Contra factoidal warpitude

In this morning’s OC Register, our own Bill Hewitt provides a fine answer to a recent (11/26) article concerning low transfer rates (to four-year institutions) in the state’s community college system (Don't judge community colleges by transfer rates only):

The story…was absolutely a call of alarm about our state's community colleges and their transfer rates. Indeed, a large portion of self-proclaimed transfer students are young, ill-advised and uncertain as to their occupational futures. Many of them are stuck in a revolving door of uncertainty and are very much in need of proper guidance.

Let us, however, take a closer look at the non-transferring student body within this system, because while the article cites “only about a quarter of students who were focused on transfer courses in their first year eventually transferred to a four-year institution,” it fails to mention that of the remaining non-transfer students, many do obtain marketable skills for gainful employment. For these non-transfers, now contributing members of society, proud members of our state's taxpaying workforce, the California community college system has proved a success.

Also unaccounted for in this article is the nearly 30 percent of our state's community college student body who already hold baccalaureate degrees, and have enrolled in community colleges to obtain marketable skills as required by their employers. For this additional 30 percent, California's community college system provides a low cost way to, in fact, meet their immediate goal – to get a job or further their career. Perhaps in examining the true value of our system's transfer rates, we should look not at the number of students transferring but rather at the percentage of those students who wish to transfer and do.

Rather than push community college students to achieve one goal (to transfer), our students' individual goals should continue to be realized and supported. Many students who initially identify themselves as transfer students leave once they have obtained marketable skills – goal achieved. For others, community college is a place to return after already obtaining a degree to gain necessary enhanced skills – goal achieved. While many may feel transfer rates are indicative of community college success, I believe our system was meant to serve any and all deserving of a higher education, and believe further that we are doing just that.

Bill Hewitt
Irvine
president elect, Faculty Association of California Community Colleges; director of support services at Irvine Valley College

See also our own Sans surge (11/25)
●●●●●

A QUOTATION FOR YOUR DAY:

“She’s like a bag of puppies, each ambition tumbling over the others in a desire to get out. And sometimes those puppies bite.”

—About actress Kristin Chenoweth (She Sings! She Acts! She Prays! NY Times)

Way Cool in Irvine

In this morning’s OC Register, we learn that “Five automakers run design studios in Orange County–Ford, Kia, Mitsubishi, Hyundai and Mazda.”

I did not know that.

Two Orange County designers--Franz von Holzhausen of Mazda North American Operations in Irvine and Joel Piaskowski of Hyundai America Design Center, also in Irvine--have cars on display this week at the Los Angeles Auto Show.


Evidently, the Hyundai Hellion “was inspired by a piece of industrial design straight out of Orange County: a backpack by Foothill Ranch-based Oakley.” (See above.)

The Mazda Nagare looks like it's goin' somewhere in a hurry. Nagare means “flow” in Japanese. Way cool. (See below.)

Maybe we can get von Holzhausen and Piaskowski to park their cars in front of ATEP? We can have 'em spinnin' on a big Lazy Susan along Redhill!

Could be that RAGHU P. MATHUR is finally realizing that he just isn't the leader that our district needs. How 'bout we create a new post for him: Vice Chancellor of Spinnage?

He can spend his days on that Lazy Susan, wavin' to the folks, and spinning slowly around in big dumb circles. Perfect.

“Boards are supposed to be nonpartisan,” he said

"How can you tell?’’

—Dorothy Parker’s retort when informed that President Calvin Coolidge was dead

ACCRED DAY

It was “Accred” day at the two colleges of the South Orange County Community College District. At each college, all morning long, two-person “teams” met with various individuals and groups to get the skinny.

Two years ago, the Accreds (ACCJC/WASC), in the form of much larger teams, visited the colleges. They found problems at the top—trustee micromanagement, administrative instability, inappropriate administrative hiring procedures—plus despair, unclarity about roles, etc.

