“WE DON’T NEED TO HIRE A CLOWN”: FACULTY SOUND OFF ON MATHUR (1997)

THE CONTEXT: Raghu had recently been appointed “permanent” President of IVC after having been named interim President in April. Both appointments were later determined to be illegal (owing to Brown Act violations). During the previous July, the district had been “reorganized,” again illegally, or so the courts determined later on. Evidently, in October or November, President Mathur held an administrative “retreat” in Lake Arrowhead, which produced a list of possible inspirational activities for Flex Week. This list was widely distributed and comments were solicited. The results of that solicitation were compiled in a document. The remarks that they contain provides a wonderful glimpse into how Mathur was perceived in late 1997, six months into his reign. One might compare that perception with the one that prevails today throughout the district. Mathur did not distribute the document, but I got a copy of it and included it in the ‘Vine of November 8, 1997 (Dissent was an outgrowth of the ‘Vine; the 'Vine concerned IVC news; Dissent was for the entire district).]

The staff development questionnaire As you know, not long ago, a survey concerning “staff development activities” was conducted. It presented a long list of “ideas” (such as “make people laugh” and “put on talent shows”), and respondents (viz., faculty) were asked to rank or rate them. The results of that survey are now available. I am told that, because the results exude negativity, the president sought to publish only the “score” results, which are virtually incomprehensible. That is, he sought to suppress the “comments” results, which are entirely comprehensible. But he was pressured by those who have a commitment to openness even greater than his own to make all results available, and a compromise was reached. Accordingly, the full report will not be distributed, but it will be made available at the Office of Instruction to those few who ask for it. Naturally, I have been distributing the full report like a sonofabitch. Here’s a sample of the comments contained therein: 

  —COMMENTS AND IDEAS: 

 * I felt 'valued' and 'recognized' until last November's board election and subsequent 'reign of terror'. None of the suggestions above are important to the success of the college. Once a great success, IVC can now prepare for mediocrity. 

 *None! Waste of time! Some of these are already in place anyway. 

 *This is stupid!.... 

 *I will not print my name for fear of continual harassment by the illegitimate college president. 

 *Circulate admonishment trading cards. 1 ) Title the administrative newsletter 'The Back door Mathur'—chronicling the lively adventures of IVC's irrepressible and oh so unethical illegitimate president.... 

 *To recognize achievement try shared governance rather than an autocracy from the board....   *Resignation of the President of IVC. 

 *Restoration of meaningful shared governance. 

 *Resignation of board majority. 

 *This is ridiculous! I am unwilling to participate in this charade of camaraderie. I maintain collegial professional relationships with fellow professors who earn my respect! I hope we are not using taxpayer money to develop or 'print' this nonsense.... 

 *Enforced social events are fiascoes. Enforced or forced 'laughter' is worse.... 

 *Most of these are silly. We have no re-assigned time to do jobs that are necessary and required yet we are being asked to consider all of these social events and time in other people's classes, laughing.... 

 *These things will not take care of campus problems. Ethics and morality will as would respect which is mutual. If and when the president and Board show respect for the rest of us, we may reach a point of returning it. This still is not happening from the top down. Reassigning faculty could have been a good solution a few years ago. NOT NOW. Forcing people together will only make things worse. 

 Questions: 

 1 ) How many taxpayers dollars were spent on this retreat? 

 2) How does Mr. Mathur justify being named college president in a process which included no meaningful input from staff or faculty? 

 3) How can Mr. Mathur expect meaningful collaboration among a group so thoroughly demoralized by a corrupt presidential search? Dear Pam - Please convey to the president that I cannot respond to these frivolous questions. The only important issue on the IVC campus at present is the restoration of shared governance and the removal of irrational and destructive Board members and their illegally selected appointees....

 *Illegitimate president Mathur resign. Are you people out of your minds?! Replace Raghu Mathur with John Ausmus. As a managerial exercise, ask Raghu how he would arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. This survey is ludicrous, given the state of affairs at Irvine Valley College. We are ashamed of the president and all that he stands for.... 

 *There are some really awful ideas on this list. Also, many seem to have little to do with staff development. Also most are too general or vague to be meaningful. If you really want people to work together and feel like meaningful members of a team—TRY SHARED GOVERNANCE! 

 *You've got to be kidding! We wasted money on a retreat to do this? Pam—Although I realize that the ideas generated in the "staff Development Activities" survey are not your own, I find it very difficult to take this survey seriously. 

