SOCCCD Board of Trustees: special resolution retreatery

I just perused the agenda for the SOCCCD Board of Trustee's December (7) meeting. (Click here; a large pdf file.)

Item 6.1 is interesting:

Invocations at District and College Events
Adopt Resolution 09-23 regarding District policy on invocations at District and College events.

Point 1 of the resolution is just what one would expect from this conservative board. But points 2 and 3 reveal--oh, intense regret and... --um, I'll let you characterize it.

As I have noted previously, at the board meeting immediately following the notorious Fall Chancellor's "opening session"--in which a patriotic video declared that "Jesus Christ" offered to save our souls--the board heard from faculty who mightily objected to the video "Christ" sentiment and Trustee Williams' curious "going to hell" remark and invocation. They also requested an apology.

At that time, in response, trustees and the chancellor mentioned no "mistake" and made no apologies. Indeed, the Chancellor remarked that he was "not offended." Board President Wagner praised the Chancellor's opening session as a "job well done."

That was it. (This was nearly two weeks after the session.)

It is important to understand that the recently filed lawsuit ("Westphal v. Wagner") presents a pattern of behavior over a long period of time. The events of the Fall opening session are only some among many that constitute a rich and worrisome practice, including troubling and defiant episodes.

COMMENTS:

Hell No!
Anonymous said...
wow - you mean John Williams won't be able to tell me that I'm going to burn in hell anymore?
8:21 AM, December 04, 2009

Ixnay on the Apcray
Anonymous said...
Does this cover Raghu telling people that God put him in the Chancellor's office and that he is doing God's bidding at the colleges? 
Just wondering.
8:28 AM

Don Juan v. Don Wag
Anonymous said...
Ouch.

(Vote for Johnny Depp people - defeat Don Wagner!)
9:13 AM

Gratuitous Truth-spewage
Anonymous said...
Pot stirrer! Do you really want people to know what's going on? Why? To what end?
9:18 AM

Gimme separation or give me, um, a booboo
Anonymous said...
"Power concedes nothing without demand." - Frederick Douglass.

Thanks for demanding. Keep it up.
9:34 AM

Sure you can!
Anonymous said...
You can't make this stuff up!
9:51 AM

Wha?
Anonymous said...
Can anyone interpret that incomprehensible blather in paragraph 1?
11:10 AM

omg, CYA, CYA!
Anonymous said...
So basically they went to their (and God's) lawyer, and he said, "YOU IDIOTS! GO BACK AND COVER YOUR ASSES! TELL THEM IT WAS A MISTAKE! TELL THEM ANYTHING! HOW DUMB ARE YOU ANYWAY?"
12:24 PM

For the deaf, too
Anonymous said...
Let's see—you're a college for the blind, right? --Johnny Depp
12:39 PM

We won't be pushed around (beyond this point back here. Hello?)
Anonymous said...
Wow. A partial retreat. Their lawyer must've given 'em some bad news: "Good Lord, you people are morons."
1:10 PM

Trojan horses in public schools

TODAY, the Reg reported that

A libertarian think-tank that prominently features the Capistrano Unified School District in a documentary about how the U.S. public school system is broken will screen its 49-minute film this afternoon on Capitol Hill. [The documentary--see trailer above] recounts a five-year effort by the CUSD Recall Committee parents group to bring reforms to a school district plagued by scandal, community unrest and allegations of corruption reaching into the highest levels of its administration.… The 2:30 p.m. screening will be hosted by two leading GOP lawmakers....

Co-hosting the screening will be the film's executive producer, Lance Izumi, and [the director]….

Lance Izumi? Does that name sound familiar? It should. Izumi was Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur’s super-special guest speaker at the Spring ’08 “Opening Session.” He was co-billed with Elvis. Remember?

The filmmakers highlight the much-criticized construction of Capistrano's sprawling district office building, the grand jury indictment of a former superintendent, and the unpopular decision to build a high school on a hilly site bordered by high-voltage transmission lines, landfills and a high-pressure gasoline pipeline.

The filmmakers also traveled to Nashville, Tenn., to profile a family's unhappiness with local public schools, to Sweden to examine that country's school voucher system, and to Oakland to chronicle the turnaround of an inner-city charter school.
...
Several Capistrano trustees who ran on the CUSD Recall Committee's "reform" platform attended the May premiere of the film, drawing ire from critics who questioned why public school officials were apparently supporting a film calling for sweeping reforms to public education, including school choice [i.e., programs allowing parents to spend government vouchers on private schools].

