Ray Chandos defends Steve Frogue

Los Angeles Times "Letters to the Times" 9/21/97
College's District Discord Heats Up

When is an anti-Semite not an anti-Semite?

     When he is an innocent history teacher and school board member who has the audacity to open a public seminar concerning the assassination of one of our presidents. The hate campaign underway against South Orange County Community College District Board President Steven J. Frogue has nothing to do with JFK conspiracies.* The hate-mongers are intent on negating the choice of the voters and working to discredit Frogue and his reform projects at Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges.
     Frogue planned to present a course called "The Warren Report on the JFK Assassination" at Saddleback College and included four potential speakers with diverse theories on the subject, beside the Warren Report documents.
     Never mind that the speakers are published, acknowledged experts in the field**—one of the four has been labeled anti-Semitic because of his theories tying an Israeli intelligence group to the assassination.
     So Frogue's opponents scream his experts should not be permitted to speak at Saddleback College. They label Frogue and anyone calling for discussion of this subject on grounds of academic freedom or freedom of speech a bigot or anti-Semite.
     Do freedom of speech and academic freedom exist only for those opinions we agree with?***
     Did Oliver North get censored last year when he spoke at Saddleback or could he express his views of history? Did the Black Muslim representatives present all sides of the race issue or their point of view at Saddleback?
     Now a recall movement has begun against Frogue over a course that was canceled and never once met. Are we in America or the old USSR. Or Nazi Germany?
     Shame on the leaders of this campaign, who want to destroy an elected official and accomplish by defamation of character what could not be done in an election of 200,000 voters.

RAY CHANDOS
Electronic Technology Instructor
Irvine Valley College

[Note: Chandos is a faculty union officer. He was the chief scribbler for the old corrupt union's Old Guard.]

*At least two (I do believe more) of Frogue's invited speakers were affiliated with Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby, then widely acknowledged as the country's foremost anti-Semitic organization. One of Frogue's invitees was evidently a friend (Michael Collins Piper), who was then the chief "reporter" for Liberty Lobby. When Piper came to address the SOCCCD board, he was accompanied by dozens of racists and anti-semites, some of whom shouted, "There never was a Holocaust!" Frogue never dissociated himself with those people.
**As became clear in the media storm, none of the invited speakers could be thus described. They were in fact classic crackpots who promoted incompetent conspiracy theories.
***In the course of Frogue's defense of his "seminar," he defended Orange County "Institute for Historical Review," the country's foremost Holocaust denial organization. (At one of his press conferences, he held a copy of the IHR's journal high in the air.) Back in '95 and '96, Frogue praised the IHR and its journal. About a dozen former Frogue students wrote signed legal declarations attesting to Frogue's remarks and actions, including Holocaust denial. (Frogue was a high school teacher.)

Piper on John McCain's supposed "organized crime link"

Alvarez on the board majority (in the L.A. Times)

Los Angeles Times, Orange County Voices, 9/7/97

Blame Politics for the Debacle on South O.C. Community College

Voters gave control to officials bent on accruing power and advancing their personal agendas.

By LISA ALVAREZ

     Until recently, few had heard of South Orange County Community College District Trustee Steven J. Frogue. Then his proposed community education class on the JFK assassination accomplished what his earlier actions and those of fellow board members Dorothy Fortune, Teddi Lorch and John Williams had not; it elicited hundreds of telephone calls from an outraged community and attracted national attention.
     Community college politics seldom rate the front page. Despite their significant role in preparing students for transfer to four-year universities or moving them directly into careers, community college issues are often lost in ballots crowded with propositions and candidates for the seemingly more vulnerable K-12 school boards.
     Additionally, California community colleges—including Irvine Valley and Saddleback—have, until now, fostered a form of relatively democratic—if not perfect—decision-making called shared governance. Shared governance allows for collective decisions, for power sharing. It is designed precisely to avoid unilateral decisions or wacky headlines, and to encourage the smooth running of a diverse community.
     But part of Frogue's mission includes undermining shared governance. He and the board majority have exploited that perceived public indifference to community college politics, quietly voting in devastating 4-3 decisions.
     Who? Where? How?

     In April, the board majority, in closed session, appointed Raghu Mathur as interim president of Irvine Valley, this an apparent violation of the Brown Act. Indeed, that misstep was ruled illegal when a Superior Court judge found that the notice requirement was not met, nor was public comment invited.
     In July, the board majority, in closed session, fired 10 Irvine Valley school chairs, replacing them with appointed administrative deans imported from Saddleback. The board claimed fiscal concerns, but Chancellor Robert Lombardi, in a recent college forum, alluded to a perceived lack of "managerial control." This action followed a resounding Irvine Valley faculty vote of "no confidence" in the board. A suit regarding the legality of the board's action is pending.
     In August, the board majority, in closed session, deviated from existing hiring practices in its Irvine Valley presidential search process, abandoning, in this case, uniform rules for selection of administrators in favor of a process that permits politics to prevail over merit. In a recent college forum, Lombardi acknowledged this deviation from district policy. Now, based on this bogus process, the board majority is poised to select its candidate, absent meaningful faculty and staff input.
     Finally, there was Frogue's proposed class.
     The board majority disregards a principal feature of shared governance: that is, working with the Academic Senate—the body responsible for representing the faculty on academic and professional matters—whose views and votes are required by law. Again, they're undermining the community in community college.
     They thought they could get away with it.
     I'm not sure why Frogue and his majority prefer a top-down, overly bureaucratic hierarchy to a cooperative power-sharing paradigm that has served California post-secondary education institutions so well.

