Get a baseball bat

.

EXONERATE

Today, the district (i.e., Raghu Mathur) issued a press release:

JURY VERDICT EXONERATES...RAGHU P. MATHUR...A federal jury returned a unanimous verdict yesterday finding that there was no illegal discrimination or harassment on the part of Dr. Raghu P. Mathur, Chancellor of the South Orange County Community College, toward Dr. Acely [sic] Mora.

Six years ago, Dr. Mora filed a lawsuit alleging that Dr. Mathur, then President of Irvine Valley College, failed to promote her to a dean’s position based upon her gender and ethnicity. She further alleged that Dr. Mathur failed to remedy a hostile work environment created by the person subsequently hired for the position, Dr. Rodney Poindexter.

After 6 days of testimony and presentation of evidence, the eight member jury of five women and three men returned the verdict in 45 minutes. They found no illegal activity on the part of Dr. Mathur or Dr. Poindexter.

“I am gratified with the jury’s verdict. It underscores that we are able to choose the best candidate, regardless of race, creed or national origin. Our district and colleges do take immediate action to investigate all complaints of discrimination,” said Dr. Mathur.

The attorney for the case, Dennis J. Walsh, commented, “I’m extremely pleased and honored to represent Dr. Mathur whose commitment to diversity and fairness was obvious during this trial.”


UNDERSCORE

That Raghu sure has a way with words. The verdict, he says, “underscores that we are able to choose the best candidate,” etc. Well, that makes no sense.

But it’s true that things have now been underscored.

As you know, trial testimony revealed that the man that Mathur chose in the spring of 2001 was not the best candidate. This trial, if not this verdict, underscored that Mathur chose the worst candidate.

It underscored, too, that, four years earlier, he refused to choose the best candidate (for a biology position) “because of her ethnicity.” (The hiring committee chair and the Staff Diversity Officer testified that Mathur told them: I refrained from hiring a Sri Lankan candidate because I did not want to be accused of “reverse discrimination.”)

PROTECTED

I wonder how female employees of the district feel about Raghu’s “exoneration”?

Women of the district, I ask you. Now that Mathur and the district’s commitment to protecting you from workplace violence has been laid bare, how would you feel were your boss to scream at you and menace you? Confident of protection?

My advice: get a baseball bat.*

DUCK

At IVC today, everywhere I went, people spoke to me about the expected Mathurian retaliation. It was starting to bug me.

A colleague wrote an email that said simply: “It’s going to be duck and cover—or stop, drop, and roll—for a while.”

Meanwhile, Mathur’s supporters showed their true colors in numerous comments to this blog. Read 'em!

Odd. Mathur's fans all go by the same moniker: “Anonymous.”

(*Re Cely's baseball bat, see

Cely's testimony)

The verdict is in

.

WHATEVER ELSE may be true of Aracely Mora's case against Raghu Mathur, to the trial observer, there can be little doubt that something was very wrong with (1) the Poindexter hire and (2) protections from harassment for women at IVC and the SOCCCD. Without doubt, Poindexter was a disastrous incompetent, a point that is not disputed by the district. Nor is it disputed, apparently, that a simple phone call to Poindexter's previous employer would have made plain the man's incompetence and instability.

With regard to the protection of women, the district appears to be adopting the position that Poindexter was a poor manager, but not a harasser of women. But unless the witnesses at this trial are remarkably accomplished and organized liars, it is quite plain that female employees of the college were subjected to Poindexter's menacing behavior and the college did nothing to protect them. The jury did not judge that these women were protected from a menacing employee. Rather, it rejected the specific claim that Mathur failed to respond to a hostile work environment (for these women). (See Opening statements.)

Please note that the trial's verdict in no way challenges the fact that Poindexter was a disastrous and foolish hire (thank you, Raghu) or that there were people--women, in fact--who were allowed by the college/district to be terrorized by an employee. Remember: it wasn't until that employee got into a physical altercation that the institution pulled him out of the workplace, despite many months of complaints about his menacing behavior. (The judge decided that Cely's attorney may not refer to the altercation.)

FOR THOSE OF US who have been observing the Mathur trial, it will come as no surprise that Cely lost her case today. It comes as no surprise because, during the course of the trial, we were increasingly aware and concerned that most of the jury of eight gave every indication of being a group of immature young people. One juror was always visibly bored and seemed to be sleeping much of the time. A young man (who works for a game show) seemed often to be snickering and joking to the delight of his new female friends on this jury.

