You are on page 1of 84

To: Members of the Coast Community College Board of Trustees

Ken Yglesias, Chancellor, Coast Community College District


Bob Dees, President, Orange Coast College
Melinda Nish. Vice President of Instruction, Orange Coast College
Rich Pagel, Vice President of Administrative Services, Orange Coast College
Jesse Craig, Vice President of Student Services, Orange Coast College
Eduardo de Jesus Arismendi-Pardi, Faculty Senate Orange Coast College
Dean Mancina, CFE-AFT President
David Grant, President, Orange Coast College Foundation Board

Date: August 1, 2008

Re: Evaluation of Orange Coast College Administration: Agreement to Provide Specifics

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Gary Hoffman: Where Are We Going, Where Have We Been? 1

History of Complaints 2005-2007 3

Ann Harmer: Request for Signatures Spring 2008 7


Ann Harmer: Letter: Areas of Concern 20
Ann Harmer: Specific Episodes
Issues of Integrity 21
Failures of Shared Governance 21
Inability to Assess Priorities 22
Unwillingness to Provide Campus Support 24
Compromise of Quality 28

Gary Hoffman: Specific Episodes


A Question of Leadership: Melinda Meets the English Department 34
A Question of Integrity: Melinda and the Division Deans 38

Alex Guillen: Specific Episodes


The Freshman Experience 41

Vinta Oviatt: Specific Episodes


Tampering with Accreditation 52

Helen Dorash: e-mails


Exchange with Jess Craig 64

Joe Marinero: Specific Episode


Dees & Nish 66

Ernie Maurer: Specific Details


Response to Bob Dees 68
Critique of Rich Pagel 73
Overview of Melinda Nish 76

Eve Luckering: An Appeal for Evaluations 79


To: Members of the Coast Community College Board of Trustees
Ken Yglesias, Chancellor, Coast Community College District
Bob Dees, President, Orange Coast College
Melinda Nish, Vice President of Instruction, Orange Coast College
Rich Pagel, Vice President of Administrative Services, Orange Coast College
Jesse Craig, Vice President of Student Services, Orange Coast College
Eduardo Jesus Arismendi-Pardi, Faculty Senate Orange Coast College
David Grant, Pr~sident, Orange Coast College Foundation Board

From: Gary Hoffman, Professor of English OCC

Date: 7-20-08

Re: Where are we going, where have we been?

In a way, one does not choose to be an activist, to work outside the institutional process. There
is no incentive: no release time, no stipend, no conference funds, no honorary mentions, no time
to relax, no nice vibes for sleeping well. Instead there is tension, wrath from administrators who
are dismissive of dissenting voices, alliances with disparate faculty, pissiness from caught-in-the-
middle colleagues whose brown-nosing of administrators gets interrupted, annoyance from
faculty who get what they want so disregard others' complaints, panics from supporters who run,
myriad emails that clutter an already congested inbox.

Even if you thought it was a good thing, most of you couldn't do it.

I became an activist last school year because I, and other respected faculty, experienced arrogant,
patronizing behavior that demonstrated a large degree of contempt for academia and also
because the existing processes for dealing with issues was broken. The campus administration
and academic senate president joined and did not take complaints seriously. One knows the
process is broken when a laughing VPI can tell a department to "go ahead with their French
revolution" if it doesn't get what it wants, and then, when the department nearly unanimously
votes for a boycott-instead of being concerned, asking questions, making moves to resolve the
issue-the administration reacts with shock, rage, and embarrassment

I will not be bullied by anyone: administrators, faculty, or students. I have never had political
ambitions, am not vengeful, am forgiving (but never forgetful), and no one cares more about
OCC than I do. I have devoted most of my life to the campus and continue to do so. I find it
insulting when the president of OCC pretends that, "this is only a small group who is trying to
destroy OCC." Those are divisive, fighting words. First of all the statement is untrue: those who
want to evaluate administrators care deeply about that the campus; and secondly, what difference
would it make if it were a small faculty group? What if that small group spots serious problems?

Which brings me back to the original letter to the board with fifty plus signatures for which we
said we would provide detailed support. There are many faculty who supported the spirit of the
letter but did not want the focus to be on Melinda Nish. Some of these are part of a sisterhood on
campus who would not sign because, as one of them characterized the situation, "Bob is the
snake," and believe Melinda's ineffective management is the result Bob's dictums. The VPI's
supporters see her aggressive management style as strength- although this quality is readily
recognized as crude, patronizing, and nonproductive when practiced by a male administrator.
Aside from this group, many faculty members, despite tenure, do not want to be in the line of fire
and would rather sympathize with faculty complaints from afar. I get clandestine calls from
them. Then there are others who have said their deans asked them not to criticize since it hurt
chances for getting administrative blessings for new programs, full time positions, and budgets.
Others did not want to be part of a group with people who have been demonized such as Ernie
Maurer. (I just met Ernie this year and regardless of what his "bad" was in the past, he exhibited
intelligence and restraint this year and like everyone in the group, I don't feel I have to agree
with him about everything-such as his attached complaints about Rich Pagel.) Still others
don't want to put their "neck on the chopping block" because they believe there is a lack of will
to act on the part of the Chancellor's office and the Board of Trustees, so why waste energy on
writing up details.

However, the main reason you are hearing from just a few of the signatories now, is that faculty,
like elk, are on a seasonal schedule: we put out during the school year and then try to recoup in
the summer. Our issues with negative students, colleagues, and administrators cool off so we
can start over again. Recounting injustices during the summer is counter-productive so several
signatories have opted to start fresh in the fall and still hold hope that faculty will be asked to
complete an anonymous evaluation. Therefore, the packet you have here with different issues
gives you only a taste of what has been going on at OCC over the last few years.

For the campus to heal, the administration needs to spend less covering up serious complaints
with self-congratulating retreats and costly Disney smiles, less time fuming and demonizing the
messenger when criticized, less time spreading propaganda about old guard versus the "new"
which turns out isn' t so new, less time holding to a superficial interpretation of shared
governance, less time throwing money at state mandates (instead of figuring out simple, efficient
solutions) by giving lavish amounts of reassigned time to faculty who are tired of teaching,.and
instead, the administration needs to spend more time thinking about what the diverse teaching
faculty feels the campus needs, considering their solutions and criticisms. If the administration is
sincerely interested in knowing what needs to be improved. then Bob and Ken need to have
EVERYONE evaluate all the VPs and President by actively pushing for the management
association to accept the format Bob talked to Ann Harmer and me about. and not just making a
flimsy request that allows the idea to stall out.

Simultaneously, faculty complaints should be shifted to the academic senate. I want my role as
activist to be over: under more balanced leadership, if the senate cannot get some things
corrected, then the campus will continue to falter and I will try to cut my losses and watch
OCC' s faculty driven campus crumble. But I have hope because at least Dr. Eduardo Jesus
Arismendi-Pardi will not close down critical discussion. I will contribute in different ways to the
senate next year, but it is time for others to put their energies on the line and for the facu1ty,
through their elected representatives, to pass resolutions that will get OCC' s morale and shared
governance to where it should be.

s~~1~------~
Gary Hoffman
English Dept. OCC
February 6, 2006

To: Melinda Nish, Vice President of Instruction

From: Sharon Daniel, Professor of Biological Sciences


Ann Harmer, Professor of Biological Sciences

Subject Hoag Multimedia Lab

Dear Melinda:

It has been brought to our attention that there is to be a reorganization of the management of
instructional computers on campus. We understand that the Hoag Multimedia Lab is being
considered in that re-organization. Since we wrote the initial National Science Foundation
(NSF) grant to build that laboratory, we would like to share with you our perspective on the
Hoag Lab, as well as our concerns about its future.

The Hoag lab is a unique facility for several reasons.


It was built with grant funds from NSF, VATEA, and the Hoag Family
Foundation. The granting agencies expect awardees to respect and adhere to
the conditions of the grant. This includes equipment purchase, software,
management, and student use.
Student users must be enrolled in Life Sciences or Allied Health courses- it
is not a lab that is open to the entire campus, largely because of the
specialized nature of the software supported by the lab.
Reginald Lewis, lab supervisor, was hired by the Hoag Lab steering
committee. His supervisor is the Dean of Mathematics and Sciences. His
job description includes managing specialized software, organizing the
software to meet specific instructor needs, and maintaining the hardware.
This process has taken years, and Reggie is unique in his understanding of
both the equipment and the software. His office is adjacent to the lab so that
he can monitor students and software use and trouble shoot as necessary.
This office also serves to secure software and maintain equipment.
Reggie was notified of this administrative decision by Tony Salas. Mr. Salas did not make
an appointment with Reggie to discuss the situation with him, nor did he make an effort to
contact Reggie's supervisor. There has been no effort on Mr. Salas' part to speak with the
instructors involved so that he might understand the workings of the lab. Instead, Mr. Salas
behaved in an unprofessional manner, demanding that Reggie give him specific restricted
information and adding a number of "requirements" to Reggie's current obligations. Mr.
Salas' tone was aggressive and threatening, so much so that Reggie is apprehensive about
his job security.
We are concerned that Reggie's supervisor, Bob Denton, was not notified of the impending
changes, nor were any of the Life Sciences or Allied Health faculty. We are concerned that
years of effort will be negated by re-organizing a system that works effectively. We are
concerned that the administration is doing so without the input of those affected. We are
concerned that the educational process for the thousands of life science and allied health
students who use this lab will be adversely affected.
We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter with you in person. We feel
strongly that this is a decision that will adversely affect the ability of two large divisions to
educate their students.

Sincerely,

Sharon K. Daniel Ann T. Harmer


Professor of Biological Sciences Professor of Biological Sciences

CC: Bob Denton, Interim Dean, Mathematics and Sciences


Kevin Ballinger, Dean, Consumer and Health Sciences
February 22, 2007

Bob Dees, President


Melinda Nish, Vice President of Instruction
Roger Abernathy, Dean, Mathematics and Sciences Division

Subject: Reginald Lewis' Position

We are requesting that Reginald Lewis, supervisor of the Hoag Multimedia Laboratory, be
given a 12-month assignment Reggie's have increased considerably since he was first
hired seven years ago.
There has been an increase in the number of computers he must maintain.
There have been changes in software requiring him to re-write a minimum of 14lab
exercises
We have, at the request of the Administration, added many new lab sections, some of
which meet on Saturdays.
We offer an either-week summer program that serves as many as 140 students.

The increased work load has prevented Reggie from taking his vacation hours, and now he
forced to lose some of them. Reggie's job is primarily instructional: he instructs students
in the use of the LAN, guides them through multiple lab exercises and data collection
assignments, and keeps all the equipment operational.

If we are to offer additional lab sections, support staff needs to be increased as well. This
includes Reprographics, A-V, and, most certainly, the Hoag Multimedia lab.

Please take this request into consideration. If we cannot support the students outside the
classroom, we will lose them. Reggie provides much of that support.

Sincerely,

Cherryl Baker, Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences

Sharon Daniel, Professor of Biological Sciences

Ann Harmer, Professor of Biological Sciences


May 11,2007
To: Bob Dees, President, Orange Coast College
Melinda Nish, Vice President of Instruction, Orange Coast College
Coast Community District Board of Trustees
Ken Yglesias, Chancellor, Coast Community District
Academic Senate, Orange Coast College

From: Concerned Faculty and Staff, Mathematics and Sciences Division, OCC

Com-mu-ni-ty n. a group of people with a common background or with shared interests


within a society.

For the first time in the 60-year history of Orange Coast College, a number of full time
tenured Mathematics and Sciences division faculty members are actively soliciting jobs at
other institutions. This disturbing situation has been developing over the past several years.
Our concerns include:

1. An overall absence of administrative presence in academic settings


[Please be clear that our Dean, Roger Abernathy, a man we all respect and admire,
is not included in our definition of "administration."]
2. A lack of respect for and trust in the faculty and staff
3. Lack of support for existing programs and facilities that make OCC
a unique and well-respected institution
4. Lack of appropriate release time to assist with administrative duties such
scheduling and department chair responsibilities
5. Lack of transparency in the planning and budgeting processes
6. Loss of shared governance and our sense of collegiality and community
7. Unwillingness to work toward creative financing solutions for hiring a grant
writer
8. Disillusionment as a result of promises made (or implied) by the current
administration
9. Lack of administrative support for development of novel instructional
techniques
10. Mishandling of student disciplinary matters

Math and science instruction at OCC has enjoyed a superb reputation for many years. This
reputation is built on the quality of our faculty , the quality of our programs, the quality of
our facilities and the quality of our institution. A reputation takes years to build and effort to
maintain. A moment of careless disregard can rapidly destroy these gains. Our reputation is
currently threatened.

We, the undersigned, cannot stand by and watch this happen without making an effort to
preserve what we have worked so hard to build. We hope that this letter will provide a
mechanism for opening a meaningful dialog. We trust that the college administration is open
to problem solving and healing the rifts that have developed.
February 12, 2008

My Esteemed Colleagues:

I am writing this letter as your Senator-at-Large Representative since I do not have authorization
to send you a mass email. During the first few weeks of my term as a newly elected Senator-at-
Large I was informed that my inquiries to you, the faculty I represent, needed the approval by the
Academic Senate President. I accepted that response and tried to talk to as many people as I
could, but I could never get a clear picture of the issues you wished for me to represent on your
behalf Before we had emails, when I was Vice President of the Academic Senate under the
senate leadership of then Presidents Mike Leigh and then Toni Iseman, I communicated with the
faculty via written memos and letters.

As members of our academic community, I believe that shared governance and democratic
participation in academic and professional matters affecting the practice of education is of
paramount importance in relation to academic freedom as well as freedom of speech and
opinions, no matter how controversial they may be. Another Senator-at-Large and I have asked
President Monahan to include an item on next week's agenda to allow the senate to suspend the
rules for the purposes of election of officers by secret ballot from the constituency we represent.
In some of the deliberations we have had with the Executive Board, there is concern that voting
tum-out is usually low and this may very well be the case. However, lower voter-turnout is not,
in my opinion, a reason for circumventing the electoral process of the Executive Board.
Democratic participation is rooted in our tradition as Americans living in a free enterprise society
with liberty and justice for all.

Finally, as an American, I believe that disenfranchising even one voter robs our faculty of its
collective voice. I ask you to contact your elected Division Senator representatives as well as
Senators-at-Large and ask them to support suspension of the By-Laws for the purposes of
conducting a fair election of the Executive Board who should represent all our diverse faculty. I
value the opportunity to represent your voice at this critical time. I have provided a list of the
senators on the reverse side of letter so you can contact your representatives to express your
view.

Most Respectfully,

;:. Eduardo Jesus


Professor ofMathematics
Senator-at-Large

/,.
Danielle Scane dscane@occ.cccd.edu.
Business and Computing Division Senator X21213
Darryl Isaac disaac@occ.cccd.edu
AS Parlamentarian X25549
Consumer and Health Sciences Division Senator
Rob Schneiderman rschneid@occ.cccd.edu
Counseling Division Senator X25187
Marta Cabral mcabrall@occ.cccd.edu
BOPS Division Senator X21246
John Dale jdale@occ.cccd.edu
Librai)' and Media Services Division Senator X21056
Jennifer Chaiyakal jchai~akal@occ.cccd.edu
Senator-at-Large X21009
Georgie Monahan gmonah!Pl@occ.cccd.edu
AS President X25150
Senator-at-Large
Karen Felts kfelts@occ.cccd.edu
Literature and Languages Division Senator X25593
Melissa Berta mberm@occ.cccd.edu
AS Vice President X25503
Mathematics and Sciences Division Senator
Leon Skeie lskeie@occ.cccd.edu
PE and Athletics Division Senator X25112
Laura Behr lbehr@occ.cccd.edu
Senator-at-Large X21305
Candy Pettus CPettus@occ.cccd.edu
AS Secretary X21275
Senator-at-Large
Bill Galvery bgalve!Y@occ.cccd.edu
Senator-at-LaJ-ge X25820
Thomas Steinfeld tsteinfeld@occ.cccd.edu
Senator-at-Large X25567
Richard Hutchison rhutchis@occ.cccd.edu
Technology Division Senator X25674
Agatha Ibrassaonian aibrassonian@occ.cccd.edu
Visual and Performing Arts Division Senator X21149
Ann Wynne awvnne@occ.cccd.edu
Social & behavioral Sciences Senator X25863
Eduardo Jesus Arismendi-Pardi earismendi~ardi@occ.cccd. edu
Senator-at-Large BabaluElRe~Sol@aol.com
X25503
Ernie Maurer emaurer@occ.cccd. edu
Senator-at-large X21278
Anna Hanlon ahanlon@occ.cccd.edu
Senator-at-Large X21007
Art Moore amoore@occ.cccd.edu
Mathematics and Sciences Division Senator 25680
To: The Coast Community College District Board
Cc: Dr. Ken Yglesias, Chancellor, Coast Community College District
Bob Dees, President, Orange Coast College
Dean Mancina, President, Coast Federation of EducatorS AFf/AFL-CIO Local 1911
Georgie Monahan, President, Academic Senate, Orange Coast College

Re: REQUEST FOR PROCEDURE FOR FACULTY EVALUATlON OF ORANGE COAST


COLlEGE'S TOP LEVEL ADMINISTRATORS:

From: Patricia Arfsten (Counseling), Cherryl Baker (Biology), Ted Bandaruk (Biology.), Donna
Barnard (English), Jamie Blair (Math), Carole Chardonnay (Music), Nick Coritopolous (Astronomy), Joe
Cortez (Machine Tech), Tom Dowling (Art), Sharon Daniel (Biology), Dottie Duddridge (Dance),
Benjamin.Figueroa (Counseling), Donovan Gaytan (English), Steve Goetz (Counseling), Tamar Goldman
(ESL), Alex Guillen (Counseling)~ Ann Hanner (Anatomy), Gary Hoffman (English); Glynis Hoffman
(English), Nicolette Jackson (Counseling), Don D. Jennings (Art), Shin Karasuda (CoJiiP.~ter Science)~
Anna Katsuki (Counseling), Patrick Kennedy (English), Stacy Kirch (Counseling), Dr. AndrewKoines
(Math), Michael Lee (Speech), John Lenanton (Ornamental Horticulture), Reginald Lewis (Hoag
Multimedia Lab Supervisor), Eve Luckring (Art), Elias Marron (Counseling), Ernie.MaiJrer
(Aviation/Space), Doug Millikin (Math), Art Moore (Math), Hillary Mushkin (Art), Jessica Nguyen
(Counseling), Marcella Norling (Fhilosophy), Dr. Eduardo Jesus Arismendi-Pardi (Math), Steve
Robinson (Art), David Rodriguez (Construction), Susanna SaleSsi (Italian/Spanish), Rob Schneiderman
(Counseling), Linda Sohl-Ellison {Dance), Diane Sullivan (Biology Instructional Associate)~ Mike Taylor
(PFJ English), Jose Villalobos (Math) (Anyone else wishing to sign thiS letter, sign at
the end and return to Ann Harmer in Science 144 or her JPBilbox then eDiail her at
harroerann@netscape.net by March 31 before the April Z District Board Meeting~)

.Date: 3-19-08

Dear Trustees:

Many Orange Coast College faculty are concerned about a disturbing culfuial:shift withiti the
current administration, a .shift that is dampening the enthusiastic spirit whjch has characterized
OCC as a premier institution serving and promoting the best and brightest. A list of current
complaints would address the issues of the moment; our reflections on this situation, however,
have brought into focus a larger concern for. both today and the future: How does the faculty at
large provide the board of trustees 'Yith information.to assist in their process of evaluating top
level college administrators when.considering contract renewals or terminations?

