Williams speaks of ivory castles; The great "armed cops" debate; Accreditation reports; Frogueian lecture; Lee Walker

Dave Lang sharing the spotlight with convicted felon Mike Carona

From the ‘Vine (#7), 9/16/98
It is possible that this is the penultimate draft, not the draft ultimately published.

BOARD MEETING, SEPT. 14

by Chunk Wheeler

When I arrived at 6:55, about thirty-five people were waiting for Library 105’s door to open, a number that grew somewhat during the next 50 minutes. As I waited, I spoke with reporters and friends, but I kept noticing Lee Walker skulking in the background. At one point, the Walk Man’s face suddenly appeared from afar through an opening in the crowd; he seemed to be studying my face, I knew not why. Did I mention that he looks like a cross between Sleepy and Grumpy, two of the seven dwarfs? If there is a dwarf named “Incredibly Stupid,” he looks like that one, too.

Someone told me that state law requires that board meetings start on time. In fact, as I recall, the last two meetings started more than an hour late. On this night, the meeting started about 50 minutes late. But what’s a little law-breaking to a guy like John “let’s make a deal” Williams? Nuttin’.

At long last, the door opened, and we rushed in. Leaders of the classified union were immediately informed (on the sly) that their contract had been approved. Good news! (Next, the contract must be ratified by classified union members. That is expected to occur.) This means, among other things, that some senior classified employees will soon be leaving us, opting for the ol’ golden handshake. We’ll lose some more good people, but you can’t blame them for wanting to jump the unhappy Ship of Goo.

Lang and God:

The meeting opened with the usual rituals. Trustee Lang led the prayer, a rite that, in recent months, has become an occasion for political point-making. You’ll recall that, some months ago, Frogue, stinging from Joan Hueter’s then-recent critical remarks in the press concerning the odious talent-repelling board majority, noted in his “prayer” that people with beams in their eyes should not point out the motes in others’ eyes. He didn’t explain to God what Joan’s “beam” was supposed to be.

In Lang’s prayer, he told God that he hoped that board members would listen to the advice of their advisors—a signal that, once again, board members were about to ignore the advice of their advisors.

The board announced their closed session decisions. Don Busche was made VP of Instruction at Saddleback. The decision was unanimous. The CSEA “tentative” agreement was approved, again, unanimously. Etc.

Accreditation reports:

The accreditation reports were presented. Since Ray Chandos teaches (six students!) on Monday nights, Raghu was compelled to present IVC’s report. Goo mentioned that it includes minority reports for standards 5 and 10. The accreditation team, said Goo, will be visiting both campuses on the 27th, 28th, and 30th of October.

During the immediately subsequent “public comments,” Bob Cosgrove explained that he had asked for a copy of IVC’s accreditation report, but was told that no copies were available. They have not been made available to IVC faculty either, he said. The crafty Goo chose that moment to walk up to the podium and hand Bob a copy of the report. Very funny. (It must be acknowledged that Mr. Goo has a sense of humor of sorts.) What Goo did not explain amid the laughter, however, is that the copy he handed Cosgrove did not include the minority reports. (Copies circulated among standards chairs the next day sported the same deficit.)

Enrollment lies: [in the hard copy of this ‘Vine, the word “distortions” is used]

An early agenda item was the presentation of the “SOCCCD Census Enrollment Report.” Chancellor Sampson explained that this information is very important. Then the board majoritarians launched into an effort to cast the best possible light on IVC’s curious drop in enrollments. (Saddleback’s enrollments are up. See chart.) Their gambit: to attribute the IVC enrollments drop simply to the transfer of the Emeritus program from IVC to Saddleback.

This ploy was effectively ruined, however, by Dave Lang and Rich Zucker’s questions and comments. Thanks to Lang and Zucker, it was revealed that, even apart from the Emeritus program transfer, our enrollments at IVC are down, though only very slightly--about half a percentage point. As Raghu put it, enrollments are “flat,” more or less. But, given that we budgeted for a 3% increase in enrollments--an increase that did not occur--we’re in the hole. Again, it took some doing to bring these facts to light, for the board majority seemed determined to leave a very different impression of the situation.

Subtle tensions between the two presidents seemed evident during the discussion of the Emeritus Institute transfer. President Bullock suggested that the transfer “helped the district; it didn’t hurt IVC.” Raghu took the opposing view.

Dorothy Fortune, being a complete idiot, demanded an opportunity to inspect “the waiting lists.” “Why won’t you people show us the waiting lists!” she seemed to say.

The board discussed its “goals and objectives.” Everyone seemed to agree that the board should have some and that its members should meet to discuss the matter.

Frogue exhibits paranoia:

Frogue had a beef about the lack of “communication” between the Trustees and administration, which seemed to stem from his receipt of the meeting’s agenda on Friday rather than earlier in the week. In these and other comments during the evening, the Froguester rehearsed his favorite paranoid themes: the duplicity of bureaucrats, the untrustworthiness of the press, etc.

Anyone who attended the December 7, 1997, board meeting knows that Frogue considers himself an expert on information flow—or, rather, non-flow—within bureaucracies. During that meeting, which was devoted to discussing possible further tweakage of the district’s administrative structure, Frogue lectured his colleagues. He said:

Information that’s inconvenient; information that’s uncomfortable; information that might be embarrassing—can suddenly disappear...New information can also be created at any step of the way—to cover up things. And then, by the time it gets here to the board, which is this filter, it has to make decisions. I mean, that’s why...we make decisions that people don’t like, that people are uncomfortable with, unfamiliar with—because we’re trying to operate within this system, and sometimes we get information and we check it out and it’s not right. It’s not right...It’s like attacking a 500 pound blob of jello with a scalpel.

Frogue ended his remarkably inane lecture by saying, “Is it reliable? Is it truthful?...That’s the problem with everything...believing the daily newspaper and dealing with the information you get...My God, we’d better all be aware of it because it’s applicable in so many ways. I’ll sit down.”

Give us our new guns:

The “gun” issue emerged once again. At the last board meeting, campus police chiefs Parmer and Romas asked for money to replace the police forces’ old and relatively unsafe 38s with au courant 9mm weapons. Their presentation established that, if campus cops are going to have guns, then they should be new 9mm jobs, not the old 38s. Trustee Fortune--who, before she decided to call herself a “fiscal conservative,” was active in the Democratic party--emerged that night as a strong proponent of defanging campus cops. (It turns out that most community college cops are gunless; indeed, ours is the only district in OC that arms its cops.) As I recall, then-Chancellor Hodge and Dave Lang agreed with Fortune, which must have been painful for them. In the end, the cops went home without their new guns, but they managed to keep their old ones.

Surprisingly, the issue was back on the agenda on the 14th. Fortune once again spoke to the issue. In her remarks, she demonstrated her uncanny knack for really pissing people off, for, in effect, she called Parmer and Romas liars. You see, after the October board meeting, she called up the Orange County Sheriff’s Dept. and talked to a “fellow” there. She asked him about the safety of 38s.”They’re safe weapons,” said the fellow. (Of course, Parmer and Romas didn’t exactly say that 38s are unsafe; they said that 9mms are relatively safe.) The Fortunate One concluded that she had been lied to or misled by Parmer and Romas. “That’s what you get when you only listen to people with a special interest,” she added. “Let’s spend the money on students, not on guns,” concluded Dot.

In response, chief Romas acknowledged that 38s are not unsafe; but the district’s 38s are old, he said. Lang jumped in to express both his respect for Romas/Parmer and his inclination to disarm them. “Why are we the exception among community college districts in the area?” asked Lang. Frogue opined that it is unwise to leave cops unarmed. Williams, finally finding a topic he cares about, stated that it is a “travesty” to suggest not arming police officers. Apparently addressing Mr. Lang, he said, “Get real.” “Stop living in an ivory castle.” (Yes, an ivory castle.)

