THE NOVEMBER 14 BOARD MEETING, Part II

As I indicated yesterday, Monday night's Board discussion of marketing and outreach was kinda interesting, if "interesting" means "worrisome."

It started with the grilling of Tracy Daly, the gal in charge of marketing and chirpiness. Tracy explained that IVC's pattern of enrollment decline has ceased, and Saddleback's enrollments are slightly on the upswing. She's no logician. She immediately and unapologetically attributed these trends to her much-ballyhooed "Next Step"/Surfer marketing campaign. --You know, the one in which a moron represents studentry and our colleges are like wax.

(The campaign is not "ballyhooed" on the cover of the latest Lariat, which declares: "Ad campaign reviews mixed: campaign fails to attract many students despite winning national marketing award.")

Some trustees questioned the reliability of Tracy's "post hoc" reasoning. Good for them. I like Tracy, but a fallacy is a fallacy.

In the course of the discussion, Trustee Fuentes displayed his philosophical repulsion at the very idea of our luring students to our colleges. Something deep within him causes the fellow to cringe and squirm and squeal at the very thought of messin' with the "marketplace."

And this phenomenon of district's poaching in other district's territories? Well, that's a "cancer." That Fuentes sure has a way with words. He's got a point, though. Why don't all the districts get together and declare a moratorium on poachitude? Wouldn't that be sensible? For all I know, they're doing that.

Another aspect of the discussion concerned the responsibility of faculty for outreachery at the High Schools. Some have suggested that faculty are inclined to resist participation in outreach, and if they're gonna do it, they oughta be compensated.

Naturally, Trustee Fuentes seems to view such attitudes as a further demonstration of his Lazy and Overpaid thesis re full-time faculty, which he articulated on TV a year or so ago.

Check out his suggestions about luring "star" part-timers. Maybe you can explain to me what he's saying.

In the end, the item--a request for a big chunk of basic aid money--passed, with only Fuentes and Wagner voting against it.

FUENTES: ...Will [this marketing] be in our district geographically? Or are we talking about advertising and promoting like the other districts do outside of [their own] district?

DALY: Most of it’s here in our district.

FUENTES: All right. I think that’s something we need to come to grips with in clarity. It is a cancer that has spread among the districts, that there is this competitive recruitment, and it’s costing us, and it’s costing our taxpayers, and it’s costing the taxpayers of other districts. I wanted to respond to a comment that Trustee Milchiker made about our experience at Irvine Valley’s forum. I guess it’s who hears it, but I heard that very enthusiastic teacher [Spanish instructor Jeanne E.] tell us of her and her husband’s experience in outreaching, and going to visit other campuses, and the non-doing of that by others. I heard her say how few visited other campuses, that day that we went as a Board to sit in that forum. There were only six or seven teachers that came to visit with us, and she made the point, I thought, that more [instructors] needed to participate as she and husband did to go out to the campus….

…We talked about gas prices. And I related that, when this subject was first brought up, that I had a family room full of 18 to 20 year olds, because my son is a college freshman, and that was early in the semester. And many of those young fellas—surfers all—were going to OCC and to Golden West, and I can report to you, on the most unscientific poll ever taken, that they have decided now, at three dollars a gallon, to return to our local campuses! And I think the marketplace is at work, and it’s going to play a role in this.

Now, one of the most striking marketing things that I heard in recent weeks was an ad by our colleagues over at UCI, touting the quality of their teachers, being No. 5 in the nation, a striking contribution and quality in our community. Bill [he turns to Bill Jay] has addressed the merits of part-time faculty, and I would think we ought as a Board be thinking about more part-time faculty, especially star faculty that we might recruit from UCI to come over and teach some courses that would be a draw to students. These young people [students] shop the marketplace; these students look for name and identity, and I think we need to think outside the box and take advantage of the opportunity of part-time teachers. Maybe some of those part-time teachers that [students] are presently going to OCC and Golden West to take classes from might be available to us….

PADBERG: I am going to support the item. One thing that, I think, we’re missing…is the complaint that I hear from my constituent groups that there are not enough classes of the required courses for transfer for students, or they’re not scheduled at convenient times, so [students] have to go to other colleges…to get those. I know that this has been an experience of friends of mine….

HO: …I think the main detractors for students who live in our district, we are not meeting the demand of the classes, and that’s why I propose a mechanism in which we can see, recognize the demand…and respond to it…. [Ho is referring to wait lists and surveys.]

WAGNER: I think I agree with everything Trustee Jay said except his part about supporting the item. I think you’re absolutely right-on about what we need to do in terms of finding out what the students want, and what’s troubled me about this item, what troubled me …when the million dollar item came to us [months ago], and we scaled it back to $100,000—…our focus here with this program is still the wrong focus. What the hundred thousand should have been spent doing was answering the questions that Trustee Jay has asked. What do the students want? Not, OK, let’s try something new; let’s try a new coordinated marketing campaign; let’s do a surfer and have a logo. –All of those may be appropriate down the road, but I don’t feel we’ve done our homework to know that those are what’s appropriate…We aren’t sure we even need a marketing program, and we won’t know what a marketing program ought to say until we know why we don’t have the enrollment we want, and that’s things like, surveys of other districts and what they offer, that’s things like surveys of our students…Those are the things that we ought to be spending a hundred thousand dollars for.