In the end, essentially, each college received a barely-passing “Accreditation” grade of D.

Despite the district’s declarations to the contrary (Thumbs Up!), each of our colleges was a dunce, sitting in the corner of the room, hoping and waiting to remove that awful hat. But to remove it, each college had to respond to the Accreds’ specific recommendations. (See Accred Action Letter/IVC & Accred Action Letter/Saddleback (pdf files).)

Recently, the colleges submitted reports that assessed progress in that regard. Today’s visits were an effort by the Accreds to compare the reports with the reality at the colleges.

At Irvine Valley College, the Accred duo’s meetings seemed to go well. As far as I know, the meetings at Saddleback College went well, too.

MEETING WITH THE BOARD

At 2:30, after the aforementioned college meetings, the two teams met with the Board of Trustees at the district offices (at Saddleback College). I attended that meeting. Here’s my report.

I arrived in the Chancellor’s Conference Room on time, and the Saddleback team—Raul Rodriguez and Tony Cantu—were already there, along with six of the seven trustees (John Williams was absent). The Irvine Valley team—Deborah Blue and Mary Halverson—were running late. We waited. At about 2:40, it was decided to start the meeting without Blue/Halverson.


RODRIGUEZ’ REMARKS

Evidently speaking for his team, RODRIGUEZ offered some remarks. He started by noting (repeatedly) that he and his colleague were very pleased with progress at Saddleback College. It is clear, he said, that the college President is doing a fine job.

At the district level too, there’s been progress, he said. The administrative hiring issue seems to be resolved; the formation of an advisory counsel is positive. Last spring’s “technical assistance” activities seemed to be helpful.

Still, he said, issues remain. Micromanagement persists. Episodes are less frequent, but they are “not gone.”

Rodriguez said that he and Cantu spent lunch watching videos of the last two board meetings. The behavior that they saw there is not something that they would want anyone to "emulate," he said. Rodriguez spoke about the importance of “civility” and “respect.”

Anyone who had attended those meetings—especially the October meeting—knows that Rodriguez was referring to the conduct of certain trustees, some of whom proceeded sans civility interacting with colleagues and staff. (See Blow by blow.)

Now, during today’s special board meeting, each trustee spoke—with the exception of trustee Don Wagner, who seemed annoyed (but who can tell?), but who remained utterly silent.

Rodriguez said that the board could not really want the kind of national attention they were getting. He referred to the controversy surrounding the board’s decision not to approve a Study Abroad trip to Santander, Spain (Trustee Fuentes objected to Spain’s having withdrawn its troops from Iraq, though other trustees emphasized cost & safety issues). Rodriguez also referred to the controversy surrounding the board’s decision to discontinue the colleges’ memberships in the American Library Association, owing to that organization’s alleged policies and politics. (See Don successfully micromanages.)

“Boards are supposed to be non-partisan,” said Rodriguez, whose demeanor was non-judgmental.

By this time, Blue and Halverson had arrived. Soon, Blue addressed the group. She immediately referred to the three recommendations that the ACCJC had issued to Irvine Valley College (that trustees should cease micromanaging, that groups’ roles and responsibilities should be clarified, and that the “plague of despair” should be addressed). She seemed pleased with the efforts that were being made at the college, but she hastened to add that the college could not address these problems by itself. District leadership, too, must make an effort, if this recommendation is to be met.

Before continuing, she asked the board to offer its assessment of the situation.


TRUSTEES OFFER THEIR ASSESSMENT

● Board President DAVE LANG spoke first. He suggested that the district/college was making “significant progress” on the recommendations. With regard to micromanagement, progress is being made, he said, but there’s still “work to do.” He seemed to make an effort to defend the actions of some board members on the grounds that they have a special “perspective” about their role. For instance, some trustees feel strongly that they must oversee any significant expenditure of funds. He seemed to say that trustees feel that they have a duty to the public to bring their “social beliefs” into their decisions. Some organizations (for instance, the ALA), he said, have attitudes that, in the minds of some trustees, don’t “reflect our community.”