Lorch noted that the presence of guns is a deterrent. Fortune shot back by suggesting that the worst thing that happens on our campuses is the theft of car radios (well, not quite), so the cops don’t need guns. “Even the radicals [i.e., Frogue’s racist friends and their equally polite JDL adversaries] who sometimes come to our board meetings aren’t that bad,” she said. At that moment, I felt Dave Lang’s pain.

Student trustee Marie Hill noted that she has seen men removing their shirts and revealing tatoos on campus. “Gang members,” she said. So cops gotta have guns.

Frogue explained that, if only people knew the details--details, he implied, that were suppressed by the press!--of the Lorches’ fabled encounter with violence (?), they would understand the need to arm campus cops. (Huh?) Idiotically, Lorch explained that only someone who has experienced what she experienced knows whether campus cops should have guns. “You don’t know until you’ve experienced this yourself,” she said, thereby marking the nadir of the evening.

And so on.

Toxic waste:

After a break, we heard about a lawsuit against the district filed by Casmalia Resources Site. Evidently, the firm took our hazardous waste and buried it at its site. Then the EPA showed up and told Casmalia that they’ll have to spend a million bucks cleaning up. Naturally, Casmalia is now trying to get the money from its clients, including us. Frogue said something, but it was stupifying, and so I have no clear memory of it.

Trustee misconduct?

There was some delightful tension in the air during the trustees’ discussion of “mileage reimbursement”--money to defray travelling costs to conferences and the like. Lang alluded to Dot’s going places she shouldn’t oughta go to. Evidently, the district’s director of public information (DPI), Pam “Same Sex” Zanelli, has also been going to forbidden zones. No details were mentioned. Williams made a big show of support for Zanelli, who, he declared, is doing a good job. The DPI should be “everywhere,” he said, and that’s just where she is.

In the course of Fortune’s cryptic and defensive remarks, she asserted that “You get your money’s worth with me,” which produced audible groans throughout the room.

At some point, Dot and Marcia seemed to be shouting at each other, but I couldn’t make out what they were saying. Marie Hill, who kept looking at Frogue for reassurance or cues, put in her two cents, which, as usual, turned out to be worth two cents. (She’s one of those people who talks just to hear herself talk. Also, she has perfected an “evil eye.” Very impressive.)

Lariat bombshell:

During the second round of public comments, Christian Barrera, former editor in chief (and current assistant editor in chief) of the Lariat, read a statement in which, evidently on behalf of his colleagues at the paper, he requested Lee Walker’s removal as advisor. As advisor, Walker has continually overstepped his bounds and violated first Amendment rights, said Barrera, an assessment, he added, that is shared by the last five editors in chief, including the current one. Barrera pleaded with the board to “open their ears” and take action. Specific details, he said, would soon be forwarded.

You will recall that Walker, the croniest of union cronies, became the Lariat’s advisor starting in the summer of ’97. At the time, the paper had been very critical of the faculty union’s tactics, especially during the ’96 election season. Few had any doubts about his motives when Walker sought to bump then-advisor Kathleen Dorantes from her position, which she had held successfully for two years. Dorantes’ then-dean, Dan Rivas, would not participate in Dorantes’ removal, and so, under pressure from the board, then-president Doffoney did the dirty work.

In October of 1997, the Saddleback College Lariette, an underground internet “newspaper” put out by a former Lariat staffer, explained that

Lariat staff members are quite certain the appointment of Walker as the new adviser is [not] coincidental, for he is a member of the Faculty Association and has represented it at board meetings. His political ties with the Faculty Association and Board of Trustees are strong, and he has been an outspoken advocate for them on a number of occasions. For a person so closely tied to the board and the Faculty Association to be appointed the new adviser of its most immediate and threatening critic is most definitely a conflict of interest. Certainly the issues of prior restraint and censorship become immediate factors, for Walker knows the content of the paper before it is published. Should news topics arise targeting the Faculty Association, the Board of Trustees or Walker himself, he would be privileged to the information two weeks before public release. Walker has already proven he cannot separate his politics from his profession. He has interfered with the gathering of news by Lariat reporters when he interrupted an interview conducted by the Lariat campus editor, so he could spout his own personal opinions after the Sept. 8 board meeting. He has made an effort to suppress news, an issue of prior restraint, by attempting to convince current Editor in Chief Ted Martin not to run a story about Dorantes’ dismissal. He requested his picture be removed from the article about himself and Dorantes, an issue of prior review, for he found it unflattering and did not want his image published with the article. However, under any other circumstance, the subject of a story does not personally determine the accompanying photograph, most notably exemplified in our previous coverage of a sexual harassment suit filed against a professor on campus....

Reports:

The trustees’ reports were largely unremarkable. Naturally, everyone made a point of welcoming chancellor Sampson.

Frogue remarked that “There’s nothing like the start of a new school year.” It’s going to be another interesting year, he said. You bet, Recall Boy.

Lorch, borrowing one of Frogue’s themes, read a statement in which she yammered about the trustees’ lack of adequate information. Gotta measure performance; gotta get info; etc.

Dot Fortune addressed proponents of the Recall, reminding them of the potential cost to the district. But, as I said earlier, she’s an idiot.

John “College Boy” Williams praised the Lariat for its “welcome back” issue. Have you seen it? It’s an embarrassment. In the course of 43 pages, it refers to not one issue. The “article” on page 9 is typical: “Saddleback: People Who Care.” Perhaps it’s one of those joke issues.

ASIVC announced that the students are pressing for more recycling on campus and a unified grade-posting policy. Wow. Maybe they should be running things.

The Saddleback Academic Senate read a resolution to the effect that Richard McCullough did a great job as president and is a great guy.

Rich Zucker of the IVC Academic Senate announced that there is at long last a nominee for senate president. (He wisely refrained from identifying the fellow.) Further, Jan Horn and Priscilla Ross have agreed to co-chair the Committee on Courses, and so, again, at long last, the curriculum process can go forward. Rich invited Chancellor Sampson to meet with senate officers and then, ultimately, with the senate. Sampson seemed agreeable.

The Faculty Association had no report (and no one to give it, it seemed).

During his report, Mr. Goo flashed a soccer trophy. I hope he doesn’t think it’s his. Do you suppose he’ll put it in that stupid trophy box?

The new chancellor steps out:

Eventually, a discussion ensued concerning the replacements of Nick Kremer, Bob Loeffler, and others. Chancellor Sampson, noting that the board seemed to be down-grading some positions-e.g., Loeffler’s—for the sake of economy, seemed to express discomfort with the board’s haphazard and case-by-case approach to individual administrative positions. He seemed to say that it would be better to make adjustments in positions (and salaries, etc.) in a systematic way that reflected some particular philosophy and goal. Accordingly, many changes should be made at one time.

One shouldn’t study administrative positions one at a time, he said. Rather, one should study them in relation to each other. He repeated that he advocated making adjustments to the management structure all at once based on an overview and a particular philosophy or set of principles.

Such talk inspired defensiveness in the board majority. Frogue asserted that, faced with massive bureaucratic inefficiency, the board was forced to take the
esting year, he said. You bet, Recall Boy.

Lorch, borrowing one of Frogue’s themes, read a statement in which she yammered about the trustees’ lack of adequate information. Gotta measure performance; gotta get info; etc.

Dot Fortune addressed proponents of the Recall, reminding them of the potential cost to the district. But, as I said earlier, she’s an idiot.

John “College Boy” Williams praised the Lariat for its “welcome back” issue. Have you seen it? It’s an embarrassment. In the course of 43 pages, it refers to not one issue. The “article” on page 9 is typical: “Saddleback: People Who Care.” Perhaps it’s one of those joke issues.

ASIVC announced that the students are pressing for more recycling on campus and a unified grade-posting policy. Wow. Maybe they should be running things.

The Saddleback Academic Senate read a resolution to the effect that Richard McCullough did a great job as president and is a great guy.

