Roy Finishes Chemo

 

Friday morning, Annie drove me to the Keck Cancer Center in Newport Beach for an 8:00  appointment. The nurse drew my blood, via IV, for the usual test—called an "ANC," but involving 32 measures or counts, including Absolute Neutrophil (ANC), WBC, RBC, platelet, Hgb (hemoglobin), and so on. 

After about 5 minutes, the nurse showed me the results: the numbers looked "pretty good" all around, relatively speaking.

Over phone, the nurse briefly consulted with my oncologist, and he saw no problems sufficient to pause the chemo, and thus I commenced my last infusion, the sixth of six. 

The regimen for my lymphoma (stage 3 or 4, as I recall), is called R-CHOP. R-CHOP is an acronym for "a combination of three chemotherapy drugs given along with a monoclonal antibody and a steroid." My particular regimen, which normally separates infusions with a short, three week recovery period, was paused for some time owing to low blood numbers, especially platelets, RBC, and WBC, the three kinds of blood cells made by bone marrow. But we systematically worked through all that. (My doctor did acknowledge that such pauses reduce the efficacy of the regimen; still, he remained positive, since the process has seemed to be working, a judgment supported by a mid-regimen PET scan.) I got a couple of transfusions and an extra bone marrow biopsy along the way, and there've been several trips to the emergency room, including a visit just 13 days ago, owing to a critically low hemoglobin count (6.7). In general, however, my experience has been positive: the regimen has seemed to be working, and though I am profoundly fatigued and somewhat muddle-headed, I have grown increasingly chirpy.

Yes, chirpy. (No doubt chirpitude is side effect of muddle-headitude.)

Friday, no complications arose. I slept my way through most of the infusion. The process was completed by 2:30. "You're done," said the pretty, young nurse, smiling.

I smiled too. 

My last infusion done.

One of my early infusions, May?

UPDATE: [9-24]: This time around, the infusion has really kicked my ass—24 hours later. Let's just say I lost 7 pounds between early 9-23 and early 9-24. But, by Sunday mid-morning, nausea had largely subsided and fatigue has become the main issue, which is nothing new. Can still function, more or less, as long as I don't have to walk too far!

[9-25]: Feel pretty good, but still pretty fatigued. Managed a long convo with old Steve-O at the "Coffee Bean" on Alton. Lots to talk about. Lots of BS too.

"Learning styles" debunked

 

     The degree to which the education community—even the higher education community—accepts trendy, unscientific codswallop is stunning, and disturbing. 

     Remember the "whole language" vs. "phonics" battle, starting in the 50s? The long-discredited "whole language" approach is still insisted upon in much of K-12 and it infests college instruction to a degree as well. See Systematic rational failures and SLOs: part I (DtB). See also Cut the politics. Phonics is the best way to teach reading.  (Washington Post editorial board; March 11, 2023)

     The sad truth is that many educators have no understanding of the notion of evidence or scientific method.

Very Happy to Hear from You, Mr. Gensler

What’s going on with the Gensler case? 

I’m talking about the district’s own Howard Gensler. You remember him. As you know, over the years, there have been numerous Gensler cases. B

Here, by the “Gensler case,” I mean specifically (a) the district’s relatively recent action (2018) of firing Econ and Poli Sci instructor Howard Gensler and (b) Gensler’s efforts to overturn that action. 

I bring this up now because, less than a month ago (8-22-23), something occurred relative to that case. (A friend clued me in on it last week.) A decision was written regarding an appeal of a court case, going back 4 or 5 years, involving Howard's firing.

I have before me a decision by appellate court (4th district) associate justice Joanne Motoike, which is readily available online (here). I’ll explain that decision as I understand it. You can read it and assess its ramifications on your own. 

In this case, Howard Gensler is both plaintiff and appellant and the SOCCCD Board of Trustees (et al.) are respondents (targets of the suit). Interestingly, one of the District’s attorneys is one Dennis J. Walsh. I remember him well; he was Mathur’s attorney in the notorious Mora v. Mathur (see) case in which, horrifyingly, Mathur prevailed, but not without laying bare for all to see how unprofessional his conduct was/is. (Some of the jury, too, were utter louts. The case was doomed.) 

PART 1: Howard is fired

The particular issue at hand concerns an action taken by the district in 2018. According to Justice Motoike, 

In December 2018, the District placed Gensler on administrative leave and provided notice of its intent to terminate his employment. Gensler attended a Skelly hearing on January 15, 2019, conducted by Dr. Elliot Stern, who had assumed the role of president of Saddleback College just two days earlier. After considering Gensler's oral and documentary evidence, Stern affirmed the decision to terminate Gensler's employment. 

But what’s a Skelly hearing? According to Google, 

A Skelly Hearing is a pre-disciplinary hearing named after a 1975 California Supreme Court case which solidified public employees' rights when faced with disciplinary action. A Skelly Hearing is part of due process to provide public employees with the reason for disciplinary action before that action is taken. 

Motoike continues: 

Dennis Walsh

On January 31, 2019, Stern signed the Statement of Charges and Recommendation for Termination. That same day, Dr. Kathleen Burke, the District's chancellor, signed a concurrence with Stern's recommendation. On February 1, 2019, those documents were forwarded to the Board, as was Gensler's most recent faculty performance evaluation dated November 2, 2015. In February 2019, the Board, in Resolution No. 10-05, voted to give notice to Gensler that his employment with the District would be terminated effective 30 days from the service of the notice unless he requested a hearing. 

Gensler was then informed of his right to request a hearing. 

Sure enough, in March, Gensler “filed a notice of defense/objection and requested a hearing.” Then, in June, Stern 

signed the accusation [an official charge of wrongdoing], alleging as the causes for the employment termination decision Gensler's "evident unfitness for service" … and his "persistent violation of, or refusal to obey, the school laws of the state or [the] reasonable regulations prescribed for the government of the district's board"[.] As factual grounds for dismissal, the accusation specified several instances of misconduct occurring from the Fall 2015 semester through the Spring 2018 semester. …[T]he Board certified the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for the appointment of an administrative law judge [ALJ]. 

(According to Justia, “In the United States, an administrative law judge … serves as the judge and trier of fact who presides over administrative hearings. ALJs have the power to administer oaths, make rulings on evidentiary objections, and render legal and factual determinations.” “Whereas court proceedings are overseen by a judge, administrative hearings are conducted by an administrative law judge (ALJ). One of the major differences between a traditional court proceeding and an administrative hearing is that the presiding administrative law judge serves as the trier of fact.”) 