Lang seemed resigned: these differences in “perspective” will likely never be resolved, he said.

Lang agreed that the board hasn’t always set the “best example” at meetings. We have a "way to go," he said.

● Trustee NANCY PADBERG suggested that “some” trustees (no doubt she was referring to John Williams) want board meetings “to last an hour.” She expressed frustration over efforts to “curtail” comments and discussions.

She said that she is “quite concerned” that the two college presidents are treated as though they are on a par with the shared governance groups. She suggested that they ought to be “elevated” at board meetings.

She shared others’ concerns with the unfortunate lack of civility at meetings.

● Trustee MARCIA MILCHIKER said that trustees do try to be pleasant to each other, but that they sometimes yell at each other “in public.” She suggested that being “demeaning” to staff, too, is a problem. Those people are in a difficult position, she said, hinting that they have much to lose by defending themselves. (Again, see Blow by blow.)

She said that she agreed that the colleges should be allowed to join professional organizations that they feel that they must join and that the board should not “meddle” with study abroad programs. (That's "just my opinion," she added.) She stressed that “these are wonderful colleges” and that they should be accredited. She spoke of her wonderful experiences taking a biology course at IVC. She said something about body parts, secured at a "slaughter house," brought to class.

LANG then interjected a remark—apparently in response to Padberg. He said that meetings should, of course, go on until all the business is done, even if that means going over scheduled time. But it is also important, he said, for trustees to do their homework and to make appropriate inquiries to the Chancellor before meetings. (Nancy wore a sour look.)

● Trustee TOM FUENTES said that he was “grateful” for the teams’ reflections, for, as outsiders, they can be objective. He praised the leadership of the board president, Dave Lang, who, he said, leads with a “light gavel.”

Fuentes seemed to say that our issues in the district are not unique; in fact, they are found everywhere. There will always be tensions between faculty and administration, workers and management, etc.

Returning to an old theme, he complained that the faculty senates and the faculty union should be two bodies, but that, in truth, they are “meshed.” They are “one voice, not two.” Speaking metaphorically (and rather peculiarly), he said that the two groups have “hands held.”

He closed by emphasizing that each community is different and that this board reflects and represents its peculiar constituency. These trustees, he said, know the local constituency, which is not like the constituency of “Beverly Hills.”

● Trustee BILL JAY said he concurred with other trustees’ remarks. He noted that he has been with the district for 33 years, and, he added, he can testify that, in the past, board micromanagement was far worse. This board, he said, is “unusually conscientious.”

At that point, it became clear that only trustee DON WAGNER had not spoken. Everyone seemed to look to him. He said nothing. Lang remarked, finally, that the board knows that it can do better than it has, especially with regard to “civility.” (Arguably, Wagner has been the least civil of our trustees in recent months.)


BLUE’S REMARKS

Lang asked that Deborah Blue relate what she had heard and seen at the college (IVC) today. Blue then explained that she could not share that information, for she and her colleague had assured everyone that their conversations would be confidential.

She said that they were very encouraged by what they saw at the college. People at IVC are working very hard, she said, to establish better relationships and greater trust. They have accomplished “quite a bit.”

Still, she added, challenges remain. The people with whom she spoke were, she said, forthcoming about both strengths and weaknesses. She seemed unwilling to explicate the weaknesses. In general, the two teams’ remarks seemed to me to be punctuated by moments of things left unsaid. This seemed particularly true in the case of Deborah Blue.

But I could be wrong.

THE END

Raul Rodriguez chimed in to say that, at Saddleback College, he had found a “mixed bag.” Certainly, there were some positives. But, as in 1998, now, work must be done to overcome “hostility,” etc.

