...Some friends had spoken of the possibility of an election party, but nothing ever materialized. But then, on this day, we heard that Pete Maddox had secured a room for the evening at the Holiday Inn on La Paz.
Most of us realized that Maddox and [Leo] Galcher’s election chances were dicey, and so, not wishing to experience communal disappointment I suppose, some decided to monitor the election from the comfort of home. But I’d never been to this sort of party, and so, after going home and feeding my cats Buster and Sunny, I headed over to La Paz.
The room at the Inn was set up in the usual way for such functions: tables and chairs, food, busy busboys, clinking glasses, a blaring TV displaying the vacant face of Jerry Dunphy. (Evidently, we couldn’t get OCN.) When I arrived, there were only five or six others, but soon, some 40 and 50 people were in the room.
Later in the evening, someone said that, as you look around the room, you see the very best people of the district: people known for their integrity and decency. I could not help imagining the party for the other side: Mr. McClendon discoursing on democracy and unionism; Lee Walker in the corner, trying to think of the name of the Governor; Ken Woodward hissing and sneering and alerting others of his “Ph.D. in economics”; a bepolyestered Sherry bitching and moaning about her unparalleled labors at the Xerox machine; some of the “Scandalous Boys” leering and choking and turning red; Frogue and Mathur trading paranoid fantasies. In a room like that, no decent person could resist the urge to go postal.
At about 9:00, we got news about the absentee votes. It wasn’t good. Pete assured us, however, that Maddox/Glacher had made their presence known at the end of the campaign, and the absentee ballots reflect the situation near the beginning of the campaign, when Padberg and Wagner had been busy sending mailers. People were reassured.
I talked with lots of people while I nursed two over-priced beers. Eventually, I talked with Pete, who seemed hopeful but realistic about the situation. We agreed that the Maddox/Galcher team had put up a very good fight, and, if “we” lose, we will be able to hold our heads up high. I offered that you can’t really expect to compete against huge chunks of sewer money and the other side’s willingness to do whatever it takes to win, no matter how unseemly and unethical.
One thing our union leadership and Padberg/Wagner have in common, it seems, is a willingness to embrace the notion, long discredited among civilized folk, that the “end justifies the means.” I remember challenging Sherry to acknowledge this aspect of her “leadership” at a forum shortly after the notorious ’96 campaign. (January 10, 1997.) On that occasion, she said that the leadership had to resort to unsavory campaign tactics in order to “preserve life as we know it.”
“So,” I said, “you are saying that the end justifies the means.” “No,” she answered. “I am not saying that at all. I’m saying that we needed to take this action [using a homophobic flier] to protect life as we know it.” Oh. At the time, I got the distinct impression that the woman does not know what the phrase “end justifies the means” means.
And Padberg and Wagner? They were a part of a larger effort by the right-winged Education Alliance to place proponents of “traditional values” and “school choice” on school boards.
Isn’t honesty a traditional value? Well, yes, but it must take a back seat when victory for the righteous is at stake, apparently. There is, of course, no “tide of liberalism” sweeping through south county. And, as trustees, Padberg and Wagner will be able to do absolutely nothing to prevent the El Toro airport. Padberg and Wagner lied and deceived to get elected.
Pete went to the phone and talked with a reporter at the Registrar of Voters. By then, the party was at its liveliest, but I could see that he was getting bad news.
After a while, he walked up and turned down the TV. Everyone hushed. He explained that we had lost both races.
He became eloquent. He spoke of the friends he had made and the quality of the people with whom he had worked during the campaign. He expressed genuine regret that we hadn’t done better.
At one point, Pete, contradicting my philosophers, assured us that the bad guys only win in the short run; they always lose in the long run. This, of course, is false.
Still, we can hope. Who knows? Perhaps someday Mr. P, overcome by one of his bilious thoughts, might lose control of his fancy Beemer, jump a curb, and ram the damn thing up Frogue’s a**. Williams, Fortune, Lorch, Mathur, and their sleazy union allies will then attend their hero’s funeral, where, mysteriously, they will be dispatched by a lurid gas emenating from the Great Man’s gaping mouth. After the vapors clear, peace will break out throughout the district. Once again, things will be right.
The SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT — "[The] blog he developed was something that made the district better." - Tim Jemal, SOCCCD BoT President, 7/24/23
Monday, November 9, 1998
THE CHARACTER OF THE OPPOSITION by Big Bill
[From Dissent 10, 11/9/98]
[Originally entitled:]
THINGS JUST KEEP ON SUCKING by Big Bill [Roy Bauer]
Among philosophers, there have been many who, upon beholding the world, have declared it to be pretty rotten. Surely they are correct. We want to believe that Good always prevails and that Evil never ultimately triumphs, but facts keep getting in the way.
This insight has led some philosophers to take refuge in religion, which provides a larger picture—including God, the judge, and an afterlife. In this grand scheme, ultimately, justice and goodness emerge triumphant, though not in this life.
Me—I’d rather just face up to the fact that, often, things suck. They suck, and they keep on sucking.
* * * * *
On the morning of the election, I drove down to Saddleback College to distribute the latest edition of the Dissent. I started my rounds, as usual, with the 3rd floor of the library, where eager readers of the ‘Vine and the Dissent can always be found. I said hello to some friends and acquaintances.
I also ran into Pam “Same Sex” Zanelli, a non-friend, who regarded me blankly. We exchanged curt “hellos,” the kind that mean “f*ck you.”
When I headed back to my car—a Toyota—I noticed a stunning new European sports car schussing about in the parking lot. “Serious bucks,” I thought. “Wow.” As the car came nearer, I realized that it was driven by none other than Mr. “PF,” one of the more odious members of the union’s Old Guard. (I could be wrong; I only saw him for a moment.) He seemed to smirk at me as he drove past.
Mr. PF is a member of the most conspicuously abominable group within the union: the “Scandalous Boys” [Fine Arts Division]. These are deeply troubled men who regularly get into serious trouble on the job. (Can you say, “flagrante delicto”?) Naturally, the union leadership are always there to bail them out.
