. Evidently, Mathur had been caught in a bold act of self-serving connivery. It concerned a curious communication between Mathur and an accreditation official. The details are unimportant. No doubt, Wagner had observed the impossibly wily side of Mathur many times before, but this time, somehow, he had had it. No more.

When Mathur learned that the jig was up and Wagner wanted his head, he did what he felt he had to do to protect the Mathurian behind. It is at such times, with his back against the wall, that Raghu can make mistakes. Evidently, he made one or two of them as he hastily scrambled to improve his, um, bargaining position.

If Wagner was steamed before, after Mathur’s desperate but unsuccessful gambits, Don was now the violent towering geyser of a nuclear meltdown.

But what about Tom? Tom’s the man among local right-wing wannabes. And Don was depending on Tom to win in his Assembly race.

But Tom protects his soldiers, no matter how clear to the world their corruption or sleazitude becomes. Going against Mathur meant going against Tom.

I don’t know why. You’ll have to ask others. But Don chose to go against Tom. Mathur would simply have to go, even if it meant turning the world of SOCCCD trustee politics upside down, heading who-knows-where.

I’ve heard stories about subsequent situations and episodes allegedly occurring in December. They don’t really matter. Mathur was headed for the district exit. All that he could do now was negotiate the best possible walk through that door.

(One might ask just who represented Raghu during this process. Had to be somebody. It wasn’t Mathur.)

I have never seen Tom Fuentes as angry as he became at the December 7 board meeting. It was a remarkable evening. It was, of course, that special time of the year when the board elected its officers. (See district video.)

Padberg (Padberg!?) nominated Wagner for President. Gosh.

Milchiker (Milchiker!?) seconded. There was a vote.

Fuentes, Lang, and Williams voted against Wagner. I was amazed.

But Don had his ducks in a row. (They weren't Brown ducks.) He had Marcia, Nancy, and Bill’s vote—and, of course, his own. Four votes.

A few seconds later, Padberg was the board VP; and Marcia was the Board Clerk.

In the course of a few minutes, Wagner managed to turn the board, and the district, completely on its head.

Over to the side, Mathur was silent. He looked bad.

Last night, Mathur again looked bad. His eyes seemed bloodshot, dark, sunken.

As Marcia read the actions taken in closed session, I looked at him. His head seemed to sink into his neck. He looked like a cat, hunkering, looking outward, but at nothing.

Comments

Anonymous said...
I feel badly for all the people who f---ed over.
He's walking away with $$$$ -

Anonymous said...
SO - the decision was made in December - that's what made Fuentes mad - and they spent the next month haggling over how, how much and when.

Anonymous said...
"bad," not "badly," and don't.

Anonymous said...
Thank you Don Wagner for having the b***s to get rid of Mathur. Can you do the same with Williams and Fuentes???

Anonymous said...
Unlike 9:27, I don't want to speculate on the physical integrity of Wagner's genitals (ewww) but I do want to say that Don only took action when Mathur finally hurt HIM, attacked HIM - Wagner could care less about the institutions, the staff or the community he is supposed to serve. In that way, he'll be PERFECT in Sacramento.

Chancellor Mathur makes an announcement

As you know, last night, Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur got canned. Near the start of the open session of the January meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees, Clerk Marcia Milchiker announced that, in closed session, the board passed (in a 5-2 vote) an agreement according to which Mathur will exist in June and retire a year later.

At about 3:30 this afternoon, Chancellor Mathur spammed the district community with the following letter:

Dear Colleagues:

After a great deal of reflection and discussion with my family, I believe it is the ideal time for me to consider and pursue my next professional challenge.

I am very pleased and proud of our tremendous accomplishments over the past eight years as your chancellor. We balanced the budgets every year while maintaining substantial reserves for rainy days, and investing wisely in expanding our full-time faculty ranks to support existing and new educational programs. Online course offerings have exploded over 200% in the past few years and our overall student enrollment has grown over 25% in the past two years alone. Major construction and renovation initiatives continue to flourish on college campuses in compliance with our education and facilities master planning efforts. Investment in technology has increased services to students and resulted in bringing state and national recognition to our District. All these successes are due to broad-based discussion of ideas from all constituency groups and support of our board of trustees.

I derive great satisfaction in knowing that our colleges, the Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP) campus and District Services are positioned to successfully meet the educational challenges of the 21st century.