Howard unfurls his mighty cape before the enemy

I should mention that we at DtB have no idea what these “instances of misconduct” are or the nature of the District's grounds for judging that Howard is or was unfit to teach—although we can certainly imagine many grounds, based on our experiences with the curious fellow over the years. 

We’re in the dark about this. Like Bat Man. 

In February of 2020, the ALJ “presided over 10 days of hearing at which the ALJ received testimonial and documentary evidence and heard the parties' arguments.” Then, in a lengthy written opinion dated Oct. 14, 

the ALJ concluded "[c]ause exists to dismiss [Gensler as an employee] pursuant to Section 87732, subdivisions (d) and (f). The district's decision to dismiss [Gensler] from employment is reasonable and supported by a preponderance of the evidence." 

(Here’s Ed Code 87732: 

No regular employee or academic employee shall be dismissed except for one or more of the following causes: (a) Immoral or unprofessional conduct. (b) Dishonesty. (c) Unsatisfactory performance. (d) Evident unfitness for service. (e) Physical or mental condition that makes him or her unfit to instruct or associate with students. (f) Persistent violation of, or refusal to obey, the school laws of the state or reasonable regulations prescribed for the government of the community colleges by the board of governors or by the governing board of the community college district employing him or her. (g) Conviction of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude. (h) Conduct specified in Section 1028 of the Government Code. –END) 

And so, in the end, the ALJ affirmed the district’s decision to fire Gensler. Howard was canned and rightly so. 

END OF STORY…. 

PART 2: Genslerian litigiousness 

—BUT NO. Anyone who knows Howard knows that that would never end the matter. Howard is nothing if not litigious. And he’s like the Energizer Bunny (but with a bat suit). 

In January of 2021, Howard filed a petition of writ of mandate, naming the Board and the District as respondents. You’ll recall that such writs are intended as remedies of defects of justice. 

“Writs of Administrative Mandate (Mandamus) are used to ask a Superior Court to review a decision made by an administrative agency of the government, such as for example the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, or the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)” (Google). 

By means of this writ, Howard sought the issuance of a writ "to vacate the termination decision of [the] Administrative Law Judge . . . and order the reinstatement of Gensler with back pay." 

Writs of mandamus ask for extraordinary actions—in this case, Howard was asking that the ALJ’s judgment, owing to some alleged defect(s), be “vacated” and Howard’s standing at the college be restored. 

The petition asserted six causes of action. 

THE SIX “CAUSES” 

In the first cause, Gensler claimed that the District 

provided defective notice and lacked jurisdiction, having violated [Ed Code 87671] … (failure to conduct a current evaluation), … (failure to include a peer review), (failure to include student evaluations), … (failure to allow Gensler to provide written comments to derogatory material placed in his personnel file which was used in the termination process), … (considering and relying upon evidence older than four years), and … (failure to provide notice of the complete and precise decision of the governing board and the reasons for the termination). 

Gosh, some of that sounds familiar! 

In the second cause of action in the petition, Gensler asserted the ALJ erred by concluding Gensler had engaged in unprofessional conduct justifying the termination of his employment. 

In the third cause of action, Gensler asserted the ALJ erred by concluding Gensler's statements were not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and his right to academic freedom. 

In the fourth cause of action, Gensler asserted he was deprived of a fair trial. He asserted the ALJ abused his discretion by precluding opening statements and closing argument, committing evidentiary error, relying on cases the Board had not cited in its briefing, ignoring pretrial motions and the Board's alleged discovery abuses, and denying Gensler's requests for sanctions and continuances. 

In the fifth and sixth causes of action, Gensler asserted the ALJ's findings of Gensler's "'evident unfitness'" and "'persistent failure to follow rules,'" respectively, should be reversed. 

As it turns out, the case will turn on the 1st cause — essentially, Gensler was not afforded a peer review, to which he is entitled — which is procedural, and not the potentially juicy other ones: is THIS conduct unprofessional?, etc. 

Natch, included in Gensler’s petition was a petition for “prayer and relief.” According to Howard, the Board should 

reinstate Petitioner Howard Gensler as a full-time tenured faculty member of Saddleback College [and] reimburse Howard … for lost wages and benefits arising from this action. 

Bat Man amid darkness

Howard also petitioned for his “costs in this action, including attorneys' fees…” and “For such other relief as the court considers just and proper." 

The District then filed an “answer” to the petition. I don’t have that document but we can imagine what it contains. No doubt the word "nope" figures prominently.

That brings us to October 22 of 2021, nine months later, when the “trial court,” namely, the one in which the Honorable Derek W. Hunt [see this] presides, must decide how to respond to Howard’s writ and the District’s response thereto. Essentially, Hunt, though generally in agreement with the ALJ’s conclusions, decides that something more is needed to go forward: “a statutory peer review process … as specified by ‘the standards and procedures established by the rules and regulations of the governing board [of SOCCCD].’” 

As Motoike explains, 

After having taken the matter under submission…, and after having fully considered the parties' evidence and written and oral arguments, [Hunt] entered a minute order [according to Google, a minute order is “An order of the court recorded in the minutes, which is the official court record of what happened in the case”] dated December 6, 2021, stating: "A copy of the Court's Statement of Decision Re: Petition for Writ of Mandate is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference." In the court's attached statement of decision, dated December 6, 2021, the court [i.e., Hunt] discussed the parties' respective arguments but ultimately concluded: "[T]he court, although in its independent judgment is content with most of the conclusions of the ALJ, believes those conclusions must be reevaluated following a statutory peer review process conducted under Education Code § 87663(b) and (c) as specified by 'the standards and procedures established by the rules and regulations of the governing board.' [¶] The cause [affording Howard a proper “peer review,” I suppose) is therefore remitted to the respondents to include a peer review in petitioner's employment evaluation."

D'oh! 

Respondents [i.e., the District] filed a motion for reconsideration [again, don’t have that], which the trial court denied. 

On March 21, 2022—four months later—the trial court issued another minute order which identified the event type as "Chambers Work" without any party's appearance. … The minute order essentially reiterated its prior order of December 6…. 

In the March minute order, Hunt writes: 

On December 6, 2021 the court issued its written Statement of Decision thereon remitting the cause to respondents for further proceedings in accordance with the said Statement of Decision and the peer review process required by Education Code § 87663(b) and (c) as specified by 'the standards and procedure established by the rules and regulations of the governing board.’ 