     But Frogue's opposition to shared governance, taken together with his other apparent prejudices, among them that "Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the ADL," brings his judgment into serious question. How did Steven J. Frogue become a trustee, much less president of the South Orange County Community College District Board of Trustees?
     It's no conspiracy. He was voted in. How? A rogue faculty union so intent on raising salaries for a handful of members at the top of the pay scale that it championed four candidates who, like Frogue, brought them more trouble than they bargained for. Thousands of dollars from the local of the California Teachers' Assn. went to Frogue's reelection campaign. Why? Hopefully not because of pet theories that brought this district unwanted notoriety.
     Consider the big picture: the battered body politic. Community colleges serve the needs of their communities. At the same time, they themselves function as communities—not as fiefdoms for petty, ambitious politicians bent on advancing personal agendas. Our united community took as much as it could stand but ultimately rose up to challenge Frogue, the board majority and, though most people did not know it, an undemocratic faculty union.
     Our community college is in jeopardy because its elected, if overlooked, leaders violated not only the state open meetings law and their own district policy but also their covenant with our educational community. District employees who protest or question these moves have been reprimanded, and on occasion, disciplined. They've created an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear, a hostile workplace where it's increasingly difficult to teach students.
     If unchallenged, they will make it impossible to do what we have done so well in the past at Irvine Valley College: sustain a community dedicated to learning.

Lisa Alvarez is an associate professor of English at Irvine Valley College.

Trustee Dave Lang’s letter to the District Attorney’s office, September 3, 1997

Mr. Bruce Moore

District Attorney’s Office

700 Civic Center Drive West

Santa Ana, CA 92701

Dear Mr. Moore:

     As the trustee representing the Irvine area on the South Orange County Community College Board of Trustees, I am taking this opportunity to make you aware of several items your office may wish to further investigate, as you deem appropriate, with respect to events that have transpired in our district.

Campaign Election Violations

     A recent investigative team from the California Teachers Association (CTA) noted in a letter to their local chapter, representing the faculty at South Orange County Community College District that in conflict with provisions of their bylaws and without the express directions of their members, the faculty association [i.e., the faculty union] had contributed to several political action committees (PACs)[including] Taxpayers for Responsible Educators [and] and Orange County Citizens for Quality Educators. These PACs provided substantial advertising support to elect a slate of candidates[—]Steven Frogue, John Williams, and Dorothy Fortune[—]in last November’s election. The Taxpayers for Responsible Educators, Form 420…reflects independent expenditures of $4,000 each made on behalf of four candidates, including Frogue, Williams and Fortune. However, a review of the individual candidates statements for this same period shows no corresponding reporting of these same contributions received on Form 490, Schedule C.

Repeated Violations of the Brown Act

     On Wednesday, August 27, 1997, Judge McDonald held that certain [provisions] of the Brown Act had not been followed, although Judge McDonald found no misdemeanor violations of the act.

     It is interesting to note that none of the minority trustee members [Dave Lang, Joan Heuter, Marcia Milchiker], including myself, were ever deposed with respect to this matter, nor to the best of my knowledge were phone records subpoenaed and reviewed that might have corroborated the contention that several “meetings” occurred among and between the majority board members: Steven Frogue, John Williams Dorothy Fortune, and Teddi Lorch.

     At an executive session meeting on July 16, 1997 involving the reorganization of the administration of the district, three trustees (including myself) left the meeting, because they felt the subject of the meeting was a violation of the Brown Act. Prior to the meeting, on July 11, 1997, Trustee Williams faxed to all members of the board and the chancellor a memo regarding his views of the administrative model at one of the colleges. Since the Brown Act is very specific about matters that may be discussed in closed session, and this topic is certainly not one of them, this communication would appear to have constituted a violation of Brown Act. Although Mr. Williams preceded his further discussion of the district and colleges administrative model by naming certain personnel for reassignment effectively eliminating the chair model that was in effect at one of the district’s colleges and transferring personnel within the district and at each college, I believe this action was a thinly veiled attempt to skirt the Brown Act under the guise of a personnel decision. None of the appointed administrators nor other shared governance groups were apparently consulted before actions were taken, resulting in reassignments and newly delegated responsibilities that made no rational sense.

            Further violations of the Brown Act include discussion of specific agenda items in closed session that are on the open session calendar and the permanent appointment of the president at Irvine Valley College, more fully described in the paragraphs which follow.

