Tonight's board meeting: short but unsweet

     Tonight, I’ll offer only a brief account. I’ll have more tomorrow.
     The meeting lasted but one hour. But what an hour!
     Marcia Milchiker reported that, during the closed session, David Bugay was approved as acting Vice Chancellor of Business Services. That doesn’t strike me as terribly surprising. With Gary Poertner’s retirement, some adjustments have to be made.
     Item 9.1—the accreditation self-studies—were pushed to the front of the meeting. The board quickly voted—unanimously—to “accept” these reports.
     After the meeting, several administrators and faculty hung around, looking worried and/or angry. I left 'em alone.
     Still, I have it on good authority that a certain prominent person had not yet signed the Accred reports. (As you know, several officials routinely sign these reports before they are sent to the ACCJC. Included among them: the Academic Senate President, the Board President, the college president, the committee chair, et al.)
     As far as I know, that person had still not yet signed the reports as I drove off this evening. (I’m being vague about this, ‘cause I don’t want to place any more heat on the situation. Perhaps tomorrow the signatures will be provided. If this person is going to sign these documents, they will have to do so very soon. Tomorrow. If, in the end, the signatures are provided, there's no need to go into details.)
     Few items were pulled from the “consent calendar.”
     Nancy Padberg pulled the item on trustee requests for attending conferences. As I’ve reported recently, it appears that a trustee has expressed an interest in attending a conference in Orlando, Florida. (“Surprise, surprise,” said Nancy.) Nancy noted that attendance at this conference is expensive and that there is no need for a trustee to go to the east coast for whatever information the conference will provide. The request is, she said, “inappropriate.”
     Williams said nothing.
     Only Nancy voted against approval.
     Tom Fuentes pulled item 5.12—authorization of institutional memberships. You’ll recall that, several years ago, Don Wagner led a successful effort to reject the colleges’ continued memberships in the American Library Association, an organization of, as Don put it, “liberal busybodies.” Don declared that he was opposed to money for memberships in “partisan” organizations.
     Among utterly routine institutional memberships (at community colleges) are Academic Senates’ memberships in the state academic senate. As we’ve reported, recently, the state academic senate filed an amicus brief in support of the prayer lawsuit against the district (“Westphal v. Wagner”). Hmmm.
     Fuentes successfully pulled those memberships from the approval vote. I do believe that administrators will provide "information" about these memberships for the next board meeting. Then trustees will make a decision. (Get real, dude: ceasing Saddleback and Irvine Valley College senates' memberships in the state senate will never happen.)
     Item 6.5 was “academic personnel actions.” Trustee John Williams had no problem with these actions—with one exception:

AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH AND ANNOUNCE ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION

1. DEAN OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS, STUDENT LEARNING, AND RESEARCH, Academic Administrator Salary Schedule Category 11, Office of Instruction, Irvine Valley College, seeks authorization to establish and announce this full-time, Academic Administrative position within its staff complement, effective July 27, 2010. This position reports to the Vice President of Instruction. 

     Let’s just say that, with item 6.5, the tensions that now exist between the two trustee factions (Wagner/Padberg/Jay/Milchiker vs. Fuentes/Lang/Williams) boiled over and spilled all over the room. Here’s the short version:
     Background: Fuentes (I've been assured) views pursuit of this position as the ascent of former Academic Senate President Wendy G to administration. Fuentes’ camp, especially former Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur, hates Wendy (these fools imagine that she's the Great Blonde Satan). And so their rejection of this dean position is personal. It's "Wendy must be stopped." And so Boss Fuentes has made it clear to his unprincipled minions (Lang, Williams, and the roaches in the walls) that they shall oppose approving this position, which Fuentes and Co. assume is destined to be filled by Wendy.
     (But tonight’s decision was not about who would be hired for the job. Rather, it was about whether IVC should be allowed to create [or revive] this administrative position.)
     Fuentes, Williams, and Lang offered feeble objections to approval of the position. (More details tomorrow.) Padberg, Jay, and (especially) Wagner offered powerful arguments in support of the position, including the circumstance that this position has been included in two previous budgets, and no trustee had objected to it then.
     It finally came down to a vote: should approval of this position be tabled until “questions” are answered about it? In fact, during tonight's meeting (and in previous discussions), all concerns and questions had been answered. C'mon!
     The vote on tabling a decision on this deanship was very surprising. Only Wagner, Jay, and Padberg voted against it.
     And Marcia? Why did she vote for tabling?
     I don’t know. [July 27 update: I have it on very good authority that Marcia favors supporting the position but agreed that it would be good to get more information about it before voting.] I do know that Don’s body language left no doubt about how he felt about her vote. Trust me. There can be no doubt.
     Back to the discussion: it got very heated. Essentially, Don tagged Fuentes and crew for their bad faith ("something else is going on here," he said, and that something else could lead to litigation). And, in the course of the back and forth, he left no doubt what he thinks of John Williams.
     Well, he thinks he’s an idiot.
     And he is.
     More tomorrow.