Here are parts (b), (c), and (d) of 87663:

(b) Whenever an evaluation is required of a faculty member by a community college district, the evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with the standards and procedures established by the rules and regulations of the governing board of the employing district. (c) Evaluations shall include, but not be limited to, a peer review process. (d) The peer review process shall be on a departmental or divisional basis, and shall address the forthcoming demographics of California, and the principles of affirmative action. The process shall require that the peers reviewing are both representative of the diversity of California and sensitive to affirmative action concerns, all without compromising quality and excellence in teaching.

The upshot? The court sympathizes with the ALJ’s initial judgments/conclusions according to which the District’s firing action was right and proper, and no judgment has yet been made with regard to the justice of that action; but the court, i.e., Judge Hunt, now wants the district to do a strictly kosher peer review of Howard. Nothing less.

Hunt’s directive implies that “peer review” failed to occur back in 2018. I know that, owing to long-time opposition of the faculty union, the SOCCCD has struggled to establish a peer review process, despite the state mandate for one—an issue going back many years. As a result, as far as I know, the SOCCCD, and thus Saddleback College, has no such process. 

That old unsettled issue seems to have finally come back to bite us in the ass. 

Hunt concludes: “The cause [Howard’s 1st cause? Affording Howard a proper peer review?] is hereby remanded to respondents for further proceedings in accordance herewith.” 

OK, I guess Hunt wants to make sure a proper “peer review” occurs, which seems reasonable given the Ed Code. I have no idea what the District has done with Hunt’s directive, whether they attempted to implement a “peer review” process, or maybe an ad hoc one just for Howard (that likely wouldn’t do). No doubt, establishing a peer review process would entail involvement of the faculty: the Academic Senate, the Faculty Association. But, again, historically, our faculty have taken a very low road about the "peer review" mandate, preventing development of that process, leaving us no choice but to use empirically discredited student evaluations or dean evaluations (does my dean know anything about my field? No). Is our district’s failure to embrace/develop a peer review evaluation process putting the district behind the eight ball here? 

Sure looks like it.

PART 3: HOWARD'S INAPPROPRIATE 2-22 MOTION: NOT SO FAST, BUSTER

This brings us to a somewhat weird episode in our story. Two months later—on February 9, 2022—Howard files a motion for attorney fees, which is odd, since no one has yet prevailed in this case, and it is the winner who is awarded attorney fees. The District responds by filing its opposition. Oddly, “no documents filed in connection with this motion were included in the appellant's appendix on appeal.” 

The hearing on that motion occurred on April 8, 2022. According to Motoike (who is relying mostly on court reporters’ transcripts of the hearing), 

At the hearing, the trial court ...[stated]: "This is the petitioner, Mr. Gensler's motion for attorney fees .... [¶] So this is the case, the writ petition in which I ruled that the cause should be remanded to the respondent for further proceedings in accordance with the Education Code …. [¶] And let me make two points clear right now. [¶] First, it was a remand for further proceedings. It was not a judgment. In other words, at this point we have no idea … who is going to ultimately prevail in this dispute." (Italics added.) 

The trial court continued: "So let me start with a procedural aspect. And that's CCP section 1021.5. [¶] This is a statute that Mr. Gensler has relied on, and it says in its first sentence . . . [¶] 'A successful party' . . . may recover attorney fees . . . 'in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest.' . . . [¶] I think that's an overstatement at this stage to say that Mr. Gensler's success has been achieved. [¶] His original writ sought two outcomes: [¶] One, his reinstatement as a full-time, tenured faculty member. [¶] And two, reimbursement of the wages that he would have been paid if he were not terminated. [¶] He has not yet achieved any of those two objectives. [¶] The outcome of the hearing before me—or [sic] I simply sent it back to the respondents for consideration of that peer review element. And as far as I know, that's undecided." 

After discussing whether attorney fees might be recoverable in this type of case, the court stated: "I think that those points could be argued at a later stage in the case. [¶] But notice, that third element, that assumes that there is a monetary recovery in the underlying action. Now, that could happen someday. As I say, this case isn't over. Mr. Gensler, if he is successful getting his wages reimbursed again, that might trigger that portion of the statute, but that hasn't happened yet. [¶] So although I'm very happy to hear from you, Mr. Gensler, my tentative ruling is to deny this, at least without prejudice, until we've played out our hand with a remand or if there's an appeal." The trial court later explained to Gensler [that] "what I'm saying is that your dispute has not yet been successfully resolved in your favor." (Italics added.) 

Inexplicably, the appellant's [Gensler’s] appendix contains a document prepared by Gensler entitled "Notice of Entry of Judgment" and dated April 28, 2022 which states: "Please take notice that on March 21, 2022, Orange County Superior Court Judge Derek W. Hunt issued a judgment in the above captioned action…. A true and correct copy of the judgment is attached hereto, together with the December 6, 2021 Statement of Decision…, and a Judicial Comment with a filing date of March 21, 2022…." … The purported "judgment" referenced in Gensler's notice of entry of judgment and identified in the notice as item No. 147 in the register of actions, is a copy of the court's March 21, 2022 minute order, quoted in full ante, which, as explained to Gensler at the April 8 hearing, was not a judgment but an order remanding the matter to respondents to conduct a peer review evaluation for the court's later consideration. 

The appellant's appendix also includes a document that appears to have been created by Gensler that is identified in the appendix's table of contents and in the document's title as "Judgment." That document states [that] three documents—the March 21, 2022 minute order, the court's statement of decision, and also an entry in the register of actions (dated March 21, 2022) stating "'Petition for Writ of Mandate Has Been Granted'"—"constitute the judgment" in this case. 

"[T]he substance and effect of a decision, not the clerk's offered label in the register of actions, is the controlling consideration. [Citation.]" (Natomas Unified School Dist. v. Sacramento County Bd. of Education (2022)….) Here, the cited portion of the register of actions reflects the clerk's understanding that the petition had been granted which is directly in conflict with the trial court's statements regarding the ruling in the matter. 

Gensler filed a notice of appeal from the March 21, 2022 "judgment" [the “minute order”] on June 23, 2022. 

—Appeal of the judgment? Did Howard miss the April 8 hearing in which the absence of a judgment thus far was clearly noted? Why is he so clueless? Is he trying to pull a fast one here or what?

So Howard appeals—what exactly? Hunt’s rejection of Gensler’s motion for fees? Or something broader? As Hunt explains, the larger case has not been decided yet. That awaits implementation of the peer review process. So is the appeal only concerning Hunt’s rejection of Howard’s odd and somewhat inappropriate writ (asking for back pay, attorney fees, etc.)? It seems so. 