My heart sank each time I looked at these people.

But enough about the jury. My advice: watch Mathur. See what he does now.

Mathur: reference checks for Poindexter

    Once again, I’ve got little time—gotta run off to my classes soon. So this’ll have to be quick. 

     (My report concerns the Raghu Mathur discrimination trial up in federal court in LA. Aracely Mora is suing Mathur for discrimination in hiring and for failing to protect her from a hostile work environment—created by Dean Rodney Poindexter. That should go to the jury today.) 

     Yesterday, Cely Mora finished her testimony, then Mathur got up on the stand. Under questioning from Mora attorney Carol Sobel, we learned of the Chancellor’s responsibilities, upholding policies and whatnot. Ditto for the Presidential gig at IVC. Sobel noted that, during his deposition, Mathur claimed that he had never been a defendant nor a plaintiff in a lawsuit. “No,” he said. 

      Well, as we all know, he has been both. 

      Mathur acknowledged that, before interviewing the three finalists for the dean (of Health Science, PE, and Athletics) position back in 2001, he had read the data from the reference checks that had been done by then-VPI Roquemore. (Mathur was IVC Prez then.) 

     One oddity of this case is the fact that Poindexter was hired despite no one’s having contacted his current employer. (Eventually, that employer was contacted, and it was revealed that P had some of the same issues there that turned up at IVC.) Since P didn’t mention that employer among his references, the hiring committee was prevented from doing that. But was Mathur prevented? 

     Under questioning, Mathur seemed to imply that he, too, was prohibited from doing that, though, he said, he could ask for another reference (without specifying). As near as I could tell, Sobel revealed that he was under no such prohibition. We examined the three “reference check” forms for Poindexter’s three references. (These revealed the results of the reference checks—calls to Poindexter’s references, and their answers to a series of questions.) One reference was a former student. 

     Sobel questioned Mathur about that. “We serve the students,” said Mathur. That is, their input is very important (I suppose that’s what he meant). Another reference was a basketball coach. Sobel sought to have Mathur explain what about these references revealed that Poindexter had the qualifications for the dean job. It was rough going. Mathur can be obtuse. 

     The third reference was a prior employer at the US Sports Academy. Sobel asked Mathur if he recalled that that reference “couldn’t recommend Poindexter without reservation.” The reference said he had no knowledge of P’s administrative abilities. Sobel then turned to Mathur’s request for a fourth reference. It was “very positive,” said Raghu. Oddly, the reference check form for the fourth reference “has not been produced.” Mathur acknowledged that. 

     WOW. 

Attorney Carol Sobel

     Was there anything in Poindexter’s resume that revealed that P had experience running an intercollegiate athletics program? There was much testimony about that. Mathur claimed there was evidence in the resume that P had experience as a “director” of athletic training—hence experience as a supervisor/administrator. There was some dispute about that. 

     Do you know what chairs of Athletic Training do? No, not specifically. 

     Sobel asked for Mathur’s documentation—or just notes—regarding his fourth reference check. At one point, Sobel said: “You have no evidence that you called the additional reference?” 

     No, apparently. 

     “I do recall that the reference check was very positive,” said Mathur. 

     Sobel then focused on Mathur’s claim that Mora had failed to develop curricula (when she served as Acting Dean prior to Poindexter’s hire). Hadn’t she developed a massage therapy program? Didn’t she put through curricula for that? Doesn’t the President of the college approve all courses that go through the curriculum process? 

     Mathur acknowledged this. He claimed to be “only vaguely” aware of Mora’s efforts on behalf of massage therapy. Sobel returned to the three (initial) reference checks. One was a Scott P. Evidently, Scott was one of Poindexter’s students. On the form, it showed that Scott couldn’t rate Poindexter with regard to relations with management. He was a student. 

     Another reference, Hal W, had been P’s dean for over a year. Hal claimed that he only observed Poindexter’s work as a trainer; he claimed not to know about P’s administrative abilities. So, when it came to rating P on that, he didn’t offer a response. 

     So the three references did not indicate that Poindexter had any administrative experience? Yes. Why ask for the fourth ref? Mathur “wanted additional information.” 

