The CAFÉ will not be a café. (Are we clear?)

My first clue that there was a misunderstanding: critics kept asking about the waitresses! 

    A quick point re the CAFÉ controversy:
     As you know, the new faculty center will have its "opening" next Tuesday. It is called the CAFÉ.
     I do hope that everyone realizes that the name CAFÉ is an acronym, like NASA and CREEP.* It stands for "Center for the Advancement of Faculty Éxcellence" (the accent is optional).
     It is NOT "a small restaurant selling light meals and drinks."
     The only decent description I have of the center (that has come to be called the CAFÉ) appeared in notes that my colleague took during an academic senate meeting in January:

IVC Faculty Teaching/Excellence Center – [Academic Senate President] Lisa [Davis Allen] had an idea and has full support from [VPI] Craig [Justice]. The concept is a space, a home, for faculty to gather, to be trained, with cabinets [to] house text books, journals, a place for colleagues to talk, a place to explore and test new software and technology, a place to do grant writing, – all things that relate to excellence in in teaching – a place to house people, technology , and support all in one place. We would be able to go into a space/place and meet with peers, discuss teaching, problems, strategies. It would be wide open. A morale booster of sorts.

     So, again, do not suppose that a café for faculty will open this semester. No. A "center" for "faculty excellence" will open.
     Just sayin'.
     One more thing: a quick reminder. Full-time faculty, be sure to get your lunch orders in early.
     (Just kidding.)

NOT LIKE THIS:

A café in Vienna

MORE LIKE THIS:

An Alcoholics Anonymous meeting (it was the closest thing I could find)

NOT THIS:

MUCH MORE LIKE THIS:

Violins on television:

*NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. CREEP stood for "Committee to Reelect the President" (Nixon).

FOR THOSE INTERESTED: I've been spending a good deal of time on my family's blog. You might want to read this little essay that appeared there a few weeks ago: 2001: Ray's death. Or not.

"This is so F-ed up"

Nobody seems to know quite
what's going on. And what they
"know" often ain't so.
Whence leadership?

      I’ve been reading the comments (re yesterday's Visiting the MRC).

     Anonymous 1 seemed surprised that I was not familiar with the MRC. Alas, this philosophy instructor is indeed unfamiliar with it. A1 noted that the MRC was the “centerpiece of the BSTIC” and it “set us apart from surrounding colleges.”

     Anonymous 2 was pained by the thought that “faculty will be celebrating on top of MRC’s grave” at the 8/16 opening.

     Anonymous 3 suggested that I “should speak with your Academic Senate president. You should also ask around and see if any part-timers even received the invitation to the opening. Something is rotten in Denmark.”
     I always find such remarks as the last one amusing. What I have posted for the last week screams out that things are rotten here. (I’d start by focusing on an utter lack of transparency.) But, as usual, I need to point out that we should be careful to distinguish between differing Rottennesses:

• That the MRC (and other facilities?) is/was closed down. (Why? Why no explanation?)
• That the Academic Senate (i.e., the faculty) were “given” the MRC space (or part of it) as a site for their CAFÉ. (Is this the reason the MRC was closed? Answer: not likely. Evidently, senators were unaware that the closing and supplanting of the MRC was controversial. Was the Senate Prez aware? Did she fail to bring this matter to faculty’s attention?)
• Recent changes with CIS and CIM courses. (Is there some difficulty concerning the labs with [some of] these courses?)
• The nature and opening of the CAFÉ. (Is the manner in which the CAFÉ is being pursued elitist? Senators were told that the facility would not be costly and that it would be “for” all faculty, not just full-timers. Why then are only full-timers invited to the opening next week? [See flier.] Why isn’t this facility also for classified employees, etc.?)
• That leadership (administrators and faculty, et al.) are utterly failing in transparency. (Things keep happening that require explanation; yet no explanation is forthcoming.)