Rich Zucker of the IVC Academic Senate announced that there is at long last a nominee for senate president. (He wisely refrained from identifying the fellow.) Further, said Rich, Jan Horn and Priscilla Ross have agreed to co-chair the Committee on Courses, and so, again, at long last, the curriculum process can go forward. Rich invited Chancellor Sampson to meet with senate officers and then, ultimately, with the senate. Sampson seemed agreeable.

The Faculty Association had no report (and no one to give it, it seemed).

During his report, Mr. Goo flashed a soccer trophy. I hope he doesn’t think it’s his. --CW

Mr. Goo's brown bag lunch, 9/98; President's welcome address

MR. GOO'S FREE LUNCH 

by Chunk Wheeler 

The 'Vine: September 8, 1998 

     Today (Sept. 3), a friend told me that Mr. Goo had just hosted one of his lunch events. I expressed surprise and explained that I had heard nothing about it. “The announcement is in your e-mail,” she said, grumpily. 

     I looked. I had received no such announcement. 

     I wondered why. As you know, Mr. Goo’s history with special lunches has been disastrous. Last November, he scheduled a “Brown Bag Lunch” that managed to attract only George McCrory, who showed up with a banana. Under the circumstances, an ordinary human being would immediately drop the matter and never speak of it again, but not our Goo. 

     A few weeks later, in the execrable Laser Beam, he expressed his gratitude to “everyone” who participated in this “very successful” event. 

     I wonder what it’s like to be able to just lie like that? 

     You’d think a man who received a vote of confidence from only 24% of the full-time faculty would know better than to host “lunches” of this sort. Not so. My friend reported that Thursday’s event was also an abject failure, despite the lure of a free hot lunch. 

     Later, when I visited my office, I found a note that had been slipped under my door. It said: “For your info…there were only 4 people at lunch today: Raghu, Glenn, Bob [M]+ ? Raghu had ordered lunch for the first 20 people.” 

     No doubt, in a few days, we will read an enthusiastic account of the affair in the Laser Beam. “Many thanks,” it will say, “to everyone who came to join us on the 3rd to make the event such a great success!”

     I’m told that Mr. Goo’s theme for the lunch was “frivolity” or “fun” or some such thing. Evidently, he had stolen the idea from one of State Chancellor Nussbaum’s communications. Well, if you’re gonna lie, you may as well steal, too, I guess.

 

Who was that charming man? 

     As I said, I did not get an invitation. A mere oversight? Maybe. On the other hand, it is possible that Mr. Goo sought to prevent me from attending in order to avoid a repetition of the unpleasantness that occurred on August 18 during the “President’s Welcome Address.” 

     Perhaps you missed it. At the beginning of that session, Mr. Goo gave an address in which he urged “unity.” Now, to my mind, it just won’t do for a despot to stand before his victims, calling for unity and harmony, and so I felt that someone needed to say something. I would have waited until the Q&A period to express my indignation, but—surprise, surprise!—Q&A was placed dead last on the agenda, and you know what that means. 

     At last January’s presidential “Welcome,” Mr. Goo employed a similar gimmick: when, during that session, I asked him why a Q&A was not scheduled, he explained that there would be time for questions at the end of the session. Naturally, time ran out, and, once again, Mr. Goo avoided having to confront his critics in public. 

     On the 18th, near the end of Goo’s remarks, I stood up and made my objections. I said something like this: “How can you ask for unity, harmony, healing, and all the rest when you attack your own faculty, accusing them of hate crimes? You made that charge [at a board meeting in May] without providing any evidence. Will you apologize?” 

     In the course of this remark, it became apparent that I had few allies in the room and that, indeed, Mr. Goo’s supporters—all seven of them—were sitting together immediately behind me, holding hands and grunting. Exhibiting uncommon unity of purpose—and more courage than usual--this group shouted and jeered as I spoke. (Perhaps they were not alone—I was at the front of the room and was thus in a poor position to perceive what was happening.) I recall Walter F (or was it Larry O?) repeatedly shouting, “Read the ‘Vine!”, a sentiment so bizarre that I almost turned around to ask him what the hell it meant.

     Given these ugly developments, a prudent man would have retreated immediately. I, however, stood there, stubbornly demanding answers to my questions amid the jeers. Goo, who seemed to wriggle at the podium like a bug pinned to a board, sought to cut me off by introducing Glenn, who then walked to the front of the room. He received applause! Undeterred, I said something like, “Gee, Glenn, are you gonna cop to your overscheduling error? Are you gonna explain that, though summer enrollments were up by 14%, the schedule had been expanded by 24%!” 

     The jeers continued. Glenn proceeded to speak. Finally, I sat down. Later, a friend suggested that I had done what no one else had been able to do: make Raghu and Glenn seem sympathetic, at least to the uninformed in the room. I knew he was right. Ouch. 

     I should add that, in the end, the “President’s Welcome” session ended without the scheduled Q&A. Further, as far as I know, Glenn has yet to acknowledge his error, which cost the college over $350,000—by his own accounting. 

The Good Ship Lollipop 

     Also during the session, Tom Mucciaro’s former Scoutmaster, David Hood, gave an address. (Evidently, Tom’s mom was instrumental in recently reuniting Scoutmaster and scout.) Hood’s talk, entitled “Shared Governance,” was intelligent, well-meaning, and even literate. Unfortunately, it was marred by a failure to appreciate two crucial facts about our college: first, that our president is a despot, and, second, that our board is dominated by four stupid thugs. It was as though we were crew members of the H.M.S Bounty being forced to listen to an address intended for crewmembers of the Good Ship Lollipop: “Now, you faculty! Stop being mean to administrators! And you administrators, why won’t you be nice?” Such advice, offered to a faculty that, after years of governmental concord, now confronts a regime that has eliminated shared governance entirely and that routinely violates state laws and district procedures, is insulting. 

     It wasn’t a complete disaster, though. I understand that Tom finally got his “Citizenship” merit badge for putting this together. 

Gooian inanities 

     Speaking of lollipops, at the presidential “Welcome,” Mr. Goo distributed a handout that presented a brief statement of a philosophy concerning “attitude.” It said 

     “Attitude is more important than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do.” (Education, shmeducation—it’s attitude that really matters! Wait till I tell my students!) 

     “We cannot change…the fact that people will act in a certain way.” (I guess nuclear disarmament is out of the question then.) “We cannot change the inevitable.” (Hmmm. Seems sensible, given that “inevitable” means “cannot be avoided.” Among educated people, vacuous statements of this kind are called “tautologies.”) 

 

Of course, were Mr. Goo and his advisors literate, they would know that comparatively sophisticated and insightful doctrines about “attitude” have been developed by various thinkers and traditions for thousands of years. Consequently, Mr. Goo would not embarrass himself—and us—by spouting witless and sophomoric New Age claptrap about “attitude.” 

     Mr. Goo has a real weakness for this dreck. You’ll recall that, back in March, he distributed a document on “civility” that recommended the following: 

:-) Give yourself one compliment per day. 

:-) Have a “Brag Buddy” to share successes with. 

:-) Say to yourself at least ten times per day, 

“I love myself” or “I like myself.” 

:-) Make a photo copy of the palm of your hand and give yourself a “pat on the back.” 

 Wow. In a more reasonable world, our president would be ousted for this alone. --CW

DISSENT'S DISTRICT NEWS ROUNDUP: AUGUST '98

     Believe it or not, the following has been edited down, but it still comes across in places as "inside baseball." Still, it gives one a sense of what was happening in the district in the Fall of '98. 

8/17/98 

DISTRICT NEWS 

Affiliated with the ‘Vine and the Dissent” 

DID YOU KNOW…? 

   THAT Liberty Lobby’s infamous anti-Semitic newspaper, the Spotlight, has “covered” the Frogue story and, in recent months, has championed Frogue’s cause? (See, e.g., the June 29 issue.) 

   THAT the founder of “Friends of Steven J. Frogue,” Orange County’s own George Kadar, is an avowed “white separatist”? (San Diego Union Tribune, 8/29/91) --He is also the founder of American Spring, an anti-immigration group that has staged protests at the Mexican border. 