On several occasions, this particular Scand-Boy has left me messages in which, with a voice that simultaneously quakes and leers, he hurls insult after insult in an apparent uncontrollable frenzy. (I think he may be choking himself somehow. It’s pretty disgusting.)
Here’s what he said during one of these performances, which was preserved as voice-mail:
Hey Roy. [Mr. PF], Saddleback College. Just thought I’d congratulate you for being demoted [a reference to the recent abolition of School Chairs by the Board] and heading back to the classroom, which is what you’re supposed to be doing anyway. Weren’t you hired as a faculty member instead of going around pointing fingers at people? Yeah, I remember a meeting that I was at where you were pointing fingers using the word “that’s immoral.” I guess that’s what you philosophers feel you can do. You can make moral adjudications about other people’s behavior. Meanwhile, that’s OK for you—that’s OK for you to join a group of people who, uh, try to make a claim that a board member is anti-Semitic, but when someone decides to use political free speech by sending out a brochure [namely, the homophobic “same sex” flier]—and I didn’t even agree with the brochure—that’s immoral because it’s homophobic.—Oh, that’s right, the other word you use is “logic.” That’s very logical, isn’t it? [Mr. PF begins to have trouble breathing.] Isn’t it interesting how philosophers always have the time to make moral judgments about other people’s behavior when they don’t look in their own backyard? Oh, that’s right.
That word “logic” comes up again. I just remembered: one of the reasons why you were on the other side is because you were a school chair and you were trying to protect your own backyard. [For the record: I began to criticize the union in November of ‘96, 6 months before becoming chair of my school—a job I had for less than two months.] That’s very logical. And then, when somebody stands up at another meeting and makes a racial slur [huh?], well, that’s very logical according to you. That’s what you said at the meeting. That was OK. That’s not immoral. That’s logical! Oh, I get it! [He breathes very heavily now.] Gee I’m learning about logic without even having to take your class!Let’s move on. Uh, since I can’t find anybody on this campus to, a, stand up for what they believe in [Mr. P’s voice now quavers uncontrollably], since you seem to be able to do that, uh, why don’t you make an agreement with me to meet in a public debate over all of these issues?It’s been five years of HELL, and it’s come to an end. And, ya know the final logical thing? [In a low, conspiratorial voice:] Here’s what it is [Mr. PF breathes harder]: IT’S CALLED SCOREBOARD!Good night now.
Wow. Anyway, it was, I think, this remarkable and theatrical fellow—Mr. PF—whom I saw, or thought I saw, driving the snazzy sports car.
“How perfect,” I thought. “A symbol of my union: a degenerate behind the wheel of a car that my yearly salary could barely pay for.”
* * * * *
Some friends had spoken of the possibility of an election party, but nothing ever materialized. But then, on this day, we heard that Pete Maddox had secured a room for the evening at the Holiday Inn on La Paz.
Most of us realized that Maddox and Galcher’s election chances were dicey, and so, not wishing to experience communal disappointment I suppose, some decided to monitor the election from the comfort of home. But I’d never been to this sort of party, and so, after going home and feeding my cats Buster and Sunny, I headed over to La Paz.
The room at the Inn was set up in the usual way for such functions: tables and chairs, food, busy busboys, clinking glasses, a blaring TV displaying the vacant face of Jerry Dunphy. (Evidently, we couldn’t get OCN.) When I arrived, there were only five or six others, but soon, some 40 and 50 people were in the room.
Later in the evening, someone said that, as you look around the room, you see the very best people of the district: people known for their integrity and decency. I could not help imagining the party for the other side: Mr. McClendon discoursing on democracy and unionism; Lee Walker in the corner, trying to think of the name of the Governor; Ken Woodward hissing and sneering and alerting others of his “Ph.D. in economics”; a bepolyestered Sherry bitching and moaning about her unparalleled labors at the Xerox machine; some of the “Scandalous Boys” leering and choking and turning red; Frogue and Mathur trading paranoid fantasies. In a room like that, no decent person could resist the urge to go postal.
At about 9:00, we got news about the absentee votes. It wasn’t good. Pete assured us, however, that Galcher and Maddox had made their presence known at the end of the campaign, and the absentee ballots reflect the situation near the beginning of the campaign, when Padberg and Wagner had been busy sending mailers. People were reassured.
I talked with lots of people while I nursed two over-priced beers. Eventually, I talked with Pete, who seemed hopeful but realistic about the situation. We agreed that the Maddox/Galcher team had put up a very good fight, and, if “we” lose, we will be able to hold our heads up high. I offered that you can’t really expect to compete against huge chunks of sewer money and the other side’s willingness to do whatever it takes to win, no matter how unseemly and unethical.
One thing our union leadership and Padberg/Wagner have in common, it seems, is a willingness to embrace the notion, long discredited among civilized folk, that the “end justifies the means.” I remember challenging Sherry to acknowledge this aspect of her “leadership” at a forum shortly after the notorious ’96 campaign. (January 10, 1997.) On that occasion, she said that the leadership had to resort to unsavory campaign tactics in order to “preserve life as we know it.”
“So,” I said, “you are saying that the end justifies the means.” “No,” she answered. “I am not saying that at all. I’m saying that we needed to take this action [using a homophobic flier] to protect life as we know it.” Oh. At the time, I got the distinct impression that the woman does not know what the phrase “end justifies the means” means.
And Padberg and Wagner? They were a part of a larger effort by the right-winged Education Alliance to place proponents of “traditional values” and “school choice” on school boards.
Isn’t honesty a traditional value? Well, yes, but it must take a back seat when victory for the righteous is at stake, apparently. There is, of course, no “tide of liberalism” sweeping through south county. And, as trustees, Padberg and Wagner will be able to do absolutely nothing to prevent the El Toro airport. Padberg and Wagner lied and deceived to get elected.
