The SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT —
"[The] blog he developed was something that made the district better." - Tim Jemal, SOCCCD BoT President, 7/24/23
There may be some confusion concerning the status of the defendants in the “prayer” lawsuit (“Westphal v. Wagner”). As you know, several people, including each of the SOCCCD trustees, have been named as defendants in that suit.
But they are not all being sued in the same way.
Dual capacities:
DONALD P. WAGNER is being sued individually and in his official capacity as a member and the president of the South Orange County Community College District Board of Trustees.
JOHN S. WILLIAMS is being sued individually and in his official capacity as a member and the vice president of the South Orange County Community College District Board of Trustees.
THOMAS A. FUENTES is being sued individually and in his official capacity as a member and the clerk of the South Orange County Community College District Board of Trustees.
RAGHU P. MATHUR is being sued individually and in his official capacity as chancellor of the South Orange County Community College District.
TOD A. BURNETT is being sued individually and in his official capacity as president of Saddleback College.
Only in their official capacity:
On the other hand,
DAVID B. LANG, WILLIAM O. JAY, NANCY M. PADBERG, and MARCIA MILCHIKER are only being sued in their official capacities as members of the South Orange County Community College District Board of Trustees.
COMMENTS:
Anonymous said...
I'm glad you're doing this but am curious as to why IVC is not mentioned in the lawsuit and why Glenn isn't a defendant. 10:17 AM, November 22, 2009
B. von Traven said...
I won't go into details, but these suits are somewhat complex, since there are significant distinctions between venues of prayer, kinds of prayer, and actions of officials, etc. There are also differing objections to these episodes. I will see about providing a link to the complaint so that readers can learn the relevant facts. 10:36 AM, November 22, 2009
Anonymous said...
IVC needs relief from this kind of forced worship too! I go to work here - not pray here! 10:45 AM, November 22, 2009
How do you feel about a phrase like, "It is what it is..."?
I responded as follows:
Excellent question. ... [T]he expression does seem to express something of significance. I say this because there are times when I am attracted to the phrase—I mean, I want to (or do) say it. But then I wonder what I'm saying or trying to say. (How odd that one can say something and not know what one meant….)
I guess I've got to have concrete instances of its usage…. Got any? What do you make of it?
Mr. B soon responded:
...[T]he phrase frustrates me ... because it is often used as an argumentative tactic against me. "Why explain something?" they seem to ask. "It is what it is." Though, as you indicate it may have some significance. It's just that these individuals I speak of often say it so casually turning something potentially sublime into a fuckin' handshake.
So what could it mean? I think I have said it, referring to the context of some thing. I find that common, everyday language lacks rules (or words, or symbols, or whatever) to discuss contexts as symbols of their own so we are reduced to these seemingly vague situations of describing "it" by that physical existence that "it" is.
For example, "a tree is a tree" is vague sounding, unless I take you outside and say "a tree is (I then point at a tree) a tree," then that whole human experience thing, plus my words, aid in your understanding of what a tree is.
I could be wrong, but I am just chattin' right now, so forgive me if I sound like a total tool.
[At this point, I sense a yawning generational gap. “Chattin’”? A “tool”? Wow, B is grody to the max! He continues:]
So, perhaps you have stood at the beach on a pleasantly chilled clear dawn, maybe not viewing the sun, but gazing across the vast sea, feeling a tickling of excitement in your body that you get to experience something so grand, and "What is that?" you might ask. It is what it is.
[Something wonderful yet indescribable! "Do not sully it with your analyses!"]
I guess in this little fit I am throwing, I think that only people who get that should be allowed to say the phrase. [Most of the time, uttering “it is what it is” provides] a sort of safe haven for people who have no fucking clue as to what they are talking about—to sound wise, or knowledgeable or something.
Get what I am saying?
Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, 1930
Two days later, utterly ignoring B’s profounder suggestions, I replied [actually, I am hereby replying to him]:
B, I was watching some stupid TV show, and I saw a guy look up at a big amusement ride and say, “Once it’s built, it is what it is.”
OK, so, here, “it is what it is” (IIWII) seems to mean, “You may want to change this, but there’s no changing it now. Deal with it.”
It then occurred to me to consult the Urban Dictionary.