Selection Process and Permanent Appointment of Irvine Valley college President

     A national search was conducted by the board for a new President of Irvine Valley College. Several internal candidates (including Mr. Raghu Mathur, illegally appointed interim president on April 28, 1997, according to Judge McDonald…) applied for the position along with more than 30 others comprising the initial pool of candidates. In establishing the selection process, the historical method was completely discarded, whereby a screening committee was appointed consisting mainly of the shared governance groups at Irvine Valley College to interview and present to the board the top handful of candidates, with their ratings and recommendations. The current process is a complete “white-wash” since the screening committee neither rates the candidates nor eliminates any candidates, and the entire remaining pool (several applicants voluntary dropped out of the process) of 18 candidates were reinterviewed by the full board of trustees, with no consideration of the committee’s input. The reason the majority of the board prevailed upon the chancellor to adopt the revised process, in my view, was so Mr. Mathur would not be eliminated from the pool. Since I am writing this letter prior to the final candidate interviews, I am predicting that Mr. Mathur will be selected on a 4 - 3 trustee vote to be the next president at Irvine Valley College. It should be noted that during the initial interviews the board majority—consisting of the trustees Frogue, Williams, Fortune, and Lorch—purposely upgraded Mr. Mathur’s raw interview scores while downgrading those of the other candidates to insure his position in the final round. It should be further noted that although my disclosure of same would ordinarily be a closed session matter that I would not be permitted to discuss, both initial trustee interview sessions were also illegal under the Brown Act, due to the fact that the board president failed to open these sessions as public meetings and request public comment before adjourning these meetings to executive session.

     In summary, the entire appointment process was a complete sham, wasting the time of the entire board and, more importantly, all of the interview candidates.

Violation of Education Code

     Our college district recently invited great controversy when the board majority voted on August 18, 1997 to allow Mr. Frogue, the board president, to hold a seminar on the JFK Assassination and invited several conspiracy theorists, some of whom the community felt ascribed to anti-Semitic view points. This program was to be conducted under the auspices of the Saddleback Community College Adult education program, on a nonaccredited, participant fee breakeven basis.

     It should be noted that this seminar evolved from a single course that Mr. Frogue would offer on the Warren commission, approved on a 5 - 2 trustee vote at our June 16, 1997 meeting. As one of the opposing votes at this, and the August 18, 1997 meetings, one of the many grounds for my objection to these courses was the blatant conflict of interest problem it presented with Mr. Frogue, a trustee of the board, offering a course, even on an unpaid basis.

     Despite district counsel opinion to the contrary, I believe the original action approving the initial session by Frogue was a violation of Education Code Section 72103(b) prohibiting an employee of the district employed as a teacher to offer this kind of course, where such individual serves as a trustee of the district.           

     Although this issue may now be moot, due to Trustee Frogue’s withdrawal of the course from under the auspices of the College’s adult education program, this is not an isolated instance of this kind of blatant conflict of interest and possible education code violation.

Other Internal Personnel and Miscellaneous Matters

     In my unsubstantiated opinion, since the board majority has been in control, employees that supported opposing viewpoints have been systematically criticized, reprimanded, and/or reassigned.

     Kathleen Duranty [sic; Dorantes], a part-time instructor and the faculty advisor to the Lariat, the Saddleback Community College student newspaper, was replaced by another full-time faculty member. This apparently is permitted under the current faculty contract with the district that provides seniority to full-time over part-time faculty members in such circumstances. It should be noted, however, that in my view this action was precipitate[d] by individuals who objected to the newspaper coverage of the last election and felt the replacement of Ms. Duranty would afford the board majority more favorable student press.

     At Irvine Valley College, the removal of Wendy Phillips [Wendy Gabriella], as humanities [sic] chair (prior to the reorganization) and reprimands by Interim President Mathur of several employees including Vice-President Terry Burgess, Pamela Hewitt, and others speaks to the kind of repressive attitudes and divisiveness that exists at the campus.

     Under State Law AB 1725, the board is required to consult with other constituency groups within the district, including faculty senates, classified staff, student government[,] representatives of the faculty, and classified staff associations (collective bargaining units) and others with respect to decisions that affect these constituencies. In my view, the board majority is not following AB 1725, resulting in a feeling of disenfranchisement among these groups.

     To the extent you find the foregoing comments and observations interesting and/or actionable and wish to pursue any of these subjects further, please contact me at your earliest convenience.

     As a further footnote, I have also raised certain financial concerns, the subject of a separate letter, with the State Vice-Chancellor for fiscal affairs, since I believe the significant turmoil created by many of the above-noted incidents will have a detrimental financial impact on our college district.

Very truly yours,

David B. Lang

Trustee

cc:        Dr. Thomas Nussbaum

            Dr. John Dean, Orange County Department of Education

            Spencer Covert

            Dorothy Fortune

            Steven Frogue

            Joan Heuter

            Teddi Lorch

            Marcia Milchiker

            John S. Williams

            Dr. Robert Lombardi, Chancellor

            Anthony Carcamo, Vice Chancellor

            Rich Travis

The excrement hits the fan: the August '97 Board Meeting

Frogue, holding Institute for Historical Review publication

From the ‘Vine, 9/1/97

Selected Transcripts from the 8/18/97 SOCCCD Board meeting (Part I)

[What follows is a transcription of remarks made during the August 1997 meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees.

ISSUE #1: On this night, the ADL’s Joyce Greenspan raised serious questions about Frogue’s proposed “Warren Commission” forum and its four invited guests. Nevertheless, the “Board Majority” approved the forum. Within a few days, that became a national, and even an international, story.

Here's how item 13, Frogue's Forum, appeared on the agenda:

Agenda Item #13, Board Meeting, August 18, 1997
$5,000 for honoraria, travel, or accommodations for Sherman Skolnick, Dave Emory, John Judge, Michael Collins Piper.