   THAT the chief “scholar” whom Frogue invited to participate in his Warren Commission Forum, Spotlight’s Michael Collins Piper, recently “reported” in that paper that Israel—the supposed killer of JFK--might have been behind the Oklahoma City bombing, too? “If an Iraqi was really ‘John Doe No. 2’ in the Oklahoma City case,” gushes Piper, “this could suggest that Israel’s Mossad was involved in the bombing”! Inquiring minds want to know! 

   THAT, among the speakers who have repeatedly appeared at board meetings to speak on Frogue’s behalf is Joe Fields, a white separatist and Holocaust “revisionist,” who has said that Jews deserve “everything they get, even extermination”? (See Michael Novick’s White Lies, White Power) 

   THAT, owing to a mailer sent to Spotlight readers by Piper, more than fifty “patriots”—including Kadar and Fields—attended the June board meeting intending to speak in support of Frogue/Piper? 

   THAT, to date, Frogue has never repudiated the support of any of these people? ….. 

   THAT, at the June board meeting, honor student Julie Abel, addressing the board majority, held her honor certificate in the air and asked, “So what do you expect me to do with this thing?…Please send me a new certificate without your signatures”? 

   THAT, during his remarks at the June board meeting, Frogue’s friend Michael Piper accused Roy Bauer of vulgarity and bad taste because, minutes earlier, Bauer had read aloud to the board one of Piper’s profanity-laden and threatening epistles to district personnel? 

   THAT, at the end of his remarks, a flustered Piper pointed to the JDL’s Irv Rubin and said, “If ever there was an argument in favor of anti-Semitism, it’s…this self-appointed spokesman for the Jewish community right here”? 

   THAT, according to a June 13 article in the Register, when state investigators arrived in our district in April, “two of the district’s seven trustees [namely, Williams and Fortune] took what the state chancellor’s office calls an ‘unprecedented’ series of actions to impede its investigation…”? According to the Register, trustee Williams unsuccessfully demanded that a court reporter document the interviews of faculty and staff by the state’s investigators. Further, for eight hours, trustee Fortune paced outside the interview room and periodically glared through the window in an effort to intimidate interviewees. 

   THAT, as reported in the Register (6/13), in May, trustee Williams sent trustees for Chabot College articles in which new Chabot College president Terry Burgess is quoted as criticizing the management of his old district? Reportedly, Williams declined to explain why he mailed the articles. The Register reported that, according to acting chancellor Hodge, “Williams’ action shows that written guidelines are needed for board members who wish to send letters…on district letterhead.” 

   THAT the Register article described an episode in which, during a board meeting, trustee Fortune rudely cut off student Shelly Riddle seven times as she struggled to answer the trustee’s question concerning a student government “no confidence” vote in the board majority? 

   THAT, in the Register article, IVC VP of Instruction Glenn Roquemore stated that “I haven’t found [the majority trustees] to be controlling or intimidating in any way”? 

   THAT, with complete indifference to district complaint and grievance procedures, for weeks, Roquemore shopped around for a dean to help him to pursue alleged student complaints against board majority critic Roy Bauer? 

   THAT, when advised by one dean (Greg Bishopp) to follow district procedures and, indeed, to drop the “Bauer”matter, Roquemore explained that he was “getting pressure from the board”? Among the complaints Roquemore was pursuing: Bauer does not take roll. In fact, instructors are not required to take roll. 

   THAT, during an address at the May board meeting in which he defended himself against a 74% faculty vote of no confidence, IVC president Mathur, offering no evidence whatsoever, falsely accused three faculty of sending him racist “mail threats”? When one of the three demanded an apology, district legal counsel Spencer Covert responded on behalf of the district with a letter asserting that Mathur, by virtue of his participation in a “legislative proceeding,” was protected by an “absolute privilege” that is not lost “even if the person making the statement acted with actual malice or with intent to do harm.” The district will not urge Mathur to apologize, then, since he is invulnerable to prosecution for making his irresponsible statements. Thank you very much. 

   THAT, on June 5, state chancellor Thomas Nussbaum wrote to acting chancellor Hodge requesting answers to five questions by July 10? The questions concern IVC president Mathur’s illegal actions regarding the formation of a curriculum committee without Academic Senate participation and the board’s reported approval of courses put forward by that committee. In the letter, Nussbaum warned that compliance with provisions of the Ed Code that require collegial consultation is a requirement “for [the college’s] receipt of state aid.” Reportedly, $4 million is at stake. I am told that Mathur authored the answers that were sent to the state. 

   THAT, in the course of a meeting with two Academic Senate officers in May, IVC president Raghu Mathur—the only person ever to have been officially censured for lying in the history of the college—raised his hands to the heavens and declared that, because he is a Believer, God is on his side and that, in the end, there will be justice and retribution? 

   THAT, in a June 21 letter to the Times, retired Saddleback VP Everett Brewer wrote, “In a very short time, the existing Board of Trustees has nearly destroyed everything we labored so long to create”? According to Brewer, “Talented and experienced administrators left the colleges and district because they could not tolerate the behavior and abuses of the board” which “has betrayed its trust.” 

   THAT, at the January, 1998, meeting of the Accrediting Commission, “concern” was expressed regarding two “developments” in our district: (1) administrative “capacity” (a reference to dramatic administrative personnel changes and sudden radical structural changes) and (2) “financial stability”? According to an April report prepared by Judith Watkins and George Boggs of the Commission, in January, the Commission “was concerned that the institutions in the District would not be able to demonstrate that they were in continuous compliance with the eligibility requirements and standards of accreditation.” As a consequence, it arranged for a team to visit the District in order to verify its “progress report.” 

   THAT, during their April 13 site visit, the team “verified concerns…regarding administrative capacity”? According to the team’s report (also dated April 13), “major restructuring of the administration” has indeed occurred in the district but “none of the parties with whom we spoke verified…the development of any plan or rationale by which the reorganization was to be accomplished.” [Note: the team evidently spoke with the Vice President of the Board, Dorothy Fortune.] According to the report, “the [Commission] team was unable to confirm that the stated objectives of the reorganization occurred.” The report also addressed the “absence of a clearly developed rationale and design for the reorganization [or] a realistic assessment of the consequences and an analysis of the cost implications of the decisions.” According to the report, the site visit team expressed particular concern “about the reassignment of such a large number of administrators from Saddleback College without a reasoned assessment of the requirements of an institution of that size and complexity.” Said the report, “The District and the colleges are urged to link decision making to planning in order to reduce the apparent reliance on ad hoc decisions.” 

   THAT, in a June 19 letter to chancellor Hodge, David B. Wolf, executive director of the commission, stated that “the Commission continues to be very concerned that the district and its two colleges have not made positive progress in addressing the consequences of reorganization. Fundamental issues of governance and administration remain unresolved, and possibly exacerbated, at all levels”? According to Wolf, the district’s progress report “does not indicate the presence of a coherent planning process for the recent reorganization of the district colleges.” He adds, “nor has any objective evaluation of the consequences of that reorganization been developed…The Commission remains very concerned that the district does not effectively link planning to decision making, thereby continuing the practice of ad hoc decisions at the Board level. Two examples are the reorganization of the two colleges and the administrative appointments policy. The Governing Board has a major responsibility to review its practices in this area.” 

   THAT, owing to this continued concern, the Commission requested an “additional Progress Report” by September 1? 

   THAT, in a July 1 Times article, the Accrediting Commission’s Judith Watkins is quoted as saying, “…we’re really trying to speak to the board to say ‘Don’t mess up your colleges’”?

   THAT, in a July 2 Register article, Watkins describes decision making among the trustees in this way: “Someone gets a bright idea in the middle of a meeting, and the next thing you know some decision has been made that changes the world”? 

