TRUSTEE FUENTES' "LEISURE WORLD" TV INTERVIEW (2004)

TOM FUENTES AND THE “36-HOUR WORK WEEK”: THE 2004 “LEISURE WORLD” TV INTERVIEW
(October?)

Most of you have heard about this interview, the one in which Trustee Fuentes identifies the unions as a prime source of trouble in education and declares that instructors make on average $100k per year and enjoy a 36-hour work week. Well, I present to you an accurate transcription of that interview, or at least the portion relevant to faculty at SOCCCD. Make of it what you will. --CW

(A portion of the interview only.)

FUENTES: …I am always evermore enthused by the progress of stability that has come to the district…I marvel at what progress in terms of stability has been achieved in recent years. We’re building new facilities…we’re spending the dollars of the district in service to the students by concrete innovation and renovation as is needed for those campuses to be the welcoming places of study for our students.

I can’t give enough recognition to the current leadership of the district. I’m not speaking of myself. I’m speaking of Dr. Raghu Mathur, our Chancellor, who has brought to this district a stability, a professionalism, that is profound. The way that he and his team comes to our board so well prepared, having done the research, having done the planning, having done the preparation for us to be able to continue to move forward.

We’ve had the good fortune in recent years as well to have our trustee colleague Don Wagner at the helm as president. Don, of course, is an attorney locally, a very keen thinker. He’s been a leader of the Federalist Society here in Orange County, which is of course without question one of the most important and significant intellectually recognized voices in the Bush administration currently, and Don serves as a colleague trustee, and he has, along with Raghu and the fine team—especially these…two relatively new and, in the case of Glenn Roquemore, President of Irvine Valley College, and Rich McCullough, our new President at Saddleback College—brought a team together that just has always on their mind, “What serves the students?” “What should be the expenditure of dollars?” We have a budget of $150 million dollars a year. That’s a lot of money to be responsible for, and if it’s not guided by some principled philosophical commitment to serving the students and to being concerned about the taxpayers, it can be wasted.


There are many special interests in the education industry today, and especially the unions. The unions have a very aggressive attitude about getting at the treasury of the school districts, and, uh, community college teachers today, full-time ones as they call it—they call a full-time week a 36-hour work week: 15 hours in the classroom, 15 hours of prep time, 6 hours of office time…

INTERVIEWER: right.

FUENTES: 36 hours, with a two and a half month a year vacation…

INTERVIEWER: right.

FUENTES: One of those [full-time instructors] averages a hundred thousand dollars a year in salary. So it’s a very, very expensive payroll that a community college district has…

INTERVIEWER: But the offset of that is, you have a lot of faculty there who I jokingly refer to—and they don’t like it—as the “freeway flyers”—they may teach one class at Saddleback…

FUENTES: Yeah.

INTERVIEWER: they may teach two classes at Orange Coast; they may go up to Fullerton College one day a week. So those folks—

FUENTES: —those folks


INTERVIEWER: —aren’t making the hundred thousand dollar salary!

FUENTES: They are not, and of course that is one of the issues of concern, because you have about three hundred teachers in a union who garner a very high pay, and then you’ve got freeway fliers, and I have enormous empathy for them because they’re teaching a class or two at Orange Coast, at Fullerton, etc., and not gaining the reward for it because they’re not full-time teachers anywhere.

INTERVIEWER: Some of them have moved into that realm, but some continue to do that until they retire unfortunately…

FUENTES: That’s right.

INTERVIEWER: And you have a mix—I think there’s a formula that the state has imposed on us on that, but you try to hold that balance. You also need of course the stability of those people who are there that 36-hour week to keep the Anthropology department running, to keep the math science department running, because they have to do the structure,

FUENTES: —all part of the balance…

INTERVIEWER: —the department, so that’s obviously one of the challenges that you face as a board member, balancing all of these issues. Another fact that’s always impressed me about the community colleges is an ability to be flexible….