There is no process by which the faculty collectively can respond, either positively or critically,
to the experience of working with a college president and vice president, short of individual
letters of praise or an organized voie of no confidence. We would like to ask-for a formal
procedure through which we cap. share our experiences, concerns and recorrimendaf:ions with the
board. We would like the procedure to begin immediately with vice president of instruction
Melinda Nish.

At present, there are serious concerns about the manner in which VP Nish has chosen to
implement her vision for our college. There is no clear avenue to present these concerns to the
board and to be able to do so without repercussions. We are asking for a fair, safe, and
transparent system for communicating our concerns. It is our belief that we can offer feedback
in this process that will be a positive ad~tion to the decision making process the board faces
with in these matters. OVER
Topics of evaluation should include the following with an evaluation scale:
Possesses the ability to establish trustworthy relationships with all faculty.
Understands what faculty needs to best serve their students.
Demonstrates a commitment .to a transparent and collegial process of governance.
Demonstrates a respect of faculty expertise in program planning and review.
Inspires confidence that management has a commitment to the goals of academic
excellence and program Integrity.
Possesses reflecti:ve listening skills and an ability to convince with logic.
A voids .rushes to judgment and understands programs and positions, their history and
invested participants, before making major changes.
Balances management goals with academic goals set by faculty.
Makes ethical decisions prescribed in Title V and in accordance with faculty primacy of
the curriculum and subject matter equivalency.
Brings together differences ofopinion into practical, meaningful compromises.
Demonstrates fair and equitable use of reassigned time for non..:instructional, faculty-
performed tasks.
Demonstrates intelligent and equitable use of the "right of assignment" principle in
concert with open dialogue and input from the faculty.
Added: Successfully employs innovative recruiting and marketing tec~ques that
promote a quality classroom and campus experiences for students.

A similar evaluation for Classified staff to.evaluate these top administrators might also be
appropriate. Thank you for your consideration;

Signature Print Name Deparbnent

/tj~~w;J;:_ Nrc,;;/~s WP.tJER-


BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING
APRIL 2, 2008

STATEMENT OF CONCERNS

A number ofOCC faculty and staff are here tonight to


demonstrate our concerns about upper management at our
college. This is an attempt to implement a campus-wide,
transparent evaluation process, one that allows feedback that
is necessary for quality instruction. Our administration, the
president and VPs, behave as though all is well and they are
performing in a stellar fashion. Unfortunately, in our opinion,
that is not the case. Only recently, after we began this
process, has an existing evaluation procedure come to light-
one whose existence had to be pried out of the president, and
which wasn't even mentioned by the chancellor or senate
president. If the existing managerial behavioral survey were
distributed to all campus employees and returned
anonymously, I believe the administrators would be surprised
by how little confidence their faculty and staff have in their
abilities. For this meeting, I have listed some of our concerns.
Other ~peakers will address additional topics. We have copies
of the list for Board members and other interested parties.

Why do we need an evaluation process?


Use of platitudes and fallacious logic when questions
cannot (or will not) be answered
Management by intimidation and bullying
Exertion of editorial control over accreditation reports
Failure to address faculty concerns-even after multiple
attempts by multiple faculty to solve these problems.
What issues must be addressed in a valid evaluation
process?
Unwillingness to implement consequences for academic
misconduct
Absence of shared governance
Unequal distribution of release time
Marked decline of the college's occupational and
academic programs
Alteration of instructional equipment without notification
of affected instructors or course assistants
Micromanagement
Proactive interference of administrators in curriculum
changes, facility changes, and program curtaUments.

The bottom line is that our mission to the students, and to


instruction, is being systematically destroyed. We were hired
to TEACH, and the students are here to learn. But the
administrators are not supporting TEACHING.

Thank you for your time.

fD
Prepared for the
Board of Trustees Meeting
April 2, 2008

STATEMENT OF CONCERNS

Why do we need an evaluation process?


Use of platitudes and fallacious logic when questions
cannot (or will not) be answered
Management by intimidation and bullying
Exertion of editorial control over accreditation reports
Failure to address faculty concerns-even after multiple
attempts by multiple fac_u lty to solve problems.
Issues that must be addressed in a valid evaluation process:
Unwillingness to implement consequences for academic
misconduct
Absence of shared governance
Unequal distribution of release time
Marked decline of the college's occupational and
academic programs
Alteration of instructional equipment without notification
of affected instructors or course assistants
Micromanagement
Proactive interference of administrators in curriculum
changes, facility changes, and program curtailments.

Ll
The reason we did not address the issue of administrative evaluations
with the Academic Senate is twofold:

First, faculty have loss confidence in the current Senate leadership in


concert with a perception that the AS appears to be disconnected
with faculty matters in professional and academic issues in relation
the students we serve as delineated in Title 5 of California Education
Code.

Prof. Gary Hoffman pointed out in his interview with the Daily Pilot
on the 25th of.this month that faculty concerns are either diverted or
stonewalled in an effort to be in sync with the current top-down
approach of the upper echelons of our college
administrative/management offices.

Second, faculty feel that the recorded AS minutes lack transparency


in terms of opinions and concerns being discussed and instead the
minutes appear to be a surgical realignment with discussions not
endorsed by the original speaker. Supporting documents related to
the issues at hand have either been removed or circumscribe to thus
maintain the cold corporate mentality that was once foreign to all of
us.
Anne's speech
BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEEfiNG APRIL 2, 2008
STATEMENT OF CONCERNS

A number of OCC faculty and staff are here tonight to demonstrate our concerns
about upper management at our college. This is an attempt to implement a campus-
wide, transparent evaluation process, one that allows feedback that is necessary for
quality instruction. Our administration, the president and VPs, behave as though all
is well and they are performing in a stellar fashion. Unfortunately, in our opinion,
that is not the case. Only recently, after we began this process, has an existing
evaluation procedure come to light- one whose existence had to be pried out of the
president, and which wasn't even mentioned by the chancellor or senate president If
the existing managerial behavioral survey were distributed to all campus employees
and returned anonymously, I believe the administrators would be surprised by how
little confidence their faculty and staff have in their abilities. For this meeting, I have
listed some of our concerns. Other speakers will address additional topics. We
have copies of the list for Board members and other interested parties.

Why do we need.an evaluation process?


Use of platitudes and fallacious logic when questions cannot (or will not) be
answered
Management by intimidation and bullying
Exertion of editorial control over accreditation reports
Failure to address faculty concerns-even after multiple attempts by multiple
faculty to solve these problems.

What issues must be addressed in a valid evaluation process?


Unwillingness to implement consequences for academic misconduct
Absence of shared governance
Unequal distribution of release time
Marked decline of the college's occupational and academic programs
Alteration of instructional equipment without notification of affected instructors
or course assistants
Micromanagement
Proactive interference of administrators in curriculum changes, facility changes,
and program curtailments.

The bottom line is that our mission to the students, and to instruction, is being
systematically destroyed. We were hired to TEACH, and the students are here to
learn. But the administrators are not supporting TEACHING.

Thank you for your time.


0 Gary's speech
0
0 Over 30 years ago, the last time I was here, we had a hard-working chancellor
who had done a lot for the district (one project he did with me). But then he
started to run amuck. He had a love affair with technology, so ignored calls for
quality distance learning via television (some courses looked like SAT Night live
routines) and calls for checks on the integrity of students taking the courses, so
the faculty pushed back resulting in courses not being accepted for UC transfer,
then he lashed back in anger and fired people, so the faculty lead a recall of every
board member that failed to check the main man's craziness. The faculty
prevailed.

0 I was proud over 30 years ago and am today to be part of a faculty group that is
willing to say there are some hard-working administrators who have run amuck
and instead of working fairly with the faculty, have often resorted to stonewalling,
lying, disrespectfulness, and creating false gossip to set up straw man arguments.

0 People who know me know that I am not a vengeful, that I treat people who are
out of favor with me with the same fairness as everyone else, that I believe in
speaking my mind, then cutting my losses. I am very good at moving on. I am not
here to get even with anyone but to ask for a process that lets the chancellor know
when administrators undermine the faculty because it is the faculty that gives a
college distinction and that draws students to a campus.

0 All during the discussion to come up with an evaluation system, the


administration never mentioned that a process already existed until KarCarroll in
speech asked point-blank. The appendix G of this process (which I will give you)
is remarkably similar to what we asked for in the letter we sent to you, but has the
advantage of already being approved by the district. So with just a few added
rules, it could be ready to be used immediately by everyone on campus who is
affected by the policies and priorities and behavior of the administration. In fact,
we see no reason why the process cannot start next week as a pilot program
applying to any top administrator whose contract is up for renewal soon and then
be extended next year to other administrators at OCC and maybe other campuses.

0 This is what we are asking for. I think if you implement it you will avoid lots of
angry turmoil as well as gag-y, gushy praises:

EVALUATION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENTS


AT ORANGE COAST COLLEGE

1. The president and vice presidents will be evaluated every two years.

2. There must be at least one evaluation described below of any president


or vice president before the renewal of their contracts.
3. Any faculty member or classified staff member or dean who has
knowledge of the policies, priorities, behavior, and goals of the president
and vice presidents will be allowed to participate in the evaluation.

4. The evaluations will be conducted by the district chancellor's office and


the district chancellor will analyze the results.

5. The district chancellor will review the results with the president when the
president is evaluated and with the president and respective vice
president when a vice president is evaluated. The results will otherwise
be kept confidential.

6. The chancellor will use the results to either help the administrator
improve his or her performance and to decide whether or not to renew
the administrator's contract.

7. The evaluation will include only two items from the existing, district
approved Management Evaluation Process of July 2006:
(a) The existing Manager Behavioral Survey, Appendix G (attached)
(b) Comments (Please feel free to expand or offer comments on any
of your responses to this survey.)
Despite their acknowledgement that our proposal has "great merit," the administration
has responded to our fair and constructive request by disparaging its esteemed faculty to
our colleagues, our students and the community, labeling us as "bullies," "disgruntled,"
"second rate" teachers and "rogue professors" who want to ruin the reputation of OCC.
In publicly and privately cannibalizing its faculty-the college's most valuable asset-it
is the administration that creates a dispiriting atmosphere and that threatens the reputation
ofOCC.

You might be saying to yourself, "Isn't that a double standard- that faculty can criticize
its administration, yet administrators must refrain from criticizing its faculty?" You bet it
is. Students don't come to OCC because of its president or vice presidents; they come
because of the great professors and programs. It's our professional obligation to offer
constructive criticism to administration about how the college should best meet the needs
of our students and support our programs, and to let the administration know where they
fall short. We hope that with the evaluation process, administration will stop attacking
the messenger and finally confront the message.

J{p
Thu, May 15, 2008 2:09PM

Subject: BOARD MINUTES


Date: Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:05 PM
From: Glynis Goldfisher Hoffman <uglynis@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Glynis Goldfisher Hoffman <uglynis@earthlink.net>
To: <tbandaruk@occ.cccd.edu>, <dbarnard@occ.cccd.edu>, <jblair@occ.cccd.edu>,
<maestra007@earthlink.net>, <ncontopo@occ.cccd.edu>, <jcortez@occ.cccd.edu>,
<tdowling@occ.cccd.edu>, <sdaniel@oc.c.cccd.edu>, <bfiguero@occ.cccd.edu>,
<tgarriso@occ.cccd.edu>, <dgaytan@occ.cccd.edu>, <sgoetz@occ.cccd.edu>,
<tgoldman@occ.cccd.edu>, <lgordon@occ.cccd.edu>, <aguillen@occ.cccd.edu>,
<aharmer@occ.cccd.edu>, <ghoffmanl@occ.cccd.edu>, <ghoffman@occ.cccd.edu>,
<njackson@occ.cccd.edu>, <djennings@occ.cccd.edu>, <skarasud@occ.cccd.edu>,
<akatsuki@occ.cccd.edu>, <dkelly@occ.cccd.edu>, <pkennedy@occ.cccd.edu>,
<skirch@occ.cccd.edu>, <akoines@occ.cccd.edu>, <mleigh@occ.cccd.edu>,
<jlenanto@occ.cccd.edu>, <eluckrin@occ.cccd.edu>, <emarron@occ.cccd.edu>,
<emaurer@occ.cccd.edu>, <lmccall@occ.cccd.edu>, <dmillikin@occ.cccd.edu>,
<amoore@occ.cccd.edu>, <hmushkin@occ.cccd.edu>, <jnguyen@occ.cccd.edu>,
<mnorling@occ.cccd.edu>, <voviatt@occ.cccd.edu>, <jpeters@occ.cccd.edu>,
<srobinso@occ.cccd.edu>, <drodrigu@occ.cccd.edu>, <ssalessi@occ.cccd.edu>,
<rschneid@occ.cccd.edu>, <isohl@occ.cccd.edu>, <mtaylor@occ.cccd.edu>,
<jvillalo@occ.cccd.edu>, <nwinters@occ.cccd.edu>
Conversation: BOARD MINUTES

Dear Supporters of Faculty Evaluation of the President and VPs.

Earlier this week, Ann Harmer sent you copies of the comments made by the four speakers;
below are an unofficial summary of the minutes:

On Wednesday, April 2, Ann Harmer presented our proposal to the Coast Community College
Board of Trustees in the "public comments" section of the meeting . Ann made an earnest
plea about our general concerns with administration without mentioning any specific
administrator by name. No specific incidents were given, as we were told by the board
not to get into "personnel issues" a nd specific complaints-those particulars are what we
hope to communicate in the evaluation.

Following Ann's comments, Eduardo Jesus Arismendi-Pardi addressed criticisms and


explained why we had not worked through the senate to voice our concerns. Eduardo listed
briefly and generally some of the issues with the senate.

Following Eduardo, Gary Hoffman reiterated Ann's proposal, stressing the urgency for
faculty to provide feedback to the board and chancellor, and suggesting we could use the
existing evaluation process, "tweaking it slightly" and making it available to all
faculty and classified.

Lastly, Glynis Hoffman addressed the board regarding the disparaging remarks made by
administrators about those who have signed the petition.

ALL FOUR "PUBLIC COMMENT" WERE EMAILED EARLIER THIS WEEK.

As expected, our public comments were followed by several people in support of Melinda
and/or in defense of the senate as a fair and functioning body-Paul Asim, Nicole Lloyd,
Carol Flowers, Suzanne Scholz , Allison Paine, Robert Bise, Diane Colvin, and Ali Ahmed.
The speakers focused on general, positive changes Melinda had contributed (Flowers
credited Nish with our increased enrollment), the support the VP had shown them
Page 1 of 2

t'1
personally, and how she had been accessible and open as vice president. Allison Paine
spoke in support of the classified and expressed support for the classified to also
participate in the evaluation. At one point, Trustee Ruiz stopped Paine from a personal
attack on Gary Hoffman.

Bob Bise said that the four speakers needed to give particulars otherwise what was said
amounted to "slander," but also that he believed there should be an evaluation process;
he then gave a lecture on economics. Diane Colvin said she thought it was ashamed that
issues had become so divisive and urged faculty to work it out with administration.

Though no administrators were ever mentioned by name, Student Ali Ahmed said he was
shocked by the "mud slingi ng" and stated that he had never seen any of the four speakers
at the senate (though, as a senator-at-large Eduardo regularly attends and Gary and
Glynis have attended recent meetings). Barbara Price stated that the part-time faculty
supported the evaluation process and would like to be included. Several other supporters
of the Vice President who had filled out cards to speak, including Kevin Ballinger, opted
to yield comments.

Michael Mandelkern said the manager's associati on would want to be included in the
process and he supported the classified being able to evaluate top administrators.

After the comments, Joe Quarles vice chancellor for human resources, said that we
probably didn't realize that a process existed (though both Gary and Ann had addressed
that we did know and were merely asking to add to the existing process); Quarl es claimed
that the evaluation process was working well. Gary asked for and was granted by Trustee
Ruiz a quick comment - in response to Quarles-reiterating that we did know there was an
evaluation process, but that we were asking that it be made available to all faculty,
staff, and deans because we are all affected by the policies, priorities, and behavior of
top administrators, not just the people who work closely with them or who directly report
to them. Gary noted that when faculty are evaluated by their students, they don't get to
pick the students that will give favorabl e evaluations; all students get an opportunity.
Trustee Howald acknowledged that the current process was "by invitation" only. Gary also
used the opportunity to reinforce that we had not brought particulars to the board (in
response to Bise's criticism) because we were told that the board had wanted us to be
brief and that we hoped to communicate those specifics in the evaluation.

Among other signers of the proposal-Pat Arfsten, Sharon Dainel, Nick Contopoulous, Ernie
Mauer, Dennis Kelly, Alex Guillen-also attended the board meeting and could provide a
more personalized perspective and their reactions to the meeting.

Ann, Gary and Eduardo will follow-up with the chancellor, who is out of town this week,
next week and then we will all need to decide how to proceed.

One final note, on April 3, the day, after the board meeting, Ann Harmer was awarded and
honored as faculty member of the year. Congratulations to Ann and our thanks to her for
her strength in leading these efforts.