PART 4: THE APPEAL (OF THE 2-22 MOTION)

Here’s where Justice Motoike enters the picture. She is tasked with assessing Howard’s March 22 appeal of Hunt’s decision (re the 2-22 motion), not the ALJ’s decision (to find the District’s action of firing Howard faultless). And so this maybe isn’t as big a deal as some might think. 

Motoike identifies the appeal that she is opining upon in this way: “Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 30-2021-01177691, Derek W. Hunt, Judge. Dismissed.” 

It seems to me that Hunt “dismissed” only the writ; as he himself explains, he has offered no judgment about the larger case regarding whether the District acted properly in firing Howard. That’s still out there in Law-Law-Land, it seems, awaiting a decision (by Hunt, I assume). 

In her decision, Justice Motoike provides an overview of governing legal principles in this case. “In general,” she writes, "an adverse ruling in a judicial proceeding is appealable once the trial court renders a final judgment.” But no final judgment has been rendered in this case. 

She next cites Dhillon v. John Muir Health. 

The question presented in Dhillon, supra, … was whether the trial court's order on a petition for writ of administrative mandamus was a final judgment. The Supreme Court explained: "We have previously recognized that a judgment is final, and therefore appealable, '"'when it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined.'"' [Citations.] '"It is not the form of the decree but the substance and effect of the adjudication which is determinative. As a general test, which must be adapted to the particular circumstances of the individual case, it may be said that where no issue is left for future consideration except the fact of compliance or noncompliance with the terms of the first decree, that decree is final, but where anything further in the nature of judicial action on the part of the court is essential to a final determination of the rights of the parties, the decree is interlocutory."' [Citations.] 'We long have recognized a "well- established policy, based upon the remedial character of the right of appeal, of according that right in doubtful cases 'when such can be accomplished without doing violence to applicable rules.'"' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

 . . . 

The Supreme Court in Dhillon observed the Court of Appeal's dismissal order "deepened a long-standing conflict concerning the appealability of a trial court's order, on a petition for writ of administrative mandamus, remanding the matter for further proceedings before the administrative body." (Dhillon, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1113.) The Supreme Court concluded: "[F]ocusing on the nature of the particular remand order before us, similar considerations lead us to conclude that the superior court's order partially granting Dr. Dhillon's writ petition was an appealable final judgment." (Id. at p. 1116, fn. omitted.) …. 

Eventually, Justice Motoike presents her reasoning in the Gensler case: 

Applying Dhillon to the …[present] case, we conclude the trial court's order remanding the matter to respondents to conduct a peer review evaluation did not constitute an appealable order. Here, in the petition containing six causes of action, Gensler sought the issuance of a writ under section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure ordering the Board to reinstate him as a full-time tenured faculty member of Saddleback College and to reimburse him for lost wages and benefits. 

Unlike the trial court in Dhillon, the trial court here did not rule on the merits of the petition. The trial court did not decide whether the petition should be granted or denied and has not yet otherwise granted or denied any item of relief Gensler sought in the petition—e.g., the court has yet to decide whether or not Gensler is entitled to reinstatement and/or backpay. Although Gensler had complained in the petition's first cause of action the respondents had not conducted a peer review evaluation, his position was that such an omission resulted in respondents' lack of jurisdiction to terminate his employment. He did not request a remand for a peer review evaluation to be conducted—that was the trial court's idea, ostensibly to collect more information to confirm what will be its ultimate ruling on the petition. In the conclusion of its statement of decision, the trial court states: "And so the court, although in its independent judgment is content with most of the conclusions of the ALJ, believes those conclusions must be reevaluated following a statutory peer review process ...." (Italics added.) In other words, the trial court stated it had reached some tentative conclusions but still needed to reevaluate those conclusions pending receipt of further information gleaned from the peer review evaluation on remand. 

At the April 8, 2022 hearing on Gensler's motion for attorney fees, the trial court expressly stated its order remanding the matter "was not a judgment" and "at this time we have no idea at this stage who is going to ultimately prevail in this dispute." According to the trial court itself, all issues remained open and undecided until after the peer review evaluation was completed. 

. . . 

In short, the trial court's remand order failed the "'"general test, which must be adapted to the particular circumstances of the individual case"'" as set forth in Dhillon—"'"it may be said that where no issue is left for future consideration except the fact of compliance or noncompliance with the terms of the first degree, that decree is final…. [holding trial court's ruling on petition for writ of administrative mandate was not a final judgment under the Dhillon standard and thus not appealable because it "neither ordered the full substantive relief that the District sought—including the District's requested '[j]udgment ordering the [County Board] to set aside the Decision'-nor resolved all issues except the fact of compliance or noncompliance. 

The trial court's order therefore is not appealable. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed. 

DISPOSITION 

The appeal is dismissed. Respondents to recover costs on appeal. 

WE CONCUR: GOETHALS, ACTING P.J. SANCHEZ, J. 

I think we should look carefully at the agendas of the next few meetings of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees. This isn’t over yet.

See also this

UPDATE: 

P.S. [9-19]: one document I came across online seems to suggest that there will be a hearing on the 20th of September. "Remittitur."

P.P.S. [9-24]: the aforementioned document now reads "Remittitur issued." 

According to Google:

["Remittitur" is] Latin for “to send back, to remit.” The purpose of remittitur is to give a trial court the ability, with the plaintiff's consent, to correct an inequitable damage award or verdict without having to order a new trial.

I suppose this means that we're right back to: the ball's in the district's court; provide peer review of Gensler. —After that is accomplished, presumably, the case will be brought back to court for a decision. Am I right? "Chemo brain" makes me doubt myself, but I think I am at least approximately or essentially correct.

Hank finishes chemo

 

This fellow isn't me, Roy Bauer, of course, but he will be very familiar to educators because of his omnipresent "Crash Course" YouTube videos and similar productions. Hank Green got cancer a while back and has just finished his chemo infusions.

His cancer seems to be more serious than mine, though my chemo has taken much longer (nearly 6 months). My treatment—involving 6 cycles—was paused for a month and a half because "my blood hates the chemo." as my oncologist likes to say.

I think Hank's remarks are very helpful in communicating what it's like to go through chemo. His experiences have been—and continue to be—very similar to my own.

I now have a bad cold (I think)—came down with it during a recent stay at Hoag Irvine Emergency (I suffered critically low hemoglobin and received a transfusion)—and it remains to be seen what that will mean, given that I am so immunocompromised. Chemo patients are sitting ducks.

