What are these mangy, disgruntled Old Guardsters yapping about?

     AS YOU KNOW, the proposed faculty contract will be presented and discussed at tomorrow’s Faculty Association luncheon/gabfest. In their August 11 “faculty alert,” a group of disgruntled Old Guardsters (DOGs) objected to two features of the contract. (My apologies to canines everywhere.)
     ① One objection concerns the proposed fate of “75” senior faculty who (they say) are at the highest paid step in their "column." You see, the DOGs noticed these features of the proposed contract:

• Elimination of the lowest two steps of each column on the salary schedule, increasing the base salary;
• Each faculty member not at the highest paid step in her column will receive an additional step increase, in addition to the regular step increase, in the fall of 2010*

FA Prez Long: often
compared to a Boy Scout,
"only less cynical"

     These grizzled curs are sayin’, “Hey, what about us? How come we don’t get no increase?” (For background, see 1997 Times article re SOCCCD salaries.)
     So they're like a dog without a bone. All snarly.
     ② The other flea-bitten objection concerns alleged “discriminatory lab compensation decisions.” I shall assume that the objection refers specifically to the following mangy feature of the proposed contract:

• Load value equivalency to lecture (1 for 1) for Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Geology and Nursing labs.

     The problem for the money-grubbing mongrels, evidently, is that this “upgrade” in the valuation of an instructor’s “lab” hours is visited only upon Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Geology, and Nursing instructors.
     "What about all us other labbers?" howl the DOGs.
     (Gosh, I had no idea so much labbing went on!)
     Below, I present the relevant verbiage of the old (2007) contract and the proposed (2011) contract:

OLD CONTRACT:

NEW CONTRACT:

*I found the three contract features referred to here in FA President Lewis Long's Aug. 1 email to faculty

Labs come in several varieties

A group of employees--mostly biologists--vandalizing property at Irvine Valley College

One particularly notorious School at IVC actually teaches vandalism.

FYI • OMG/WTF

Ray

     Newer faculty: you might want to learn more about Ray Chandos, Michael Channing, Sharon MacMillan, Mike Merrifield,* Sherry Miller-White, and Ken Woodward—a group of faculty who recently sent out an “alert” regarding contract negotiations between the district and the Faculty Association.
     It is important that you understand what these people are capable of. I have already described (and documented) some of their outrageous antics (see). But there’s much more.

Ken

     To learn more about the Old Guard’s defense of Holocaust denying trustee Steven Frogue, see When is an anti-Semite not an anti-Semite?, Chandos' letter to the Times in 1997.
     To learn more about the Old Guard’s efforts to secure Tom Fuentes’ appointment as Frogue’s replacement (in 2000), see Fuentes’ suspicious appointment, an account from Dissent.

*As I recall, Merrifield was not associated with the union Old Guard (c. 1996-2000). The rest of these characters, however, were.

Drugged? Illiterate? They'll love you at Argosy!

Harris seeks millions in for-profit college lawsuit (California Watch)

     The U.S. Department of Justice and attorneys general in four states, including California, filed a complaint last week against for-profit college giant Education Management Corp., which operates 14 campuses in the state under the Argosy University and Art Institute brands.
     The 122-page complaint contends the Pittsburgh-based for-profit college company illegally paid admissions employees based on the number of students they recruited, regardless of the students' qualifications. The Higher Education Act prohibits colleges and universities that participate in the federal financial aid program from paying commissions, bonuses or other incentive payments to recruiters based on how many students they enroll.
     The exact amount of California's claim is still unclear, but state Attorney General Kamala Harris is suing Education Management for all the state financial aid the colleges have received since 2003, mainly in the form of Cal Grants. The state is also seeking $10,000 per false claim.
. . .
     The lawsuit says the company created a "boiler room"-style sales culture in which recruitment of students was the sole focus. A guide for assistant directors of admissions includes a points-based salary chart, described internally as "the matrix." The chart rewards a set number of points for each type of student recruited in one year.
     The company relentlessly monitors each recruiter's enrollment statistics, the complaint states. Admissions personnel who recruited the most students in a year won all-expenses-paid "President's Club" trips to Puerto Vallarta and Cancun in Mexico and Las Vegas.
     Education Management also instructs its sales force to enroll applicants regardless of whether they can write coherently and even if they appear to be under the influence of drugs, the complaint says.…

Argosy? Cool!

     --I do believe that Argosy reps regularly visit Irvine Valley College. I guess they're looking to see if we have any druggies and illiterates.

* * *

     I did some digging. Sure enough, I reported the following in early March, 2009:

[O]n Saturday, members of the Irvine Valley College community received a curious email from Dean Elizabeth Cipres (Counseling and Library Services). She wrote:

Dear Faculty:

I have attached a Lunch and Learn invitation from Argosy University that will be held in our Career & Transfer Center … on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 at 11:30 am to 1:00 pm. Also if you are considering a doctorate program, I have attached the recently updated doctoral matrix for your review.

Liz Cipres

     Like Raghu Mathur, Cipres has a gig at Argosy.
     I made a big point of Argosy's unsavoriness back then. I don't think it had any effect. We're still promoting the crap out of these for-profits.

