An "epic battle" at the North Orange County Community College District

     In this morning’s OC Watchdog (OC Reg), Teri Sforza reports on a controversy at the North Orange County Community College District. Check it out:

Irate professors rally to block new administrator

     Essentially, the issue is this: the district determined that it would pursue an eleven-month replacement of Kathy Hodge, Vice Chancellor of Instruction, now that she is retiring. (Hodge was an important player at the SOCCCD in the tumultuous years of the first “board majority,” ten or twelve years ago.)
     The district decided to find someone internal to the organization.
     But faculty, viewing the move as a continuation of a permanent VCI position, opposed this, arguing that the position is unnecessary and expensive:

     “In my twenty years at the District, this position has been used as a parking spot for College Presidents that had been relieved of their duties,” wrote Fullerton College business professor Marcus Wilson in a protest letter. “I understood the contractual obligations that required the District to use the position for Kathy Hodge, but to fill the position now in the middle of a budget crisis is difficult to understand. Last year numerous full time faculty positions were eliminated to balance the budget and an additional $4.6 million was cut from the extended day budget resulting in over 1000 classes being cancelled.
     “Dedicated faculty spoke at every Board meeting to share with you the impact these cuts were having on the students and asked that you would make students your number one priority. This year, Fullerton alone is cutting an additional $1 million of classes to stay within the budget limits. That is over 300 sections of additional classes being cut. What is the District’s priority?…Fullerton has done pretty well for almost one hundred years without a Vice Chancellor of Instruction at the District. I would think that we could go at least a few more.”

     Sforza says that this is an “epic battle” between professors and administrators and that it will continue. Probably so.
     But, for now at least, faculty have prevailed. Recently, NOCCCD Chancellor Ned Doffoney—as President of Saddleback College in the mid-90s, he was a casualty of the ruthless and lawless Frogue/Williams board majority—met with the faculty union president. Then things seemed to change. The hiring process seemed to be put on hold.
     Nevertheless, faculty went ahead with a protest at the district BOT meeting on Tuesday night.
     Doffoney backed down. On Tuesday, he made a statement:

“Due to the sudden resignation of Vice Chancellor Kathleen Hodge, the District advertised the position, Interim Vice Chancellor, Instruction, as an assignment for a period of eleven months. … [The] purpose [of this hire] was not made clear in the announcement or in subsequent communications and that lack of clarity has created uproar in the District. There is significant concern in the District about unjustified expansion of administration. While this was never the intent of the interim announcement in that the position was already filled by Dr. Hodge, this intent has been lost in confused communication for which I accept full responsibility. ¶ … The Board did not authorize, nor did the administration request the hiring of a permanent Vice Chancellor….”

     If I understand him correctly, Doffoney was suggesting that someone was needed to complete work on the “Educational Master Plan,” and the interim VCI was supposed to be that person. In his Tuesday statement, he declared that, in the “charged” atmosphere, hiring an internal candidate for the position was a bad idea. And so he withdrew his request for an interim VC of Instruction.
     Is this the end of the struggle? It’s hard to say.
     No doubt SOCCCD trustee Tom Fuentes and his minions will cite this controversy to support their apparent efforts to prevent the creation of a dean position at Irvine Valley College—a position that had been abolished in the early days of that nasty old Board Majority in the late 90s. (See earlier post, which reviews the case in favor of the position.)
     At Monday's meeting of the SOCCCD board, board president Don Wagner alluded to dark motives on the part of Fuentes and crew. He warned that, if the minority prevails, the district could face serious "legal challenges."
     On Monday, advocates of the new position, which would be housed in the Office of Instruction, made a strong case that the addition of the new administrator is needed because IVC is seriously under-administered and, further, recently, an administrative position has been abolished, its responsibilities having been effectively absorbed by an existing dean (the Dean of Fine Arts).
     My own observations over the years have long inclined me to believe that the "under-administered" assertion is manifestly true. I've made that assertion in DtB, going back many years, even before the current VPI (under whom the proposed dean would serve) was hired.
     (Yet another issue in the minds of some observers at the college is whether IVC administration is, or will be, proceeding with a particular candidate in mind. [Note that such proceeding admits of degrees.] Many of us feel strongly that all search processes ought to be as honest and professional as possible. I completely agree [an understatement!], and I share these concerns to some extent, but it seems to me that that issue is independent of whether IVC administration should be allowed this dean position.)