     --Well, I’ve gotta run. I’ll try to finish this later today. Sorry to leave you hanging. --CW

The lost reference: it was "very positive"

.
I attended the Mathur "discrimination" trial today in LA. I'll have more time to report on it tomorrow—I hope! Been too busy tonight to write anything. In the meantime, here's a quick update.

This trial is partly about the infamous Poindexter dean hire of 2001, which looks seriously dodgy. Prima facie, Rodney Poindexter wasn't even remotely qualified for the deanship (of Health Sciences, PE and Athletics at Irvine Valley College)—he had no supervisory or administrative experience—while Cely was amply qualified. And yet Mathur hired Poindexter, who turned out to be grossly incompetent, unstable, and, according to some, a danger to female employees.

That Raghu sure can pick 'em!

Part of the hiring process is the checking of references. All reference checks require documentation. They must be done using a special form provided by HR. So when the hiring committee forwarded three candidates, the chair of the committee (then-VPI Glenn Roquemore) went off (by himself, as it turns out; in court, he said nobody volunteered to go with him) and did the reference checks using those forms.

Today in court, the jury had a chance to look at them—filled out by Glenn Roquemore re Poindexter's 3 references.

It soon became clear that the three "references" for Poindexter were decidedly unimpressive (one was a former student). One "reference" declined to offer an unqualified recommendation for the P-man. These refs added up to practically nothing.

During the second-level interview of Poindexter, Mathur evidently got it into his head to ask Poindexter for a fourth reference. (That's what he said today, under questioning from Cely Mora's attorney, Carol Sobel.) That's odd.

And he didn't ask the other two applicants for a further reference. Strange, ain't it?

So, says Mathur, Poindexter gave him a name and a number.

Mathur now claims that he called the reference, and (surprise!) "it was very positive."

Naturally, he used the required form. It sure would be great if we could look at that form, find out who had such great things to say about Poinsie. We wanna read the superlatives for ourselves!

OK, so where's the form? Can we see it?

Today, Mathur acknowledged that that form has not been produced.

I assume that means that it disappeared. (Got any other interpretations out there?)

Garsh, that's odd! Doncha think? And it was so very positive, too!

TOMORROW: closing arguments. The jury goes off to make its decision.

Cely Mora's stunning testimony

☺TUESDAY: It’s been another long day, and I don’t have time to report everything that happened at the RAGHU MATHUR discrimination trial today, but I did want to report the first half of Cely Mora’s testimony. It’s pretty riveting:

Here’s the story that emerged from Carol Sobel’s questioning of Cely on the witness stand today (for background, see Discrimination trial: opening statements):

It was not until she witnessed Chancellor Raghu Mathur’s deposition (given in 2003) that she discovered that (so he said) he had decided against hiring her, and in favor of hiring Rodney Poindexter, in part because of her efforts to develop a baseball program and install a baseball field. “I was shocked,” she testified.

Had Mathur ever mentioned to her that there was a problem with her handling of the baseball program/field? No, never. Mathur “never expressed to me” any dissatisfaction with that.

Back in 1997 (when Mathur ascended to the Presidency of Irvine Valley College, thanks to a series of illegal board actions), he had asked Dean Greg Bishopp and Athletic Director Cely to make a presentation about the Athletics Program before the Exchange Club (a local organization of which Mathur [along with Owen Kreza, et al.] was a member). Already then, the development of baseball and the building of a baseball field was part of the grand plan, and so it became a part of the presentation. After the presentation, Cely received a “thank you” letter from Mathur. The jury examined it.

Cely described other aspects of the development of the baseball program—things about which Mathur was clearly apprised or involved. “You need approval [from Mathur] about everything,” she said.

In the spring of 2000, there was a meeting of various persons (including former Angels manager Buck Rodgers) to organize fundraising for the baseball field. Mathur certainly did not indicate disapproval of her efforts at that time.

By the summer of ’02, both colleges received a one-time lump sum, earmarked for athletic facilities. Mathur asked Mora to make a presentation before the board of trustees, requesting the funds specifically for the baseball field.

During his deposition, Mathur had also indicated that Mora had created/pursued a track & field program without his approval, but Mora again testified that all aspects of the development of track & field occurred with Mathur’s full cooperation and approval.