[The interview shifts to a discussion of the “flexibility” of the community colleges and how that flexibility is threatened by a movement in Sacramento to eliminate local control of the colleges. The discussion eventually shifts to a discussion of the Trustees race that was then playing out.]

FUENTES: …there are four seats on the board up this time in the November election. Two of my colleagues have challengers and two do not. And it is unique in that the district is geographically half of Orange County, with perhaps a million residents, and when one has to campaign, it is a very, very costly exercise. And of course in the politics of schools these days, the unions are taking so much more an active role.

INTERVIEWER: Sure.

FUENTES: It was predicted that our own local union here was gearing up in the three hundred thousand dollar range to be able to influence this election. That’s a lot of money, which means that independent or conservative-minded, non-union advocate candidates would have to compete with that, and I think it’s a very dangerous situation that we’re moving in—in all cities and counties and school districts where the labor unions of government employees, be they teachers or be they county workers, have all the more influence through the exercise of dollars from the unions. I think all of us were appalled at the spiking of the county payroll retirement by the board of supervisors recently. I mean we lurch back and say, “How can this happen in Orange County California?” —that you can have such aggressive spiking of retirements and costly imposition on the taxpayers of our community. —Well, it’s the influence of unions in government today, and we need to be very vigilant about that.

[Essentially, the interview ends here.]

—CW

[FOR SOME BACKGROUND ON FUENTES, CHECK OUR ARCHIVES: September 2002]

P.S.;

After I posted the above, I remembered that, when Trustee Fuentes was challenged regarding his "faculty salary" statement, he defended it by saying that the $100K figure includes "benefits," which, as I recall, he valued at $30,000 (or was it $20,000?).

Oh. So that's what you were saying.

I've been working for this district as a full-timer for nearly twenty years, and I make less than 70k. Of course, it's nearly 100k if you add the 30k.

Also, at at least one board meeting, several faculty members showed up to rebut Fuentes' assertion that full-time faculty enjoy a "36-hour work week." Some even presented the fellow with large stacks of grading, explaining how long it takes to work through such stuff!

As I recall, Fuentes' response was to smile a seemingly "knowing" smile. -CW

"I WILL PREPARE FOR BOARD MEETINGS--IN ADVANCE!"

For their special eight-hour closed session of September 13, the SOCCCD Board of Trustees had but one agenda item: the evaluation of the Chancellor’s performance. But they did not evaluate the Chancellor’s performance at that session. Apparently, the trustees instead focused their attention on developing “goals.”

During that session, the trustees were assisted in developing the “Chancellor’s goals”—and perhaps other goals—by a consultant, Fieldstone Consulting, Inc.

I’ve been told that Fieldstone was paid $6,000 for this work.

Aside from discussing “Chancellor’s goals,” just what the trustees did during that closed session is a bit hazy. You’ll recall that, at that session, the board violated the state’s “open meetings law” by failing to agendize their actual business—namely, the developing of goals—and discussing in closed session a topic (again, developing “goals”) that should be discussed in open session.

On Monday night, the board supposedly corrected that mistake by adopting a series of goals in open session, as the law requires. The resolution that was adopted (on Monday) for the purpose of this correction refers to item 21, and item 21 concerns specifically “board of trustee” goals, not Chancellor’s goals or district goals. So this is all rather confusing.

Let’s move on to other problems.

First, oddly, no one has yet seen the Chancellor’s goals. They remain a secret. They were not revealed on Monday night. They have not been revealed still.

During Monday’s board meeting, IVC Academic Senate President Wendy Gabriella inquired concerning them. Shouldn’t the public be allowed to see the Chancellor's goals?

Trustee Wagner was dismissive. He declared that the public had an opportunity to comment on those goals during the open session immediately prior to the Sept. 13 closed session. (All closed sessions begin with a brief open session in which the board formally adjourns to closed session.)

When the senate president asked how the public could comment on goals it has not seen, Wagner looked miffed, but he didn’t seem to have anything to say. Maybe his lips moved, but nothing memorable came out. Or maybe I've forgotten what he said. Could be.