LANG: …There’s a lot of wisdom in some of your comments…I don’t think there’s any question that we need to have a marketing program. I think the question is, is what the focus of that marketing program needs to be…We’re trying a lot of soft things—putting ads in movie theaters, etc…and we really don’t have a good idea whether that’s going to generate the additional student enrollment that we’d like to see…If we understand that students are looking to have a unique program here that they can’t get somewhere else, perhaps that’s what will generate additional student enrollment…It’s seems to me that…one good use of funds…would be to do some polling, to find out, OK, what is it that’s going to bring students here?

[Traci then explained that much of the work that Wagner and Lang identified as important is actually being done by enrollment management groups on the two campuses; they are active and they meet each week, she said. Chancellor Mathur, too, explained that the item under discussion concerns only marketing, and that much other work is being done beyond the marketing.]

MILCHIKER: [Reading from her notes for the forum:] Jeannie Egasse said that she wasn’t sure that Frisbees and surfer logos and things worked. Her kids are surfers, and her kids really didn’t like these things…She said other teachers would like to go out [for outreach at High Schools], but they would like to be given some release time so that they don’t have to go out on their own time….

THE NOVEMBER 14 BOARD MEETING, Part I

I attended most of Monday’s board meeting, and so here’s what I saw. It’s late, and so I’m gonna make this quick.

The room filled up pretty well with red-shirted CSEA members, some of whom were gearing up to address the Board during the “public remarks” portion of the meeting. But before we got to that, Trustee Fuentes led everybody in a rousing Pledge of Allegiance, but not before he offered some seriously weird patriotic blather:

FUENTES: “…Young men and women, some members of this district, are at the battlefields around the world defending our freedom. Let’s join together in pledging our allegiance to that flag, and that nation, that they defend.”

I stared at him, trying to figure out what makes him tick. It was like trying to understand a moray eel.

Trustee Padberg invoked the Lord, but that’s the essence of invocations, I guess.

For some reason, trustees really love to hand out awards and plaques and such, and so, with the help of Student Trustee Ho, four “teacher of the year” awards were presented, followed by photo ops. Recipients included Dottie Sherling and a fella named Pearlstein—they both teach Math at IVC, I think—and Susan Hecht and Robert Parsons of Saddleback.

Fuentes, who wore his standard extravagant “master of ceremonies” persona—complete with too-loud voice and subtle but theatrical gestures—seemed a little lost when he called out the four names and only Ms Sherling showed up. Maybe the other three were sending a signal. Could be.

I know I’d show up. I’d grab the plaque and say, “well it’s really very lovely to be here, and I owe it all to—well, I sure as hell don’t owe it to these people, who can’t even be bothered to visit the college, ceptin' for Nancy over there!”

How come nobody ever does something like that?

As I said, the classified staff did a pretty good job making their case for receiving a better contract than the district is prepared to offer. One woman explained that you “can’t get excellence" if you're only willing to pay for "mediocrity.” One guy named Cherry, I think, outlined the facts about other categories of employee in the district and the sometimes surprisingly generous raises they have received. Some administrators, he said, received as much as a 30% raise! And the Chancellor! Sheesh, the fellow is the second highest paid Chancellor in the system. (2nd? Good Lord, who’s the first?)

I’ve gotta say, most of these classified employees were very articulate and they made a strong case for their having been treated most shittily. Some referred to a study done by Johnson and Associates that showed that classified employees are definitely underpaid in comparison with similar workers elsewhere. Connie Z of IVC explained that the kind of raise CSEA was asking for its 450 workers would cost much less than the raises given to administrators, a crew of 28 people.

Well, it all sounded good to me, but the Board seemed unmoved, but who can say.


During their reports, Trustees referred to their meeting two weeks ago with Accrediting officials. They kept saying that things went well, but they also seemed kinda tense about these Accreds, like maybe they’re expecting to get wacked real good up side the head. They all looked flinchy, if you ask me.

Raghu explained that he gave an address to the Kiwanis Club in Laguna Hills. I thought he was kidding, but I guess not. He yammered a bit about some study that attempted to quantify the “economic impact” of our two colleges. Evidently, we bring something like a trillion dollars—or maybe a billion, or was it a zillion?—to the county. How do they measure something like that? I bet they just make it up and hope nobody asks questions.

Trustee Marcia Milchiker talked a bit about the “academic calendar” issue. I do believe that the “District Calendar Committee” has experienced lots of disagreement, and it has decided to recommend to the Board that the two colleges adopt different calendars—IVC would adopt one that allows for a winter inter-session. I’m told that Chancellor Mathur supports this idea.

In the end, of course, it will be up to the Board, just like everything else.

Student Trustee Paul Ho told one or two classic jokes of the self-effacing variety:

HO: “…Besides teaching me math, [Professor Sherling] also taught me that there’s actually three types of math student: one that can count and one that cannot count. [Laughter.] .... I attended the veterans ceremony, and [Mathur and Roquemore] were willing to let me speak, and I told them that I will speak free of charge and I think that your audience will agree with me that I am worth every penny of it…. [Laughter.]


Paul repeated one of his themes: the need for more classes, especially science classes. He spoke about the need for wait lists and student evaluations of online classes. He seemed to be underscoring the paucity of data for measuring the success of such courses. I think he’s an Empiricist or something. The fellow wants facts. It was refreshing.