Ad: Special Forum
Saddleback College Community Education
Fall, 1997

9019.101 Warren Report on the JFK Assassination: The Test of History. After 33 years, the Warren Report on the November 22, 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, has suffered considerable criticism. Recent polls indicate that as many as 7 out of 8 Americans reject the Commission’s conclusion that a single person (unaided) accomplished the assassination; and then, was himself, murdered by a singled [sic] unaided person. The reasons for this overwhelming rejection of the government’s official findings, and the resulting lack of confidence in the government in general will be examined.

FRI, SEP 26, 7:00 -10:00 PM
SAT, SEP 27, 9:00 AM -12:00 PM & 1:00 - 5:00 PM
SUN, SEP 28, 9:00 AM -12:00 PM & 1:00 - 6:00 PM
Saddleback College, SSC 225
FEE: $99

Coordinator: Steven Frogue. Guest speakers (?) from the...?? will be featured presenters.

ISSUE #2: The union Old guard (including Garcia and Heffernin) had financed Frogue’s reelection campaign (of ’96). Indeed, that group was responsible for the “Board Majority,” which arrived in December of ’96. During the summer of ’97—one month prior to this meeting—the board acted (illegally, as it turns out) to reorganize the district and eliminate school chairs (at IVC), replacing them with deans, which, unlike faculty, were easy to control.

At the time, the union Old Guard, facing severe criticism for its homophobic and dishonest campaign flier and its support of the unsavoury Mr. Frogue, offered a red herring: that all the fuss arose from the disgruntlement of IVC’s School Chairs who had been “sent back to the classroom.” Of course, criticism of the Old Guard had reached a high pitch long before those individuals lost their chair positions. Hence, the “disgruntlement” thesis was patent nonsense.

The Old Guard strongly opposed IVC’s “school chair” governance approach, which, of course, is utterly routine throughout academia. (For a local example, just go up the road to U.C.I.) A school chair does essentially what a dean does. Hence, he or she must be “released” (or “reassigned”) to some extent from teaching to perform those duties. At IVC, “reassigned” or “released” time for School Chairs varied from School to School, but no instructor had more than 80%.

Normally, the office of School Chair rotates among faculty. There was an exception: in Raghu Mathur’s own School, the office never rotated, for Mathur schemed and connived to maintain that position for nearly ten years. Just prior to being appointed interim President of IVC in April of ’97, Glenn Roquemore was working with IVC administration to wrest the School Chair job from Raghu. When Raghu was appointed president, Roquemore suddenly became Raghu’s pal.

Reassigned time was sometimes abused. Raghu had a reputation for being the chief abuser. He contrived a load that amounted to a salary of over $120,000. The point about Mathur’s reliance on or abuse of reassigned or released time is made by some speakers in what follows. Remarkably, once he was appointed President of IVC, Raghu, the greatest abuser of reassigned time became its loudest critic.]

Public comments:

Anthony Garcia:

I’m here for three specific reasons, and the first is to commend the board for their recent actions that have rerouted more teachers back into the classroom where they belong. Secondly, it is to congratulate the board for appointing Dr. Raghu as the Interim President--[He is] a courageous moralist who has confronted many of the ills of the north campus despite the vitriolic invectives and hollow protestations that he has encountered to condemn the obscene and immoral practice of release time that some instructors—maybe we should call them former instructors because they barely instruct—have come to regard and now demand as part of their contract. [Someone in the audience says: “Raghu Mathur.” Board President Frogue says: “Order, please.”]

Release time has become one of the great scandals of academia. The pristine purpose of release time was to compensate instructors who took on added chores such as scheduling. In this case, the granting of release time was just compensation, and it is now. However, during the tenure of Constance Carrol, the granting of release time became a political quid pro quo and the effect of a convoluted and obfuscated vision of what our purpose should be. Rather than find teachers in the classroom where they belong, they could be found in the myriad of committees and self-serving projects. The cost for this release time reaches upwards of $800,000, enough to accomodate the thousands of students that petition for classes each year. Something was wrong with this picture.

One such scandal involves one instructor that had 18 units of release time—the equivalent of 58 hours of class-related time per week—and still taught his full time. Is there something wrong with this picture?

Finally, I’d like to thank Dr. Mathur for his fortitude in confronting this specific problem. The community should elect [sic] a statue to him for his courage. The people that you see at Board meetings and read about in the Times condemning his actions you would find on the Who’s Who list of release time usurpers [Sherry Miller-White: “Amen!”], if you were privy to it. Now you see the picture.

And I would like to thank four Board members—Steve Frogue, Dorothy Fortune, John Williams and Teddi Lorch—who have the courage to tackle this problem which is the root of the majority of our evils. Thank you.

Bill Heffernin (spelling?):

...When I heard that remark, I looked over at Raghu and his face showed a calm certainty of a man who accepts that, in disagreement, any kind of behavior, I suppose, is possible....

...but sweetheart deals with symbiotic faculty—symbiotic because, like a parasitic vine, they enjoy coiling and clinging, but, ultimately, they kill the host plant. Symbiotic faculty have nearly killed these two colleges. The many symbiotic faculty at both colleges have enjoyed bountiful reassigned time, or, as it used to be called, release time--that’s a more telling phrase because it explains the motivation of such faculty who want to get out of the classroom and be administrators. Reassigned time is really a euphymism for faculty welfare and has turned our college into a playground for spoiled children. Not our students, but a few faculty who want to teach courses--two courses, not five courses as they were hired to do. Some of us—and that includes Raghu—say this scandalous system for the favored few is over. If you were hired to teach, it is time to teach.

