Mr. Morley's assurances

     As you know, IVC’s Scholarship Program has been under fire in recent years. I won’t go into all the details again.

     One unfortunate incident concerned a student, PT, who, way back in 2012, was selected to receive a Humanities and Languages scholarship, entitling him to $250. Soon thereafter, his name even appeared in the printed scholarship program (May, 2012) as a recipient.
     The problem seemed to concern subsequent stages of the process, for PT never received the money.
     Some of us complained, pointing to the Scholarship Program and the Foundation.
     The Foundation Director, Richard Morley, took exception to this. In June of 2013, he declared that it was the first he had heard about it. That was surprising to many of us. Several in the School of H&L had been plenty noisy about it for over a year.
     Morley claimed that he would take care of the problem (i.e., send the money) right away.
     Well, maybe he did and maybe he didn’t.
     Let’s review the facts, as suggested by a series of emails that I have.

1. Way back in January of 2012 (January 12, 2012; i.e., more than 20 months ago), PT emailed Rebel Girl, asking for a letter of recommendation to the USC Undergraduate Film Program (and one other institution). It was a polite letter from a deserving student. Naturally, the Reb agreed to do write the letter.
     Someone (Rebel Girl?) then suggested that PT apply for scholarships at the college. He did. At some point, PT was selected (by H&L faculty) to receive the Humanities and Languages Emeritus Endowment Scholarship. Apparently, as she would later explain, Rebel Girl sent “several emails over the course of many, many days to ensure the correct scholarship went to the right person” (May 21, 2012). Why would she do that? Because of past screw-ups and irregularities that she did not want to see repeated.
     Nevertheless, somehow, the Scholarship people didn’t get the word. Sheesh!

2. On April 30, 2012, H&L’s Kurt M sent the Financial Aid Director, Darryl Cox, an email belatedly informing him that “the 2012 Humanities and Languages Emeritus Endowment Scholarship Recipient” was PT.

3. Then, less than a month later (May 21, 2012), Rebel Girl emailed Cox, alerting him to some “irregularities.” She explained that, on May 18 (?), assuming that PT had won the aforementioned scholarship—for his name appeared in the printed scholarship program—she sent him a congratulatory email.

     On May 19, PT wrote back, explaining

     “I do not believe I received a scholarship…. My name was in the scholarship program though you say? That is strange because I applied to several scholarships under the IVC site. Was the program just a ceremony because I definitely did not receive any indication that I was in the program.”

     Continuing, she explained that

     This development comes on the heels of the distressing news that one of the two candidates chosen for the English Excellence in Learning scholarship (Moore) did not receive the $1,000 award. Instead that award went to another student who was not even ranked by our committee.

     Rebel Girl ended her letter with this:

     I would like to know who did receive the H & L scholarship–and I would like to know why [P]'s name was listed in the program and why he was not contacted after I selected him. ¶ I would also like to know what if anything can be done to address the wrong that has been done to him and Moore – two very deserving students who have very poorly served by this program. ¶ One wonders what other scholarships these two candidates would have been eligible for or even won in a fair and functioning process.

4. Then, on May 22, 2012, Cox sent Rebel Girl an email explaining that he was “looking into the issue.” He wrote:

     It appears that there was some confusion between the ASIVC Humanities and Languages Scholarships, the English and Humanities Endowed Scholarships and the Humanities and Languages Emeritus Endowment Scholarship. [PT] was mailed the scholarship certificate, however, his name never made it onto the scholarship check list. I will place the $250.00 scholarship check request with the Foundation [my emphasis] as soon as possible. ¶ All of this is my responsibility and I apologize for the breakdown.

     Evidently, during the subsequent year (Fall 2012, Spring 2013), PT never received the money.

     This brings us to a new round of complaints about the Scholarship Program and money provided by the Foundation that arose at the end of the Spring, 2013, semester.
     The complaints yielded a special “debriefing” meeting, held by VP of Student Services Linda Fontanilla in early June (June 6) of 2013, to review the program and the many complaints.

