Sunday, October 31, 2010

Wagner's extremist connections: wacko Ahmanson and loon Frogue!

     Oct. 31: Today, I came across a month-old post by Robert Cruickshank of the Calitics blog. Essentially, it reveals that Republican 70th Assembly District candidate Don Wagner is getting campaign contributions from some seriously right-wing people and organizations, including Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition and, well, STEVEN J. FROGUE.
     Yes, that Frogue.
     (Admittedly, the Frogue connection is mostly just wacky and interesting. But the extreme-right pattern of Wagnerian contributions is arguably significant.)
     I did some checking on my own, and I found that notorious right-wing nut, Howard Ahmanson, Jr., is also contributing to Wagner’s campaign (through his Fieldstead Institute).
     You’ll recall that Ahmanson is the guy who thinks it’s OK to execute gay people for, um, gayitude.
     Here’s Cruickshank post from a month ago:

Don Wagner’s Holocaust Denying Donors and Extremist Supporters (Calitics)

     Democrats for Israel-Los Angeles [DFI-LA] has called upon [Don] Wagner to give the donation [he received] from [Steve] Frogue to the Jewish Federation of Orange County. A quote from DFI-LA's Andrew Lachman:
     Tolerating Holocaust denial lies in a district that has most of Orange County's Jewish population is not acceptable. We call on Wagner to show his commitment to fighting intolerance and anti-Semitism by donating the money to the Orange County Jewish Federation.
Original post begins here:

     Don Wagner is the Republican candidate for the 70th Assembly District seat currently held by the termed-out Chuck DeVore in central Orange County. AD-70 went to Barack Obama in 2008 by a 51-47 margin, a sign that this district has become quite purple in recent years.
     But Don Wagner comes from a different tradition – the older, far-right tradition in central Orange County that produced people like DeVore, going all the way back to at least the 1950s and 1960s when the region's politics were dominated by the John Birch Society.
     Sure, his website is crafted to make him look like an unobjectionable Republican. But his list of donors and supporters suggests he's much further to the right – with donations from Holocaust deniers and support from other right-wing extremists.
. . .
     First, the Holocaust-denying donor. When I was growing up in Tustin, located in AD-70, there was a controversial history teacher at Foothill High School named Steven Frogue. He had a reputation for not just being right-wing, but even racist. I attended the other high school in our district, Tustin High, but friends of mine who went to Foothill told me about this guy and his crazy right-wing statements he would make in the classroom, including denying the Holocaust and repeating racist stereotypes about Asian and Latino students.
     About this time, those statements started getting noticed. In 1994, a group of parents went to the district and succeeded in getting Frogue reassigned to supervising detention instead of teaching history. The LA Times reported on Frogue in a 1996 article:
Frogue has been accused of denying the Holocaust, according to a former board member and several former students who say his comments about Jews and those who died at the hands of the Nazis cross over a line of ethics, propriety and recorded fact.
     Frogue went further in his capacity as a board member of the South Orange County Community College District. As the LA Times reported, Frogue denounced a class being taught at Irvine Valley College on the Holocaust by someone with ties to the Anti-Defamation League. Here's what Frogue had to say about the ADL:
     Frogue's high school students voice a similar complaint, saying his lectures are often angry diatribes against the ADL, revisionist views of this or that chapter of history or passionate speeches about who actually pulled the trigger on President Kennedy....
     "I believe Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the ADL," Frogue said in a half-whisper during a recent interview on the Foothill High campus.
     Asked to repeat his assertion, Frogue said, "That's right. . . . I believe the ADL was behind it."
     Frogue also had links to the Institute for Historical Review, a leading Holocaust-denial organization. He served on the SOCCCD board of trustees until he finally resigned in the year 2000. One of his fellow board members was Don Wagner, who later became board president.
     Wagner likes to claim he's distanced himself from the likes of Frogue. So why did Wagner accept a donation from Frogue back in May?
     Perhaps it's because Wagner himself is backed by a group of right-wing extremists. One of his key organizational supporters is the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Ralph Reed's new movement to elect right-wing extremists. FFC touted Wagner's win in the June primary as one of their most important nationwide successes this year:
     FFC spent weeks blanketing conservative voters in the 70th district with targeted voter guides on issues ranging from balancing the state budget to life and protecting marriage. The outcome was recently decided in another nip-and-tuck race. Don won the race against his less conservative opponents by a mere 860 votes.
     Wagner and his defenders might argue that one's donors and supporters don't necessarily reflect on the candidate himself. While that's hard to believe, we can look at Wagner's own positions and find evidence he too is a right-wing extremist.
     As the OC Weekly reported, Wagner revoked the SOCCCD schools' membership in the American Library Association after calling them "liberal busybodies." Wagner's board considered ending involvement in study abroad programs in Spain in 2005 when the Spanish government announced it was withdrawing troops from Iraq. And the SOCCCD board has been frequently accused of ignoring the boundary between church and state.
     On his website, Wagner outs himself as a card-carrying member of the religious right:
     The family is the bedrock of our civilization. It is critical to our state that we protect the family from threats to re-define it, make it obsolete, or undermine its importance to society. I will defend the God-given right of parents to teach their children their values, to defend marriage, and to defend the right to express our faith in the public square. I believe that life is precious and will fight to defend life from conception to natural death.
     In other words, he is against marriage equality, against a woman's right to choose, and for prayer in school.
     As I explained last month, Orange County is becoming bluer, partly as a rejection of the kind of extremism that Don Wagner represents.
     While Wagner is taking money from Holocaust deniers and carrying out Ralph Reed's agenda, Orange County residents in my hometown assembly district are focused on jobs, preserving good schools, and improving their quality of life. That's not something Don Wagner can or will offer.... [END OF QUOTATION]

