Dire Dingleberries of Sordidity (Bauer's FPPC complaint against Tom Fuentes)

Faxed to the FPPC at 3:25 today

     As you know, former SOCCCD trustee and current OC Public Guardian/Administrator, John Williams, has been up to his eyeballs in controversy for some time now. Remember those two “scathing” Grand Jury reports that described his incompetence and, well, his highly-questionable management decisions?
     Yeah, and we’ve been complaining for years about Williams’ love of junkets to Orlando (even when he says he's downtown) on the taxpayers’ dime. (He’s got family in Orlando, you know. Wadda bum.)
     And then there’s the fact that’s he’s flat stupid. Have you ever heard that guy try to speak?
     We were the first to report the undoing of Williams’ effort to seize control of the estate of Charles David Lewis, Jr. (aka “the Mask”)—very strange, that. We didn’t quite know what that meant at the time. Something fer sher. But, since then, a big, nasty picture seems to have developed. Williams, some allege, pounced on the $10 million Lewis estate (Lewis owned a chunk of TapouT) for the fee his agency gets administering it, which, in this case, is big.
     It made his bottom line look good, or so he bragged, reportedly.
     Yeah, but when his pouncification was nixed on appeal, he was in trouble, bottom-line-wise, or so the story goes. Some say that he started making desperate moves, pouncing on other estates that he had no business touching.
     Some guardian!
     That, of course, led to complaining phone calls from the daughter of some poor oldster, and one such phone call was made to then-Assistant DA Todd Spitzer.
     Naturally, Spitzer called up Williams’ office to find out what was goin’ on. Williams, acting precisely as though he were a very guilty (and stupid) man, freaked; he ran caterwauling to DA Tony Rackaucas, who took the opportunity to fire Spitzer (The nerve of the fellow, asking questions!), who, in truth, had his sights on Rackaucas’ job. (The story is that Rackaucas hired Spitzer just so he could punk him, i.e., keep him from running for DA for now. That’s how this crew works. Remember Rackaucas’ one-time good pal, Mike Carona?)
     It sure looked hinky. It didn’t help that Rackaucas' fiancé was Williams’ second-in-command.
     There were other dire dingleberries of hinkitude, but I’ll leave it at that.
     Now, everybody knows that Fuentes was brought onto the SOCCCD board of trustees (replacing resigning Holocaust-denying Neanderthal, Steve Frogue, in 2000) to enhance the futures of the various political wannabes on the board, including Williams, Don Wagner (who recently joined the state Assembly), Nancy Padberg (who later ran for judge), and Dave Lang (who recently flamed out in a pricey & disastrous run for GOP candidacy for OC Treasurer).
     Many were amazed when, not long after Fuentes’ arrival, supremely unqualified dim-bulb Williams suddenly emerged as a candidate for Public Administrator—and, when he got that gig, he soon parlayed it into the super-gig of Public Administrator/Public Guardian, complete with a car and fabulous cash prizes.
     He promised to save the County big money. Well, as it turns out, they misunderstood him, or he misspoke, or something. He meant to say that he would cost the County big money, and sure enough that’s just what the stolid fellow did! Or so said the OC Grand Jury. But that was OK, ‘cause Williams’ attorney just happened to be the semi-official attorney for Bad Republicans (viz., Phil "ethics-challenged" Greer, who represented Chriss Street and Beelzebub and Raghu Mathur) and, conveniently, the attorney for four of the five Supervisors. And so, amazingly, Williams got to keep his lucrative gig and keep making those trips to Orlando, Florida, supposedly to keep his colleagues on the SOCCCD board of trustees apprised of the latest techno whizz-bangery. Like email and white boards.
     But Williams runs a seriously hinky ship down at the County, and people started looking at some of his curious actions over the years, such as his arranging for LFC (a local online real estate auction firm) to sell property for the County. But wait. Didn’t LFC contribute to John’s recent reelection campaign (as we reported, inspiring nada)?
     Yep.
     (Oddly, after a bit, John returned the money. He doth return too much, methinks.)
     And didn’t John’s colleague, Tom Fuentes, have a relationship with LFC? Sure he did. Gosh, as it turns out, Tom helped bring LFC (owned by long-time pal "Buffalo" Bill Lange) and the County together! Or so he says.
     Hey! That doesn’t pass the smell test, does it?
     But yes! It does! ‘Cause Fuentes only happens to be associated with LFC. As he explained to the Voice of OC, he had an office at LFC only ‘cause LFC was a supporter of the Claremont Institute (a think-tank for Neanderthals), and Fuentes was a trustee (or Cave Man) there. Yeah, that’s it!
     And the LFC email account? And the title of “LFC Senior VP”? Why, that’s nothin’.
     Here at Dissent the Blog, we weren’t so sure.