The “district goals” and “board of trustee” goals (again, their relationship to “Chancellor’s goals” is a bit unclear, at least to me) were, however, revealed to the world on Monday night. At that time, someone (I’ve forgotten who) noted that several—indeed perhaps seven out of the twelve—of the "district goals” are things that the colleges are now doing or have already done. For instance, "goal" 6 is "Develop a public relations, marketing and outreach plan...."

How, it was asked, can these be called the district's “goals,” if they are already achieved or are already being achieved?

Again, as I recall, if there was an answer to this question, it was at best very unclear. Several faces in the board room sported quizzical looks.

I’ve saved the best for last: the “Board of Trustee Goals.” They are remarkable. I will simply list them without commentary. I've highlighted my personal faves.

Do remember, though, that the BOT hired a pricey consultant to help write them:

BOARD OF TRUSTEE GOALS:

1. Establish a vision of the district.

2. Set District and Chancellor goals. Guide and support the Chancellor in accomplishing goals.

3. Adopt an effective instrument to evaluate the Chancellor.

4. Avoid micromanagement of the district and college administration.

5. Be a positive ambassador for the District showing respect for all.

6. Encourage and recognize staff, as appropriate.

7. Prepare for Board meetings in advance.

8. Embrace best practices.

9. Work with fellow Board members and the Chancellor as a team.

10. The Board will conduct annual self-evaluation.

--CW

MONDAY'S BOARD MEETING by Chunk

Last night, at an unusually well-attended SOCCCD board meeting, more than seventy members or supporters of the classified employee union (CSEA) showed up in red to try to persuade the board to offer a “fair and decent contract.” Speakers noted that the district’s ratio of classified employee per student is unusually low compared to other systems and districts, and that the classified employees “make this college run.” Faculty members and representatives of the faculty union offered their whole-hearted support. Some who spoke noted that, recently, the Chancellor got a raise—he now makes a quarter million dollars—and that some managers were raised by as much as $40,000. What about classified employees?

The board acted—unanimously—to cure and correct its Brown Act violations of Sept. 13, a victory for open government. IVC Academic Senate Prez Wendy G noted that she as a private citizen, and not as the Senate Prez, asked for the correction, so the senate was not involved. “It could be, but it is not at this point,” she noted ominously.

Evidently, Trustee Padberg won a “5K” race recently, and so there was much blather about that. Marcia Milchiker talked about “Wing Lam Day” at IVC. Evidently, Wing is pleased, for he has never had a “day” before. Wing is a co-founder of something called "Wahoo’s Fish Taco." Go figure.

The trustees yammered a bit about the full-time “Teachers of the Year”: Bob Parsons and Dottie Sherling. Good for them.

Paul Ho described the recent basketball benefit, where he “got to see faculty fall.” Evidently, later, he saw them dance, too. “They are better teachers than dancers,” noted the acutely observant student trustee. Ho explained that he would get a free lunch if he mentioned some of the recent winners of the Model UN competition “on TV.” Congrats to those students.

Ho seems like a breath of fresh air. Have you ever noticed how humorless our board is? The closest thing to laughs with this crew is when Fuentes pulls out one of his harpoons and throws it at an apparent liberal or unionist or Commie or Spaniard. Somebody oughta teach Bill Jay to duck.

Some guy came to discuss the problems with BGS, the building at Saddleback College that has been invaded by “spores.” Apparently, the place is not good for your health. Maybe Dennis White just came from there, cuz he was sporting a patch over his left eye and he sneezed maybe twenty times.

I remember one time goin’ to the bathroom in the IVC administration building. I went in there and did my business with Dennis by my side. “Hi Dennis,” I said. I left him there, and as I exited the bathroom, I saw Dennis walkin’ toward me and then into the bathroom!

“My God,” I thought, “there’s two of ‘em!”

As it turns out, there were three of them, but one died. I.e., Dennis has a twin (a “triplet”?) brother. Whew!