The CAPO recall: a sprawling, fascinating mess

     This morning, the talented and energetic (if somewhat undisciplined) Vern Nelson of Orange Juice blog presents what he calls a “primer” on the CAPO recall.
     It’s Vern’s typically sprawling and sometimes wacky outpouring of ideas and facts (and fun, but sometimes goofy, videos), but it does touch on lots that’s relevant and even crucial. Do check it out:

A Capo Recall Primer (Orange Juice Blog)

     Be sure to catch some of the video footage of the board—and especially of trustee Anna Bryson, a clueless right-winger who has visited our own Board, usually at the side of her corrupt boss (and pal o' Fuentes) Chriss Street.
     Another name that pops up in Vern's piece is that of Howard Ahmanson, Jr. For some reason, Vern has little interest revealing just how disturbing is that fellow’s politics. As we've often explained here on DtB, the guy is way out there, man.
     It’s a cozy world, that ugly, deceptive, conniving, and often amateurish zone of right-wing South County education politics. Among the common threads Vern weaves through his story is Education Alliance, which, as you know, has had involvement in SOCCCD affairs going back at least to 1998 (and likely before that).
     Naturally, Education Alliance, on whose board our on Don Wagner sits (it’s hard to say, since the EA website seems to be stuck in a time warp), received its initial financial support from Ahmanson, who has continued to throw money in the organization's direction. Ahmanson seems also to be the Big Money support of the Pacific Research Institute, whose big "scholar," Lance Izumi, has appeared and squawked at at least one of SOCCCD's Raghu Mathur's opening sessions.
     Vern embraces a kind of conspiracy theory that we’ve heard about (and have been tempted to consider) here at the SOCCCD for more than a dozen years: that the far-right education reformers that EA helps represent seek, not to reform, but to destroy public education from within.
     It sure does seem that way sometimes.
     On the other hand, some of these people (unfortunately, not all of them) are clueless and even stupid. That goes a long way in explaining their trail of confusion and ruin in public education.

PRI's Lance Izumi at the SOCCCD

SEE ALSO

• Education Alliance, Pacific Research Institute, and CAPO (Dissent the Blog, 5/22/09)
• Trojan horses in public schools (DtB, 12/3/09)
• "Fuentes World," part 1 (DtB, 11/30/05)

* * *

Today in the news:

Online K-12 education surging, but official says 'it's buyer, beware' (The Sacramento Bee)

Interest in online schools for kindergarten through 12th grade is surging as new virtual offerings flood the market, leading education experts to warn parents that not all programs are equal....

The Leonard Cohen controversy

Leonard Cohen: before his voice descended into the eternal Frog Zone.

We all agree, I think, that the fellow has written some awesome songs.

As a performer (I said earlier), he's strictly a ladies' man.

Naturally, some got pissed about that.

I suspect that Rebel Girl, were she available, would weigh in on this one. She'd defend "her man."

Buckley nailed it.

Some random pics from the Bauer family archive:

My brother Ron taking a picture of my mom taking a picture of Ron.

Mono Lake, twenty-five years ago.

I do believe this is GrayBall qua kitten.

One day, Brother Ray showed up with little Bobbie, cat.

"Is she pregnant? She looks pregnant," asked my mom.

"No way," said Ray.

Bobbie had seven kittens. My mom took care of 'em all.

I'm told that GrayBall lived to be twenty-two.

One day, she just didn't show up anymore.

Reportedly, my Tante (Aunt) Ruth was "a bit wild" as a teenager.
Here she is, hanging with her pals, maybe in the Black Forest (Germany).
It would have been the late forties or early fifties.
That's her on the far right, taking a swig from a bottle of beer.
She died a couple of years ago. She had always been a heavy smoker.