     I noticed (see) that some interesting names come up among those who have contributed to Wagner's campaign.

      Michael Rubino of Atkinson Andelson Loya Rudd & Romo and David Hunt of gkkworks both gave money to Wagner’s campaign. Each firm has done (or is doing) work for the SOCCCD.
     Another contributor: Tom Fuentes’ former employer Tait & Associates.
     IVC’s Glen Roquemore gave $1,000 and Saddleback College’s Tod Burnett gave $250.

     The Faculty Association’s Bill Hewitt evidently gave $500 in June of 2009 and then $1,000 in September.
     Then Chancellor Raghu Mathur gave $500 in August of '09.

Update on Westphal v. Wagner — The District "outs" the student plaintiffs

     Back in December 2009, we filed a motion to allow the two student plaintiffs (Doe 1 and Doe 2) to participate anonymously. The judge granted the motion in April and issued a protective order accordingly.
     Then, this summer, the students were deposed. In August, the defendants filed a motion to vacate the “anonymity” order.
     Alas, the motion was granted, and so the students had to decide whether to go forward. “Doe 1” has chosen to withdraw, but “Doe 2,” Ms. Bain, has opted to continue with the case. I’m told that she is now a student at UC Berkeley, though she continues to take Saddleback courses online. Doe 1’s anonymity will be maintained by both sides.
     Here’s Judge Klausner’s ruling:
     Plaintiffs had asserted that anonymity was necessary to ensure Does’ safety. Plaintiffs further alleged that if the Court did not preserve Does’ anonymity, school officials and professors might retaliate against Does through prejudicial grading. In light of the purported safety concerns, the Court granted Plaintiffs request on a provisional basis. The Order specified, “Does shall only remain anonymous in the case for this stage of the proceeding. At later stages... the Court may... compel the John Does to disclose their identity or abandon the suit.”
     Now that the record has been further developed, the Court finds it unnecessary to extend anonymity to the two Doe plaintiffs. Safety was the primary rationale the Court relied on in originally granting the Does leave to proceed anonymously. However, Does’ deposition testimony presents no indication that the students fear for their physical safety. Instead, both Does indicate the possibility of prejudicial grading as a primary reason for anonymous participation in the underlying lawsuit. It is doubtful that this possibility alone provides adequate reason for proceeding anonymously. If Does were subjected to prejudicial grading due to their participation in this suit, they could seek redress in another suit. In any case, by their own admission, Does have little to support their fear of academic retaliation beyond the fact that it is theoretically possible. The Court finds that the possibility of retaliation, by school officials or others, is purely speculative. Accordingly, Does may no longer advance their action under cover of anonymity. …The April 5, 2010 Order granting plaintiff Does 1 and 2 leave to proceed under pseudonyms is vacated.
     Since then, our lawyers have filed the “reply brief” (re the case itself).
     It is my understanding that they are also working on a motion for “summary judgment.”
     So stay tuned.