That is mighty strange, isn’t it? Public school officials in favor of the private school “voucher” concept? Gee willikers! It's almost perverse!

The Reg article notes that “Capistrano's ‘reform’ movement has accepted at least $40,000 in political campaign contributions over the past few years from the Education Alliance, a Tustin-based political action committee that, among other things, strongly supports school choice and school vouchers….”

Education Alliance: that’s the right-wing organization that SOCCCD board president Don Wagner helps guide (he’s on their board). A couple of years ago, Wagner (and Mathur and Padberg) went to a big EA shindig, featuring ultra-pompous blow-hard Dennis Prager! They told everybody about it at a board meeting.

EA got its start, you know, with a big chunk of money provided by Tom Fuentes’ good pal Howard Ahmanson—you know, the guy who thinks that stoning gay people to death isn’t really such a bad idea.

They're a sweet bunch, really they are. And very pious. As you may have heard, they do a lot of prayin'.

Tonight’s musical selection is the late Gene Pitney’s 1961 recording of “Every Breath I Take.” It is perhaps the most delirious record ever made. Love it. Be sure to catch Gene's lurid sigh just before the instrumental break:

Bonus track: Mekons’ glorious I Love a Millionaire

The Reg: John Williams' reduced authority

Last night, we reported some impending decisions with regard to trustee John Williams’ role as OC Public Administrator/Public Guardian. This morning, the OC Reg’s “Watchdog” (Jennifer Muir) reports:

County CEO: Reduce authority of elected official

The county’s top executive wants to seize oversight of the public guardian’s office, essentially reducing the authority of the county’s elected Public Administrator John Williams.

The recommendation comes months after a grand jury issued two scathing reports about Williams and the public administrator/public guardian office. They accuse Williams of doubling his management budget, breaking personnel rules and squandering a trustee’s estate….

Williams has refuted the findings, saying the grand jury just didn’t understand some of the complicated information he handed over and that their reports contain factual errors.

The county concedes that Williams has corrected or explained many of the grand jury allegations, but still contends “there is more to be done,” according to a staff report from CEO Tom Mauk’s office.
…
Supervisors have historically appointed the elected Public Administrator to take on the additional role of Public Guardian. In 2007, they solidified that marriage, passing an ordinance that makes the elected Public Administrator the ex-officio Public Guardian.

That means Williams, like the county’s other elected officials, doesn’t report to a direct supervisor. The public is his boss.

Mauk wants supervisors to repeal that ordinance, returning the Public Guardian job to an appointed position– a position that reports to him.

Mauk is recommending that supervisors let Williams keep the public guardian job if they vote to split up the offices. But if supervisors decide to appoint someone else instead, it could mean Williams will get a pay cut. He currently earns $139,526 a year….

COMMENTS:

Anonymous said...
Everyone knows that John has been overworked and underpaid - I am sure he welcomes this change.
9:26 AM, December 03, 2009

Anonymous said...
I expect the district will send out another clarifying email announcement regarding this latest development.
9:46 AM

Anonymous said...
There you go again Roy - stirring the pot of controversy by reading newspaper and then posting the article so people can be informed! This has got to stop.
10:50 AM

Anonymous said...
Yeah, there you go stirring the pot, beating the Register to this story and getting everything exactly right! What an asshole!
11:11 AM

Anonymous said...
That's pretty good pay from the taxpayers. Maybe John is also in favor of public healthcare.
11:52 AM

Anonymous said...
Williams is finanlly getting what he deserves. Lets hope the BOS moves quickly to implement this then turn around and fire his worthless ass, then folled up again with the firing of the HR director and the Chief Deputy. I hope Williams is enjoying his last Christmas party with his staff (Claimjumpers).
12:58 PM

Anonymous said...
Claimjumper?
5:44 PM

Anonymous said...
Yes, Claim Jumper! He was even nice enough to donate a dvd player as a raffle item. $139K for showing up for work for a few hours a day and he donates a dvd player! He only said a few words too, which was really nice. We all know he doesn't care about anyone but himself anyway, so why waste the words.
10:37 PM

Movies: the flood of 1938 (Orange County)

From Orange County Archives' photostream:

● 1938 flood at Olive
Traveling north on the 55, Olive hill is the last (and only!) hill on the left--just before one encounters the 91 and Santa Ana Canyon.