Pete went to the phone and talked with a reporter at the Registrar of Voters. By then, the party was at its liveliest, but I could see that he was getting bad news.
After a while, he walked up and turned down the TV. Everyone hushed. He explained that we had lost both races.
He became eloquent. He spoke of the friends he had made and the quality of the people with whom he had worked during the campaign. He expressed genuine regret that we hadn’t done better.
At one point, Pete, contradicting my philosophers, assured us that the bad guys only win in the short run; they always lose in the long run. This, of course, is false.
Still, we can hope. Who knows? Perhaps someday Mr. P, overcome by one of his bilious thoughts, might lose control of his fancy Beemer, jump a curb, and ram the damn thing up Frogue’s ass. Williams, Fortune, Lorch, Mathur, and their sleazy union allies will then attend their hero’s funeral, where, mysteriously, they will be dispatched by a lurid gas emenating from the Great Man’s gaping mouth. After the vapors clear, peace will break out throughout the district. Once again, things will be right.
* * * * *
The next morning, I happened to arrive at the parking lot outside A100 at IVC at the same time as three friends. After exchanging forlorn looks and discussing our miserable situation, three of us headed to the administration building to do some “victory laps.” As we walked, one friend told me of her husband’s habit of calling neighborhood children “rat bastards.” “Who’s at the door, honey?” “Oh, nobody. Just some o’ those rat bastards.”
Now, I may believe in animal rights, but I also believe in the power of language, and “rat bastards” is a great phrase. I was determined to use it ASAP.
As we did our victory laps inside, we noticed Bobbi Weiner, whose desk is just outside Raghu’s office. We walked over to her and talked. Just then, Raghu walked past—he was returning from a visit to the bathroom. He entered his lair. We decided to leave Bobbi to her work, but, on a whim, I told Bobbi that, before leaving, I wanted to say one thing. Thereupon, loudly, I said, “Rat Bastard!” Bobbi cringed. I assured her that I wasn’t talking about anyone in particular.
I went to my office. After a while, I got a nasty telephone call from some sneering, bleating lout—it was, I think, Mr. P! Three seconds into his harangue, I simply hung up on him.
I checked my email. Someone had sent me the following message:
SUBJECT: THANKS A MILLION!DATE: Wed, 04 Nov 1998FROM: GUEST(GUEST@SM.SOCCCD.CC.CA.US)ORGANIZATION:South Orange County Community College DistrictTO: rbauer@ivc.cc.ca.usRoy, Thanks a million for all the help you gave us in wining [sic] the board elections. Without you and the Vine [sic], I beleive [sic] we would not have won. So thanks from the dark side of the campus.
Members of the Sherlockian Society will note that the author of this message is both an illiterate and a coward. This we may deduce from his numerous misspellings, his poor grammar, and the fact that, in order to avoid detection, he actually went all the way to the library to send his message.
He may be an illiterate and a coward, but he’s a winner. —BB
Monday, November 2, 1998
THE CRISIS AT IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE by Red Emma
[From Dissent 9, 11/2/98]
Understanding the Crisis at Irvine Valley College
by RED EMMA, instructor
Many IVC students and some faculty are still confused about the handmade signs posted on campus (“Recall Frogue” and “Mathur Must Go!”), recent news stories and letters to the editor regarding the recall of Trustee Frogue and the appointment of Raghu Mathur as president of this community college. There is reason for their confusion, in no small part resulting from the unwillingness of many to point to the unhappy direction suggested in the actions of the SOCCCD board, Mr. Frogue, the faculty union which elected and supports the board majority and their lackey, President Mathur. These, then, are my own complaints against this group, framed in a wider, national context which I see as a right-wing, corporate attack on public education by people who imagine that, yes, schools should be “run like businesses.”
1. They have attacked shared governance, the statewide policy of power sharing among students, faculty, staff and administration. Their attack sets a precedent for further undermining academic workplace self-government statewide. This is Frogue’s self-stated mission.
2. They have tolerated, even encouraged, anti-Semitism and homophobia in the auspices of an intellectual community. They have equated the value of a wacky seminar with intellectual discourse. It’s instructive to note the two minority groups targeted: gays and lesbians (by the teacher’s union) and Jews (by Mr. Frogue). Attacking the civil rights of politically weak homosexuals seems to fly in South Orange County, or at least Ms. Fortune and her colleagues thought it did.
3. They have successfully co-opted a labor union local. A small anti-democratic minority created a situation where labor colludes with management, prevents its own members from voting and funds candidates who pretend not to understand what’s going on, all the while lobbying for the perceived interests of a small power elite.
4. They have created a political opportunity, a testing ground for activism by far-right groups. The Christian Coalition sought to find a way into Orange County education politics and now has: Board members actually attended a meeting with Christian Coalition leadership, activists who oppose women’s rights, promote hate and anti-Semitism and homophobia, all in the name of establishing a religious state.
5. They have promoted the corporatization and further privatization of the academy—changing IVC to IBM as it were, trying to transform public colleges into trade technical institutes “managed” to meet the perceived needs of industry.
6. They have championed the ghettoization of faculty. They have tried to turn full-time faculty into “employees,” exploited the slave labor of adjunct faculty and proposed turning real classrooms into so-called “distance-learning”; in other words, television shows.
7. They have marginalized students, turning them into political numbers valuable only as products to the corporations it is presumed (absent any evidence) will someday hire them.
8. They have limited expression, inquiry and engagement in the political process, designing rules suggesting a suburban homeowners association and not a dynamic college environment.
9. They have spent district money defending themselves against much of the above, including the recall and separate lawsuits brought by both students and faculty.
10. They have lied to the community which they claim to represent. They twice violated the Brown Act. Recently a mailer on behalf of two union-sponsored candidates bragged that they oppose the El Toro airport. In fact, these two have done nothing to oppose the airport and of course, their position on the airport has almost no relevance to the administration of SOCCCD. When asked on a recent OCN debate regarding their stands on the recall of Mr. Frogue, all either pretended not to know the problem or condemned intolerance in general terms. Similarly, IVC President Mathur, in a recent Irvine World News interview, questioned the well-document charges against Frogue.