Eventually, they got to items 27 and 28: goals. As you know, thanks in part to the help of a pricey consultant, the board has written some “district” and “trustee” goals. They're crap. The Saddleback College Academic Senate responded to this crapulence by editing and rewriting the goals with a big red pen. The IVC Academic Senate has endorsed the Saddleback red-ink editing effort. But, on this night, there was no mention of the two senates. Maybe that’s because Raghu and Co. actually incorporated some of the senate suggestions. Does anybody know?

As we’ve reported elsewhere, the Board has not made public the “Chancellor” goals. They remain a secret. Recently, one of the senate presidents asked Mr. Kinsler, the district’s lawyer, about the Board’s refusal to reveal the Chancellor’s goals, and Kinsler reportedly said that the Board takes the position that, legally, those goals “are not a public document.” Jeez. I seem to recall that the IVC Academic Senate has resolved to ask the Board to come clean with these goals. I mean, if taxpayers are gonna give a guy a quarter million dollars each year, shouldn’t they be told what he’s trying to do?

Chancellor Mathur explained that they’ve added a goal that says something about engaging faculty, staff, et al., in shared governance, but Trustee Fuentes, using that overly-deliberate televangelist delivery of his, got weird again and insisted that the phrase “to best serve the taxpayer” be added. I think that Raghu counter-suggested the phrase “students and taxpayers.” Yes, that's it!

They were pleased as punch. Everybody else just stared.

Trustee Bill Jay focused on a “goal” that concerned the expansion of distance ed, but he was concerned that it seemed to be focused on “just technology” and not “general education” courses. Lapsing into incorrectness (and 1952), he launched into a mini-lecture about the value of engineering degrees: “You can give a young man” an engineering degree, he said, and he’s set. How come we can’t put together a good engineering program?

Item 30 concerned “additional funding for colleges’ marketing, outreach and recruitment strategies.” Tracy Daly and her crew were requesting $229,830 of basic aid money for that purpose.

Right away, Don Wagner adopted a sour look, as though he'd just entered an IVC restroom. He does that.

This item produced the most interesting discussion of the evening, I think. [I'LL TRY TO POST TRANSCRIPTS OF THESE REMARKS TOMORROW.] Fuentes and Wagner have some kinda right-wing take: that you need to let the marketplace decide where students go. Somehow, Fuentes was put off by the idea of spending money to get students to go to our colleges. I seem to recall Fuentes saying, at a previous meeting, that if some kid in South County wanted to drive all the way up to OCC, then “God bless him.”


Well, Mathur and the rest of the board seemed to take the contrary view, that we are now in a “competitive environment,” and the other districts of Orange county are spending big money to get to our students. The days of “we will build it, and they will come” are over, said Raghu. If we don’t attract students, we will lose enrollment and we’ll have to lay people off.

Someone screamed.

There was some discussion about outreach. Raghu alluded to faculty “resistance” to participating in outreach at the high schools, but, he added, they now see the need for that. (I think he was trying real hard not to piss anybody off.) He said that we need to ask ourselves whether we want to grow or not. If we don’t compete for our share of students, we won’t grow, and we’ll have to “reduce staff.”

There was some speculation about the drop in enrollments experienced across the state. Chancellor Mathur guessed that the phenomenon has to do with the availability of “distance education,” which is growing by 10-25% yearly. So we have to provide that, too, he said.


Tracy Daly presented an overview of the fall marketing campaign, which, it seems, was viewed as a success by most trustees. Evidently, the campaign targeted “18 to 22 year olds.” Its theme was “the next step,” i.e., the step after summer.

Huh? I thought they meant that step off of the surf board and into the drink!

Tracy explained that her efforts are paying off: IVC had exactly 1 fewer students than last year—which means that the decline has been reversed or stopped. Saddleback headcount was up by 151.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc!

Bill Jay climbed on one of his hobbyhorses: that the best marketing is offering classes at local high schools. High Schools! High Schools! High Schools!, he seemed to say.

Fuentes used the term “cancer” to refer to the phenomenon of districts luring students from outside their own area. He looked pretty sour too.

Wagner seemed to express skepticism about the inference that the fall marketing campaign worked. How can we know that it did any good at all? How do we know it wasn’t something else that changed the numbers? He looked peeved again.

Well, that’s about when I had to leave, at about 9:30. I’ll try to find out what else happened, but nobody tells me anything.

Jack the cat says "Hey." --CW

Fun with Google!

Tidbit of the Night:

When I "googled" (I know, I know, I have better things to do)--but really, when I "googled" Raghu Mathur (What's an ace reporter to do on a slow night, huh?), anyway, when I "googled" Raghu Mathur - well, hang on, the second result (That's number 2) that came up was DISSENT!

Woo hoo!

We're proud!

Check it out:

from Google:
Results 1 - 10 of about 14,700 for Raghu Mathur. (0.26 seconds)

This one was #1:
[DOC] SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Negotiators – Dr. Raghu Mathur; SOCCCD Police Officers Association. 4. Negotiators –
Dr. Raghu Mathur; Unrepresented Employees – All ...
www.socccd.org/board/agendas/TENTATIVE-AGENDA-10-27-03.doc - Nov 12, 2005

This chestnut was #2:
DISSENT the BLOG: February 2002
The Raghu P. Mathur-Dorothy Fortune Scholarship for Heterosexual Awareness. ...
Raghu Mathur saved my life. Woof! Raghu is a good master. Bow-wow! ...
dissenttheblog.blogspot.com

Here's #3:
DISSENT the BLOG: August 1997
There was an exception: in Raghu Mathur’s own School, the office never rotated,
... I think the accolades for Mr. Raghu Mathur are impressive; however, ...
dissenttheblog.blogspot.com/1997_08_01_

ETC.