"We are the champions"

     IVC ACADEMIC SENATE INSIDERS just provided me some intel concerning Tuesday’s highly exclusive “initial launch” of the CAFÉ—the Center for the Advancement of Faculty Éxcellence.
     The scoop: evidently, VPI Justice isn’t coughing up enough dough to cover the valet parking, so the Senate Cabinet decided to raise funds this week via T-Shirt sales.* 

     Here’s what they'll be selling (at least in my imagination):

Evidently, this sentiment will "set the tone" for the CAFÉ.
I told them that I didn't understand.
"It's kind of like a keynote address, but in cotton," they explained.

Ac. Sen. Prez LDA insisted on this one. And why not?

This seems to be some kind of double entendre.
That's  French, you know.

Hey, who ain't in favor of justice?

As far as I know, they haven't disowned this flier. I guess they mean it.

*Tea Partiers, this is a spoof. There's no valet parking. Nothing of the sort. I think.

The whole "alert"

     Ray Chandos' "faculty contract alert" can be found in full here.
     A discussion of the signatories of this "alert" can be found here.

The CAFÉ will not be a café. (Are we clear?)

My first clue that there was a misunderstanding: critics kept asking about the waitresses! 

    A quick point re the CAFÉ controversy:
     As you know, the new faculty center will have its "opening" next Tuesday. It is called the CAFÉ.
     I do hope that everyone realizes that the name CAFÉ is an acronym, like NASA and CREEP.* It stands for "Center for the Advancement of Faculty Éxcellence" (the accent is optional).
     It is NOT "a small restaurant selling light meals and drinks."
     The only decent description I have of the center (that has come to be called the CAFÉ) appeared in notes that my colleague took during an academic senate meeting in January:

IVC Faculty Teaching/Excellence Center – [Academic Senate President] Lisa [Davis Allen] had an idea and has full support from [VPI] Craig [Justice]. The concept is a space, a home, for faculty to gather, to be trained, with cabinets [to] house text books, journals, a place for colleagues to talk, a place to explore and test new software and technology, a place to do grant writing, – all things that relate to excellence in in teaching – a place to house people, technology , and support all in one place. We would be able to go into a space/place and meet with peers, discuss teaching, problems, strategies. It would be wide open. A morale booster of sorts.

     So, again, do not suppose that a café for faculty will open this semester. No. A "center" for "faculty excellence" will open.
     Just sayin'.
     One more thing: a quick reminder. Full-time faculty, be sure to get your lunch orders in early.
     (Just kidding.)

NOT LIKE THIS:

A café in Vienna

MORE LIKE THIS:

An Alcoholics Anonymous meeting (it was the closest thing I could find)

NOT THIS:

MUCH MORE LIKE THIS:

Violins on television:

*NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. CREEP stood for "Committee to Reelect the President" (Nixon).

FOR THOSE INTERESTED: I've been spending a good deal of time on my family's blog. You might want to read this little essay that appeared there a few weeks ago: 2001: Ray's death. Or not.

"This is so F-ed up"

Nobody seems to know quite
what's going on. And what they
"know" often ain't so.
Whence leadership?

      I’ve been reading the comments (re yesterday's Visiting the MRC).

     Anonymous 1 seemed surprised that I was not familiar with the MRC. Alas, this philosophy instructor is indeed unfamiliar with it. A1 noted that the MRC was the “centerpiece of the BSTIC” and it “set us apart from surrounding colleges.”

     Anonymous 2 was pained by the thought that “faculty will be celebrating on top of MRC’s grave” at the 8/16 opening.

     Anonymous 3 suggested that I “should speak with your Academic Senate president. You should also ask around and see if any part-timers even received the invitation to the opening. Something is rotten in Denmark.”
     I always find such remarks as the last one amusing. What I have posted for the last week screams out that things are rotten here. (I’d start by focusing on an utter lack of transparency.) But, as usual, I need to point out that we should be careful to distinguish between differing Rottennesses:

• That the MRC (and other facilities?) is/was closed down. (Why? Why no explanation?)
• That the Academic Senate (i.e., the faculty) were “given” the MRC space (or part of it) as a site for their CAFÉ. (Is this the reason the MRC was closed? Answer: not likely. Evidently, senators were unaware that the closing and supplanting of the MRC was controversial. Was the Senate Prez aware? Did she fail to bring this matter to faculty’s attention?)
• Recent changes with CIS and CIM courses. (Is there some difficulty concerning the labs with [some of] these courses?)
• The nature and opening of the CAFÉ. (Is the manner in which the CAFÉ is being pursued elitist? Senators were told that the facility would not be costly and that it would be “for” all faculty, not just full-timers. Why then are only full-timers invited to the opening next week? [See flier.] Why isn’t this facility also for classified employees, etc.?)
• That leadership (administrators and faculty, et al.) are utterly failing in transparency. (Things keep happening that require explanation; yet no explanation is forthcoming.)