     Anonymous 4, no doubt a devotee of Fox News, drew an analogy between “my argument” (which argument?) and “Nancy Pelosi’s” regarding a bill. A4’s point seemed to be that faculty (in the academic senate) agreed to an action (pursuit of a faculty center) before they knew what it was.
     A4 needs to read the notes I provided (a few posts back) of the senate meetings in which the faculty center idea was discussed over a period of five months. The senate Prez never presented the center as a lounge (though some wags, including me, joked that that is what it would become). The faculty can hardly be faulted for not knowing where the center would be located. They agreed to pursue the center and then worked with administration to secure space for it. (As far as I know) senators were not informed that MRC would be that space until the end of the semester (in May). Senators were told that placement of the center in MRC was agreeable to all parties concerned. (See notes.) Throughout the discussion of the center (starting in January), senators were told that it would be inexpensive and that it would be for all faculty.
     Further (a point I have not yet made): such facilities are common on college campuses. It is hardly an instance of “elitism” for faculty to have their own center to pursue grants, hold workshops, provide data, etc.

     Anonymous 5 agreed with 4, but went on to charge the Academic Senate President with rude and officious behavior toward classified. I responded by saying that Allen’s alleged personal “elitism” is not the issue, since, were elitist aspects of the CAFÉ to surface, we could rely on faculty (as I know them) to object. I suggested a focus on larger issues, such as “Why is the MRC being closed down?” “The answer,” I said, “likely has nothing to do with the faculty or the senate.”
     We shall see.

     Anonymous 6 described events that, if true, would be very interesting:

     The [academic?] senate president asked for the MRC as one of several choices when she requested the CAFE. This was well before the May 5th meeting. A faculty member representing the students went to her personally and pleaded with her not to take the MRC away from students. To her credit, she did say she would rescind the request. I'm not sure that happened, but the wrecking ball was a swinging. She absolutely knew that the MRC would be taken away from students and that the faculty did not approve [of taking over the MRC space] before the Cafe program was approved [in February].
     It is curious how this all went down over the summer when the faculty are mostly away. The senate needs to grow a set and take back ten plus. Start with number one: curriculum and programs. Was Business punished? You betcha! Punished for the actions of a prior VP. Your very reliable source has never taught a class or stepped into the lab.

     I would certainly like to get verification of the events described in the first paragraph. Re the second paragraph: I am not relying on one source. I am relying on several.

     Anonymous 7 agreed that shit happens always in summer, when faculty are away.

     Anonymous 8 suggested that those concerned “attend the Senate meeting during FLEX week.” Sounds like a good idea. (I should note, however, that I am on sabbatical and I will likely stay away from Flex week, etc.)
     Anonymous 8 asserted that there were “over 100 computers in the MRC,” and yet I only counted about 50. “What happened to the other 50?”
     A8 seemed to allude to a pattern of (administrative) actions of exploiting retirements and such to make big changes. A8 also wondered how the retirements and the shutting down of labs would affect our ability to avoid violation of the 50% law (which requires that at least half of expenditures be on “instruction”).
     Somewhat cryptically, A8 asserted: “The whole point of shutting down the MRC was to cut costs, not to show the faculty that administators appreciate them because they do not!” –I shall assume that A8 was saying, among other things, that administrators do not respect faculty.
     A8 emphasized that these kinds of actions are “always all about the money” and certainly not about helping students.

     Anonymous 9 suggested that it is in the nature of administration to push for high productivity and lower costs; and it is the job of the faculty senate “to stand between them and the student.” A9 suggested that we ask the president questions during Flex Week (next week). Good idea. A9 also noted that there already exists a “nice faculty lounge” upstairs. A9 hinted that faculty do not want to share space with classified. [For what it's worth, I don't think that is true for the faculty that I know well.]

     Anonymous 10 asked: “Do you think the chemistry lab would have been seized for the Café?” Answer: “I don't think so.”