Page 2 of 2
Thu, May 15, 2008 2:22 PM

Subject: RE: Board Minutes


Date: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:56 AM
From: Katsuki, Anna <akatsuki@occ.cccd.edu>
To: Glynis Goldfisher Hoffman <uglynis@earthlink.net>, <tbandaruk@occ.cccd.edu>,
"Barnard, Donna" <dbarnard@occ.cccd.edu>, "Blair, Jamie" <jblair@occ.cccd.edu>,
<maestra007@earthlink.net>, "Contopoulos, Nick" <ncontopo@occ.cccd.edu >, "Cortez,
Joe" <jcortez@occ.cccd.edu>, "Dowling, Tom" <tdowling@occ.cccd.edu>, "Daniel,
Sharon" <sdaniel@occ.cccd.edu>, "Figuero, Bejamin" <bfiguero@occ.cccd.edu>,
"Garrison, Tom" <tgarrison@occ.cccd.edu>, "Gaytan, Donovan"
<dgaytan@occ.cccd.edu>, "Goetz, Steve" <sgoetz@occ.cccd.edu>,
<tgoldman@occ.cccd.edu>, "Gordon, Lee" <lgordon@occ.cccd.edu>, "Guillen, Alex"
<aguillen@occ.cccd.edu>, "Harmer, Ann" <aharmer@occ.cccd.edu>, "Hoffman, Gary"
<ghoffman1@occ.cccd.edu>, "Hoffman, Glynis" <ghoffman@occ.cccd.edu>, "Jackson,
Nicolette" <njackson@occ.cccd.edu>, <djennings@occ.cccd.edu>, "Karasuda, Shin"
<skarasuda@occ.cccd.edu>, "Kelly, Dennis" <dkelly@occ.cccd.edu>, "Kennedy, Patrick"
<pkennedy@occ.cccd.edu>, "Kirch, Stacy" <skirch@occ.cccd.edu>, "Koines, Andrew"
<akoines@occ.cccd.edu>, "Leigh, Mike" <mleigh@occ.cccd.edu>, "Lenanton, John"
<jlenanton@occ.cccd.edu>, "Luckring, Eve" <eluckring@occ.cccd.edu>, "Marron, Elias"
<emarron@occ.cccd.edu>, "Maurer, Ernie" <emaurer@occ.cccd.edu>, "McCall, Leslie"
<lmccall@occ.cccd.edu >, "Millikin, Doug" <dmillikin@occ.cccd.edu>, "Moore, Art"
<amoore@occ.cccd.edu>, "Mushkin, Hillary" <hmushkin@occ.cccd.edu>, "Nguyen,
Jessica" <jnguyen@occ.cccd.edu>, "Norling, Marcella" <mnorling@occ.cccd.edu>,
"Oviatt, Vinta" <voviatt@occ.cccd.edu>, "Peters, Jennifer" <jpeters@occ.cccd.edu>,
<srobinso@occ.cccd.edu>, <drodrigu@occ.cccd.edu>, "Salessi, Susana"
<ssalessi@occ.cccd.edu>, "Schneiderman, Rob" <rschneiderman@occ.cccd.edu>,
<isohl@occ.cccd.edu>, "Taylor, Michael" <mtaylor@occ.cccd.edu>,
<jvillalo@occ.cccd.edu>, <nwinters@occ.cccd.edu>
Conversation: Board Minutes

I have only been here 14 years and I have never been "invited" to do an evaluation for a
VP or President, my Dean yes. I am eval~ated and I would like the same opportunity.
Just for the record, student enrollment and the increase of it is the result of t eam
work-not one individual on this campus.
Anna Katsuki

-----Original Message-----
From: Glynis Goldfisher Hoffman [mailto:uglynis@earthlink.net)
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:16 PM
To: tbandaruk@occ.cccd.edu; Barnard, Donna; Blair, Jamie; maestra007@earthlink.net;
Contopoulos, Nick; Cortez, Joe; Dowling, Tom; Daniel, Sharon; Figuero, Bejamin; Garrison,
Tom; Gaytan, Donovan; Goetz, Steve; tgoldman@occ.cccd.edu; Gordon, Lee; Guillen , Alex;
Harmer, Ann; Hoffman, Gary; Hoffman, Glynis; Jackson, Nicolette; djennings@occ.cccd.edu;
Karasuda, Shin; Katsuki, Anna; Kelly, Dennis; Kennedy, Patrick; Kirch, Stacy; Koines,
Andrew; Leigh, Mike; Lenanton, John; Luckring, Eve; Marron, Elias; Maurer, Ernie; McCall,
Leslie; Millikin, Doug; Moore, Art; Mushkin, Hillary; Nguyen, Jessica; Norling, Marcella;
Oviatt, Vinta; Peters, Jennifer; srobinso@occ.cccd.edu; drodrigu@occ.cccd.edu; Salessi,
Susana; Schneiderman, Rob; isohl@occ.cccd.edu; Taylor, Michael; jvillalo@occ.cccd.edu;
nwinters@occ.cccd.edu
Subject: Board Minutes

Page 1 of 3
July 30, 2008

Coast Community College District


Board of Trustees
1370 Adams Avenue
Costa Mesa CA 92626

Subject: Areas of Concern about OCC's Administration

Copies to: Ken Yglesias, Chancellor, Coast Community College District


Bob Dees, President, Orange Coast College
Melinda Nish, Vice President of Instruction, Orange Coast College
Jesse Craig, Vice President of Student Services, Orange Coast College
David Grant, President, Orange Coast College Foundation Board
California Community College Accreditation Commission
State Chancellor's Office for Community Colleges

To Whom It May Concern:

The attached packet of materials contains information on first hand experiences. Most of them
were my personal experiences, the remainder related to me under the condition that the person
would remain anonymous. The reason for the anonymity will be revealed in the packet.

My rationale, and that of the anonymous reporters, is simple: we fear for the future of OCC.
Most of us have been employed at the college for decades. We love OCC, we love its history,
and we see amazing, wonderful changes taking place on campus. Our issue lies with the current
administration, particularly President Bob Dees and VPI Melinda Nish, who have managed to
destroy the spirit of cooperation and collegiality that has always been OCC's hallmark. Morale is
at an all-time low. The California Community College Accreditation Commission has put us on
"warning" that we may lose our accreditation.

Dees and Nish have created an "us versus them" atmosphere, in which you are either with "us" or
you are a "disgruntled faculty member." Disagreement is not allowed- not without retribution.
Something is going on here, and it is not good.

The enclosed packet lists some of the major issues I, personally, have experienced, or heard first-
band from those who have. I realize it is a lot to digest. But please, if you care about OCC and
wish to see it survive with its reputation intact, read the reports. Make recommendations. You
are in a position to do so. We are not. We ask your assistance in saving our college.

Ann T. Harmer
Professor Emeritus, Biological Sciences
Orange Coast College
1 . Level o f Demonstrated Integrity
When we began this process-and the process only
entails asking for all of us to be able to evaluate
administrators when their actions affect us-it became
apparent that , although more than a few individuals
(including several division deans) had concerns , not
many were willing to step up even to request an
evaluation process . Many said to me , "Thanks for
doing what you are doing . I ' d help but I ' m in fear
for my job . " Or "don' t give up the fight! I wish I
could help, but I ' d be farmed out to the back 40 . "
"I ' m afraid I ' d lose my job if I said anything against
the administration . " "I ' m so close to retirement I
can' t put my head up now . She (Melinda) would make my
life miserable!" This implies that many employees work
in an atmosphere of fear, and that they feel so
intimidated by the current administration that they
are afraid to even express their opinions . No first
amendment rights here, no sir! The feeling of
collegiality and community, developed at OCC over the
past 60 years , is dwindling rapidly . Employees feel
oppressed and unable to express themselves openly .
Talented full - time faculty are actively seeking
p ositions elsewhere-something that has never happened
on this campus . I find this appalling . And when
confronted about any issue , to a person, the
administrators will look you right in the eye and say
"I have no idea what you are talking about . "
Astonishing .

When Melinda got wind of our proposal to have the


entire campus evaluate her and Bob, she , quite
l iterally, lost it . She screamed at Roger Abernathy,
Dean of Math and Science , as well as Michael
Mandelkern, Dean of Literature and Language, that they
" ...had better get your people under control !" Roger
then came to Sharon and I and nearly begged us not to
sign the letter, and that he had been told by Melinda
he needed to stop us from signing. [Remember, the
letter ONLY asked for an evaluation!] We told Roger
we had already signed . The atmosphere became , at
best, chilly, and he had trouble looking us in the eye
for the remainder of the semester .

2 . Willingness to participate in shared governance


I am presenting several examples l isted below under
other headings . Others include :

,,
(1) The hostile take-over of the Honors Program by a
group of faculty with little or no experience in
teaching honors courses at the behest of Melinda Nish ;

(2) The appointment (and award of 100% released time)


of faculty-without actually advertising an opening-to
special projects positions, many of which do not
require full-time effort, as perqs for being ~on
board" with the administration by Melinda Nish;

(3) A recommendation instituted by the director of the


Student Health Center that a supervisor (with no
medical training other than administrative) can
~observe" medi cal personnel during the medical
examination of a student (what happened to HIPPA???) ;

(4) Ignoring committee input for hiring new employees ,


with committee members told "don' t bother to rank the
applicants" when names were submitted to Bob and
Melinda for final selection . A similar issue occurred
with the OCC Bookstore, which was formerly run-and
very efficiently-by Barnes and Noble . Suddenly, after
ignoring recommendations from the committee that was
established to determine whether to renew the
contract, Barnes and Noble was OUT and someone else
was IN . Why do we have committees if their input is
ignored in the interests of crony-ism??

(5) Bob and Melinda ' s inability to listen to-or even


ask for--opinions of experienced faculty and staff
prior to making decisions that affect all of us . To
wit :

3. Ability to assess campus priorities

EXAMPLE 1: Approximately three semesters ago , I and


several of my colleagues were teaching large lecture
sections in the Science Hall and Science Lecture Hall
facilities . Sometime in the middle of the semester , I
entered the classroom prepared, as I had been for
years , to deliver my lecture-which was stored on a ZIP
drive . As I attempted to load the lecture, I realized
that there were new computers in the hall-computers
that LACKED a ZIP Drive . I called the course
assistant, who was also unaware that the computers had
been changed out over the weekend. So , there I was ,
with 150 students awaiting a lecture and no vehicle to
access my information .

Fortunately, Ray Cotter saved the day. He brought me


a flash drive to use until I could obtain one and
transfer my lecture notes to it. Still , the students
lost over 15 minutes of class time . I called as many
of my colleagues as I could in the interim to warn
them of the change . (Several of them had lectures in
the same facility later the. same day . )

A simple e-mail from Melinda would have saved a lot of


folks a lot of grief and a great deal of time . Why
are we not receiving this sort of communication? Is
this not in the job description of our VP of
Instruction??

EXAMPLE 2: In order to increase class offerings in


impacted areas , Melinda Nish began tracking
enrollments AND the numbers of students who were
turned away . So far , so good, and long overdue . When
she discovered that, in the Math Science Division, we
were turning away more students than were enrolled,
she asked us to add more laboratory sections . This
occurred in Basic Biology, Chemistry, Anatomy,
Microbiology, and numerous Math classes. Also long
overdue . The problems arose because :

a) We didn't receive the request until a week


prior to the beginning of the semester. This
entailed finding and hiring numerous part- time
faculty-which we did, at great personal cost
in stress and time . More notice from Melinda
would have eased this difficulty and enabled
us to actually interview more than person for
the job! As it was , we hired any available
warm body who had taken an anatomy class.
(Most qualified faculty had, by this point ,
taken positions at other institutions.)

b) Speaking for the Anatomy department : we have


only two classrooms . These classrooms are
outdated, cramped, and have little storage
space. They were already in use five days a
week and some weekends . Addition of two
sections of A&P increased the demand on these
rooms . Because we also added two lab sections
of Human Anatomy (this entails four lab
meetings per week in addition to the 12
already in session), we had to order and store
an additional 30 cats. Storing the specimens
was difficult , as all the appropriated spaces
were already in use. Because the lab sections
met back- to-back six days per week, finding a
free time to clean the lab and set up lab
practical exams (the other lab was
unavailable , due to additional A&P labs being
scheduled) made it necessary for our tech and
the instructors to come in on Sundays . Our
tech now works a seven- day week! All of the
science techs are in the same position .

c) The timing of adding the classes put


additional strain on our techs, already
oversubscribed, who had to try to order
additiona l supplies and specimens and get them
to the students in a timely fashion . We were
initially not provided with additional funds
for supplies, for reprographics, or for
additional hours required in the Hoag
Multimedia Lab . Eventually we received the
funding , but the first month of that fall
semester was a madhouse. The toll it took on
faculty and staff was tremendous-and could
have been eliminated with a little advance
planning/warning from the VP of Instruction .

I know the other departments that added new


lab sections experienced the same sorts of
issues because we discussed them at length in
Division and Department meetings .

4 . Willingness to provide support for faculty, staff, and


academic/college programs

EXAMPLE 1: The Banner System . What a fiasco . Who is


responsible for implementing these computer programs ,
a chimpanzee?? First we are given a completely
unworkable PNI system, with an instruction book large
enough to build a stealth bomber . Then the PNI system
is revised, with an equally large instruction book,
and, finally the bugs are worked out so that the
system is reasonably useful . THEN, almost
immediately, the PNI system is scrapped, and we are
presented with Banner . I hope that this system works
for someone, because it has proven cumbersome (at
best) and unworkable (mostly) for those in the
trenches .

Anyone (usually the science techs , who are already


overworked and underpaid) who tries to order supplies,
for example, must allow at least five times as much
time to complete the purchase order . Why? Because
(a) a P.O. can only accommodate 15 items (we sometimes
order more than 60 items from one vendor) ; (b) if one
becomes distracted by, say, a student , and does not
complete the P . O. within a specific time frame , the
system throws you out and you must begi n from square
one ; (c) we were informed that the new ordering system
would allow Receiving to check the P . O.s for
completeness when the items were delivered, and BEFORE
we received them . Not happening. And i f this is so ,
why do we constantly receive calls from District
Purchasing asking about items in the order? WE didn ' t
check the order ! (Well , of course we have to , because
Receiving has been lax or, more likely, have no idea
what specimen is what! Not their job, really... ) And
did I mention that the system seems to be "down" more
than its "up?"

In addition, t~e continual changing of the computer


systems has driven the course assistants nearly over
the edge. They, like the techs, are already
oversubscribed . They deal with thousands of students
daily, collect papers (and keep them organized), grade
thousands of exams , record thousands of homework
assignments , and are e xpected to perform perfectly.
On top of this, the administration (Who?? Melinda?? Is
anyone in charge here??? Have these systems been
tried out prior to their application to the campus?)
repeatedly dumps new computer operating systems in
their laps so that , in addition to keeping track of
the students and the papers and the record-keeping,
they have to continually learn new software to report
their results . Choose a GOOD system and stick to it!

EXAMPLE 2 : Based upon personal experience with an


academic dishonesty issue in t he spring of 2006, and
similar experiences of my colleagues in the Anatomy
and Physiology department , I am truly appalled by the
lack of enforcement of OCC' s academic honesty
policies .

My experience involved two students in a rigorous


Allied Health program. I witnessed one woman
repeatedly looking at the other's test paper. I
warned them verbally, and even walked to their table
and physically separated them. Their behavior barely
skipped a beat.

In the past, my M.O. would have been to simply throw


them out of the class, and give them the option to
drop or fail. In this case, much to my regret, I
followed the protocol set out in the Academic Honesty
pamphlet distributed by Dean Kate Mueller. I filed
written paper work, I spoke with the students, and I
spoke with Kate, who assured me that every step would
be taken to deal the problem swiftly.

At this point, the program director and the dean of


CHS got involved. They asked me to allow the students
to remain in the class because "there are only a few
more weeks until the end of the semester." Their
argument was that, if I removed the students from the
class, they would have to begin their program over
again and possibly be wait-listed for several years.
Again, against my better judgment, I relented~

The two women proceeded to hire lawyers . I asked Kate


Mueller if I needed a lawyer, and she said that I was
represented by the District's legal counsel. HA!!
Kate said that there would be a disciplinary hearing
and that I would be able to present my evidence at
that time. It has been my understanding that students
are not allowed to bring legal counsel to disciplinary
hearings, but in this case the students were allowed
to do so . And I was not, because I wasn't there.

I informed Kate by phone and by e-mail that I would be


out of town on specific dates so that she could
schedule the hearing on a date when I was available.
The first hearing was scheduled for the day after
school ended in May, 2006. The day prior to the
hearing, I received an e-mail stating that "the
lawyers couldn't make the hearing" and that it would
be rescheduled at a later date. Interestingly, the
"later date" was the following day, the same day that
I was leaving town and could not attend (even IF I had

1)/;.
known that the hearing was taking place , which I did
NOT, nor was I ever notified that it had taken
place!) .

After returning from my trip, I went to pick up my


mail and found an envelope containing the tests in
question . No note , no explanation . I phoned Kate ' s
office to determine when the hearing was to be held,
and was informed by her secretary, Andonia , that it
was over and the women had been exonerated . Needless
to say, I was furious .

I wrote a scathing letter to Kate and copied Bob Dees .


Within a week, Bob contacted me to set up a meeting to
~discuss the issues . " We spoke for nearly an hour .
Bob seemed to be concerned and said repeatedly that he
was bothered by what had happened. He assured me that
Kate had been disciplined, and that ~the good news"
was that ~it will never happen again." I attempted to
explain that my concern went beyond cheating, as these
women were entering the field of health care . They
were graduating wearing OCC pins with ~Diagnostic
Medical Sonography" on them. In the past, this meant
that they actually knew what they were doing . I said
that, given the degree of copying going on, and the
lack of consequence, there was a real likelihood that
they could kill someone due to a mis - diagnosis . Bob
again assured me that ever y possible precaution was
being taken to assure that this would never happen
again . After speaking with Bob for nearly an hour, it
became obvious to me that he had relegated the issue-
in his own mind--to a ~minor problem" that would go
away on its own if he could just talk his way out of
it . In short, he blew it off . I truly believe that ,
by the time I left the office , he was convinced tha t
he had talked me out of my position and into his .
~EGBOK" just doesn ' t cut it in this instance .

As an illustration of the LACK of progress in the


enforcement of academic misconduct policies: The
following semester , my office partner had a similar
incident in her class. She also followed protocol ,
spoke with Kate, spoke with the student , filed
reports, etc. etc . In this instance , the cheating was
dismissed because the only person who witnessed the
event was adjunct faculty, NOT a full - time instructor .
HUH?? Why would a part-time faculty member accuse a
student of cheating if it didn ' t happen?? Are they
lesser beings because they only teach here part time??
A third instructor, who also teaches full-time in our
department, experienced a similar event, with the same
lack of willingness to punish the offenders.

We feel that Bob Dees, Jess Craig, and Kate Mueller-or


whoever it is that is ultimately responsible for
academic honesty and the enforcement of OCC ' s
policies-are not fulfilling their responsibilities .
It is of particular concern to us as we are sending
students theoretically trained by OCC in health care
out to work in public facilities . And , one day, to
take care of US . The attitude of this administration,
by and large, is to take a mountain and turn it into a
mole hill. Why? We believe it is because they are
terrified if being sued . If academic princip l es are
based on how good a lawyer a student can afford , we
are all doomed.

5. OVerall quality of education at OCC

The overall quality of education is being affected in


several ways.