The first UD contributor asserted that IIWII means “fuck it,” but “fuck it” itself stands in need of analysis, and, besides, his definition got lots of southward thumbery.
Contributor 2 offered two meanings:
A) A phrase that seems to simply state the obvious but actually implies helplessness.
B) A phrase that seems to simply state the obvious but actually means "it will be what it is," as in "it ain't gonna change, so deal with it or don't."
Contributor 3 suggested a definition that seems to match B above:
A cliché, popular within the circles of coaches, business execs, and those of us who just want to say "It's happened. 'I'm going to forget about it. I'm going to move on. There is nothing that can be done about it."
...
"We showed up and gave 100%, and it is what it is."— NASCAR driver Jimmie Johnson, after finishing second in the Nextel Cup championship.
Contributor 4 wanted to vent about assholery. He reminded me of you, B:
A trite, overused and infuriatingly meaningless cliché that is utilized by provincials who think they are adding some deep, meaningful insight during a discussion when all they are offering is senseless, unwarranted repetitiveness to what would otherwise be a far better conversation had they not shown the shallowness of the gene pool they spawned from by using this asininely useless and redundant phrase to begin with.
An interesting conversation is being had, when quite suddenly….
Yeah, many who use IIWII should be slapped upside the head. Much the same, of course, could be said of people who use the word “utilize.”
But, hey, it is what it is. (Thwock!)
Contributor 5 seemed to detect an admonition in IIWII: don’t try to define the indefinable, College Boy:
In a nutshell, it means "this is the way its going right now, and that’s how it is." Kind of a way to say: don’t overthink the situation. A reminder to keep things simple, don’t overanalyze things, or a way to put a definition on something that’s hard to explain.
Friend: "So what's the deal with you and Bobby? I thought you guys were together, but then someone said you broke up, and then somebody else told me you were broken up but 'friends with benefits' So what's the true relationship status?
Girlfriend: it is what it is.
Anaheim, 1896
Well, all of this reminds me of my favorite quotation, attributed to Bishop Butler, which appears at the beginning of G.E. Moore’s famous Principia Ethica, published in 1903:
“Everything is what it is, and not another thing.”
Trivial? Tautologous? Well, no.
Moore is famous for his assertion that moral “goodness” is an indefinable concept. For centuries, philosophers have sought to define “the good,” but those efforts appear not to have succeeded.
Moore offered an argument. Hedonists (to pick one kind of thinker) tell us that, ultimately, only pleasure has value—that pleasure is the good and “pleasant” is the meaning of the word “good.”
But, reasons Moore, if the meaning of “good” is “pleasant,” then the question "Is it good that x is pleasant?" should not be an open question. That is, it should strike us as trivial.
Confused? Well, consider a term whose meaning is clear. Consider “bachelor.” A bachelor, by definition, is an unmarried man (more or less). This statement—that a bachelor is unmarried—seems trivial to us exactly because “unmarried man” is indeed the meaning of “bachelor,” and so, naturally, saying that a bachelor is unmarried strikes us much like saying that an unmarried person is an unmarried person, which is a trivial and obvious thing to say.
Therefore: it is an indication that we have not successfully defined “bachelor” with “X” if asking, “Is a bachelor X?”, strikes us as a significant (an “open”) question.
According to Moore, any attempted definition of “goodness” runs into this difficulty: the statement that goodness is X (where X is an alleged definition of “good”) always strikes us as non-trivial. And so, he concludes, no definition of “good” works. “Good” is indefinable.
Everything is what it is and it is not another thing.
* * * * * IT
We have worked hard on the project, you and I. But we are now finished. Our friends and supporters stand with us at this moment of completion.
At once, we all stand back and behold IT. We—you and I—are not entirely sure that we have succeeded.
“It is what it is,” you say.
After a few seconds of ominous silence, you turn to me: “Do you have anything of significance to add?”
“Yes I do,” I reply. All eyes dart my way. Everyone awaits my words.
Finally, I declare: “There’s no changing it now. We must accept it as it is, whatever its virtues or vices.”
Question: how many assessments have now been offered? One or two?
IT #2
I wake up as always. I stand sleepily over the percolator. I sense something odd about the morning light outside. I wander out the door, looking toward Santiago Peak.