5. I covered the event. In Today's scholarship program debriefing: "It's the first I've heard about it!" (DtB, June 6, 2013), I reported the discussion that occurred. According to my report (which, I assure you, is accurate), late in the meeting,

     [H&L’s] Kurt [M] referred to incidents that don’t help maintain an appearance of fairness and transparency. Last year, he said, a student was informed that he had won a significant Humanities and Languages scholarship, but, to date, he has never received the scholarship.
     Richard [Morley, Foundation Director] then reared up, said it’s the first he’s heard about it. (That’s odd. I’ve been experiencing piercing caterwauling about it for a solid year. Richard really needs to get around, or turn up his hearing aid.)

6. Four days later (June 10), Morley emailed KM, Rebel Girl, and me. He wrote:

     As you can see, the Foundation was never copied on [PT]'s scholarship for 2012. It's not just about turning up one's hearing aid [this, of course, is an allusion to my comment on DtB], it's just not possible to solve problems when one is not aware there is a problem. Nowhere was the Foundation copied on this mistake, until now, or it would have been fixed immediately. ¶ I believe it's clear now that this information did not reach the Foundation. ¶ I am committed to finding [PT], at USC, I understand. However, I can't find a [PT] with any USC connections on Facebook, and there are 17 [PT]'s listed in the IVC student directory. I just don't have a way to contact him right now. ¶ Might anyone have a contact for P? A middle name? student number? Address? Phone? ¶ Thanks. I will contact him immediately and issue the check he deserves. I'm committed to serving our students...and the wishes of our faculty.

     Morley’s assertion that “it's clear now that this information did not reach the Foundation” mystifies me. I don’t know what he meant.

7. About twenty minutes later, Morley emailed again, writing

     I was able to find [PT]'s phone number. I just spoke with him and confirmed with him that he is at USC in film studies. He is sending me his address and we will request a $250 check and get it out to him immediately. ¶ So, not counting the weekend, I believe we solved this problem in less than 24 hours after I was made aware of it. ¶ I hope you all see this as indicative and exemplary of the way the Foundation works, and the commitment I have in serving both our faculty and our students.

     So, at long last, it appeared that the PT saga was over.
     But no.

8. Yesterday morning (i.e., two months later), Rebel Girl emailed PT. She wrote:

…[I] wanted to check in and see how things are going – well, I hope. ¶ I do hope you were finally awarded our modest scholarship offering.

9. A few hours later, PT responded. He wrote:

Interestingly enough, I have yet to receive the scholarship check…. Thank you for your efforts in trying to get the check to me though; I really appreciate it….

10. Rebel Girl has emailed PT again, asking for further particulars.
     Amazing.

Local academic superstar Elizabeth Loftus: remembering what never happened

     Be sure to check out Moheb Costandi’s brief profile of a local academic superstar: Elizabeth Loftus. It’s in the latest issue of Nature:

Evidence-based justice: Corrupted memory (Nature)
     Elizabeth Loftus has spent decades exposing flaws in eyewitness testimony. Her ideas are gaining fresh traction in the US legal system.

[Excerpts:]

     …In a career spanning four decades, Loftus, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, has done more than any other researcher to document the unreliability of memory in experimental settings. And she has used what she has learned to testify as an expert witness in hundreds of criminal cases … informing juries that memories are pliable and that eyewitness accounts are far from perfect recordings of actual events.
. . .
     Now, the 68-year-old scientist's research is starting to bring about lasting changes in the legal system. In July last year, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling — based largely on her findings — that jurors should be alerted to the imperfect nature of memory and the fallibility of eyewitness testimony as standard procedure. Loftus is working with judges in other states to make such changes more widespread.
. . .
     In 1990, Loftus got a call from a California attorney defending George Franklin, whose daughter claimed that during therapy, she had recovered decades-old memories of him murdering her friend, Susan Nason. Loftus decided to consult for the defence team. “I thought it was pretty fishy and started looking into the literature,” she says. She found little convincing research to support the idea that traumatic memories could be repressed for years.
. . .
     The courts went on to see a surge in cases based on recovered childhood memories, fuelled in part by popular books and high-profile accusations. Loftus began to wonder whether it was possible to fabricate complex, believable memories. “I wanted to see if we could implant a rich memory of an entirely made-up event,” she says. An idea eventually came to her as she drove past a shopping mall.
     Working with a student, Jacqueline Pickrell, Loftus recruited 24 people and, with the cooperation of family members, presented them with four detailed accounts of events from their childhood. Three of the incidents had actually taken place, but the fourth — a dramatic account of being lost in a mall — was entirely concocted by Loftus and corroborated by the participants' relatives. One-quarter of the participants claimed to remember the false event….