     Anonymous 11, making a point that DtB has made (see IVC doesn't seem to like its adjuncts), noted that the “adjuncts CANNOT use the upstairs space – at least not to meet with students.”
     In a moment of grand articulateness, A11 sums up the situation: “This is so F-ed up.”
     I’d have to agree.

     Anonymous 12 offered some interesting alleged factoids:

     Classified employees were alerted to the MRC project [CAFÉ?] when it was discussed at a campus meeting a few months back. Unfortunately we were unable to get an honest answer as to the actual use of the facility or who would have access. At a recent senate meeting, the VPI came to give us an overview. We were told

1. It would not be a "lounge" or called a "CAFE".
2. That it would be available for other groups/organizations to use.
3. There was a "misconception" that it was an exclusive faculty training/development/faculty only learning area.

It now appears that the discussion was all smoke and the smoke has cleared.

     If this account is correct, that is remarkable. Does the VPI speak with forked tongue?
     A12 goes on to suggest that the CAFÉ is really only a “lounge” and that certain parties are “pretty elitist.”
     A12 facetiously “thanks” administrators and leaders (I guess) for being “‘transparent’ with the campus.”
     I’d have to agree that “lack of transparency” is among the core problems at IVC.

From the people who brought us fifteen years of abject shittitude comes....

Ray

     No doubt you’ve already heard about it. A group of six SOCCCD faculty have sent out a “faculty contract alert,” warning faculty that

The Faculty Association [i.e., the union] negotiating team has signed a tentative agreement with the administration which excludes over seventy-five faculty members from the salary increase given to all other faculty members in the form of step advancement. (For the entire "alert," go here)

     I have no idea whether this claim and others the group makes have merit. (Given the source, I doubt it.)

Sharon

     What interests me for now is just who is behind this “alert.” According to the document, which was sent to us via IVC instructor Ray Chandos' college email account, signatories include: “Ray Chandos, Michael Channing, Sharon MacMillan, Mike Merrifield, Sherry Miller-White, Ken Woodward.”
     With the exception of Merrifield, this group was at the heart of the Old Guard, the group of stunningly corrupt unionists who, starting about 1996, brought us Raghu Mathur, Steve Frogue, Tom Fuentes, Nancy Padberg, Don Wagner—and, well, lots of ignominy.
     Near as I can tell, most of this group have been pretty quiet in the last decade or so. Why are they piping up now?

WHO?

• Ken Woodward: check out Ken's efforts to defend Steve Frogue and our utterly rotten little union on the radio (KPFK) back in 1998: Ken Woodward defends Frogue and our corrupt union (transcripts).

• Ray Chandos: check out Ray's bold attempt to whitewash an accreditation self-study on behalf of his pal Raghu Mathur: Whitewash Willy. Ray was the union Old Guard's chief scribbler; he put out its stunningly scabrous newsletter.

• Sherry Miller-White: here's an old article that describes Sherry's special way with union meetings: Time for Pie. See also The End Justifies the Means, Evidently

• The Old Guard: Well, just how bad did it get under the leadership of the Old Guard? Check out The Same-Sex Flier. See also A Motley Crew of Nazis, The trustee race of '98, How the Old Guard got Wagner and Padberg elected.

Channing

• Sharon MacMillan: Watch Old Guardster Sharon defend Steve Frogue on the old "Orange County Network": Frogue on TV.

• Michael Channing: Channing was the union's Secretary during its most appalling era (c. 1996). He was instrumental in producing the infamous homophobic Same-Sex Flier.

Woodward

• Frogue/FA: for an overview of the Frogue/Union alliance (which lasted until at least 2000), check out Matt Coker's The Evil of Froguenstein (OC Weekly). Subtitle: "The real monsters behind community college trustee Steven J. Frogue." Guess who they are!