Just then, B drives up. “Wuzzup?” I say.
“Nothing,” he says, as he climbs out of his car. We stand together, staring northward, in silence.
Suddenly, an enormous head rises above the mountain. It fills the sky, as the moon plunging into Earth might do. It is the head of a vital yet aged Italian man.
God’s head.
Soon, the head is immediately above, looking straight down at us. We are stunned and motionless, staring skyward.
“B, Roy. I want to show you two something,” booms God.
Fantastically, we are transported upward. Evidently traveling at many times the speed of light, we are brought to a vast and colorful nebula. We race into its center, and we see and hear and feel things beyond our wildest imaginings. Somehow, we are neither frightened nor stupefied. We are dazzled and moved beyond anything we could ever have dreamed. Our minds are aglow.
Then, suddenly, we are brought to the percolator and the ordinary morning kitchen.
We stand, silent.
After a few seconds, B and I look at each other, wide-eyed. I begin to speak, desperately attempting to describe our experience.
But B’s eyes say no. I stop.
“It is what it is,” he says. “It…is…what…it…is.”
COMMENTS:
alannah said...
Don't forget Exodus 3:14! "I am that I am." 7:19 PM, November 21, 2009
13 Stoploss said...
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty." 8:19 PM, November 21, 2009
Anonymous said...
So God is Popeye? 12:05 PM, November 23, 2009
Anonymous said...
Popeye is "I am _what_ I am." Close, but not God. Not quite. But perhaps this explains the old saying, "Popeyeness is next to Godliness." (I think that's how it goes.) 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...
I'm Popeye the Sailor Man, I'm Popeye the Sailor Man.
I'm strong to the finich Cause I eats me spinach.
I'm Popeye the Sailor Man.
I'm one tough Gazookus Which hates all Palookas
Wot ain't on the up and square.
I biffs 'em and buffs 'em And always out roughs 'em
But none of 'em gets nowhere.
If anyone dares to risk my "Fisk", It's "Boff" an' it's "Wham" un'erstan'?
So keep "Good Be-hav-or" That's your one life saver
With Popeye the Sailor Man.
I'm Popeye the Sailor Man, I'm Popeye the Sailor Man.
I'm strong to the finich Cause I eats me spinach.
I'm Popeye the Sailor Man. 2:27 PM
Anonymous said...
Man, that takes me back to after school, lo these many years ago. 3:04 PM
I’ve done a little quick ‘n’ dirty research on the lawyer Raghu hired to defend plaintiffs in the “prayer” lawsuit: David Llewellyn. He’s seriously right-wing. According to the website for Llewellyn’s law firm,
David Llewellyn is a legal advocate, civil rights lawyer and law professor now practicing in Sacramento, California. … He is a member of the faculty of the Chapman University School of Law [uh-oh], where he has taught Constitutional Law and the First Amendment and currently serves as a law professor and legal counsel with the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. He was formerly Dean and Professor of Law at Trinity Law School…. Previous to that he was a founder, President and senior legal counsel for the Western Center for Law and Religious Freedom [WCLRF], a public interest law firm.
Founder of the Western Center, eh? Hmmm. Wikipedia’s article on far, far, far-right religious wacko—and pal of Fuentes—Howard Ahmanson explains that Ahmanson
contributed $62,500 to the [WCLRF], which, among other things, aided the citizens and leaders of the Kern County school district defend their choice to ban One Hundred Years of Solitude, a book by Gabriel García Márquez, for its "profanity" and "vulgarity."
Evidently, the "Western Center" is now known as the Pro-Family Law Center of Abiding Truth Ministries. I Googled that and got the website for the Pro-Family Resource Center of Abiding Truth Ministries, which presents writings by Scott Lively, the “President of Abiding Truth Ministries and lead attorney for ATM's Pro-Family Law Center.”
The Pro-Family Law Center (see) seems obsessed with the EVIL that is homosexuality. PFLC sells such books as:
The Pink Swastika (by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams)
The Pink Swastika is a thoroughly researched, eminently readable, demolition of the "gay" myth, symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-homosexual.