Back to BGS: recently, the Saddleback Valley News (Oct. 21) reported that the "District spent $300,000 to temporarily fix the [mold] problem" since April and that "more than $4 million has been spent to abate and determine the cause of the mold" in the last 19 years. According to the News, the ultimate pricetag for permanently ridding BGS of mold: "an estimated $8.3 million."

Talk about your money pit! BGS is even worse than Raghu! (But not as hard to get rid of.)


Some guy from “GKK”, who is concerned with master planning, came to tell us that our district—especially instruction—is terrific, but our buildings are old and falling apart. He didn’t say anything about the plaques. He also noted an anomaly re Weekly Student Contact Hours. For the first time, the two colleges don’t mirror each other. IVC’s side of the mirror is goin’ down. How come? (See Maas/gkk slide above.)

Another study abroad program in Spain was briefly considered. There was no discussion, and it was quickly approved, but Fuentes and Wagner voted against it. As you know, those pesky Spaniards betrayed our fighting men and women when they pulled out of Iraq. Or so said Mr. Fuentes nearly a year ago.

Suddenly, there were some “Chancellor’s goals,” but we had not seen them. Wagner stated that the public had an opportunity to give the board input about the Chancellor’s goals, since it said right there on the agenda that there was discussion of those goals, but Wendy pointed out that we’ve not seen these goals, so how can the public comment on ‘em? Wagner looked miffed, but he didn’t say anything.

Tracy D came by and asked for $229,850 additional funding for marketing and outreach. As near as I can tell, all the trustees were pleased as punch about our district’s recent marketing efforts. As you know, during the summer, our district ran a 60 second radio commercial (on KROQ-FM) in which a moron represents students, and the announcer, who represents our district, urges the moron to go to college “for hotties.”

Gwen Vendley came by to point out that, at local High Schools, “They do not know in Irvine who we are.” Others nodded gravely.

There were lots of trustee comments, but, for a while, Bill Jay seemed unable to get a word in edgewise. His pressing his button got him nowhere, and so he declared: “my light’s not working!”

Mr Fuentes then quipped: “lights on, nobody home.”

For all I know, lots of important things happened after that, but I wouldn’t know, cuz I left. --CW

CHUNK'S 24-HOUR UPDATERY

1. SMILEY FACES. I don’t know the details, but it is plain that the faculty members of the committee that has been hammering out a faculty hiring policy agreeable to both faculty and the district have smiley faces. For all I know, the other members of the committee have smiley faces too.

Smiley faces means that we’ll soon have a good faculty hiring policy. Hey, I know. Why don’t you show up at the board meeting tonight to find out?

[UPDATE (Oct. 27): The district and senate have indeed agreed upon a faculty hiring policy. Looks like a good one. All that remains is for the Board to approve it. That seems very likely. --CW]

2. EXCELLENT WATCHDOGGERY. I took a gander at the full agenda for tonight’s board meeting. As you know, item 20 concerns the “demand” to cure or correct the board’s Brown Act violations of September 13.

For the "special (closed) meeting" of Sept. 13, the Board advertised (agendized) that it would be evaluating the performance of the Chancellor. In fact, it discussed the Chancellor’s “goals,” a matter that is not among those allowed for closed session by the Brown Act.

When I first saw the (short) agenda item on Thursday, I thought it was good news. Then, when I read the portion of the Ralph M. Brown Act that is cited on the brief agenda description, I thought it was bad news. (See earlier post.)

Well, we’re back to good news. Earlier today, I was finally able to examine the full-on agenda paper work for item 20. Item 20 is a recommendation, by the Chancellor, that the trustees “adopt Resolution 05-41 in response to Ms. [Wendy] Gabriella’s Oct. 13 demand for cure and correction….”



Resolution 05-41 (see above) essentially amounts to (a) the assertion that no violation of the Brown Act occurred, plus (b) an action of curing and correcting any possible violation “to avoid the waste of time and money associated with the potential litigation of this meritless claim.”