Had Mathur ever communicated to her that her school was expanding sports programs too rapidly? No. On the contrary. He seemed very pleased with the sports programs and the things that were being done to develop them.

Also during the 2003 deposition, Mathur cited his desire to pursue Health Sciences and distance education as a reason for his decision to hire Poindexter and not Mora. But, testified Cely, you can’t teach most of her School’s courses using “distance ed.” That would be like teaching the cutting of hair online. It’s “just not practical.”

Plus there were state restrictions concerning the development of Heath Sciences courses using distance education. Still, she was in fact developing distance ed courses where feasible. For instance, she was exploring a TV course on self-defense to be offered on a “trial basis.”

What did Cely think when, during his depo, she heard Mathur’s "reasons" for not hiring her (and hiring Poindexter)? Well, said Cely, he was trying to justify hiring a white male with minimal qualifications and no experience as an administrator.

That is, he had invented an after-the-fact rationale. He was making all of this up.


POINDEXTER ARRIVES:

When Cely returned to IVC in the Fall of 2001, she had very limited contact with Dean Poindexter, she testified.

The first thing he did was to move her out of her office, even though it was not the dean’s office, but a smallish faculty office, distant from his assistant. He seemed to be “establishing his power and control,” she said. So she decided to stay away from him. At first, she was moved to another office in the PE building. Then, after a month, she moved to the B300 building (one building over).

At one point, Suzie F (Poindexter’s secretary) came to her to explain that they were moving Cely’s computer. Cely was perplexed. “He didn’t tell you”? asked Suzie. Evidently, Poindexter had requested the move.

Naturally, Cely felt disrespected, inconvenienced, and harassed. She emailed Poindexter and tried to phone him, but he did not respond. She went to his office three times, but he was not there.

During the 3rd week of the fall (2001) semester, she discovered that one of her classes had been cancelled. She wanted to know why it was cancelled so late. Also, she now needed a new assignment to replace the cancelled class. She tried to telephone and email Poindexter, but he didn’t respond to her communications.

She didn’t want to bump a part-timer from a class, so she decided to work her hours (to replace the cancelled course) in the fitness center.

In October, she had a surprise encounter with Suzie F, the secretary. Suzie was running down the hall, crying. Cely asked what was the matter. Suzie blurted out that she “wasn’t going to take it any more,” that he “couldn’t yell at her like that” and “treat her like that.”

Who was doing that? It was Dr. Poindexter, she said.

Until then, Cely had thought that Poindexter had a problem with Cely in particular. Now she began to realize that “this guy has some issues about dealing with women.”

She got calls from two other female instructors, who complained about disrespectful treatment they had endured in dealing with Poindexter. They, too, experienced course cancellations.

THE OCTOBER MEETING:

In October, she attended her first faculty meeting of the semester. Department chair Ted W had explained to her that Poindexter was threatening to “write her up” for not attending the meetings. Besides, Martin M needed her support on some issue. All of the full-time faculty (about 12) were in attendance.

At one point, they discussed a “massage therapy” program (which they had been developing). Cely noted what needed to happen with regard to course development. Poindexter suddenly exploded. “You’re wrong!” he shouted. His face turned red, his body moved forward. He was angry, agitated.

“I was blown away,” said Cely. She had never seen any supervisor behave like that.

Kent M and Martin M made remarks much like Cely’s, but Poindexter didn’t seem to have a problem with them. It was as though, in Poindexter’s mind, a switch would go on and off. He would be yelling and agitated, and then he’d suddenly behave normally—when speaking with the men.

During the meeting, several male faculty offered views concerning who should represent the department at the Orange Empire Conference meeting. Poindexter could handle that. But when Kathryn M offered her view, Poindexter’s switch went off again, only his agitation was worse than before. His body-language was even more aggressive. He would repeat a comment or question as though he were a broken record: “What do you coach! What do you coach! What do you coach!” He moved his head closer to her.

“I was stunned,” said Cely. At that point, she said nothing. She remained silent. She was very frightened. Poindexter seemed to be out of control.

After that, Cely decided to keep an even lower profile. She stayed out of the building. She didn’t attend the next staff meeting. It seemed to her that Poindexter just couldn’t handle women with anything to say.