Bill Berkowitz (in Buzzflash) called this book, by Lively, a “Holocaust revisionist anti-gay book.” According to Berkowitz, Scott Lively declared “war against the Southern Poverty Law Center for refusing to remove his Abiding Truth Ministries (http://www.abidingtruth.com) from its list of hate groups.”
Clearly, this Scott Lively fella is seriously bad news. Gosh, he's Frogueworthy!
Does that make Llewellyn seriously bad news too?
Well, no.
LLEWELLYN & ANTI-GAY NUTJOBS. I came across an amazing book called As We Sodomize America, by O. R. Adams Jr.
Adams is a nutjob.
Well, at some point Adams refers, positively, to a VCR tape entitled The Gay Agenda, which is narrated (in part) by Llewellyn:
…[It] is an authoritative and comprehensive explanation of the homosexual movement, and homosexual activity. The narrators on the tape are David Llewellyn, President, Western Center for Law and Religious Freedom; Stanley Monteith, M.D., author of "AIDS, The Unnecessary Epidemic;" Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., a well known specialist in homosexuality, and author of "Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality," and many other publications; John Smid, an ex-homosexual, and Director of Love in Action, an organization which helps homosexuals who want to change to a decent way of life; and John Paulk, an ex-homosexual, and Administrator of Love in Action. Dr. Montieth gave the statistical references on homosexual acts….
Wow. Lawyer Llewellyn, it seems, hangs out with a far-out crowd not dissimilar to Mr. Frogue's "Liberty Lobby" gang.
I’ll keep looking. But it doesn't look good. Gosh, why don't they run down the street and see if Steve's available?
P.S.:
I found some videos featuring Stanley Monteith, co-narrator, along with Llewellyn and others, of "The Gay Agenda." See below. Good grief.
Joseph Nicolosi, another co-narrator, is a major advocate of reparative therapy, which attempts to "cure" people of their homosexual feelings and desires. He's a crank.
Evidently, John Smid headed an organization--Love in Action--dedicated to the notion that homosexuality is a "myth." Right.
Read about the troubled Mr. John Paulk, the remaining narrator, here.
COMMENT:
Anonymous said...
Yikes - it's worse than I thought. Stop scaring us Chunk! 7:42 PM, November 21, 2009
OC Weekly’s Matt Coker has noted our “prayer” lawsuit (here) and has managed to dig up some cool facts! One cool fact concerns the Chancellor, that clever fellow who played a certain video three months ago--you know, the one that ends with that remarkable assertion about Jesus?
According to Matt,
District Chancellor Raghu Mathur, who is also named as a defendant in the suit, has retained David Llewellyn of the Sacramento-based Llewellyn Spann law firm. Llewellyn, who often represents conservative Christian groups, left a message with the Weekly vowing that Westphal v. Wagner will be settled through "constitutional law designated in the courts."
Llewellyn also revealed his defense strategy, saying official government sessions have begun with prayer invocations since the United States was founded and that the public college district simply wants to follow that tradition.
Yeah, but it isn't that simple, L-man:
[T]he Americans United complaint references more than just invocations before public meetings. Saddleback officials are accused of showing a video titled God Bless the USA during a faculty training session this past August.
"The video included religious images and closed with two pictures of military personnel carrying a flag-draped coffin," according to the complaint. "Superimposed on those images was the following text: 'Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you. Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other died for your freedom.'"
Such spectacles subject some members of audiences to "unwanted religious practices," according to Americans United, which adds that attendance at some events where this occurs are mandatory, citing students who are awarded scholarships but must go to a public ceremony or forfeit the financial aid.
This isn't just about prayin'.
COMMENTS:
Anonymous said...
You can't make this stuff up, can you? That video is shameful. 7:36 PM, November 20, 2009
Anonymous said...
It's about time something was done about this. But does the lawsuit not say anything about prayer at Irvine Valley College? 8:34 PM, November 20, 2009
Anonymous said...
Well, the Chancellor's "opening session" in August was at IVC. So there's that. The notorious "Jesus Christ" video was shown there. 9:16 PM, November 20, 2009
13 Stoploss said...
I (still) take offense that Mathur thinks soldiers are willing to die for assholes like himself. btw, do you have video of this invocation? I'm sure there are scores of veterans, possibly hundreds, that would love to see that video. 11:54 PM, November 20, 2009
Anonymous said...
