Public comments and the Brown Act

Barry Krugel addresses our board

December 15:

UPDATE: OCTA Tweaks its Public Comment Policy (Voice of OC; Dec. 16)

     As you know, the board of trustees of the South Orange County Community College District has had a colorful history with the “Brown Act,” California’s open meetings law.
     You remember the Brown Act. The point of that law is to promote accountability, and, more specifically, to insure that the people’s business is done in the open, not in secret. Thus it demands that discussion topics (for meetings of such “legislative bodies” as college or school boards, city councils, boards of supervisors, etc.) be descriptively agendized and that agendas be made available well prior to meetings; that board members not meet and discuss board business in secret; that only some issues be discussed in closed session; etc.
     Back in 1997 and ’98, our board engaged in “persistent and defiant” misconduct relative to this law. We warned them about that. They blew us off. We sued ‘em. We won. They were pretty nasty about it. They trumped up charges against me and made moves to get me fired. I sued 'em again, etc.

Paradigm sh*t

     Did I mention that John Williams is an a**hole? According to several declarations (including his own), that guy actually tried to hammer out secret deals between trustees and administrators. Paradigmatic assholery.
     Since those bad old days, at least up through the end of the Mathur/Wagner era, the board has mostly followed the law, albeit often begrudgingly and minimally. It is often unclear what SOCCCD agenda items mean. Sometimes, with a slight effort, an item’s full meaning could be made clear, but no.
     And, sometimes, the board hides things.
     Take, for instance, the odd way in which trustees’ requests for attending conferences are indicated. The agenda item for the December 2010 meeting is typical: it includes an Exhibit A. There, we read “Trustees wishing to attend,” followed by, not trustee names, but brief descriptions of events plus the cost per person. (Huh?) We are not told who wishes to attend these events or how many trustees seek to attend.
     It appears that this odd template (it's been used many times before) is designed to obscure precisely that information.
     Well, now that John’s gone, maybe such obfuscation will cease. The phrase “trustees wishing to attend” should be followed by the names of trustees—plus what they seek to attend, and how much it will cost. Sheesh!
     But we’ve got a new chancellor, and I expect big things from him, including moves toward greater openness and honesty.
     Today, I noticed that we (in the district community) got some sort of notification of agenda items for the next board meeting. Not sure what that’s all about, but it seems to be a step in the right direction. Hear, hear!

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

     The Brown Act is about accountability, and so it has something to say about “public comments” at meetings. Obviously, it clears the way for members of the community to address the board, but boards have a way of throwing in hurdles and detours and even roadblocks. For instance, it is common to ask those who wish to address the board to fill out a slip or form that requests various kinds of information that a speaker might not wish to divulge.
     At the SOCCCD, speakers are asked to fill out orange slips. I think they only ask for the speaker’s name and the topic that he or she wishes to address.
     In today’s Voice of OC, we learn that at least one local “legislative body” screws up the public comments thing, Brown-Actwise. And it appears that, to a lesser extent, our board gets it wrong, too:

You Don't Need a Blue Card to Speak Your Mind (Voice of OC)

     The blue cards that the Orange County Transportation Authority gives members of the public to fill out before they can comment during meetings violate California's open meeting law, according to open government expert Terry Francke.
     OCTA lawyer Ken Smart said speakers are "not required" to fill out the cards with information including their names, addresses, telephone numbers and affiliations.
     But in no way does the agency tell potential speakers that giving OCTA that information is voluntary.
     "When the government hands you a form to fill out, the usual assumption by most people is you have to fill it out," said Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware (http://www.calaware.org/home.php) and Voice of OC's open government consultant. "If they don't tell you it's voluntary, you're going to assume that it's not.". . .
     Francke said "If they (members of the public) have something to say to the government, they do not need, under the Brown Act or any other law, to disclose who they are," he said.
     And, he said, the Legislature recognized that people might feel they are required to fill out a form, if it is given to them. He said state law requires public agencies that have a sign-in roster to specifically "advise the public of their right not to sign.. . .
     The right way for government agencies to plan for public speakers, [Franke] said, is to ask them to simply write which item on the agenda they wish to address, without giving their name or any other information. That way, the presiding officer knows how many speakers are interested in a specific issue and can plan for large numbers who may want to speak without violating the Brown Act….

Bolstering national security

     I do think that we are entering a new day in the district. (I can just see the Reb rolling her eyes at my unbridled optimism!) Things are gonna improve, you wait and see!
     So let’s get this “public comment” thing right and start producing agendas that try to inform the public of how this district spends its half billion bucks per year.

See also House Votes to Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Loretta Sanchez Says Gay Soldiers Can Bolster National Security (OC Weekly)

Dang technology!