Years ago, I used to hike around Santiago Oaks park. Took some pics.

Back in the 60s, my dad was working somewhere north of OC and heard that the once-impressive home of the "Pantages" family was nearby and deteriorating. So his took his Retina and found the house; he took several pics. I did some research and it seems unlikely that Alexander Pantages had anything to do with this home. But I'm glad my dad took the pics anyway.

The "Teflon lobby"

A boom in for-profit colleges may be a bust for taxpayers and students (LA Times)

Many drop out or find the programs aren't accredited, a Senate panel reports. Fees, often twice as much as at public universities, are often paid with federal loans, with a high default rate.
. . .
Stephen Burd, an education policy expert at the New America Foundation, said the scrutiny is long overdue, but lawmakers will have to contend with the industry's "Teflon lobby." Many concerns have been raised about for-profit colleges, but nothing has stuck, he said.

"For-profit college lobbyists are accustomed to flexing their muscles on Capitol Hill and getting their way — no matter how much controversy is swirling around their schools," he said….

Inertial stupidity—and SOCCCD agendas

     I don't know about you, but I often find myself looking at a sheet of so-called information or, say, a form that I've gotta fill out and then experiencing puzzlement or annoyance at its evident stupidity.
     Usually I am dealing with something that many other people must deal with all of the time: a registration form, a set of instructions, etc. But then I think: if many people encounter this thing, and if this thing is stupid, then why hasn't it been changed?
     And yet, there it is before me, quietly being stupid. There are no indications of any movement to correct the situation. One might say that the situation's stupidity and intolerability possesses great inertia. And that is frustrating. Even perplexing.
     Earlier today, I was compelled to register on a website for my car insurance. At one point, I was asked to provide a number. A graphic clearly indicated where that number could be found. And so I gave them that number.
     But no. They didn't want that number. They wanted that number plus the numbers before it and after it. 
     This time I was lucky. I figured out what they wanted right away. I muttered, "morons," and then continued.
     At another point, I was told to choose between options supposedly listed before me. But as far as I could tell, there was only once choice available to me. There were no options.
     You know what I'm talking about. (No?) This sort of thing can mess you up.

* * *

     Now let's consider the agenda for SOCCCD board of trustees meetings. Until recently, the agenda was prepared by that under-educated yet self-important evil homunculus known as Raghu P. Mathur. And so I was not surprised that the board agenda often exhibited stupidity. I was, however, continually amazed that Mathur's regular idiocies, sprinkled over everything he touched, did not more often and more intensely inspire obloquy or vituperation!
     I just don't get it.
     For instance, consider this small matter. Individual trustees may request attendance of (at) conferences. Upon someone's making such a request, the board as a whole will approve, or fail to approve, the request by majority vote.
     The situation isn't complex. Some of these conferences are far away and thus entail expensive travel; further, lodging for these conferences can be expensive. Hence, at times, significant amounts of taxpayer money are at stake. And so, naturally, a trustee "requests" attendance at a conference—that is, he doesn't just up and go, expecting the district to pay. The board must decide whether to grant the request.
     Now, in fact, during some months, no "trustee conference" item appears on the agenda. That makes sense. Perhaps no trustee made a request!
     But, during other months, there is a "trustee conference requests" item.
     Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's pretty plain how this should work. If no trustee requests attending a conference, then there will be no item on the agenda. But when a trustee seeks to attend a particular conference, then, of course, there must be an agenda item.
     The item, naturally, would provide the following information:

(1) The identity and nature of the conference
(2) The expense to the district (i.e., the taxpayer) per trustee attending
(3) The identity of the trustee or trustees who seek to attend that conference (and thus the number of probable board attendees)

     It ain't rocket science.
     Now, in Roy World, it would go like this. A trustee seeks to attend conference C. It wouldn't matter whether he has already registered for the conference. After all, his attending the conference hinges on board approval, and that has not yet been granted. If trustee T were to have already registered for a particular conference, and if his proposal or request to attend it failed to be approved, then he'd just have to unregister.
     But none of the logic of Roy World seems to hold for the people, whoever they might be, who produce SOCCCD board agendas--and, I guess, for our mostly uncomplaining trustees.
     It's alienatin'!

