Emails Raise Alarms About the County's Hiring Process (Voice of OC)

     County lawyers are scrambling to review the county's hiring processes in the wake of a large-scale release of emails by union leaders indicating that several political aides to members of the Board of Supervisors were apparently fast-tracked for positions in the county bureaucracy.
     County supervisors and senior officials who have seen the emails acknowledge they present troubling evidence that the county hiring process may have been gamed by aides, department heads and even fellow supervisors….
. . .
     [Supervisor] Campbell notes that a former EA, Alan Murphy, runs the county airport. Another, Steve Franks, runs county Community Resources. Mark Denny, a former Campbell chief of staff, runs OC Parks.
. . .
     There are emails among Human Resources officials detailing the competitive recruitment of Supervisor Pat Bates’ aide, Brian Probolsky*, into county Community Resources. Probolsky's hiring raised red flags, because his new position of business practices manager netted him an 80 percent raise….

*Brian Probolsky, along with his boss Supervisor Pat Bates, is on the Advisory Council of the Saddleback College Foundation.

Do emails show job preference toward county supervisors’ aides? (OC Reg; Watchdog)

Probolsky

…In the past two years, six people who worked on the staffs of board members have transferred into jobs in county bureaucracies such as the Health Care Agency, OC Community Resources and OC Waste and Recycling, according to documents released last week by county officials at the request of the Orange County Employees Association…. [END of excerpt]

--You'll recall that, long ago, Tom Fuentes was an EA for the corrupt Supervisor Ronald Caspers.  --RB

A Neanderthaloid log propping up the GOP tent

Republican Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA). A doctor no less. Evolution and "Big Bang": "lies," he says

Last week's college forums mentioned looming fiscal issues—but apparently soft-pedaled them

     Some of our readers have complained that IVC college administration has failed to communicate the serious financial situation our college (IVC) faces—a matter that we reported yesterday based on information provided at Thursday’s academic senate meeting.
     It appears, however, that, at least to some degree, this information was provided by administration at last week’s college forums. That is, the grim fiscal "projections"—discussed at the senate—were mentioned during the Q & A portion of one of the forum sessions, though their seriousness was evidently not emphasized. (See below.)

     COLLEGE FORUMS. As one of our readers notes, four days ago, denizens of IVC received an email* from college president Glenn Roquemore about two recent college “forums.” They were held last week on Wednesday, Sept. 26 (9:00 a.m.), and Thursday, Sept. 27 (3:00 p.m.).
     No doubt these forums were scheduled at different days and times in order to allow as many 'Viners as possible to attend.
     According to the email, “Both forums provided the audience the opportunity to participate in a Q&A and open dialogue.”
     The forums' content was summarized:

Projections?
What about 'em?

     President Roquemore thanked everyone for attending and began by calling for greater communication. He offered an update of our survey results and the district-wide civility project. His opening remarks included a snapshot of where IVC is financially compared to our counterparts within the region, the state, and the nation. He briefly touched on the potential loss of accreditation for the College of San Francisco, the largest college in our community college system and the dire circumstances their students face.
     His remarks included the staggering state deficit, heavily debated elections, 13% cuts to Community Colleges in the last four years, and the call for educational reform at the state and federal level, including the National Completion Agenda and the California Student Success Task Force Recommendations....
     President Roquemore expressed his feelings of optimism for the college and the district. He praised the leadership of our Chancellor, board and governance groups, particularly in two key areas: meeting accreditation recommendations and the district and college strategic planning.
     The IVC Classified Senate was specifically recognized at both forums….
     At the Thursday forum, President Roquemore provided an update on the construction of IVC’s School of Life Sciences and Technology building. The new building is just under 50% completion….
     Progress on the Barranca entrance was also reviewed….
     President Roquemore also spoke about positive efforts being made to move ATEP forward and new relationships with business and industry partnerships that are on the horizon….
     Dr. Linda Fontanilla added an update on the progress of the bookstore relocation. The Follett Higher Education Group … hopes to open its new location in B100 for students by November 1, 2012.
     At both forums, President Roquemore closed his remarks with an update on the reforming of the IVC College Foundation and the important role the Foundation will play in the future financial needs of the College….