● 1938 flood at Atwood (a section of Anaheim), California
"The great flood of 1938 damaged many Orange County communities, but it struck hardest in the largely Mexican-American communities of Atwood and La Jolla. Most of the deaths caused by the flood came from this area, near the spot where the Santa Ana River initially broke through its banks. The Atwood area is now part of the City of Anaheim." [Or Placentia?]

● 1938 flood at Anaheim
Gustavo Arellano describes the flood

John Williams: as sharp as a bowling ball

You’ll recall that, earlier this year, trustee John Williams, the OC Public Administrator/Public Guardian, was the subject of two scathing Grand Jury reports that essentially accused him of mismanagement, incompetence, and various worrisome irregularities.

Today, a reader commented:

It seems as though the Orange County Board of Supervisors is FINALLY going to act on these [Grand Jury] findings. In the agenda for the upcoming [Board of Supervisors] meeting you will find under Item 45 where the BOS will adopt an ordinance to separate the elected position of the Public Administrator's office and the ex officio Public Guardian. This will again create two departments and Mr. Williams will now have to account for his actions to the CEO [County Executive Officer Thomas G. Mauk, I believe] will serve at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors….

The reader advises perusal of the “staff report,” and suggests that, according to that report, Williams will cease his role as Public Guardian after his term is up.

I read the agenda for the Dec. 8 BOS meeting, and, indeed, item 45 is the following:

Consider first reading of "An Ordinance of the County of Orange, California Repealing Ordinance No. 07-008, Which Designated the Public Administrator as the Ex Officio Public Guardian; and set second reading and adoption for 12/15/09….

Attached to item 45 is a staff report, which includes the following:

The CEO recommends repealing Ordinance 07-008 … thereby returning Public Guardian (PG) to an appointed position, reporting to the CEO….

The [Public Guardian] was an appointed position until County Ordinance 07-008 was adopted, when the Board designated the Public Administrator as the Ex Officio Public Guardian.

On March 11, 2003, the Board of Supervisors appointed the newly elected PA to the additional office of Public Guardian of the County of Orange, and moved the PA/PG department from the Community Services Agency (CSA) to the Health Care Agency (HCA).

On May 3, 2005, The Board of Supervisors approved the separation of the office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian from HCA and established it as a separate department. This action was taken primarily to realize significant cost savings.

On May 22, 2007, The Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 07-008 …, which made the elected Public Administrator the ex officio Public Guardian….

...The recommended actions would again give the Board of Supervisors the discretion to make the appointment of the PG.

The CEO recommends repealing Ordinance 07-008 … thereby returning Public Guardian (PG) to an appointed position, reporting to the CEO. This would improve management oversight and collaboration with the department and CEO, including budget and reserves, policies and procedures and human resources. This action does not affect the elected Public Administrator (PA) position. … The only substantive operational change will be to have the CEO provide support and oversight for the PG activities.

The CEO recommends these actions based on a number of factors. The PA/PG has been the subject of an unprecedented two Grand Jury reports this year. The first, “Guardian of Last Resort,” published May 6, 2009 raised significant concerns about personnel classifications, management growth, the replacement IT system and financial accountability. The second Grand Jury report, “Supplemental Guardian of Last Resort” published on June 30, 2009 re-emphasizes many of the same concerns. While many of the Grand Jury issues have been corrected or explained, there is more to be done.

Additionally, PA/PG is facing significant budget challenges, as the revenue streams are projected to be lower than expected because of economic conditions (i.e. interest and estate fees)….

PA/PG has also experienced significant issues with their new IT replacement system. Deadlines have been missed, and PA/PG agrees with CEO IT that a new vendor could be needed. Since this project will be lead by CEO IT, having CEO oversight for Public Guardian will provide better oversight and increased assurance of timely success.

This new reporting relationship will enhance accountability of the department and services to the clients of Orange County.

This action is timed to be effective prior to the filing for the June 2010 election. The second reading for this action must be completed prior to January 15, in order to be effective prior to the commencement of the declaration of candidacy by the Registrar of Voters for the June 2010 election, which is February 15, 2010. Anyone seeking to run for Public Administrator will know that the additional appointment as Public Guardian will be appointed at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors.