But it became impossible to avoid contact with Poindexter. There were issues concerns the summer and spring schedules. At first, she tried to discuss those issues via email and phone, but he simply would not respond, so she had to go to his office.

THE “MUSIC” EPISODE; THE JULIE EPISODE:

In January (of 2002), she did just that, accompanied by Kathy S, a union representative. Cely normally taught summer courses, but Poindexter had not honored any of her requests for summer classes. In the course of the discussion, his face again became red and he started yelling. That switch had gone off again.

Then he did something very odd. He turned on some music. He yelled even louder to be heard over it.

Cely decided to leave. She didn’t want to wait to see what was going to happen next.

About a week or two later, she visited Poindexter again, this time with Kathy and Julie H (Cely, Julie, and Kathryn were the only full-time female faculty in their department). They had come to offer a compromise with regard to summer teaching. Julie, too, had had none of her summer requests honored. She was afraid of Poindexter, but she figured that there was safety in numbers.

Again, at the point that a difference of opinion arose, Poindexter became agitated, his face became red, and he started to yell. Julie slouched and became withdrawn. The women left.

ESCALATION:

In February, there was another department meeting. The summer issues had not yet been resolved, and Poindexter had now cancelled another course of Cely's. All of the women had had classes cancelled (and possibly Ted had one of his courses cancelled). At this meeting, Poindexter’s behavior and demeanor were different. In the small conference room, everyone sat around a table. Poindexter sat at the head. At some point, he became agitated again, only this time he shifted his body toward Kathryn, who was sitting near him. She kept moving her chair away from him, but he kept moving toward her. She was plainly frightened. Cely said that she saw Kathryn start to panic. Kathryn became pale.

The next day, Kathryn called Cely at home. She was crying. She said that she hadn’t slept. She explained that, after the meeting, Poindexter had come up to her and said, “Kathryn, don’t resist me. It’s not in your interests to resist me.”

THE FIRST COMPLAINT:

That’s when they contacted Human Resources. They spoke with Ettie Graham of the HR office. By then, Suzie F had already filed a complaint, which had initiated an investigation. And John Lowe, who had been on the dean hiring committee, had by then spoken with Mathur about Poindexter. The women by then wouldn’t walk to their cars unless accompanied by male colleagues.

FITNESS CENTER EPISODES; OFFICE EPISODES:

Also in the Spring of 2002, Poindexter showed up a couple of times at the fitness center while Cely worked there. He just walked in and stared at her. Then he’d leave. It was unnerving. She reported the incidents to Ettie Graham, among others.

Poindexter would suddenly show up at her office unannounced. He would just come in, stop, look at her—then leave, having said nothing.

A campus cop suggested that she keep a baseball bat in her office, so she did that.

The complaint seemed to produce nothing. So she called Ettie at HR. “We need some help,” she said. “Can you help us?” That’s when Ettie suggested a formal complaint.

Eventually, Poindexter produced a Fall schedule. Unsurprisingly, Cely was given a 5:30-7:00 p.m. tennis class followed by a 7:00-10:00 Health class. That meant that she would have no opportunity to shower and change between classes.

Also, Cely was saddled with classes that had been cancelled previously owing to low enrollment. Cely calculated that 55% of her schedule would be cancelled, and so she informed the Acting Vice President for Instruction (Susan Cooper) and Poindexter.

Today, Cely was asked why only five faculty signed the formal “discrimination and sexual harassment” complaint. She explained that non-tenured faculty were very vulnerable and didn’t sign for that reason. All tenured faculty signed it.

THE INVESTIGATION:

The formal complaint yielded an investigation, which included interviews with an investigator. The report was not finished until November or December of 2002, 7-8 months after the investigation had begun. During that entire period, Poindexter continued as her dean.

Cely was very disappointed with the report. Some of its information was incomplete or inaccurate. The report stated that Cely was concerned about her physical safety, but Cely had said a great deal more than that about her safety concerns.

In May (after she had been interviewed for the investigation), Cely was working at her desk at the fitness center. She seemed to sense something and so she looked up. She was startled to find Poindexter leaning over the front desk counter. His face was red, sweaty. “What do you want, Rod?” asked Cely. Poindexter mumbled unintelligibly. She repeated her question, and he continued to mumble. Cely was terrified.

Cely mentioned the incident to the investigator, but, in the report, it was described in a manner that diminished it, failing to convey the menace of his behavior and her abject terror.