   THAT, according to a July 1 Register article, on the 30th of June, the ACLU “sued Irvine Valley College President Raghu Mathur, accusing him of violating students’ civil rights in May when he restricted a campus demonstration criticizing his leadership”? Spencer Covert has sent a draft of proposed district reg’s for student assemblies and protests to the ACLU’s Carol Sobel. (He is particularly concerned about the use of “props.”) Sobel has responded with three pages of objections. Stay tuned. 

   THAT, according to the same article, “Legal fees in the district jumped from $197,064 during the 1995-1996 school year to $373,649 this past school year”? 

   THAT clueless IVC VP of Instruction Glenn Roquemore, apparently unaware of summer scheduling’s affect on the budget, expanded summer offerings by 24%, thereby overspending to the tune of $354,201? 

   THAT, on July 8, a Times editorial reviewed recent events in the district and concluded by suggesting, “The prospect of losing money or accreditation is serious and the clock is ticking. Put the welfare of the district and quality education first”? 

   THAT, in July, popular IVC VP of business services Bob Loeffler tendered his resignation and released a statement which said, “During the past year, I have found that I can no longer effectively or happily work in the unsettled political and administrative environment in both the district and at IVC. This has forced me to reluctantly look for employment at other community colleges even though it will create significant disruption to both my personal and to my family’s life”? According to an article in the Irvine World News (July 9), Loeffler will take a “significant cut in salary” in accepting a similar job at Chabot College. The article quoted an apparently featherless IVC president Raghu P. Mathur as saying that it is a “feather in the cap of the district” that people who have gained experience here have gone on to find excellent positions when they have chosen to go elsewhere. It is no secret that Loeffler left exactly because he could not continue to work under the execrable Mathur. 

   THAT the July 9 issue of the Irvine World News featured a letter by trustee Dave Lang in which he complained of board president John Williams’ “amazing” ability to “distort facts” concerning the chancellorship hiring process? Lang closed his letter by saying: “Williams’ blatant disrespect of the shared governance process and his fellow trustees is yet another example of his poor leadership. This micromanagement of the chancellor hiring process reminds one of the administrative reorganization and Irvine Valley College presidential hiring process a year ago, the effects of which continue to haunt this district and our community.” 

   THAT, in July, trustee Joan Hueter announced her retirement from the board, saying that she blamed the board majority for a pattern of “micromanagement and poor judgment” that led to an administrative exodus and state investigations? (Times, 7/20) 

   THAT, on July 20, the California Citizens Commission on Higher Education issued a report that proposed sweeping changes for community colleges, including the elimination of locally elected boards? According to a July 21 Register article, “The commission…believes that members of locally elected boards get into office based upon which group provided campaign support, which can make them beholden to special-interest groups on campus.” 

   THAT, in the Times article concerning the Commission’s report, our district is used to illustrate the “disarray” that characterizes community colleges? 

   THAT, during a July 20 closed session, the board appointed Pamela Zanelli acting director of public affairs? Zanelli was the Faculty Association consultant who, in 1996, suggested to the union leadership that it exploit alleged voter distaste for “domestic partners benefits.” Later, as a district employee, she was responsible for the infamous 2/19/98 press release entitled “Weapons Confiscated at SOCCCD Board Meeting” that, despite immediate efforts at damage control by chancellor Hodge, yielded a Times story according to which knives and pepper spray were found at a SOCCCD board meeting. (See Times, 2/20/98.) 

   THAT, during the July board meeting, members of the “fiscally conservative” board majority once again balked at supporting the college foundations, despite the fact that the IVC Foundation raised $611,000 last year and the Saddleback Foundation will probably raise $750,00 this year? According to a July 23 story in the Irvine World News, district foundations director Don Rickner estimated that “the incoming funds compare at about a 3-1 ratio with paid out expenses.” In that article, Dorothy Fortune was quoted as saying, “We should not be paying [for] this [i.e., foundations] out of taxpayer’s money.” Trustee Frogue stated, “The foundations were supposed to be independent six or seven years ago. My patience is at an end with this.” 

   THAT, against the unanimous urgings of Irvine Valley College counselors, president--and notorious autocrat--Raghu P. Mathur approved the transfer of Armando Ruiz from Saddleback to IVC? According to IVC affirmative action officer Frank Marmolejo, the hire might have violated Title V regulations. (Irvine World News, 7/30) 

   THAT, in violation of the California Open Meetings Law, the board discussed the controversial hire/transfer of Ruiz in closed session, despite not having agendized the matter? 

   THAT, despite board president John Williams’ claims of wide representation on the chancellor search committee, the group included no students or community members? 

   THAT board president John Williams rejected the search committee’s recommendation that two of the candidates (including the union’s man, Bill Jay) not be interviewed? 

   THAT, on the 6th of August, on the third floor of the Saddleback Library, Bill Jay and John Williams had an argument in which Jay complained about Williams’ failure to keep his promise to appoint Jay chancellor? Jay resigned his Vice Chancellorship on the spot. He will now return to the classroom. 

   THAT, recently, Steven Frogue called David Wolf, executive director of the Accrediting Commission, questioning Chabot trustee Isobel Dvorsky’s membership on the Accrediting Team that will soon visit our district? Wolf , who took umbrage, asked Frogue whether his misgivings about Dvorsky derived from her trusteeship in a district in which Terry Burgess is a college president. Frogue wouldn’t cop to it. Wolf later called Dvorsky to confirm that she will definitely be ON the Accrediting Team. (Dvorsky is the president of the Association of Community College Trustees.) 

   THAT Raghu Mathur, that celebrated slasher of reassigned time, has been busily cutting back-room deals with some faculty (e.g., Sue Long), releasing them from 50% or more of their teaching duties? Reportedly, Mathur defends himself as follows: these faculty aren’t getting reassigned time; rather, they’re getting “assigned” time. Oh. No confirmation yet on reports that Mathur is changing Irvine Valley’s name to “Stanford.” (Before he became IVC’s president, the wily Mathur was unequaled in his ability to get massive amounts of reassigned time. At the same time, he managed to be among the highest paid faculty in the district, pulling down $124,000 a year. --24% and dropping, Goo.)

MATHUR'S "ENEMIES LIST" by Chunk Wheeler

[From the ‘Vine, 7/28/98]
[Originally entitled:]

A GIFT FOR THE NEW PRESIDENT, UNWANTED
by Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer]

Years ago [in 1994], after Dan Larios was selected as IVC president—but before he arrived on campus—the cunning Mr. Goo, sensing an opportunity, busily constructed a document that listed IVC personnel and that drew yellow lines over the names of those employees whom Goo judged to be troublesome or unsavory. Essentially, it was a Mr. Goo “enemies list.”

When Larios arrived, at some point, the ignoble Goo presented himself to the new president and handed the document over to him, hoping the unsolicited “gift” would create a useful debt of gratitude. Some say that, at that moment, Mr. Goo genuflected and then tearfully implored, “In view of my extraordinary helpfulness, perhaps you would consider helping me to further my non-presidential administrative ambitions!” (Could be somebody just made that part up.)

Unfortunately for the Gooster, Larios was not a slimy and duplicitous rat-bastard, and so Goo’s gambit was about as useful as that damn seed that Onan spilled upon the ground. (I’ve been studying my Bible lately.)

I’m told that Larios still possesses the document (and, possibly, others possess copies). His peculiar and unfortunate sense of professionalism precludes surrendering it to those who share his low esteem of the Gooster and who might make good use of so perfect an artifact of rank Mathurian duplicity and weaselhood. —CW

Student complaints? (Raghu has God on his side)

From the 'Vine, 6/30/98

UNTITLED; [by Chunk Wheeler, aka Roy Bauer]

     Last week, I had a conversation with the VP of Instruction, Glenn “Roquee” Roquemore. I had dropped in to speak to him about persistent rumors to the effect that Raghu and the Goo Squad were pursuing student complaints about me. The rumors were perplexing since, first, I could think of nothing that might occasion a significant student complaint and, second, the student complaint/grievance process is such that complaints or grievances must always start with a conference between the student and the instructor and then, if necessary, a conference between the student and the instructor’s dean. A month had passed since the close of the spring semester, and neither I nor my dean had heard or read anything about a complaint.