I tested for Covid today and at least I don't have that. Whew!

Hang in there, everybody!

One bad day

Most days are pretty good, but nausea has been closing in, slowly, day by day, mostly in the background—until this morning, when it arrived, full frontal.

I woke up feeling like something that was dragged around town in a sack behind an old Chevy. I could barely function. 

Wasn't sure if Nikki, my housekeeper, was gonna show up—went ahead and boldly took a shower anyway. It was all I could do to stand there, dry myself off, drag myself down the hall.

Nikki showed up around 9:00 I guess—but I hadn’t noticed. I just wandered back into the kitchen area, nearly blind from dizziness and low blood sugar. I very nearly fell on my ass.

But Nikki was there, saw the whole thing.  She looked worried. "What's up?" she seemed to say. 

“I don’t know why I’m so messed up this morning,” I said. I stumbled toward the refrigerator for something wet.

“Good morning,” I said. 

The boy, hangin' by the old water tower

I had an appointment with my eye doctor at 10:00 a.m. Plus I got a note from Ruby at the district that I neglected to pay my WEX (some kind of med insurance) bill. I barely managed to write those checks. Could barely see 'em.

"Gotta get my act together here," I muttered. 

Wobbled out the door, and started the car. Driving to Irvine. A highly dubious project. 

“Why don’t you cancel!” yelled Nikki.

Nope. Gonna do this thing. Nobody can stop me now. 

Stubborn; stupid. I do that.

Got to Dr. D's in Irvine all right and went through the hideous gauntlet: eyes poked and prodded and shined into, talked at, prescription written, glasses chosen, consulted with Dr. Dusenberg (or whatever his name is, I dunno anymore). It was pretty tedious, but I was civil. Felt like shit on a stick. Smiled pleasantly, mostly. Hoped for it to all to end, but it dragged on.

I finally got out of there, and squeezed myself into my little Lexus under the trees, by the fake lake. Alas, I was blinded by the infernal eye drops and sunlight. My vision was so bad, I pulled into Karl's just to get my bearings. Got some French Fries. Waited. My vision only got worse. 

Had to mail that WEX payment. Drove to the post office (just down the street, on Sand Canyon); could barely see the damned building. Opened the door for some lady carrying boxes. Managed to drive home in one piece before noon. I reached my goal! I'm done!

"So now you're gonna crash?" asked/asserted Nikki as I shuffled past her and off to my bed. "Yeah," I said. "I'm done."

Teddy (my cat) followed. He complained like he does. Lights out.

Just woke up. It’s 2:30. Nikki’s gone, I guess. Still feel like warmed over roadkill, but a little better. 

Checked my blood pressure: perfect. Don’t seem to be dying or anything. 

Sister Annie's parked outside in her Toyota using my Wifi (that's been goin' on for weeks; I hate AT&T). 

Teddy’s sleeping in Sunny's old spot [former cat] way in the back room. I guess he decided not to sleep with his old dad, that unpleasant lump.

Feeling a bit better, I just went back to sleep. 

It's not so bad. It'll do. 

Just one bad diner along the long Chemo Highway. The one bad stop.

All is well then! 

John Sturges was hired as director in June 1954 and shooting began the following month near Lone Pine, California, where the small town set had been quickly constructed. (Wikipedia)

Americans losing faith in higher education

Americans Are Losing Faith in the Value of College. Whose Fault Is That? 

NYT 

For most people, the new economics of higher ed make going to college a risky bet. 

By Paul Tough

Paul Tough is a contributing writer for the magazine who has written several books on inequality in education.

A decade or so ago, Americans were feeling pretty positive about higher education. Public-opinion polls in the early 2010s all told the same story. In one survey, 86 percent of college graduates said that college had been a good investment; in another, 74 percent of young adults said a college education was “very important”; in a third, 60 percent of Americans said that colleges and universities were having a positive impact on the country. Ninety-six percent of parents who identified as Democrats said they expected their kids to attend college — only to be outdone by Republican parents, 99 percent of whom said they expected their kids to go to college. 

In the fall of 2009, 70 percent of that year’s crop of high school graduates did in fact go straight to college. That was the highest percentage ever, and the collegegoing rate stayed near that elevated level for the next few years. The motivation of these students was largely financial. The 2008 recession devastated many of the industries that for decades provided good jobs for less-educated workers, and a college degree had become a particularly valuable commodity in the American labor market. The typical American with a bachelor’s degree (and no further credential) was earning about two-thirds more than the typical high school grad, a financial advantage about twice as large as the one a college degree produced a generation earlier. College seemed like a reliable runway to a life of comfort and affluence. 

A decade later, Americans’ feelings about higher education have turned sharply negative. The percentage of young adults who said that a college degree is very important fell to 41 percent from 74 percent. Only about a third of Americans now say they have a lot of confidence in higher education. Among young Americans in Generation Z, 45 percent say that a high school diploma is all you need today to “ensure financial security.” And in contrast to the college-focused parents of a decade ago, now almost half of American parents say they’d prefer that their children not enroll in a four-year college. 

The numbers on campus have shifted as well. In the fall of 2010, there were more than 18 million undergraduates enrolled in colleges and universities across the United States. That figure has been falling ever since, dipping below 15.5 million undergrads in 2021. As recently as 2016, 70 percent of high school graduates were still going straight to college; now the figure is 62 percent. 

Outside the United States, meanwhile, higher education is more popular than ever. Our global allies and competitors have spent the last couple of decades racing to raise their national levels of educational attainment. In Britain, the number of current undergraduates has risen since 2016 by 12 percent. (Over the same period, the American figure fell by 8 percent.) In Canada, 67 percent of adults between 25 and 34 are graduates of a two- or four-year college, about 15 percentage points higher than the current American attainment rate. 

Britain and Canada are not the outliers on this point; we are. On average, countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have increased their college-degree attainment rate among young adults by more than 20 percentage points since 2000, and 11 of those countries now have better-educated labor forces than we do, including not only economic powerhouses like Japan and South Korea and Britain but also smaller competitors like the Netherlands, Ireland and Switzerland. Americans have turned away from college at the same time that students in the rest of the world have been flocking to campus. Why? What changed in the last decade to make a college education — and higher education as an institution — so unappealing to so many Americans? 

When it comes to higher education worldwide, the United States is an outlier in more ways than one. In Canada and Japan, public-university tuition is now about $5,000 a year. In Italy, Spain and Israel, it’s about $2,000. In France, Denmark and Germany, it’s essentially zero. A few decades ago, the same thing was true in the United States; government funding covered much of the cost of public college. Now students and their families bear much of the burden, and that fact has changed what used to be a pretty straightforward calculation about the economic value of college into a complex math problem. 