The determination of the split between the PA and PG salaries is based on past practice and estimated workload. Until 2007, the PAPG was budgeted separately at a split of approximately 25% for the elected Public Administrator and 75% for the appointed Public Guardian....

The Philosopher of the Sierra Madre: on Andy Hardy Christians

Community: Social cohesion; mutual support and affinity such as is derived from living [with a body of people in a place]

— The Oxford English Dictionary

A Terrible Wrong. Many months ago I went to a party where a colleague came up to me troubled and angered that a recent hire/search process hadn’t identified a certain familiar person, the estimable X, as the committee’s recommendation. I had been on that hiring committee.

I looked at him. I said something like, “Well, we interviewed lots of candidates, and X, though estimable, wasn’t among the very best candidates interviewed. So, naturally, X’s name wasn’t put forward.”

The colleague stared back, uncomprehending.

It wasn’t the first time I had encountered people who assumed that some candidate who is familiar and generally well-regarded would be selected. But I’ve served on enough search committees to know this: if the process is clean, the assumption is never justified.

Have you ever sought a position and done an interview somewhere burdened by the suspicion that the fix was in?

“No,” one thinks. “People aren’t that rotten—to allow all these earnest people to travel to this strange place from far and wide, to give their all when, in truth, the entire process is a sham, a fraud, for the decision has already been made!”

Sometimes, over time, we drift from our initial clarity, and we come to do things unthinkingly that, once, we would have surely condemned. I do think good people, confused and fragmented by endless episodes of complexity and compromise, sometimes fall into this kind of corruption, this kind of wronging of people.

But it is a terrible wrong, isn’t it?

Community and the Public Christian. I think of myself as a kind of communitarian. I view community as a goal of the wise. And, obviously, there are actions and practices that promote community and there are actions and practices that weaken it.

Some Christians, it seems, are incapable of imagining that some members of the community will be offended or somehow put off by the imposition on public gatherings of the idea, “we are all Christians.”

Or is it that they just don’t care about giving offense?

Though I am an agnostic, I was raised a Christian (Lutheran division). It is not obvious to me that, as a Christian, one must assert one’s faith to all of one’s companions, and in all of one’s activities, throughout the day. No, it is possible, in the course of one’s day, to be a Christian quietly, and to be a real Christian nonetheless. It is especially possible when, also, one has innumerable opportunities (e.g., in Church) to be the Public Christian, if that is desirable.

Have you ever seen any of those old Andy Hardy pictures? Watching those old movies, one sensed that Andy simply could not help himself. He had to put on a show.

Perhaps there are Andy Hardy Christians.

COMMENTS:

Just egos?
Anonymous said...
Faith is a gift Roy,one that you have not received. You were raised as a Christian, it was the best your parents could do. You stuck your head in a book and came out questioning everything your parents taught you. Now, you're content to stick your head in the sand and claim everyone is blind to what you don't see. Your next move is to claim that the Pledge of Allegiance is a prayer too and ban that at all college functions. The fact is, this has nothing to with church and state. This has nothing to do with political correctness. This is nothing more than the continuing battle between egos and assholes that has plagued this district for far too long.
7:50 AM, December 02, 2009

What you know ain't so
B. von Traven said...
Gosh, 7:50, you sure do know a lot. The problem is that much of what you know just ain’t so. It is simply a factual mistake to view this lawsuit as originating with me. I have no plans to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance and I do not regard it as a prayer. I certainly do not reject everything my parents taught me. (Why don’t you ask ‘em?) And my participation in this lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with egoes. ¶ 

I have made two points here: that community, a valuable thing, is undermined by unnecessarily imposing one’s particular religiousness on others (a loutish thing, that) and that being a Christian does not entail engaging in worshipful practices and rituals in public settings (that include non-Christians). Rather than speculate (badly) about motives, Why don’t you deal with my argument?
8:32 AM

The Shame Game
Anonymous said...
If some of our students are anything like I was at their age - raised without religion - I expect that they feel a bit as I once did in similar situations when prayers are offered and I was told to bow my head - SHAME. It's an awful feeling - and one that shouldn't be created in a public institute of education. 

oh, an Anon at 7:50 - I wouldn't predict what Roy's next "move" is going to be - that's pretty bad bit of faulty reasoning - and the kind of red-baiting attack that sadly never seems to go out of style. 

