Tyler, you refer to “Tom Fuente's efforts to maintain fiscal sanity….”

Well, first of all, your grammar sucks (it's “Fuentes’,” not “Fuente’s”).

Second, you seem unaware of some of the great difficulties that the South Orange County Community College district now faces, owing mostly to your man Fuentes and his toady, Chancellor Raghu Mathur.

Our district is obliged to comply with the “50% Law,” which requires that at least half of expenditures be devoted to instruction. Re instructional expenses, the incompetent Mathur has allowed the district to drift ever closer to the 50% line. When this was discovered (about 8 months ago), the district was compelled to engage in a hasty and absurd faculty hiring spree (40 full-time faculty). Even your pal (trustee) Don Wagner opined that this is no way to hire faculty.

Second, the district continues to struggle with its Tustin property (ATEP). After a great many years of effort and many millions of dollars of expense, the big ATEP complex has yet to get off the ground. It has been a fiscal black hole, promoted mightily by Fuentes’ man Mathur, who cares more about building monuments to himself than administering the district.

Finally, there’s also the matter of “accreditation” sanity. For the first time in the history of the district, our two colleges confront the possibility of losing their accreditation (in January), owing (say the accreditors) to the board’s continual micromanaging and the Mathur-induced “plague of despair” throughout the district.

I’d be happy to give you the particulars.

Though, admittedly, in our district, there have been fiscal successes (of the “conservative” variety) in recent years, overall, I’d have to say that Tom Fuentes is the worst thing that’s ever happened to our district.

If you actually watch these people in action, you'll realize that Williams is a dolt (during his tenure, the district was placed on the fiscal "watch list), Lang has the vision of a bean counter (which is exactly what he is). Wagner spends his days being Don Wagner, and, trust me, you don't want too much of that.

Roy Bauer wrote: your grammar sucks

Actually, my proofreading sucks -- I placed the apostrophe correctly in the opening sentence -- but thank you for the correction anyway.

You do raise what are likely to be the issues raised by the challengers in this race. We've got three months to air these matters. Thank you for posting.

Glad to hear it. Half of good writing is editing, you know.

I do hope that we (who is we?) "air" these issues. Sometimes I think that the GOP cares more about getting its people elected than about getting things right. (You can chuckle now.)

Everybody's gonna climb on Fuentes' bandwagon, 'cause he's an institution, like Cher, but, in truth, he's been hell on our district. This is not a partisan matter. I'd be pleased as punch to have a right-wing Republican trustee replace Fuentes, so long as he (or she or it) is intelligent and honest. Fuentes is intelligent, but he sure ain't honest.

there might be a surprise in district #3

Roy,

By "we" I mean you, me, and anyone else we can get yacking on this blog. I will be making future SOCCCD posts.

I don't really follow SOCCCD politics. I focus on Irvine. I was preparing my post for the Irvine down ticket races, which included Inmon vs Lang, when I got sucked into being the SOCCCD blogger.

I understand that you feel Fuentes has not been good for the district; you're hardly the first person to make this claim. However, only two viable factions are present at the moment. How do you see the "Union" slate?

-tylerh

The union slate seems to be Bill Jay, Bob Bliss, Carol Inmon, and John Williams. Oddly enough, the current Fuentes-dominated "board majority" was essentially a creature of the faculty union. One can trace this back to 1996, when the union, then controlled by a corrupt clique, made a pact with (Holocaust denier) Steve Forgue, (ex-cop) John Williams, Dorothy Fortune (and one further trustee not up for election). This group of conservatives could do what they wanted, as long as salaries remained high and enemies were punished. Two years later, the union got Don Wagner and Nancy Padberg elected, using the phony "stop the airport" issue (phony because trustees have no say in it). Then, when Frogue was badly wounded by the attempted recall, the board craftily replaced him (summer of 2000) with Fuentes, then the (wounded) chair of the OC GOP. The old corrupt union was involved in that too. Soon thereafter, reformers, with the help of CTA, finally broke the back of the corrupt clique's stranglehold, and the union has been, well, non-corrupt ever since.