--What this means, I am not exactly sure, but it's kinda fun.

- Rebel Girl (doing her part to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. What happened to the mold count anyway? Sniff.)

Somebody Out There Reads Us!

But we knew that already due to our handy dandy site counter (Thank you Mr. Debs!) and the news that we are now #1 when someone googles "Dissent the Blog" and hey, you should be impressed because there are other dissentful blogs out there but apparently our high rate of hits lands us in that desired place (according to Mr. Debs who knows about these things).

Anyway, it's nice to know we're being read.

As further evidence, Rebel Girl, up late this night after teaching a rather long day (yawn!), found this notice in the OC Weekly's Matt Coker blog, "A Clockwork Orange":

TIO TOMAS' READING HOUR

Speaking of PODs (Pals of Dana), ex-chairman of the Orange County GOP Tom Fuentes, who now darkens the halls of the South Orange County Community College District as a trustee, apparently has some scary ties of his own, according to the latest rants from everyone's favorite dissent-spewing SOCCCD website Dissent the Blog. Seems that Tio Tomas is on the board of directors of Regnery, "which publishes books not likely to be found on an academic's bookshelf," Dissent reports.

Hint: Evolution? Total bullshit!

Someone better inform the science teachers at Saddleback and Irvine Valley colleges that their lesson plans need to be altered accordingly. Oh, that's right: they already know evolution is bullshit because of the weekly de-evolution they witness every time Fuentes and the rest of the SOCCCD board of trustees meet.

Ah, well, at least they've cleared out the Nazis.

+++++

Coker's blog takes on all things local, loco and around the state.

http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/06/09/web-coker.php

That's all for tonight.

Say goodnight Gracie.

-Rebel Girl

CHECK OUT OUR ARCHIVES! HERE'S
A SAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'LL FIND!
(Click on image for greater detail.)

PADBERG VISITS WITH FACULTY/STAFF/STUDENTS; MONDAY'S CURIOUS BOARD AGENDA; the SECRET CHANCELLOR'S GOALS

1. TRUSTEE VISIT. Yesterday (Nov. 8), Trustee Nancy Padberg and Student Trustee Paul Ho toured Irvine Valley College and met with faculty, students, and staff. By the time I ran into them—at about noon—they had been joined by a couple of administrators that Paul had snagged.

As we neared A400, Paul had the bright idea of showing Nancy “our cadaver.” Yes, Dissent readers, IVC’s biology faculty secured their own human cadaver--maybe a coupla years ago. I guess that's why A400 sometimes gets seriously funky.

Something told me that Trustee Padberg would rather pass on the cadaver meet ‘n’ greet. Luckily, class was in session, and the cadaver was occupied. Whew!

Soon, our little group wandered into A200, which houses thirty or forty faculty offices, including the offices of most of the School of Humanities and Languages. It is no secret that Chancellor Mathur has long viewed H&L as a cesspool of devilish connivery, comprising a "core" of troublemakers who have expended prodigious energy over the years in an effort to thwart the administrative career of Goo and the interests “of the students.” Well, that’s nonsense, but the poor fellow believes it. As a consequence, despite its unequalled contribution to WSCH, H&L has some of the lousiest facilities and digs to be found in the district. Check it out!

At one end of A200 is the hideous zone we ruefully refer to as “the lounge.” It sports a linoleum floor, two cheesy desks, a motley assortment of stinkoid chairs, a microwave oven (which occasionally reeks of fish), a crummy little couch, and a large plastic tree. (See picture.) Students seem to use the “lounge” as a study hall. I found a banana there once.

Well, because of its centrality, “the lounge” was an unavoidable part of Nancy and Paul's tour. I don't know what Nancy thought of it, but I bet she was pissed, boy. I wouldn't be surprised if, later, she grabbed Glenn's ear again, and yanked him all the way into A200. She does that sort of thing. And why not?

Everyone was on their best behavior and seemed genuinely glad to visit with Nancy and Paul. People were smilin' pretty hard, but not in a phony way. I have no doubt that Trustee Padberg, too, was persuaded that she is more than welcome, and that she really ought to visit regularly.


I had to leave for my 12:30 class, but it sounds like the rest of Nancy and Paul’s tour was a great success.

I consulted the grape vine and it's sayin' that Paul caught some administrative flack for failing to inform Roquemore about this little visit. Actually, he tried to inform Glenn, but, as usual, Glenn was out to lunch. But by what logic is Trustee Paul obliged to run things by Roquemore? Or Mathur? Who do these people think they are, anyway?

We at Dissent speak for many faculty, I’m sure, when we say that we welcome visits from trustees. It is unfortunate that the board relies on Chancellor Mathur for information, as it seems to. I do believe that the fellow has convinced several trustees that faculty are lazy and overpaid troublemakers who seek to destroy the college. The truth, of course, is far otherwise.

Trustees, please visit! The truth is out there!

2. AGENDA ODDITIES. I’ve had a chance to look over the agenda for Monday’s board meeting. I noticed two peculiarities. First, it doesn’t seem to mention the new and improved “faculty hiring policy” that was hammered out and agreed upon by a committee representing the district and the faculty. It has been approved by the academic senates. All that remains is board approval.

Why on earth has Mathur left it off the agenda?