(BTW, I LOVE the Judy Garland bits.)
8:33 AM

Trustees R beyond offensive
Anonymous said...
I taught in a Cathloic school at one time. There were prayers said - of course. I led some of them, of course. 

IVC is not a religious institution - it is paid for by citizens of all beliefs and those of no faith. It is attended by students of many religious traditions and students who follow no religious tradition. Employees are equally diverse. 

To be subject to repeated explicitly Christian prayers at public events and employee-related events is offensive. To be chastised by a member of the governing board for a lack of the faith that is HIS faith and not mine -and to be told in so many words by someone who is my employer that I am "going to hell" - is well, beyond offensive.
9:19 AM

Whiner! Pot-stirrer!
Anonymous said...
Roy, You don't have an argument, you don't have a case. What you're doing is called a whine. I feel certain, (some would call it faith)that you will continue to stir the pot of controversy and post pictures of your cat.
9:39 AM

Loud American vs. quiet European Jesusery
Anonymous said...
I've traveled quite a bit and find it fascinating that the American manifestation of Christianity often is as Roy describes. 

Any insight on why that is so? 

One doesn't get this kind of thing in England or Germany or France - or even in Italy (though I guess some wouldn't consider Catholics Christians...)
9:49 AM

Subtle corruption is alive and well
Anonymous said...
Thanks for both excellent insights in these posts, VbT. I once served on a search for a Dean in which, as I LATER realized, the fix was pretty much in. And I've observed probably half a dozen faculty searches in which the inside candidate was --surprise!--the one chosen. My strong suspicion is that this kind of subtle corruption of good people is, indeed, at the heart of things in many of these cases. The injustice of it is maddening. 

Thanks, too, for the comment about being a quiet Christian. Spot-on.

MAH
10:07 AM

In the real world, it isn't corruption; it's good
Anonymous said...
In the real world, the inside candidate often has an advantage, without any "fix" being in. In fact, the opportunity for advancement within an organization is an incentive to good work and should be encouraged. That's why many companies have explict policies favoring promotion from within. No "surprise" there. Why should academia be any different? It's not corruption, subtle or otherwise.
10:27 AM

You make all Christians look bad
Anonymous said...
"Faith is a gift Roy,one that you have not received."

What a patronizing, smarmy, self important character this person must be. His/her special god has chosen to bestow a very special gift upon this person, and not for the likes of our humble blogger. These are the types of Christians who make all the others look bad.
10:32 AM

Insiders have it clinched? They shouldn't
Anonymous said...
Hiring processes for academic positions generally receive a great number of applicants, and, typically, among these are highly qualified people. In an academic setting, it is unlikely that local adjuncts will be among the best candidates, when there are many. I have been on perhaps ten job searches, and I don't think we ever offered the job to an insider. We often started the process assuming that a particular adjunct would rise to the top, but, again, in my experience, that has just not occurred. The point here is not that "insiders" don't have an advantage (they do). Rather, the point is that, all things considered, there is no reason to assume that the insider will be selected in the end--not of the process is clean.
11:45 AM

Judy, Judy, Judy
Anonymous said...
Yes--can't get enough of the young Judy G!
11:50 AM

It's corruption, Business Boy!
Anonymous said...
Well, 10:27, academia should be different from the business/corporate world for a number of reasons, but perhaps foremost because honesty is an absolute, core value in academia, ideally and often in fact. And doing a search when one knows or believes that the insider will get the position is plain dishonest, as well as stupendously inconsiderate and disrespectful of the outside candidates. The problem arises when the appearance of an authentic search doesn't correspond to the reality of a foregone (or even *almost* foregone) conclusion. 

Insiders do, in academia, also have advantages that don't have to do with corruption, of course. They are familiar with the institution, the students, the ethos of the place (if they've been doing their jobs). 

Still, the subtle corruption is there, in my view, based on observations over many, many years. 

MAH
11:59 AM

It's an important issue
Anonymous said...
Despite what one commentator has suggested, this suit highlights an important issue and I look forward to seeing how the court eventually sees it. 