Streaming hostility

     To see “streaming video” of the SOCCCD board’s brief descent—re the proposed IVC dean position—into naked and fabulous hostility (at Monday's board meeting), follow these simple directions:

• Click here.

• Then click on the Video link for the July 26 board meeting.

• The “player” should then come up. If so, you can easily “jump to” item 6.5. Voila!

(Mac users, you might have best results with Firefox. The discussion of 6.5 occurs very late in the meeting.)

What the Bell (scandal) tolls: elected officials make it hard for citizens to know what they're up to

     One great thing about the “Bell” scandal is its tendency to direct our attention to what goes on in the halls of government—especially, small-town government.
     Shit happens, man.
     As somebody who attempts to keep tabs on the doings of the SOCCCD board of trustees—a tiny world, I know, though serious public money is spent in it—I know that groups with power will get away with things if you let ‘em—if, that is, nobody’s paying attention, which is pretty much the way it is with many city councils and school boards and community college boards of trustees.
     Today, in the Voice of OC, Terry Franke (general counsel for Californians Aware) explains that the Bell scandal was likely inevitable, “given the gaps in the Brown Act and the newspaper publishing tradition that once provided small towns with a watchful eye and a voice to be reckoned with.”
     That seems right to me. It’s harder and harder to get newspapers to cover district news—they’re spread too thin, as their reporting staff shrinks closer and closer to nothing. Newspapers sit in one spot; they are institutions. And so they have memories and understand context, relative to their town. Bloggers have a hard time achieving that kind of understanding, and so they’re not as prepared to keep watch. As Franke explains, this kind of reporting “must be done with the community memory and professional savvy almost unique to newspaper-trained journalists with experience watching small-town politics.”
     That's very plausible.
     --Now, the Brown Act, which was designed to lay the workings of government out in the open, to the greatest degree possible. It's about "transparency," as they say.
     I am proud to say that I was the petitioner in two successful Brown Act challenges to our lawless and secretive board of trustees (a dozen years ago). In fact, the district lawyer (his name was "Covert") referred to these lawsuits as Bauer I and Bauer II.
     California’s Brown Act is wonderful—except that many “legislative bodies” ignore it or work with dubious interpretations of its verbiage. That was part of the problem with our district in the late 90s. For instance, they claimed that a total reorganization of the district had been properly agendized—for a closed session—as an employee evaluation!
     So people don't always follow the law. Further, as Franke explains, the Brown Act ain’t perfect. It’s a decent net, but it's got some pesky holes in it. Writes Franke,

California's open meeting law …, even if perfectly complied with, does not make it hard for Bell-like excesses to creep in. ¶ For example, while the city council's approval of salaries … should have been done in an open meeting…, and while such an action should have been listed in clear language on the agenda for the meeting at which it occurred…, the Brown Act requires only that the agenda be posted in a single physical location within the city…. ¶ It does not require Internet posting, and while Bell's web page does display council agendas and minutes, they cover only the current year, and show no such action.

As for the three hyper-compensated [Bell] employees, their performance …is not required by the Brown Act to be reviewed in public, and the law also allows closed sessions for the council to consider the basis for any pay increase. Final action on any raises or benefit increases must take place in open session …, but needs be given public notice only on a single sheet of paper under a thumbtack … on some wall in the city.
. . .
In sum, the long absence of a community newspaper … left Bell … a perfect swamp. The Brown Act, cultivated … by the newspaper industry, virtually assumes that newspaper reporters will be on hand to use it in scrutinizing government behavior. But even reporters require a bit of periodic training to help them decode agendas and read between the lines of official meeting bureaucratese that the Brown Act is just vague enough to permit as barriers to ordinary citizens.