. . . . 

When you do take cost and debt into account, the financial benefits of college begin to look quite different. Douglas Webber, who was a professor at Temple University until he joined the Federal Reserve Board last year as a senior economist, has spent the last decade looking for new ways to calculate the value of a college degree. For Americans in the aggregate, he has found, the college wage premium remains robust. On average, more education still means more income. What has changed, he has written, is that the premium now varies much more than it used to among individuals and groups: The “downside risk” to enrolling in college, he argues, has become “nontrivial.” When you look at Webber’s data, higher education no longer resembles a safe, reliable blue-chip investment, like buying a Treasury bill. It’s now more like going to a casino. It’s a gamble that can still sometimes produce a big windfall, but it can also bring financial disaster. 

. . . . 

Last month, Webber and a colleague published some new research that identified the people who are making out the worst at the casino: students who borrow money to attend college but don’t graduate. In Federal Reserve surveys, half the borrowers who didn’t finish their degrees said they were “just getting by” or “finding it difficult to get by.” Two-thirds said they would have a hard time coming up with $400 to cover an unexpected expense. Financially, they were not only doing much worse than college graduates; they were doing worse than adults who had never gone to college at all. For these former students, the college wage premium had turned upside down.

. . . .

When pollsters ask Republicans to expand on why they’ve turned against college, the answer generally has to do with ideology. In a Pew survey published in 2019, 79 percent of Republicans said a major problem in higher education was professors’ bringing their political and social views into the classroom. Only 17 percent of Democrats agreed. In a 2017 Gallup poll, the No. 1 reason Republicans gave for their declining faith in higher ed was that colleges had become “too liberal/political.”…. 

(continue reading)

BRASS RING TIME: IVC alum Anthony Kuo is running for State Senate (uh-oh)

 

     It’s been said that laws are like sausages; it’s better not to see them being made. 

     The same might be said about political careers. 

     You may have noticed that Irvine’s own Anthony Kuo, that Republican stalwart, is now running for the State Senate. Some of you will remember that, twenty five years ago, Anthony Kuo was one of Raghu Mathur’s “Irvine Center irregulars”: a student and a staunch fellow who allowed himself to be taken under Raghu’s wing and directed along the “true path,” i.e., the path of faith and right-wing Republicanism. 

     I’ve tried to keep track of him ever since. 

     Here’s what Kuo’s tells us about himself on his campaign website: 

    Anthony Kuo grew up in the community of Woodbridge, attending Irvine public schools. His family built and, for over 20 years, ran Chinatown Restaurant, a small business right across the street from UC Irvine. 

   First elected to the Irvine City Council in 2018 after serving nearly eight years as a Commissioner, Anthony was unanimously selected by his colleagues to serve as Vice Mayor in 2019 and 2022. He represented the City on the Board of Directors of the Orange County Fire Authority where he was Vice Chairman and the Irvine Community Land Trust where he was President. Additionally, Anthony served on the Board of the Orange County Sanitation District and represented all of Orange County's Mayors and Council members on the County's Emergency Medical Services Committee. 

   He has represented the Council on both the Irvine Unified School District and Tustin Unified School District Liaison Committees, and the Boards of the Irvine Barclay Theatre and the San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary. .Anthony has long volunteered on the Board of Directors for the Irvine Children's Fund, on the Steering Committee for ICF's Irvine Junior Games, the 2/11 Marine Adoption Committee, and on the Advisory Board for Crime Survivors Inc. He also served five years on the Board of Directors of the Exchange Club of Irvine, including a three-year assignment as President-elect, President and Immediate Past President. In addition to serving on the planning committees for the Teacher of the Year Dinner, Police Awards Banquet and the Irvine Unified School District Scholar Athletes Dinner, Anthony chaired Irvine’s Thanksgiving Community Prayer Breakfast for four consecutive years. 

   He has served on the Board of Directors of both the BYU Management Society of Orange County and Raise Foundation of Orange County, as well as the Board of Governors of the Irvine Valley College Foundation. He remains active in a number of children and youth advocacy charities. 

   In 2020, Engaging Local Government Leaders recognized Anthony with the "Traeger Award," and named him one of the Top Influencers in Local Government. He received the 2021 Hero Award from ProcureAmerica for efficiency and cost management on behalf of Taxpayers. 

     Kuo has a page of endorsements. As near as I can tell, each of these supporters is a staunch Republican. 

     The OC Register recently took note of Kuo’s latest political grab: 

   Former Irvine Councilmember Anthony Kuo this week announced his candidacy for the [state senate] seat, which includes Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Costa Mesa, Orange and Irvine.

   Kuo, who was first elected to the City Council in 2018 but lost a reelection bid in 2022, said he is running because he believes “leaders in Sacramento have taken our state in the wrong direction,” including the rising cost of living. Inflation, he said, has made it too hard for Californians to become homeowners, start small businesses and raise families.

   “I understand the struggles we face because Orange County is my home. We risk losing what has made living here so great,” Kuo said. “And it’s no longer anecdotal. We know friends and neighbors who are choosing to leave California because it’s just gotten too hard.” 

   “That’s just top of mind for everybody,” Kuo said of inflation. 

     Evidently, Kuo doesn’t know what “anecdotal” means. The testimony of “friends and neighbors” is, by definition, anecdotal evidence! I think Kuo avoided Humanities courses back in the day. 

     “Top of mind for everybody,” eh? Is that how people speak these days? Maybe so, I dunno.

     Here at DtB, we’ve written about Mr. Kuo from time to time since his IVC days. For instance, there’s this from a 2016 issue of DtB: 

* * *

Anthony Kuo, Mathur's one-time protégé, is now Don Wagner's political pal (and they're both owned by developers)  

Dissent the Blog

Sunday, November 6, 2016 

   Have you seen that campaign sign all over Irvine, the one emblazoned with WAGNER KUO SHEA in big orange letters? 

   Don Wagner’s running for mayor and the other two—Anthony Kuo and Christina Shea—are running for City Council. 

   You remember Wagner. Before he joined the state Assembly, he was on the SOCCCD board of trustees from 1998 until 2010, serving as Board President much of that time. A staunch religious “conservative,” he was a truly awful trustee. Still, toward the end of his run as trustee, he was burned one too many times by some [Raghu] Mathurian connivery, and he thus became the Chancellor's sworn enemy. It all happened in one day; he had long been a Mathur booster but then, all of a sudden, he literally went around fuming and yelling and muttering how he was gonna fix that bastard. People were astonished.  