None on the union slate is the kind of unionist of which conservative nightmares are made. For the most part, the faculty of the SOCCCD seek a return to decency and to a nonpartisan board. Bill Jay has been solid and is a decent man. Bliss and Inmon are actually pretty conservative (like Jay) whilst nevertheless supporting the union and the non-corruption it now represents. Don't get me wrong; our union is not perfect. But it is hardly the monster that conservatives imagine. When it was that monster, it brought us Frogue, Fuentes, et al.

Tom Fuentes as Cher - I love it. I can't get the image out of my head.

So let me see if I have this right, Mr. Bauer. Tom Fuentes . . . Tom Freakin' Fuentes, of all people! . . . is a creature of the teachers' union. But that was the old, bad teachers' union. There's now a new, good, honest teachers' union, so it's all ok because the good union is running conservatives against Fuentes and the bad union.

By the way, is there a single issue where this new, good, honest teachers' union differs on anything of substance with the hard core old, leftist state teachers' union with which it is affiliated?

And for the record, the airport issue was hardly phony. Maybe you weren’t around at the time, but it was the only thing south county voters cared about. Candidates had to be right on that issue before the voters would consider them for election to anything. As a long time Irvine resident, I remember getting anti-airport flyers from Wagner and Padberg’s opponents BEFORE getting anything from them. Agran and Dornan put them out. You can look it up.

Truth hurts, Mr. Bauer. You professors obviously don’t get confronted with truth enough when spouting off in class to a bunch of students who can’t challenge you for fear of a bad grade, but this isn’t class. But good luck anyway selling that good union/bad union, Tom Fuentes as union guy stuff. I love a good political fight!

Oh and I apologize for any grammatical, proofreading, or punctuation errors, Professor Pedant.

Dear “anonymous”:

If you have doubts about my claim that the faculty union supported the conservative “board majority,” you might read “Board’s Unlikely Secret Allies” in the OC Register, 10/31/98. (See also Board Allies.)

During the July 2000 board meetings in which trustee Steve Frogue’s replacement (Frogue had resigned) was discussed, several union leaders (Sharon MacMillan, Ray Chandos, et al.) addressed the board, urging the selection of Tom Fuentes. Do you doubt this? It is easily verified.

Did I say that the current faculty union is “good and honest”? No. I said that it was “non-corrupt” and that it kicked out the old clique who supported Frogue, Wagner, Fuentes, et al. I said that it was imperfect but that it nevertheless rejected the old corruption.

With regard to the union and CTA, surely you understand that a college faculty union is not much concerned with many of CTA’s issues, since the latter organization primarily represents K-12 instructors. (If it were up to me, we would entirely disconnect ourselves from those issues. For the record, I disagree with much of CTA’s agenda.)

When I said the “no airport” issue was phony, I said specifically that trustees have no say on the issue. It might be good politics for a dog catcher candidate to say he’s against the airport, but it is also BS, and you know it.

Anonymous, you illustrate the unfortunate fact that many “Red County” conservatives rely on name-calling rather than on good argumentation. Your caricature of professors is ugly and inaccurate. I do not insist that my students accept my views, whatever they might be, on issues. On the contrary, I tell my students that I do not care what position they take on anything. I only ask that they try to argue well and without fallacy or sophistry.

Roy Bauer

I am amused by Prof. Roy Bauer’s last effort to defend himself from a sarcastic but essentially spot on challenge. Let’s review his posts and use his words:

(1) Board member Tom Fuentes “ain’t honest”;
(2) Board member David Lang has no vision and is a “bean counter”;
(3) Board member Don Wagner spends his time being Don Wagner and “you don’t want too much of that” (whatever that means, it’s probably not good in Bauerland);
(4) Board member John Williams is a “dolt”;
(5) Board member Nancy Padberg came into office on a “phony” issue;
(6) at least two people we’ve never heard of are tagged as members of the “corrupt clique” of union leadership;
(7) the South Orange County College District Chancellor is a “toady”;
(8) an ex-board member is a “Holocaust denier”; and
(9) the grammer of the blogger who started all this “sucks.”