SEE ALSO Adventures in Advertising: The real purpose behind gay-baiting at Saddleback College, OC Weekly, Nov. 15, 1996

Visiting the MRC

The Media Resource Center (not today)

     I had a doctor’s appointment in Irvine this morning, and so, on my way home, I dropped in on the Media Resource Center at IVC. Its big metal front door was locked, but a side door was open. I walked in and checked it out.
     I’d never been in the MRC before, though I have often walked past it, noting the desk in front, staffed by some friendly person.
     This morning, I finally went inside. It is a large space divided by a transparent wall. On one side—furthest from the PAC—is the usual banks of computers on desks. I counted about 50 computers. As I said, no one was there, so the equipment was not in use. In fact, I do believe the lights were switched off.
     On the other side of the wall—the portion closest to the PAC—is a kind of lounge area with tables and chairs. Now, the semester is only about a week away, and so I was surprised to find the MRC apparently unchanged from its state as of last semester. Evidently, the CAFÉ (i.e., the "Center for the Advancement of Faculty Excellence") will be in this space. But it appears that nothing has been done yet to remodel the space. Someone told me that all of the computers are all still hooked up. Another person told me that the computers have not been in use during the summer and there is no plan to use them, at least in this space, in the fall. So why are these computers still here? (Certainly, faculty would have no use for them — except as equipment for adjuncts.)
     I did run into non-faculty personnel who seemed angry. They obviously took the view that “faculty” had decided to take the MRC space from the students. They viewed this alleged act as selfish. Aren’t we supposed to be serving the students?
     But there was another angle: how come faculty get a center but classified do not? Who do these people think they are?
     I explained to some of these people the facts as I knew them. I am on the Academic (i.e., the faculty) Senate, I said. I explained that the Senate Prez hatched the idea of a faculty center (now called CAFÉ) perhaps at the end of 2010. During the spring, she pursued the idea on the senate floor and got approval to pursue it in about February.
     I explained that, at that point, locating the center in the MRC had not been mentioned. I explained that, as far as the senators were concerned, we were pursuing a center that would be inexpensive and for which “space” would be “found.” It would be for all faculty (not just full-time).
     In fact, I explained, we (senators) were not told about locating the CAFÉ in the MRC until May of last Spring. And when we were told that the center would be located there, most of us (I believe) imagined that, whatever had been in the MRC space would be placed somewhere else; or there were reasons for no longer using the space as it had been used. At no point did we imagine that we were displacing student lab or study space.
     Now, based on the conversations I had this morning, it seemed to me that many classified employees are under the impression that, from the start, “faculty” had decided to create a center and to make room for it by kicking students out of the Media Resource Center. That, of course, is not how this senator viewed the situation. Not at all.
     I noted that there is an amazing lack of communication at this college. How can it be that, only now, I, qua senator and faculty member, am disabusing a classified employee of the misapprehension that faculty decided, from the start, to take away a computer center from students to put up a faculty center? How can it be that only now I am realizing that, from their perspective, classified were drawing what might have seemed to be a natural conclusion; that faculty were acting selfishly, throwing their weight around at others’ expense.
     I explained that, as far as I knew, speaking as a member of faculty and the senate, none of my colleagues would knowingly take a computer or study center from students. If that has happened, it certainly was not our intent. Further, I explained that, as far as I knew, the action taken regarding the MRC (which I learned about perhaps a month ago) was tied to some fubar caused by the discovery that, essentially, some computer courses at IVC had been engaging in a kind of fraud, claiming to hold lab courses when in fact they were doing no such thing.
     Good grief.
     More later.

2:35. I'm back. I see that two comments have been left:

Anonymous said...

     Wow bvt, thanks for taking the time to walk through what will soon be, the former MRC. You mean to say you've never been in there before? The facility has been there since the BSTIC was completed, now going on 3 years. I thought you knew every inch of IVC, guess not. So now you can see with your own eyes, that beautiful space that was taken away from the students. I sure wish you'd taken the tour before you voted last spring. In its final stage of completion IVC did press releases boasting how new, wonderful and high-tech the MRC was going to be, and how it was all for the benefit of our students. That centerpiece of the BSTIC (the MRC) was what set us apart from surrounding Colleges, and greatly contributed to our competative edge in winning students back to IVC. Now, with just the stroke of a pen it's all gone...
     Nothing worse than being given something and then having it taken away...
   —1:55 PM, August 12, 2011

Anonymous said...