She told the investigator about all of these incidents. She urged HR to move Poindexter away from her and the other women.

CELY LEAVES:

In July of 2002, testified Cely, she just couldn’t take it anymore. (At this point in her testimony, she struggled with tears.) She couldn’t bear to go to work. She couldn’t bear to see the concern on her parents’ faces. Her colleagues would come to her for help, but she couldn’t help them. She couldn’t believe that she had to keep a bat in her office. She couldn’t get anyone to help her and to help the other women. Not Mathur, not anyone.

When she left Irvine Valley College—in July of 2002—Rodney Poindexter was still her dean.

May Day Redux

~
DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES beyond her control, Rebel Girl won't be marching today (at least not physically), but in the spirit of the day, she offers a reprint of last year's May Day 2006 post—and reminds those of you with more forgiving or flexible schedules or circumstances that Orange County's own May Day festivities begin with a rally from 2:00-3:00, march at 3:00-4:30 and another rally from 4:30-7:00, all in and around the heart of Santa Ana's Civic Center. Consider this your invitation to those events. What are you waiting for?

☺☺☺☺☺
Rebel Girl, along with Red Emma, and pulling Limber Lou in his little red wagon, joined thousands of others marking the Day Without An Immigrant in Santa Ana yesterday.

You should have been there.

Maybe you were.

Earlier that day, on her morning drive to the college, Rebel Girl was struck by the sight of the Sand Canyon strawberry fields sans workers—rows and rows of green plants and red berries, but nary a worker crouched among them. Closer inspection revealed that the gates were locked, the pallets stacked, the cars that usually park in the dirt missing.

The asphalt and construction crews raising the nearby new community of Portola Springs seemed thinned as well.


It took her fifteen minutes to drive from the college to Santa Ana, to rendezvous with Red and Lou and a visiting friend from Germany. Five more minutes to get to downtown, locate parking, and feed the meter its diet of quarters.

The sidewalks were full of white-shirted people but businesses were closed. Cars drove by with horns blaring and flags flying. The spirit was festive, celebratory, proud.

May Day had come to Santa Ana.

Rebel Girl reminded Red of the time they arrived in the Greek port city of Patras on May Day—there, a national holiday with long roots in both labor and pagan traditions. Wreaths of yellow flowers adorned the doors—months later, in the heat of summer, they’d be tossed on bonfires to commemorate St. John’s Day. Families picnicked, paraded.

Reb and Red found dinner in one of the few restaurants open for business—someone had to make sure the sailors got to eat, the owner explained. —Sailors and wayward travelers like us. We feasted — broad beans in tomato dill sauce, stuffed peppers, fresh Greek salad, tsaziki, good bread, cold retsina. The owner didn’t believe us when we told him that May Day wasn’t celebrated in the U.S. “But it began there,” he said, clearly a Greek who knew his history and ours.

Yes, we agreed, but most Americans don’t know that and, somewhere along the way, someone designated a day in September to honor labor, allowing a nation to begin to forget the American anarchists and Haymarket while the rest of the world kept remembering. At the evening's end, I think he still didn’t believe us.

That was ten years ago.

In Santa Ana, over 10,000 gathered in the Plaza of the Flags to hear speeches, to see each other, to stand together and be counted by whoever was doing the counting. It was impressive: families; mothers with strollers or babes in arms; beaming children riding on their fathers’ shoulders; working people wearing t-shirts emblazoned with their union logos or, more often, their own handwritten messages; working people carrying the tools of their trade: tool belts, spades, rakes, brooms, mops. Flags fluttered above all. Lou sat in his wagon, waving his banner of choice: the Jolly Roger.

Our German friend commented that he never imagined being at a rally with so many American flags. But where, he asked, were all the white people?

He had a point.

There were few. But that’s a topic for another essay.

As the march began to move out, I looked up. In the wide set branches of a tree, sat a broad-chested young man, in clean, well-pressed khakis and a white button-down shirt. His tie was red, white and blue. His hair was clipped close to his head. His brown face was gleaming with sweat. He shouted down at us, urging us forward, like some figure out of Greek mythology.

At the plaza where we paused for speeches in English and Spanish, we met up with three colleagues from Saddleback. We congratulated each other on being there as it was clearly the place to be. Solidarity, indeed.