Nine examples of personal attacks or name calling by the professor, yet it is supposedly we conservatives, the readers of Red County, who “rely on name-calling,” all because he’s called Professor Pedant one time in one post. My what a thin skin you have, Professor.

Amazing. Do liberals even hear themselves?

Tylerh has it wrong. John Williams has been on the Board for twenty years, not sixteen. Also, when I addressed the Board on December 2007 I did not ask for more history courses in the curriculum, I asked for a change in the disparity of history courses. I asked the question. Why is only one section of post-World War II U.S. History being offered as compared to 32 sections of U.S. History dealing either exclusively or primarily with periods prior to World War II? Probably, a factor in his believing that I was asking for more history classes over all is that David Lang insisted on my observing the two minute rule for public speakers even though I had taught at Saddleback College for 28 years. A bigger issue at Saddleback College and Irvine Valley College is the drastic reduction in the hiring of full timers over the past twenty years. In order to make Saddleback College the highly acclaimed college that it had become the emphasis in the 1980s had been on increasing the percentage of full timers as opposed to part timers.

For more information on how I'm conducting my campaign and what travails I've run into as well as the South Orange County District issues see my blogspot on: http://chc12.blogspot.com/

Carl, you're wrong and Tyler's right on every issue you raise. First, John Williams was elected originally in 1992 -- 16 years ago. Second, you attended a board meeting a few months ago asking for more history since WWII classes (it's on tape, I saw the tape, you can't credibly deny it) -- that sounds a lot like asking for more history classes. Again, Tyler is right.

On the other hand, you say on your blog that "Most of the Board including my opponent have been on the Board for twenty years or more." That's just flat out wrong in every possible way. Four of the seven (Padberg, Wagner, Fuentes, Jay) were elected less than ten years ago. You can look it up. That's a majority. Only one of the seven, hardly a "majority" and certainly not your opponent, has been there 20 years. None of the board has been there "more" than 20 years.

God forbid (and certainly not too likely) that you get elected, but if so, please pay more attention and do your homework before trying to do the people's business.

Amused:

You refer to a “spot on challenge” to me. You have yet to identify the spot.
You respond to none of the points I made. (See) I’d call that spot off.
You seem not to understand the concept of name-calling:
Saying that a man isn’t honest is an empirical claim that is either true or false. It is easily demonstrated that Tom Fuentes is not honest (consider his public remarks about faculty workload). Calling a dishonest man dishonest is not “name-calling.” Calling me a “pedant” is.
I’ve been carefully observing and writing about the SOCCCD board for a dozen years. Is it inconceivable to you that an observer might reasonably form the opinion that someone lacks vision? Mr. Lang lacks vision. Noting that someone lacks vision is not “name-calling.”
Padberg and Wagner were elected as trustees of our college district based on their opposition to the El Toro airport, despite the fact that their opponents were equally opposed to the airport—and, again, college trustees had NO SAY on this issue. Thus they relied on a “phony” issue. Do you deny that politicians sometimes rely on fraudulent and non-genuine issues?
Are you denying that there are corrupt unionists? That the old union was corrupt is easily demonstrated. I cited at least one newspaper article that would make that clear to you, were you to read it.
A “toady” is one who is obsequious. That Chancellor Mathur is obsequious is easily demonstrated and has much to do with our current accreditation difficulty. Chancellors are supposed to keep trustees out of trouble; Mathur has consistently sat back and allowed our board to drive off of a cliff.
That Steven Frogue was a Holocaust denier was one of the grounds for the attempted recall against him. Declarations were made by a large group of unassociated persons to that effect. It was in the papers. Pay attention.

You ignore the central point: that Tom Fuentes and his allies have brought it about that, for the first time in the history of our district, our two colleges face the real possibility of losing their accreditation.

If you doubt this, read the Accreditation letters: http://www.ivc.edu/accreditation/pages/default.aspx & http://www.saddleback.edu/gov/senate/accreditation.html

To Roy Bauer et.al:

As a spam prevention procedure, all comments submitted to OCBLog with a URL (links to other web pages) have to be hand checked by the OC blog editor of that original post before the comment appears. That is why Roy's comment did not appear when the comment was fist posted.