     Yesterday, I posted about some rebuttals to criticism of the local CSEA chapter’s leadership (CSEA leadership responds, sort of). I mentioned that the two comments comprising the rebuttals had been taken down from the blog, but not by the Reb or me. I assumed that the author—Delores Brooks Irwin—had taken them down herself. Under the circumstances, I thought it best to keep the author's name to myself.
     Just now, I found Irwin’s two comments in my “spam” folder for blogspot! (I never check that.) So now that mystery’s solved. Dang technology.
     I’ve de-spammed her comments, and so they are now again among the comments (under The CSEA election brouhaha and More on the CSEA election controversy), as Irwin evidently intended.
     I do appreciate her comments. Sorry for the mixup.

Grand injustice—and we're part of the freakin' grandeur

“Injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice.”

—Thrasymachus (in Plato’s Republic)

     If you check out the “payin’ our bills” section of SOCCCD agendas, you’ll discover that our district pays a company named Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. about $300 a month. We’ve been doin’ that for a long time, it seems. I don't know what ACS does for us. Maybe nothin'. Wouldn't be surprised.
     According to today's OC Reg Watchdog, ACS State and Local Solutions got a big bonus from the County today—$254,609—despite its doing a notoriously shitty job.
     Down at the County, there’ve been “repeated complaints of substandard performance,” it seems.
     I Googled "ACS State and Local Solutions," and that brought me here, where I found a link that brought me here—the website for ACS, “a Xerox company.” The footer of that site says "© Copyright 2010 Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. All Rights Reserved."
     This tells me, I suppose, that ACS State and Local Solutions either is, or is closely tied to, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., the company that does something, I know not what, for the SOCCCD.
     Don't know about SOCCCD, but, evidently, for Orange County, ACS has done a seriously shitty job.
     That’s too bad, ‘cause ACS “has a 10-year, $266 million contract to manage the county’s computer needs” (Reg).
     $266 million!
     Do you ever get the feeling that that asshole Thrasymachus was right?

• See also County Computer Contractor Gets $254,000 Bonus (Voice of OC)

The faculty union: reminiscing—about corruption, greed, secrecy, stupidity. You know. The good old days.

Apologist McLendon

December 14:
     Before the SOCCCD Faculty Association was finally reformed in about '98-99 (the effort started in '96), it was unbelievably corrupt and nasty.
     Just remember: the faculty let it all happen. They didn't pay attention.
     Eternal vigilance!

• The infamous same-sex flier (1996)
• The board’s unlikely secret allies (the union backs anti-unionists) (1998)
• The Old Guard’s not-so-sweet charity: Puerta de Escándalo (2001)
• The trustee race of ’98: Maddox/Galcher v. Wagner/Padberg (1998)
• Time for Pie (a typical union meeting with Prez Sherry, 1997)

Preserving "life as we know it"

Rotten apple for teacher

Students: one third untruthful on faculty evals

Students Found to Lie on Course Evaluations (Inside Higher Ed)
     A new study of students at the University of Northern Iowa and Southeastern Oklahoma University has found that about one-third of students said that they had been untruthful on faculty evaluations they submit at the end of courses, The Des Moines Register reported. While students admitted to fudging the truth both to bolster professors they liked and to bring down those they disliked, the latter kind of fabrication was more common.

See also Students Lie on Course Evaluations, Study Finds (Chronicle of Higher Education)

CSEA leadership responds, sort of

December 13: 

mea culpa
an acknowledgment of one's fault or error : [as exclam. ] “Well, whose fault was that?” “Mea culpa!” Frank said.

     One union (CSEA chapter 586) member, who shall remain nameless, has twice left rebuttals to our recent posts re Thursday’s election, but, both times, he/she then deleted them—evidently.
     I don’t get it. It's not as if these rebuttals were lousy. They make some good points!
     The first rebuttal was posted late Saturday night (in response to The CSEA election brouhaha). The second one was posted two hours ago (in response to yesterday’s More on the CSEA election controversy: “silly season”?).
     (Comments are automatically sent to my home email account (and the Reb’s), and neither of us deleted them. That leaves only the author—Member Z.)

     Well, we want to be fair and let union leadership respond to our and others’ criticisms. So, for what it’s worth, here are member Z's points—and my responses.

Saturday’s "rebuttal":

“NOBODY is being disenfranchised. Maybe they are being inconvenienced, but there is a big difference between the two.”

(My response: people can make their own judgments about that. Some CSEA members work from 4:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. (swing shift). The election is scheduled for 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, which is five hours after the shift. So it would be like a 9-5 worker being told that they can vote, but the polls are only open from 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m.)

“The constitution … states that the election must be held on the day of the December meeting, and polls must close before the meeting begins.”