"Overheard During FLEX Week" OR "The Manufacture of Consent"

Monday morning, IVC: the spectacle of someone who is not in the room being introduced to the room as the Shiny New Hire and being told to stand up and recognize the applause. Now, this happens all the time around here.

The kicker this time: this someone was not only not in the room, but had never before been in the room–and, in fact, would never, ever be in the room. In reality, the person had weeks earlier declined the offer of employment for reasons that won't be revealed here (but let's just say they are embarrassingly numerous and highlight longstanding issues that were revealed in the recent district climate survey. Can't someone in HR or elsewhere tell new hires something about the salary scale and its steps? The contract? The workload? Is overload teaching optional or can a chair really compel faculty to teach overload? Good grief! Is no one in charge?) 

*

Tuesday, Saddleback College's McKinney Theater: Something about Pink Floyd's "The Wall" and the tune “Comfortably Numb”; something about the moment when people were asked to raise their hands if they ever learned something from someone who didn't have a Ph.D.—and then the audible eye-rolling of an administrator regarding the cost of faculty salaries.  

A certain pissed-off faculty member (with a Ph.D., natch) looked up that administrator's own salary and offers a pop quiz here (the first one of the semester): 

How much does this noisy fella make? Choose one. (Hint: this isn’t hard.)

a) $65,000

b) $85,000

c) $100,000

d) $125,000

e) $150,000

f)  $200,000

g) $225,000

e) $240,000*

*

Wednesday, IVC: a new faculty member who had been assured by a committee (one which s/he had faithfully served and whose work would impact her career here) that no decisions would be made over the summer found out that decisions had indeed been made over the summer. Imagine that. An old story around here, but it was a first for this new professor. It is sadly familiar to the rest of us, the dark dangers of summer and the noiseless manufacture of consent.

At the end of the day, faculty members were found busily changing their signatures on their emails to downplay their credentials. As one quipped: “What is this week supposed to show us? How little power we have and how little respect for our training exists?”

Signed:

XXX  XXXXXX, Ph.D. (who needs one anyways, when you can learn something from someone who never even went to college!)

*

Thursday: High noon BBQ in the back of the ivc PAC:

Where's that? Keep walking. How far? Keep going.

Vegetarians want to know if they still get FLEX credit if they didn't (i.e., couldn’t) eat anything.

The Ice Cream Initiative:

Quote of the Day: “We are giving you free ice cream sandwiches for attending this training because distressed students is a very important problem.”

One person liked the ice cream sandwiches: “Ice cream sandwiches were offered after the In-N-Out deal fell through. So they are consolation ice cream sandwiches anyhow. Admittedly, I would prefer the more secular ice cream to the faith-based burger. So, I see it as a win.”

Meanwhile, at the so-called bookstore:

"Did you know that they’re selling IVC shot glasses at the Bookstore? Five bucks each."

"No, bookstore, Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison is not the same as The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells. Please try again."

Does it matter?  Only if you have a Ph.D.

The Seven and their Afflictions

     I want to bring up an old theme: the inveterate cluelessness of the SOCCCD board, a crew I shall refer to, somewhat dramatically, as “The Seven.”
     Now, don’t get me wrong; nowadays, and at long last, we have a decent board, perhaps the best board the district has ever had. And we definitely benefit from that fact and will continue to benefit.
     I won’t say I’m grateful—my standards aren’t that low—but I will say that I’m very glad about the New Decency—including the decency of the current Chancellor, a fine fellow.
     But c’mon. Recently, the board was confronted with long-standing complaints from a representative of the (enormous!) ranks of part-timers—about poor pay, poor support, poor treatment, etc.