Scariest, Spookiest OC Halloween Ever! (Red Emma)

     Hey, boys and ghouls, it’s that extra-spooky time of year, Halloween Eve, a celebration of ancestor worship, imagination and, yes, the occasion for Red Emma’s annual re-telling of our favorite revelatory anecdote about life as we know it here in Dissentland. The “social construction of reality,” Red Emma likes to remind his students, is a phrase used in the title of an important sociology text, a helpful and instructive synthesis of ideas built on the research of well, everybody, including Alfred Schutz, Max Weber, Karl Marx, Franz Boas, that whole gang.
     Warning!  This is an entirely true story, and so scary and spooky and frightening you may want to stop reading here, now, to avoid the hair-raising fright that it illustrates about life in the OC (which I like to pronounce “ock” for even bigger and more scarifying effect!)
     So:  It was fifteen years ago, Red and the Rebel Girl lived in a small beachside community in South County.  It was, indeed, Halloween.  We’d carved the pumpkin, decorated our little trailer, and purchased the treats (good stuff, like Snickers and Three Musketeers, not junk). Dusk settled, there was a knock on the door.  Red Emma answered, to discover a princess, a pirate and a monster of some kind. “Trick or treat,” hollered the kids.  Red loves that moment. 
     Immediately behind the trio of revelers stood, on our porch, the mother, this evening’s parent in charge.  I knew her.  A handsome woman, mid-thirties, she’d costumed herself in what was obviously her own old high school song girl or cheerleader outfit. She looked good, a sexy woman, though let’s say that she did not fit into the song costume that night as she had as a young girl. Zaftig works for Red, and I smiled warmly, and acknowledged her, offering the usual small talk about how much I liked Halloween with a frisson of perhaps Eros tossed gently in her direction.
     Then I noticed, standing a few yards back, in the twilight dark just outside the reach of my porch light, a couple, a woman and a man, same age as the sexy mom cheerleader.  Maybe one of the kids’ parents?  Aunt and uncle, or family friends along for the trick-or-treating. 
     They wore nearly identical ensembles:  big cowboy hats, tapered blue jeans, shit-kicker boots, and leather belts with giant belt buckles and magnificent floral Western shirts with mother of pearl buttons.   
     Now, here it’s important to remind you, Gentle Reader, that this was Halloween Eve but that it was also South Orange County circa 1998, in a universe which often celebrates obliviousness.  And that reality, as I remind my students, is generally assumed to be “constructed” by groups, by citizens, based on an agreed-upon, if fluid and broad, set of perceptions.  And, did I mention, it was Halloween?
     Red Emma considered the scene, Rubenesque mother in costume.  Princess, pirate, monster.  And the two adults in the shadows.
     “It’s so great,” Red offered, distributing the last of the quality chocolates, and admiring again song girl-woman and nodding in the direction of the presumptive cow-gal and cow-fella, “that the parents are dressed up too.” 
     Silence.  Nothing.  Sexy mom went a little pale.  From out of the twilight stepped the cowman, rodeo rider, line-dancer, whatever he was, thumbs in his belt loops, I kid you not.
     Slowly, carefully, he answered.  “We’re not dressed up,” he said.

*     *     * 
     And so concludes this year’s telling of the scariest, spookiest Halloween story you will ever be told, except of course for what you hear and read and see on so much commercial media, where it is possible to imagine the construction of reality in which Tea Baggers, birthers, Libertarians are, we are told, not at all what they seem:  racists, nativists, No-Nothings, pro-war nationalists, reborn John Birchers and members of the White Citizens Council, Prop 13 voters, anti-Voting Rights Act Goldwater Republicans, shills for the Koch Brothers, admirers of Newt, and on and on.
     The four truest and scariest words of this Halloween-election season?
     They’re not dressed up. 
Spooky Halloween music for you kids


In honor of Prop 19

Dedicated to Annie


It’s all true. The Mekons know. (Might want to pause the Jukebox below.)