In the future, it would probably be best to split URL containing posts into two pieces:

1. A "normal" URL-free comment, which should appear immediately, and
2. A brief comment with the URL that will appear when the original poster checks his/her email in box and realizes that a comment is awaiting approval.

Thanks for your patience.

Now, if you'll excuse, I'm supposed to be at my daughter's birthday party. Apologies in advance for poor typing /editing.

Anonymous

Why should anyone believe you if you prefer to remain anonymous?
Well, that is not all that important. The truth is that I made the mistake of convincing myself that I was safe in claiming that a majority of the Board had been on the Board for twenty years or more, but you are right I should have checked it out more carefully.

However, I happen to know that I was President of the Faculty Association in 1988-1989 and that I had some interaction with two newly elected Board members, John Williams and Marcia Milchiker.
When I spoke to the Board on December 2007, Marcia Milchiker apologized to me in front of the audience for David Lang having cut me off at the two minute mark. I assume that she remembered me from twenty years ago, but John showed no indication of having remembered me. But that is all beside the point. I have not been attending Board meetings since my tenure as association president until I talked to the Board in December about what I felt was a disservice to Saddleback students. We all know that Bill Jay has been around since the 1970s, but certainly not on the Board all the time since then. No doubt there have been interruptions in his Board service so I don't know whether his interruptions have caused the full time of his service to be less than twenty years. I don't believe any of your figures for obvious reasons. But within a week or two I'll check on them and report my results. All I can say is that I thought I was telling the truth. Certainly I should have checked on what I thought to be true. I certainly would not have stated what I did about the tenure of the current Board members if I had not believed it to be true. But then you don't know that since you don't know me just as I don't know you. What prompted me to disbelieve you was your saying that John Williams had been on the Board for only sixteen years.

As for the two minute tape. Granted I looked old and nervous.
I was pretty unsettled with having to get my point across in two minutes. If you'll recall in my comment I said that I could understand why tylerh misunderstood my presentation. Besides, I had been incorrectly informed that my flyer explaining the issue had been passed out to the Board in advance of my presentation. Because of someone else's mistake it was not. No, Mr Anonymous you can call me a liar if you wish. I won't threaten to sue.

Dear Anonymous,

In the meantime I will take all my claims about the length of service of current Board members off of my blogspot (http://chc12.blogspot.com/) until I have done the reseach I should have done. It will be interesting to find what the records show.

Thanks, TYLERH. I shall certainly follow your advice in future.
I do hope that your daughter had a wonderful B-day party!

Carl,

Thank you for posting. My information on your presentation to the SOCCCD board was second hand; please feel free to use this space to set the record straight.

More importantly, I want you to understand the main point of my post: I do not think you have gained the support of either of the two major factions in this election. Since OC Blog is first and foremost a political blog, I wanted to emphasize this political point. Mentioning your interest in history instruction was merely to add color to a fairly dry post.

Tylerh

You point out that my efforts to seek election to the Board of Trustees of the SOCCCD has a dismal chance of succeeding on account of my not having the support of either of the rival factions on the board. As I will elaborate upon in a few days in my blogspot (http://chc12.blogspot.com/),the board's acrimony has seriously disturbed the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges as indicated in a January 16, 2008 report to the former president of Saddleback College. The incumbent in Area 7 is endorsed by the union in part because of his support for higher salaries for the full timers. Since part timers are paid far less than full timers even on a pro rata basis, the board has been increasing the percentage of part timers as opposed to full timers as a way of cutting costs. So much so that the district has been declared in violation of the law that requires that 50% of expenditures be spent on faculty salaries. Thus the drastic hiring of 38 full timers for the coming school year. These new full timers are not likely to get the thorough circumspection that results in a highly capable faculty. Seemingly the board has failed in one of its most important responsibilities which is to acquire the most highly qualified instructors from across the nation as possible. Of course, administrators, not the board, are the ones who direclty do the hiring, but will these administrators have sufficient time to advertise and interview and the patience to do the job well?