     Anonymous 4, no doubt a devotee of Fox News, drew an analogy between “my argument” (which argument?) and “Nancy Pelosi’s” regarding a bill. A4’s point seemed to be that faculty (in the academic senate) agreed to an action (pursuit of a faculty center) before they knew what it was.
     A4 needs to read the notes I provided (a few posts back) of the senate meetings in which the faculty center idea was discussed over a period of five months. The senate Prez never presented the center as a lounge (though some wags, including me, joked that that is what it would become). The faculty can hardly be faulted for not knowing where the center would be located. They agreed to pursue the center and then worked with administration to secure space for it. (As far as I know) senators were not informed that MRC would be that space until the end of the semester (in May). Senators were told that placement of the center in MRC was agreeable to all parties concerned. (See notes.) Throughout the discussion of the center (starting in January), senators were told that it would be inexpensive and that it would be for all faculty.
     Further (a point I have not yet made): such facilities are common on college campuses. It is hardly an instance of “elitism” for faculty to have their own center to pursue grants, hold workshops, provide data, etc.

     Anonymous 5 agreed with 4, but went on to charge the Academic Senate President with rude and officious behavior toward classified. I responded by saying that Allen’s alleged personal “elitism” is not the issue, since, were elitist aspects of the CAFÉ to surface, we could rely on faculty (as I know them) to object. I suggested a focus on larger issues, such as “Why is the MRC being closed down?” “The answer,” I said, “likely has nothing to do with the faculty or the senate.”
     We shall see.

     Anonymous 6 described events that, if true, would be very interesting:

     The [academic?] senate president asked for the MRC as one of several choices when she requested the CAFE. This was well before the May 5th meeting. A faculty member representing the students went to her personally and pleaded with her not to take the MRC away from students. To her credit, she did say she would rescind the request. I'm not sure that happened, but the wrecking ball was a swinging. She absolutely knew that the MRC would be taken away from students and that the faculty did not approve [of taking over the MRC space] before the Cafe program was approved [in February].
     It is curious how this all went down over the summer when the faculty are mostly away. The senate needs to grow a set and take back ten plus. Start with number one: curriculum and programs. Was Business punished? You betcha! Punished for the actions of a prior VP. Your very reliable source has never taught a class or stepped into the lab.

     I would certainly like to get verification of the events described in the first paragraph. Re the second paragraph: I am not relying on one source. I am relying on several.

     Anonymous 7 agreed that shit happens always in summer, when faculty are away.

     Anonymous 8 suggested that those concerned “attend the Senate meeting during FLEX week.” Sounds like a good idea. (I should note, however, that I am on sabbatical and I will likely stay away from Flex week, etc.)
     Anonymous 8 asserted that there were “over 100 computers in the MRC,” and yet I only counted about 50. “What happened to the other 50?”
     A8 seemed to allude to a pattern of (administrative) actions of exploiting retirements and such to make big changes. A8 also wondered how the retirements and the shutting down of labs would affect our ability to avoid violation of the 50% law (which requires that at least half of expenditures be on “instruction”).
     Somewhat cryptically, A8 asserted: “The whole point of shutting down the MRC was to cut costs, not to show the faculty that administators appreciate them because they do not!” –I shall assume that A8 was saying, among other things, that administrators do not respect faculty.
     A8 emphasized that these kinds of actions are “always all about the money” and certainly not about helping students.

     Anonymous 9 suggested that it is in the nature of administration to push for high productivity and lower costs; and it is the job of the faculty senate “to stand between them and the student.” A9 suggested that we ask the president questions during Flex Week (next week). Good idea. A9 also noted that there already exists a “nice faculty lounge” upstairs. A9 hinted that faculty do not want to share space with classified. [For what it's worth, I don't think that is true for the faculty that I know well.]

     Anonymous 10 asked: “Do you think the chemistry lab would have been seized for the Café?” Answer: “I don't think so.”

     Anonymous 11, making a point that DtB has made (see IVC doesn't seem to like its adjuncts), noted that the “adjuncts CANNOT use the upstairs space – at least not to meet with students.”
     In a moment of grand articulateness, A11 sums up the situation: “This is so F-ed up.”
     I’d have to agree.

     Anonymous 12 offered some interesting alleged factoids:

     Classified employees were alerted to the MRC project [CAFÉ?] when it was discussed at a campus meeting a few months back. Unfortunately we were unable to get an honest answer as to the actual use of the facility or who would have access. At a recent senate meeting, the VPI came to give us an overview. We were told

1. It would not be a "lounge" or called a "CAFE".
2. That it would be available for other groups/organizations to use.
3. There was a "misconception" that it was an exclusive faculty training/development/faculty only learning area.

It now appears that the discussion was all smoke and the smoke has cleared.

     If this account is correct, that is remarkable. Does the VPI speak with forked tongue?
     A12 goes on to suggest that the CAFÉ is really only a “lounge” and that certain parties are “pretty elitist.”
     A12 facetiously “thanks” administrators and leaders (I guess) for being “‘transparent’ with the campus.”
     I’d have to agree that “lack of transparency” is among the core problems at IVC.