Dunno. But consider this. At the December board meeting, the board nominates and selects its new officers. If you put two and two together, then you get: trustee Fuentes might be our next board president. Think about THAT.

UPDATE (Nov. 11): Evidently, board president Lang has been apprised of the omission of the hiring policy from Monday's agenda; I have been told that he has offered assurances that the item will be included for Monday.

Second peculiarity: item #19 is mighty curious:

SOCCCD: CONSULTANT FOR PRIVATE INVESTIGATION SERVICES.
Agreement with Norman A Traub Associates for an amount not to exceed $10,000.

I’ve been told that Traub has been hired to look into harassment complaints. What’s that all about? Could be nothin', I guess. Does anybody know?

UPDATE (Nov. 11): I have spoken with an administrator about this; "they" assure me that the hire of Traub is nothing that warrants alarm. One curious fact though: Monday's item concerns a contract that extends from July of '05 to June of '06. If Traub has done work since July, why is the matter up for approval now?

3. PIPER AGAIN. Back in 1998, Trustee Frogue managed to attract the interest of lots of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and the rest of the unsavory Liberty Lobby crowd. That came about because, in 1997, the Board had voted to approve a forum on the Warren Commission that involved inviting four conspiracy nuts, including a reporter for “Spotlight” magazine, Michael Collins Piper. But then the excrement hit the fan, and so Frogue cancelled the forum. That pissed off Mr. Piper, who was desperate for recognition or notoriety. It probably didn't help that, in press interviews, I had called him a "crackpot." [Piper's ultimate fate: HERE.]

Piper then wrote me (and Trustee Michliker) a series of letters. In my case, the letters were punctuated by the colorful noun "motherfucker." In June of '98, I read one of these letters to the board to indicate what sort of “scholar” they had voted to invite to Saddleback College. (See Archives, January and June, 1998.) Upon reading Mr. Piper's colorful prose, I said something like, “I know lots of scholars, and they almost never use the term ‘motherfucker.’” That got a laugh. Even Irv Rubin laughed.

But some of these letters included veiled threats. I told the district about it, and so did Marcia. The district didn’t seem to care. When Raghu told the board that he had received "mail threats" (and about a dozen other threats, none of which he kept, he acknowledged, during a deposition a year or two later), they gave the frightened fellow a "security stipend." Me and Marcia: we got zilch, even though we had real letters to show.

As you know, not long ago, I received a letter from Frogue, inviting me to join him for a fried chicken snack and a beer. He was pretty friendly, not at all threatening.

But now I’ve received a letter from one Joseph Forbes of Pittsburgh, PA. I quickly Googled Forbes with “Liberty Lobby” and found that his name comes up on some of the wackier JFK assassination conspiracy websites.

In his letter, he defends Piper, evidently responding to my having designated Piper a “crackpot.” At one point, he writes: “The Jews are in fact extremely powerful and totally ruthless, and their first loyalty is to Israel. It is entirely plausible that they could’ve killed JFK because he opposed Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. The Mossad is tight with the CIA and JFK wanted to destroy the CIA….” --It's the usual claptrap.

At the end of the letter, he declares, “Bauer’s book is well-researched and not a ‘crackpot’ exercise.”

Bauer’s book?

Why are these people such knuckleheads?

—CW

4. PESKY NEW GOALS (Nov. 11):


CRAPITUDINAL UNDERSCORAGE:

At the last board meeting, the new "Chancellor goals" were not revealed. The IVC Academic Senate Prez asked if the public should not be allowed to see them. The board was dismissive.

To date, no one has seen the chancellor’s goals. They remain a mystery.

Well, here's the latest:

On Thursday (Nov. 10), during the IVC Academic Senate Rep Council meeting, the IVC Senate voted to endorse the Saddleback College Academic Senate’s revisions of the board’s “district” and “trustee” goals. The idea seemed to be that these goals, despite the expense in producing them (a consultant, it appears, was paid $6K to help out), are lousy--they sometimes refer to items already accomplished and they generally look as though they were penned by fidgety third graders. So the Saddleback senate acted to offer revisions (and additions) that underscored the new goals' crapitude. On Thursday, the IVC senate decided to endorse Saddleback’s crapitudinal underscorage.

No doubt, the Board will look at these edits and throw them in the trash: "We don't need no stinkin' edits!"

THE SECRET "CHANCELLOR" GOALS:

But after the IVC Senate signed on to Saddleback's edits/rewrites of district and trustee goals, I raised a question. Have we yet seen the new Chancellor’s goals? Senate Prez Wendy explained that it is evidently the Board’s position that the Chancellor’s goals are “not a public document.” District lawyer Warren Kinsler seemed to be her source.

Some senators opined that, even if there were some legal justification for keeping these goals secret, why on earth would the board choose not to reveal them?

So the IVC Acadamic Senate voted (unanimously, I think) in favor of a motion to ask the Board to make the new "Chancellor's goals" public.

This could turn out to be a juicy little story. Be on the lookout for Red Emma's take on the secret Chancellor's goals! --CW

HAVE YOU PERUSED OUR ARCHIVES?
CHECK 'EM OUT!

WHAT'S WITH TRUSTEE PADBERG?

1. Old Dissents (and ‘Vines) to be archived at UCI.

Not for the first time, we’ve heard that folks doing archiving at UCI wish to archive the Dissent. We’ll likely pursue that this time. We’ll keep you posted.