My last day in the office will be June 30, 2010 and I look forward to working this semester with the board and executive staff to foster a productive transition. I consider it a privilege to have served our District for the past thirty-four years and have treasured every moment of working with each of you in dedicated service to our students.

Thank you.

Raghu

Here's the latest version of an OC Register article concerning Mathur's new status:

College district chancellor resigns

Raghu Mathur, chancellor of the South Orange County Community College District, has sent out a letter to district colleagues announcing his resignation. He was reportedly voted out of his job by district trustees on Monday night.

The vote was first announced on Dissent the Blog, a blog run by Irvine Valley College philosophy professor Roy Bauer. The district oversees Irvine Valley and Saddleback Valley colleges. Bauer reported that the 5-2 decision was made in closed session.

[Here’s exactly what trustee Milchiker reported: “In the closed session, the board approved an agreement with Dr. Mathur persuant to which Dr. Mathur’s service as the district chancellor shall end on June 30th, 2010, and provides for his retirement from the district effective June 30, 2011….” Mathur's staunchest supporters on the board--Tom Fuentes and Dave Lang--were the only members of the board to vote against the "agreement."]

"It's official," he writes. "During tonight's board meeting, Board Clerk Marcia Milchicker read out board actions taken during tonight's closed session. She reported that a decision was made essentially to end Chancellor Raghu Mathur's continued tenure as Chancellor."

Mathur, who took the job as chancellor in 2002, has been criticized for the district's declining enrollment and poor accreditation reports. He was originally hired as Irvine Valley president in a closed-door decision that a judge later found violated the state's open-meeting law.

Mathur survived a May 2004 vote of no confidence by 93.5 percent of the Irvine Valley and Saddleback College faculties, the third no-confidence vote in his district career. In May 1998, 72 percent of the Irvine Valley faculty cast a vote of no confidence in Mathur. And in November 2000, 90 percent of the Irvine faculty voted no confidence.

In 2001, Mathur settled a negligent supervision and breach of contract lawsuit against the community college district for $36,000. The lawsuit came after Mathur lost an earlier suit against a teacher and a former college administrator. That suit charged that the two illegally obtained information from Mathur's personnel file and published the information in a newsletter.

The article ends with Mathur’s letter (which I had forwarded to the reporter).

Comments
Anonymous said...
I don't get it. Did he and his family ASK he board to fire him?
Anonymous said...
He crossed Don Wagner too many times - just ask Steven Choi.
Anonymous said...
I "treasure" all those moment where Raghu stood in front of faculty and told some of the hardest working people in the district that they simply weren't doing enough, that they failed to get involved in the process...(you know who I'm talking about).
He lies and lies and continues to lie. He was forced to "reflect" and "discuss" with his "family" - because the board was finally going to do what they should have done a decade ago. He is just trying to save what is left of his face.
Anonymous said...
Retired? Fired? same result - he's GONE.
Anonymous said...
Go Raghu! (Go away!)
Anonymous said...
Raghu's letter? Painting lipstick on a pig. How typical.
Anonymous said...
"... *exist* in June and retire a year later"? Don't get everyone's hopes up by implying that he might disappear from the universe a year later! -- ;) MAH
Anonymous said...
Love that picture of the girl with the mysterious smile.

Mathur's out

Dissent the Blog. 7:30 p.m. (See also Tracy's Board Meeting Highlights)

It's official. During tonight's board meeting, Board Clerk Marcia Milchiker read out board actions taken during tonight's closed session. She reported that a decision was made essentially to end Chancellor Raghu Mathur's continued tenure as Chancellor.

“In the closed session, the board approved an agreement with Dr. Mathur persuant to which Dr. Mathur’s service as the district chancellor shall end on June 30th, 2010, and provides for his retirement from the district effective June 30, 2011. The board vote on this matter was as follows: in favor: Trustee Wagner, Padberg, Jay….” [My camera went haywire at this point. Sorry.]

Marcia reported that Tom Fuentes and Dave Lang voted against the agreement. Voting in favor: Trustees Milchiker, Wagner, Padberg, Jay, and Williams. No other details were provided.

* * * * *

Tonight, during "public comments," numerous speakers addressed item 6.1, a recommendation (from Mathur) to restrict broadcasting on Saddleback College Channel 39 and IVC Channel 33 to programming that meets the restrictive PG standard. The speakers spoke passionately in favor of returning to the less restrictive PG-13 standard. (See my previous post.)