     You might want to examine one of the SOCCCD’s board agendas to see the latter problem. In many ways, it is as though some elements of our board’s agendas were designed to hide, rather than to reveal, what’s about to go down.
     I gave an example of this a day or two prior to Monday’s meeting of the SOCCCD board. I focused on the phenomenon of trustees attending conferences. If trustees seek to attend a conference—with all expenses paid for by the district—they must make a request. Such requests are to be agendized for an open meeting. The majority decides whether to honor these requests.
     On Monday, the board (minus trustee Nancy Padberg) voted to approve someone's “request” (if you can call it that) to attend a conference in Orlando, Florida.
     But, in truth, we don’t really know, though we can reasonably infer, that anyone actually requested attending that conference. And, in any case, we do not know who that trustee was! That’s largely because of the format in which the information was presented on the agenda. The agenda information (called “exhibit A”) sports a heading that implies that it is reporting a past event rather than indicating “requests” to attend an event some time in the future. The puzzling heading is followed by something even more puzzling. We see the phrase: “trustees wishing to attend,” followed by a colon. But we are given no list of trustees. Rather, we are then given the title of a conference (or multiple conferences) and the costs to the district per trustee.
     The last agenda’s “conference request” item listed two conferences and their cost. Also included was a column for “trustees currently registered,” where we found that “none” of the trustees fit that description for either conference.
     Does that mean that no trustees were requesting attending these conferences? Probably not, for, if there were no trustee requests to attend these conferences, then there would be no point in an agenda item. And so we can only guess, I suppose, that a trustee seeks to go to, for instance, that stupid Mickey Mouse conference in Goofyville (Orlando), Florida.
     During Monday’s discussion of this item, Trustee Padberg noted that the Orlando conference was expensive (about two grand) and provided nothing that could not be acquired locally and thus more cheaply. Nevertheless, the item passed, with six yays to Padberg’s solitary nay.
     (Why?)
     Meanwhile, the public has no idea, really, if anyone requested this conference. It certainly has no idea that it was John Williams (I’m guessing)—a fellow notorious for going to fancy hotels in Orlando (and sometimes other far-away locales) for weeks per year at the taxpayers’ expense. (He has family there. He's a county official, and he gets away from the pressures and burdens of scathing Grand Jury reports about his performance there.)
     As I was leaving the board room after Monday’s meeting, I happened to run into a group of administrators exhibiting worry or consternation. It is only because of that curious observation (I didn't talk to them; don't wanna get people in trouble!) that I eventually learned an important fact. The usual trustee signatory of the just completed college accreditation reports had refused to sign them. In fact, judging by the board meeting alone, with regard to the accreditation issue, everything was hunky dory: during the meeting, the reports (one per college) were presented and then “accepted” by the trustees. Unanimously. And that was that.
     But no. Evidently, that was not that. Not at all.
     How is a member of the community to learn this?
     (Well, they could read Dissent the Blog.)
     If I have time, in the coming days, I’ll provide other examples of curious factoids about what goes on in the SOCCCD that are hard to find, even for someone who scours those crazy agendas. (Quickly, another example: the curious fact that chief OC Republican shyster lawyer Phil Greer was paid a quick $25 grand for helping Chancellor Raghu Mathur negotiate his unhappy exit from that office and from the district. If I hadn’t reported that fact, I don’t think that many in the district would know about it. AND IT STINKS. Not that I can get any reporters to report on it!)
     With any luck, this “Bell” hullabaloo will last a while and will raise the profile of small-time government actions and deliberations. And maybe people will start paying attention.
     Probably not.
     Um, anyone out there? Hello?

Midnight memories (from the archives)

When we first arrived in California, Annie and I didn't speak English. But I listened to the radio and heard some great songs. Never forgot them. For me, if the early to mid sixties had a soundtrack, it was this: the Village Stompers' "Washington Square," Kenny Ball's "Midnight in Moscow," Horst Jankowski's "A Walk in the Black Forest," and Mr. Acker Bilk's "Stranger on the Shore"

My dad, somewhere in Canada, c. 1953.

My dad, going to town, c. late 40s (Germany)

My reputedly "wild" Aunt Ruth (second from right), in Germany, c. 1952

Peter the cat, Germany, 1940s.