Does this also mean that the District, using taxpayer dollars, will be paying these lawyers to defend these actions? Just what we need on the heels of this week's announcement that the State is projecting another $21B deficit and education funding is again at stake. 1:39 PM, November 21, 2009
Anonymous said...
Yes, it does mean that. The behavior of Wagner, Fuentes, and Mathur seems to have been particularly provocative. And so now they've got a lawsuit on their hands, and it will cost the taxpayer many tens of thousands of dollars at the very least. 5:03 PM, November 21, 2009
Americans United for Separation of Church and State has filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging official prayers during public ceremonies at a Southern California community college.
The lawsuit challenges the South Orange County Community College District’s practice of opening its events with prayer. The District oversees two Southern California community colleges – Saddleback College in Mission Viejo and Irvine Valley College in Irvine; the legal action challenges prayers at Saddleback.
School officials, the legal action asserts, routinely sponsor official invocations at events for students and faculty, including scholarship-award ceremonies, commencement ceremonies and training programs for faculty.
Plaintiffs assert they are subjected to unwanted religious worship at these events, a stance AU backs in its lawsuit. “These community colleges need to stop promoting religion and get back to the business of education,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Faculty and students should be able to attend school events without being subjected to official prayer and religious worship.”
AU’s lawsuit notes that students and faculty members have protested the mandatory prayers many times. The student government of Saddleback College has twice passed resolutions opposing the prayer practice, and similar resolutions have been passed by the faculty’s Academic Senate of Saddleback College, the Academic Senate of Irvine Valley College, the statewide Academic Senate for California Community Colleges and the South Orange County Community College District Faculty Association.
School officials ignored the complaints and, in response, actually increased the religious content of these public events.
In August of 2009, Saddleback officials showed a video titled “God Bless the USA” during a faculty training session. The video included religious images and closed with two pictures of military personnel carrying a flag-draped coffin. Superimposed on those images was the following text: “Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you. Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other died for your freedom.”
The legal action asserts that these types of activities subject many in the audience to “unwanted religious practices.”
AU points out in legal documents that attendance at some of these events is mandatory. For example, students who are awarded scholarships must attend a public ceremony or forfeit the financial aid.
Plaintiffs are: Karla Westphal, Alannah Rosenberg, Margot Lovett and Claire Cesareo-Silva, all professors at Saddleback College; Roy Bauer, a professor at Irvine Valley College; Ashley Mockett, a former student at Saddleback and two current Saddleback students who have chosen to remain anonymous.
AU’s complaint notes that for years, faculty, students and parents have protested the prayer policy. College officials, the complaint asserts, “responded by expanding the prayer practice, by making the prayers ever more religious and divisive, and by publicly attacking members of minority faiths and nonbelievers for not sharing the District’s preferred faith.”
The case, Westphal v. Wagner, was filed yesterday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. AU Assistant Legal Director Richard B. Katskee is overseeing the case, assisted by AU Madison Fellow Jef Klazen as well as Allen Erenbaum and Christopher P. Murphy of Mayer Brown LLP in Los Angeles.
“Prayer and religious worship are intimate matters that must be freely undertaken and never coerced,” Katskee said. “This litigation is designed to remind community college officials of that fact.”
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
COMMENTS:
Anonymous said...
These people have for too long run this district (and this county) as if they and only they know best - it's infuriating and offensive to come to work at a publicly funded institution and be subject to this. 5:37 PM, November 20, 2009
Anonymous said...
help! help! Will someone take note and help us please! this has gone on for tooooo long! 9:26 PM, November 20, 2009
"Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you—Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom."
—From a video played during
the Chancellor's Fall Opening Session
Today, a complaint concerning our district was filed with the United States District Court, Central District of California.
The defendants include the seven members of the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees, including board president Don Wagner. Also included are Chancellor Raghu Mathur and Saddleback College President Tod Burnett.
The plaintiffs include professors Karla Westphal, Allanah Rosenberg, Margot Lovett, Claire Cesareo-Silva, and Roy Bauer.
A formal announcement of the complaint will be made in the morning.
Papers will be served on defendants tomorrow.