The speakers were generally impressive. They made strong points. One made reference to a particular student documentary that seems to have started one trustee down the path of investigating the Communications Program. We'll see what the board decides later tonight.

* * * * *

Mathur spoke strongly in favor of 6.1. He seemed to say that it was backed by Saddleback College President Tod Burnett. (That seemed odd.)

The discussion of this item was somewhat confusing, but it was clear that trustee Dave Lang was very opposed to the board's imposition of the PG standard, as was trustee Marcia Milchiker. John Williams, too, opposed it, noting the fine reputation of the program and the possibility of violating Constitutional rights.

In the course of the discussion, Nancy Padberg made clear that members of the community had complained about some channel 39 broadcasts. (After the meeting, some in the Communications crowd suggested that these complaints were highly exaggerated and seemed to be engineered by trustee Padberg.) In Padberg's own view, these broadcasts pushed the limits even of PG-13 (at this point, I heard groans from supporters of the program, sitting behind me; the room was nearly full).

Early in the discussion, 6.1 was divided into two parts:

1: imposing a policy that only PG (or tamer) programming may be broadcast by 39 and 33
2: increasing membership of the "oversight" (?) committee, adding other members of the community

The Communications people didn't seem to object to 2. Everybody was on board with that.

Oddly, some administrators noted that, recently, the programs/channel had voluntarily adopted the PG standard. Evidently, they did that after the Nov. 17 report came out. (See earlier post. I could find nothing in the report to inspire concern.) So the issue became: why object to 1, which imposes the PG standard, if you have already voluntarily agreed to self-imposition of PG?

Tom Fuentes made a point about others' frequent references to the "community," which, he said, does not comprise the people in the room or even the people at the colleges, but the one million people living in South County. We need to consider their perspective, their interests, he said.

Board President Don Wagner seemed to like 6.1, noting that what goes on in the classroom and what is broadcast on channel 39 are two different things. He supported the program and its instruction; he seemed to lean towards imposing the PG standard.

Oddly, no one seemed to insist on a clear answer to (what strikes me as) the key question: how exactly would, as public speakers claimed, the board's imposing the PG standard hurt the students or the program? (I can easily imagine ways; but still--why not spell them out?)

Bob Cosgrove spoke forcefully against part 1 of 6.1, noting the possibility of accreditation difficulties down the line, which would be very distracting, expensive, etc. He noted that the board often speaks of accountability, and so, if they take this action, they should pay the cost if things go badly.

At some point, in view of Communications' voluntary imposition of the PG standard to their broadcasts (since November), Nancy Padberg suggested "tabling" 1--and coming back to this matter in a year to see how things have gone.

In the end, Padberg's suggestion was taken up. #2 was passed and #1 was tabled. (It seemed to me that Nancy didn't have the votes for #1, and so Dave's embrace of the tabling suggestion was a strategic error.)

This whole episode really doesn't add up for me. My guess is that there's more to it that we have not heard. I don't understand why the communications people would agree to restrict broadcasts to the PG standard. (After the meeting, one communications instructor did tell me that students do not produce films that are problematic anyway: no gore, etc. One communications person told me, "Nancy Padberg should get a hobby.")

In the coming year, no doubt Padberg will be watching the program(s) and the channel 39 broadcasts like a hawk.

Throughout the evening, Chancellor Mathur looked subdued, with dark, sunken eyes. My guess is that he was upset. It is likely that the closed session was stormy. It was supposed to end at 6:30 but stretched to at least 7:15.

The board is, I think, as fractured as it has ever been. Fuentes and Wagner, formerly the core of the board, are now profoundly at odds over this Mathur business, which Wagner pursued. Lang appears to have sold his soul to the devil (viz., the one with whom he voted in support of Mathur). There are no substantial alliances. I'm not sure what to make of it all or where it's headed.

I suggest that we concentrate our energies on urging the board to engage in a careful and honest search for a new Chancellor.

Matt Coker of OC Weekly noted our little story. Over the last dozen or so years, the Weekly has often marveled at some of our more colorful districtular players, especially Mathur.

Comments:

‪Anonymous‬ said...
Where's the party?
8:11 PM, January 25, 2010

Anonymous‬ said...
How much $$$$ are they paying him to go away?
8:12 PM

Anonymous‬ said...
It's about a decade too late. The guy has run the district into the ground and made us a laughingstock. Furthermore he has surrounded himself with incompetents that will wreck their own havoc. 