(My response: (1) This element of the constitution does preclude some accommodations that have been suggested, but not the accommodation of opening the polls from midnight to 1:00 a.m. on Thursday. (2) Again, given that some classified workers work non-regular hours, it is hard to see the logic of the drafters [of the recent revision] in opting to include the “same day” rule.)

“The voting tellers do not get release time, and we have a limited number of people who are willing to serve as tellers.”

(My response: one of the suggested accommodations involves adding only one hour [from midnight to 1:00 a.m.] to the polling schedule.)

“[T]he change in voting that was accomplished this year [namely, allowing voting at both college campuses and not just at the location of the meeting] did not come about as a result of requests from the membership, but from the E Board itself.”

(My response: irrelevant. And again: that the rules were once worse than now does not justify their present failings, right?)

“Maybe you can say we were short-sighted, but the fact is that no one was complaining about the way voting was conducted in the past.”

(My response: first, one of the requested accommodations—adding the midnight-to-1 hour to the polling schedule—is entirely consistent with the existing constitution. Second, evidently, the E Board did not see a problem writing the constitution and setting the election in a manner that de facto disenfranchises some membership. “Shortsighted” is one word for it, I guess. Oblivious? Indifferent?)

“If the night shift staff felt they were ‘disenfranchised’ in past elections, they did not bring it to our attention. If they had, we could have overhauled the whole system.”

(My response: no doubt these members should have brought the matter to leadership's attention. But it is hardly surprising if these workers—a rather marginalized group, it seems to me—were simply unaware that a change in the rules could be made for the asking.)

A tree on the hill across from my place, this morning. Click on it!

Today’s "rebuttal":

“...'silly season' is an expression used to describe the antics that happen during elections. You have a right to misconstrue [the] meaning if you wish.”

(My response: I don’t think I did misconstrue the author's meaning. The phrase “silly season” came up in this post by a union officer:

Whispers. Gossip. Innuendo.
In a CSEA election?
Really?
Read below for a reality check. Fortunately, silly season will end Election Day, Dec. 16.

Plainly, the writer implied that those engaging in “whispers,” “gossip,” and “innuendo” are being silly, which ain't good, whatever it might mean. And there can be little doubt what that writer means by “gossip,” etc., for, in a post a few days earlier, she referred to three “myths,” including concerns from classified employees who felt disenfranchised by the Dec. 16 polling schedule.)

“[W]e are not opposed to further changing election rules. However, it is too late for this year – even the moving of the chapter meeting time, because of notice rules.”

(My response: glad to hear that the leadership do not oppose changing the rules! Perhaps it is too late to change the meeting time, but I don’t see how all suggested accommodations entail changing the meeting time. Further, even if nothing can be done to accommodate these members, I cannot understand why the leadership of this union is not apologetic about its actions—actions that leave some members disenfranchised. Frankly, I am mystified by this. Mistakes? —We all make 'em. But then you say, "My bad." No?)

“…I do know that our constitution is based on a template provided by state CSEA. (See http://members.csea.com/MemberHome/Portals/0/csea_pdf/pub_119.pdf) Judging from the template, it is standard practice for CSEA chapters to allow voting only at the December meeting each year. [Most] likely this is because most CSEA chapters are k-12 and comprise many campuses. That is most likely the reason it has been done that way all this time, even though it doesn't really make sense.”

(My response: informative. And I agree. It doesn’t really make sense. Perhaps some of the blame here should be directed at CSEA. Good point.)

“There is nothing nefarious going on here. We are not professional board members, we are classified staff members fitting in our CSEA obligations during lunch and after work and on weekends. (We do not have the luxury of having flexible schedules like faculty!)"

(My response: speaking for myself, I have not assumed that anything nefarious (i.e., wicked or criminal) is going on here. Nefarious is too strong a word. Still, I would challenge the union leadership to ask themselves whether they have erred in bringing about a situation in which some members are virtually disenfranchised. I think it is clear that they have. So do the right thing, even if all that it can be, for now, is a statement of commitment to do better!)

     ONE MORE POINT: one reason I have pursued this matter is that I can think of few mistakes (by a union's leadership) more serious than disenfranchising some of its members, especially its most marginalized members. —And doing it for a long time, oblivious.—And then refusing to take the matter seriously when the disenfranchised members complain!
     I just can't understand why these people didn't simply declare "mea culpa," then accommodate these few members and then resolve publicly to make the obvious changes to the constitution.
     (Hint: you can stil do all that.)

CSEA candidates' statements

December 13:
     Not long ago, CSEA Chapter 586’s blog, 586 News, posted the nominees for elected office. In each case, the candidate’s statement appears to be provided:

President:
Dennis Gordon’s statement
Daune Main’s statement

First Vice President:
Vince Cooper’s statement
Gee Dickson’s statement

Secretary:
Megan Newton’s statement
Kori Garner’s statement

Dennis

Daune

Vince

Gee