The upshot: if the board accepts the Chancellor's recommendation--and who can resist the fellow?--then the board will tonight do in public what, on Sept. 13, they did in private: they'll be curing and correcting their Brown Act violations--er, their "alleged" Brownie violations.

You can see for yourself, but the crucial language seems to be this:

In order to cure and correct the alleged violation of the Brown Act as set forth in the October 13, 2005, correspondence from Ms. Gabriella, which alleged violation the Board denies, the Board will accept for review and study in public session at its meeting on October 24, 2005, item 21 relating to District goals for implementation by the Chancellor to provide a copy of this Resolution to Ms. Gabriella, informing her of the action taken ….

Congratulations Ms. Gabriella! Excellent watchdoggery!

(Note: contrary to the agenda item, in this instance, Wendy was acting as a private citizen, not as the President of the IVC Academic Senate.)

(Wendy was among the attorneys that prevailed in two Brown Act suits brought against the SOCCCD board in the late 90s. Chunk was a petitioner in those cases.)

PLEASED AS PUNCH by Chunk

OK, so on Friday, after my morning class, I headed to UPS to make some fliers. Then I headed south to Saddleback College to distribute said fliers and to take some pics, only, it was a pretty dreary looking day, and that sucked bigtime.

I rolled up to that parking lot near Fine Arts, where I spotted a snazzy little sports car. Blue, I think. I recalled driving around the campus one day a few years ago and spotting a car just like this one. It was driven, I thought, by a certain theatrical fellow—one of the Scandalous Boys—the kind that used to control the union so it could bail ‘em out of scrapes. ("Scrapes" is a euphemism.) This particular Scandalous Boy used to leave me unpleasant voicemail messages in which he breathed so heavily that he seemed on the verge of unconsciousness, or climax. Blecccch! (See “the Character of the Opposition” in the ARCHIVES: November ’98.)

One time, when I was at a restaurant with a friend, Scandal Boy happened to be there too, eatin’ fries; he spotted me and, after a few minutes, he worked up the courage to stand up, point at me, and declare: “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword!” He trembled and quaked. We stared at him. What was the matter with the fellow?

Seeing this car again made me think: hey, what about cars? I mean, the kind of car a person drives says a lot about ‘im. Me, for instance, I drive a beat-up old Honda, which tells you either that I eschew materialism, or that I am a slob. Take your pick.

Well, Scandal Boy seems to drive a car that says, “Girls! Over here! Look at ME!” plus “Cash to burn!”

Anyway, I headed for the Fine Arts division, where I found the faculty mail plus a secretary who was sitting next to a box with a phone on it. She seemed aware of how it looked. She squinted up at me and said something like, “I guess this looks pretty stupid.”

“Well, it is special,” I said.

She explained that “they” had taken the furniture and so she was stuck, sittin’ there next to a box and a phone, and she sure hoped they’d bring that furniture back soon. “What am I supposed to do? Sit here like this by this phone?” she said.

On my way to the Library, I came across a really old guy who seemed to be dying right there in the grass. “Diversity,” thought I.

Walking past the old Board Room brought back memories of Nazis and Irv Rubin; of screaming students and shouting demonstrators; of Frogueian rants about the CIA and the ADL and the DAR. (See ARCHIVES: January & June ’98.)

Ah, the good old days!

I headed up to the third floor, where the denizens of BGS are now housed, now that BGS has been declared toxic. Somebody told me that they might actually have to tear that building down! Recently, Dangerous Bob told me that, when he enters BGS, he starts coughing, but he was coughing when he said it, and we weren’t in BGS, so what can you say.

It was weird going through the automatic door into the third floor offices. I looked askance for Chancellors and toadies, but then I realized that the district is now elsewhere, uptown.

After I put fliers in mailboxes, I took some snaps of the Dilbert-style cubicle hell that Liberal Arts and Business faculty now call home. It was a Friday, and so I didn’t spot any faculty, just a cute 18-year old girl in one of the modules who was telling another girl, on the other side of a partition, how she was gonna do something outrageous to break up with her boyfriend. She declared that she was giving up on dating. “Ha!” said the other girl.