It will take years to undo the sort of damage that has been done.

 Sort of like the country in the aftermath of Bush.

 STILL -- where IS the party?
8:15 PM

Anonymous‬ said...
Thanks ROY -- for everything but especially for keeping the heat on and the lights bright. You are the BEST.
8:16 PM

Anonymous‬ said...
They should give us reparations for putting up with that guy and his management style! 

I guess he finally betrayed and lied to too many people but we've been calling it all along ...
9:02 PM

‪Anonymous‬ said...
Not with laurels but in shame.
9:22 PM

Anonymous‬ said...
My RSS feed isn't broken anymore!! Hooray! Thank you!!
 ES [That's right; everybody should re-subscribe, I guess.]
10:33 PM

Anonymous‬ said...
I understand there will be admonitions to not "dance in the street,"  regarding Mathur, but there are dozens of people whose personal and professional lives he killed. There yet remain malignant pockets of Mathurian creation. Congratulations and thanks to all who had the fortitude to see this through. I thought my feelings would be joyous come this day, but all I feel is sadness for his victims.........and no, Mr. Fuentes, this is not hyperbole.
7:29 AM, January 26, 2010

‪alannah said...
(1) Yes it will cost us money, but I'd rather pay for him to be gone than pay for him to be present.
 (2) He did surround himself with people who say "yes" well, but many have lots of other skills, have been doing good work in spite of him, and may now have the chance to really shine (I have a few in mind but don't want to out them).
 (3) The party, friends, is spread out across many happy hearts this morning.
 (4) If I had been at the meeting, I might have yelled, "Thank God!" . . . would that have been bad? ;)
7:51 AM

‪Greg‬ said...
Congratulations to you all. Thanks to those who have worked so hard for this day.

 I miss you.

 Greg
8:13 AM

Anonymous said...
What's the back story? [Note: much of the backstory has been explained here on DtB.] Why'd Williams and Wagner turn against him? As of last week, Mathur was defending Williams and his Florida junkets - even encourgaing other trustees to go out of town more often like Williams - maybe now we know why Mathur wanted them away!
8:43 AM

‪Anonymous‬ said...
No dancing in the streets?

 Can we dance in the hallways? In our offices and classrooms? While we watch PG movies, may we dance in our desk chairs? 
By all means, someone get on the horn to the people whose careers he ruined and let them know.
8:48 AM

Anonymous said...
Now Raghu can teach full-time at Argosy, passing on his experience and wisdom to those who thrist for it.
8:51 AM

Anonymous said...
They tolerated his gross mismanagement and irresponsibility for years -- it must have gotten personal for them to decide to take a stand. That's my guess.
8:57 AM, January 26, 2010

Anonymous said...
I hope he comes back to teach at IVC. I'd love to run into him at the vending machines.
9:08 AM, January 26, 2010

Anonymous said...
Thanks for your coverage of this Roy -- now and in the past.
9:18 AM, January 26, 2010

13 Stoploss said...
congratulations! :)
9:28 AM, January 26, 2010

Anonymous said...
No official word from the district yet -- are we sure Roy isn't pulling our legs?
9:37 AM, January 26, 2010

Anonymous said...
Someone needs to tell Cely Mora, Bob Loeffler, the Deegans, Nick Kremer, Terry Burgess -- Bobbie Weiner!-- all the people, fundamentally decent, whose careers he went after...

Who else?
10:18 AM, January 26, 2010

Anonymous said...
Wagner has known for quite some time that Mathur is unscrupulous and conniving, but, in recent months, the Chancellor was caught in some lies that were rather spectacular, self-serving, and personally offensive to the Wagster. Mathur needed to go, but Fuentes is all about protecting "his people," and so firing Mathur had to occur in bold defiance of Fuentes. Wagner should get some credit for putting his personal interests (i.e., his prospects of winning that Assembly seat) aside to do the right thing (for once). There's been bad blood between Williams and Fuentes at least since the latter sicced Steve Greenhut on the former during the last trustee election (remember how G called out Republicans who cozied up to unionists?). Recently, the head of the local GOP, Mr. Baugh, made a big policy speech condemning this sort of thing, and so Fuentes, by tagging Williams, has made things very difficult for the Brown man.
11:42 AM, January 26, 2010

Anonymous said...
I'm REALLY happy for you all. I hope that further good will happen this year for you!