(1) Our access to reprographics has been severely


limited . Melinda Nish ' s policies are designed to
treat us like children who must be given a tiny
allowance so that they won ' t spend it all on candy.
Money for copies is doled out in miniscule amounts .
Anyone who teaches science has numerous handouts, many
of which are spur-of- the-moment finds . It is
convenient-and, oddly enough , educational-to be able
to share this novel information with our students .

In addition , most of us in Biology have experienced


running out of money in the midst of copying an exam .
At that point, we must find the division coordinator,
ask for money , wait until the money is transferred to
reprographics, applied to our cards , and, eventually,
finish running the exam . What should take 15 minutes
often takes a day and a half . Not the best scenario
when often the exams are not written until immediately
prior to the test. "Get organized, " you say? Easier
said than done if one is fulfilling one ' s collegial
duties of committee work , IUA responsibilities , hiring
committees , and academically teaching an overload .
~1 Adhering to this policy
without released time .
takes faculty and staff MUCH longer to implement,
wasting time and energy, and again, taking us away
from our students. Micromanagement at its finest,
courtesy of Ms . Nish.

(2) The Hoag MUltimedia lab, which was built with


VATEA, NSF, and Hoag Family Foundation grant
money, needs a full - time staff person . Reginald
Lewis has been staffing the lab on a 10-month
contract for over eight years . When it was
requested by administration to expand our course
load, Reggie was required to keep the lab open
later in the evening and on weekends. He also
works in the summer-not only during summer school
but during his few weeks of supposed "down time"
between summer and fall. This is necessitated
because he must assure that all the equipment is
networked, has internet access, and is compatible
with the specialized software required of the
students for whom the lab was designed .

We have requested that Reggie ' s position be


expanded to a 12-month on several occasions (see
one example, attached) . Nothing happens. And
when Reggie needs to be away for a family
emergency, dental visit , or vacation, he is
criticized for not fulfilling his duties . He is
working a considerable amount of overtime for
which he is not paid . And, occasionally, one of
the administrative employees who has NO
jurisdiction over this lab (e.g. , Tony Salas, at
the behest of Melinda Nish), attempts to bump
Reggie from his office so that he , Tony, can move
in. (This has happened twice, and on both
occasions Melinda was notified and played dumb-
"Oh, I had NO idea... ! "--her typical response to
our queries about nearly everything . )

(3) Computer Grade Submission: We have needed a system


for managing our attendance, adds, drops, and grading
via computer for years . Most campuses have been
online with all registration processes for more than a
decade . The process that has been developed will, I ' m
sure , work--eventually . HOWEVER . Implementing an
untried system the first day of fall semester was a
disaster, and cost us enrollment , time , increased
stress, etc . Whose idea? Must be the VP of
I nstruct i on-Melinda Nish .

In addition, the "NO EXCEPTIONS" rule for submitting


grades by a certain date , especially in the spring
semester , i s unreasonable . See the e xample that
follows:

Example : Biology 220 (and many other courses) offers


classes on weekends-after being asked to do, so by the
administration, I might add. The Friday/Saturday
section takes its final comprehensive laboratory
practical on Friday night . The grades are due on
Monday . Fine . EXCEPT that it takes about 50 hours to
grade the final practical exam . The teaching
assistants help us with this. But the instructor does
not receive the final scores until Tuesday, at which
time they must be combined with the other scores from
the semester-a time consuming task . Again, normally,
not an issue. However, this year, as last , the
instructors for these classes were out of town at a
conference (yes , a real conference with real meetings
for professional devel opment purposes , approved by the
administration and the Board of Trustees!). There are
workshop sessions from 8 a . m. till 5 p.m . and evening
dinner meetings as well. The conference lasts 6 days .
This meant that submitting grades for the large group
sections of Bio 220 and 221 would be delayed .
Arrangements were made with any affected students to
receive a hand-written grade report .

Three instructors contacted Melinda and Kristin Clark


with this information . Still, a "NO EXCEPTIONS"
response from administration-until so long after the
fact that it was irrelevant . This is typical. "WE
make the rules . YOU follow the rules. YOU do not ask
questions. But if you do, WE ' just say NO ' because WE
are the administration and therefore WE are right . "
Until we think it over and come to the realization
that , OMG, YOU may be right! By which time , it is
usually too late to implement a workable solution .
Example : After numerous e - mails and phone calls from
at least three instructors to Melinda Nish, Kristin
Clark, and others , and a "no way this will happen"
response (for over 2 weeks) , the three of us received,
after we returned from the conference , a typical e-
mail from Melinda : "Well , we really need you to

30
submit your grades on time because of blah blah blah,
but if you can' t, I ' m sure we can work something out .
Don' t worry about it . " Again, HUH?? Another example
of "one size fits all," corporate management thinking
that doesn ' t work i n an educational setting .

(4) Removal / Cancellation of Multiple Classes from the


Math/ Scienc e Division curriculum (M/ S wrot e and
received appro val f o r teaching these classes) by the
Co nsumer/ Hea lth Sciences division, witho u t no ti c e .
First, some history : In December, 1980 I was
approached by a group of DMS students in what was then
a brand new certificate program . They were looking
for an instructor to teach Cross-sectional Anatomy the
next semester . If they couldn' t find a candidate , the
program would be unable to move forward . After
speaking to the Deans of CHS and Math/Science, I
agreed to write/teach the course . I spent my entire
semester break (at that time, two weeks) writing and
organizing the class , and was still only one jump
ahead of the students the entire semester .

The class proved to be so successful that I was asked


to write an additional class , Advanced Cross Sectional
Anatomy . I .. did so. I taught these classes for over
25 years , specifically for the DMS students--although
others could enroll (the courses were approved as
Biology curriculum) . In addition, I took over their
courses in Pathophysiology (two semesters at that
time) when the instructor left for medical reasons.

Several years ago, I was asked by CHS to re-write the


Patho class and reduce it to one semester, 4-units
from a two semester , total 6-unit class. I did so .
Things seemed to be going well . I worked directly
with the DMS program director to deal with problems
with student discipline, those having difficulty with
course material, etc.

Last spring, just as I was preparing for my class, our


Dean, Roger Abernathy, came into the office. He
announced that Kevin Ballinger, Dean of CHS, had told
him we were no longer to teach the Cross Sectional
Anatomy and Patho classes. I was stunned, because I
had heard NOTHING of this . I feared for the students!
Who would teach them anatomy? Roger didn't know . Who
would teach Patho (a class that had already been

~
scheduled for my successor, Cherryl Baker , to teach in
the fall)? Roger didn ' t know . I attempted to contact
the DMS program director. Her only response , via e -
mail, was that "the program has taken a different
direction." I was completely blind-sided by this
move . No one consulted me-not that this is
specifically necessary, but (a) the Biology Department
wrote the classes and had them passed through the
curriculum committee . How could another division
choose to remove them? (b) How could another division
"take over" a class to which Biology faculty were
assigned? (c) Do the DMS faculty have M.S. degrees in
Biology and certificates to teach biology-as required
by the Education Code? Roger didn ' t know. (d) Did the
curriculum committee approve Biology classes to be
taught by presumably unqualified faculty in a new
division? Roger didn ' t know. Who did know? Roger
didn ' t know . Where is the VP of instruction? Is this
not her purview? Any reason NOT to talk this over
with (a) the DMS Advisory committee, (b) former
students who are successful in the field , (c) the
biology department??

My impression (to this day no one has spoken to me


regarding this issue) is that the CHS division is
aiming for a "Bryman School" approach to their allied
health certificates. This concerns me not only for
the students, but for the reputation of OCC as a prime
provider of health care employees, and also for the
patients of these students who will suffer for their
lack of education . It may be a good idea, but I'd
have a better feeling about it if someone would tell
me what the hell happened !

The crowning blow occurred when the DMS program


director called and asked if she could use my
Pathology syllabus-a 200+ page book on which I ' ve
spent more than 2500 hours, and which I have published
by the OCC bookstore rather than a private publisher
in order to save the students money. I asked her if I
got royalties . She chose not to use the book, but I
have seen the outlines she gives her students and the
wording and information are the same. What gives??

In summary : I have less of an issue with WHAT is


being done than with HOW it is being done. These
collective issues spurred me to retire at least two
years before I intended to do so . At least 55 others
feel the same . Our college administration (down
through the Deans) is out of touch with the faculty
and staff , and, I believe, with the mission of the
college. Students do not attend OCC for the fabulous
administrators. They come for faculty, they come for
programs , they come for the unique experiences we can
provide them. And they will start going elsewhere as
the unrest among faculty and staff becomes apparent to
them (and it already has). I believe in progress and
change , but I also believe they need to be implemented
in a collegial manner so that everyone is informed and
on board . Major alterations in the instructional
process need to be discussed with the instructors , for
example, not left to someone (Melinda) with little- or-
no teaching experience and a corporate mindset. She
may be a fine hotel manager, but she is a lousy VP of
Instruction!

I fear that we will lose our accreditation-in fact , we


are under an accreditation "warningn already . I fear
that we will lose our standing in the community. I
know that , when these things come to pass , Bob and
Melinda will blame someone else . They refuse to
accept responsibility for their actions . As a result ,
I fear for the college I love.
Melinda Nish Meets the OCC English department
From: Gary Hoffman, co-chair
Date: 7-10-08

When Melinda Nish was announced as the new VP of instruction, many people expressed
surprise because she had a reputation as a dean of being a "difficult" person. My only
experience with Melinda prior to her becoming VPI, was her attendance at scheduling meetings.
Having no first hand negative experiences with her, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. Once
Melinda took over as VPI, she had regular meetings with campus schedulers, which included
myself Melinda ran the meetings professionally: she seemed to enjoy holding court and was
always open to suggestions. Some of her ideas, like yearlong scheduling, I argued against;
Melinda seemed patient with disagreement, and after voicing my concerns and listening to
others' arguments, I obeyed her decisions.

But in my dealings with her over efficient room usage, I observed another dimension to
Melinda's modus operandi. For over 10 years I have advocated block scheduling, encouraging
Bob, and then Melinda, to enforce block scheduling in order to more efficiently use the limited
classroom space on campus. Soon after becoming the VPI Melinda announced she could put
more money into increasing course offerings; I explained that having more money for classes
would be meaningless unless the classrooms were there to fill up and that they wouldn't be there
unless she enforced block scheduling. I had gone through every room grid on campus and saw
that other schedulers, some deans and some IUA's, were wasting hundreds of"hours" of
classroom space. Many of the schedulers were resistant to changing their scheduling. After
making passionate and rational arguments, after showing the proof of the room efficiency study
that Bob asked me to complete, I became impatient with the group because every year they
ignore the concern. Melinda a4mitted to me that she also wanted the more efficie~t room use,
that the schedulers had no choice but to schedule more efficiently otherwise the college could not
expand, but she told me her plan was to bring the group around slowly. Since the group ignored
my proofs, Melinda chose two other schedulers to study the grids (I think Rod Foster and Rob
Schneiderman); after analyzing the room use campus-wide, they came to my same conclusions,
and Melinda was able to get the schedulers to tighten up room use.

At first, I deemed Melinda's management style effective and clever: rather than telling the
schedulers what to do, she let them evaluate and see the problems and arrive at their own
conclusions. However, later I found out that another element of this plan included Melinda using
me as ''fall guy," disparaging me to my fellow schedulers, letting me make all the arguments for
her and then letting me take all the hits and angry reactions generated from their resistance to
change. The proof of her underhanded methods came to light last spring, when our division
academic senator, Karen Felts, shared an email from Melinda to Rod Foster (part of other
material distributed to the senate having to do with right of assignment). Melinda opened her
email to Rod by referring to a schedulers meeting that she characterized as subdued because
"everyone was waiting for another Hoffinan outburst." It became clear to me that I had been
used by Melinda as the "bad cop," who was aggressively pushing for the change. This is just one
example of how Melinda will resort to "divide-and-conquer" tactics-pitting faculty against one
another in order to achieve her goals, engendering a divisive atmosphere rather than a collegial
one. While Melinda has no problem taking credit for this achievement (more efficient room use
through block scheduling), she certainly does not want to take responsibility for her unpopular or
controversial administrative decisions. Deflecting responsibility is a key characteristic of her
administrative style: Melinda's failures are "nobody's mistake" or she intimates that unpopular
decisions are just carrying out the orders of President, Vice Chancellors or Chancellor.

The most disheartening experience I had with Melinda had to do with reassigned time for IDA's.
Melinda and I had hours of discussion in her office and in emails regarding the arguments for
and against reassigned time for my position, one where I do constant screening, orientations, and
scheduling of part timers (fifty part timers in English) and scheduling of full timers. I will not
recount these hours of debate but I will characterize them this way: Melinda pretends to
patiently listen, but already has her mind made up, then uses every logical fallacy in the book to
present her case. Nonetheless, points were made, discussion did happen, but when Melinda
came to the English department, it was as if those discussions never took place. I had been spun
for hours and now was really insulted that Melinda was playing me as a fool. Here's what
happened when the issue moved to a departmental concern:

In December 2007, Ken Parker asked the English department to meet and discuss the English
IUA positions, the need for reassign time for both positions, the 50% rule, and other updates,
based on conversations I had had with Michael Mandelkem, Melinda Nish, and Bob Dees
concerning the department's needs. When VP Nish heard about the meeting, she immediately
called dean.Mandelkem who relayed to Ken and I that Melinda insisted she come to this Friday
meeting. Ken informed her that the department wanted to discuss the matter without
administrators present; so Melinda then wanted to come the following Monday, but Michael
explained to her that most English instructors are in class on Monday. Ken later called Melinda
and asked her to come to another meeting in two weeks. Melinda insisted on coming to "clear
up rumors" and "explain the contract." Prior to the meeting, she never inquired about what
questions and concerns the department members actually had. During that time period, Michael
told Ken and me that he had advised Melinda against coming to an English department meeting.
I reminded Michael that Melinda was the VP of instruction and it would be good for her and the
department to "get to know each other."

On Friday December 14, the week preceding finals and a busy week for all instructors, Melinda
met with the English department. While department members were waiting for the meeting to
begin, there were what appeared to be frantic phone calls between her and Bob; it was rumored
that Bob might come too although he did not. Then throughout the entire meeting Melinda kept
checking her cell phone, noting incoming calls or text messages. She began the meeting without
having members introduce themselves even though many had never met her. She then
proceeded to explain how IUAs were ~lected, who was eligtble to be an IUA and compensation
for the task and explain the contract specifications ofiUAs and the 50% rule and that it was her
position that all IUAs should receive a stipend She was not telling anyone anything they did not
already know and many department members became impatient with her mini lecture, since we
waiting to make our case. During her lecture she insulted me by saying that "Someone in the
division made a side deal with Bob on reassigned time" which everyone else knew referred to me
and left members wondering why I wasn't mentioned as if my receiving reassigned time was
secretive, nefarious. Members pointed out that it was not a side deal but was always announced
through job descriptions and that I had been elected, always showing that Bob gave that position
a choice between stipend and reassigned time.

Clearly this was not the Melinda I had seen in the schedulers' meetings. This was an entirely
different personality.
Department members seemed annoyed, confused and impatient with the direction of the meeting
because many had assumed that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss our department needs
and present arguments of why we needed reassign time. Melinda never asked the department
what questions they had, so after 15-20 minutes of Melinda's lecture in how IUAs were elected
several department members began to question her. Many made cases for why a "one-size-fits-
all" approach to IUAs around campus was not logical and pointed out the unusually heavy
workldad for English teachers. Melinda ignored this and kept going back to the idea that many
IDAs were upset because only one IDA (myself) was receiving release time and that I was
perceived as having made a ''back-door" deal. I said even Dale Nauta, the math IDA, felt the
English IDA did more than she did (math IDA's do not screen part time candidates) and Melinda
dismissed this declaring, "That is what some might say to your face but not what they tell me.''
Glynis Hoffman said she took umbrage to that characterization. I asked Melinda if she corrected
people's misperception of how and why I received reassigned time. She looked dumb-founded,
stared at me, and never really answered.

Again, many of these points were ones Melinda and I had gone over in private but by her
adarnancy I could tell the previous discussions had not even modified her presentation to the
department It became clear to me that she is a pretend listener when she already has her mind
made up about something. It was clear to most present that Melinda was incredulous that anyone
had their own ideas about the issue.

Melinda seemed confused by the responses, questions and challenges to her position. The
department members started questioning her on several other items. Jeremy Zitter asked if she
was going to decide if the department IDAs would receive the reassigned option approval from
her or the deans and she responded "the deans" but that she had let the deans know that she
wanted consistency and just stipends. He questioned her again about the contrary nature of her
response and she looked confused. When she tried to shift and suggest this was somehow all the
district's doing because of the 50% rule, Donovan Gaytan asked her if it wasn' t her and Bob's
job to go to the district and argue for our positions and needs. She again seem dumb-founded,
blank-faced, not knowing how to respond

When Melinda persisted in her red herring and again tried to say it was not fair that only one
IDA receive reassigned time, Stephanie Wells pointed out that all IDAs should have the option
of reassigned time, something I had discussed several times privately with Melinda, but none-
the-less a point that Melinda repeatedly ignored and again seemed surprised that someone was
saying something that did not fit her agenda Chris Evans praised some of my abilities and
sensing that Melinda was making me the issue, pointed out how the department's argument had
nothing to do with me but the position itself. Donna Barnard pointed out that the IDA workload
was so great that I often spent time over the Christmas break and summer doing interviews, but
instead of seeing this as a statement about commitment, Melinda took a literalist approach and
scolded any IDA for working over break as this was not contracted, saying this again, even
though I had discussed this issue with her privately (pointing out to Melinda that she works in
her office on Sundays). There was no need for Melinda to take Donna's comments in anything
but the spirit in which she said them, simply pointing out how much work is involved when a
department has over 50 part timers.

At one point, I told Melinda that she would make more headway with the department if she had
numbers that demonstrated whether OCC was getting its share of reassigned time in the district
and if she showed justification for why she and Bob gave 100% reassigned time for some on
campus while being stingy with IUAs. Again she seemed nonplused as to why someone was
questioning what the administration did Melinda's general tone and inability to deal clearly
with questions caused one member to turn to another and in regards to Melinda say, "Who is this
ridiculous person?"

When the meeting was over, knowing the department was considering a boycott of the positions
should we not be given the option of reassigned time, Melinda made some awkward remark
about "if you don't like the decision that is made by the deans after the winter break, then you
can have your little French Revolution," then chuckled. Later. Michael relayed to us that
Melinda had found the group disrespectful and on hearing this, Chris Evans later told her he was
sorry if she mistook disagreement with disrespect I reiterated in an email that the tone was
passionate and that many in the department felt she had been disrespectful to department
members. Mostly Melinda created a heap of ill-will for nothing.