Everybody's so in love
But they don't touch or meet
Eyes all weeping eyes all red
A bunch of flowers in the street

I love a millionaire, I love a millionaire
I love a millionaire, I love a millionaire

The champagne was never cheap
But I could pay someone to drink it for me
Never rise up from these sheets
Watching time just roll away

[repeat chorus]

Stretching out my bones
A million miles from home
Lust corrodes my body
I've lost count of my lovers
But I can count my money
Forever and forever

[repeat chorus]

Dreaming of a creature who is too pale and large to stand
And only feels the terror on his vain flight from earth
Lust corrodes my body
I've lost count of my lovers
But I can count my money
Forever and forever

[repeat chorus]
The Mekons

Online learning going mainstream! —PLUS: Insider trading at Apollo?

     Check out The Chronicle of Higher Education’s special edition on Online Learning.
     Subtitle: “Virtual Education Goes Mainstream”
     That’s right. Mainstream. Deal with it.
     Be sure to inspect CHE’s snazzy charts and graphs: here.
     There, one encounters such factoids as these:
  • More than 2/3 of colleges report that the amount of online courses is failing to meet demand.
  • Enrollments of online-only students pursuing B degrees, by field, 2009:
  • Criminal justice (27%)
    Computer and info tech (19%)
    Health care (16%)
    Business (14%)
    Nursing (13%)
    Public administration (12%)
    Etc.
  • Students taking at least 1 online course, 2003: 12%
  • Students taking at least 1 online course, 2008: 25%
ALSO: big trouble for U of Phoenix?

• For-Profit Schools, Tested Again (New York Times)

Back in 1978
   LAST week was challenging for the Apollo Group, the big for-profit education company that runs the University of Phoenix, Western International University and other institutions. One reason is that the Obama administration instituted new rules barring pay-for-enrollment deals among student recruiters at for-profit colleges — a development that is likely to cause significantly lower enrollment levels at Apollo and its peers.
   But last week also brought a disclosure from Apollo that the Securities and Exchange Commission had requested information about the company’s insider trading policies relating to stock sales made by some of its top officials in 2009. The sales the S.E.C. is focusing on occurred around the time that the Department of Education was asking questions about the University of Phoenix’s policies relating to money it receives under the federal government’s Title IV financial aid programs.
   A majority of Apollo’s revenue comes from federal student aid. The University of Phoenix, which accounted for 91 percent of Apollo’s net revenue this year, gets the bulk of its own revenue from Title IV programs. Just 1 percent of cash revenue at the University of Phoenix comes from student loans that aren’t channeled through the federal government.
. . .
   “Given the chairman and his son sold roughly two million shares in July of 2009 during a program review that was raising questions around the proper refund calculations, it should come as no surprise the S.E.C. is asking questions,” [Robert S. MacArthur] said.
   Stay tuned.

• New Federal Rules Set on Career Colleges (New York Times; Oct. 27)

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Recent comments paint a portrait

Thursday, October 28:

(From the last three posts.)

Anonymous said...
   Is that how it really works?
   Is it all about salaries and power?
   How did Wendy become one of them? (7:38 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Wendy used to be Crusader Rabbit – what happened? (8:40 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Williams resigning?
   To go where?
   Jail? (8:40 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Wendy worked her ass off to save this college by forcing an honest look at the place and writing an honest accreditation report. She did this after bringing administration, faculty, AND the Board of Trustees into the same room and making them not only talk, but actually work together. Now she gets smacked on this blog as some sort of sell out? Wake up! The sell outs are Glenn and Craig. Fuentes must be thrilled that they're back in the fold by icing out Wendy. (8:50 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   I personally will miss Williams' hair. I hope his replacement will have a coiffure that will sustain the proud tradition. (8:58 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Mathur is expected to run for the [board] seat. He has already been seen within the last week out on the political trail at Fuentes' side. You'll miss more than Williams' hair if that happens. (9:13 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   No one's suggesting that Wendy didn't work hard – she always has – but I think the question is about her motivation at this point.
   Clearly Wendy has been used – but she was [doing some] using too. (9:16 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Nooooooooo!
   This is all a Dissent Halloween spoof, right? (9:32 a.m.)
   [Nope.]
Anonymous said...
   The question is "motivation"? What's suspect about her motivation? She wanted to move into administration. She wanted some personal recognition and benefit from her hard work. Only in academia does that desire in any way call her "motivation" into question. (9:36 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   The concern I see expressed here is not about a desire to change jobs – but the perception that the process was corrupt, greased, made to order, a backroom deal – the exact kinda thing we've been complaining about for over a decade.
   Motivation might equal much more than what you added it up to. (9:44 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Let's remember that (1) for many years, Wendy really was our Crusader Rabbit and (2) if Anonymous' theory (re the rumored odd dean search development) is correct, she's been betrayed by her administrative handlers. She's been put out in the cold. –BvT (10:06 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Wendy's certainly out in the cold. Anybody seen her around here the last week? She even missed the accreditation exit interview! She's worked on accreditation for years . . . and missed the last day with the visiting team to hear what they had to say? That's amazing. Was she ordered to stay away by Glenn or Craig, one of her two rat bastard "administrative handlers"? What a shameful way to treat someone. (10:21 a.m.)