 First, I do not need, nor do I desire, formal recognition for personal or professional events. My work and my personal life speak for themselves. 

 Second, I find the "working together" portion of this survey unbelievably naive. It shows just how out-of-touch President Mathur is if he thinks lists like this will be viewed seriously. "Provide strong leadership" is not someone who slings crap with one hand and offers hugs with the other. 

 Also, we are already doing more work for less, so just when would teas, talent shows, and kayaking take place? This is not a debutante society. This is a place where serious work must take place, where educating students [is] a priority, where caring about others and working collegially comes from within and not from some "happy list". It is time to "walk the walk" and not just "talk the talk". If this administration expects to be taken seriously, how about encouraging workshops on shared governance? Because until shared governance is truly and fully implemented, Irvine Valley College doesn't have a hope in hell of becoming the wonderful little jewel it once was. 

 First, I would like to know how much money Mr. Mathur spent on the retreat in Lake Arrowhead. 

 Secondly, I would like to say, whatever was spent, was wasted. If this questionnaire is the outcome of Mr. Mathur's retreat, I as a taxpayer want my money back, and I ask for a recall of the president. In looking over this questionnaire it seems that Mr. Mathur is not aware that some of his "strategies" have been in place for years. We have celebrated teaching excellence for years with something called "Teacher of the Year" (full- and part-time). The more I read of this questionnaire, and the more I experience as an employee, the more I see we have hired a fool as president. This used to be a happy place to work. Classified staff and faculty were very willing to participate on any number of college related activities. Mr. Mathur and his cohorts have complained about the same people serving on the same committees. Well now you have your way. People have resigned from chairing curriculum, accreditation, research, etc. Have your cohorts stepped forward? Few have. Now you're requiring your administrators to chair committees, and blaming them when they can't get people to volunteer. You've also tried to blame the former accreditation chair for the bad job the new accreditation chair is doing. We have jobs that have remained un-staffed for over a year, and you're talking about job swaps, or crosstraining. Have you ever heard of a contract (CTA & CSEA)? One of your strategies is "Make People Laugh". Is this going to be a requirement? How are you going to "make us laugh"? 

 I've heard it said we should hire a clown to make people laugh. My answer is we don't need to hire a clown, we already have one—he's serving as the president! 

 Mr. Mathur you acquired this job without following established process, the whole process that was followed was a sham, and a set-up for you to be given the job. You continue to say "let bygones be bygones, forget about past history". The problem is you keep creating the very history you want forgotten. You can't be trusted, you spend your time trying to pay people back for some wrong you feel has been done to you, or for lack of support for you or your friend, Steven Frogue. 

 Another strategy suggested in your questionnaire was "Provide Leadership". You are correct, we do need to be provided with leadership. You're just not the one to provide that leadership, and never will be. What happened to college-wide meetings, with the question and answer period??? 

 These remarks are directed to Mr. Mathur, not the rest of the administrative staff. While there are items listed that would seem worthy of attention, I am disheartened to think that any time or effort was spent on these suggestions in light of the Board Majority's Plan for District Reorganization (attached). Clearly the Board majority has a different agenda. 

 The survey reads "Provide additional support staff to allow time for participation in activities." Are the authors of the survey unaware that there is a hiring freeze and that the Board has expressed a desire to cut an additional 2.5% of classified staff (see #8 of the Board document)? And does anyone think that secretaries who read that they will have to compete with each other for their positions (see #9 of the Board document) are going to want teas and socials? Also in reference to "George" in the survey, I assume this means the PlO; but when there is only one PlO for the District (see #11 of the Board document), how will that person find time to keep track of birthdays, etc.? 

 But the survey has already achieved one item—"Making people laugh." Pam—In regards to the Rah-rah staff development activities, I have reviewed the ideas generated at the May administrative retreat and distributed in the recent memo, and I have a few more ideas that you might add to the list: 

 1 ) Hire cheerleaders to bounce around campus chanting the names of faculty and staff. 

 2) Have students paint themselves with school colors, and then spell out the name of the faculty/staff member of the week on their backsides. 

 3) Publish a ten-most-wanted list. 

 4) Get all of the faculty and staff together in a swimming pool full of strawberry jello and play pin the tail on the jackass. With my apologies to you, since I realize that the ideas that you have distributed are not your own, I must say that I don't shovel crap like this out of my horse's stall. I don't care if everyone gets together to give me a hug on my birthday, or if everyone knows that I have been named the Lifetime President of the International Society of Hog Callers, and hosting presidential "teas" to encourage campus good fellowship in the current atmosphere is like handing the captain of the Titanic a thimble. Reading suggestions like "having staff talent shows" makes me want to cry, thinking that anyone who could seriously suggest such a thoroughly absurd idea is in an administrative position at this college. 