What’s instructive here is that these actions together reflect a wider trend. Our district represents a microcosm of what’s happening across the state and the nation. Sadly, the crisis at SOCCCD has received almost no state or national media attention since Mr. Frogue’s proposed seminar. Why not? It is in fact because in its way, this crisis nearly perfectly represents all the coordinated attacks on public education: the attack on intellectual integrity, the attack on labor and student rights, the promotion of corporate hegemony and so on.
Because our crisis is in fact so wonderfully representative of a single, connected trend it’s easy to pretend not to see that Big Picture. It’s easy for media to pretend that its readers won’t get it. It’s easy for students and teachers not to understand that as it happens here, it is happening everywhere.
We can, of course, end it here. We can write letters, vote out Mr. Frogue, democratize a union, replace President Mathur, restore shared governance; in short, we can speak truth to power and put IVC on the map as a place where supporters of public education took on the privatizers...and won. —RE
Andrew Tonkovich
The "board's unlikely secret allies" (the union supports anti-unionists)
From Dissent 9, 11/2/98
THE OC REGISTER BLOWS THE WHISTLE ON OUR ROTTEN LITTLE UNION by Chunk Wheeler (BvT)
Have you seen it? On Saturday (the 31st), the Register ran an article on the front page of its Metro section entitled “Board’s Unlikely Secret Allies,” which describes the faculty union leadership’s habit of helping to elect undesirable candidates—the likes of Steve Frogue, John Williams, Don Wagner, and Nancy Padberg—and refusing to discuss these actions with the rank and file.
The case of Wagner, a member of the explicitly anti-teachers union Education Alliance, is especially interesting. As he says,
“The teachers union?…The California Teachers Association is overwhelmingly liberal. I would seriously doubt they would support a conservative Republican like me. I was generally pleased to get the support…but I think it’s strange that it’s the union.”
The solution to the mystery is, of course, simple:
“Why is the faculty union giving money to endorse candidates who are appealing to a segment of the voter population who is opposed to unions?” said [an] Irvine Valley College professor…”It’s simple. It’s the buying and selling of board members. They will do anything to keep control of the board majority.”
Anything indeed. According to the article, “In 1996, the union paid $40,000 to mail out” the notorious homophobic “Same Sex” flier, which got Frogue, Williams, and Fortune elected and put our chapter on the CTA shit list. (“[T]he flier was bad…It was really bad,” says CTA’s David Lebow.) It also reports that, this year, the union formed the PAC “Community Taxpayers for Dr. Andy Kish for Trustee.” After Kish dropped out of the race, a new committee was formed, the “South Orange County Taxpayers for Quality Education.” According to the article, “More than $69,000 from [the] Andy Kish PAC and another union PAC [was] transferred” to the new PAC.
Could it be that our odious union leadership has sunk that kind of money into electing the likes of Don Wagner and Nancy Padberg?



I’ve done a little research on Mr. Wagner, whom the union’s Curt McLendon [of the Old Guard], in his recent letter “to colleagues,” describes as “moderate.” Mr. McLendon must be joking. Those who are interested in understanding Mr. Wagner’s “moderation” are encouraged to examine the following:
1. The website of “The Federalist Society” (www.fed-soc.org/who) (Wagner is the founder and president of the Orange County chapter.) The Federalist Society is committed to “reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.” The Society’s board of trustees includes those celebrated “moderates” Robert Bork and Edwin Meese!
2. An article entitled “Defining Control” (Register; 6/16/98), which describes Wagner’s views on “local control” of schools and the dangers of “the federal government…overreaching its powers.”
3. A letter, appearing in the 2/19/98 Register, in which Wagner argues for school “choice.” (“Only by returning choice…to parents and taking it from the education bureaucrats can we reverse [the decline in public education]…I trust parents much more than I do the government to make the right education decisions for children.”)
4. An article Wagner published in the Register (July 13, 1998) concerning some judges and whether minors need “parental consent” before getting an abortion. (It’s the tone of the letter rather than its thesis that is perhaps revealing.)
THE OC REGISTER BLOWS THE WHISTLE ON OUR ROTTEN LITTLE UNION by Chunk Wheeler (BvT)
Have you seen it? On Saturday (the 31st), the Register ran an article on the front page of its Metro section entitled “Board’s Unlikely Secret Allies,” which describes the faculty union leadership’s habit of helping to elect undesirable candidates—the likes of Steve Frogue, John Williams, Don Wagner, and Nancy Padberg—and refusing to discuss these actions with the rank and file.The case of Wagner, a member of the explicitly anti-teachers union Education Alliance, is especially interesting. As he says,
“The teachers union?…The California Teachers Association is overwhelmingly liberal. I would seriously doubt they would support a conservative Republican like me. I was generally pleased to get the support…but I think it’s strange that it’s the union.”
The solution to the mystery is, of course, simple:
“Why is the faculty union giving money to endorse candidates who are appealing to a segment of the voter population who is opposed to unions?” said [an] Irvine Valley College professor…”It’s simple. It’s the buying and selling of board members. They will do anything to keep control of the board majority.”
Anything indeed. According to the article, “In 1996, the union paid $40,000 to mail out” the notorious homophobic “Same Sex” flier, which got Frogue, Williams, and Fortune elected and put our chapter on the CTA shit list. (“[T]he flier was bad…It was really bad,” says CTA’s David Lebow.) It also reports that, this year, the union formed the PAC “Community Taxpayers for Dr. Andy Kish for Trustee.” After Kish dropped out of the race, a new committee was formed, the “South Orange County Taxpayers for Quality Education.” According to the article, “More than $69,000 from [the] Andy Kish PAC and another union PAC [was] transferred” to the new PAC.
Could it be that our odious union leadership has sunk that kind of money into electing the likes of Don Wagner and Nancy Padberg?

(Click on graphic for more detail.)