Anonymous said...
   She's betrayed herself – and a whole bunch of other people, you included BvT. (10:25 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   WHAT HAPPENED TO THE IVC DEAN OF PHSYICAL SCIENCES AND BIO????? (10:26 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   10:25—such a stickler! –BvT (10:36 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Schrader? Word is they're giving her the ol' heave ho. Opened her mouth once too often (10:38 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Guess that is what happens when you stop sleeping with your sponsor (12:13 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   ixnay on the eepslay, OK? —BvT (12:15 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Wow, Life at IVC is like living in a Raymond Chandler novel. Heheehe. (12:17 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   There really are two issues here: first, Wendy worked tirelessly to reinvent the Academic Senate and create an entity that Mathur and Roquemore had to acknowledge. In this regard her desire to enter administration is absolutely fine and is clearly warranted on its face. The second issue involves the hands in which she placed her trust: Wagner, Roquemore, and Justice. Wagner liked Wendy (maybe a little too much), Roquemore and Justice were just plain lazy and were happy to have a zealous intellect assembling the bones of a real college. The symbiosis fit perfectly. In so far as Roquemore had ambitions that would torpedo Wendy [it] is absolutely predictable. Behind that simpering smile is a vapid, hollow, self-promoting snake. Justice played along because he would end up the president of a good college where the intellectual infrastructure had already been built (by Wendy). The sadness of it all is that the entire thing was done by a wink and a nod and the players were … skunks. Wendy played with [fire] and got burned. Roqumore's nature is well-known, if anyone has a memory longer than six months. This little Greek tragedy could have no other ending…. All this happened without Fuentes or Mathur doing a thing. The culture of corruption is so deep and so murky at IVC that only the most naive would think the bad days are over. (12:31 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Let them eat pie. (12:42 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   When is Glenn going to retrieve his ***** from the jar on Kiana's desk and stop letting her run the show? I have looked through the window of the anatomy lab (wouldn't want to actually go in there!) and spotted what looked like a couple of spines hanging around. Perhaps the biologists would like to loan one to Glenn? (9:05 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   What is it with the chemistry department at IVC? (10:03 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   A "mouthy" woman can't be tolerated by our male leaders. That's what I heard. The guys can mouth off all they want, but not the gals.
About the male instructor whose open and public abuse of female students is tolerated by the same male leadership???
—Well, don't get me started! Through the years, I have had students crying … in my office. There's nothing to be done about it though. Everyone knows about it, makes excuses and protects him…. (11:13 p.m.)

Friday, October 29

Anonymous said...
   Glenn's losing it. [D’ya] think he's gone before Mathur comes back after replacing Williams, or will they save the pleasure of that vote for Mathur? Hell, we might have just found something that Mathur and Wagner can agree on. Glenn's gotta go. (12:24 a.m. Oct. 29)
Anonymous said...
   She wasn't obsequious. Got it. For you that remain, remember one thing: "No comments on bad hair days." I'm thinking you'll have a canning due! (6:39 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   That really takes the cake. (9:42 a.m.)
agent provocateur said...
   You guys have it all wrong! Didn't you read the comprehensive memo Glenn immediately sent out that clarified all this in order to avoid rumors and unnecessary mid-semester anxiety? 
You guys should really read your email instead of getting your panties in a bunch! (10:14 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Oh, those funny Bio people. (10:39 a.m.)
Captain Obvious said...
   * Did the Friday meeting—and jocularity—occur as described in this post? 