 There are two problems here: first, these are not new ideas. The Staff Development Office has been doing things like those suggested here, including campus barbecues, dinners, appreciation nights, and trips to places like the Bowers Museum and the Dana Point Marine Institute. Second, and more important, the most significant way to recognize achievement is to solicit and act on the suggestions and ideas of the faculty and staff. An institution shows most effectively that it values its members when it treats them as part of the governance structure, granting them real responsibilities in the day-to-day business of the institution. Telling members of the faculty and staff "Happy Birthday," giving them flowers, and then telling them to get lost is insulting and patronizing, and encourages only bitterness and bad feeling. The suggestions listed in the memo make only a show of appreciation, without any real substance. The only kind of appreciation that counts is based upon respect, and respect is shown when one is rewarded for her efforts on the part of the college, not insulted by presidents and trustees who attack those who have worked hardest for the college's good. Until these insults stop, no one on this campus has received any real appreciation. 

 Please understand that these comments are not aimed at you, but at this substance of these truly absurd, horribly misguided suggestions. Frankly, I refuse to participate in any of the bullshit listed in the memo until real shared governance, not in form but in fact, is restored to this campus. The memo did achieve one of its own suggestions in that it made me laugh, but it was a hollow, bitter laugh.... 

 *The list of ideas generated of ways "to better work with each other as colleagues" is insulting. In my many years of working at IVC, I have been responsible for participating in the creation and maintenance of curriculum, in decisions that affect our facility and our budget, in the hiring of faculty, classified, and administrative employees, and in the development of tools for validating everything from the matriculation process to grading policies. 

 How dare you ask me whether I want to go kayaking. And how dare you suggest that I might "swap jobs' with my School's secretary or the VP of Instruction in order to discover what I already know excruciatingly well: everyone here works hard all the time. I am all too aware of why these lists of absurd ideas have been circulated. 72.5% of the employees of this college have profound differences with the unethical and illegal actions of the SOCCCD governing board and of those who participate with and benefit from the board's actions. Below you will find the text of Title 5 regulations regarding precisely how "working together works: "Consult collegially" means that the district governing board shall develop policies on academic and professional matters by 

 A) relying primarily on the advice and judgment of the academic senate for: 

 1) Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites; 

 2) Degree and certificate programs; 

 3) Grading policies; 

 4) Educational program development; 

 5) Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success; 

 6) College govemance structures, as related to faculty roles; 

 7) Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation process; 

 8) Policies for faculty professional development activities; 

 9) Processes for program review; and 

 10) Processes for institutional planning and budget development. 

 This is not a country club, folks. When the village is on fire, only a fool or arsonist holds an ice cream social. In fact, in the current atmosphere, I find your offer to "make people laugh" threatening and insidious. Soon, the results of the “Accreditation” survey will be made available. I can’t wait. [END]

Is it PR spinning or stonewalling? (Irvine World News editorial)

Irvine World News editorial 

From the Nov. 6 edition: 

Is it PR spinning or stonewalling? 

     Trustees of the South Orange County Community College District—the majority foursome— have become increasingly unresponsive to questions from legitimate news organizations about matters that concern district residents--you know, the taxpayers who pay the bills for this public institution. 

     The four trustees who make up the majority of the district's seven-member governing board either don't respond to telephone inquiries, or provide only cryptic answers to questions that cry for further explanation. 

     On another front, they have attempted to find someone—a public relations person—who can "control the press" on their behalf and deliver them from criticism. 

     Even district administrators who do answer telephone inquiries seem reluctant to respond fully to legitimate questions by representatives of news organizations. 

     And the leaders of the faculty union, a powerful voice in the district for many years, simply don't respond at all. 

    They are stonewalling, perhaps in the belief they're untouchable. Because of tenure, perhaps they are. 

     But if the people who are running this multi-million-dollar public entity, either in name or de facto, will not respond to questions by legitimate representatives of legitimate news organizations, where does that leave the taxpayers? 

     In the dark, we'd say. Whether they want to admit it, the college folks are answerable to a public constituency and news organizations are the conduits for information the constituency has a right to know. 

     The public has to wonder what these public officials and/or public employees are hiding. If they feel the need to be so secretive, can it be good? Is it in the interests of the tax-paying public? 