Susan Bliss; board low point

     (See part-timer all up in trustee grill and What the speaker said was accurate. See the video: Board of Trustees: minutes/video: April meeting; skip down to item 7.2)
     Those complaints are sound. We—faculty, anyway—all know that they are sound. Full-timers, of course, have all been adjuncts, and they work with adjuncts daily.
     But, somehow, the board heard these complaints with the wax-filled ears of the utterly clueless. They made fools of themselves, responding to the complainer (Susan Bliss) as though she were a mere crank or idiot.
     It was a low point for this otherwise decent board.

* * *

     Let me state the obvious. For many years, Dissent/DtB and various other entities (Academic Senates, respected senior faculty, classified leadership, et al.) have attempted to direct trustees to various longstanding troubles—with abusive or incompetent administrators or managers, counterproductive reforms, wrongheaded procedures and structures, corrupt faculty, etc.
     But these efforts have had virtually no impact with The Seven (with, of course, notable exceptions).
     Why?
     Board members, it seems, are forever afflicted with a condition—let’s call it the “Smiley Suit & Title” Error (SSATE)*—in which powerful and multi-faceted indications of TROUBLE are immediately rendered no-account by a few apparently sincere assurances whispered by the likes of Glenn Roquemore† and Tod Burnett‡—those well-dressed and well-mannered, but manifestly OOTD (out of their depth) galoots.
     Is it their suits? Their flag pins? Their sometimes whispery delivery? Their plastic, clean-cut looks and winning smiles? What makes these manifest bozos so believable to The Seven? (I could never understand why everyone didn’t react to meeting Raghu Mathur with the observation, “Who is this creepy mother-f*cker?”)
     Near as I can tell, The Seven, albeit a much improved crew over earlier iterations, remain seriously afflicted with SSATE. How else explain the continuing uneventful weeks in the life of that utterly vacuous doofus Glenn Roquemore? How can it be that trustees (and the chancellor) do not routinely drive up to Irvine, stomp into Rocky’s office, and scream “J’accuse!” —or worse?
     And, of course, there are many other examples of The Affliction and the problems it allows, month after month, year after year. (I encourage readers to list them for others to consider.)
     (I realize, of course, that other syndromes than SSATE have afflicted trustees over the years. Some former board members noticed the TROUBLES, all right, but have ignored them in the spirit of, “Well, Chancellor/President/Dean Brontosaurus may be an incompetent rat bastard, but he’s our incompetent rat bastard.” I suspect that Fuentes and Wagner strongly possessed this curious feature, which I shall dub "BYOB" (Bastard? Yes! But Our Bastard!).

Adjunct confronts trustees; trustees respond: go to: Board of Trustees: minutes/video:
 click on "video" for April 2013 meeting; using the links listed in the outline 
below the video monitor, jump to item 7.2.

* * *

     Recently, the board fell into some odoriferous empirical indications of (among other things) Roquemorean Shititude. It came in the form of the district “climate survey” results. (See also Verbatim responses.) The results underscored troubling themes that surfaced in earlier surveys.
     Did the trustees not read it? Have they somehow misunderstood it? The survey powerfully supports points DtB (and others) have made—about Roquemore, his VPI, about HR, about the relationship between the two college presidents, etc.—for years.
     No doubt, already, the reassuring besuited galoots have whispered it all into utter oblivion.