   There’s no curbing Don’s wrath when you’ve crossed him. His need for revenge will not be denied. 

   Alas, Don’s newfound reason for living [i.e., get Raghu!] ran afoul of County Republican bigwig (and SOCCCD trustee) Tom Fuentes’ tidy local machine, which counted Mathur among its cogs. Well, sparks flew. There was snortage and screaming and curious machinations. (See A new board majority? Fuentes gets hopping mad, December 11, 2009.)   

   The rest is history. 

   Christina Shea? Well, she’s nothing special around these parts. She’s your standard gay-bashing, Evangelical Christian Republican. (Years ago, she and her husband pursued an initiative removing homosexuals’ protections against discrimination.) 

   And Anthony Kuo? Nearly twenty years ago, Kuo was a student and Raghu Mathur’s protégé here at IVC. That kid was in the catbird seat. 

   Some of us old-timers will recall a dark period when the Gooster’s assorted loathsome pals kept getting prizes at the college. “Professor of the year” went to a notoriously goofy and awful science instructor—he and Mathur went way back. “Administrator of the year” went to a particularly unstable and violent Mathurian hire [Rodney Poindexter] who was eventually dragged off campus by the cops. He was a lunatic. (See College Dean Is Abusive, Five on Faculty Complain, LA Times, 6-29-02.) 

   Kuo got some prizes too, as I recall. He was student body Prez. He was pious and patriotic. Mathur seriously Republicanized the kid. 

   After college, Kuo eventually became a communications and strategy consultant. “His government relations practice has included community organizations, the hospitality industry, national trade associations, investment banks and real estate developers.” (About Me.)  

Poindexter

   By the new millennium—Mathur started his IVC Presidency gig in 1997—Anthony Kuo, emerged as Mathur’s indefatigable defender. This was at a time when virtually no faculty member or student had anything good to say about the creepy former Chemistry instructor. (Students actually sued him.) Mathur, a narcissist, made up stories about his success and popularity. Remember the time he published a “thank you” to “all the faculty” who showed up to his ill-fated “sack lunch”? 

   That’s right, nobody had showed. 

Kuo, Shea, Wagner 

   By 2002, Kuo was still defending Mathur. Mathur, staunchly supported by the odious board majority (including Wagner), moved up to the Chancellor’s chair in February of 2002. But, by then, he (and the board) had been on the losing end of a series of First Amendment-related lawsuits. 

   Natch, Goo and his supporters complained. They gnashed their nasty little teeth. 

   In 2002, I wrote about this:  

   Well, the district’s demagogic satellites are spinning again. In response to the Times’ coverage of the recent court victory against the district by students, …[Mathur’s pal] Ray Chandos—evidently, chair “for life” of IVC Accreditation—wrote the editors to say: 

Your article about the South Orange County Community College District Speech and Advocacy Policy neglected certain basic facts … The policy was written in part to respond to some faculty-sponsored activities that were disruptive or life-threatening. One event called for students to smash a car with a sledgehammer as a “blow” against the administration. Students were hospitalized as a result…. (Times; 3/31/02) . 

Ray Chandos

   Chandos, like [Saddleback College's Ken] Woodward, can always be counted on to whitewash the Empire’s dirty linen and to invent lurid rebel atrocities. The car-smashing event (apparently, car-smashings are commonplace on campuses) was not, as he suggests, a political demonstration; rather, it was a non-political fund-raiser for the Honors Society…. 

   True, at one point, a peripatetic wag named Jeff spontaneously sprayed “El Presidente” on the side of the car, causing Armando Beyondo to soil his trousers, but that hardly justifies Chandos’ description of the event as an anti-administration demonstration! Further, though, at some point, a student was mildly injured by flying glass (she was not, as far as I know, “hospitalized”), nothing about this event was remotely “life-threatening.” 

. . . . 

   Ray went on to write: 

Some faculty newsletters attack ethnic background, integrity, families, religion and the gender orientation of district employees…. . 

   Do you suppose Ray is referring to ‘Vine/Dissent? D’ya think?. 

. . . 

   At a recent Academic Senate meeting in which Ray was in attendance, I stood up to read his Times letter [that defended Mathur and the district]; I remarked on the Rayster’s stunning disregard of the truth. I then turned to Ray and said that, if he is going to accuse people [he seemed to be referring to me and Dissent] of racism, homophobia, and the like, at the very least, he is obliged to cite concrete instances. I sat down. 

   More than three weeks have passed, and I have not heard a peep from the fellow. (In fact, nothing I've said or written or published is racist or homophobic.)  

   Ray’s letter to the Times was accompanied by a similar epistle by one Anthony Kuo, president of the IVC Associated Students, who, despite his role as student advocate, wrote to “commend Raghu Mathur for four years of superb service to the college as president.” According to Kuo, IVC has been beset, not by a tyrannical rights-violating college president, but by “rebel faculty…and a small number of students” who “have tried to make our campus a war zone by using hate literature….”  

   About two weeks ago, I wrote Mr. Kuo. Referring to his accusations regarding the use of “hate literature” by “rebel faculty,” I said: 

I hereby request that you show me exactly what it is that I have written or published that constitutes “hate literature.” If I…or some unnamed person or persons…[are] to be publicly charged with “using hate literature” by you, surely you are obliged to provide evidence…I await your response. 

   There’s been no response. [There won't be any.]

   Student government officers tell me that, despite the care I took to fashion my letter as a “request,” Kuo is describing it as a threat.  

   I’m told that Mr. Kuo has made the best of the situation, for he has distributed copies of my letter to members of the Board Majority.… 

   Kuo's bio suggests that he has long been groomed for public service in Republican World. In 2011, he was finally appointed to an office. 

   By a Republican. 

   According to his bio, 

   In 2011, Anthony was appointed by then-Councilman Steven Choi to serve on the City’s Planning Commission. He was elected Chairman of the Commission by his peers in 2013, and has been unanimously re-elected to that post four times. As a commissioner, he has led efforts to review and advance proposals ensuring responsible and high quality development in Irvine, including those in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and at the Orange County Great Park. He has focused on ensuring the delivery of important improvements to the City’s roads and infrastructure. Anthony also serves on the Commission’s IBC Sub-Committee and previously served as the Commission’s representative to the city’s Task Force on Housing Needs for the Developmentally Disabled and the Ad Hoc Committee on Veterans Affordable Housing. 