Perhaps Anon at 9:39 should peruse some American legal history and see how this case fits in a proud tradition.
1:23 PM

DtB lifts the lid!
Anonymous said...
The blog doesn't stir pot as much as it lifts lids to show us what's cooking.
1:58 PM

Nonbelievers are going to Hell

Today, the district sent the following statement “to all employees of the South Orange County Community College District on behalf of our Board of Trustees and Chancellor.”

You may have heard that a lawsuit has been filed against the South Orange County Community College District challenging the practice of opening important District and college events with invocations. Invocations at public events represent a tradition that goes back to and before the founding of the country and continues into the present. You may recall the invocations, for example, at President Obama's inauguration earlier this year. The District wants to continue this time-honored practice by offering invocations and the Pledge of Allegiance at significant District and college events in order to call attention to the solemnity of these occasions in the lives of students, their families and our educational institutions, to invoke divine guidance and blessing, to show respect for beliefs widely held among members of the community, to promote patriotism, to honor America's heritage, and to reflect on the meaning that service and sacrifice give to every human life.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, opposes invocations at all public events. The District recognizes that church and state must remain separate, but this should not require an attitude of hostility toward religion or exclude recognition of religious beliefs in public life while neither promoting nor disparaging anyone's religious faith or nonbelief.

The lawsuit points to some unintentional flaws in the District's practice that the District was already aware of and was in the process of taking corrective action when the lawsuit was filed. But these flaws do not include the practice of invocations itself. The District intends to defend the use of invocations at District events. The two federal Courts of Appeal decisions that have considered invocations at special university events both upheld them as constitutionally proper.

It should not take national tragedies such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to make public recognition of religious faith temporarily acceptable when religious faith represents core values in the everyday lives of so many people in our community.

The matter will now go before the courts to review and decide. Meanwhile, we will continue to work together despite differences of opinion we may have on this important topic. Differences of opinion always exist on significant issues of public policy in a democratic society, and yet we can still work together in harmony for the common good of the District and our students.

In many ways, the statement is remarkable.

But before I explain, let me remind readers that the lawsuit (Westphal v. Wagner) appeals to the First Amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

1. Those (e.g., Don Wagner) who are inclined to regard such lawsuits as an attack on free speech ignore the 1st Amendment itself, which declares the right of free speech while, at the same time, it prohibits the governmental establishment of religion, an action that one reasonably supposes is occurring when government officials, qua government officials, engage in speech of a religious—and especially a sectarian religious—nature. The right of free speech does not entail that all speech is protected. For instance, the speech of government officials, qua government officials, must avoid establishing a religion (or religiousness).

2. The district’s statement engages in obvious sophistry when it implies that the lawsuit challenges “patriotic” speech and rituals. It does not.

3. The district’s statement engages in obvious sophistry when it implies that the suit is to be identified with the goals of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) and not specifically with the objections of the actual plaintiffs of this complaint, who are making specific charges relative to specific events and actions. (See lawsuit.)

4. The district’s statement engages in obvious sophistry when it attributes to plaintiffs (and AUSCS) a “hostility” toward religion. In fact, some of the plaintiffs are religious and, as far as I know, none has expressed any hostility toward religion. Plaintiffs (and AUSCS) do not object to religion; rather, they insist on observance of the First Amendment and its prohibition against “establishment of religion,” a posture entirely consistent with non-hostility toward and even embrace of religion.

5. With regard to “unintentional flaws” in the district’s practice: this seems to be a reference to the Chancellor’s patriotic video shown during his Fall “opening session,” which ended with the words:

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you. Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other died for your freedom.

If this sectarian message (offensive to Jews, among others) was presented by mistake, then it is very odd indeed that, two weeks later, during the subsequent board meeting, upon hearing public objections to the video (and prayer), Trustee Wagner (who MC’d the “opening session”) and Chancellor Mathur failed to mention it. On the contrary, Trustee Wagner declared the session to be a "job well done." Chancellor Mathur made a "statement": he was not offended by the prayer/video.

Readers, I strongly suggest that you actually read the lawsuit. (See lawsuit.) Upon doing so, you will discover that, when parties who were offended by the district’s actions—including offensive comments made by a trustee during a scholarship ceremony that recipients were required to attend—presented their objections, the district responded with defiance, actually increasing the frequency and obnoxiousness of religious content during district and college events. (See especially § 48-84.)