He emphasized that the board is faced with an “opportunity” to put these problems in the past by continuing to move in the “right directions.” The district, he suggested, does not want to be known for controversy.

Trustee Fuentes (i.e., Mr. Controversy) noted that none of the trustees who ran during the last election cycle were challenged, which suggests a certain level of community support.

Lang then expressed his appreciation for the two teams’ efforts. Everyone smiled, though not immensely. The meeting ended on that middling note. ▲

● ● ● ● ●
At 12:30, Blue & Halverson met with the IVC Academic Senate

After the board meeting, the Accreds met with "Chancellor's Cabinet"

Did you know that the district offices have a spacious lounge? Here are two views:


Jeez, that's uptown money!

A suggestion for BRAVO

● If there were a contest for the title of “most scandalous OC district,” it would be amazing—it would inspire another BRAVO TV series—since there are so many strong contenders! For instance: us.

You’ll recall that the Capistrano Unified School District has been in the news a lot owing to its sometimes wacky behavior—e.g., spending huge piles of money on a flashy new administration building. Well, the sort of thing led to a trustee recall attempt. —We had one of those, too. Remember? That led to further wackiness—Nixonian attempts to monitor the Recall leaders, etc. Eventually, the Superintendent had to resign.

Well, in this morning’s OC Reg (Funds came from other sources, CUSD admits), some more excrement really hits the fan:

Capistrano Unified School District officials acknowledged for the first time this week that they had misled the public about how they would pay for a new administration building, but urged the public to move on now that the correct information has been revealed.

…Twice, [Dave Doomey, deputy superintendent of facilities] … was asked Tuesday why the public was misled.

"It was misinformation that was provided. It was corrected this evening," Doomey said.

But why, somebody asked.

"I can't answer that question," he said, and moved on, despite insults hurled from the back of the room….

Wow. That really reminds me of one or two press conferences I’ve attended at SOCCCD over the years. Except for the honesty part.

● Speaking of assh*les, according to the Reg (State admonishes judge for courtroom remarks), OC’s Superior Court Judge James Brooks received a public admonishment yesterday.

How come? Well:

[I]n a 2004 hearing Brooks was rude to a civil-case defendant who said that he missed a deposition because he felt pressure in his chest and that his doctor told him to go immediately to the nearest hospital.

"Gee, I wonder what's going to happen when we put you in jail?" Brooks responded, according to the admonishment.

"Your little ticker might stop, you think?"

The judge later fined the man's wife $5,000 for contempt of court, threatened her with a larger fine and said, "I'd mention jail, but it might give her a heart attack."

In [another] … case, Brooks said from the bench in 2005 that women may not own property in the Middle East, according to the admonishment. Brooks then ruled that a Syrian woman was likely just a front for her husband in the ownership of a Santa Ana strip club.

"Probably a very nice lady – probably doesn't know how much she owns," the judge said, according to the courtroom transcript in that case.

Judge Brooks has been admonished thrice before. In one case in 1996,

…Brooks received an advisory letter for referring to a Hispanic defendant as "Pedro," issuing a bench warrant for an Asian defendant for "$10,000 or 20,000 yen," and telling a Hispanic defendant, "You have more names than the Tijuana telephone book."

Now get this! Brooks was “a deputy district attorney in Orange County for 14 years before he was elected to the municipal court bench.”

Perfect. I wonder what his salary is?

The Stain of Turin

● A month ago (Custodians vs. Wayne Ward), we reported that the CSEA local had written a letter to district HR officials regarding the case of Facilities and Maintenance worker Ruben M. In that letter, CSEA threatened to pursue a “hostile work environment/retaliation complaint” against IVC F&M Director Wayne Ward. Ward had decided to move Ruben to the swing shift, despite knowing the extreme hardship to Ruben's family that the action would create. In the letter, the CSEA suggested that Ward was taking this action to retaliate against Ruben for his involvement in the filing of an Unusual Occurance report against Ward.