I briefly visited the portion of the third floor that once housed the Chancellor. As I approached the “zone of glass,” I encountered a secretary who looked squarely at me and barked: “Who are YOU?” I told her I was distributing fliers. I handed her one. She studied it and screwed up her face a bit. “Oh,” she said, unpleasantly.

I snagged a copy of the latest Lariat, the student newspaper, which seems to have been inspired by the district’s “get hotties” marketing campaign, for, on the front page is an eye-catching investigative piece about the self-indulgence of American youth. The article focuses on “18 and older clubs” where young women dance around, get drunk, and strut their stuff.

The accompanying photos of assorted "hotties" are pretty amazing. (See.) Here are some excerpts from the article:

"Most older guys just stare at you," said Danielle Wilson, 18, real estate. "It doesn't really bother me because they don't try to touch you or anything."
....
Neither Club Glam nor The Boogie discourage the use of cameras, and camera phones pointed under a skirt or down a woman's cleavage are commonplace.
.....
Clubs such as The Boogie pay professional go-go type dancers to entertain. Male or female, these dancers strip down to their underwear while dancing seductively for the crowd. If these dancers remove their clothing, additional permits for a figure model studio (strip facility) may be required….
...
While the federal government is cracking down on the pornography industry, the young women of middle-class America seem to be emulating it. Many are wondering where the line of social acceptance will finally be drawn.

We at Dissent have a pretty good idea where the district draws that line these days: at “hotties and happiness”! (See “Money and Hotties,” ARCHIVE: September ’05.)

Over at Math, I managed to get past the sentries to distribute my fliers. Jeez, there sure are lots of faculty over in Math. It was wearin’ me out, poppin’ those fliers in all those boxes. I was sweatin'.

The last time I did this, a secretary, still sitting at her desk, roared:: “Who are YOU? What are YOU doing here?!”

“I’m just distributing fliers. I’m from IVC.”

The bit about IVC didn’t help. She roared again: “next time, tell me before you do that!”

But, this time, I must’ve done something right. I think that, unconsciously, I chose to affect the carefree attitude of someone distributing Carl’s Junior coupons. That is, I looked pleasant and vapid and pleased-as-punch. When the two secretary types came around and spotted me, they said nothing. They even smiled!

Next, I drove up to the new building and parked near the reserved parking. I spotted an impressive Mercedes in one of the reserved spaces, and I figured it was the Chancellor’s. I'd seen it once before. I wrote down the model number. Later, I determined that this car goes for about fifty grand. Maybe more. Wow.

An old TV show theme song started to play in my head: “…to that Deee-luxe apartment, in the skyyyyyy!”

I took pictures of the Mercedes. I very nearly left one of my fliers under one of Raghu’s windshield wipers. But then I thought, “what would Rebel Girl do?” I walked away from the Mercedes and straight into the new building.

I took some snaps of the new boardroom. I took a picture, too, of the picture of Mr. Goo, just outside the room. (See.) In the photo, he seems terribly pleased.

A few minutes later, the elevator opened, and I beheld the Sentry Station for the district area. It’s pretty impressive. The woman sitting behind the counter popped her head out, craned her neck to the right, and said, “Who are YOU? What are YOU doing here?”

I asked her if I could go inside. “No,” she said.

“Well, how do I get inside?”

“If you have an appointment with someone, I could call them, and verify that you’re supposed to be here. Then I’d let you in.”

“Oh.” I paused. “So I can’t just go in there and take some pictures?”

“No.”

I smiled and thanked her. Despite my affected pleased-as-punch vapidity, I do believe she thought I might be a terrorist. I got out of there fast.

Maybe I got this scrambled—could be—but I think it was somewhere in the new building that I spotted the much ballyhooed nurses program facility. It was locked. I looked inside. The room was exactly like an intensive care unit. It looked good. I spotted a patient in one of the beds. His head was foam. His eyes were buttons.