     Here’s a curious, much-ignored factoid for you to consider: back in early October (Was Tom Fuentes a shill for LFC re the Coast Rabbit Island sale?), I reported that I had received an email from a Coast Community College official, who confirmed our suspicion that Fuentes has been an energetic agent of or advocate for LFC—as recently as three years ago. Here’s the email:

Roy:

     I didn’t want to post this on your DTB web site, as I am not in a position to have this attributed directly to me but thought you would be interested to know: When the Orange Coast College Foundation was selling its donated island in British Columbia–Rabbit Island in 2007—Lang had Fuentes call one of our trustees and Chancellor Yglesias and essentially try to get the Orange Coast College Foundation to use LFC as the auction agent for the sale. The Coast District and our trustees were not micromanagers and they said it is a Foundation Board decision and we are not going to force you to do anything. We found that LFC's commission structure was higher and we questioned if we would be best represented by an Orange County firm trying to sell a British Columbia property. LFC also tried to scare off a few reputable BC brokers by telling them they had a guaranteed listing on the property. We ended up going with a local BC broker who sold the property with good results and their commission was about 3% lower than LFC*, which wasn't chump change on the $2.2 million sales price. Bottom line is I definitely got the idea there was a connection between LFC and Fuentes and Fuentes wasn't shy about pushing LFC and using his contacts to do so.

— A reliable source at the Coast Community College District. Name withheld by request.

(*3% of $2.2 million is $66,000)

     Gosh! What do you suppose it all means? Could it be that Tom did more than grunt and draw elk on the walls at his cozy little LFC cave re Claremont's Flintstonian think-tankery?
     Well, today, I filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission (see graphic above). I’ve been itchin’ to do that for months. Kept threatenin' to do it. And then, last week, belatedly, the Reg started talking about the obvious hinkitude of it all, what with Fuentes not declaring any economic interest in LFC. They put out the same report in today's print edition (see above).
     Where’s it all going? Who knows.
     But know this. This county is run by creeps.

More on Pima College's Policy on "Troubled Students"

from the New York Times:

College’s Policy on Troubled Students Is Under Scrutiny

Many people had a glimpse of the deep delusions and festering anger of Jared L. Loughner, but none seemed in a better position to connect the dots than officials at Pima Community College.

After the release of detailed reports the college kept of Mr. Loughner’s bizarre outbursts and violent Internet fantasies, the focus has turned to whether it did all it could to prevent his apparent descent into explosive violence last weekend.
...
Laura J. Waterman, the clinical director of the Southern Arizona Mental Health Corporation in Tucson, criticized Pima officials for not initiating an involuntary evaluation.

“Where does it reach a level where you say this person shouldn’t be a part of any community and we have a responsibility to do something about that?” she said. The clinic, which offers walk-in psychiatric crisis care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay, is one of the agencies Pima students are referred to when they need mental health services, including students who have been suspended like Mr. Loughner.
...

To read it in its entirety, click here.

*

Documents from Pima College

The New York Times has them. Click here.
*

Did Pima College do everything it could have and should have?

from the New York Times:

Officials at Pima Community College, where Jared L. Loughner was a student, believed that he might be mentally ill or under the influence of drugs after a series of bizarre classroom disruptions in which he unnerved instructors and fellow students...

...The documents offer vivid firsthand accounts of Mr. Loughner’s contacts with law enforcement officials in the months leading up to the shootings, and will inevitably be studied closely for answers to whether the college did everything it could have, and should have, with him.

The college overhauled its procedures for dealing with disruptive students last year. As part of a revision to the code of conduct, it introduced a Student Behavior Assessment Committee, a three-member team that includes the assistant vice chancellor for student development, the chief or deputy chief of the campus police and a clinical psychologist from outside the college.

The team meets as needed to respond to students who have acted violently or threatened violence, or who may pose a threat to themselves or others. It came into existence in September, the same month Mr. Loughner was suspended following the five disruptive incidents reported to campus police.

A campus official involved in setting up the behavior committee, Charlotte Fugett, president of one of the college’s five campuses, would not say whether the committee heard Mr. Loughner’s case.

To read it in its entirety (and you should), click here.

*

Leave it in the hands of old, white men

Freeway fliers: not to be trusted with firearms

Professors With Guns: The Arizona Plan (Jon Wiener, The Nation)

     The Arizona legislature is considering a proposal to authorize the carrying of weapons on campus by faculty members. The idea is simple—in case of trouble in the classroom, somebody needs to be able to blast away at problem students. But the question arises, should all faculty members be armed?
. . .
     The lesson is clear: guns on campus should be restricted to the hands of the senior professors—the old white men. They know the importance of preserving order.
     Fortunately the legislature in Arizona is dominated by old white men. I am confident that, when it comes to deciding which faculty should carry guns on campus, they will do the right thing.

Jared Loughner's Community College Professor

from the Washington Post:

A community college instructor who taught Tucson shooting suspect Jared Loughner was so disturbed by the student's outbursts in class that he requested Loughner's removal from the course, he told the Washington Post in an interview Sunday.

Ben McGahee, a third-year instructor at Pima Community College, taught Loughner in an elementary algebra class last summer. McGahee said that while Loughner never threatened him directly, he was concerned by his behavior.

"I always felt, you know, somewhat paranoid," McGahee said. "When I turned my back to write on the board, I would always turn back quickly--to see if he had a gun."