     Well, Glenn and I talked about that. We talked about other things, too.

     It had been a while since Glenn and I had spoken, and so I took the opportunity to raise some issues that had developed in the meantime. For instance, I asked him why he had dropped the ball one year ago, when, during a meeting with Pam Deegan, I urged him to spend a day with me in order to help overcome the unhealthy atmosphere of distrust and mutual hostility that had developed between faculty of his area of the campus and mine. At the time, he and I had just begun our ill-fated tenures as chairs of our respective schools.

     During the meeting, Glenn seemed to acknowledge the felicitousness of my suggestion, but he never again contacted me about it. (I believe that, after a few weeks, I voice-mailed him to follow-up, but he didn’t return my message. Serious ball-droppage, that.)

     Glenn readily acknowledged that he had indeed dropped the ball. “But,” he added, “you have burned bridges with me.” “How so?” I asked. “The KKK cartoon,” he said.

  In Glenn’s mind, the KKK cartoon—which did not appear until the spring of 1998--had offensively associated him with the KKK.

     Again, I was perplexed, for, in my mind, the cartoon’s “joke” concerned, not the idea that Glenn (and Sherry) are closet white supremacists--which, somehow, I doubt--but, rather, the idea that either (i) Glenn and Sherry are liable to make spectacularly bad judgments or (ii) they are willing, for whatever reason, to go along with virtually any board innovation or decision, no matter how idiotic or irresponsible.  (“Yeah, sure, I’ll accept this appointment without the required ratification from the Academic Senate!” “Engage in a massive reorganization without significant discussion or input from faculty? Sounds good to me!” Etc.)

     After my conversation with Glenn, I talked with two or three friends about the matter, and they agreed that Glenn’s interpretation of the cartoon was odd at best. “Perhaps he is incapable of objectivity when he is the butt of a joke,” offered one friend. “Maybe so,” I said.

     I mentioned to Glenn that I had heard about two alleged complaint episodes. One concerned a remark I allegedly made to a student in class in the spring; the other concerned my being late for a final exam, again in the spring. Concerning the first, Glenn claimed to have no knowledge whatsoever. “Oh,” I said. I told him that I would take him at his word about that. (Bad move. Later, it became very clear that Glenn had discussed the matter long before my conversation with him.)

     I pressed Glenn concerning the remaining “complaint.” I noted that, if there were a complaint against me, then the student in question should contact me or at least my dean. Neither I nor my dean had been contacted, I said. When I persisted  concerning this so-called complaint and its status, he stated that nothing was happening and that the matter was finished. “Good,” I said.

     There’s more to this complaint business, but I can’t talk about it right now.

     Obviously, a new era of harassment has begun, just as many of us predicted.

     Bob Deegan is among those instructors identified by Mathur, et alia, as a key trouble-maker. In May, you will recall, Raghu identified Bob—along with Kate C. and me--as a member of the “core group” of persons who have fomented discontent concerning his regime. Raghu said that he was “confident” that these core groupers were involved in sending him “mail threats.”

     Guess what? It looks like Bob, too, has now been targeted by the Goo Squad. Reliable persons have informed me that a plan is afoot to transfer Bob to Saddleback. (The transfer of someone named Armando Ruiz [?]to IVC is a part of the deal, reportedly.)

     Can they do that? According to one of my sources, in a sense, yes. Over the years, various bodies have sought to define a faculty transfer policy and corresponding faculty transfer (or non-transfer) rights, but, I’m told, none of these efforts bore fruit.  (Another source, also reliable, insists that there is language in our contract that forbids involuntary transfers.)

     Of course, that they can transfer Bob does not mean that, in trying to do so, they aren’t harassing him—which is illegal, unethical, and pisses me off. I shall assume that it pisses you off too.

     I hope that the rumors are false. Just to be on the safe side, start making your “Love that Bob!” and “Give me Bob or give me death!” signs. While you’re at it, make a sign or two for me. Rough seas ahead.

     As I write, I am aware of a certain suit—one unrelated to the above--that shall be filed against the district (or a particular president of the district) on Tuesday, the 30^th. Look for an article in the Register on Wednesday. It seems our president just can’t help violating people’s rights, the poor thing.

     A coupla weeks ago, Jeff K and Rich Z spoke with Raghu on behalf of the Academic Senate. (Such meetings are routine.) I am told that, in the course of the conversation, Raghu briefly raised his hands to the heavens and declared that he believes in God and that (therefore?) the latter entity is on his side. He went on to refer to a coming era of justice or retribution, evidently of the divinely instigated variety.

Jeff and Rich insist that glossolalia was not involved, though Jeff thought he saw stigmata form on Raghu’s right cheek. (Hey, everybody in A100: hide all the dictionaries! While you’re at it, hide the Captain’s palm tree.)

GRAPHICS:

“Morale at IVC” Graphic

“State Enters Fray Between Faculty, Administrators,” Robert Ourlian. 6/20/98 GRAPHIC

“Former college administrator wants to dump the whole board,” Everett Brewer. 6/20/98 GRAPHIC

“College Trustees Spreading Ruin,” Everett Brewer. 6/21/98; Times. GRAPHIC

“Another embarrassing incident,” IWN editorial, 6/25/98 GRAPHIC

[“Mr. Toady” page.]

[cartoons pages-2]

[“The Birdbrains” Hitchcock spoof]

“Strangers in the Night: exchanging glances and vitriol with Steven Frogue,” by Matt Coker (OC Weekly, 6/26/98) [GRAPHIC]

---CHUNK WHEELER

A MOTLEY CREW OF NAZIS VS. JDL THUGS: OH, WHAT A NIGHT! by Chunk Wheeler

See also ARCHIVES: January 1998 and August 18, 1997.

A cartoon produced by someone at the National Review

.    [By 1994, the union old guard’s own Trustee Frogue got into hot water when some of his high school students complained that he was denying the Holocaust and making offensive racial remarks in the classroom, but that storm seemed to pass. Then, three years later, Frogue invited 4 far-out conspiracy nuts to a “Warren Commission” seminar that he organized at Saddleback College. The event required board approval. The morning of the board meeting (such meetings are held in the evening) I read the board agenda, and I thought I recognized the name of one of Frogue’s 4 guests: Michael Collins Piper. I looked him up and found that he was the chief reporter for Spotlight, a notorious anti-Semitic tabloid, owned by Liberty Lobby. I immediately called the Anti-Defamation League and alerted them. That night, an ADL official addressed the board and explained Piper’s relationship with the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby and the wacky theories (about JFK) of the other guests slated for Frogue’s seminar. None of this stopped the Board Majority from approving the seminar, the 4 wacky guests included. The next day—thanks to some well-placed telephone calls—the excrement really hit the fan. Headlines all over the country (and beyond) shouted: college invites conspiracy nuts and anti-Semites to seminar!

[Employee X was a classified staff member who has since retired. I gave her a tape recorder and asked her to ask Piper some questions. (He had already “made” me. I wasn’t going to get anything out of him.)

[Eventually, JDL head Irv Rubin met a bad end. He and Earl Krugel were arrested for conspiring to plant bombs at a mosque in Los Angeles. While awaiting trial, Rubin committed suicide, slitting his throat. (Some insist he was murdered.) Krugel eventually got 20 years in federal prison. Very recently, he started his sentence but was killed by a white supremacist with a cinder block to the head.]


[From the ‘Vine, 6/21/98]

June 15, 1998 BOARD MEETING: Oh, what a night!

I. 6:00; we are waiting in the hallway for the doors to open and the meeting to start

Amid considerable hallway noise, Maryanne Wardlaw of the Irvine World News was interviewing Michael Collins Piper as he awaited the start of the district board meeting. Stealth employee X approached with a tape recorder and preserved the following for posterity:

PIPER: May I see that [one of Roy Bauer’s handouts], please?...I would like to look at it...[Finishing his thought:] --In any case, I thought it would be nice if I would be able to come to the college and say something....