     The email included “audience discussion items”: “Proposition 30,” “enrollment priorities,” “international students,” and “long-term budget projections.” Presumably, these were initiated by audience questions or comments.
     The last item was described thus:

     During Thursday’s discussion, as the potential long-term budget projections and planning for solution scenarios were discussed at the College Council, the best and worst case scenarios were shared with the audience. The best case scenario of $230 thousand in cuts for 2013-2014 was presented as scenario one and $1.9 million in cuts for 2013-2014 was presented as the worst case scenario. President Roquemore indicated that these projections and scenarios would be thoroughly discussed in college committees, such as SPOBDC and by governance groups in the coming weeks.

     DtB is impressed by the range of topics discussed at last week's forum(s). It appears that IVC administration is making a real effort to improve in the "communication" department. No doubt the alarming results of IVC's employee survey helped inspire action, belated though it may be. (See also Accreditation recommendations.)
     With regard to the times and days on which these forums were scheduled, I think that administration was wise to schedule the forum at widely different times on two consecutive days (as they have done previously). Many of us teach during the morning session, and, for many of us, the late afternoon session is inconvenient, but I suppose that sort of thing is unavoidable. So, again, administration, I think, should be praised for its efforts to find times that all can attend. (I do wish I had attended the Thursday forum!)

     "PROJECTIONS" DOWNPLAYED? Based on the above email, however, it appears that "long-term budget projections" were not discussed at both sessions. According to the email, they were discussed only as part of "audience discussion" and only during the Thursday session. (That is, evidently, these projections came up because of an audience-member question or comment at Thursday's forum.)
     Why were they not mentioned in Roquemore's remarks for both sessions?

     DIRE OR NOT? Further, it is not clear that the discussion that occurred (see highlighted verbiage above) conveyed the seriousness of those projections. The information presented at the senate meeting two days ago suggested that our fiscal situation is dire. But the above description of the "long-term budget projections" discussion does not communicate any such level of gravity or seriousness. Again, as the matter was explained at the academic senate meeting, as things now stand, unless we take steps, IVC faces deficit spending next year—and the situation worsens with each subsequent year.
     Is the situation dire or not?
     If so, why didn't Roquemore say so during last week's forums?
     Could it be that we are staring down the barrel of yet another massive "communication" failure?
     Perhaps readers who attended one or both of the forums could report just what was communicated about these projections.

*A long-standing complaint about IVC President Roquemore's numerous email communications is that they fail to discriminate between the important and the trivial, thereby inspiring the conviction, among many of their long-suffering recipients, that they are generally not worth opening. This is unfortunate, for the email discussed here was important. 

I'm not goin' back

to Woodstock for a while,

Though I long to hear

that lonesome hippie smile.

I'm a million miles away

from that helicopter day

No, I don't believe

I'll be goin' back that way.

Budget crises looming for Saddleback and Irvine Valley colleges

     At yesterday’s meeting of the IVC Academic Senate, the senate VP, Bob U, reported on a meeting of the college’s strategic planning/budget committee that he had recently attended. At that meeting, he said, essentially, committee members were informed of a fiscal emergency. Via Powerpoint, various possible budgetary scenarios were presented, plotting expected revenue against expected expenses in the coming years. Bob showed us the slides.
     It was mighty grim. The passage of Proposition 30, albeit important, will make little difference to the situation.
     Essentially, the problem is that college revenue will be flat but college expenses will rise, in part owing to unfunded mandates. As things now stand, starting in a year or two, expenses will exceed revenue, and the problem will worsen with each passing year in all possible scenarios.
     This is so despite the SOCCCD’s unusual and lucrative funding arrangement—the oddly termed "basic aid"—which takes local property taxes (rather than state funds) and that, owing to high local property values, has provided the district with an unusually high level of funding compared to virtually all other community college districts in the state.
     The upshot: unless we take steps, we’ll soon be into deficit spending.
     Just how dire is this situation in which we find ourselves?, I asked.
     "Very," said Bob, based on what he saw at the aforementioned meeting.
     Naturally, many colleges across the state—those whose funding source is Sacramento—have already experienced serious budget shortfalls combined with increased expenses. We asked: what have those colleges done to meet their budgetary crises?
     In the case of community colleges, a vast majority of revenue—well over 90%—goes to faculty salaries and benefits. Insofar as that expenditure remains untouched (faculty salaries and benefits are a product of negotiations between districts and faculty unions), our colleges are left with a relatively small zone for cost savings or greater efficiencies.
     It is clear that two groups will likely take a big hit: classified employees (non-instructional, non-administrative) and part-time instructors, the slave labor of the community college system. Some institutions have essentially let go all of their adjuncts.
     I asked whether Saddleback College faces similar dire straights.
     It does. (The president of the SC academic senate was in the room, joining the discussion.)
     I noted that, as someone who attends virtually all meetings of the SOCCCD board of trustees, I could not recall any mention of this looming crisis before the trustees.
     Well, no, they have not been informed, I was told. The problem has until now been a topic of discussion among college administrators.
     So, there it is. Predictably, we (i.e., faculty) were encouraged to help develop ways to increase revenue and reduce costs. If the colleges don't find ways of doing this by themselves, we were told, relatively crude and unwelcome measures will be applied from without.