     Or is it that whatever they're doing won't stand up to public scrutiny? [End] 

* * *

     In the same issue, a letter by Mr. Steven J. Fischer appears. It supports Raghu and bemoans the way the IWN has been “tainting” Raghu’s reputation.

Re Frogue: Two articles in the OC Jewish Heritage/Recall petition

Two articles in the OC Jewish Heritage 

From the Oct. 24 edition:

 

1. Supporters of Frogue pack meeting of college board 

By Stan Brin 

     Opponents of controversial South Orange County Community College District president Steven Frogue found themselves all but locked out of Monday night's monthly board meeting after a group of roughly 30 boisterous Frogue supporters arrived early and took the board room's limited seating. 

     Members of the group described themselves as followers of Willis Carto's "Liberty Lobby," identified more than 30 years ago as a neo-nazi organization. 

     Roughly 100 persons, most of them Frogue opponents, listened to the proceedings on a loudspeaker installed in the courtyard of the Saddleback College library, Many complained that the seats inside the board room were occupied long before the meeting began. 

     Opponents are organizing a recall petition drive, inspired by Frogue's attempt to promote a college seminar that would promote anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. 

     One after the other, the neo-nazis came to the microphone and accused the board minority and the Anti-Defamation League of trying to deprive Frogue of his civil rights and to cover up an alleged ADL Mossad plot to kill President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. 

     "I'm tired of a thought police running things," James X. Kennedy, a Frogue supporter, told the board. "And the Mossad did kill Kennedy!" 

     Four speakers with Muslim names praised Frogue and attacked the ADL "I am deeply disturbed by threats by Jewish organizations, the ADL and the JDL, to 'take him out,'" one of them said. 

     ADL volunteer Phil Brustein replied that "there is no civil right to spend tax money or student fees on an ideologically motivated project." 

     The neo-nazi group loudly cheered one another’s speeches and interrupted those who disagreed with them. Board president Frogue, in charge of maintaining order, did not attempt to quiet his supporters. One of his supporters installed a video camera in a section reserved for the press and taped the comments of Frogue opponents. 

     A Frogue supporter, board member John Williams, a Republican, called the objections of Frogue's opponents irrelevant to his job of board president. One speaker, Saddleback College Prof. Glenn Roevenmore [sic, but I like it], suggested that support and opposition for Frogue had nothing to do with his nazi ties but from his backing of one side in an internal, nonpartisan administrative struggle. 

     The single item on the agenda, a motion to remove Frogue as president, failed by an expected three-to-four vote with Frogue himself casting the deciding vote. 

     Following the meeting, Frogue closeted himself at the end of a hallway with five members of the neo-nazi group, causing one opponent to comment that "now we know how they got all the seats....” 

     When a reporter pointed to the neo-nazis surrounding the board president, Dorothy Fortune, a member of the Orange County Democratic Central Committee as well as a Frogue supporter, appeared startled. She recovered and said that Frogue's personal politics were irrelevant to the job of running the college district. 

2. Official recall petition says Steven Frogue is ‘disgraced’ 

     The following is the text of the petition being circulated urging that a recall election be held to remove Steven Frogue from his position on the South Orange County Community College District board: 

     To the Honorable Board of the South Orange County Community College District: 

     Pursuant to the California Constitution and Californian election laws, we the undersigned registered and qualified electors of the South Orange County Community College District of Orange County respectfully state that we seek the recall and removal of STEVEN J.FROGUE holding office of Trustee of the Governing Board of the South Orange County Community College District of Orange County California. 

     We demand an election of a successor to that office.... 

     The grounds for the recall are as follows: 

 • found guilty on two counts of violating the California Open Meeting Law by Judge William McDonald of the Orange County Superior Court.... 

 • openly opposed, in writing, shared governance, a governance structure mandated by state laws....   

 • disgraced nationally the District and its colleges by proposing and approving his own course, a JFK assassination course "giving legitimacy to bigoted ravings with no balance from opposing points of view." 

 • attacked, insulted and ignored—in pub1ic meetings of the Board of Trustees--students faculty, staff and members of the community.... 

 • deliberately circumvented—in the IVC Presidential hiring—the Board of Trustees’ published hiring policy.... 

 • received a no-confidence vote of 72.5 per cent of the Irvine Valley College faculty.... 

     In his reply, Frogue did not address the issues raised by the supporters of the recall, but concluded: “Petition is a waste of taxpayer money. Please don't sign it!"

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.