Notes:

     *Akin to the "availability error" that psychologists yammer about.
     †Roquemore became an administrator during the darkest days of the SOCCCD—the late 90s—as part of Team Mathur. By 1997, Roquemore was a foe of Mathur owing to the latter's stranglehold on the chairship of their school. But when Mathur became interim President (April '97), he desperately cast about for support among faculty, and, all of a sudden, Roquemore became his friend and ally. As a loyal ally, Roquemore was given the VPI position and, when Mathur ascended to the Chancellorship (in 2002), Roquemore became IVC President, and he has remained so ever since. When, starting about 2007(?), R tired of serving as Mathur's lackey and asserted his independence, Mathur turned against him, but R was supported and protected by D. Wagner, who gradually tired of Mathur's endless petty machinations. R must've looked good to W, just as a dirt clod looks good when sitting next to a turd.
     ‡Raghu Mathur strongly advocated hiring Tod Burnett as SC President, despite the latter's shocking lack of experience as a college administrator. But Burnett had been the Governor's deputy appointment secretary (and a functionary in the state chancellor's office), and so hiring him might give Mathur (and perhaps trustees) an "in" with Sacramento. Voila!
     A bio that was once available at the state chancellor's website described Burnett thus:

He is ... an Associate Faculty at the University of Phoenix. Prior to joining the Community Colleges System Office, Tod served as Deputy Appointments Secretary for Governor Schwarzenegger where he advised the Governor on making political appointments to hundreds of full and part-time positions in State government.

     For a time in the late 1990s, Burnett was VP of Eva Gabor's wig company. (See.)

The best SOCCCD board ever—but....

ACCJC gets spanked (Babs gets beno'ed)

Department of Education Warns Accreditor That Sanctioned City College of San Francisco (CHE, Aug 13)

     The U.S. Department of Education has warned the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges [ACCJC] that it is out of compliance with several federal regulations and could face a possible sanction if the problems are not corrected within 12 months.

     In a letter, dated August 13, the department cited four areas where the accreditor does not meet federal standards, including its policy on the makeup of visiting accreditation-review teams and its policy on conflicts of interest. Other areas deal with a requirement for the accreditor to provide a clear explanation to institutions of any areas where it finds an institution does not meet its standards, and the time frame the accreditor gives institutions for correcting those deficiencies….

SEE ALSO The Continuing Saga of SF City College (Calitics)

Press release re ATEP

The green box corresponds to the maps below.

     The South Orange County Community College District and the City of Tustin have put out this press release:

Property Swap to Improve Development Potential in Tustin Legacy

     The City of Tustin and the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) today announced an exchange of real property at the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin, now known as Tustin Legacy.
. . .
     South Orange County Community College District is planning the Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP), a 66-acre public-private partnership development, to provide training in advanced technology and high demand career fields….
     An updated agreement allows for both educational and commercial uses on the ATEP site and commercial uses on the City site, increasing options for economic development in the area.
     The land is part of an overall Economic Development Conveyance from the Department of the Navy to the City of Tustin as the Local Reuse Authority of MCAS Tustin following its closure in 1999….

     Highlights of the new ATEP site include:

• 66 acres of vacant, rough graded and development-ready land in the heart of Orange County….
• Visibility at the major intersections of Bell Avenue (future)/Red Hill Avenue, Bell Avenue (future)/Armstrong Avenue, and Valencia Avenue/Armstrong Avenue.
• Up to 1,710,780 square feet of buildable space on 66 acres.
• Up to 533,100 square feet of non-education oriented uses, such as office space, can be built on the site.

     Site preparation efforts for the land have been under way for several years…. Saddleback College and Irvine Valley College outlined the following initial academic programs to be developed for ATEP which were board approved in February 2012:

Saddleback CollegeAllied Health – Center for Innovation in Health Care Education.
Irvine Valley CollegeMultimedia Technology; Electrical Technology and Resource Management; Applied Technology; Administration of Justice; and Business Management.

     SOCCCD and its colleges are seeking potential partnerships with academic institutions and businesses to establish a unique, world-class campus that will become a centerpiece in Tustin Legacy and a workforce generator for the region.

Attached are these graphics:

Corruption County

A Former Insider Describes the County's Fast Track (Voice of OC)

     …A longstanding issue in Orange County government has been the ease in which political aides of supervisors seem able to transition in and out of the county bureaucracy and the general lack of accountability over their actions.
     In the last of a three-part interview with Voice of OC, former county human resources manager Kathleen Tahilramani reflected on the two political transfers into the department that occurred while she oversaw job recruitment….