My dad, southern Germany, c. 1949

Grandpa and Arco, c. 1950 (Boblingen, Germany)

Dad and pal

Dad, early fifties, Canada

Sister Annie, c. 1957

Annie, mom, me, c. 1958, British Columbia

Mom 'n' me, 1958

Still love this stuff

Yes, yes, I know. This is a dopey song. But I still thrill to the instrumental break, which is fairly hot, though by no means Armstrong's best.
Armstrong was touring and kept encountering audience members yelling, "Hello Dolly"! He couldn't understand it. Then somebody reminded him that he recorded this horrible song in the studio a few months earlier. Armstrong couldn't remember doing it. But the song was a huge hit anyway. That was OK by Louis.

“I would urge caution on behalf of my colleagues,” said Don

     Here’s some more on last night's meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees. (See also Tracy’s Board of Trustees Meeting Highlights.)
     The meeting started nearly an hour late, which suggests that there was much for the board to discuss during closed session. Or maybe John Williams insisted on dessert.

     There were no public comments.
     Trustees Nancy Padberg and Dave Lang walked to the podium to display some certificates and other baubles that had been given to various persons and entities, in connection with the Saddleback College Veterans’ Memorial, during a Mission Viejo city event months ago.
     I don’t understand these people. They proudly displayed a certificate and some flags bestowed by Rep. Gary Miller, one of the most corrupt members of Congress.
     It’s like telling everybody that you got a hearty handclasp from Rod Blagojevich. "Good job," said Blago. "I think you're groovy."
     There were virtually no board reports. I don't think that's ever happened before.
     As I said last night, the two colleges’ Accreditation self-studies (reports) have been completed. The board voted unanimously to accept them.
     Why a certain person (as of last night) refused to sign the dang things remains a mystery, to me anyway.
     But none of that came up during the meeting.
     Again, Tom Fuentes asked that the two senates’ memberships in the “Academic Senate for California Community Colleges” (aka the “state academic senate”) be removed from the list for approval—until more information could be provided.
     The memberships cost $3,831.60 (for Saddleback) and $1,850.00 (for Irvine Valley).
     A little bird told me that Fuentes will likely declare that the State Senate is “partisan,” and that, in particular, it has sided against the district in the “prayer” litigation, 'cause it's down on official prayers at community college events. But, of course, the state Academic Senate has taken positions on many “political” issues. It’s also down on racism, and sexism, and potholes. So it's probably down on Tom Fuentes too.
     Bill Jay and Marcia Milchiker voted against tabling a decision, but the tablers prevailed.

Occasionally, trustee Fuentes dons his "ugly face." Here it is at half staff.

SLAM DUNK, FOLLOWED BY FEEBLE DRIBBLING:

     Eventually, the board got to item 6.5, the normally sleepy matter of “academic personnel actions.”
     Evidently, Williams’ assigned task was to motion to divide the matter, isolating the decision regarding the request for a new dean position at Irvine Valley College:

     AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH AND ANNOUNCE … DEAN OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS, STUDENT LEARNING, AND RESEARCH….