![]() |
| Andy Kish |
1. The website of “The Federalist Society” (www.fed-soc.org/who) (Wagner is the founder and president of the Orange County chapter.) The Federalist Society is committed to “reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.” The Society’s board of trustees includes those celebrated “moderates” Robert Bork and Edwin Meese!
2. An article entitled “Defining Control” (Register; 6/16/98), which describes Wagner’s views on “local control” of schools and the dangers of “the federal government…overreaching its powers.”
3. A letter, appearing in the 2/19/98 Register, in which Wagner argues for school “choice.” (“Only by returning choice…to parents and taking it from the education bureaucrats can we reverse [the decline in public education]…I trust parents much more than I do the government to make the right education decisions for children.”)
4. An article Wagner published in the Register (July 13, 1998) concerning some judges and whether minors need “parental consent” before getting an abortion. (It’s the tone of the letter rather than its thesis that is perhaps revealing.)
[p.s.: [1-13-21]: ANDY KISH: a member of the founding faculty at Saddleback College. Submitted a dissertation on human psychology and physiology with Rich McCullough. 1928-2018.]
Saturday, October 31, 1998
Unlikely Allies
“The SOCCCD Board’s unlikely secret allies”
Orange County Register, October 31, 1998
KIMBERLY KINDY
Conservative trustees who rail against teachers unions get crucial help from union-funded PACs
Donald Wagner is campaigning as a fiscal conservative for a seat on the South Orange County Community College board.
He is supported by the Education Alliance, a group that advocates “back-to-basics” education and frequently battles teachers unions for control over school boards. He fought for Proposition 226, a ballot measure that would have restricted unions’ ability to use members’ dues for political campaigns.
He also has an unusual—and largely unknown—ally: the local chapter of the California Teachers Association.
Political action committees funded by the union secretly paid for campaign fliers for Wagner and fellow candidate Nancy Padberg.
The same thing happened in 1996, when three candidates promoted in a campaign mailer paid for by the union won seats.
Even candidates supported by the union said they were unaware of the campaign help.
“The teachers union? “ Wagner said. “The California Teachers Association is overwhelmingly liberal. I would seriously doubt they would support a conservative Republican like me. I was generally pleased to get the support ... but I think it’s strange that it’s the union.”
Union leaders have not given a public explanation for their decisions. They have refused to discuss either campaign with their rank and file, even though members’ dues financed the fliers.
Critics of the union and the board majority say the reasons have become obvious. They point to the following:
A five-year contract, negotiated after the 1996 election, that boosted teachers’ salaries at an estimated annual cost of $5 million when the district was on the state’s fiscal watch list--and when faculty pay was already the highest of any community college in the state.
Administrators who had made enemies with the union say they have been removed, or forced out, by the board majority and replaced with union loyalists. Since 1996, eight administrators have left the district and five have returned to the classroom, with several saying they fled a hostile work environment that began after the election.
The union’s political consultant for the 1996 campaign flier that helped elect three members of the board majority [Pam Zanelli] now works as the district’s spokeswoman at roughly $5,000 a month.
“Why is the faculty union giving money to endorse candidates who are appealing to a segment of the voter population who is opposed to unions? “ said Irvine Valley College professor and union member Brenda Borron. “It’s simple. It’s the buying and selling of board members. They will do anything to keep control of the board majority.”
Union President Sherry Miller White has refused comment to reporters and to her own members about either campaign.
Board President John Williams did not agree to an interview, but he has said at public meetings that he and the board majority are not controlled by the union, nor is the union controlled by the board.
The union chapter’s bylaws give all decision-making authority for campaigning to the current president and any past union presidents who wish to serve on the election committee. That group doesn’t have to tell members what it’s doing.
Campaign disclosure forms filed with the county registrar of voters show teachers union funds going to four political action committees since 1996 to pay for two fliers.
Nowhere on either mailer—which were sent out en masse to south Orange County homes—is the union mentioned. Only the political action committees’ names, such as Taxpayers for Responsible Educators, appear.
Saddleback College English Professor Robert Kopfstein doesn’t believe the union should play any campaign role.
“My advice has been to get out of the election business altogether,” said Kopfstein, the treasurer for one of the union’s political action committees, which indirectly helped fund the latest mass mailer. “It’s too difficult to get consensus from members on candidates. And a hit piece—even if it were truthful—it’s not the kind of thing faculty has much stomach for.”
Since the election of the current board majority, the district has been deeply divided.
Thursday, two outside accrediting teams left Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges, saying they were “stunned” by “divisiveness and disharmony” they found. Accreditation is necessary so that students can qualify for federal financial aid and have their credits accepted by universities.
Members of the board majority say a group of professors is stirring up all the trouble—teachers who’ve lost power and money as a result of reforms the board has passed. [Note: these “professors” began stirring up “trouble”--Brown Act lawsuits, bad press, etc.--months before the loss of any Chairships and reassigned time.]
None of the four members agreed to an interview, but in a prepared statement Dorothy Fortune said this week that 28 administrators are now doing work that was assigned to 46 in 1996.
In the process, many faculty members who held quasi-administrative duties have returned to the classroom. She estimates the savings at $1.8 million.
“Employees who previously benefited from past wasteful district practices have bitterly contested reform,” Fortune said.
But some rank-and-file members say the discord has been caused by the board majority, who were elected with the help of the union leadership. And this is why they view any new union campaign efforts with suspicion—especially since it again has been done in secret.
In 1996, the union paid $40,000 to mail out a flier that read: “Stop Same Sex ‘Marriage’ Advocates Who Want to TAKE CONTROL of Your Tax Dollars and Your Community Colleges” and supported three members of the current board majority.
This campaign, the union has financed a mass mailing supporting Padberg and Wagner that uses another hot-button issue—the proposed El Toro airport—to try to get people to the polls.
Both in 1996 and this election year, professors say they are unwillingly helping people with ties to groups that the CTA typically fights.