A few weeks ago, Ruben and another F&M worker met with IVC President Roquemore concerning the alleged retaliation. Roquemore, I was told at the time, seemed sympathetic. He will not abide retaliation, he said.

Right. Ruben has now been moved to the swing shift. The union did not prevent it. Roquemore did not prevent it.

I'm told that Wayne now says that Ruben is being moved because he is a good, independent worker, just what is needed for the swing shift.

Ruben is also a very unhappy worker, as are many others in F&M.


● Today, a friend told a story about an attempt to replace a light bulb in one of the offices. An F&M worker was told about the need for the bulb. He said that he would have to get a ladder, and that would involve waiting until later in the afternoon, securing an electric cart, and then bringing the ladder (and, presumably, the bulb) to the office.

"Why not just use your radio to get somebody to bring a ladder and bulb?"

"Can't do that."

"How come?"

I've already forgotten the punchline. I think the F&M worker said that Wayne does not permit sudden variations in a worker's scheduled duties. Or maybe he said that two workers must not work together, cuz they might, um, something. I forget.

The point is that, owing to Wayne's absurd management policies, whatever they are, it now takes a great deal of time and effort to change a goddam light bulb.


● More than a year ago (Padberg visits), Trustee Nancy Padberg visited our college (IVC) and got a chance to tour several buildings, including A200. Inevitably, therefore, she encountered what we in the A200 building laughingly call the "faculty lounge."

It looks like shit. It's got no furniture, really. The floor is linoleum. Unmatching tables and chairs come and go. One finds students on the floor late at night.

Well, not long after that, we (with Nancy's help?) secured a promise from Prez Roquemore that things would change, that we'd finally get some real furniture for our "lounge," that all would be well.

A year later, we're still waiting.

Today, I was talking with someone in that big dumb empty space and they noticed that each of the four chairs around the one dumb table at the center of the "lounge" is (a) ugly and (b) different. (See picture.)

"Yeah," I said. "That really looks like shit."

Next to the ugliest of the four chairs is a big gaping trash container with one of those Hefty bags inside it. Lovely. Three feet from that is a paper shredder that no one uses. It's got a big plastic bag taped to one end of it. It's strictly Soviet Union, circa 1988.

My eyes wandered further to the right, where I noticed that, recently, an abandoned file cabinet that stood there for years had been removed. The removal left an ugly brown stain on the shitty linoleum. (See.)

"That's the Stain of Turin," said my friend.

"Yeah," I said, ignoring him. "But didn't we just get this linoleum? I mean, they made a big deal about how we were getting this 'new floor,' this linoleum, and now it's got this ugly brown stain."

"Yeah, somebody said they can see a rat's head in it."

We squinted at it for a while.


● The so-called "faculty lounge" is so utterly unfaculty-loungy that it is often used by students. Or it suddenly becomes a classroom annex.

Earlier this afternoon, an instructor was attempting to teach something to three or four of his students at the ugly little table in the center of the room. In the meantime, some faculty had gathered at the edge of the lounge zone to shoot the bull. It's like we were insisting on lounging in the lounge even though it doesn't have a shred of lounginess. This happens all the time.

I mean, where else are we going to hang out? We've got no place else to go!

I think the instructor was annoyed, but we stood our ground, cuz you get to talk to your colleagues sometimes between classes. I mean, that's like a human right or something, isn't it?

Soon, Wendy showed up, so, naturally, she commenced scheming her imminent takeover of the district. I said, "Wait! If we're gonna do that, let's get a picture." So here's what I got.


I hear that a Trustee actually told some faculty that Wendy "runs the district" or that she seeks to do so.

What does that even mean? That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

● On my way out, I stopped by A100, where, on the wall along Glenn's office, official announcements are posted. I noticed something there. Here's what I found:


Hope you can read it. It says that the board will meet with the Accreditation Teams tomorrow (Thursday, the 30th) at 2:30 in the Chancellor's Conference Room (3rd floor, HSB) to discuss the PROGRESS REPORTS. It also says:

An opportunity will be provided at the beginning of the meeting for public comments on this matter.