   * Did a secretary record the School meeting and then provide that recording to administration?
   * Did Glenn's reaction to listening to the recording inspire his untimely action to have her removed from campus (and on the day in which the Chem complex was opened)? (Note: the post acknowledged that it had long ago been decided that her contract would not be renewed.)

   * Has Kiana been (and is she) the sort who inappropriately and routinely uses her influence at this college?

   * Has her husband essentially permitted this behavior (for years, and despite complaints)?

   * Have scandalous improprieties been allowed by this and other administrations, despite efforts by some administrators to address the abuses?

—These and other questions strike me as valid. And clearly the most reasonable answers (given the evidence) of at least most, if not all, of these questions [are] disconcerting. (10:20 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   What memo? I didn't see any [stinkin’] explanatory memo from Glenn! (11:44 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   There was no memo. There never is. That's the point. Our leader does not know how to lead. Things just happen and they remain unexplained. (11:58 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Glenn and Craig get grief from the board, on this blog, and around the campus over stabbing a dean candidate in the back. Then, suddenly, a week later, Glenn/Craig fire a dean and create a dean job opening?
   Do they think we're idiots? Nothing to see here. Move along... (11:59 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Yeah, amazing who gets fired and who gets hired and who keeps getting along no matter what F*$!*** s@&+ comes out of their mouths. (3:13 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Does the administration regularly record school meetings? Just curious.
(I didn't get any informational memo from Glenn.) (3:32 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   “I pointed at the photo. ‘Can you eat this?’”
   Chunk, brilliant bit of surreal poetic imagery to go with the typically excellent prose stylings of your brand of investigative journalism. (3:36 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Remember all the bad, dangerous, loony corrupt behavior they tolerated from [Dean] Howard Gensler and [Dean Rodney Poindexter]?

 It's not a double standard – it's a triple double standard. (3:38 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   The administration records ALL meetings everywhere one way or another. (5:58 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   BvT—good job getting the rumors down in black and white and recounting some history that a lot of folks don't know or may have forgotten. That said, there is much more to the story than cake jocularity, a pissed husband, and an escort off campus (and I'm not talking about the political intrigue referred to in 11:59's remarks). If the full set of facts of this episode ever become fully public, the ensuing deconstruction will yield some useful lessons for this institution once the surprise wears off. (11:22 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   11:22, are you referring to (perhaps among other things) the alleged "violence" that occurred yesterday morning? I ain't buyin' it. People have been accused of "violence" in this district before. So I ain't buyin' it. (11:36 p.m.)

Saturday, October 30

Anonymous said...
   IVC's chemistry and physics departments are very famous. (8:24 a.m., Oct. 30)
Anonymous said...
   11:36—I am referring to facts, not rumors or allegations. Buy whatever you like of the rumors and allegations, but I would hope that once "the full set of FACTS" is available, we learn something useful from them, most importantly, that the situation is more complex than it appears. Not only do we need to interrogate the three main characters' judgment and behavior, we need to examine our own tendency to continually think inside the box. (8:37 a.m.)
agent provocateur said...
   People, just read the email memo that Glenn sent out – it explains everything. He's doing his best to quell rumors and restore our sense of confidence. That's his job. He's even announced the interim dean so there are no worries at this critical time for all the schools involved. Geez, do you think he would fire someone without having a plan in place?! (9:25 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Never, NEVER insult a woman's cake. 
(But I must say, pretty impressive cake baking skills from Kiana. I don't know how to bake one of those photo toppers...not that I want to eat a BLUE cake....) (9:33 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   9:25—There has been no general e-mail sent out to quell the campus-wide rumors and restore his campus-wide reputation. Perhaps something was sent out only to the affected schools? If so, it shows a lack of understanding of the ripple effect of events. —8:37 (10:19 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Are you sure there's been no email? (11:22 a.m.)
Anonymous said...
   I'm sure that I have not received an e-mail. —8:37 (12:13 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Shouldn't Glenn send out an email though? I mean, sudden disappearances of staff are a bit alarming no matter how you may feel about them (Wendy and Kathy). And if only "people in the know" know – well, that leaves the rest of us out of the loop. (12:17 p.m.)
Captain Irvine said...
   You have to have some connection with people to communicate with them and reassure them. Glenn leads like a piece of furniture. He's less useful though. (12:28 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   Never fear minions, even as we chatter, the succession goes forward. There is always a plan, an agenda. Nothing happens without reason and purpose. (2:03 p.m.)
B. von Traven said...
   Sounds like somebody cracked open a fortune cookie. (4:50 p.m.)