* * *

     As it happens, yesterday, the senate discussed the Academic Affairs Committee’s recommendation to increase the cap on individual “staff development funds” per full-time instructor to $1500 (from last year’s $1400) and to lower the cap on such funds per part-time instructor to $500 (from last year's $700).
     These funds, from an account comprising a little over $60K, are typically used to pay for expenses associated with attending conferences (meetings of the American Historical Association—that sort of thing), a routine activity among many serious college educators.
     I and other senators opined that, especially under the circumstances, it would be unseemly to reduce part-timers’ conference funding.
     In the end, the recommendation was soundly rejected, returning us to last year's caps. (This, I think, is the best that we could do. I do not believe there was any prospect of overturning the customary wide discrepancy between full- and part-time funding.)
     To adjuncts, that will provide little comfort, I’m sure.
     But it’s something.
     Everybody, fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Ship Ahoy!

The Black Pearl, now parked in front of A-100 with a  valid staff parking pass.

Denizens of IVC, especially those who attempt to locate parking in the staff lot directly in front of A-100, will have noticed recently that one of the vehicles finding refuge in the ever-shrinking lot is a hearty mini-van version of the Black Pearl, Jack Sparrow's fine craft (though Rebel Girl's son will explain that the Black Pearl was originally owned by Davy Jones, lead singer of the Monkees, and then Jack Sparrow, only to be stolen by Barbossa who teaches in the Physical Sciences).  Rebel Girl has often wondered which faculty member or staff would drive a pirate ship but has been too busy to inquire.

But Rebel Girl digresses.

The Black Pearl now resides quite regularly in the staff lot.  Go see for yourself.

One fine lad did today and this was his report:

He too was looking for safe port in the heat wave. Plus he had a class to teach. The Black Pearl got to a vacant site first and dropped anchor. Too bad for our lad. He noticed, as so many of us have in recent days, that the wenches who disembarked didn't fit the usual description of staff and or faculty. They seemed, uh, younger, more frisky.

He called out, all friendly like. "Do you work here?" he asked. He has a friendly face, one of the the friendliest. So they answered.

"No," came the reply.

"You can't park here then," he said.

"Yes we can," came the reply. "We have a permit."

"But the lot is just for faculty and staff."

"My dad works here. He's a professor."

"Doesn't matter."

"He said we could."

"Who's your dad?"

And here it comes, faithful readers:

"Howard Gensler."

Blimey.

You can't make this stuff up.

Not Johnny Depp.

Johnny Depp.

SEE ALSO: They simply do not like him

Coastline Community College to unveil new campus (OC Reg)

     When the doors to Coastline Community College's sleek new Newport Beach campus open for the ribbon-cutting ceremony Wednesday, one of the things a visitor might notice is that the concrete walls lean.
     Inspired by the mast of a sailboat, they tilt at a seven-degree angle, to be exact....

Mere "foul language"? Orange County Is Bein' Ridiculous Again

"No cussing"

     I just read an article in the Reg that reports that a student at a local high school is accusing his coach of outrageous behavior.
     That doesn’t surprise me. What surprises me is that the reporter—and some of the people he interviewed—describe the coach’s alleged behavior as using “vulgar language.”
     That's quite an understatement. As someone (maybe me) noted in a comment,

   If the coach were to use the usual expletives in, say, describing his visit to a proctologist, then, I suppose, that would be a case of using vulgar language. But this coach displayed homophobia and racism in particularly raw forms—even toward individual students. Further, his treatment of the student in question is verbally violent and disturbingly aggressive. It is bullying behavior.

     Well, judge for yourself (and don't forget to check out the Reg's notorious reader comments!):

Teen's complaint shines light on coach's vulgarity, sports culture
Fullerton baseball player Grant Sims, 16, comes forward to discuss a taboo topic – foul language in coaching.