2. NANCY PADBERG NO LONGER WORKING FOR THE COUNTY?

There’s been talk that Nancy Padberg no longer works for John Williams in his job at the County. Anybody know anything about that?

Here’s some background:

Back in 2002, John Williams, a former bailiff, ran for county “public administrator.” With tongue firmly in cheek (or no?), the OC Weekly endorsed Williams:

Slim Pickin’s: Hold your nose and vote for these few good candidates

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR: John S. Williams

Four people are running for public administrator, the county official who manages the estates of losers who die without wills or anyone willing to handle their affairs. Mark your ballot for John S. Williams, who has no experience for the job (he’s a retired sheriff’s sergeant). He also sits on the SOCCCD board of trustees, thanks to heavy backing from the Christian Coalition and since-deposed leaders of a corrupt college teachers union. Williams has served during a tumultuous period that saw the district nearly go belly-up, a stinging state accreditation report, the departure of several longtime employees (including two chancellors and scores of presidents at Saddleback and Irvine Valley colleges), the obliteration of policies that allowed faculty and staff to have a say in running their campuses, and the fireworks that surrounded allegations that a since-retired trustee (and Williams chum) loved Nazis. South County voters, who are apparently as blind to all the crap going on in the district as they are to Christian fundamentalists’ assault on all of public education, keep electing Williams. So it’s up to the rest of us to help our southern comrades with a three-pronged strategy: elect Williams public administrator, eat your wills, and tell your heirs to butt out when the county comes looking for someone to administer your estate. Bury this guy in so much work he’ll be forced to step down from the college district. Our kids—even our Ecstacy-juiced, Teva-wearing, Girls Gone Wild-watching college kids—deserve better. (OC Weekly, March 1-7, 2002)

Shockingly, the post-corruption faculty union endorsed Williams too.

(Incidentally, I ran across a page of information that Williams provided to the League of Women Voters of California during his 2002 campaign. Williams here lists his “priorities,” including that he will “OPPOSE EL TORO AIRPORT.” Now tell me, what’s this Corpse Patrol job of his got to do with the airport? Exactly nothing.

Williams also lists his “key endorsements.” Among them: “Armando Ruiz, Coast College Dist. Board President.”

You’ll recall that Mr. Ruiz was one of the few district faculty low enough to play ball with Raghu Mathur and the Board Majority. Not long after he was transferred from Saddleback to Irvine Valley, he became an administrator, a notoriously bad administrator. Naturally, Raghu loved 'im.

Well, while Armando was messing up our colleges, he was messing things up over at the Coast District, where he's been a trustee for years. Recently, he acquired infamy owing to a scam he was running against the taxpayer. I'll let the Committee to Recall Ruiz do the explaining:

“Ruiz has fleeced taxpayers, collecting TWO years of retirement for every ONE year he worked. He also ‘double-dipped,' and now collects BOTH a Board salary and a retired Board member's pension for the same position. In addition, Ruiz deceived voters by using a false ballot designation on last November’s ballot, and has charged taxpayers over $107,000 for ‘conference’ travel during his term—while classrooms are begging for books and supplies.”

While we’re on the subject of boondogglery, I seem to recall some maneuvering at the county that resulted in Williams turning his tiny post into a real gravy train. Does anyone have info on that? Let us know.)

Well, in November of 2002, Williams was succcessful: he won the “Public Administrator" post. But, not long after he started his new job, he caught the attention of the Weekly again:

Anyone who has attended meetings of local boards, councils and commissions is used to the superfluous public ass-kissing elected officials give one another. Taking such manufactured passion to new depths is the SOCCCD board of trustees, which governs Saddleback and Irvine Valley colleges. At a recent meeting, board president Don Wagner paused at one point to congratulate trustee Tom Fuentes for being re-elected to a 10th term as Orange County Republican Party chairman. Fuentes had earlier toasted fellow trustee John Williams for being sworn in as Orange County’s new public administrator—the part-time elected official who oversees conservancies for feeble-minded folks who can’t care for themselves and have no next-of-kin.

But what Fuentes did next says a lot about Orange County Republicans, county government and that particular school board: he congratulated fellow trustee Nancy Padberg for being appointed to Williams’ professional staff. The same board awarded a plum district administrative job to the trustee Padberg replaced [namely, Teddi Lorch]—even though her qualifications were questionable. The funny thing...is Williams was first swept into his trustee seat as a reformer who would protect South County taxpayers by ending rampant cronyism on the part of faculty and administrators.

Dissident trustee David Lang has long complained of cronyism practiced by Fuentes, Williams, Padberg, Wagner and Dorothy Fortune—Republicans who cast identical votes so often you’d think they trained at the old Soviet Politburo. We would have asked Padberg if she foresees any conflicts, but she was too busy nominating her new boss Williams to a seat on the California Community College Trustees board of directors. —Matt Coker, OC Weekly, 3/14/03

—Well, the days in which Fuentes, Williams, Wagner, Fortune, and Padberg voted as a block are long over, and not merely because Dot “Central Cal” Fortune resigned (amid allegations that she no longer lived in Orange County). Padberg has revealed a reasonable streak—and a dislike of Raghu Mathur—and one suspects that she has thus incurred the wrath of Fuentes and the rest of his Mathur-loving trustee contingent, which seems to include John Williams.