Media reports cited counter protesters, but I saw only one, a single fellow, singularly unhappy, standing there with his own bitter hand-lettered sign. He had, Red noted, obviously more problems than one.

The march continued, winding its way around the Civic Center. At the corner of 901 Civic Center Drive, the crowd looked up and noticed a group of men on the roof, arms crossed, watching us. Clearly business men, they had taken off their suit jackets to better bear the heat, but their ties remained tight around their necks, their shirts tucked into their belted trousers. Standing there, arms crossed, they watched us, the slowly moving sea of white shirts and red, white and blue flags. We started waving, calling out “Hello!” “Hola!” No reaction. We shouted louder. Nothing. We called, “Come join us!” and realized how absurd that request was, but still, we repeated it. “Hello!” Come join us!”

One fellow finally waved, but then backed away, ashamed either by his reaction or, more likely, because he was making fun of our own waving hands and had to back away to chuckle with his pals.

On the way home, hungry and realizing that the sink was full of dishes, we decided to stop at Taco Mesa for our favorite quick dinner: beans, rice, grilled calamari tacos. Pulling into the parking lot, we realized our mistake: Taco Mesa was closed.

What were we thinking? It was May Day!

Last week's board meeting: sandwiches described and machinations exposed

WELL, it’s been another busy day, and tomorrow promises to be an even busier one.

In the morning, I’m off again to downtown LA, to the U.S. Courthouse, across the street from the old Los Angeles City Hall Building, to attend Week Two (well, day 4) of the Mathur “discrimination” trial. I’ll be taking the train, cuz tomorrow is also the day of the Really Big Immigration March, which, naturally, happens right there, more or less, near Olvera Street. Luckily, Rebel Girl is up to speed on train travel, and so I’m feeling like a man with a plan. And an adventure.


At Irvine Valley College, there’s been lots of intense buzzage about this trial—the Trial of the Century!—which, is, among other things, an occasion for public revelation of innumerable Corrupt Mathur Stories. I’ve gotta say, just sitting there, listening to the witnesses, it pisses me off anew that (most of) our Board of Trustees have steadfastly refused to believe these old Corruption Stories. Meanwhile, they’ve allowed a once-great community college district to sink into mediocrity and ridiculousness.

These trials are like battles, and attorneys are like generals, constantly switching tactics on the fly and moving pieces in and out of danger, and so, even though I've communicated with Field Marshal Sobel, I can’t be sure what’s on tap for tomorrow, aside from the completion of Cely Mora’s testimony. I’m hoping that Mathur will be up after Cely, but, in truth, any of the defense witnesses should be loads of fun, cuz they’ve either gotta lie or tell the truth, and, either way, well, they can’t miss, funulosity-wise.

BELATED B.O.T. REPORT:

I never got around to reporting on last week’s regular board meeting (on the 23rd), aside from a few points. So I’ll try to do some catch-up here.

FACULTY COMMENTS:

As I reported last week, faculty offered remarks to the board during “public comments.” Academic Senate Presidents Cosgrove and Gabriella spoke, as did Lewis L of the Faculty Association (union), who noted that the district’s faculty contract proposal is “provocative and contentious.” The last negotiations, noted Lewis, dragged out for three years. Lewis asked the trustees to consider whether this unfortunate proposal will “promote collegiality.”

Will S noted that the proposed contract mandates faculty attendance of the chancellor’s and Presidents’ opening sessions. That, he said, smacks of “micromanagement.” “Let’s get beyond this,” he said.

Jeanne E found the proposal to be “insulting.”

Susan F noted the importance of the “reassigned time” issue. She explained that the list of faculty tasks has greatly expanded in recent years, and so faculty chairs are doing more work than ever.

Kurt M described faculty dedication and noted that much faculty work is uncompensated.

Kathie S suggested, grandly, that “we are our faculty and our curriculum.” She bemoaned the lack of respect for faculty—by persons unidentified.

The prayer issue was mentioned again. It’s not going away, that’s for sure.

Tom W acknowledged that he used to worry about the quality of the Chancellor’s opening session, but “then came Elvis.”

TRUSTEE REPORTS:

During trustee reports, Trustee Don Wagner suggested that some of the concerns about contract negotiations that were being expressed that night were “premature.” It wasn’t clear—not to me at least—whether he really wanted to reassure us. Maybe so.