WARDLAW: Why now?

PIPER: Why now? Because it was the first time that was convenient for me to do it, and I just got so tired of hearing all this nonsense, so I thought it would be something that I should do...No particular reason for this date...These things have continued...I thought, ‘Well, I should go out there.’ You know, I get tired of hearing, you know, ...

WARDLAW: Do you live in the area?

PIPER: No, I live in Washington, D.C.

WARDLAW: Did you come out here for this?

PIPER: Yes, I did, yeah.

EMPLOYEE X: Who paid your way?

PIPER: Who paid my way? Uh, it was paid for by my employer.

WARDLAW: Who do you work for?

PIPER: Liberty Lobby.

EMPLOYEE X: What’s Liberty Lobby?

PIPER: Uh, it’s, uh, it was established in 1955. We call it a “populist” institution.

EMPLOYEE X: What’s it about?

PIPER: What’s it about? It publishes a weekly newspaper called the Spotlight. We say it’s for America first, for the Constitution. Obviously—may I ask who you are?

EMPLOYEE X: My name’s (X). I’m an employee of the college.

PIPER: Oh, and what part of the college are you employed by?

EMPLOYEE X: I’m a (...).

PIPER: And, uh, are you here—In what capacity are you in here with the tape recorder—Dare I ask?

EMPLOYEE X: (I’m here because) I’m interested.

PIPER: Oh!

EMPLOYEE X: I’m a citizen. I pay taxes, and I’m interested.

PIPER: OK.

EMPLOYEE X: My day ends at 4:30 at the college and I have a right like everybody else—

PIPER: OK, I’m just curious. I mean, that’s, yeah...I’m surprised you don’t know the details then; you’re not...

EMPLOYEE X: I know everything.

PIPER: You know everything.

EMPLOYEE X: Everything...I’ve been here listening to all this from the start—from when Mr. Frogue started this.

PIPER: Wait a minute. Mr. Frogue didn’t start this. That’s where the problem comes in...My opinion is that I wrote a book. I accepted an invitation to speak at this college. I never heard of Saddleback College in my life, and frankly at this point I wish I never had. But the bottom line of it is I was invited to speak here and I accepted this invitation, and the next thing I know all of a sudden it’s in the newspapers. And did I call these newspapers up? I didn’t call those newspapers up. Who called those newspapers up? Your friend Roy Bauer. Did he call the newspapers?

EMPLOYEE X: I would imagine a lot of people...I don’t know why you’re directing—why Roy Bauer...?

PIPER: There was this—just all of a sudden there was this great commotion on campus. Students came running out of their classrooms saying, ‘We must stop Mike Piper from speaking!’—Is that it?

EMPLOYEE X: I think there were a lot of students. I think there were classified staff, and I believe there were faculty and...administrators that felt that way [namely, that Piper’s participation in the forum was a problem].

PIPER: Do you think there were people like Chancellor Lombardi who thought there was a problem with it?

EMPLOYEE X: I never spoke to Chancellor Lombardi. If he didn’t [think there was a problem], I’m sure he should have.

PIPER: I read that he said that he was concerned about—that it was a matter of free speech.

EMPLOYEE X: You have to speak to Lombardi.

PIPER: That’s what I read in the paper. Now, are you saying that I can’t trust the papers?

EMPLOYEE X: I never said that. You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t put words in your mouth.

PIPER: I know, I asked you...

EMPLOYEE X: You know what? She’s [i.e., Maryanne’s] the one that’s interviewing you. I’m gonna let (mixed voices)...I heard you talking and I wanted to—

PIPER: You’re standing here with a tape recorder. Could I take your picture?

EMPLOYEE X: No.

PIPER: Well, then, you can’t tape.

EMPLOYEE X: Fine. (X abruptly shuts off the recorder.)

…..

IV. Public comments (at the start of the meeting)

At about 9:30, public comments commenced. The first speaker was an honor student named Julie Abel, who had recently received some sort of commendation that was signed by members of the board, including the four members of the “board majority.” I was unable to tape the first few seconds of her address:

JULIE ABEL:

...members of this board whose behavior has been an appalling embarrassment to the entire student body at both district campuses. One member, Mr. Steven Frogue, is a high school history teacher who tries to indoctrinate his students against ethnic and religious minorities and who tries to associate my college with the forces of bigotry. Three other members—Mr. Williams, Ms. Lorch, and Ms. Fortune—stand behind this lunatic. Together, they’re willing to swallow any nonsense, [commit] any (infamy?), necessary to preserve this precarious, peculiar, petulant majority—including ambushing a young woman in a restaurant. [This is a reference to Mr. Frogue’s inviting a former student, who swore that teacher Frogue denied the Holocaust in class, to a restaurant. When she arrived, she discovered that Frogue was accompanied by a group from the local Moral Majority.]

…So what do you expect me to do with this thing? Do you expect me to place it on my wall with these signatures (staring?) down at me shouting, “the Holocaust never happened!” and whispering “but we didn’t really say that”? To Williams, Lorch, and Fortune [I ask]: please send me a new certificate without your signatures....

To Mr. Frogue [...] of the conspiracies, denials and lies: to him, I have nothing to say.

ROY BAUER:

Hi. I’m Roy Bauer and I just wanted to alert you to two handouts that I distributed tonight. One of them simply discusses the question of who Mr. Michael Collins Piper is—I understand that he is visiting with us tonight—and I’ve done some research and I’ve provided this handout. I hope that you’ll take some time to look at it and see what sort of character he is.

I wanted to alert you to, in particular—what I did is I had about 4 or 5 random Spotlights—he [Piper] works for [the] Spotlight newspaper, which is the newspaper for Liberty Lobby—and simply scanned some articles and advertisements, editorials. And as you can see, this is an embarrassment.

I hope you do look very carefully at it. You have ads here for [reads:] “the Caucasian race”; “collectors/historians: Ku Klux Klan memorabilia”; “The Truth about the bombs in Oklahoma.”

Also we have an article here by Mr. Michael Collins Piper, which apparently suggests that the Oklahoma City bombing, too, can be attributed to the Israeli Mossad!

So this is the kind of man that Mr. Frogue has wanted to invite to this district. I’m ashamed that I’m a part of a district in which something like this can occur.

Also, I wanted to...point out that I have a letter that was sent to me by this so-called “scholar,” which I’d like to read:

“Dear Roy: I just happened to be going through my files and I found this seventeen year old letter to the editor of the George Washington University student newspaper...Note that I came to the defense of a ‘liberal’ professor who was under fire from ‘right wing’ students who wanted to censor her views.”

Mr. Piper goes on to say:

“Isn’t it ironic that fifteen years later a filthy, anti-free speech mother-fucker like you came on the scene and caused such a big commotion in an effort to silence my views?”

I know a lot of scholars, and they almost never say “motherfucker.” [Laughter.]

“Looks like I’m the good guy, Roy, and you’re the fucking piece of shit that you are. And by the way”—

This is my favorite part of the letter:

“Some of my Black Nationalist supporters in Southern California are watching your activities closely. They believe in Freedom of Speech, motherfucker, but you don’t.”

[Looking directly at Frogue:] This is the “scholar” that Mr. Frogue sought to invite to his idotic JFK Forum.

Thank you very much.


IRV RUBIN:

My name is Irv Rubin. I represent the Jewish Defense League [JDL], and I just wanted to take a moment of your time to shed the spotlight (on) another supporter of Mr. Frogue who recently left, about an hour ago, a fellow by the name of Joe Fields.

How many people in the room know who Joe Fields is? He’s a self-admitted Hitler-lover. He’s also a convicted sexual morals offender—tries to pick up young girls and put them in his dirty little movies.

And (yet) we have nothing but silence from Mr. Frogue.

Mr. Frogue, your silence speaks a great deal. Maybe you ought to look yourself in the mirror and wonder who you’ve associated with.