Well, the word is that Padberg no longer works for Williams. Anybody know anything about that? Again, let us know! —CW

“A PERVASIVE SENTIMENT”—THE ACCRED TEAM MEETS WITH IVC FACULTY

NOVEMBER 3:

At about 12:30 this afternoon, two representatives of the ACCJC/WASC (the accrediting agency) met with about twenty IVC faculty. As you know, full teams visited both colleges of the district about a year ago, and ACCJC subsequently granted both colleges “reaccreditation,” but in the very lowest category. Essentially, each college got a D.

This did not prevent Lang & Mathur from spinning the ACCJC's judgment as a "thumbs up" and a "validation...of the excellence of our institutions.“ (See press release, 2/2/05.) In truth, our colleges were in a bit of trouble.

Colleges that get a D are expected to make improvements in response to the agency's recommendations. Further, the colleges are required to submit “progress reports”—to be followed by a visit from the Accreds. Well the reports are in, and now the Accreds are visiting.

IVC's progress report, which cited many positives and some negatives, was described by more than one of its authors as being "as honest as it could be." Translation: it coulda been much more negative, but an effort was made to look on the bright side. That's hard to do at IVC, which seems to be in an eternal night, especially now that Raghu Mathur has won fabulous cash prizes and the keys to a fancy Mercedes.


Well, Accred bigwig Deborah Blue and her colleague finally showed up in our hideous portable building at about 12:40 and the meeting got underway. Blue asked about the “Technical Assistance” (TA) matter. There are particular issues (e.g., defining faculty duties and responsibilities, I think) that remain unresolved between the district and the faculty, and both the Academic Senates and the district have expressed a desire to pursue “technical assistance,” that is, they desire bringing in objective third parties to hammer out a reasonable agreement.

IVC’s Senate President explained that, in the past, the district (i.e., Chancellor Mathur) has consistently rejected the TA route--until, that is, the intransigent district was smacked around by the Accrediting agency’s recommendations a year ago. She also explained that the two academic senates are pursuing the possibility of having the AAUP, those champions of Academic Freedom, represent faculty in TA.

Blue asked how long it has been that the district has rejected technical assistance. The Senate Prez explained that the district’s anti-TA ways go back at least to 2000, when the district changed Board Policy 2100.1, which concerns delegation of district authority to Academic Senates. The version of 2100.1 that then existed provided that 2100.1 itself could only be changed upon mutual agreement of district and senates.

With typical ruthlessness, back in 2000, the board unilaterally changed 2100.1. Upon doing so, 2100.1 no longer included the “mutual agreement” provision!

No, I’m not making this up. See our ARCHIVES, starting with February, 2000.

Given that TA was impossible (for it can occur only when both parties seek it), the Academic Senates had no recourse but to appeal to the State Chancellor’s Office. That agency ultimately judged that the district’s actions violated Title V of the Ed Code. No surprise there.


THE PLAGUE OF DESPAIR. Blue asked about the campus climate—now, verses a year ago.

Several instructors said that relations between the Academic Senate and the college administration have improved over the past year. Faculty and administration have worked well together. For instance, they successfully collaborated in writing the accreditation “progress report.”

But, according to these instructors, the faculty’s relationship with the district (i.e., with the Chancellor and Board) remains dismal. To illustrate the point, Lewis explained that faculty have enjoyed a good working relationship with Vice Chancellor Tom Anderson. But it appears that, owing to Anderson’s coziness with faculty, he has now been handed his walking papers. The Board has sent the poor fellow to the Siberian frontier of Tustin, where he cleans quonset huts and rotates blimps.

Thus, re relations between IVC and the district, the “plague of despair” detected by the Accreditation team a year ago persists. Or so said several faculty.

OVERWORKED DEANS. Ms. K explained that she has been absent for four years (she was away to serve as president of the state academic senate), and, now that she’s back, here is what she sees: overworked deans, who simply can’t do all that is required of them. Faculty have scrambled to take up the slack, typically without compensation, she said. If I heard her correctly, she asserted that she now finds an “appalling, dismal lack of energy.”

Despite these difficult circumstances, chimed the Senate Prez, remarkable things have been accomplished, e.g., Program Review, work on the SLO initiative, and the progress report, among other things.

A CULTURE OF MICROMANAGEMENT. Among the elements of the Accrediting Agency’s ding-age of last January was that old favorite, board “micromanagement.” (Weren't they dinged for this back in '98? Do these people ever learn?)

Lewis explained that the board has adopted an “interesting” approach to that complaint, namely, the Board President (Lang) has become the de facto Chancellor. Routinely, when asked a question, the Chancellor refers the questioner to Mr. Lang, the man with the answers. (Occasionally, jokesters refer to the omnipresent Lang as "the Chancellor.")

Lewis hypothesized that the trustees are so entrenched in their culture of micromanagement, that they can no longer see it even when they’re in it up to their collective eyeball.

One instructor asserted that some of our administrators try to do a good job, that they genuinely want to do the right thing, but they are fearful. More than one instructor described these administrators as always “looking over their shoulders.” They operate in “an environment of fear.”

“Yeah,” said one wit, “they don’t want to get Andersoned.”

NOT OPTIMISTIC. Greg noted that the Senate has been working very hard to do the necessary work of the college, including writing the progress report. He asserted that the senate has worked diligently for this college to retain its accredited status.

That is true. The senate has led the way in accomplishing necessary tasks, when adminsitration has dropped the ball, or kicked it into the strawberry fields. But the Senate has not received much support. "I'm not optimistic," said one instructor.

There are Mathurians who have joined their hero in consistently portraying faculty as working against the functioning of the college and against reaccreditation. Anyone who has served on the Academic Senate in recent years knows that the truth is entirely to the contrary.