The complaint reads in part:
For years, … college students, faculty, and staff, as well as scholarship donors, community members, and others have publicly objected to the District’s prayer practice, requesting that a moment of silence or some other, less divisive practice be adopted instead. But rather than respecting the beliefs of its faculty and students, the trustees, the chancellor, and Saddleback College’s president have responded by expanding the prayer practice, by making the prayers ever more religious and divisive, and by publicly attacking members of minority faiths and nonbelievers for not sharing the District’s preferred faith. Plaintiffs therefore have no choice but to seek provisional relief and a permanent injunction to stop the prayer.
More information about the complaint will become available tomorrow.
To read the just-released press release from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, click here.
Anonymous said...
It's about time! 7:24 AM, November 20, 2009
Anonymous said...
Great. go get 'em. I can't believe they think we should stay in the room when they play church like that. 7:54 AM, November 20, 2009
Anonymous said...
Well, I'm gald you all are doing this but it will certainly give Don W. a boost as he runs for higher office. Now he can martyr himself. 8:02 AM, November 20, 2009
Anonymous said...
Excellent--yes; go get 'em. The arrogance and disrespect (for persons and for the constitution) manifested in this long-standing practice are breath-taking. 8:17 AM, November 20, 2009
Anonymous said...
I hope you all prevail. I can't stand how they shove this stuff down our throats. 8:45 AM, November 20, 2009
Anonymous said...
Amen! 11:46 AM, November 20, 2009
Anonymous said...
The "Americans United" press release can be found here. 12:30 PM, November 20, 2009
Bohrstein said...
Yes to separation of Church and State! 3:05 PM, November 20, 2009
Amir said...
As a former student of Saddleback, I am honored to have professors that once taught me take this case to court. It is appalling that one religion stands out above all others in these ceremonies. An institute of higher education should never place one religion above another. Allowing such an act undermines the school's diversity and is unconstitutional. 4:48 PM, November 20, 2009
Some points of information and clarification re the curriculum chair resignation:
A CURIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT. On Monday, IVC faculty received an email "announcement" from the President of the IVC Academic Senate that stated: “The responsibilities of IVC Curriculum Committee Chair have passed from [KS] to [JT] effective immediately.” That statement was followed by an expression of gratitude for K’s years of dedicated service.
The announcement took many of us by surprise and seemed to many of us in need of explanation and elaboration, but we soon learned that the cabinet had agreed not to discuss the matter with anyone. As far as I know, they have kept that agreement.
Today, during a meeting of the IVC Academic Senate Representative Council (i.e., the “senators”), the Senate President announced and then explained the situation, informing Senators that new and dire curriculum review deadlines had arisen, raising the long-standing curriculum “bottleneck” problem to a genuine crisis.
That was followed by a discussion in which I (Roy Bauer) participated.
1. Laboring under the impression that J was replacing K, I made the point that, according to the Senate bylaws, a vacancy of the office of Chair of Curriculum is to filled by the Rep Council, not the cabinet.
This is true. But, I was told, in this case, there was no vacancy to fill, since, prior to the resignation, the Curriculum committee was “co-chaired” by J and K. Hence, all that has occurred is the continued chairing of J.
That J was a “co-chair” before the resignation appears to be beyond dispute. I do feel, however, that Monday’s announcement invited confusion when it described “responsibilities of…Curriculum…Chair” passing “from [KS] to [JT].” I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that such language can be understood as saying that JT is replacing KS as chair.
That J had already been serving as co-chair was further obscured for me by the circumstance that, in my memory, only K reported during Senate meetings for the Curriculum Committee. Contrary to the impression this left with me, the Curriculum Committee has for some time been "co-chaired."
(It is perhaps worth mentioning, however, that J’s status as Chair has changed in one sense, for, evidently, significant changes will occur for her in reassigned time/compensation, suggesting an increased workload. Also: the Senate cabinet might want to correct the IVC Academic Senate website, which clearly identifies only K as the Chair of Courses.)
2. Proceeding with the understanding that some of the cabinet had decided to ask for K’s resignation in discussions that did not include K, I objected, arguing that, since K was a member of the cabinet, she should have been included in those discussions. In my mind, I was making a plea for transparency and I was rejecting processes that involve some committee members secretly plotting/arranging actions against another member.
Unless I misunderstood, the Senate President (and other members of cabinet?) assured me today that such was not the case.