Bob Cosgrove:

...I think the accolades for Mr. Raghu Mathur are impressive; however, I think [they are] inappropriate during an active Presidential search. Have all the other candidates been advised that they could bring people to this meeting or other meetings to have their cases presented equally?

Joyce Greenspan:

Good evening. I’m Joyce Greenspan, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League of Orange County and Long Beach. The ADL is an 84 year old human rights and civil rights organization whose mission is to fight antisemitism and to secure the justice and fair treatment of all citizens alike.

I am here to protest a Saddleback College Community Education forum to be given by Steven Frogue about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I believe it is important for the community to know that Mr. Frogue has personal beliefs about the assassination and ADL that must be brought to light. Mr. Frogue, in a Nov. 25, 1996 interview by the LA Times, is quoted to have said, I quote, “I believe Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the ADL. That’s right. I believe the ADL was behind it.” Unquote.

The speakers he has asked this esteemed Board to underwrite are known conspiracy theorists. Sherman Skolnick...is on the advisory board of Spotlight, the virulently antisemitic and racist newspaper of the right- wing organization Liberty Lobby that was founded by Willis Carto, perhaps the most influential professional antisemite in the United States.

Another of the speakers invited to speak, Michael Collins Piper, is on the staff of the Spotlight and a regular writer of articles for that newspaper. Piper has written a book called Final Judgment in which he...alleges that the Israel Mossad killed JFK.

...In addition, the founder of Spotlight, Willis Carto, founded the Institute for Historical Review, an organization which is a movement to deny the Holocaust. In the February 6, 1995 issue of the Spotlight, Carto refers to the Holocaust as, quote, “A profitable hoax.” Unquote.

I suggest that this Board of Trustees read a copy of the Spotlight so you can see for youself who the speakers of this forum will be. Once you have appropriately educated yourself about Mr. Frogue’s theories in regard to the JFK assassination, you may want to reconsider the negative mesage you’ll be sending the community by approving funding for speakers for this class. You may also want to reconsider holding such a forum. I thank you.

Frogue’s response:

I would just like to respond just ever so briefly...Sherman Skolnick I’ve known for years. He lives in Chicago, where I’m from. He did monumental work on the John F. Kennedy Assassination, the Watergate plane crash that killed Mrs. E. Howard Hunt near Chicago’s Midway Ariport.

Mr. Dave Emory and John Lodge are both devotees and almost disciples of Mrs....Russell, the granddaughter of the founder of the I Magnin department stores, and the daughter, I believe, of Rabbi Edgar Magnin.

Michael Collins Piper--I met him in Washington, D.C., a year ago. He has written a book, Final Judgment, which blames certain elements of the CIA associated through James...Engleton, head of counter-intelligence, and certain elements of organized crime for the assasssination.

Regarding the quote in the Los Angeles Times, November 25th: like about everything else in that article, it’s untrue. I never said it, it’s ridiculous and--how they can quote me as saying something like that--I never said it. It’s ridiculous, and I never said it. So much for that.

Roy Bauer (interrupting):

All the papers are liars. All the papers. The Register, the LA Times, the Irvine World News—they’re all liars. Is there a conspiracy against you? Is that what’s going on?

Frogue:

No...we’re getting away from this. What we have...

Bauer:

Are you still a fan of the Institute for Historical Review?

Frogue:

Mr...? You’re out of order, please.

[For media coverage, see especially:

1. Front Page of LA Times, August 21
O.C. College Course Claims JFK Conspiracy
By MICHAEL GRANBERRY
TIMES STAFF WRITER

2. LA Times Editorial, August 22, 1997 (LA and O.C. editions)
ORANGE COUNTY PERSPECTIVE
Colleges Should Stay Miles Away From Bigotry [TIMES COMMENTARY]

3. Orange County Register, August 22, 1997
College district cancels assassination seminar [KINDY]
EDUCATION: Protests lead to the demise of a class on the John F. Kennedy shooting.
By KIMBERLY KINDY
The Orange County Register

4. LA Times, Front Page, August 22
Saddleback’s JFK Conspiracy Seminar Spiked [ARCHIBOLD/GRANBERRY/BROWER]
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
MICHAEL GRANBERRY
and KIMBERLY BROWER
SPECIAL TO THE TIMES]

[BACK TO THE BOARD MEETING:]

Alice Patton:

I’m just curious about one thing, as Bob Cosgrove was. IVC is in the middle of the Presidential hiring [process]. Is it appropriate to have people speaking about a candidate when there are people in the room that are serving on the hiring committee?...Will other candidates get equal opportunity to speak to the Board?

--And I’d like an answer.

Frogue:

This is an open meeting. People have been saying things for and against President Mathur, in his Interim Position, and I don’t know a way of stopping anybody from saying whatever they want about the search process.

Alice:

But will there be an equal opporunity?

Fortune:

There is right now.

Kathie Hodge:

I think comments about candidates is inappropriate—even though public comments—you cannot restrain public comments. I think comments regarding a active process are inappropriate. And I think it would be wise to have the future speakers on that particular issue not address that topic tonight.