For instance, consider this comment made by Trustee Williams at a recent opening session, introducing his invocation (prayer):

Before the invocation, I thought I’d tell a little Biblical story. Today’s story is about Jonah. In grade school one day, a little girl spoke to her teacher about Jonah and how he was swallowed by a whale. The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though they’re a large mammal they have very small throats. The little girl said, “But how can that be? Jonah was swallowed by a whale, and the Bible says so.” Again the teacher said it’s physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human. Undaunted, the little girl said, “When I get to heaven, I will ask Jonah.” To this the teacher replied, “What if Jonah has gone to hell?” The little girl replied, “Then you can ask him.” Please join me in the invocation now.

That’s right. Trustee Williams was suggesting that nonbelievers in Biblical stories are going to Hell. Prior to this occasion, Trustee Wagner had encouraged Williams, who was set to give an invocation, to "give 'em hell."

And so he did.

To see video of the Chancellor’s Opening Session (August 2009), click here.

Williams’ “Jonah” story/invocation: go to 07:20. (video)
The “God Bless the U.S.A” video: go to 2:47:20. (video)
The message about Jesus Christ: go to 2:50:10. (video)
Don, having just seen the video, betrays no indication that anything is amiss with the video:   2:50:31. (video)

Don Wagner's notorious Saddleback Scholarship event remarks.

COMMENTS:

Anonymous said...
Leave it to people who are so sure of their righteousness to pose arguments that aren't based in fact. Typical.
7:39 PM, November 30, 2009

Anonymous said...
Yes. Typical, and typically pathetic. Please enroll these people in a critical thinking class!
8:09 PM

13 Stoploss said...
what is Microsoft Silverlight? The only MS I trust on my machine is Office.
10:47 PM

Anonymous said...
nice~...................................................................
11:39 PM

Anonymous said...
I like how they invoke Obama's inauguration - ha! And Glenn wouldn't even let us watch the event unless we had it in writing from our supervisor!
9:47 AM, December 01, 2009

Anonymous said...
That story of Williams is just priceless - as is he smug, self-satisfied sniggering.
9:51 AM

Anonymous said...
People should watch that "God Bless America" video – just drag the timer toward the end and then let it roll. The soundtrack is that country song – "I'm Proud to be an American."
Then, at the end, we are indeed told only two people have ever died for us -- Jesus Christ and the American soldier -- one died for our souls and the other for our freedom. 

When Don Wagner steps out moments later, he doesn't say "ooops" or "I'm sorry" -- he just looks pretty pleased with himself.
9:58 AM

Anonymous said...
I think Williams was really saying that smart aleck teachers are going to hell -- ha ha ha. So so funny. Especially in front of an audience of teachers. Ha ha ha. 
On another note:
Why'd they bring 9/11 into it in that email?
10:11 AM

Anonymous said...
Please note that the memo blatantly states: they offer invocations "to invoke divine guidance and blessing." So, in other words, they are calling on the Christian god to speak directly to the district, which will be god's little hand puppet. 

If that is not a violation of the establishment clause, then what is?
11:04 AM, December 01, 2009

Anonymous said...
They've gotta be pissed at John Williams. What was he thinking? And I looked at that "opening session" video. Wagner doesn't seem to be bothered at all about the "Jesus Christ" message at the end of that patriotic video. How do these people expect to prevail in court?
12:31 PM

Anonymous said...
Quote "It should not take national tragedies such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to make public recognition of religious faith temporarily acceptable when religious faith represents core values in the everyday lives of so many people in our community."
So if I don’t believe in religion I have no core values?
This district has pissed me off for years. Who are they to impose their faith and religion on me? I have seen things in my life that have shaken my faith and no I don't want to be saved and no I don't want you to pray for me. 
They stand up on their soap and boxes wave the American flag. They support each other regardless of immoral behavior and then Dan behind them as long as they follow a certain religious faith. I believe a man stands on his own and hiding behind the tragedy of September 11 or hiding behind your religious faith is for cowards.
2:04 PM

Anonymous said...
Does anyone have information on the two federal Courts of Appeal decisions that have considered invocations at special university events and upheld them both as constitutionally proper? What relevance,if any, do these cases have to the one filed against the District?
6:06 PM