" The wicked witch is dead...."

 --MAH
12:49 PM, January 26, 2010

Anonymous said...
Oh horrors--you don't suppose he'll stoop to coming BACK into the classroom, do you???

 Dancing in the streets seems to be the only moral thing to do...that and trying to pick up the pieces of all he destroyed.
1:11 PM, January 26, 2010

Bohrstein said...
Congratulations indeed. I had to read and re-read the first paragraph to "get it". I still don't think I do.

 So what now, exactly?

 Where IS the party? Why does this feel so anti-climactic?
2:05 PM, January 26, 2010

Anonymous said...
Looks like the Reg is on the case: College district chancellor reportedly voted out
3:07 PM, January 26, 2010

Anonymous said...
BS, to whom does it feel anti-climactic? To you? Are we sending a vibe of anti-climax?
 It feels anti-climactic to me, but that's because we've been told that Mathur's on the ropes so many times, and then he has always managed to pop right back up again, like one of those daffy balloon clowns. This time, too. Back in mid-December, the word was that Mathur was total toast. Perhaps he was, but we really didn't hear anything about it again until last night. 
Looking at the board last night, I didn't know how to feel about things. The board continues to harbor (arguably) four clueless right-wingers. They were a kind of occasional voting block, but they are so no longer. I'm not sure what we've got. But surely it's got to be less "fun" being a trustee on such a board. There's lots of hatred and feelings of betrayal there. They oughta make a TV show about it. They could call it "The Board of Hell." --BvT
3:19 PM, January 26, 2010

Anonymous said...
Can we have a farewell vote of no confidence?

 Please.
3:26 PM, January 26, 2010

Bohrstein said...
My sensors are not picking up the climatic feelings if they are there. So, its a possibility that you are not sending out the proper climatic vibe. Judging by what you just wrote, it's your fault!
*insert crass climaxing joke here* BS
3:28 PM, January 26, 2010

twojobsago said...
It will be so long overdue if this "separation" comes to pass. No doubt the AHOLE negotiated some sweet deal to extend his "retirement" to July 2011. Whatever. A price well worth the cost. I still have great affection for your district, and particurly IVC to whom I gave 19 years of my career, and hope that this milestone marks a future of recovery. Cheers!
4:04 PM, January 26, 2010

Click on comments for subsequent remarks...

The Student Film/Channel 39 issue (tonight's hot issue)

As reported earlier, item 6.1 on the agenda of tonight’s meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees is a recommendation that our colleges’ TV channels only broadcast programming—including student film and TV shows—with a PG rating.

This would render all college TV broadcasting harmless and "sans edge."

Nancy Padberg seems to be the Puritan behind this thing.

As near as I can tell (as I explain later), despite the 6.1 verbiage (see immediately below), Saddleback College had in some sense been broadcasting student films and other programming that meet the less stringent criteria of PG-13.

Surely that standard is more realistic than PG. These kids are supposed to be learning real-world skills, not Ozzie Nelson skills.

Lemme explain. Let's start with item 6.1:

In September, Nancy Padberg requested reports on the Saddleback College “Communication Arts Program” and its “Film Program.” She seemed to have a bee in her bonnet.

On November 17, a report was made available (it was placed in a room for viewing). Don't know why they did that. It's a public document.

I’ve seen it.

Page 202 of the report covers “Television.” As you know, Saddleback College broadcasts channel 39 on basic cable (through Cox). IVC broadcasts the similar Channel 33 in Irvine.

The report explains Channel 39’s programming, which consists of the usual stuff—telecourses, board meetings, college promotional materials—and “Student Productions including student films [and] programs produced by TV Production classes….”

That's good.

The report explains that cable programming is different than broadcast television programming. For my purposes here, the main difference is that “since cable TV channels cannot be viewed by those (e.g., children) without the proper equipment [try to refrain from making a joke here], the FCC’s rules regarding acceptable content do not apply to cable TV networks, allowing greater freedom in the use of profanity, sex and violence.”

So premium cable channels can broadcast just about anything—even pornography. “Basic cable, on the other hand, has not traditionally been as loose with regard to content. …[M]any basic cable networks self-regulate their program content, particularly with regard to language and nudity.”