Richard Zucker:

...The wastefulness and absurdity of such a process is obvious. What is also obvious is the insult, anger, and exploitation that the unsuccessful candidates will feel when they learn that they have unwittingly participated in a scheme--a scheme that I believe is intended to result in an offer to our Interim President. Dr. Lombardi is quoted in the local newspaper as not personally favoring this approach to selecting a newPresident, but he says there does not seem to be another model that would get the support of the Board majority. Thank you, Dr. Lombardi, for clarifying the true source of this ingenious plan. (Applause.)

The newspaper article goes on to say that, according to Dr. Lombardi, the Board would defend this unusual practice of interviewing all candidates regardless of qualifications to make sure that Raghu Mathur is not eliminated unfairly. That’s a quote from the article. I know that it is FederalLaw, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to provide accomodations to the disabled, to make it possible for them to compete fairly in a world that is dominated by able-bodied people. Is this the motive of the Board to compensate for the fact that our Interim President is effectively disabled?

Last week, one of the popular news magazines...reported on abuses of the Americans with Disabilities Act—obese people, people who can’t sleep, and even people who are oversexed—are claiming that the ADA applies to them. Now it appears that people who suffer from unfavorable public opinion are provided with special accomodations, too.

My forgoing remarks are actually only a preface to this more important matter. President Frogue has publicly proclaimed his belief that balloting conducted by the Academic Senate of Irvine Valley College was rigged on at least two occasions. He has inferred on the basis on no real evidence that tampering took place to manipulate outcomes. But he is wrong. I likewise conclude that the Presidential search is rigged to produce an outcome. Prove me wrong. In the spirit of the remarks made by the esteemed member of the Board of Governors, prove me wrong by selecting your next President unanimously and with input from all constituencies.

Thank you.

Lewis Long:

...Mr. Mathur, would you please advise the Board how much reassigned time you had before you accepted the Interim President position?

Mathur:

They’re well aware.

Audience:

“We’d like to know!” (No response.)

Jan Horn:

My name is Jan Horn. I’m a professor at Irvine Valley College. Raghu Mathur is being hailed as a hero for his tough stance against reassigne d time and his tough decisions to cut that reassigned time. His position is new and surprising to those of us who have worked with him for many years prior to his annointment. Raghu received 60%-80% reassigned time as School Chair for years. In addition, for at least the past three yrears--possibly four--he received a stipend, equivalent to 6 LHE reassigned time, for his role as Tech Prep Coordinator. So he has had 100%--or close to it--reassigned time for a number of years, and now he and his followers are talking about the disagraces and abuses [of reassigned time]...Does President Mathur think he did nothing during that job?...I’d like you to take a look at his loa...and then see what he actually did about reassigned time, not what he is saying about it now. (Applause.)

Sherry Miller-White:

...I know that you cannot mandate that people act or behave in a civil or humane manner, but we’re coming very close to it being necessary!

Frogue:

Thank you very much. (I) appreciate that.

The notorious "Reorg," 1997

REORGANIZATION
From The Dissenter’s Dictionary (12/99)

     During a closed board meeting on July 16, 1997, the board majority, amid protests by the board minority (each of whom walked out), boldly reorganized the district, eliminating 10 IVC faculty school chairs and replacing them with 5 deans imported from Saddleback College. The action had been agendized as a "personnel action," since, according to the BROWN ACT, such actions are among the few permitted during closed session. Eventually, OC Superior Court Judge Tully Seymour ruled that, through these actions, the board had violated the Brown Act, for it had failed properly to agendize the matter and had engaged in an action—a reorganization—that, by law, must be done in public, not in closed session.
     The reorganization came as a surprise, for (as trustee Lang later explained) neither administrators nor shared governance groups had been consulted, and, indeed, the Sorenson Group (consultants hired to help the district with its organizational problems) strongly advised against the board taking actions absent discussion with shared governance groups. Indeed, at IVC, only days earlier, faculty were assured by Acting President Mathur that no such action would be contemplated until the fall, when faculty returned from summer vacation. In fact, however, Mathur was the key figure in the planning and execution of the reorganization, and his assurances were lies. All of this is revealed in legal declarations provided in connection with Bauer II.

     In a sworn declaration dated 9/8/98, Bob Loeffler (then IVC VP of Business Services) writes that, "In May of 1997, during an executive meeting of the three VPs and interim President Mathur, Mathur directed VP Burgess to develop a plan for the reorganization of the administrative structure of the college. Mathur...wanted VP [Terry] Burgess to develop a plan to institute a 'Dean Model' for the College." According to Burgess, when he then placed the topic of reorganization on the agenda for discussion at a May 13, 1997, Instructional Council meeting, he received a formal reprimand from Mathur: "Mathur stated that the development of the plan to eliminate the ten academic divisions and create four or five new divisions was supposed to be developed in confidence." Mathur then directed Burgess to "inform the Instructional Council that he would accept their recommendation to delay the planning process relevant to the reorganization until...the faculty, staff, and students returned from summer break."
     But the secret planning continued: "Mathur directed me to confidentially continue the development of the plan to eliminate the ten academic divisions at the college and to create four or five new academic divisions...Since I knew that...Mathur's public announcement to delay the planning process was deceptive, when I developed the administrative reorganization plan..., I modified the names of the academic divisions [e.g., the name of the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences] so that I could subsequently identify my work...On July 16, 1997, the Board Majority adopted the five-dean model that I had prepared at Mathur's direction. President Mathur had submitted a copy of my plans to the Board Majority and they adopted the five-dean model without modification, including the deliberate changes I had made in the names of the academic divisions." (From a legal declaration, 9/11/98.)
     The BM's motives for the reorganization were probably complex. The school chairs, as faculty, could express objections to BM (and Mathurian) policies and actions with near impunity, and this the autocratic BM could not abide. At the same time, the Old Guard has aways hated IVC's school chair model, perhaps owing to its blurring of the line between faculty and administration. Further, in a faculty chair system, faculty are empowered, but only insofar as they participate in governance, which lazy faculty--those represented by the Old Guard, especially at IVC--are unlikely to do. Thus, do-nothing faculty inevitably views the faculty chair system as "inequitable."
     At a board meeting on January 25, 1999, Trustee Fortune acknowledged that the July '97 reorganization was "too extreme" in its creation of "big divisions."