     Until March of 2010, the information ("exhibit") that was attached to "trustee conference request" agenda items always looked like this:

     Already, my brain hurts.

     First: the heading reads, "trustee attendance at conferences and meetings." That's all wrong. This item is not reporting trustee attendance at conferences. Rather, it is supposed to provide information useful in determining whether a particular request should be honored. What sort of bonehead wrote this? The heading should be, "Trustee requests to attend conferences and meetings."

     Isn't that obvious? Am I crazy, or what?

     Second: the heading is followed by an introductory phrase—namely, "trustees wishing to attend." That makes sense. After all, it would be good to know who is making the request (if, for instance, that person has abused this privilege in the past). At any rate, the number of trustees requesting attendance of that conference is important to know. Obviously.

     Plainly, what should come next is a list of trustees, namely, those wishing to attend some conference or other.

     But no. No such list is provided.

     I don't get it. Maybe I've got some kind of syndrome or something. I do get spasms and tics sometimes. To me, if you write, "trustees wishing to attend," followed by a colon, then the next thing you write ought to be the names of trustees.

     What we get instead is a list of "events" (i.e., conferences), the dates of the conference, and the cost per trustee. No trustee names appear. Not even the number of trustees requesting attendance of the conference is provided.

     I've been at board meetings in which a trustee has requested that information: Who requested this? —You wouldn't believe it. All sorts of contortions and gyrations ensue to disguise that person's identity. At times, when the pesky requester (Nancy) simply will not back off, that produces a vague indication that, well, no trustee plans to attend. Oh.

     But then why was there an item on the agenda?

     Here, I believe, is the key question that inquiring minds (e.g., members of the community who dislike government waste and inefficiency) want answered. Is there a trustee who seeks to attend this conference? If so, who is she? How can it be that an item described as "trustee requests to attend a conference" is approved — and yet no member of the audience (in the Ronald Reagan Room or TV Land) knows whether any of the trustees will be attending that conference? 

     But hey, I've been there. It's Orwellian. 

     Or is it merely Bauerian?

     For some reason, starting in March (of 2010), the format of the information ("exhibit") changed. It then looked like this:

     Again, there's that bizarre heading, which seems to describe or report trustee attendance when it should be referring to trustees, the conferences they seek to attend, and the cost of their attending.

     The heading should be: "trustee requests." Something like that. It shouldn't be idiotic or moronic.

     (If these people had any imagination, they'd choose, say, "my left nut" or "puppy ears" as a heading. Idiotic but fun.)

     And, again, there's the phrase "trustees wishing to attend," followed by a colon. 

     And, again, the expected list of friggin' trustees does not appear. On the contrary. Look at the information provided. It is that "none" of the trustees has requested attendance of these two conferences (see).

     But then, why is there an agenda item at all? I am contemplating suicide.

     It gets worse. We are informed that "none" of the trustees will be attending. What?

     When I read something like this, I feel that I have entered Bizarro World. I'm inclined to shout, "what the hell is this?! What the F*CK is going on here?!" 

     Am I alone? Am I a nut? I do love puppy ears.

     In April and May, no "trustee requests" item appeared on the board agenda. Again, presumably, this suggested that no trustee indicated (to the Chancellor) an interest in attending any conferences. OK then.

     But then, in June, a "trustee request" item appeared. Here's the "exhibit" that accompanied that item.

     Yep, it was back to March's Bizarro World. 

     Stupid!

     That brings us up to July and Monday's meeting. There is indeed an agenda item for "trustee requests" on the July agenda. (Find the agenda here. See the box at the right.)

     Here's the "exhibit" that accompanies the item. It sports a spankin' new format:

     Good grief.
     Note the same bizarre heading and introductory phrase. F*ck.
     Arguably, the bizarrotude has diminished, for we are no longer told that none of the trustees is interested in attending or indeed will be attending these conferences.
     Oh good. The world is right again.
     But no. It remains wrong. Instead, we're informed how many trustees have "registered" per conference.
     I don't get it. What difference does it make that Trustee T has or has not registered for conference C? Suppose he has registered. So what? Now the board must decide whether he should be supported in attending that conference.
     And suppose he has not registered. Again, so what?! Maybe he's holding back on registering until he gets approval! That seems sensible. Or maybe, upon hearing about this conference, he or she will seek to attend.
     Why isn't this goddam "exhibit" simply and clearly telling us what we f*cking need to know--namely, which trustee seeks to attend this freakin' conference!?
     You watch. On Monday, Nancy or somebody will ask, "So who wants to go to this stupid Orlando Mickey Mouse Club thing?"
     And I betcha she won't be told. Not clearly, anyway. It'll be a cloud of dust. Or another, "Nobody wants to go. Maybe."
     But the item will pass.
     And I will return to my tidy cave, far far away from Bizarro World. Like Puff the goddam' magic dragon.