Remember that silly "bomb" scare?
RECENTLY ADDED COMMENTS:

Anonymous said...
   Well, my god! This is better than the two Netflix movies sitting on my buffet for the past month—maybe even better than Mad Men—and that is saying something.
   The creepiest thing of all, to me, in a sea of corruption and bad behavior and vice: a secretary secretly recording an informal conversation. I hope that someone will follow up THAT disgusting detail.
   My sympathies, as always, MAH (7:36 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   If Wendy got the job, it would have confirmed for many that the "fix" was indeed "in". Now Wendy didn't get the job and the dominant explanation involves, once again, intrigue. Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps, just perhaps, the process worked: i.e. the pool was excellent and highly competitive and the committee, acting independently, used its best judgment and forwarded the three best qualified candidates for the job? Is that even conceivable around here? There's no end to convoluted theories, but the simplest explanation may, in fact, be the truth. (9:35 p.m.)
Anonymous said...
   You're probably right, 9:35. After all, Mathur obviously would have tangled with Wagner over absolutely nothing, and the recent board unpleasantness was a figment of everyone's imagination, and BvT didn't accurately predict any fireworks at the board meeting, and a committee headed up by a PE guy who doesn't reveal the interview scores in violation of policy and made up of a foundation bean counter and student services big wig who spent most of the last few years in Sacramento is just a perfect "process" for figuring out what the office of instruction needs, and Glenn didn't suddenly fire a dean the same week he gets grief for stabbing Wendy in the back. Sure, 9:35, the simple answer that everything worked as expected is probably the right one. Of course it is.
   You're new around here, aren't you? (9:53 p.m.)
B. von Traven said...
   9:35, consider the facts that we know. Remember that Wagner, Roquemore, and Gabriella have long been close allies. Long before the dean position was advertised or even approved, we (and many others) fretted that the "fix was in." Then, over ferocious objections (one trustee asserted, "the fix is in"), the position was approved (owing to Wagner's manifest efforts), and the search went forward. Then, (as we understand it) Wendy discovers that she is not among the finalists (a week and a half ago), and then, soon thereafter, stories spread (they are very reliable) that Wagner is "hopping mad." A few days later, at the board meeting, he is still angry and his anger is clearly directed at Glenn Roquemore specifically.
   Now take a look at the job description for the dean position (note the reference to a JD [legal] degree); then consider the timing and the haste of the search. Further, an advertisement for the position "somehow" didn't properly get into the Chronicle. Etc.
   This is not a case of people insisting that the fix is in no matter what happens. Note also that our account is consistent with entirely professional behavior on the part of members of the search committee, who, as far as I know, did not draft the job description (certainly not without input from administration). (10:02 p.m.)