     No doubt “streaming video” of this discussion will be available later in the week, and I would highly recommend your viewing this discussion at that time. (I’ll let you know when its available. Buy popcorn.)
     In the meantime, here are my notes:
     Tom Fuentes seconded Williams’ motion.
     Williams stated that this matter was discussed months ago and, at that time, trustees were told that they would receive additional information, but that information has not materialized. Hence, said Williams, he seeks to table this matter until the information is provided.
     Board Prez Don Wagner then asked: what additional information do you seek?
     Williams didn’t expect teacher asking him any questions. He thought real hard (his hairpiece shifted forward slightly) and then he said that he wanted the justification for the position, how it will be funded, etc.
     Nancy Padberg said that she too wanted to hear about the issue of costs and funding.
     At some point, Don noted that such questions could be asked and answered then and there. So IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore explained that the board had approved budgets for two or three years that included the addition of this dean. Further, IVC has abolished an administrative position (a facilities manager for the Performing Arts Center whose responsibilities are now handled “very effectively” by the Dean of Fine Arts) and has thus made room for this new dean in the budget. The upshot: no net increase in costs.
     It sounded like a slam dunk.
     Fuentes then stated that he had not received enough information about this position to vote on it. “This is serious,” he added. He made his ugly face.
     Padberg declared that her questions had now been answered.
     Roquemore explained that the position actually existed until 1997 but was then abolished (something about a personnel matter, said R, wink wink). This dean reported directly to the VPI. Back then, said R, he had become the VPI and quickly came to understand how crucial the dean position was. The VPI was forced to take on the dean’s duties, but that was “tough to do.”
     But, since then, things have changed. The state has mandated all sorts of work, including the development of SLOs, program review, strategic development, and addressing basic skills. Further, the student population has increased from 12,000 to 16,000. Among state community colleges, IVC ranks 97th in the ratio of administrators to students. “We are under-administered,” said Roquemore.
     The VPI is overwhelmed and his office needs help. The new dean would be a modernized version of the dean of 13 years ago, he said.
     We’ve made all the calculations, said Glenn, regarding the 50% law (which mandates that at least half of expenditures be instructional), and we’ll be in compliance. Concerned parties at IVC all recommend adding the dean.
     Like I said, slam dunk.
     David Lang, a fellow who sold out his faculty supporters just for (apparently worthless) Fuentean support of his ambition to become OC Bean Counter, commenced scraping up objections to the proposal from the bottom of some barrel. Would adding this position take away from classes we could offer students?
     No.
     Shouldn’t you people be thinking about scheduled maintenance?
     We thought of that. Got it covered.
     If this dean position is so great, how come Saddleback hasn’t got one? Can we expect that college to request this position too?
     Saddleback College Prez Burnett acknowledged that his college is even lower on the shitlist (of administrative/faculty) than IVC. But, he said, “we do things differently.” The upshot: comparing IVC and Saddleback in this way is comparing apples to oranges. So shuddup.
     There was some confusion about who counts as a “dean.” Should someone who doesn’t have responsibility for programs and students in classes be called a dean? Blah blah blah. Clueless trustees were clued in.
     Finally, Don Wagner made a point: it is unusual, he said, for this board to delve into this kind of low level dean position—to question what the college president has recommended, and for years. It’s a deviation from past practice. The college, he said, has provided the data and the budget information to justify the position. In fact, this position has de facto been approved by this board previously. Even the acting Chancellor, he said, recommends approving this position.
     “It is very clear that something else is going on here,” said Don. And if opponents of this position (for the reason that dare not speak its name, namely, their desire to thwart Wendy G's administrative career in honor of Raghu Mathur, OC Republican Mafia toad and mascot) prevail, the board would make itself vulnerable to a legal challenge.
     “I would urge caution on behalf of my colleagues,” said Don.
     “This is a position, not a person,” he reminded his colleagues. And any questions about this position have now been answered.
     Williams then piped up. He’s been on this board for 18 years, he said, and “you bet I’m gonna ask” about an addition of a costly dean during a time of financial crisis, with faculty being laid off and blah blah blah.
     At some point, someone employed the “asleep at the switch metaphor” or some metaphor related to it. I don’t remember exactly, but maybe Don said that John must’ve been asleep at said switch during prior votes. He may even have said that someone’s lights weren’t on. It got nasty.
     This occurred in a back-and-forth that is never seen at board meetings, owing to the encumbrances of Mr. Toad's rules of order.
     At one point, an exasperated Williams affected a frozen demeanor—as if Wagner were physically preventing him from speaking. Are you finished? May I speak? yelped Williams. Something like that.
     It was a sudden and brief descent into the forbidden realm of actual conversation and undisguised emotions and assessments. I'm not sure the board will ever recover!
     We have record unemployment, teachers laid off, proclaimed the recipient of two scathing Grand Jury reports. We were told that we’d receive a report, but we didn’t receive one!, he sputtered. We’ve only received a short presentation! This is not good policy! We’re moving forward without having our questions answered!
     His hairpiece was by then akimbo (if such a thing can be akimbo).
     Bill Jay spoke. He said that, though he did not vote for the position six months ago, he now sees that it is essential. He opined that the position is well justified and well thought out. (I noticed that Marcia Milchiker commenced looking as though she were distraught.)
     Padberg chimed in to echo Jay’s remarks. “I have not heard a question that has not been answered,” she declared. This is an appropriate position. It puts the district in a good position re the 50% law. By supporting this dean we’re supporting the classroom. So she’ll support it, she said.
     Don then spoke. We’ve got thousands of new students, he said. We’ve laid off no teacher. (True enough.) The arguments have all been addressed.
     According to my notes, Don then suggested that the arguments offered by the anti-dean brigade were not “serious.” Further, the trustees ought not to “second guess” the President in such matters.
     Fuentes scraped up another tiny point: How about support elements to the position (office workers, canaries, and such)? Craig Justice laid out the facts. Hiring the dean amounts to a reorganization of his office. Classified support would be switched around. No other positions will be created.
     Another slam dunk. It was like cold water dropping horribly upon Fuentes, Lang, and Williams' fat heads.
     Fuentes scraped still lower in the barrel. He seemed to accuse Roquemore and Co. of misusing the term “dean.” Well, that was quickly revealed to be clueless bullshit. Fuentes and Co. looked like assholes.
     There was a motion to table a decision on this dean position.
     As I explained last night, Milchiker voted along with the tablers. This plainly upset Don’s apple cart. He was pissed, though this was not manifested by any of his public remarks. (Gosh, Don, you oughta send me thank you notes for my discretion.)
     It seems clear that, next month, when this matter comes up again, Fuentes and Co. will simply not have the votes to prevail.
     So please everybody. Just chill out.