After being denied the option of reassigned time, the department voted near unanimously to
boycott; Bob and Melinda met with me and Ken (another narrative) and they later took my
suggestion to get the faculty out of their hair and give division deans more funds and let the
deans and divisions thrash out how much should be spent in stipends and how much in
reassigned time. They accepted this plan although I'm not sure if enough money was doled out
but our division dean, Michael Mandelkern, had the division discuss the matter and doled out the
funds the most fair way possible given the set amount. There were enough funds for one IUA
position to receive minimal reassigned time, but not the others.
A QUESTION OF INTEGRITY
Re: Melinda Nish meeting with Bob Dees, Michael Mandelkem, Ken Parker, Georgie
Monahan, and myself.
From: Gary Hoffman
Date: 7-1 0-08

After the English department voted to boycott the IUA positions, Ken Parker (co-IUA
for the English department) and I were called to a meeting with Bob Dees, Melinda
Nish, Michael Mandelkern, and Georgie Monahan. This meeting raised serious
questions about the VPI's honesty in dealing with faculty. I have recapped some
events prior to the meeting in order to provide a clear context for my alarm.

1. Melinda comes to the English department (December 14, 2007) and is asked, by
several English Department faculty who ultimately makes the decision about IUAs and
reassigned time. At first Melinda says that the deans will meet and decide and that
they need to come up with a plan that was "fair and transparent." When asked if she
will honor the deans' decision (and after being informed that our dean supports our
IUAs right to an option of release time) she qualifies her prior answer, saying that the
deans can decide, but she told the deans she didn't want it. Jeremy Zitter asks for
clarification-"Which is it?" Melinda refuses to decisively answer but she makes one
thing clear: the IUA-reassigned time issue will be decided at the deans' meeting in
February.

2. During the winter break, several department members are at a social gathering
attended by Vesna Marcina (social science division); Vesna claims that she met with
Melinda after the English Department meeting in pursuit for reassigned time for her
department and to question Melinda as to why she could not have it when I had been
receiving it. She reports that Melinda told her that no matter what the Deans request,
there is not going to be any reassigned time for IUAs.

3. Glynis and I have lunch with Bob Dees and he shares his own solution about giving
each of the deans a reassigned time "budget" and letting the deans decide how they
want to allot it (a good idea). When we tell Michael Mandelkern about Bob's idea,
Michael is pleased and hopeful in requesting reassigned time for IUAs in his division.

4. The dean's meeting takes place and Michael says there is no resolution and the
issue is postponed to the next meeting.

5. Michael submits a formal request for reassign time for one JUA, which annoys
several people in the department and they remind him that the department wants it for
both positions. Michael tells several people in the department that he feels confident
that the deans will honor his request for reassign time for IUAs at the next meeting.

6. The Deans meeting takes place. The English department waits for that meeting
where Melinda says there will be a resolution; it end. After the meeting, Glynis
Hoffman talks to Michael who says he left feeling ill because he says the other deans
would not support his request for reassigned time for his IUAs. Michael later contacts
both Ken and me to inform us there will be no reassigned time for IUAs. He realizes
the seriousness of this conclusion because he knows that the department will now vote
on a boycott for both IUA positions. If there had been anything to hold onto, to give
any hope that the deans would change their mind, department members feel sure
Michael would throw them a bone. There is nothing. Michael is genuinely
discouraged.

7. To verify Michael's impression of the deans' position, I email Vesna and tell her that
evidently there is no support from the deans so she asks Paul Asim about it and she
emails me back that indeed Paul told her there was not any support for the idea. I
email Hillary Mush kin in the art department and tell her about it because she had told
me that several of her colleagues wanted her to run for IUA but that she wouldn't
without reassigned time. She asks her dean Joe Poshek and he tells her that maybe in
a year, when she gets back from sabbatical, the issue might be reconsidered. Michael
says the issue is over.

8. The English department votes 21 to 1 with secret ballots in favor to boycott their
two IUA positions.

9. A week after the English department boycott of spring 08, I hear that Bob Dees is
angry with me (though Bob does not contact me himself) so I make an appointment to
see him. Bob accuses me of "engineering the boycott" even though the English
department vote was 21 to 1 with a secret ballot in favor of the boycott. The vote
included approval of sending a formal statement to Bob Dees, Ken Yglesias, Dean
Mancina, and The Board of Trustees. Bob accuses me of betraying both him and
OCC. I am struck by the fact that it never occurs to him that the English department
did what they did because they care about OCC and that Bob knows that no one cares
more about OCC than I do, that I have devoted my life to the institution as much as he
has. Bob cools down and considers points I have made and I leave after an hour.

10. Later that same day, Bob calls a meeting with Melinda, Michael, Ken, Georgie
Monahan, Ken Parker. While there is no stated purpose of this two-hour meeting, Ken
and I wonder whether is it a "dressing down" or a problem-solving meeting? Despite
evidence to the contrary, Melinda insists that the deans were "still in the process of
deciding" whether to give reassigned time and that unfortunately the English
department boycott had brought the deans' discussion on the issue to a grinding halt.
Michael takes issue with Melinda's characterization of the dean's meeting, saying
"Melinda, you and I have very different perceptions of what happened at that deans'
meeting. I'll discuss it later with you in private." Ken and I remind Melinda that in fact
it was she who had suggested a boycott. When further confronted about her having
already told the English Department that the issue would be decided at the deans'
meeting and that she was already on record with her position against reassigned time
for IUAs, and despite her having told several people right after the English Department
meeting that she felt the English department was "disrespectful" (see other narrative),
Melinda insists, that "she had left the department meeting brimming with constructive
suggestions. u (In fact, there had been no follow through from Melinda after the English
department meeting: no "thanks for the ideas," no "I'm working on it". Nothing.) Bob
does not question these discrepancies between what we offer as facts and what
Melinda is saying. Georgie shakes her head in agreement with everything Melinda says
(even though Georgie was not at the English department meeting) and even makes
rationales for Melinda. Bob has no reaction when I observe that Melinda maintains a
"reasonable" voice at this meeting compared to the patronizing, condescending tone
she had at the English department meeting. Ken and I leave with me saying, "We can
be sold, but not bought" and for Bob and Melinda to just come up with a reasonable
plan since Bob had suggested some ideas without committing to any of them.

10. Soon afterwards, Glynis Hoffman talks to Chris Desurra in speech, who takes
careful notes at a breakfast discussion hosted by Bob and Melinda about reassigned
time, and Melinda continues to insist that the deans were still working on the issue and
the boycott was premature.

11. Ken Parker and I provide a summary of the above meeting to the department, but
not long after this, Michael sends out a memo to the department about how productive
the meeting with Bob, Melinda, Georgie, Ken, and me had been. When asked what
prompted the memo; Michael says Melinda requested he send the memo in order to
dispel a rumor that the meeting had been about making a secret deal with me.
Michael, Ken, and I had not heard such a rumor and I conclude that the VPI was
making up a rumor about a rumor as a pretext for countering our (Ken and my) own
summation of the meeting.

In summary, this is just one incident in what may be a pattern of behavior: A pretense
of "shared governance," a willful dismissal of arguments, a deflection of responsibility
and then a revision of facts when there is fallout from the decision. This pattern
demonstrates, at the least, poor management skills and, at worst, is an example of a
lack of integrity in dealing with faculty.
Freshman Experience

There are several reasons why I signed the letter to the Board of Trustees regarding the
evaluation of OCC administrators by faculty. At the Board meeting a faculty member
asked for evidence that supported the document signed by the 55 + OCC faculty
members. So it is with this in mind that I present to you the events I have experienced
over the last three years as the Freshman Experience Program Coordinator.

2004-2005 Academic Year

A request for Academic Master Plan Goals proposals was sent out to faculty
during the 2005 Spring Semester. I submitted a Freshman Experience Program
proposal that addressed two Master Plan Goals, such as implementing new
strategies to support student learning and to expand learning communities
available to basic skills students.
I was asked to submit a Freshman Experience Program component to the overall
Title lli grant proposal that targeted under-prepared students enrolling in pre-
colligate math and English. The Title ill grant was not funded that year.

2005-2006 Academic Year

On December 2005, I spoke with Bob Dees regarding the institutionization of the
Freshman Experience Program since funding was not established in the previous
three years. He recommended that I give a Freshman Experience Program update
to the Planning and Budget Committee so a decision could be made as to whether
the program should be institutionalized.
I gave a presentation and update on the Freshman Experience Program to the
Planning and Budget Committee on Feb. 9, 2006. The program was well received
by everyone, and Bob Dees asked me to meet with Melinda Nish and work out
details for the funding of the program.
Melinda and I met several times beginning in May 2006, and I gave her my
budget program request After meeting with Bob Dees, she informed me that my
funding request was too high. I calculated and showed Melinda that because the
retention and persistence rates from the program were so favorable that the
program would pay for itself by the additional number of students (FTE's)
continuing on at OCC in the spring semester. She told me that she did not care if
students who registered for spring classes persisted from last semester or were
new students to the college; her job was to make sure those classroom seats are
filled.
The OCC Title ill proposal was rewritten and submitted with all the components
and activities (tutorial center, math center, etc.) proposed from the previous year,
except the Freshman Experience Program. I was not notified nor given the
opportunity to provide input for the proposed grant. The Title lli proposal was
funded and as a result the Freshman Experience Program was not identified as
one of the components of the grant
2006-2007 Academic Year

Melinda sent me an email on October 3, 2006 stating that Bob decided to change
the planning structure of the proper way to "institutionalize" any instructional
program by obtaining support from the Instructional Planning Council (IPC) and
the Academic Senate, instead of going to the Planning and Budget Committee.
Two weeks before the end of the 2006 Fall Semester, Melinda came to my office
to recommend that I should consider attending the Academic Deans' meeting to
ask them if they would be willing to allocate a portion of their budget to fund the
Freshman Experience Pro~ and she would be there to support my request. I
felt I was put in an awkward situation asking deans for a portion of their budget.
Additionally, I was confused with Melinda's request, which seemed in
contradiction to Bob's request to institutionalize the program.
The 2006 Orange Coast College Reaffirmation Accreditation Report highlights
the Freshman Experience Program as an example that directly addresses Standard
I, Institutional Mission and Effectiveness, on pages Standard V58, 1/65, and V70.
The program is also referred to in the Standard IT, Student Learning Programs and
Services, section on pages Standard W85 and 89. The Freshman Experience
Program is touted in the Accreditation Report when the administration has not yet
provided a viable process for institutionalization of the program. (See attached
excerpts from the Accreditation Report).
On April 17, 2007, I sent an email to my dean informing her that I had not hear
anything about the future budget for the Freshman Experience Program and since
Bob Dees was not allowing stipends for instructors, I would not develop any
learning communities for the 2007-2008 academic year and would devote my
time to retool and redesign the learning commUnity components.
I have attached a copy of the email I received on April 18, 2008, where Melinda
states the Academic Senate was ready to appoint a new program coordinator if I
"did not do the program." I have spoken with several members of the Academic
Senate, and they assured me that no discussions regarding the Freshman
Experience Program Coordinator's position took place.
Since Bob Dees recommended I get support from the Academic Senate in order to
institutionalize the Freshman Experience Program, I wrote a formal request to
give an informational presentation to the Academic Senate. I personally handed
the request to the Academic Senate President, Georgie Monahan, about 2 to 3
weeks before the end of the 2007 spring semester. As of this date, I have not
heard from the Academic Senate. A copy of my request is attached to this letter.
In April 2007, I was nominated by the Southern California Community College
Region Eight Transfer Center Directors to participate in the Basic Skills Initiative
workshops sponsored by the State Academic Senate. I was nominated based on
my experience at OCC in developing and coordinating academic learning
communities that focus on the needs of basic skills students.
2007-2008 Academic Year

After receiving training as a Basic Skills Initiative Facilitator, I was assigned to


one of the five statewide teams which consisted of instructors who had experience
in teaching basic skills classes in English, ESL, math, reading and counseling.
The team of specialists presented the goals of the Basic Skills Initiative and
shared our personal experience in working with basic skills students. Basic skills
instructors, administrators, and staff attended the three regional seminars. All
colleges from the following districts participated in the BSI seminars: San Diego
Community College District, Los Angeles Community College District, North
Orange County District, and Coast Community College District. The average
attendance at each of these seminars was well over 150 participants and was very
successful.
Early in November 2007 it was revealed to me in confidence that Melinda Nish
indicated that if I were to serve on the Basic Skills Committee at OCC I would
participate only as a non-voting member on the committee.
The basic skills committee never originated and in February 2008 it was rolled
into the Title m Oversight Committee, where I am a non-voting member for
issues related to the Basic Skills Initiative.

When I first started at OCC in 1989, Dave Grant was the college president. One day, as
he often did, he was walking around campus speaking with a colleague and as I started to
walked towards his direction, he looked right at me and said, "Good morning professor.
How are you today''? I have to say that I felt very empowered and valued as a faculty
member on that day, and I will never forget his personal greeting that spoke volumes
about his view of counselors. On the other hand, I have sat in on two separate counseling
division meetings where Vice President Melinda Nish was explaining the school budget
and the cost breakdown of instructional and non- instructional monies received by OCC.
Counselors realize that their salaries come from the non- instructional budget, yet
Melinda likes to keep reminding us that we are considered "non-instructional faculty''
according to the budget. It appears that Melinda does not value counselors as instructors.
In fact, she has played a vital role in the reduction of counseling classes taught by full-
time counselors. I currently have a Community College Teaching Credential to teach
psychology and counseling courses at OCC. I teach two counseling courses, one of
which is a three-unit transferable course to the University of California, such as UC
Berkeley, UCLA, UCI. etc. I do not believe that any of the UC campuses would like to
hear that they are accepting coursework from OCC that is taught by non-instructional
faculty.

Orange Coast College has earned an outstanding reputation as one of the best community
colleges in the state. The college's mission has always been on how to best serve
students. Although there are many ways to help students reach their goals, the heart and
soul of education depends on the faculty and staff with the leadership of the
administration. At the present time, there is disagreement between faculty and high-level
administrators as to how decisions are being carried out. Although some administrators
state that only a few faculty (55 faculty signatures) are involved in signing the letter
given to the Board of Trustees, I can assure you there are many more who have expressed
frustration in the direction the college is headed. Campus morale has diminished and
frustration has increased among faculty, which will eventually affect OCC students and
our reputation as a first rate community college. In signing the letter, I was supporting
the idea that faculty should play a more active role in the evaluation of administrators to
provide vital feedback that will only make the college stronger.

Sincerely,

at~~~
Alex Guillen
OCC Counselor
Freshman Experience Program Coordinator
Standard 1158

enrolled full-time in Fall 2005. Twenty-three courses The program creates cohorts of srudents enrolled
were designated honors, and the program currently compan10n freshman remedial math and Engl.
has formal transfer agreements with eleven universi- classes w tth a counselin class focused on study
ties and colleges. s s. e program expands each year and continues
The Puente Program addresses the needs of first- ToCiemonstrate great success in terms of increasing
generation college students whose goal is to transfer srudent retention and success.
to a four-year college or university, but who are at The College is planning to apply for another Title
risk for various reasons, including basic skills needs. ITI grant to better serve srudents needing further
The project was endorsed by the College in 1995 and assistance with basic skills. The grant will include
has now become a model in the state. A cohort of plans for a Student Success Center, which will offer
students is enrolled in English 099 and Counseling combined rutoring, reading, writing, and math assis-
102, "Becoming a Master Student." Students then tance to students ( OCC Title, 2006).
continue into English 100 with the same English
Special Services programs serve the needs of sru-
instructor and counselor. The program establishes
dents with physical, learning, and psychological dis-
mentors from the community for each student and
abilities. Srudents may use services provided in the
supports participating students with special events,
Learning Center, the Disabled Srudents Center, the
tours of college campuses, and targeted counseling.
Disabled Students High Tech Center, and Adaptive
The program serves approximately thirty new stu-
Physical Education. Srudents may qualify for coun-
dents annually. The OCC Puente Program has
seling, interpreters, registration assistance, special
demonstrated significant success. The latest data
proctoring, and many other services.
reported by the Puente Program indicates a 95%
retention rate in English 099 and 100% retention rate Non-native English speakers who matriculate
in English 100 and Counseling 102. Moreover, 75% of must take the ESL Assessment Test, which indicates
the students in the program have transferred to uni- the level of instruction the srudent should enter. The
versities and colleges (Traver). ESL program currently offers a sequence of thirteep,
courses to serve srudent needs ( OCC Catalog 200,
The Transfer Opportunity Program (TOP), origi- 2007, 179-180). Despite a decrease in enrollment,
nally designed for members of under-represented over thirry-two sections continue to be offered irt
groups, is now open to all incoming freshmen who
each semester ( OCC Fall, 54-55).
are first-generation college students interested in
transferring to a four-year institution. Students In Fall 2005, seven percent of Orange Coast Col-
enrolling in TOP must successfully complete Coun- lege students were identified as international stu-
seling 102. dents. These students are assisted by the Orange
Coast College International Center both in terms of
All incoming students are assessed by means of fulfilling entrance requirements in order to attend the
the matriculation process, and data regarding skill
College and in terms of counseling and support once
levels is gathered and distributed as a guide to pro- they have arrived.
gram development. The College addresses srudents
in need of basic skills in a variety of ways. First, the In addition to program and curriculum develop-
College offers a significant number of remedial read- ment, OCC has expanded various services to meet
ing, writing, and math classes. Math students may the needs of its srudents:
also enroll in self-paced courses offered in the Math- CaiWORKs and CARE respond to the diversity in
ematics Center. The Tutoring Center provides assis- the student population by serving as a designat-
tance for students in all areas of srudy. The Counsel- ed county intake office for students who qualify
ing Program offers a variety of "Becoming a Master for assisted housing.
Student'' classes aimed at specific groups of srudents
Middle College High School answers the com-
who may be experiencing academic difficulties in
college ( OCC Fall, 42). munity needs of at-risk high school srudents in
grades eleven and twelve .
. The Freshman Experience Program began in Fa~
2002 as an effort to address the needs of basl~-HJ.s. The International Center supports internationa!
students and sponsors an annual Study Abroa
and English as a Second Language (ESL) srudents.
Standard 1/65