     If that ain't painful enough, faculty will be celebrating on top of MRC's grave site come 8/16! YAY!
   —2:17 PM, August 12, 2011

I wrote a  response to 1:55's comment, which I may as well provide here:

     1:55, you seem to continue to labor under the misapprehension that (faculty) senators voted to take over the MRC, kicking students out of it. Again, absolutely not. The idea of a faculty center was first mentioned in January. At some point in February, I believe, senators were asked whether the senate (i.e, the faculty senate) should pursue a center. The idea was that, if we were to pursue this (supposedly low-cost) facility, administration would try to find space for it. No mention was made of the MRC. (Thus, my taking a tour would have changed absolutely nothing.)
     Regarding the press release: I have learned to be somewhat cynical about such things, I'm afraid. The claims and hoopla attending the opening of new centers and buildings--I take them with a grain of salt. (Besides, I think it's fair to say that "humanists" at best quietly tolerate facilities and programs dedicated to business at colleges and universities. We tend to view them as not really part of higher education or learning. --You know, like PE. The point is that I have never really paid much attention to BSTIC or its contents.)
     Do try to get this through your head. No mention was made of the MRC [to senators] until the May senate meeting (months after the vote to pursue the faculty center), and the announcement did not obviously have the import that facilities were being taken away from students. As you know, buildings and rooms are commonly "repurposed" at IVC. (Consider B300.)
     Here are the questions that I have at this point.

① First, why exactly is MRC being closed down?
② Is there a causal relationship between pursuit of the faculty center and the closing down of the MRC? (I think I know the answer to that question: NO. The MRC was closed down for reasons independent of the need to provide space for the new faculty center: CAFÉ)
③ Did something happen recently—re some of IVC's computer courses—that led to changes (i.e., a reduction) in the need for computer facilities? —I only have rumors and murmurings to help answer this last question. Something about an audit that revealed significant improprieties having to do, I think, with computer labs and instructor loads.

     I'm told that this audit or report is a "public document." Does anyone have it?
     I guess I do have one further question: ④ Why does the flier (see earlier post) about the opening of the CAFÉ invite only full-time faculty? Surely that is a mistake.

Music for the moment

Ray's "faculty contract alert"

Brought to you by the people who brought us Tom Fuentes

FACULTY CONTRACT ALERT!

From: Ray Chandos
To: unabauer
Date: Thu, Aug 11, 2011 10:40 pm


FACULTY CONTRACT ALERT
DID YOU KNOW THAT 75 OF YOUR COLLEAGUES WILL GET NO RAISE IN THE CURRENT CONTRACT?
IS THIS FAIR???
SHOULDN’T EVERYONE GET THE SAME RAISE???
WE JUST WANT FAIRNESS FOR ALL FACULTY.
DETAILS BELOW:

To: SOCCCD faculty members

From: Faculty members sold out by our union negotiators in the current contract tentative agreement (Ray Chandos, Michael Channing, Sharon MacMillan, Mike Merrifield, Sherry Miller-White, Ken Woodward)