“I’d love to hear union leaders’ reasoning for supporting these two candidates,” said Roni Lebauer, a Saddleback College professor.
“They are both endorsed by extremely conservative groups that are anti-union.”
For example, board President John Williams was backed by the teachers union and elected in 1996. He has strong ties to members of the Education Alliance, which supports opponents of union-backed candidates.
CTA leader David Lebow, who was called into the south Orange County local to investigate the 1996 campaign, said union leaders may have chosen some unconventional candidates, but they had their reasons.
“The group they didn’t endorse was interested in reducing their salaries. They really believed it was a threat to their very existence,” said Lebow about the 1996 campaign. “But the (same-sex marriage) flier was bad. ... It was really bad. They did it because they believed they had to win that election.”
This time, Lebow said, CTA headquarters will once again not monitor the local chapter’s candidate endorsements. Instead, Lebow said, union officials are handling a mail vote on a proposed chapter bylaw change that would prevent any secret endorsements in the 2000 campaign.
The new bylaws, if passed, would require the current campaign committee to share its plans with a large panel of teachers, which would include an elected representative from each department at the two colleges. The panel would then vote on the campaign committee’s recommendations, and members would be informed of the final decisions.
But Saddleback College Professor Cheryl Altman said that many teachers are cynical about the effect of a bylaw change.
“I don’t have any confidence left,” Altman said. “Many of the old bylaws were never followed. You have to have leaders who are willing to follow the rules.”
Orange County Register, October 31, 1998
KIMBERLY KINDY
Conservative trustees who rail against teachers unions get crucial help from union-funded PACs
Donald Wagner is campaigning as a fiscal conservative for a seat on the South Orange County Community College board.
He is supported by the Education Alliance, a group that advocates “back-to-basics” education and frequently battles teachers unions for control over school boards. He fought for Proposition 226, a ballot measure that would have restricted unions’ ability to use members’ dues for political campaigns.
He also has an unusual—and largely unknown—ally: the local chapter of the California Teachers Association.
Political action committees funded by the union secretly paid for campaign fliers for Wagner and fellow candidate Nancy Padberg.
The same thing happened in 1996, when three candidates promoted in a campaign mailer paid for by the union won seats.
Even candidates supported by the union said they were unaware of the campaign help.
“The teachers union? “ Wagner said. “The California Teachers Association is overwhelmingly liberal. I would seriously doubt they would support a conservative Republican like me. I was generally pleased to get the support ... but I think it’s strange that it’s the union.”
Union leaders have not given a public explanation for their decisions. They have refused to discuss either campaign with their rank and file, even though members’ dues financed the fliers.
Critics of the union and the board majority say the reasons have become obvious. They point to the following:
A five-year contract, negotiated after the 1996 election, that boosted teachers’ salaries at an estimated annual cost of $5 million when the district was on the state’s fiscal watch list--and when faculty pay was already the highest of any community college in the state.
Administrators who had made enemies with the union say they have been removed, or forced out, by the board majority and replaced with union loyalists. Since 1996, eight administrators have left the district and five have returned to the classroom, with several saying they fled a hostile work environment that began after the election.
The union’s political consultant for the 1996 campaign flier that helped elect three members of the board majority [Pam Zanelli] now works as the district’s spokeswoman at roughly $5,000 a month.
“Why is the faculty union giving money to endorse candidates who are appealing to a segment of the voter population who is opposed to unions? “ said Irvine Valley College professor and union member Brenda Borron. “It’s simple. It’s the buying and selling of board members. They will do anything to keep control of the board majority.”
Union President Sherry Miller White has refused comment to reporters and to her own members about either campaign.
Board President John Williams did not agree to an interview, but he has said at public meetings that he and the board majority are not controlled by the union, nor is the union controlled by the board.
The union chapter’s bylaws give all decision-making authority for campaigning to the current president and any past union presidents who wish to serve on the election committee. That group doesn’t have to tell members what it’s doing.
Campaign disclosure forms filed with the county registrar of voters show teachers union funds going to four political action committees since 1996 to pay for two fliers.
Nowhere on either mailer—which were sent out en masse to south Orange County homes—is the union mentioned. Only the political action committees’ names, such as Taxpayers for Responsible Educators, appear.
Saddleback College English Professor Robert Kopfstein doesn’t believe the union should play any campaign role.
“My advice has been to get out of the election business altogether,” said Kopfstein, the treasurer for one of the union’s political action committees, which indirectly helped fund the latest mass mailer. “It’s too difficult to get consensus from members on candidates. And a hit piece—even if it were truthful—it’s not the kind of thing faculty has much stomach for.”
Since the election of the current board majority, the district has been deeply divided.
Thursday, two outside accrediting teams left Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges, saying they were “stunned” by “divisiveness and disharmony” they found. Accreditation is necessary so that students can qualify for federal financial aid and have their credits accepted by universities.
Members of the board majority say a group of professors is stirring up all the trouble—teachers who’ve lost power and money as a result of reforms the board has passed. [Note: these “professors” began stirring up “trouble”--Brown Act lawsuits, bad press, etc.--months before the loss of any Chairships and reassigned time.]
None of the four members agreed to an interview, but in a prepared statement Dorothy Fortune said this week that 28 administrators are now doing work that was assigned to 46 in 1996.
In the process, many faculty members who held quasi-administrative duties have returned to the classroom. She estimates the savings at $1.8 million.
“Employees who previously benefited from past wasteful district practices have bitterly contested reform,” Fortune said.
But some rank-and-file members say the discord has been caused by the board majority, who were elected with the help of the union leadership. And this is why they view any new union campaign efforts with suspicion—especially since it again has been done in secret.
In 1996, the union paid $40,000 to mail out a flier that read: “Stop Same Sex ‘Marriage’ Advocates Who Want to TAKE CONTROL of Your Tax Dollars and Your Community Colleges” and supported three members of the current board majority.
This campaign, the union has financed a mass mailing supporting Padberg and Wagner that uses another hot-button issue—the proposed El Toro airport—to try to get people to the polls.