learning has been reinforced by the increasing uti- ough process of informal and formal mechanisms for
lization of data-based evidence to assist in evalua- campus dialogue regarding student learning occurs
tion, planning, and improvement. The data is culled in the Planning and Budget Committee. This com-
from a variety of sources. The Office of Institutional mittee, which meets biweekly, is chaired by the Pres-
Research plays a significant role in supporting any ident and represents all campus constituencies. This
campus conversation regarding student learning with is the major committee for all campus-wide planning
appropriate data. As well as a myriad of targeted and budgeting decisions. The committee allocates
research reports, the Office produces the Orange money to College initiatives recommended by indi-
Coast College Atlas, an annual compilation of facts, vidual divisions and departments or by committees
figures, and institutional effectiveness indicators for representing the different wings, divisions, or depart-
the College. The Atlas is available on the OCC Portal , ments. The committee also finalizes hiring recom-
the College intranet, as well as in hard copy (OCC mendations from subsidiary committees and reports
Office 2005-2006). The Office of Enrollment Ser- the College's progress in College student learning ini-
vices publishes a biannual statistical report on incom- tiatives. Two recent student learning initiatives dis-
ing students titled "Who Are Our Students?" (Kidder, cussed at length by the campus community and final-
Fall 2006). In the spring semester of 2006, the Col- ized by the Planning and Budget Committee were
lege initiated a new enrollment planning model in the Associate in Science degree and the College's
which online wait lists provide data to support cam- Institutional Student Learning Outcomes Plan.
pus dialogue regarding section and class offerings A key responsibility of the Planning and Budget
and future hiring needs. Committee is to supervise the success of the Orange
Additionally, increased use of technology has Coast College Maste1 Plan goals and objectives. The
improved the ability of campus constituents to share Maste1 Plan is composed of three major documents,
information, data, and other resources as part of their each with its own goals and objectives related to
ongoing effort to improve student learning. The improving student learning and includes the Acade-
OCC Portal allows committees to post membership, mic Master Plan, the Factlities Master Plan, and the
minutes, and discussion items for public view by any Technology Maste1 Plan. The Technology Committee
OCC employee. The proceedings of most campus and the Facilities Committee both report to the Plan-
committees can be reviewed on the OCC Portal ning and Budget Committee on progress in their
where agendas and minutes are posted. areas, while members of the Planning and Budget
Committee are assigned as advocates for each of the
At a formal level, self-reflective dialogue about the
Academic Master Plan goals. As advocates, they are
continuous improvement of student learning institu-
tional processes is most effectively conducted charged with ensuring that the College continues to
through the system of committees that unites the dif- engage in the process of achieving, evaluating, and
reviewing these student learning-centered goals.
ferent constituencies within Orange Coast College
and links the College with the Coast Community Col- Through the President's Office, the Planning and
lege District. Budget Committee has developed a grant process to
encourage ongoing, campus-wide engagement in
The presidents of the colleges and the Academic achieving the goals and objectives of the Academic
Senate presidents meet regularly with the Chancellor Master Plan. One successful Academic Master Plan
to prioritize District planning goals and to share indi- faculty grant Project is the development of lear~g
vidual institutional approaches to these identified communities for incoming students with basic skills
shared goals. The District Board of Trustees is kept needs. _Known as the Freshman Experience pro~
informed of improvements and institutional changes gram, this group of courses links a basic skills, math,
by the individual colleges to ensure accountability or English class with a counseling course. ~
with the goals and community objectives each col- ilot program in Fall 2005, Freshman Experience has
lege serves. grown to seven earning community co ~-
Orange Coast College has several campus com- Several campus-wide committees act as major
mittees specifically focused on the continuous advisory bodies to the Planning and Budget Commit-
improvement of student learning, all of which are tee, and each of these provides an important avenue
open to the campus community. The apex of a thor- for self-reflective dialogue about the continuous
Standard I/70
- .; - --~=-------

Goal 6: Develop new and strengthen existing allocation model as needed (OCCMaster; 2.1-2). Th,
partnerships with external educational and College is currently engaged in addressing this goal
business organizations. in a variety of ways. The President created a new
Goal 7: Strengthen student, faculty, and staff campus-wide Outreach and Recmitment Committee
awareness and knowledge of international in Spring 2006 to replace the former OCC Outreach
issues. Coordinating Council ("Outreach"). A task force of
this committee is focusing on developing partner-
Goal 8: Develop and maintain cutting-edge ships with the University of California, Irvine, and
employment preparation curricula and Newport Unified School District, targeted at increas-
programs. ing student enrollment and transfer. Finally, the
(OCC Master, 2.1-1- 2.1-7) Deans' Council created a new resource allocation
model for class offerings. One of the components of
The first and most important goal set by the Col-
the funding model addresses student demand, meas-
lege community in the Academic Master Plan is to ured by the online student "Request to Add" list.
"emphasize a campus-wide focus on student learn-
ing." The goal has three objectives: (1) to seek cam- The third goal of the Academic Master Pla?'l is to
pus-wide support of student learning as the primary "investigate and implement new strategies to support
mission and activity of the College; (2) to expand the student learning." Two stated objectives of this goal
number and types of learning opportunities available are to (1) develop and implement a plan to strength-
to students, especially in cohort groups; and (3) to en student learning in basic skills courses, and (2)
introduce and implement measurable student learn- create student and faculty mentoring programs in
ing outcomes across the cuniculum ( OCC Maste1; support of student learning. Currently, the Vice Pres-
2.1-1). This goal caused the campus to embark on an ident of Student Services has brought togerl1er a com-
ongoing broad-based reevaluation in terms of stu- .r-: mittee of faculty and staff to draft a Title III grant
dent learning. In Fall 2004, the College Opening Day application to create a Student Success Center. The ,
focused on a presentation about the Learning Col- bas1c aun of the Student Success Center is to
lege. This was followed by several smaller group strengthen student learning in basic skills and to pro-
presentations on the concept of the Learning College. vide tutoring. The Freshmen Experience learning
The Vice President of Instruction created in Fall 2004 communities, which have grown to a cohort of
the Instructional Planning Council, which has seven, represents one of the most innovative recent
become the most comprehensive and broad-based strategies at the College to support student learning,
decision-making committee within the instructional patring baSic skills-level English and math classes
wing. This committee has been instrumental in deci- w1th counseling classes (OCC Master, 2.1-3).
sions regarding the allocation of resources for hiring The fourth goal of the Academic Master Plan is to
and in creating the College Institutional Student "broaden campus use of technology to support learn-
Learning Outcomes. In response to the second ing and student achievement." The tl1ree objectives
objective, the College now has several learrung com- of this goal are to (1) design new and remodeled
1imnity cohort groups, primarily within the Freshman classrooms to include the latest teaching and learn-
EXperience Pro m, initiall funded b Academic ing technology, (2) increase students' opportunities
aster Plan gr-ants~ Finally, the College, having for online course and degree completion, and (3) use
alieady developed Institutional Student Learning technology to increase facu lty and student informa-
Outcomes, is in the process of developing both pro- tion (OCC Master, 2.1-4). The campus is in the mid-
gram and course level outcomes. dle of a significant reconstruction effort funded by
The second goal of the Academic Master Plan is Measure C, a local bond. When this effort is com-
to "implement new strategies to increase student plete, new classrooms will be technologically
recruitment and enrollment." This goal has three equipped to enhance and support current teaching
objectives: (1) to design and implement a compre- and learning needs. The percentage of students
hensive enrollment management plan, (2) to increase enrolled in online course offerings at OCC has dou-
community outreach efforts to regular and new stu- bled from 80/0 in Fall 2003 to 16o/o of students enrolled
dent populations, and (3) to review current resource in Fall 2006 (Kidder, Fall 2006). The faculty and staff
allocations for offering classes and implement a new are making increasing use of the internal website, the
OCC Portal, to post committee, department, and clivi-
Standard II/85 ,
ge:r

students, 12% identified themselves as having avoca- below college-level math (Math 100) (OCC Office, 12
tional or career goal (Kidder, Fall 2006). According to April 2006). Students may also enroll in specialized
the 2006-2007 Catalog, Orange Coast College offers programs such as the self-paced mathematics or
fifty-six occupational programs. Through these pro- tutoring. .The Freshman Experience Prosram, begun
grams a student may earn an Associate in Arts or an in Fall 2005, is a new program. Designed for incom-
Associate in Science degree, a Certificate of Achieve- ing freshmen with basic skills needS. the Freshman
ment where the occupational programs consist of 18 EXperience Program creates learning communities by
units or more, or a Certificate of Completion where pamng developmental classes, particular! in En
the occupational programs consist of less than eight- an math, with a counse ing Master Student Class.
een units. The College currently offers ninety-one tfie pro ram is currently composed of seven learn-
Certificates of Achievement, Certificates of Comple- ing communities, enrolling close to stu ents.
tion, and five Skills Certificates (OCC Catalog 2006- 'I he counselin2 class provides instruction in study
2007, 61-66). The College is a regional leader in its skills, and the counselor and English faculty member
Allied Health programs, such as Neurodiagnostic 'work together to correlate assignments and study
Technology, Respiratory Care, and Polysornnogra- skills mstruction (OCC Office, Fall 2005).
phy. Additionally, OCC offers outstanding programs
in occupational and career areas such as Architec- Lifelong Learning Programs
ture, Aviation Maintenance Technology, Construc- Orange Coast College serves the learning needs of
tion, Culinary Arts, Fitness Specialist, Hotel Manage- the community in several ways. OCC has one of the
ment, Ornamental Horticulture, Technology, and nation's largest public boating education programs,
Welding. Since 2000, more than twenty new certifi- the OCC School of Sailing and Seamanship, annually
cated programs have been developed at Orange enrolling 5,000 people of all ages in classes, semi-
Coast College. These include programs in Allied nars, and voyages. The sailing school employs more
Health, Aviation Pilot Training, Business Administra- than sixty staff members and offers courses in virtu-
tion, Computer Information Systems, Culinary Arts, ally all aspects of sailing, seamanship, and navigation
Dance, Design, Drafting, Early Childhood Education, (OCC Sailing, 2006). The College has also begun to
Hotel Management, Leadership Studies, Marketing, offer specialized classes for older students within its
Real Estate, and Retail Management. regular curriculum. The Physical Education Depart-
ment has initiated a program titled "The Second
Advisory corrunittees, required by every occupa-
Half." Currently, two courses have been developed,
tional program and composed of representatives
and the department plans to expand its offerings.
from the College and from industry, meet one time
Additionally, the College offers approximately fifty
each year at a minimum. They monitor the quality
not-for-credit classes annually through its Extended
of vocational certificate programs to ensure that they
Education program. In Spring 2006, Extended Educa-
meet industry needs and to offer recommendations
tion partnered with the Disney Institute to provide a
for improvement.
leadership program for the campus and community
Basic Sktlls and ESL tided "Disney's Keys to Excellence" (OCC Disney).
Orange Coast College addresses its ffilSSion of Extended Education does not currently complete
serving the needs of basic skills and ESL students in program review, but monitors its effectiveness
a variety of ways. Students are identified in terms of through enrollment data.
these needs when they take mandatory placement Although the majority of Orange Coast College
tests offered through the Assessment Center. These courses are delivered in a traditional lecture, lab, or
placement tests offer the students recommendations discussion format, the College does offer students
for enrollment into appropriate levels of English, alternate means of delivery and location. An increas-
math, and English as a Second Language. A review ing number of courses may be taken online, for
of students taking assessment tests from 2003-2004 example. Online courses were first offered in Fall
indicates that approximately half of entering fresh- 1999, and by Fall 2006, 16% of Orange Coast College
men are at a pre-collegiate level in English or math. students were enrolled in online learning classes
Among new entering students during that time peri- (Kidder, Fall 2006). The Fall 2006 Class Schedule
od, approximately 4SOA> tested below college-level lists eighty-six online class sections, including both
English (English 100), and approximately 78% tested completely online and hybrid formats (OCC Fall, 16-
Standard II/ 89

II.A.l.b. The institution utilizes erized classroom as well as classrooms in the Com-
puting Center.
delivery systems and modes
In addition, OCC has a well-established Mathe-
of instruction compatible with matics Center. Here, students are offered self-paced
the objectives of the math courses to study math at heir own pace with
curriculum and appropriate the aid of tutors, audio-visual technology, and com-
puter-based instruction.
to the current and future
To further serve student needs for increased sup-
needs of its students. port in the classroom, several faculty have also
begun to develop learning communities. This
approach to teaching and learning is commensurate
II.A.2.d. The institution uses delivery with the first goal in the Academic Master Plan 2005-
modes and teaching 2008, which encourages the College to "emphasize a
methodologies that reflect the campus-wide focus on student learning." Objective
2 of this goal is to "expand the number and types of
diverse needs and learning learning opportunities available to students, especial-
styles of its students. ly cohott groups" (OCC Academic 2.1-1). Learning
communities are being developed to address a wide
range of teaching and learning needs. For example,
Freshman Experience is a specific type of learning
D escriptive Su m m a ry II.A.1. b ., II.A.2 .d . community that initially addressed the 1?-eeds of basic '
skills and ESL students. Freshman Experience linkS
OCC utilizes a broad range of delivery systems entermg baste skills classes with Counselin 10Z,
and modes of instruction compatible with the objec- ecoming a Master Student. " In Spring 2006, the
tives of the curriculum and appropriate to the current College offered students seven learning communi-
and future needs of its students. --ues, pairin Math 010 with Counselin 102 Math 030
Within rhe traditional classroom and lab setting, Counseling 103, S eech 110 with Counseling
faculty utilize a variety of modes of instruction. , uman Develo ment 180 with Counseling 102,
These range from lecture to discussion, collaborative peec 100 with Counselin 102, ESL 199 with Coun-
study groups, research papers, oral presentations, se tng 102, and Speech 110 with Anthropology 100
and other forms of student demonstrations. The Staff (OCC Office, Fall 2005).
Development Office provides ongoing workshops Faculty have also developed a very strong and
and resources to enable faculty to improve heir abil- active Service Learning Program, linking academic
ity to adapt their instruction to the wide variety of course work to academically-focused service in rhe
skill levels, learning styles, and delivery modes that community. The program "unites community work
characterize the community college classroom. Work- with academic study and provides our students with
shops range from "Brain Research and its Impact on ways to incorporate both activities into a greater
Teaching and Learning" to "Getting Started with OCC learning experience" (OCC Service). Currendy, forty
Web Technology." On-campus computing facilities, faculty members offer classes that integrate service
such as the Library Media and Computer Lab Depart- learning elements into their course curricula. The
ment, provide students opportunities to make use of success of this program was recendy shared by the
alternate modes of learning such as audio, visual, Service Learning Coordinator in a panel presentation,
and online resources. The expanded access to the "Planting the Seeds of Civic Engagement and Service
Internet through campus-wide wireless "hot spots" Learning in Community Gardens," at a national con-
responds to student classroom needs and personal ference of the American Association of Community
interests. Computers are available to students in the Colleges in April 2006.
library Media Lab, the John R Clark Computing Cen-
ter and in classrooms in various disciplines. The OCC provides disabled students services and
' adapted modes of instruction through its Special Ser-
English Department employs computers in some sec-
tions of writing classes, using a designated comput- vices Program. Disabled students have access to a
Guillen, Alex

From: Pham, Hue


Sent: W ednesday, April1 8, 2007 1:52 PM
To: 'aguillen@mail.occ.cccd.edu'
Subject: FW: Freshman Experience Program

Hello Alex,
We need to tal k, and I think we also need to talk to the counseling division advisory
committee.
I will see you on Thursday for the hiring committee.

Hue
-----Original Message-----
From: Nish, Melinda
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8 : 23 AM
To: Pharo, Hue
Subject: RE: Freshman Experience Program

Hello Hue:
In reading this, I understand that we are not having any Freshman X program for 2007 - 2008 .
I have told you that I think completely discontinuing the program for a year is not the
best decision because its very hard to get going again after a hiatus of a year. Even
having a limited offering while in the planning phase would be preferable. However, I see
that you are supporting his withdrawal. And I would assume that you feel that he will not
reconsider.

you think?

I will move the $20,000 back into the budget model as that will not be needed .
You still have $10,000 as per your worksheet, however, I do not think that Alex should
receive a stipend of $10,000 for the activities that he has described below. I will speak
with Daniela about this as well .
What Alex is doing at the state-leve l is good , but we do not compensate f or t hat .
I am prepared to be "patient " and let Alex think about things for a year , but that st i ll
means that there is no Freshman Experience program for next year , and therefore no program
director. Is that the decision tha t you think is best for students?
Melinda A. Nish
Vice President, Instruction
Orange Coast College

-----Orig inal Message-----


From: Pharo, Hue
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10 : 18 AM
To: Nish, Melinda
Cc: Guillen, Alex
Subject: FW: Freshman Experience Program

Hello Melinda,
I would like to forward this email from Alex about Freshman Experience Program .

50
Freshman Experience Program Request

I would like to give an informational presentation on the Freshman Experience


Program to the Academic Senate. The presentation will inform the s~nators on the types
of learning communities that have proven successful, as well as the stages of
development for future cohorts. The spring semester is quickly coming to an ~nd and I
realize that the Academic Senate may not have time this semester and the Freshman
Experience Program overview may have to wait until the 2007 fall semester.

Please let me know if the academic senate would like for me to update everyone
on the Freshman Experience Program at one of their weekly meetings. Thank you.

Si~9-er~~ , L //
-(ft[v 4-~A:ff-
x Guillen
Coordinator
Freshman Experience Program

. ..
. . . ..

~I
Thu, May 15, 2008 12:51 PM

Subject: Complaint about accreditation


Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:13 PM
From: Oviatt, Vinta <voviatt@occ.cccd.edu>
To: "Harmer, Ann" <aharmer@occ.cccd .edu>, "Arismendi-Pardi, Eduardo"
<earismendipardi@occ.cccd.edu>
Conversation: Complaint about accreditation

Dear Ann and Eduardo,

I'm attaching both the short version (which I gave the accreditation team member,
Donald Brown, last March, 2007) and the longer version of my complaint about Bob
Dees' last minute change to the accreditation report of the standard I co-chaired
concerning the library, and especially concerning this issue of information competency
and librarians teaching.

I'm proud of both of you and honored to even be a small part of this effort, but I hope
this helps. It's all public and the truth. If Bob had a disagreement, he should have
come and talked with me, not just changed it at the last minute. Leslie Danziger and
Melinda hadn't even been aware of the change. Even a president, but especially one
who says he believes in shared governance and was at the same time trying to get that
document completed (I was on that committee, also with Dr. Mandelkern--and
Georgie!),does not have the right to change an accreditation report to something not
true and so different from what the committee, which had worked for over a year and
interviewed experts for its report, concluded without talking with the committee. That's
the opposite of shared governance--and very wrong.

Take care, Vinta

Page 1 of 1
ORANGE COAST COLLEGE ACCREDITATION SELF-STUDY 2006
STANDARD IIC: LIBRARY AND LEARNING SUPPORT SERVICES
Co-Chairs: Dr. Michael Mandelkern and Vinta M. Oviatt
Vinta Oviatt's Disagreement with Final Wording in II.C.l.b.
My disagreement about changes made to II.C.l.b., which examines Information
Competency at OCC:

That the wording of the evaluation and plan of action of II.C.l.b was changed after
the two public forums in September, 2006, but never submitted to the standard
committee co-chairs;
That in the final report, specifically in the evaluation and plan of action of II.C.1. b.,
sentences that were deleted, added, and changed resulted in wording that is in
complete opposition to the draft approved by the standard II .C Committee;
That the wording currently in the final report in the evaluation and the plan of action
is inaccurate and is unacceptable to me, Vinta Oviatt, as co-chair and as a librarian.