I recall Padberg and Wagner's election to the board in 1998. I invited the two to campus to show them around. Wagner took me up on it. I told him that he needed to get to know us, to talk with us. I suggested that the board is too removed from the actual workings of the colleges. Trustees need to get their own impressions of who faculty are and what we do based on interaction and conversation.

But it was to no avail. It seems that the trustees are largely content to let Mathur do their thinking for them with regard to conditions in the trenches. And, according to the notoriously dishonest Raghu, faculty are trying to "destroy the colleges" and "undermine our accreditation."

Trustees, are you reading this? GO ASK GLENN. Ask him if faculty are working to undermine this college. Skip Raghu. Go to Glenn. Go to Dennis. Got to Gwenn. Please pass Goo. Go directly to THOSE WHO WORK WITH FACULTY. Hear what they have to say. Please!

One instructor noted that IVC has for some time been in the mid-range category for college size, but, recently, the college has officially dipped back down to the “small college” category!

Another instructor explained that, for a time (namely, last spring), the college community was palpably optimistic. That optimism sprung from one thing: the likely prospect of non-renewal of Raghu Mathur’s contract!

The “spirit of despair was lifted,” he said.

Ah, but then, all of a sudden, spirits crashed to earth. Not only was Mathur’s contract renewed, but the fellow received a stunning raise, some of it retroactive. He's the Quarter Million Dollar Man.

One instructor was bothered by such negative talk. She insisted that the college is “moving forward,” that things are “working well.” But others in the room sought to refute her perception.

A long-time supporter of Raghu Mathur—Mr. R, a fellow infamous for his blatant bowdlerization of the 1998 IVC accreditation self-study drafts—spoke in defense of his pal. R reported that he does not see people walking around in despair.

R described a board meeting (in May) in which people emerged from beneath various rocks to offer encomia of praise for Mathur.

He noted, too, that the final paragraphs of the progress report refer to a “climate of despair.” Mr. R denied that there is any evidence at all that such a climate exists or that Chancellor Mathur’s leadership is unpopular.

Mr. R did not quote from the progress report. Here is what it actually says:

From the faculty and staff perspective, the most significant issue relative to the climate of despair that continues to plague the college is the renewal of the chancellor’s contract on June 21, 2005. On May 17, 2004, 93.5% of the district faculty voted no confidence in the chancellor. (The California League of Women Voters mailed 318 ballots to all full- time faculty within the district. 246 faculty participated in the vote (77% of the faculty responded). 230 votes (93.5%) expressed no confidence in the leadership of the chancellor; 15 votes (6%) expressed confidence in the leadership of the chancellor; one ballot was unmarked, and counted as an abstention. The vote was conducted by and certified by the California League of Women Voters.) It is the view of the faculty that by renewing the chancellor’s contract, the board majority has continued to dismiss the voice of the faculty thereby causing dismay, concern, and further despair…Despite repeated efforts by the faculty association, IVC and SC academic senates, the classified senate, and CSEA to convey their concerns to the board president and other members of the board, the trustees voted 4-2-1 to renew the contract and granted the chancellor a substantial retroactive increase in salary as well as a substantial salary increase. These actions outraged dissenting board members and faculty. Approximately 75 faculty members attended the June 21, 2005 board meeting. Almost all faculty who attended the meeting were there to protest, to voice their opposition to the board’s actions regarding the chancellor’s contract….

DYSFUNCTION. Mr. D spoke up to rebut R’s points. He reminded us of the stunning “no confidence” vote re Mathur (Raghu’s third and least "confident"). If that is not evidence of difficulty with the district's leadership, then what is?

Mr. D described a Board forum that he attended in which participants were inspired to ask such fundamental questions as, “Who are we (as a college)?” That, at this late stage, we must ask such questions reveals our profound dysfunction, he said. We have many highly-paid administrators, said D, and yet the board seems to cast about for volunteers among faculty to assist in recruitment and public relations.

Mr. D noted that we have a culture of “inbreeding”—the same people persist in positions of authority—and that an inbred culture can produce “no new ideas.” We need fresh, new, visionary leadership, he said.

STILL DICTATING. Blue asked about the “Chancellor’s Cabinet,” the weekly occasion in which governance groups interact with the Chancellor. How is that going?

The Senate Prez cited one major improvement, for the senate and other governance groups are now permitted into “docket meetings”—where board topics are decided. But, said she, Chancellor’s Cabinet continues to be the Chancellor’s dictating to other governance groups.

She cited the case of the recently-adopted district and trustee “goals.” These goals were developed in a closed session in mid-September. When these goals were finally revealed, some governance groups noted the curious fact that many of them had already been achieved.

One naturally suspects that the Chancellor and the board were listing such goals merely for the sake of appearing to be achieving things.

When governance groups questioned the inclusion of these curious goals, the Chancellor ”shut them down.”

The good news, said the Senate Prez, is that all of the governance groups, aside from the Board/Chancellor, are on the same page. They express a unified view, but it does not matter. Their view has “no impact.”

THE BIG BUT. After about 35 minutes, time had run out. Dr. Blue then stated that she and her colleague seemed to be sensing a better atmosphere this time, that people at the college were more willing to speak up.

—But there’s always a BIG BUT.

She added: But we hear what the “pervasive sentiment” is.

She did not identify the sentiment. She didn’t have to. —CW