Wow, they’ve got an ICU unit with mannequins! How cool is that?

Back out at the parking lot, I took another snap of Raghu’s car. It was beautiful. It seemed to say: “I’m rich and I’m better, much better, than you!”

It seemed to point at me. It said: “it is much better to seem just than to be just.”

I climbed into my Honda and, amid the gloom, I headed home. --CW

CALL BACK TOMORROW?

SOBER TRUTH #17:
“WHEN PEOPLE CONTACT US FOR INFO, WE TELL 'EM TO CALL BACK TOMORROW”!

This morning, a friend called to explain that, at about 8:00 a.m., she had called “information” at Irvine Valley College (451-5100). A pleasant recorded message thanked her for calling the college and then provided various extensions. It then said,

“At any time during this message you may press zero for an operator.”

Well, my friend pressed zero. But she didn’t get an operator. She got another recorded message. It said: “There is no operator available at this moment to assist you. If this is an emergency, please call campus police at 949 451-5234. Otherwise, please call us back tomorrow.”

Call us tomorrow!??

Well, I was busy until about 12:15 today. At that point, I called IVC information myself. "Surely," thought I, "by now they've scraped somebody up to man the phone!"

Nope. I got the same message: ”CALL US BACK TOMORROW”!

What’s goin’ on here? Isn’t the college desperately looking for ways to address our enrollments problem? I mean, we’ve formed committees and administration has done lots of finger-pointing: It’s our calendar! –No, it’s those pesky 5-unit courses! –No, it’s our reputation (i.e., “stigma”) for these ridiculously high standards! –No, it's….

--MAYBE IT'S THAT, WHEN PEOPLE CALL THIS !#*%!! COLLEGE FOR INFORMATION, THEY'RE TOLD TO CALL AGAIN TOMORROW!

So I went over to the information desk in the middle of A100 to see what was up. The likable Cathy is usually there.

Now, there’s no more central spot in the entire college than that desk.


Nobody was there. I kid you not! There was a sign. (See.) It said that the info desk was closed and it wouldn’t open until 5:00!

Is anyone in charge at this college? Anybody at all?

—Chunk Wheeler

CURING AND CORRECTING?

As you know, last month, the board violated the Brown Act. On the 13th, it held a closed session (in the "Catalina Room" of a hotel in Dana Point) and discussed matters that were not agendized, thereby robbing citizens of their opportunity and right to weigh in on the topic prior to board discussion and decision-making. Further, it discussed matters that are not allowed in closed session.

Hey, the whole idea of "open meeting" laws like the Ralph M. Brown Act is to make "legislative bodies" do their work in the open, to the degree possible! No secrets! That means you, John!

Well, it now appears that, at the Monday board meeting, the Board will "cure or correct" its violation(s). At least, that's how I interpret item 20 of the agenda for Monday's meeting. (See.) I'm not sure. I mean, what else could be going on?


I'm impressed!

For a fuller account of the Board's history re the Brown Act, see "The Board of Secrets" in the Archives (September 27). (Go to the upper right of this site: Archives, September.)

UPDATE! (I.e., "Uh-Oh")

I Just looked up 54960.1 (to which agenda item 20 refers) . 54960.1 says:

54960.1 where it is found that a legislative body of the local agency has violated this chapter. The costs and fees shall be paid by the local agency and shall not become a personal liability of any public officer or employee of the local agency.

A court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to a defendant in any action brought pursuant to Section 54960 or 54960.1 where the defendant has prevailed in a final determination of such action and the court finds that the action was clearly frivolous and totally lacking in merit.

I am no longer impressed. Given the portion of the Brown Act the Chancellor cites, it appears that the Board intends, not to cure or correct, but to pass a resolution according to which the recent "demand of cure or correct" is unwarranted, and that any litigation along those lines would be "clearly frivolous."

Translation: if you pursue this, you'll have to pay our attorney fees. And that's big money.

Say hello to the ol' "deep pockets" strategy! (Am I wrong?) --CW