Specific wording I disagree with:


(1) Evaluation of II.C.l.b. sentences that were deleted and that I petitioned be reinstated,
but were not

"But there are no courses currently offered that have the stated purpose of
enabling students to develop skills in information competency. ... Of the three
courses developed but not currently offered, IR 120 is an information competency
course. . In addition, one-(ime workshops for library and internet research skills
could be developed as could online tutorials and research guides."

(2) Planning Agenda that I petitioned be reinstated, but was not

"Develop a plan to support and develop classes or components and support


services that enable students to develop skills in information competency."

(3) Evaluation of II.C. l .b. sentences that were added that I do not agree with and a
Planning Agenda that was changed and that I do not agree with:

"At present, students receive instruction in information competency within classes


that require research skills. The Library plays a key role in supporting these
classes" (141).

"Expand the opportunities to improve students' skills in information competency


with the support of the Library and other campus resources" (141).
I find this wording inaccurate because it implies that OCC has classes that actively
teach information competency just because these classes require a research paper. If
this was true, which it isn't, this training would be supported by program and course
outlines and student learning outcomes, and would provide assessment of these
information competency skills, which according to the California Academic Senate
involves "a combination of library research skills, discipline research skills, and
computer skills."

1
5:3
I also find this wording objectionable because it removes the role of instruction of
information competency from the library and librarians, leaving them instead in only
a support role of "these [non-library] classes," when information competency
concerns library research and should always involve the faculty librarians as the
experts (with a required master's degree) to teach or to collaborate on instruction of
information competency. This final wording and planning agenda, in my opinion,
denies the library and librarians an active role in developing courses, components,
tutorials, or research guides on information competency.

Interview of the "Expert":


The following are excerpts from the Subcommittee Report on library instruction as a
result of an interview of Jodi Della Marna, Instruction Librarian (until June 30,
2006), submitted by Salena Wakim, on October 5, 2005.

Description:

"There is hope to expand the number of library classes offered for credit.
One plan that is currently in the works, is to offer two or three completely
online, one-unit classes" (2). "Currently there is a collaborative effort in
the planning stages with CSULB. Together they [OCC Instruction
Librarian and CSULB Librarians] are working on an information
competency class, which will allow OCC to join the ranks ofcountless other
institutions, which require proof of information competency as a
graduation requirement" (5).

Evaluation:

"The information competency class would greatly increase the effectiveness


ofthe library teaching agenda" (5). "With the addition ofnew staff
members, and the completion of the planning process for the information
competency class, the library will be able to start utilizing the new program
campus wide" (5). "Jodi Della Marna would like to be able to offer more
classes overall" (6).

Planning Agenda:
"More classes: selfpaced and lecture style, as well as orientations, and
workshops" (6).
Chronology of Drafts of Three Areas of D.C.l.b.
There are three areas of D.C.l.b. that are involved in this disagreement:
1. The opening statement
2. The last two to three paragraphs of the evaluation
3. The planning agenda

I. The Opening Statement


1. The following is from the Standard II.C Committee Report submitted to
Accreditation Co-Chairs, Melinda Nish and Leslie Danziger, by Vinta Oviatt and Dr.
Michael Mandelkern in March 2006. This wording was with the approval of Jodi
Della Marna, Instruction Librarian at that time, and presented to all the OCC
librarians for their approval. The following II. C.l. b. opening statement was used by
Melinda Nish and Leslie Danziger at a retreat for all standard committee co-chairs

2
5~
(on January 18, 2006) as an example of how they wanted the reports to state
honestly and in the first sentences whether or not that standard was met.

Opening Statement to II.C.l.b.:

"Orange Coast College does not provide ongoing formal instruction


whose primary stated aim is to help students develop skills in information
competency. However, the library and other learning support services do
provide instruction in other areas that are relevant to information
competency. These areas include general and specific subject library
research, Web search strategies and evaluation, and the use of
technology" (11).

Evaluation (two of the final three paragraphs):

"Furthermore, although information competency is now a core value for


Student Learning Outcomes at OCC, there are no library courses currently
offered that have the stated purpose ofenabling students to develop skills in
information competency. Although the English 108 class has several
assignments that address some information competency skills, its emphasis
is on developing basic library research skills. The library would like to
develop and offer an information competency class which would allow
OCC to join the ranks of countless other institutions that requires proof of
information competency as a graduation requirement. The workbook that
is now being developed for an information competency course or module,
in collaboration with California State University, Long Beach (CSULB),
would prepare the ace library to offer this training.

The librarians also have several other related goals. They would like to
reestablish the courses in library and Internet research skills that have
been suspended and develop one-time workshops for students and faculty.
The librarians would also like to develop online tutorials and research
guides. Fortunately, in the new library facility, the librarians will have a
teaching classroom with 30 computers for the library lectures and classes
that visit. This teaching classroom will provide valuable hands-on training.
In addition, when the new library building opens, the library will have a
major increase in the number of library lectures and class visits requested
by faculty members, along with an increase in the number of students in the
library requesting assistance from librarians at the reference desk. All of
these changes will require funding for additional librarians and other
instructional resources" (13).

Plan of Action:

"ace should develop a plan to support and develop classes and support
services that enable students to develop skills in information competency.
ace should support the library in the development of a course and other
instruction, workshops, publications, and research guides that enable
students to develop skills in information competency" ( 13 ).

2. The following is from the draft presented by the Accreditation Co-Chairs, which was
objected to by both Vinta Oviatt and Dr. Michael Mandelkern. We met with Bob

3
55
Dees, OCC President, on April 5, 2006, and I sent a memo to the Accreditation Co-
Chairs arguing that the English 108 course is a traditional library course that teaches
some aspects of information competency, but is not considered an information
competency course by myself, by the librarians, or by the librarians at California
State University, Long Beach who have been working with us to develop a course
and workbook for an information competency course. This opening statement was
changed back, though with a compromise (see #3).

Opening Statement:

Though not exact wording, it stated that the Library's English 108 course taught
information competence.

3. The following is from the draft (May 16, 2006) that Dr. Mandelkern and I and the
Accreditation Committee Co-Chairs all agreed to. I considered this a compromise,
though still honest and acceptable. Jodi Della Marna and Sheri Sterner also agreed
to this wording, and it was again presented to all the librarians. It was presented to
all Standard IIC Committee members for their approval at a luncheon on May 19,
2006. It remained the wording, with only a few modifications, from May through
the two public forums in September, 2006.

Opening Statement:

Orange Coast College's library and other learning support services


provide some instruction relevant to information competency. These areas
include general and specific subject library research, web search strategies
and.evaluation, and the use oftechnology" (4).

Evaluation (final 2 of final 3 paragraphs):

"Furthermore, although information competency is now a core value for


Student Learning Outcomes at OCC, there are no library courses currently
offered that have the stated purpose of enabling students to develop skills in
information competency. Although the English 108 class has several
assignments that address some information competency skills, its emphasis
is on developing basic library research skills. The library would like to
develop and offer an information competency class which would allow
OCC to join the ranks of countless other institutions that require proof of
information competency as a graduation requirement. The workbook that
is now being developed for an information competency course of module, in
collaboration with California State University, Long Beach (CSULB),
would prepare the OCC library to offer this training.

The librarians also have several other related goals. They would like to
reestablish the courses in library and Internet research skills that have
been suspended and develop one-time workshops for students and faculty.
The librarians would also like to develop online tutorials and research
guides. Fortunately, in the new library facility, the librarians will have a
teaching classroom with 30 computers for the library lectures and classes
that visit. This teaching classroom will provide valuable hands-on training.
In addition, when the new library building opens, the library will have a
major increase in the number of library lectures and class visits requested

4
~
by faculty members, along with an increase in the number of students in the
library requesting assistance from the librarians at the reference desk. All
of these changes will require funding for additional librarians and other
instructional resources."

Planning Agenda:

"OCC will develop a plan to support and develop classes and support
services that enable students to develop skills in information competency.
OCC will support the library in the development of courses and other
instruction, workshops, publications, and research guides that enable
students to develop skills in information competency."

4. The following is from the draft developed over the summer, which was on the portal
and then presented in the two public forums in September, 2006, both of which I
attended. Though there had been some changes made to the May draft, there was
nothing that I objected to, though I still considered this a compromise.

Opening Statement: no major change

Evaluation (final 2 of final 3 paragraphs):

"In 2005, the College adopted four core outcome areas, one ofthese being
Thinking Skills. A subcomponent of this core outcome is information
competency. The English 108 and library lectures provide some instruction
in the development ofthese skills. However, library resources could be
used to further expand information competency skills.

Furthermore, although information competency is now a core value for


Student Learning Outcomes at OCC (OCC SLO Plan), there are no
courses currently offered that have the stated purpose ofenabling students
to develop skills in information competency. Three one-unit information
competency courses have been developed but are currently suspended.
One-time workshops for library and internet research skills could be
developed as could online tutorials and research guides" (81).

Planning Agenda:

"Develop a plan to support and develop classes and support services that
enable students to develop skills in information competency" (81).

5. All accreditation co-chairs were asked to attend a meeting of the CCCD Board of
Trustees on October 18, 2006. At that meeting, I obtained.a copy of the draft being
presented to the board and noticed that there were deletions and changes that had not
been presented to me, as co-chair, and which were, in my opinion, inaccurate and
objectionable.

Evaluation (second to last paragraph):

"Furthermore, although information competency is now a core value for


Student Learning Outcomes at OCC (OCC Office, 8 Dec. 2005), there are

5
51
no courses currently offered that have the stated purpose of enabling
students to develop skills in information competency though there is also no
general agreement that such specifically focused courses are needed at this
time. Three one unit information competency courses have been developed
but are not currently offered. Students in English composition classes are
instructed on searching for and evaluating information from a variety of
sources, particularly from the Internet. A research paper is required in all
English 100 classes, and students in English 101, 102, and literature
courses are expected to consult outside sources for much of the background
and other information they include in papers. Other disciplines, such as
Literature and Languages and Social and Behavioral Sciences, also
routinely assign papers and require students to seek and evaluate
information from outside sources" (146).

Planning Agenda:

"Review the College's course offerings that support the teaching and
learning of student information competency and determine whether the
College needs to develop additional classes in support of those skills and
the institutional Core Values" (146).

I talked first with Sheri Sterner, Library Director, and with Dr. Michael Mandelkern,
co-chair of this standard. Neither had been aware of these changes. I petitioned for
a change back to the original language (see #5).

I spoke with Melinda Nish and Leslie Danziger at the end of a Senate meeting on
October 31, 2006, and told them that this newly added wording had never been
presented back to the standard committee, and that I felt it was both inaccurate and
insulting. Melinda and Leslie both appeared completely unaware of the changes and
told me that Bob Dees had made them. I asked that they change the wording and
plan of action back to the original agreement, and I feel that they took the petition
seriously, and had hope that it would be changed.

At this same senate meeting, I also informed the President of the Academic Senate,
Georgie Monahan, that this change of wording had come after the public forums
without being presented back to the committee, that it was in complete opposition to
the committee's opinion, and that I felt it was insulting to me as a librarian. I never
received any further discussion or support on this issue from her or from the
Academic Senate.

6. The following is my petition for a change of the wording, which I emailed to Sheri
Sterner, ubrary Director, on October 26, 2006, who then emailed it to the
Accreditation Co-Chairs on October 27, 2006, who I heard spoke with Bob Dees.
The wording in bold are specific wording that I felt needed to be in this
report and that were not included or changed back (see #7).
Evaluation (that the final two of three paragraphs be put into one paragraph, and
replace the paragraph mentioned above):

"In 2005, the College adopted four core values for student learning
outcomes, one of these being thinking skills. A subcomponent of this core
outcome is information competency (OCC Office, 8 Dec. 2005). The
English 108 and library lectures provide some aspects of information

6
s<6
competency. But there are no courses currently offered that have the
stated purpose of enabling students to develop skills in information
competency. Library resources could be used to further expand
information competency skills. Of the three courses developed but not
currently offered, IR 120 is an information competency course. In
addition, one-time workshops for library and internet research skills
could be developed as could online tutorials and research guides."

Planning Agenda (to replace planning agenda mentioned above):

"Develop a plan to support and develop classes or components and


support services that enable students to develop skills in information
competency."

7. I was informed by Leslie Danziger in November that she had tried hard to change
the text back to the original, but without success, though it had been modified. I
kept asking to see the final wording, but they all said it was at reprographics and not
available. I was presented with a copy of the Final Report by Melinda Nish on
December 1, 2006. A copy was also given to Sheri Sterner. Dr. Mandelkern told
me he saw it about this same time. The following is the final wording, with new
wording and a new planning agenda in bold:

Evaluation (the second to last paragraph):

"In 2005, the College adopted four core values for student learning
outcomes, one ofthese being Thinking Skills. A subcomponent of this core
outcome is information competency (OCC Office, 8 Dec. 2005). English
108 and library lectures provide some aspects of information competency.
However, library resources could be used to further expand competency
skills. At present, students receive instruction in information competency
within classes that require research skills. The Library plays a key role
in supporting these classes" (141).

Planning Agenda:

"Expand the opportunities to improve students' skills in information


competency with the support of the Library and other campus resources"
(141).

8. The following is an Announcement I presented to the OCC Academic Senate on


December 5, 2006 as reported in the "OCC Academic Senate Meeting Minutes" of
December 5, 2006. I also sent to all senators the document from the California
Academic Senate that states accreditation is "faculty driven" and should be done in
collaboration with administration
(http://www .academicsenate.cc.ca. us/Publications/Papers/AccreditationStandards200
5.html). I didn't receive any response to this announcement from the Academic
Senate or senate president.

"Senator Vinta Oviatt informed the Senators that, as co-chair ofthe Accreditation
report for Standard Il.C, she feels that, in the final report statements that were
deleted, statements that were added, and a changed Plan of Action changed the
spirit of the report. Vinta explained that these were all changed after the two public
forums in September, but this was never communicated to the committee co-chairs,
including Dr. Michael Mandelkern, or to the library. Vinta forwarded a petition to
have it [the wording] changed back to the original wording (which had been a
compromise) [and that this petition] was taken seriously by Lesley Danziger and
Melinda Nish, and it did result in a slight change. However, Vinta does not agree
with the final wording in the evaluation and in the plan ofaction for Standard
1/.C.J.b. that involves information competency at OCC" (2).

Library Division Goal2006-2007 (developed by Sheri Sterner and the entire


library faculty and staff, dated October 23, 2006):
"Develop an information competency plan outlining the library's role in
supporting information competency across the OCC curriculum (Master Plan
Goal/) Timeline - spring 2007."

My Wish List, as current Instruction Librarian, regarding Information


Competency at OCC (and supported by the fonner Instruction Librarian, Jodi
Della Mama):
OCC to develop a plan for information competency, with the library leading and
having a major role in the plan.

The library to develop a course or module that specifically teaches information


competency skills.

The library to collaborate with discipline faculty to teach courses that combine
library skills with discipline research or computer skills.

The library to develop workshops for faculty regarding information competency.

The library to develop workshops, tutorials, research guides, and other


instructional aids to enable students to gain skills in information competency.

The library to develop student learning outcomes that incorporate the teaching
and support of information competency at OCC.

8
~0
!,

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE ACCREDITATION SELF-STUDY 2006


STANDARD llC: LffiRARY AND LEARNING SUPPORT SERVICES
Co-Chairs: Dr. Michael Mandelkern and Vinta M. Oviatt
Disagreement on Wording by Vinta Oviatt
Summary of my disagreement about changes made to ll.C.l.b., which examines
Information Competency at OCC:
That the wording of the evaluation and plan of action of II.C.1.b was changed after
the two public forums in September, 2006, but never submitted to the standard
committee co-chairs;
That in the final report, specifically in the evaluation and plan of action of Il.C.l.b.,
sentences that were deleted, added, and changed resulted in wording that is in
complete opposition to the draft approved by the standard II.C Committee;
That the wording currently in the final report in the evaluation and the plan of action
is inaccurate and is unacceptable to me, Vinta Oviatt, as co-chair and as a librarian.

Specific wording I disagree with:


(1) Evaluation of Il.C.l.b. sentences that were deleted and that I petitioned be reinstated,
but were not:

"But there are no courses currently offered that have the stated purpose of
enabling students to develop skills in information competency. . . . Of the three
courses developed but not currently offered, IR 120 is an information competency
course. In addition, one-time workshops for library and internet research skills
could be developed as could online tutorials and research guides."

(2) Planning Agenda that I petitioned be reinstated, but was not:

"Develop a plan to support and develop classes or components and support


services that enable students to develop skills in information competency. "

(3) Evaluation of II.C.1 .b. sentences that were added that I do not agree with and a
Planning Agenda that was changed and that I do not agree with:

"At present, students receive instruction in information competency within classes


that require research skills. The Library plays a key role in supporting these
classes" (141).

"Expand the opportunities to improve students' skills in information competency


with the support ofthe Library and other campus resources" (141).

I find this wording inaccurate because it implies that OCC has classes that actively
teach information competency just because these classes require a research paper. If
this was true, which it isn't, this training would be supported by program and course
outlines and student learning outcomes, and would provide assessment of these
information competency skills, which according to the California Academic Senate
involves "a combination of library research skills, discipline research skills, and
computer skills. "

1
(p{
I also find this wording objectionable because it removes the role of instruction of
information competency from the library and librarians, leaving them instead in only
a support role of "these [non-library] classes," when information competency
concerns library research and should always involve the faculty librarians as the
experts (with a required master's degree) to teach or to collaborate on instruction of
information competency. This final wording and planning agenda, in my opinion,
denies the library and librarians an active role in developing courses, components,
tutorials, or research guides on information competency.

Interview of the "Expert":


The following is the Subcommittee Report on library instruction as a result of an
interview of Jodi Della Marna, Instruction Librarian (until June 30, 2006), submitted
by Salena Wakim, on October 5, 2005.

Description:

"There is hope to expand the number of library classes offered for credit.
One plan that is currently in the works, is to offer two or three completely
online, one-unit classes " (2). "Currently there is a collaborative effort in
the planning stages with CSULB. Together they [OCC Instruction
Librarian and CSULB Librarians] are working on an information
competency class, which will allow OCC to join the ranks of countless other
institutions, which require proof of information competency as a graduation
requirement" (5).