Anonymous said...
   The fact that the position did not get into the Chronicle is not evidence that the fix was in to support Wendy. It's exactly the opposite. That "oversight" delayed filling the position. There were other efforts at delay. The position was not opened the day after the contentious August special meeting when the board voted to approve it. HR "forgot." Really, that's what Teddi said. Also, the committee originally said it wouldn't have time to bring a recommendation before the October board meeting. All of this pushed off the hiring. It seems from the very start that an effort was made to delay the filing of the position in order to run the clock out on Wagner (and Wendy), not to hurry Wendy into the job. The process was not fair and no one would have caught Glenn at his Mathurian manipulations if he had been successful in getting just a few more weeks of delay. But because he wasn't, he panicked (like Mathur would do when pressured) and fired another dean to change the subject, or create another opening for Wendy, or satisfy his wife... Glenn's position is increasingly untenable the more one looks at this. (10:41 p.m.)
B. von Traven said...
   10:41, I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from, but I gather you have a theory according to which Glenn is not (and has not been?) an ally of Wendy and Wagner but, rather, is a partisan of Mathur/Fuentes? Not sure.
   The circumstantial evidence (I won't go through it again) suggests that a quick and dirty kind of search was afoot; this was undone to an extent by vigilant observers/participants (bear in mind that many people are involved). It is entirely possible, I suppose, that Fuentes' crew had its own machinations that aimed at "running out the clock"—so that the hire would occur after Wagner's exodus. I have no knowledge of that.
   We've never claimed to know why Wendy was not forwarded to the second level, though we did note one reader's theory, which seems to be taken seriously by some "observers." I am inclined to think that Wagner/Roquemore/Gabriella were happily allied until fairly recently; and then, for some reason, an expected action was not taken (or an unexpected action was taken), the result of which was that Wendy was not forwarded; and this went mightily against Wagner/Gabriella. It appears that Roquemore acted in some way to undo [prevent] something Wagner/Wendy expected would occur. Hence the anger and Sturm und Drang.
   Some have embraced the "theory" that Schrader's firing is tied to all of this: it created an administrative opening for Wendy. But if Schrader was fired to make room for Wendy, it's a pretty risky plan, for if Muldoon wins the trustee seat next week (it looks like even money to me), Fuentes will likely have control of a board majority by December—at which point there's no way that Wendy will be approved for any permanent hire (for Fuentes' embraces Mathur's view of Wendy and faculty generally). This theory doesn't add up for me.
   Perhaps all we become clear at some point. Who knows. (11:24 p.m.)

Friday, October 29, 2010

The Wagner interview: Rush Limbaugh is very factual!

     I just now came across Dan Chmielewski’s “interview” of Don Wagner on the Liberal OC, which appeared about five days ago (Our chat with Don Wagner).
     I met AD-70 candidate Don Wagner at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce event in Irvine last Friday and we spent a few minutes talking about the upcoming election.
. . .
     …We began our conversation about “who is a good representative of our side,” meaning who represents Liberals well and who represents conservatives well.
     Don asked what I thought of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC. I love Keith Olbermann. And Rachel Maddow. And Ed Schultz. Don said he thought Keith was a clown.
     I asked who represents his side. He said Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Praeger and Hugh Hewitt. Don says Rush Limbaugh was very factual and that “you just don’t like the facts.” Don didn’t like the notion that Hugh Hewitt is known as “the Cowardly Lion” in liberal circles….

     …Don clearly has his mind made up that Gay marriage is wrong and wanted to know what I have against domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians. I reminded him that there are huge differentials in the rights granted to married couples versus rights for domestic partners. The liberatian in Don doesn’t seem to have a problem with domestic partnerships but he certainly was staunchly against the use of the word “marriage” for our gay and lesbian friends.
     That chat moved on to the topic of funding education; Don and I found agreement that Irvine, with 220,000 people, is still considered a “rural distric.”[sic] He finds that asurd [sic], but like all conservatives, Don’s view is the problem with education comes down to teacher’s unions….
     While I appreciate Don spent time talking to me, he lost me the moment he said Olbermann was a clown and Limbaugh was factual. His last question to me was “what do you think about those signs?” Pointing to Melissa Fox’s signs. I like the green (suggested environmentally friendly) and blue (for Progressive) in Melissa’s signs. “I think they’re ugly.”
     We parted.
     I immediately took out a pen and found Melissa Fox and wrote her another contribution. And handed her the envelope personally, so she could expedite that credit card transaction immediately.
Maybe Don meant "fat-ual"
     Wagner and Fox will debate on October 27. Don Wagner is too extreme to represent us in the Assembly. If you can’t take my word for it, go to the debate and see for yourself.
     Olbermann is a bit of a clown. Maddow’s just about the only decent political TV yapper around, right or left. Very smart, honest.
     Rush Limbaugh factual? What’s Don been smokin’?

ALSO:
• Signs point to high “moronic” voter turnout; “imbecilic” turnout a likely close second, with “idiotic” vote also expected to be impressive (Orange Crunch)
• So, how’s Mexican food in Japan? (OC Weekly)
• GOP considering renaming itself the “Grand Old Pumpkin” party--because it's "more patriotic than 'partying'" (Voice of OC)

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...