Williams alluded to yet another Florida conference that he had attended. Mathur went with him.

Mathur asserted that faculty need not get alarmed about the contract negotiations. “It takes two to make it happen,” he said, tautologically, though he didn’t detect his remark's vacuity, nor does he know what the word “tautology” means. Nor "vacuity."

Once again, the insufferable fellow said that he looks forward to speedy negotiations.

THE CURRICULUM PRESENTATION:

Item 6.2 was “Curriculum Development and Process, and Planned Enhancements.” Mathur explained that, for the March board meeting, the senate presidents had offered brief reports about the curriculum process during “public comments,” but these, he said, were “inadequate.”

In fact, Mathur was hopping mad about those reports. In the week or so after the March board meeting, he made it known to the VCs and Senate Presidents that the trustees had been horribly insulted and offended by those reports, and so he was determined to make faculty go back and give “real” reports—you know, with PowerPoint, etc.

The senate presidents, however, could not figure out what the fellow wanted from them. Meanwhile, Mathur kept turning up the heat: Report! Report! Report! This ultimately led to IVC Senate President Wendy G taking the uncharacteristic step of calling up board president Lang to apologize for insulting the board and asking the fellow just what in hell the trustees wanted curriculumwise. Lang said he didn’t know what she was talking about. He wasn’t insulted and he was not aware that anyone else was insulted.

So it looks like Wendy accidentally stepped on one of Mathur’s ugly machinations and broke it in two.

At one point during the meeting, Mathur cited Wendy’s phone call as an example of how faculty cause the board to micromanage (it’s faculty’s fault, doncha see?). He was doing some serious finger-pointing and blaming. You know, like he always does.

But Mathur’s ugly little gambit backfired on ‘im, publicly. During the meeting, Wendy and Dave had a brief exchange in which Dave made it clear that she really ought to call more often! Yup. Turns out Wendy and Dave never talk, and so he was glad to hear from her. Plus, she called only to apologize and to get clear about this presentation, right Dave? Yup. And when Wendy tried to apologize, Dave said, Huh?—right, Dave? Yup.

That stuff about the trustees being horribly insulted by those brief faculty presentations? Mathur made it up from whole cloth.

Well, last Monday, Saddleback and IVC’s main “curriculum” persons gave their curriculum presentations, and they were good.

Howard Adams explained how faculty “grind out the sausage.” Wagner kept asking, “How do you know they’re doing a good job?” Lang asked, “what about SLOs?” In general, the trustees’ questions revealed profound cluelessness—about the process, about the work involved, and especially about academics.

Kathie S’s presentation was also good. Wagner pronounced the presentations “excellent”—and this is a guy who isn’t impressed by much. Still, he said that he expected more of a “here’s what’s new” presentation. Kathie tried to explain why new programs and courses aren’t really what you can expect from an established institution. Such institutions are up to speed.

Well, here’s the thing. The board seemed to respond well to what they were learning. They seemed to be surprised and impressed. That's GREAT. But, geez, HOW CLUELESS CAN YOU GET?

MISCELLANY:

Next up was information about security services. Some people from Honeywell came up to explain their gizmos. In the middle of all that, Wagner returned from a brief absence and commented, wryly, that it was sounding like “an ad for Honeywell.” Then he said something snippy about Florida, I think, but I didn’t catch it. Dang! Something interesting was going on—something about Williams’ junkets, I think—but I didn’t have a clue what it was! Anybody know?

4.7 There was lots of peevish discussion about the bookstore contract (going to Follett) and how, in Wagner’s words, the bookstores have been “ripping off students.” An administrator came up to explain about how it’s the publishers’ fault, but Wagner wasn’t having any of it.


4.10 There was some discussion about the recommendation to change the Food Services vendor at IVC. Somehow, that discussion went south fast. At one point, somebody had to explain about how this new vendor was gonna make these pita sandwiches, and, just before he got to the ingredients, somebody cut him off. Too much info!

5.1 The board approved the “Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement…with Camelot Entertainment.” It was unanimous, and there was no discussion. Can somebody explain what this means?

5.5 Only Bill Jay voted against approving the “district’s initial proposal for negotiations with the…Faculty Association….”

Well, that was about it. —CW