LIES! LIES! LIES! --the May '97 Board Meeting

[Many issues arose during the May 1997 board meeting. The transcripts below concern only: (1) the announcement of the IVC Academic Senate vote of “no confidence” in the board, (2) Trustee Frogue’s remark about “liars” in the room; (3) Trustee Frogue’s response to the announcement of the results of the vote of “no confidence.”

Please note the blatant ad hominem employed by Trustee John Williams against IVC Academic Senate President Kate Clark.]

May 19, 1997
Meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees

[IVC Academic Senate President Kate Clark's statement during the public comments portion of the meeting--and her subsequent brief exchange with Trustee Williams]

President Clark: It is not a pleasant circumstance that brings me to this podium this evening--to report that the entire Irvine Valley College faculty has, by a vote of 63 to 24, declared "no confidence" in this Board of Trustees because of quote "repeated actions taken which indicate its unwillingness to participate in the spirit and intent of shared governance" end quote. Contrary to claims made by Ms. Miller-White, for those of you with political understanding, this represents a disapproval rating of 72.5 percent of the faculty. The referendum was introduced from the floor of the Representative Council and had language crafted by all members present. It was submitted by a vote of 18 to 2 to 2 to a vote of our entire faculty in an open and fair election monitored by our elections committee. The Academic Senate--and, at IVC, that is the entire faculty--has spoken and when the Academic Senate speaks it is prudent for this district to listen. A vote of no confidence is understood to be a most grave action not undertaken lightly. The last vote of no confidence taken by IVC faculty was registered against former President Ed Hart in the early 1980s. It is to be considered by all an overwhelming signal to the college, to the district, and to the community we serve that severe problems persist and cry for remedy. The Academic Senate is the duly constituted voice of the faculty, recognized as such by law, by Title V, by your own board policies. As the IVC Academic [Senate] President, I am the individual designed to speak on behalf of the faculty as a whole. I carry to the various meetings I attend the visions, the concerns, as expressed by the majority of the faculty through open, democratic processes. I have always attempted to be scrupulous, when I speak, to distinguish when I represent Senate actions, when I speak the sentiments of the faculty as a whole, and when I carry the voice of concern raised by some but not discussed as a whole. If I must be a cautious speaker, then I ask you as board members to be cautious listeners and to distinguish between decisions reached and delivered by the authentic voice of the faculty--the Academic Senates--and the whispered rumors or innuendoes of those who approach you outside the process. They do not speak for faculty as a whole. They cannot, and their appeals or their petitions must be weighed accordingly. The Academic Senate by law is more than just an advisor body. Your failure to understand that principle and our partnership reflects the very depth of your lack of understanding about AB 1725. We have brought our entreaties before this body as requests for meetings and orientations. We have been stifled in our attempts to bring such requests before you as a docket item. Our requests to you for legal remedies have also gone unanswered, and we tire of asking. The plebiscite just taken at our college is no longer request; it is a public demand that you work with us to rectify the ills that plague this district and to restore both the obligations and responsibilities delegated to us by law and your own adopted board policies 2100.1.

Trustee Williams: The Brown Act allows a brief interaction with a public speaker: President Clark, did you state to any employee of this district that, if you didn't get those things that you wanted, that you would shut down IVC?

Clark: Never.

Williams: OK, thank you.

[Later in the meeting, trustees Lorch and Frogue repeat the charge against Kate. Evidently, the story that Kate had said they she “would shut down IVC” was reported to trustees by Raghu. Judging by the unreliability of similar charges offered by Mathur over the years, I think Kate’s reputation is safe.]
…..
TRUSTEE FROGUE’S REPORT:

My report will be brief. I did provide (a bit [indecipherable] report) here about certain things that have been going on here. I did want to announce that I did this afternoon talk to the Governor's Office and I did ask him to call a conference of the Presidents of the Community College Districts of California to review the problems with AB1725, the relations with the Academic Senates. I think it's reached a --we've reached a point here where the Academic Senates might not have confidence in us, and frankly I don't think we have much confidence in them, and it's something, it's a problem I think we should perhaps reach some agreement on. So I've put in a call and I will be following it up with a letter.