Is John Williams headed to Orlando again?

SOCCCD July board meeting agenda item 5.17

     Lately, something odd has happened to SOCCCD board of trustees meeting agendas. It used to be that trustees would express interest in attending a conference somewhere. Consequently, the Chancellor would list those conferences and their cost (plus dates, etc.) on “exhibit A” of an agenda item. Armed with that info, the board would approve the requests or not.
     With the new format, whether any trustee is interested in a particular conference is obscured. On June’s agenda and on the agenda for Monday’s meeting, there’s a column for “trustees currently registered” on exhibit A (see). “None” is indicated.
     This may leave the impression that no trustee plans to register.
     But then why list these particular events? Plus: read the agenda item. This item is supposed to handle trustee requests for travel/conferences. It is not a mere information item.
     I smell a rat.
     The rat’s name is John "Orlando Boy" Williams, who, when he isn't vacationing in Florida at taxpayers' expense and spending one Monday per month as a trustee, is the Orange County Public Administrator/Guardian, a remarkably well-compensated position that, according to the OC Grand Jury, he executes very badly.
     You’ll notice that one of the conferences listed (see below) is yet another “Orlando” junket. And you know who loves those. John’s got family down there in the sunshine state. He spends weeks there each year, travel and lodging paid for by taxpayers.
     So is Williams planning to attend this thing or not?
     Inquiring minds wanna know.

* * *

Exhibit A

     What, you may ask, is the STEMtech Conference?
     And what on earth is “Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin”?!
     Well, I’m glad you asked those questions. There’s a website: here. It answers our questions, I suppose:

Let the Magic Begin!
Excitement is building for the League for Innovation's new conference

The League for Innovation in the Community College is proud to announce its first annual STEMtech conference, October 31 - November 3, 2010, at Orlando's Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin. Educators, industry leaders, and others will gather to discuss increasing student access into and success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors and careers. The 2010 STEMtech will also help educators explore the strategic use of information technology to better serve their students, campuses, and communities.

Over 400 sessions will cover everything from best practices for recruiting and retaining students for STEM-related programs to more effectively engaging students in instruction using social networking and other online tools. An extensive exhibition featuring timely products and services will also be included.
. . .
STEMtech Online allows individuals to participate in a great conference without incurring travel expenses. Because travel costs and online conference fees are reduced, more people will be able to participate in the most exciting professional development opportunity to come along in some time. As an added bonus, STEMtech Online participants receive a one-year membership to iStream, the League for Innovation's web-based professional development portal.

A special room rate for conference participants has been arranged at the Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin. In the heart of Walt Disney World, the Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Resort is the gateway to Central Florida's greatest theme parks and attractions. Conference participants can enjoy 17 world-class restaurants and lounges, five pools, two health clubs, tennis, nearby golf, and many special Disney benefits, including complimentary transportation to Walt Disney World theme parks and attractions and the Extra Magic Hours.

     The “opening key note speaker” is none other than Ed Begley, Jr. –You know. The “actor and activist.”
     The closing speaker is a “special assistant” at the DOE.
     We’ve already got experts on the info provided at this conference. We don’t need John Williams going there and getting all confused about it. He is quite stupid and remarkably inarticulate. So he won't learn anything, and even if he were to do so, he'd be helpless to communicate it.
     And this conference is expensive--nearly $2,000 per person. (That's just an estimate.)
     I bet he’s going. And if he is, I’ll do everything I can to make sure everybody hears about it.
     When will people get sick and tired of "public servants" such as John Williams?

Big Star

I good piece by Ed Ward of "Fresh Air" (NPR) on the great and nearly forgotten band Big Star. Done a while back, I guess, but so what.