   He’s also done time with the Exchange Club of Irvine. [That’s one of Glenn Roquemore’s haunts.] He’s been on the Board of Governors of the Irvine Valley College Foundation. He does prayer breakfasts. (He’s a Mormon.)   

 

   Yadda yadda yadda. 

   Um, he’s got memories: 

[G]rowing up, my grandmother used to live with us, and would trespass onto Irvine Valley College and steal oranges from the orange groves across Jeffrey. (An Interview With Irvine City Council Candidate Anthony Kuo)  

 

   Golly. 

   For Kuo, the hardest part of being a Commissioner is having to follow agreements: 

[P]art of the challenge of being a Commissioner is being bound to rules, agreements and development entitlements which were entered into years ago. Sometimes we are faced with projects which we might not be happy with, but are guaranteed a certain unit count because of a 5-, 10-, or even 15-year old development agreement made under previous leaders. (An Interview With Irvine City Council Candidate Anthony Kuo)  

   Oddly, when Kuo was asked about his (especially political) mentors, he doesn’t mention Mathur, (who, no doubt, lined up his Foundation gig, 2001-2005): 

My first job in politics was with Christina Shea who was the mayor of Irvine then. I worked for her again on the city council as a policy aide and community liaison and learned how to listen to the public (our boss). My first job in the private sector was for Christine Iger who had a boutique government affairs firm; Christine was a former California Director of Housing under Governor Deukmejian and former Deputy Attorney General, so I had a great deal to learn from her about the nitty gritty of public policy. The late Marian Bergeson, who was a mentor to many, and I shared many private moments where she always encouraged me to stay involved and to pursue my love for serving the community. I will always be grateful for her friendship and leadership.  

   Again, oddly, Mathur’s name does not appear on Kuo’s list of supporters (See WE SUPPORT ANTHONY KUO). As you know, Mathur loves to lend his illustrious name in support of his political pals. So what gives? 

   We know that Kuo was under Mathur’s creepy wing at least up through the early 2000s. We know that, starting in late 2009, Wagner and Mathur became bitter enemies. And we know that, nowadays, Kuo and Wagner are political pals. 

   Gosh. 

* * * 

Raghu and Don  

   It turns out that both Wagner and Kuo have turned out to be your standard, corrupt rich-special interests-pleasing politicos. Yeah, the thing that ties Wagner and Kuo together are certain well-healed supporters. 

   Developers. 

   (Remember, Kuo is on the Irvine Planning Commission.) 

   The facts are nicely layed out in a recent piece in the OC Register ($1.1 million in PAC money flows into Irvine elections (OC Reg; Nov 2)):  

   Political action committees have funneled $1.1 million into the Irvine mayoral and City Council races as of Tuesday, according to a Register analysis, dwarfing campaign contributions candidates are raising and spending on their own.  

   Forty-three percent of that money has been used to attack Mary Ann Gaido, a candidate for mayor who has promised to halt new residential developments in the city. Gaido, a planning commissioner, said developers are pouring money through independent expenditure committees. 

. . . . 

   “I think it really undermines the system,” Bob Stern, former president of the Center for Governmental Studies and a campaign finance expert, said about independent spending by PACs [who, unlike individuals, are not limited in the amount they can receive].  

   Although independent expenditures have nothing to do with candidates, he said, they allow wealthy people to wield more influence than individuals who give money directly to candidates.

   Independent expenditure committees are pouring money into crowded Irvine city elections, featuring five candidates for mayor and 11 for council, because they are close races, Stern said. 

   Four PACs have spent $466,908 in media ads, literature and mailers attacking Gaido, according to campaign finance reports. That trumps the $91,596 she’s received in monetary contributions this year, the most of any Irvine candidates. 

   In addition, two of the PACs have spent $95,839 opposing council candidates Melissa Fox and Farrah Khan, both of whom are endorsed by the Democratic Party of Orange County, along with Gaido. 

   It’s sometimes difficult to trace what groups, companies or individuals are funding PACs because money can go through multiple committees before being spent on candidates in various races. 

   For example, the California Homeowners Association [which pays for the aforementioned WAGNER KUO SHEA signs] committee has spent over $255,305 opposing Gaido and $172,140 supporting mayoral candidate Don Wagner and council candidates Christina Shea and Anthony Kuo. The PAC received $49,000 from developer Starpointe Ventures, which has stakes in Irvine projects. 

   Moving Orange County Forward – funded by such entities as the Building Industry Association of Southern California PAC, Orange County Business Council PAC and Disney Worldwide Services – has spent over $93,000 supporting Wagner and incumbent Shea, as well as contributing to PACs opposing Gaido. 

   Building Industry Association of Southern California PAC received $100,000 from FivePoint, which is overseeing the development of thousands of homes near the Orange County Great Park, $75,000 from the Irvine Co., and $50,000 from Starpointe Ventures. Starpointe and FivePoint officials said they had no comments for this article. 

   Independent expenditure committees have spent $274,065 in support of Wagner, which is nearly 25 times the amount the Republican state assemblyman has spent for his mayoral campaign through Oct. 22 – $11,177. 

   Despite receiving support from these PACs, Wagner said he’s frustrated with outside spending because he cannot control the messages. Candidates are not allowed to coordinate with independent expenditure committees. 

. . . . 

   Shea also said she’s not a fan of outside spending. In the past, it was her opponents who received support from independent expenditures, she said. 

   Shea said she would like to see independent expenditures banned. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech prohibits the government from restricting them.  

   “I totally believe that these independent expenditures, they just don’t create a fair playing field, and it’s really driven by political agendas of people,” she said. 

   Wagner blames the low contribution limit to candidates for the excessive independent expenditures in Irvine. 

   Kuo said the $470 cap is too low to send out messages to the more than 119,000 voters in Irvine. Santa Ana, for instance, has a $1,000 limit per election cycle. 

   Wagner and Kuo stressed they would not be beholden to special interest groups funding independent expenditure committees that support them. 

   “They like things I stand for,” Wagner said. “They don’t like things Mary Ann stands for.” 

   Gaido said Wagner, as a seasoned state assemblyman, must be aware that the $23,308 he has raised isn’t enough to fund a campaign in a large city like Irvine.  

   Wagner says he’s raising enough to get his positive message out.  

   “He’s allowing big developers to totally fund his campaign and smear my name and character,” Gaido said about Wagner. “It is very disappointing.” [See also this.]

     It’s nice to hear that Wagner and Kuo don’t owe anything to “special interest groups.” 

     Yep.