In recent years, however, basic cable stations have begun to broadcast R-rated movies, sans editing. According to the report, Saddleback’s Channel 39 is “similar to other cable channels ... in that, while we can freely air R rated content, we voluntarily self-regulate….”

The report explains that “student productions…generally receive several layers of screening prior to being aired,” but none constitutes censorship. They are “more of a check against poor quality….”

That makes sense.

Eventually, “Student productions deemed worthy of airing…and that meets our internal standards of decency…are then given to the department staff and [are] typically again screened and then programmed by Mark Kruhmin.”

This brings us to Channel 39’s internal [self-imposed] standards. In fact, the report states that the Channel uses the PG-13 standard, not PG:

You can find much of this history at Wikipedia.

Next, we are offered some “basic principles” regarding what constitutes PG-13:

If I understand the situation—that Mathur is recommending that the colleges apply, not the PG-13 standard, but the stricter (Puritan-friendly) PG standard—the board seems poised to make a change that could really hurt these programs. Students need to be allowed to pursue film and TV production as it is, not as Nancy Padberg wants it to be. If the TV stations have broadcast PG-13 programming, they should be allowed to continue to do so.

Or so it seems to me.

Well, we’ll see what happens tonight.

Below is an official statement of the PG and PG-13 standards.

Tomorrow's board meeting, part 3: Saddleback College to be rated "PG"

More on tomorrow's meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees.

Captain Kangaroo College. Item 6.1 is a recommendation to broadcast (on Saddleback's Channel 39) only PG programming.

I’m guessing this has something to do with trustee Nancy Padberg’s request a few months ago for reports on the “Communication Arts and Film Program.” Here are the details:



Gosh, isn't PG the kind of rating you stick on, say, Captain Kangaroo? (Well, actually, PG is "Parental Guidance Suggested — Some material may not be suitable for children")

USING YOUR EARS TO SPEAK. Item 5.11 is approval for honoraria for invited Saddleback College speakers. All of 'em seem to be part of the "Distinguished Emeritus Guest Lecture Series." Check 'em out:

If I have some time later, I'll check out these speakers. "Using Your Ears to Think." "Free Wheel Chair Mission." Gosh.

UPDATE: So far, this crew checks out to be pretty impressive. It turns out that Dr. Olivieri is in the UCI drama department. I'm impressed. Dr. Priya Ranjan is an Associate Professor, Department of Economics, UC Irvine. His research concerns International Trade and Economic Development. Dr. Harrington, however, teaches at Patten University, in Oakland. That place looks a bit hinky, but that doesn't mean Harrington isn't good. Dr. Ian G. Harris is currently an Associate Professor in the Computer Science Department at the University of California Irvine. Dr. Don Schoendorfer seems to have received significant recognition for his efforts at producing a cheap wheelchair. I've run out of time, but I've gotta say: so far, this appears to be an impressive list of speakers. I guess I should have more faith in people.

MYSTERY LEASE. Evidently, the district wants to scrape up some dough by leasing some of its property at or near Saddleback College. Item 5.13 concerns recent bidding and negotiations to get the lease. There's a highest bidder. The Chancellor recommends accepting that bid and leaving the details to him.

Yeah, but what are they leasing? Normally, we'd read "See exhibit A." This time, the agenda says "EXHIBIT A to be hand carried."

Don't you just love "open" government?

BECAUSE THEY'RE DEFIANT. Item 5.16 is an agreement for legal services with "Jones Day." It's for the "prayer" lawsuit. The hourly rate is $425. (Then there's "costs and expenses.") The district has already hired JD tentatively. This will make it official.

Tomorrow's board meeting, part 2: liberal busybodies everywhere!

Dissent the BlogItem 5.17 of the agenda of tomorrow’s meeting of the SOCCCD BOT is that nasty old “authorization of institutional memberships.”

District policy 3220 requires annual board approval of these memberships/expenditures.

You’ll recall that, a few years ago, trustee Don “the demagogue” Wagner led the way in discontinuing our colleges’ memberships in the American Library Association (ALA), the elephant-in-the-room of library clubs.

How come? Because, said Don, they are a bunch of “liberal busybodies”—LBs.

* * * * *

I checked out exhibit A for item 5.17 and found lots of curious factoids about where our “institutional memberships” dollars go (or will go, for surely this item will pass).