The University of California and online degrees

UC professors raise doubts about online degree plan (Sacramento Bee)

     The University of California's interest in offering an online degree is opening a new chapter in the debate over online education.
     Many professors question whether the state's premier university system should tread so deeply into cyberspace, where other prestigious universities have failed – and where some less selective colleges have thrived, sometimes with programs of questionable quality.
     The professors are concerned that a virtual UC will waste limited resources, compromise the university's academic reputation and divert it from its primary mission of educating California's top-performing students.
     The plan's creator – Christopher Edley, dean of UC Berkeley's law school – says the opposite is true. He contends UC can maintain its rigor online and that doing so will allow the university to reach more of those stellar students at a lower cost.
     …Edley acknowledges his biggest hurdle is getting buy-in from UC's academic senate, the formal voice of the faculty. Their support is critical to any major educational changes….
     Edley envisions steadily expanding UC's Web presence: adding upper-division courses, then offering a bachelor's degree online, and eventually allowing people around the world to enroll in the virtual UC.…
. . .
     Not so fast, say many UC profs.
     "Are we in the business of making money by selling services to non-students?" asked Dan Simmons, a UC Davis law professor who is vice-chair of the statewide academic senate. "People have created a set of expectations about the potential for online education that is not really there."
     Even professors who support a greater use of technology say the plan has flaws. Some like the idea of expanding online offerings, but don't think UC should offer an online degree. Others think online curriculum should be developed and controlled by academic departments on each campus – not by UC's statewide bureaucracy.
"I think they're looking for a one-size-fits-all model, and I don't think that's the way to go," said Cynthia Carter Ching, a UC Davis education professor.
. . .
     UC Davis professor Robert Blake uses live video chats to teach Spanish. The videoconferencing software allows students to break into small groups and practice their language skills.
     "We're dealing with students more and more who are very used to social computing. They're used to getting online and doing projects together," Blake said.
     He is developing Arabic and Punjabi classes that will be available online to UC students across the state. Still, he's not sure UC should rush into offering an online degree.
     "Fortunately, the University of California has a governance structure that will allow the faculty to determine what is the appropriate way to mix these things," Blake said.
     "I trust my colleagues to put on the brakes at the right time, and also stick their noses out and experiment."

The rats guarding the cheese: it's Orange County

TINCUP committee wants to gut campaign finance restrictions (OC Register) [See update below]