Both in 1996 and this election year, professors say they are unwillingly helping people with ties to groups that the CTA typically fights.
“I’d love to hear union leaders’ reasoning for supporting these two candidates,” said Roni Lebauer, a Saddleback College professor.
“They are both endorsed by extremely conservative groups that are anti-union.”
For example, board President John Williams was backed by the teachers union and elected in 1996. He has strong ties to members of the Education Alliance, which supports opponents of union-backed candidates.
CTA leader David Lebow, who was called into the south Orange County local to investigate the 1996 campaign, said union leaders may have chosen some unconventional candidates, but they had their reasons.
“The group they didn’t endorse was interested in reducing their salaries. They really believed it was a threat to their very existence,” said Lebow about the 1996 campaign. “But the (same-sex marriage) flier was bad. ... It was really bad. They did it because they believed they had to win that election.”
This time, Lebow said, CTA headquarters will once again not monitor the local chapter’s candidate endorsements. Instead, Lebow said, union officials are handling a mail vote on a proposed chapter bylaw change that would prevent any secret endorsements in the 2000 campaign.
The new bylaws, if passed, would require the current campaign committee to share its plans with a large panel of teachers, which would include an elected representative from each department at the two colleges. The panel would then vote on the campaign committee’s recommendations, and members would be informed of the final decisions.
But Saddleback College Professor Cheryl Altman said that many teachers are cynical about the effect of a bylaw change.
“I don’t have any confidence left,” Altman said. “Many of the old bylaws were never followed. You have to have leaders who are willing to follow the rules.”
Board's Unlikely Secret Allies
COLLEGES:
Conservative trustees who rail against teachers unions get crucial help from
union-funded PACs.
October 31, 1998
KIMBERLY KINDY
The Orange County
Register
Donald Wagner is
campaigning as a fiscal conservative for a seat on the South Orange County
Community College board.
He is supported by the Education
Alliance, a group that advocates “back-to-basics” education and frequently battles
teachers unions for control over school boards. He fought for Proposition 226,
a ballot measure that would have restricted unions’ ability to use members’
dues for political campaigns.
He also has an
unusual—and largely unknown—ally: the local chapter of the California Teachers
Association.
Political action
committees funded by the union secretly paid for campaign fliers for Wagner and
fellow candidate Nancy Padberg.
The same thing
happened in 1996, when three candidates promoted in a campaign mailer paid for
by the union won seats.
Even candidates
supported by the union said they were unaware of the campaign help.
“The teachers union?
“ Wagner said. “The California Teachers Association is overwhelmingly liberal.
I would seriously doubt they would support a conservative Republican like me. I
was generally pleased to get the support ... but I think it’s strange that it’s
the union.”
Union leaders have
not given a public explanation for their decisions. They have refused to
discuss either campaign with their rank and file, even though members’ dues
financed the fliers.
Critics of the union
and the board majority say the reasons have become obvious. They point to the
following:
A five-year
contract, negotiated after the 1996 election, that boosted teachers’ salaries
at an estimated annual cost of $5 million when the district was on the state’s
fiscal watch list--and when faculty pay was already the highest of any
community college in the state.
Administrators who
had made enemies with the union say they have been removed, or forced out, by
the board majority and replaced with union loyalists. Since 1996, eight
administrators have left the district and five have returned to the classroom,
with several saying they fled a hostile work environment that began after the
election.
The union’s
political consultant for the 1996 campaign flier that helped elect three
members of the board majority [Pam Zanelli] now works as the district’s
spokeswoman at roughly $5,000 a month.
“Why is the faculty
union giving money to endorse candidates who are appealing to a segment of the
voter population who is opposed to unions? “ said Irvine Valley College
professor and union member Brenda Borron. “It’s simple. It’s the buying and
selling of board members. They will do anything to keep control of the board
majority.”
Union President
Sherry Miller White has refused comment to reporters and to her own members
about either campaign.
Board President John
Williams did not agree to an interview, but he has said at public meetings that
he and the board majority are not controlled by the union, nor is the union
controlled by the board.
The union chapter’s
bylaws give all decision-making authority for campaigning to the current
president and any past union presidents who wish to serve on the election
committee. That group doesn’t have to tell members what it’s doing.
Campaign disclosure
forms filed with the county registrar of voters show teachers union funds going
to four political action committees since 1996 to pay for two fliers.
Nowhere on either
mailer—which were sent out en masse to south Orange County homes—is the union
mentioned. Only the political action committees’ names, such as Taxpayers for
Responsible Educators, appear.
Saddleback College
English Professor Robert Kopfstein doesn’t believe the union should play any
campaign role.
“My advice has been
to get out of the election business altogether,” said Kopfstein, the treasurer
for one of the union’s political action committees, which indirectly helped
fund the latest mass mailer. “It’s too difficult to get consensus from members
on candidates. And a hit piece—even if it were truthful—it’s not the kind of
thing faculty has much stomach for.”
Since the election
of the current board majority, the district has been deeply divided.
Thursday, two
outside accrediting teams left Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges, saying
they were “stunned” by “divisiveness and disharmony” they found. Accreditation
is necessary so that students can qualify for federal financial aid and have
their credits accepted by universities.
Members of the board
majority say a group of professors is stirring up all the trouble—teachers who’ve
lost power and money as a result of reforms the board has passed. [Note: these “professors”
began stirring up “trouble”--Brown Act lawsuits, bad press, etc.--months before
the
loss of any Chairships and reassigned time.]
None of the four
members agreed to an interview, but in a prepared statement Dorothy Fortune
said this week that 28 administrators are now doing work that was assigned to
46 in 1996.
In the process, many
faculty members who held quasi-administrative duties have returned to the
classroom. She estimates the savings at $1.8 million.
“Employees who
previously benefited from past wasteful district practices have bitterly
contested reform,” Fortune said.
But some
rank-and-file members say the discord has been caused by the board majority,
who were elected with the help of the union leadership. And this is why they
view any new union campaign efforts with suspicion—especially since it again
has been done in secret.