Between the district and its three campuses, we are members of eight different “chamber of commerce” organizations. (IVC pays $150 to Tustin’s chamber of commerce; ATEP seems to pay that group $30 more. What’s that about? I bet it’s a Mathur tax.)

The district (distinct from the colleges) will pay $75,000 on institutional memberships, including $36,000 to the Community College League of California (CCLC) and $17,000 to the Commission on Athletics.

Saddleback College will pay $115,000 a year, including $20,000 to WASC and $14,000 to the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC).

Irvine Valley College will pay $50,000, including $16,000 to WASC and $8,000 to AACC.

ATEP will pay about $3,000.

All told, the district will pay about $243,000 in institutional memberships.

* * * * *

What I never understood about Don Wagner’s action regarding the ALA is why he stopped there. Why didn’t (doesn’t) the fellow go all the way? I mean, people whom he would designate as LBs can be found among lots of the groups of which we have been and will be members.

Lets just focus on library groups, just like Don!

Both Saddleback and Irvine Valley colleges are down as members of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). But ACRL is a division of the ALA. So if the ALA is a bunch of LBs, then wouldn’t the ACRL be a bunch too, albeit a smaller bunch?

Now, one of Mathur’s favorite groups is Educause, of which the district is a paying member (we pay ‘em about 3 grand a year). But Educause doesn’t seem to mind associating with the ALA. I noticed that Educause and ALA (actually, its division, ACRL) sponsored a forum together a couple of years ago. (New Modes of Info Delivery.)

I bet they’re “liberal busybodies” too. So pull the plug on Educause, I say. C'mon!

IVC is a member of the California Library Association, the CLA. But the CLA is a chapter of the ALA.

You know what that means. That's right!

But why stop there? I bet you can find butt-loads of LBs among the dozens of institutions that we associate with.

C’mon, Don. In for a penny, in for a pound! Let’s clear this joint until the only people left standing are Birthers and Tea Baggers!

CHECK 'EM OUT.
Here are some highly suspect organizations listed in item 5.17. I dunno if they’re all full of LBs, but you never know until you start infiltrating and investigating.

American Historical Association (If you love America, you don't air its dirty laundry)
Calif. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (Foreigner-lovers!)
Community College Humanities Association (Humanities = secular humanism = godless sh*t)
English Council of Cal. Two Year Colleges (English? Socialists)
Organization of American Historians (Puritans and Pilgrims fought for liberty and democracy, you pointy-headed creeps)
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (More foreigner-lovers. Ain't Americans good enough for 'em?)
College Art Association of America (Art = secular humanism + free love = hippie sh*t)
Theatre Communications Group (That’s not how Americans spell "theater." Plus they pronounce "lesbian" funny)
Calif. Community College Early Childhood Educators (Early liberal brain-washing, more like it. Liberal crap)
Health Services Assoc. of the Calif. Community Colleges (Health services = robbing the taxpayer!)
National Association of Education for Young Children (More thought-control and Kumbaya)
Consortium of Southern Cal. Colleges and Universities (Atheist, homo creeps think they're better than me)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (They deny Genesis and grind up fetuses)
National Science Teachers Assn. (They teach secularism and skeptical sh*t)
Broadcast Education Association (You been watching TV?)
Association of Performing Arts Presenters (Libertines!)
College Art Association of America (They should stick to the Three Rs)
National Council for Education of the Ceramic Arts (Clay is for kids)
Radio, TV, News Directors Association (Liberal media!)
Western Arts Alliance (Real Americans don't form alliances!)
Cal. Assoc. of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors (A disease? They're weak and godless)
Cal. Assoc. of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Educators (They keep people stoned, y’know, to justify their jobs)
National Organization for Human Services Education (More gov’t give-aways!)
Society for Ecological Restoration—California (Restoration? Drill, baby, drill!)
Society (of) Conservation Biology (The Lord give us the world to use up and shoot up)
US Green Building Council (How come it’s been so cold lately, college boy?)
American Association of Women in Community Colleges (Some lesbian organization. Makes me sick)
California Community College Counselors Association (Whatever happened to the school of hard knocks?)
National Wheelchair Basketball Association (They want more access, I bet)
Health Services Assoc. for Calif. Community Colleges (aka giving away my money to lazy foreigners)
National Association of Foreign Student Advisors (Why do we invite Arabs? I don't get it)
National Association for the Education of Young Children (Liberal brainwashin’)