McGahee said he had to make several complaints before administrators finally removed Loughner.

They just said, 'Well, he hasn't taken any action to hurt anyone. He hasn't provoked anybody. He hasn't brought any weapons to class,'" McGahee recalled. "'We'll just wait until he takes that next step.'"

To read the rest (and if you work at a community college, you really should), click here.

*

Benighted and bewildered

     Last semester, some faculty in my school were compelled to deal with an unstable student. At one point in early November, the student's behavior became very disturbing (he showed up during late hours looking for an instructor, muttering strange and worrisome things about her), and subsequent faculty efforts to draw an adequate response from administration proved to be frustrating—even infuriating. A certain degree of incompetence or confusion seemed to prevail.
     And so the matter was brought to the attention of the Academic Senate.
     At the time, DtB reported as follows:

     Nov. 5: At yesterday's meeting of the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate, a senate officer described an unfortunate circumstance at the college this week. (See Rebel Girl's recent post: Running with scissors.) On Tuesday, she said, a student walked around the faculty office wing of the A200 Bldg., making menacing remarks about instructors. (There’s lots more to the story, but rest assured that the situation was alarming.)
     She offered the view that the college has not handled the situation well (note: Dean Karima Feldhus, who is good with these situations, has been away with family this week), evidenced by the fact that there has been no public communication about the existing situation, and, worse, some of the student’s professors have not even been informed about him and the problem he now presents. She said that administration had a "communication" problem and that a "protocol" should be developed for such cases.
     For now, the senate can do no more than to agendize the matter for a future discussion.

     Ultimately, administrators seemed to get their acts somewhat together (arguably), and there was some effort to keep immediately-involved faculty apprised of the student's location and disposition (he was briefly institutionalized, then released, but continued to make provocative statements).
     At a subsequent senate meeting, as I recall, the Rep Council decided to communicate with administration, asking that it examine the practices and protocols of other colleges—with regard to dealing with disturbed and possibly violent students—toward the establishment of an adequate protocol at our benighted and bewildered college.
     At some point, we learned that the student had communicated with the college, explaining that he would no longer set foot here but that he would soon resume his studies at a certain other local college.
     D'oh!
     Naturally, some of us wondered whether that college should or could be warned. It appears that, owing to legal constraints deriving from the student's rights, no such warnings could or would be given. Amazing. Or not.

* * * * *

     During last week's inservice activities at IVC, one session seemed to be inspired by Fall's "disturbed student" episode. Entitled "Balancing Student Privacy and College Safety," it was "advertised" as follows:

What constitutes disruptive behaviors and the teamwork needed to successfully address those inappropriate college behaviors. A review of recommended preventive measures to inform student of your behavior expectation, available campus resources and protocol in documenting will be covered.

     I dunno. I was discouraged. To me, the session, thus entitled and described, was redolent of a failure to acknowledge the seriousness of what had recently occurred. These administrators just weren't getting it. The usual bromides and tips weren't gonna cut it.
     The session was led by the Vice President of Student Services, the Dean of Student Services, and IVC's Chief of Police.
     When I arrived for the session (a bit late), the discussion seemed decent enough, but it struck me as odd that no (or only passing) reference had been made (I asked) to the recent episode, which had upset so many of us, especially with regard to the apparent cluelessness of administration. And so, being me, I asked the panel whether administration regarded the college response to that episode as adequate. I explained that it can be very difficult proceeding with one's classes, knowing that an unstable and possibly violent student is loose, liable to return to class or appear in one's doorway in who-knows-what-state. No, I said, it just won't do. Administration should have some sort of policy or procedure to relieve faculty of this kind of burden, to give them a sense that somebody is covering the waterfront. Surely, there ought to be something, a protocol, that kicks in fast and can be depended on!
     My question elicited a certain amount of mindless dystopian blathertude from some, but, eventually, the VP of SS flatly stated that the response had indeed been inadequate and that steps should and would be taken to develop an adequate protocol.
     I do believe that the VP of SS "gets it," more or less. Good. I have no such confidence, however, in her administrative partner, the dean. (Stories of that woman's questionable competence are legion; nevertheless, she continues to be handed responsibilities—with predictable results.)
     Some of us left the meeting with imperfect confidence that things would be taken care of. It was yet another IVC moment, like so many others. What now, my love. Now that you've left me.
     A committee will be formed, of course, and it will make recommendations, I suppose. But you know how that can go. Committee doings so often are uncommonsensical, onanistic, Orwellian, and flat stupid, especially when people with education degrees are in charge. Good Lord. And then somebody gets a prize, and we all go home and drink.
     And now this Arizona gunman thing happened. And the shooter (allegedly) was a community college student. And folks at his little college recognized that he was a potential threat (good work!) and took steps to remove him. Administrative cluelessness was eventually overcome; he was removed.
     Nevertheless, the larger system failed to detect him as the kind of threat he evidently was. Plus the State of Arizona is flat insane. They hate Mexicans, you know. And Americans can't think about guns. Morons. They don't get it. It seems that they never will.
     And so there you are.