In 1996, the union
paid $40,000 to mail out a flier that read: “Stop Same Sex ‘Marriage’ Advocates
Who Want to TAKE CONTROL of Your Tax Dollars and Your Community Colleges” and
supported three members of the current board majority.
This campaign, the
union has financed a mass mailing supporting Padberg and Wagner that uses
another hot-button issue—the proposed El Toro airport—to try to get people to
the polls.
Both in 1996 and
this election year, professors say they are unwillingly helping people with
ties to groups that the CTA typically fights.
“I’d love to hear
union leaders’ reasoning for supporting these two candidates,” said Roni
Lebauer, a Saddleback College professor.
“They are both endorsed
by extremely conservative groups that are anti-union.”
For example, board
President John Williams was backed by the teachers union and elected in
1996. He has strong ties to members of the Education Alliance, which supports
opponents of union-backed candidates.
CTA leader David
Lebow, who was called into the south Orange County local to investigate the
1996 campaign, said union leaders may have chosen some unconventional
candidates, but they had their reasons.
“The group they didn’t
endorse was interested in reducing their salaries. They really believed it was
a threat to their very existence,” said Lebow about the 1996 campaign. “But the
(same-sex marriage) flier was bad. ... It was really bad. They did it because
they believed they had to win that election.”
This time, Lebow
said, CTA headquarters will once again not monitor the local chapter’s
candidate endorsements. Instead, Lebow said, union officials are handling a
mail vote on a proposed chapter bylaw change that would prevent any secret
endorsements in the 2000 campaign.
The new bylaws, if
passed, would require the current campaign committee to share its plans with a
large panel of teachers, which would include an elected representative from
each department at the two colleges. The panel would then vote on the campaign
committee’s recommendations, and members would be informed of the final
decisions.
But Saddleback
College Professor Cheryl Altman said that many teachers are cynical about the
effect of a bylaw change.
“I don’t have any
confidence left,” Altman said. “Many of the old bylaws were never followed. You
have to have leaders who are willing to follow the rules.”
Monday, October 26, 1998
RED EMMA FIGHTS FOR PART-TIMER REPRESENTATION
From Dissent 8, 10/26/98
ORIGINALLY ENTITLED:
TO “EACH” HIS OWN by Red Emma
Still ecstatic over the news of General Augusto Pinochet’s arrest in London this weekend, Red Emma grabbed his worn copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” “Robert’s Rules of Order” and the proposed union bylaws and, careful to avoid all toll roads, transported himself to the FA [faculty union] Rep Council meeting, confident that although the moral arc of the universe might bend, as Dr. King said, toward justice, two such equitable contortions were perhaps too many to hope for in one week. Eager to safeguard any accidental on purpose misinterpretations which might befall the slim concession to part-time faculty representation included in the bylaws, I had spoken by phone earlier to David Lebow, Chair of the CTA Saddleback CC CTA Board Team, making a point of calling to his attention the potentially (in my mind) vulnerable following language in the section on Part-Time (Associate) Faculty Representation.
“Part-time faculty at each college shall have one representative on the Representative Council.”
Red Emma knows what this meant to him and, after speaking with Mr. Lebow, learned that it meant the same to the venerable Chair; that is, there would be, pending approval of the bylaws, TWO part-time rep positions on the ballot, one representing IVC and one Saddleback. An instructor of writing, I advised I would have included the word “each” after “representative” to make things, as General Pinochet’s sponsor, Dick Nixon said, “perfectly clear.” This would have been, Mr. Lebow assured me, redundant and at the meeting he would, he promised, clarify and confirm what I still perceived as a potentially lethal (to part-timers) typo.
General Pinochet’s house arrest notwithstanding, there is room for evil in the world and it resides in a little room in the Saddleback library where, true to Red Emma’s sorry expectations, that group we whimsically call the union leadership attempted first to get everybody to agree that nothing could be done about my concern, since the bylaws would be voted on absent clarification. Then Mr. Lebow and his CTA team advised that he was there to “officially” advise the correctness of my interpretation of the “each” clause, after which time it was the responsibility of the Rep Council to amend the bylaws. Yikes. This is where Emma began to wonder if General Pinochet was in fact handcuffed to his hospital bed. A tenacious revanchist sitting next to the tonsorially captivating Madame President indicated that my favorite clause was intentionally “vague,” at which point Mr. Lebow indicated in no uncertain terms that Mr. McClendon was in fact wrong.
Mr. Lebow: “You are not right.”
Chair Lebow indicated that the ballot would have to include two part-time reps, a judgment which led to expressions of some discontent from the generals.
Meanwhile, back in London, Pinochet, murderer of thousands, reaches for a glass of water. Oops, those darn cuffs.
Red Emma left the proceedings suspecting that at next month’s junta meeting, an attempt would be made to strip the nearly 700 SOCCCD part-timers of half of their potential representation on the Council; half of two being exactly one. With Mr. Lebow safely returned to CTA Headquarters, the revanchists will no doubt attempt some shenanigans. Red Emma pledges to alert the CTA to any accidental oversights by the generals.
Finally, Red Emma urges all part-timers to join the FA, even though it doesn’t actually want us. Especially because it doesn’t want us. Although you can’t vote on the bylaws if you didn’t sign up before September 1, any dues-paying member can vote in the general election scheduled for November (until the generals find a way to disappear that clause). For the record, Red Emma voted FOR the bylaws—as clarified officially by Mr. Lebow at the October 19 meeting. --RE
Andrew Tonkovich
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"
This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...
-
Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox OCC Trumpsters/GOP A professor called Trump’s election an ‘act of terrorism.’ Then she became the vict...
-
Recently, I spoke with a veteran who’s been part of the vet community here at IVC for some time. He too has complained about Mr. Ma...
-
I don’t know how anyone could learn about the way our colleges are funded and how their budget decisions are made without thinking...