Hot damn!

Not even close

This morning, the OC Reg is pretty peevish about the high salaries of our county's five Supervisors (It's good to be a supervisor), who make much more than their counterparts in LA and San Diego Counties.

But their salaries don’t even come close to SOCCCD Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur’s salary.

Heads up! Accreds visiting this week!

He's making a list and checking it twice
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice
"Warning" clause is coming to town

s you know, the Accreditation teams are visiting our two colleges this week. On Thursday, I believe, we'll have opportunities to speak with the teams.

WHAT'S UP

Our colleges’ Accred situation is complex, for each college is on two schedules. (1) Each is going through the standard accreditation process, which involves a midterm report, due in a year or so. (2) In the meantime, each college is going through the process of responding to the Accrediting agency’s recommendations.

You’ll recall that the Accreds were impressed by instruction, etc., but they were unhappy with, and RECOMMENDED remediation of:

● continued board micromanagement (Saddleback, IVC)
● administrative instability (Saddleback)
● lack of clarity re governance groups' roles and responsibilities (IVC)
● the plague of despair (IVC/SC?)

THIS WEEK'S ACCRED VISIT CONCERNS (ONLY) THE ABOVE RECOMMENDATIONS and whether our colleges are responding to them adequately. This is not the occasion to raise other concerns.

Back in September, I had occasion to describe each college's progress report draft. I reproduce that discussion below:

Saddleback College Progress Report:

✔ Re board micromanagement:

There are some issues that still need attention. Among them are these…(2) [T]he board’s rejection of college-determined institutional memberships…In March 2006, one board member pulled the American Library Association membership…The trustees spent portions of three board meetings debating whether or not the ALA endorsed pornography for children…[T]he board now requires detailed justification each time an institutional membership is requested or renewed.

…Another perception is that the board favors other units (such as ATEP) within the district over Saddleback College.

Evaluation: …[T]he question that requires clarification is whether the college defines its own mission, goals and objectives…? Or, whether it is the district that defines its mission, goals and objectives and the college…then defines its role in response to the district mission?....

✔ Re administrative instability:

The perception remains among faculty and classified staff that the governance style of the board and district discourages college administrators from taking risks to solve difficult problems….

Irvine Valley College Progress Report:

✔ Re board micromanagement:

[During a March 27 presentation,] [t]he Chancellor … states that there is no college that has lost accreditation because of micromanagement….The Chancellor intimates that the faculty and staff may invite micromanagement by the board, as noted in the following statement:

“To the faculty and staff, please don’t invite micromanagement by going directly to the board about college issues. Please come to me as chancellor and/or go to the college presidents.”

…During [a]…discussion…, other trustees [than Mr. Fuentes] raised concerns as to whether it would be prudent to continue denying that there is a problem with board micromanagement by blaming other constituent groups. In response to those concerns, … [Fuentes] states:

“I’m saying that the problem in this district is more a macromanagement by elements who ought not to be macromanaging than it is by a couple of trustees on this board micromanaging….”

…[T]he majority of the board and the chancellor believe that the issues in the district relate to macromanagement by faculty leaders rather than micromanagement by the board….

…On January 31, 2006, in opposition to the recommendation of the chancellor, the board voted to deny the colleges’ institutional membership in the American Library Association, alleging that: 1) the ALA is comprised of “liberal busybodies…”; 2) the ALA opposed the Child Internet Protection Act and therefore favored allowing children access to pornography in public libraries; and 3) the ALA opposed the USA Patriot Act.

…Similar board involvement occurred relative to the decision by the IVC administration to discontinue intercollegiate tennis…Based on the discussion of the board and presentations by members of the community, the college administration elected to continue the intercollegiate tennis program.