The Faculty Association negotiating team has signed a tentative agreement with the administration which excludes over seventy-five faculty members from the salary increase given to all other faculty members in the form of step advancement. This blatant discriminatory exclusion is a shocking first in the history of our district. Faculty members at the top of the columns have spent an entire career on a salary schedule which encouraged the acceptance of lower wages early on in return for a promise of a better retirement. After these faculty members have finally reached the highest step, the union has now devised and implemented a plan which breaks that promise. The union has not even had the courtesy to negotiate a grandfather provision. The union has negotiated a one time, off-the-schedule approximately one thousand dollar check for these faculty members and is asking them to vote for a three-year contract with no other monetary incentive. The union leadership does not care that this contract will have a devastating effect on the retirement and lives of these faculty members. In a secretive and divisive move, the union leadership is forcing a quick vote asking the remaining faculty to vote themselves a raise by approving the contract which excludes and insults long time employees. It seems that the District and union collaborators have found the money for everything else they want except for this segment of the faculty. In fact money is not the issue at all. The union leadership says the district is worried about the public perception. Apparently the District is not worried about the public perception of administrators’ salaries and spending projects and all the other monetary provisions of the contract which are public information anyway. The District, as always, is just trying to spend less money in the classroom and apparently the union leadership has bought into their arguments and decided to sell out a big chunk of their membership. Certainly the District appreciates the union’s consent to give only part of the faculty raises. Earlier the union leaders ignored pleas not to support the retirement incentive the District asked them to request until the District agreed to leave the money saved in the classroom. The union leadership ignored pleas last spring to do their legally mandated duty of fair representation for all bargaining unit members. This is the most blatantly unfair, lopsided and discriminatory contract ever negotiated. Not only are there unfair salary proposals, but discriminatory lab compensation decisions were made arbitrarily by the union leadership. Many faculty are confused about what the contract means for them. We are requesting that the union leadership provide a list specifying the monetary incentive each faculty member will receive in this negotiations round. Hypothetical cases for example: Alden, Beverly $35,000 (from step advancement multiplied by years collected plus increased reassigned time for Faculty Association leadership) Hughes, Bob $130,000 (from retirement incentive, changes in part time compensation, increased union reassigned time) Norris, Mary $1,000 (from the bad luck of being a second class citizen under the current contract negotiations for salary and lab compensation) If the Faculty Association would provide such a list, every voting faculty member could not only review the monetary benefits he/she would receive but could also see how his/her vote on this contract will affect all colleagues. It is unfortunate that the union negotiating team decided to exclude a large segment of the faculty from representation instead of negotiating a grandfather provision elevating the compensation of this group in a way equivalent to other faculty members. It is a cavalier misuse of power for the union leadership to arbitrarily decide who gets salary and lab compensation. It is amazing that the team would sign away the rights of people they are legally bound to defend.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS The Faculty Association negotiating team has told us that is necessary to stiff (or discriminate against) experienced faculty members because the Trustees insist on it in order to protect their political images. Miraculously, the Trustees are unconcerned about the political appearance of increasing reassigned time for union leadership to 60 OSH (the Faculty Association worked for decades on 20 OSH). Recent investigations so far have found that ALL sources blamed by the union leadership for the current contract disaster (such as CTA advice, the District administration, and the Board of Trustees) contend that the SOCCCD union negotiating team itself promoted and wants this contract. Why would the union leadership intentionally sell out certain groups of faculty? Why did union leaders blatantly ignore the pleas of faculty members last spring? We can only speculate about individual union leaders’ motivations which could cause them to place self interest or personal, ideologically-based positions above benefits for the faculty as a whole. ALL faculty will some day reach the top of a column. This is a very dangerous precedent to set for all faculty.

WHAT CAN WE DO? It is possible to reverse this state of affairs. Although the fact that the union team has already signed the agreement to sell us out makes it much more difficult, it is possible to reverse the egregious decision. It is possible to make this contract work for all faculty. We must convince the union negotiating team to cancel the vote on this untenable contract and return to the table to negotiate (WITH SUPERVISION) for the interests of all their bargaining unit members.

Really? Adjuncts not invited?

Good grief.

     Not a good sign. Not at all. Sheesh.
     Part-timers, you should show up for this thing and ask why you weren't invited.
     You should just take the goddam thing over (and, no, I don't mean violence, tea-baggers).
     Again, during discussions of the CAFÉ (i.e., the "Center for the Advancement of Faculty Excellence") on the senate floor, we were assured that the center was for all faculty, not just full-timers!