We have the same type of problem here that we've had over the last three years here. And we've seen it in this last week here, where lies get printed in the newspapers...It's called "blow back." It's the oldest game in the book. You plant something in the newspaper that's false--I've suffered this type of stuff personally from people in this very room: repeating lies. The lies, just by getting printed get--"Well, it was printed; it therefore must be the truth." We see the same type of thing here with the fact that the CCLC was going to investigate. Never happened, never happened. They spin this stuff--people (can be?) inventive, conscientious, and creative liars and the truth seems to be whatever lies they think they can get away with. And it's time that maybe a little bit of this stuff stops.
. . .
We were at the conference in Washington, D.C. We had part of the first day there off and I visited the Arlington National Cemetery and the eternal flame...Walked down a little bit. Eighteen inch cross: the grave of Robert Francis Kennedy. There was a young family with a child there; the little child asked, "Who was Robert Kennedy?" And the wife turns to the husband, "Who was Robert Kennedy?" They didn't even know. And to those of us who lived through that, it's relatively shocking.

I turned, however, and there's an inscription on the wall that left me transfixed. And it said that every time a person stands up, and stands up to, that which is wrong, they start a small ripple, and if enough people stand up against what is wrong, they can truly cause a wave to form that will change the world. It was the most beautiful thing that I've ever seen. Very inspiring and something that we can all learn from and profit from.

[Later in the meeting:]

Trustee Frogue speaks of "rigged elections"

Trustee Frogue: Thank you Miss Miller-White...As far as kettles and pots, here, I think it's—

Miller-White: Black is a good color.

Trustee Frogue: (indecipherable)...and it's beautiful, too, but, uh, as far as the reputations of those governance units in our District, maybe it's, it's not the best color--we should be striving for openness.

(Miller-White: "[indecipherable] is fine.")

Frogue: ...I think it has been fine. I have been, uh, you know, a member of CTA for thirty years and even had an Academic Senate at the school that I teach and I follow the...[indecipherable]. I do believe under the (virtue?) of this Board that the Academic Senate meets.

I've seen rigged elections. (Indecipherable) votes of no confidence--I've seen rigged elections in one of the colleges. I've seen it twice, personally, personally--with rigged elections. And so when, uh, people talk about--you know, uh--votes of this or votes of that, I just think you have to take it with a grain of salt. Moving along...(Roy Bauer begins to speak over Trustee Frogue: "Are you saying that...") The California...School Employee Association...

Roy Bauer: [Again:] Excuse me. Are you saying that the referendum was rigged?

Trustee Frogue: No.

(?): Then what are you saying?

Trustee Frogue: I'm saying that there've been rigged elections in the past.

(?:) By whom?

Trustee Frogue: The Academic Senate of Irvine Valley College [mixed voices. Frogue responds to something:] I just said it. There have been rigged elections...

Bauer: Was it [i.e., the vote of no confidence] rigged or not?

Trustee Frogue: Rigged elections at Irvine College in the past...

(?:)By whom?

Trustee Frogue: The Irvine Valley College Academic Senate.

Jan Wyma: We've been called liars here tonight; we may as well get it out in the open.

Bauer: Who is the liar and what's the lie?

Wyma: (We're having?) a public meeting and you call our faculty liars.

Trustee Frogue: I said there have been rigged elections at Irvine Valley College. I've seen them. Twice. You want me to name names? [Indecipherable mixed voices.] The evidence is in the record.

(?): It exonerated the Senate.

Trustee Frogue: Pardon me?

(?): The record exonerated the Senate.

Trustee Frogue: The record did not exonerate the Senate.

(?): I'd like (you?) to name names.

Trustee Frogue: The record...We can, if you'd like [mixed voices, indecipherable; reference is made by someone to Frogue's speaking of liars.] No, I didn't call anybody "liars." I said there were rigged elections.

Bauer: You, sir, are a coward.

Trustee Frogue: No, I'm not…I'm saying that there were rigged elections--for the fourth time.

Bauer: Who's a liar? [Mixed voices, indecipherable; general chaos.]

Trustee Fortune: Point of order. This sounds like an Irvine Valley College faculty meeting--(in other words, I would wish you'd move [us] along?).

Trustee Frogue: Yes, Yes. I understand.

Saddleback Community College District goes on "priority 2" watch list

 WATCH LIST (1997). The South Orange County Community College District was placed on the state chancellor's "priority 3" fiscal watch list way back in March, 1996. In November of '97, however, it joined two other districts statewide by being placed on the more worrisome "priority 2" watch list, owing mostly to a dip in budget reserve to only 1.2% and five straight years of deficit spending. 

 Self-styled "fiscal conservatives" John Williams and Steven Frogue served on the board during this entire period. They had also consistently supported faculty salary raises. 

 At the time that the district was placed at priority 2, 88% of its budget went to salaries and benefits, allowing it to have--by far--the highest pay scale in the state. The state-wide average for salaries and benefits was 83%. 

 In a November '97 editorial, an alarmed Irvine World News asked, "who has been watching the store in the South Orange County district...?" 

The IWN also remarked upon the Board Majority's vaunted July '97 reorganization, which was alleged to have saved the district big money: "[W]hile the four-member board majority was patting itself on the back for saving a purported $1 million by shaking up the administrative structure of IVC, the real figures show any savings were no more than a quarter of that, not counting legal costs the move engendered. Taking into account those legal hassles, the move likely will end up costing the district money." A careful examination by the IVC faculty senate later revealed that the reorganization in fact cost the college money. The district was finally removed from the watch list in the Fall of '99.