PHIL TRYON:

My name is Phil Tryon. I’m a retired civil engineer and I want to thank the board again for allowing me to say a few words about free speech versus thought control, since there has been so much hatred spewed out against Mr. Frogue by the criminal ADL [...] for inviting Mr. Piper—the author of Final Judgment, a book on the Kennedy assassination—to take part in a seminar on this tragic event.

I suggest to the board that Mr. Piper...be given some extra time to present the facts as brought out in his book. Then I suggest that some extra time be given to a representative of the ADL to refute these facts. [...] This way it will be out in the open and the people can decide for themselves what is true and what is false.

This is the American way. It is the communist way for us to sit back in fear and wait for the thought police and the anti-American ADL to tell us what we can or cannot read or hear.

I say to you trustees tonight that you who oppose [Piper/Frogue]...are tantamount to being intellectual hypocrites.

Thank you.

BARRY KRUGEL (JDL):

...This is ridiculous—allowing 12 people in and having us wait hours on end to get to speak!

[Mr. Krugel’s address almost immediately deteriorated into a rant.]

[After Mr. Krugel completed his remarks, Trustee Fortune questioned Mr. Rubin about his visit to a Saddleback class. Then, at long last, Michael Collins Piper came up to speak:]

MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER:

I feel like I’m in a really bad John Waters movie here, uh...

KRUGEL: “Your makeup job is pretty bad.”

PIPER: You need some sun, my boy, and get some speech lessons. At any rate, I did write a nasty letter to a—what’s-his-name back here—Roy Bauer—because I was very frustrated. And I do use nasty language in private letters, but I wouldn’t have read that letter out loud to a group of people here like that, so I think that goes to show the kind of caliber this man is.

I’m not the one who started this controversy on this campus, and, in my opinion, neither is Steve Frogue. It was Roy Bauer—this gentleman sitting back there—In collaboration with the Anti-Defamation League. [Someone--Rubin?--laughs.]

When I was invited to speak out here, I just thought I was gonna come out here and I was gonna come before an audience and say a few words about my book along with other people who had other theories on the Kennedy assassination. And what was the result? A major brouhaha that was published in newspapers all over the country. I didn’t contact those newspapers. I didn’t generate that publicity. I didn’t even find out about the conference [being cancelled] until I got a call from the Los Angeles Times, which belies the myth, promulgated by Roy Bauer, that Steve Frogue and I were somehow in collusion.

I noticed that Mrs. Milchiker isn’t here tonight. I don’t know why. Maybe there’s a personal reason. Maybe it’s because she didn’t wanna give me any credibility by appearing here—I don’t know.

But I listened to what she’s had to say about me in—in—in one of your meetings. I saw this on videotape. I heard her talking about a website in Germany that has something to do with the Holocaust, equating things with me that I know absolutely nothing about.

That’s why I came out here. I didn’t come out here to cause a problem. I came out here to show the members of this board and anyone who wanted to listen to me that I am a human being. I’m offended by some of the things that have been said about me. I feel like I’ve been made into a political football by, uh, by people, uh, Mrs. Milchiker for example—Roy Bauer.

—I understand that there’s a lot of conflict out here at this board that I know nothing about. (I have?) nothing to do with them and yet somehow, uh, it’s...my presence in this whole thing—[it] has been made into a major issue.

You know, I could go on, but let me just say this. I think, uh, this gentleman back here [Phil Tryon] expressed it very, very well. If my book is so crazy, why doesn’t the Anti-Defamation League debate me in public about it? Why doesn’t Roy Bauer debate me in public about it?

RUBIN: “Who would give you any credibility? Who would give a nutcase like you any credibility?

PIPER: Ah, I’m gonna ask, could I ask for 10 more seconds—in light of the fact that I’ve been interrupted here several times since I began to speak—so I can conclude?

I’ve been hearing so much about anti-Semitism and the Holocaust and all this kinda stuff...

RUBIN: “You’re an expert on it.”

WILLIAMS: “Please, Mr. Rubin.”

[Piper is discomfited. He pauses.]

PIPER: I, I didn’t interrupt when this unpleasant creature was speaking—who is allied with Marcia Milchiker and Roy Bauer—and I would, I would ask that I be allowed to speak without interruption.

UNIDENTIFIED JDL WOMAN: But you’re a nutcase. Nobody should ever...

PIPER: Uh, where’s the police? I’d like I--I--I would like the police brought in here, sir [speaking to policeman]. Sir, I’m being harassed while I’m trying to speak. I didn’t shout out when I was listening to that...(mixed voices are heard)

HARRY PARMER [chief cop]: Ladies and gentlemen, please!

PIPER: I think, I think if this could be broadcast to the general public on cable, they would see the caliber of the people who are allied with Marcia Milchiker and the Anti-Defamation League...

(An indecipherable voice interrupts)...

WILLIAMS: “Please be quiet.”

RUBIN: “We’re not allied with the ADL.”

PIPER: You’re not allied with the ADL. Well, you’re allied—OK. You know, I’ll tell you something. I’m really glad I came out here. I’m glad because it makes me good, it makes me feel good to see—cuz I know, I know that there’s a lot of people in this room, and I know there’s a lot of people in that room down the hall, who do value free speech, who don’t, who don’t, uh, who don’t make personal attacks on people, who don’t try to cause trouble, and, I know who does, and a few of those people are in this room tonight, and, uh--

RUBIN: “Not you, of course.”

[Again, Piper pauses, as though discombobulated.]

PIPER: I’ll tell you what. I’ll conclude by saying: if ever there was an argument in favor of anti-Semitism, it’s this spokesman—self-appointed spokesman—for the Jewish community right here. You’re a most unpleasant man.

RUBIN: “You’re a creep—and you’re a Hitler-lover...

PARMER: “Please, that’s enough.”

[Next, an elementary school teacher speaks on the topic of free speech; then we hear from Mr. Jim Scott, who, during a meeting several months earlier, shouted, “Keep up the good work, Dr. Frogue! There never was a Holocaust!”]

JAMES SCOTT:

Good evening and thank you board members for allowing us to speak like this. This issue has always been free speech, period...

Unfortunately, this thing over here [motions to Rubin], and that thing [motions to Krugel, who says simply, “Screw you”], have tried to distort this whole meeting and turn it into a big long Holocaust shoot-out.

WILLIAMS: “Would the audience please be quiet?”

KRUGEL: “Well, I’m a person [unlike that?] fat pig over there.”

WILLIAMS to Krugel: “Would you please leave? You’re not welcome in here anymore. [To Parmer:] “Would you please remove him?”

SCOTT: Anyway, this whole matter, it’s very important that we get this issue of free speech out where it’s supposed to be in front of everybody....

ANTONIO AGUILAR (STUDENT):

[Mr. Aguilar out-JDLed the JDL. After only a minute, he began to scream at Mr. Frogue with remarkable violence.]

But, all in all, the crowd behaved very well, I think, given the umitigated hatred so many in the audience had for others in the room!]

UPDATE:

Some time later, Matt Coker of the OC Weekly updated the Weekly's readers on Mr. Michael Collins Piper's activities, at least according to a respected anti-racist organization:

[Back in mid-98] Responding to local critics who had called Piper anti-Semitic and a Holocaust denier, he told the Weekly and others that he had nothing against Jews but that he had not paid enough attention to the most horrific event of the 20th century to actually deny that it occurred. But according to the SPLC [the Southern Poverty Law Center], Piper was speaking at a meeting of the CCC's National Capitol Region in Arlington, Virginia, earlier this month when he got "progressively angrier" as he talked about "the Jews he says control Hollywood." He ended his address, the story claims, by saying, "how sick he is of hearing about the Holocaust, and how he just doesn't care how many Jews died."

Here's the url:

http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/99/16/clockwork-coker.php

I seem unable to access the OC Weekly's original story of that special night in June. It was a doozy, the story. And the night. --CW