     A committee charged with evaluating the county’s campaign finance law has recommended a new ballot measure that would substantially reverse the reforms of the voter-approved law and potentially benefit some of the committee members by injecting more money into county political campaigns.
     County supervisors will consider tomorrow whether to put the measure on the November ballot.
     A majority of the committee’s members had pushed to repeal the county’s campaign finance law—TINCUP, short for Time Is Now, Clean Up Politics—but that idea ran into substantial opposition. Most of the members on the committee are aides to county supervisors, political strategists, or pollsters who could benefit from more spending.
     “As far as I’m concerned, this is a case of the rats guarding the cheese,” said Orange political activist Shirley Grindle..., one of the authors of the original measure and a member of the committee.
. . .
     “A clear conflict of interest exists between those who are on the committee,” said Bill Mitchell, a San Juan Capistrano attorney and the former chairman of OC Common Cause. “Those who the law seeks to regulate are revising the law….They make their money on fundraising. The more money that can be raised, the more benefit to them.”
     Under the proposed amendment to the law, the district attorney will continue to be responsible for enforcing the restrictions. Grindle charged that DA Tony Rackauckas has been unwilling to prosecute violations. So as long as the DA remains unwilling to enforce the policy, she said, the act will be effectively toothless.
     Grindle said she has sent cases to Rackauckus, including apparent violations by former sheriff Mike Carona and former supervisor Chris Norby, but said he has yet to prosecute any of them, instead sending them on to state officials for review.
. . .
     Among the committee members who may directly benefit from the changes:
     Committee member Adam Probolsky…. Probolsky declined to comment for this story.
     John Lewis, another political operative appointed to the commission by Supervisor Bill Campbell, received $27,022 in fees from the campaigns of Campbell and former supervisor Chris Norby, according to Grindle’s analysis. Lewis could not be reached for comment.
. . .
     Most of the other members of the committee are beholden to county politicians with a vested interest in the committee’s findings.
     Matt Petteruto, one of the committee members, is Bill Campbell’s chief of staff. Eric Norby, another member, is Chris Norby’s brother and served as his chief of staff while he was a county supervisor. Committee member Chip Monaco is a former staffer in Supervisor Pat Bates’ office.
     Phil Greer, another member of the committee, is also intimately connected with the county’s political establishment. He has represented three of the five member of the Board of Supervisors and disgraced OC Treasurer Chriss Street. Over the past four years, Bates has paid Greer $6,500 in fees. Greer has faced multiple ethics complaints by the state BAR association and has been ordered to take ethics classes.
     The Watchdog began calling the supervisors about this on Friday; resumed calls on Monday, but as of noon had yet to get a comment from the supervisors or any kind of explanation from the committee members who supported the changes. As soon as we get that, we’ll give it to you here….

UPDATE: Watered-down TINCUP won’t see November ballot

Groups condemn UCI ban of Muslim union (OC Register)

     A coalition of civil rights groups and professional bar associations have condemned UCI's recent decision to ban the Muslim Student Union after students disrupted an Israeli ambassador's speech on campus earlier this year.
     Fifteen groups throughout the country – including the Asian Law Caucus, Afghan-American Bar Association, Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, South Asian Bar Association – Northern California and National Lawyers Guild – are urging UCI officials to abandon all efforts to suspend the Muslim student organization.
     "Taking the unprecedented step to ban this group will memorialize UCI as a campus that violates its students' constitutional rights, and will have negative repercussions that will reverberate around the country," according to a letter signed by the groups and sent to the chancellor's office late last week.
     "Such a decision would amount to selective punishment of a group whose ideas are disfavored by the U.C. administration, and sets an extremely dangerous precedent that threatens all Americans who exercise their Constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association."….

Demolition begins at college on former base (OC Register)

     The Advanced Technology & Education Park on the former Marine base has gotten approval to tear down old military buildings, making way for a campus expansion.
     Buildings and utility infrastructure on about 68 acres at Valencia and Red Hill avenues will be demolished, officials said. The campus offers classes leading to high-tech jobs for students from Mission Viejo to Tustin. The campus opened in Aug. 2007 at Tustin Legacy and is part of the South Orange County Community College District.
. . .
     The South Orange County Community College District will now begin bidding for the demolition. The expansion can bring the campus to 305,000 square feet on about 30 acres. Planning is ongoing for another 38 acres. The school sits on 68 acres on the former Marine base.
     In April, the Advanced Technology & Education Park received a $440,000 economic and workforce development grant to train companies in environmental design an compliance and create green jobs, stated Tere Fluegeman, director of public information and marketing. The grant is from the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office.
     To demolish the buildings, the community college district had to gain approval from Tustin, the U.S. Department of Navy Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, officials said.