Evaluation:

"The information competency class would greatly increase the effectiveness


of the library teaching agenda" (5). "With the addition of new staff
members, and the completion of the planning process for the information
competency class, the library will be able to start utilizing the new program
campus wide" (5). "Jodi Della Marna would like to be able to offer more
classes overall" (6).

Planning Agenda:
" More classes: self paced and lecture style, as well as orientations, and
workshops" (6).
Senate Announcement regarding this disagreement:
The following is an Announcement I presented to the OCC Academic Senate on
December 5, 2006 as reported in the "OCC Academic Senate Meeting Minutes" of
December 5, 2006. I also sent to all senators the document from the California
Academic Senate that states accreditation is "faculty driven" and should be done in
collaboration with administration:
http://www .academicsenate.cc.ca. us/Publications/Papers/AccreditationStandards200
5.html.

"Senator Vinta Oviatt informed the Senators that. as co-chair of the Accreditation
report for Standard II.C, she feels that. in the final report statements that were
deleted, statements that were added, and a changed Plan of Action changed the spirit
of the report. Vinta explained that these were all changed after the two public
forums in September, but this was never communicated to the committee co-chairs,
/

including Dr. Michael Mandelkern, or to the library. Vinta forwarded a petition to


have it [the wording] changed back to the original wording (which had been a
compromise) [and that this petition] was taken seriously by Lesley Danziger and
Melinda Nish, and it did result in a slight change. However, Vinta does not agree
with the final wording in the evaluation and in the plan of action for Standard
II. C. I. b. that involves information competency at OCC" (2).

My Wish List regarding Infonnation Competency at OCC:


OCC to develop a plan for information competency, with the library leading and
having a major role in the plan.

The library to develop a course or module that specifically teaches information


competency skills.

The library to collaborate with discipline faculty to teach courses that combine
library skills with discipline research or computer skills.

The library to develop workshops for faculty regarding information competency.

The library to develop workshops, tutorials, research guides, and other


instructional aids to enable students to gain skills in information competency.

The library to develop student learning outcomes that incorporate the teaching
and support of information competency at OCC.

Date:----------
Vinta M. Oviatt

3
V>.3
Thu, May 15, 2008 2:35PM

Subject: FW: Review


Date: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:16PM
From: Dorosh, Helen <hdorosh@occ.cccd.edu>
To: <jdorosh933@aol.com>
Cc: "Ho, Evangelina" <eho@occ.cccd.edu>, "Danci, Nicole" <ndanci@occ.cccd.edu>
Conversation: Review

From: Craig, Jess


Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:59PM
To: Dorosh, Helen
Subject: RE: Review

Hello all:

I am sorry it has taken so long to get back to you.

The answer is yes, but perhaps you know there is a process for Director's evaluations. In
short, the manager in conjunction with his supervisor will select the.staff involved in the
review. I will be meeting with Rob in the next few weeks to initiate the review process.

Jess

From: Dorosh, Helen


Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 4:24PM
To: Craig, Jess
Subject: Review

Dear Jess Craig,

We are aware that Rob Bachmann's second year review/


evaluation is pending this month and we are wondering if the
classified staff at the Health Center will be invited and given the
Page 1 of 2
opportunity to participate. In previous years, for the reviews of
Kate McDonough and Marilyn Dickson, notification and surveys
were provided by the office of the Vice- President of Student
Services. Thank you for your time.
We look forward to your response,

Helen Dorosh,
Evangelina Ho,
Nicole Danci,
Meg Rossi

Page 2 of 2

{P5
!'age 1 ot 1

Ann, The Health Center aqrees with your concerns and support
your efforts. We have been across the street with
our Union representation and in the Presidents office
twice this semester trying to reso1ve our own issues.
Lynne RidcUe is aware of this and can share with you what
she knows. We may not be ab1e to be in attendance
toniqht, but i t is great to know we are not the on1y
department that has had enouqh! He1en Dorosh x25808

Wednesday, April 02,2008 AOL: JDorosh933


MY COMPLAINTS ABOUT NISH & DEBS

1. In January 2007 Doug Benoit became Dean of Technology. Within two weeks of
his arrival He came down hard on me regarding enrollment and canceled one of
my classes before the start of the semester and that brought my assigned load
short by one unit (I). The class had 13 students and would have made their
expected limit of 18 but he canceled it prematurely. He met with me and gave me
an unreasonably long assignment in order for me to meet my full load assignment.
I went to the AFT and Bob Fey and I met with Benoit and had the assignment
reduced by about 75%. Benoit does not know anything about Machine
Technology, he started out as an Auto Mechanic, to the assignment was very
vague and disorganized.
2. I suspect some outside influence against me from the front office because I did
not know Doug Benoit and wondered why is this guy charging at me like an
angry bull when he doesn't even know me, my discipline, or my abilities? This
suspicious influence, I suspect, might have come from Bob Mendoza who was our
dean some years back, and was worthless as a dean, is mean and vindictive and he
never liked me because I replace one of his favorites. That is another story.
3. Doug Benoit has backed off after meeting with the union, reluctantly, but also
cautiously. After this meeting I met with Melinda Nish and told her of the
meeting and that I suspected Benoit knows nothing ofMachine Technology and
he should stop trying to pretend he is an expert and not to make decisions and
staffing changes without consulting the Machine Tech Department.
4. Benoit and Nish have refused to fund a position we lost through the retirement of
John Waters, CNC instructor, two years ago. I have requested a replacement for
the past two years but always get turned down.
5. In a Division meeting at start of the Spring 2008 semester NtSh and Benoit
mentioned proudly that twenty two California Community Colleges had
dormitories. This is false. I researched with the CA State Chancellor's Office and
found out only eleven or twelve have dormitories. I gave the list to Benoit. I think
he coughed and spit and didn't know what to do with the information.
6. Who knows what their intensions are?
7. Benoit and I manage to get along but with a bit of underlying tensions and I
always feel like I am under the microscope and walking a tight rope. This is not
an enjoyable way to work but I really care about my discipline and my students.
LETTER OF NO CONFIDENCE AGAINST
MELINDA NISH, V.P. OF INSTRUCTION &
BOB DEES, PRESIDENT OF OCC

1. A dark cloud of distrust, suspicions and great discomfort continues at OCC.


2. Moral is sliding downward with no end in sight.
3. Conditions must improve in order for all, both credentialed and classified, can do
their jobs effectively, with trust, and confidence, not in constant fear of retaliation.
4. Neither Dees nor Nish have much understanding of the role of theCA Comm.
Colleges. They forget, rather conveniently the main function is Transfer education
and Vocational Education, both functions that are not done very well. The transfer
rate is only around 10% and Vocational Education on campus is run very poorly.
5. Both Nish and Dees seem to push growth for the sake of growth so they can tell
the board "We are growing fast". The increase in total numbers seem to be mainly
in remedial classes. See the schedule of classes, I am sure you already have, and
you begin to wonder what their "great plans" are.
6. Nish seems to be a very skillful manipulator. She reminds me of Karl Rove the
Republican advisor to GWB who builds fences all around himself and pushes
other to do his dirty work. That is why she can be difficult to effectively "unveil"
her shenanigans. But the general distrust and unhappiness continues to grow.
7. She must go and we cannot loose this one or the college is going to greatly suffer.
Now is the time for drafting a No Confidence letter and getting as many
signatures as we can and bringing this great incompetence out in the open.
RESPONSE TO DEBS MAY 1 LEITER

President Dees,

Many focus groups of faculty concerned about different issues on campus have expressed themselves
through different forums and spent hundreds of hours dealing with governance and policy issues that have
eroded our student-centered reputation. The President's lumping people into a collective group of faculty
opposing the goals ofthe college and impugning the reputation of it is exactly the sort of governance
lapse that has not been openly reported. We, as Orange Coast faculty and staff: would like equal access to
campus on-line resources, to promote an ongoing dialogue and avenue to express alternate views to
documents such as your May 1st letter.

Your inference that the reporter from the school paper got it wrong could not be further from the truth. To
our knowledge, she accurately quoted the interviewees and researched the story thoroughly. It is
mentioned in her story that you were "unavailable for comment." The President cannot duck an interview
request, or claim something is a personnel issue, and then expect a do-over using an all-user email. Some
faculty and staff are used to the intimidation and harassment by senior administrators in their attempt to
limit free speech and prevent administrative embarrassment. Having the College President and outgoing
Academic Senate President infer that a student reporter was manipulated by faculty to do their bidding
cros,ses..a line that stuns even the most cynical observer. You are correct in stating that our college
community--the students, faculty and staff: community constituencies, and local industry advisors-
deserve to know how their college is being run. Specifically responding to yom May 1 memo's (in italics)
inaccuracies:

In 2000, the college received three recommendations regarding program review, planning, and
reestablishing a hi-tech committee.
The faculty member who brought the prol?lems with program review to the site visit team in 2000, was
harassed and transferred for his communications about program review with the acCreditation team
(accreditation team chair Dr. Brice Harris-8/20/01). As late as last week, the Academic Senate was still
trying to come up with a viable program review procedure after eight years. The midterm report in
October of2003 had a three day turnaround for faculty review and input (Coleman, 10/20/03). The memo
soliciting faculty review was co-signed by you as administrative co-chair and stated "ifyou disagree with
any part of the report, we would like to know that, too." On October 28, 2003, you overrode the
recommendation of the faculty co-chair and deleted comments on the program review process, career
education concerns, and the curtailment of Aviation & Space and punitive transfer of its last full-time
instructor (Coleman, Parker 10/28/03).

In 2007 ace got three recommendations regarding program review, planning, and student learning
outcomes; an additional recommendation at ace. GWC, and CCCC was made for the District and
Board
The body of the report beyond the headline ''bullet statements" describes a lack of transparency on the
campus and a critical problem in the careered fields with a 35.8% decrease in certificates awarded. The
administration made known (CCCD 2007 arbitration brief) that it specifically wanted to staff
long- standing programs with adjunct faculty over existing full-timers, who would be transferred to other
duties under management's right-of-assignment Some of the administrative transgressions causing
impugning the campus during this accreditation cycle since 2001 are delineated at
htg>:/www.thefire.org/index.php/schools/2579.

The accrediting team that visited on April 15, 2008, included OCC as part ofa District-wide visit ... .
or when a college has not sufficiently addressed prior recommendations.
The team required our follow-up report and Aprill51h visit because the college DID NOT sufficiently
address the recommendations and concerns in the body of the 54-page final report. The withholding of the
final report until after the Spring 2007 semester was over, and the compression of the response time in
February of2008 for a March progress report deadline, one would surmise was the reason for a personal
visit by the site visit chair and another administrative team member.

The visiting team came in April 2008 for one thing only: to verify that OCC and each ofthe other
District entities were indeed making the progress described in reports they submitted to the Commission
last f all. The team did not come because ofany discrepancies in the 2006 SelfStudy, OCC 's fall progress
report, nor any issues related to personnel or actions by the administration.
The report to the commission was just sent in March of this year, after only a one week window for
faculty input The final report of the commission's March, 2007 site visit was significantly delayed from
the original three week turnaround until early June, when the entire accreditation commission (apart from
the site visit team) chose to review the document before the final report was sent to us-an anomaly by
any standard It is our understanding that the President of the college received the draft report in May
2007, and refused to allow the faculty at large to review it. The Vice President for Instruction (V.P.I.)
claimed at a Senate meeting that the administration was "fact-checking," not requiring faculty review.
Given that accreditation is a faculty driven process, the President's refusal to allow faculty review until
after the spring semester was over was not demonstrative of participatory governance. The President did
not know of the Aprill51h visit until only a week before it occurred and admits that he could not contact
the site visit chair. To infer categorically that "the team did not come because of discrepancies ...." is not
a fact-based conclusion.

The notebook ofcomplaints described in the Coast Report has never been seen by the administration,
nor to my knowledge have the issues said to be contained in the notebook ever been shared with the
administration.
Since the President has never seen the "notebook of complaints," the negative characterization is
unjustified. The issues illustrated by documents authored by multiple contributors to the notebook are
known to the college and District administration. The faculty have been very open and transparent in their
dealings, while administrators have declined to discuss, often claiming personnel related or privacy issues
that are cited to try and prevent embarrassment caused by governance failures.

The ACCJC heard from the same staffduring its 2007 campus site visit and received material from them
at that time also. No action was taken by the Commission then, nor was there ever any suggestion to the
college that there was any evidence ofthis campus's SelfStudy not having been appropriately compiled
and shared with the entire campus community throughout its completion. Every SelfStudy contains a
time line showing the dates and processes followed for compiling and writing the report, as well as a
description ofthe entire SelfStudy process used by the campus. As was done in 2007 and earlier in 2000,
visiting teams also hold open, campus-wide meetings (which administrators do not attend) so that they
can receive frank input from the campus community.
The President claimed that visiting teams held meetings where they could receive frank input from
campus faculty without administrators attending. The refusal to schedule the 2007 meetings or the April
151h meeting in a place outside of the administration building (faculty memo 4/ 10/08) to protect people
from the kind of identification and harassment that appears with your naming of our current and only
Two-Time Faculty-Member-of-the-Year, portraying her in a negative light. We specifically requested
before the team arrived to have them meet in a neutral place such as the Library. We're not sure how you
know that "the same staff'' has contributed material, since you claim the team received "frank input"
without administrative interference. The number of staff seriously concerned about various campus issues
has increased exponentialJy since the publication of the final report of the March 2007 site visit team.

?.
~q
The group that wanted to meet with the visiting team in April 2008 was accommodated to the best ofthis
administration's ability. The college received word ofthe April15 visit on Monday, April 7. The campus
was notified ofthe visit the following day. The schedule for the visit was set in advance by the chair of
the visiting team, who was also in charge ofthe entire visit to this District and consequently concerned
about having enough time to complete the visit in one day. The team chair requested to meet on April 15
at ace with those responsible for the areas affected by the 2007 recommendations and to review
evidence ofthe college's progress in addressing them. The chair asked to meet with those individuals
between 8:15a.m. and 10:30, with 45 minutes scheduledfor each topic. At 10:30, the visiting team was
scheduled to leave ace and to meet with the GWe team at the District office to follow up on District-
level recommendations.
The President's claim that "the college received word on April 71h." is not supported by the facts stated in
111
your V.P.I.' s Aprill4 4:29PM email. The opportunity to announce it at the Academic Senate on
Tuesday was also not exercised by the Senate President or V.P.I. In fact, the all-campus email was not
sent until Thursday April lOth, knowing with Friday scheduling, that the majority of people would not
read it until Monday. Two requests from faculty to the V.P.I. and President were sent on Thursday, as to
where and when the meeting was being held. The V .P.I. would not provide that information, and still
refused to provide that information as late as the night before the site visit team was due to arrive.

On Thursday, April10, my office received a request from Ann Harmer for a group to meet with the team
chair on the following Tuesday. I and my staffmade several attempts all that day and again on Friday
and the following Monday to contact the team chair to ask whether he could make time to meet with the
group. We were not able to reach the team chair, and that information, along with the schedule the chair
had given us, was conveyed to Ann Harmer. The group was told we would continue to try to reach the
chair and get his agreement to alter his schedule to meet with them. I also emailed the chair late Friday
afternoon to ask ifhe could make time to meet with the group. I did not hear from him until he arrived at
OCC on the following Tuesday.
Perhaps as faculty in a faculty-driven process, the faculty's attempts at communication with the chair
would have been more fruitful. We can only surmise they were wary ofbeing trying to be influenced or
controlled by the campus administration. Ann Harmer was meeting with the District Chancellor that
morning, and did not receive information on the location of the team until after 11:30 AM; the team was
scheduled to leave campus at Noon. In fact, Professor Harmer went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that
she knew the particulars of the site visit. How it was "conveyed to Ann Harmer," again demonstrates the
lack of importance that the administration placed on the input of the Faculty-Member-Of-the Year and
other concerned faculty. The conclusion can easy be drawn that any opinions contrary to the written
report were actively suppressed.

On Tuesday, April 15, the team a"ived, and I immediately informed the chair that a group wanted to
meet with him. He agreed to that, and my office called Ann Harmer and told her that he could meet with
her and others at 10:30 that day. Ann had emailed me on Monday that she had received the team's
schedule from my office and should be available before 9:15 and after 10:15 on Tuesday. At 10:30 on
Tuesday, April 15, Ernie Maurer and another male faculty member came to Admin. 103 and handed the
team chair a packet ofmaterials. According to the chair, he offired to discuss their issues with them at
that time, but they would not stay, and left. Ann Harmer had told my staffthat morning that she was
coming to meet with the chair, but did not. In response to a follow-up email I sent her asking why she
had not met with the chair, she replied the group did not find out in time, but had given the chair some
written information.

Since the "group" were all teaching classes on the morning of the 15th, it would be very difficult to
assemble them on an hour's notice without disrupting classes or detrimentally affecting students. The
groupstill had not heard from an administrative representative the whereabouts and schedule of the
accreditation team. In fact, Ann Harmer did not find out untilll :30 AM that the team was in Admin 103.
Considering that one of the concerns in the Accreditation Report was a lack of transparency, it would
have been most useful to advise your faculty promptly in bow to communicate with the Accreditation
Team directly and clearly. Your assertion that Maurer and "another male faculty member" visited with the
team at 10:30 AM does not accurately reflect what occurred Maurer alone found a last minute
opportunity to meet with the team after Ann Harmer was told of their location, a little before noon. Since
the rest of the group was not informed in a timely manner in order to meet with the team, and because
Maurer did not want to be misinterpreted as self-serving, he directed the team to the factual material in
the notebook which had been provided by missing members of the group. He did not press the team for
additional time, as they were obviously trying to get to their next off-campus meeting. Your email that
night to Professor Harmer detailing your observation of her failure to meet with the accreditation team
appears somewhat self-serving, given that efforts to ensure faculty access were effectively thwarted

When the visiting team was here on Apri/15, 2008, the campus presented evidence consisting of
committee meeting minutes, campus announcements, memos, course outlines, and other documentation
showing its progress in addressing the 2007 recommendations. The visiting team reviewed the
documentation with the college president, vice president ofinstruction, faculty chair ofthe curriculum
committee, the president ofthe Academic Senate, faculty co-author ofthe recent progress report and a
peer reviewer for program review, the director ofinstitutional research, faculty coordinator for staff
development, and the co-chair ofthe Classified Forum. The faculty coordinator for program review was
out ofthe state that day and not available for the meeting. Comments from the team chair about the
college 's progress were positive, but he reminded us that only the Commission's findings are final and
official.
The material you presented of"evidence consisting of committee minutes, campus announcements,
memos, ... " without clearing it through any faculty review process is in direct contradiction to the shared
governance process and transparency issues so clearly noted in the original Accreditation Report. The
"notebook of complaints" from the faculty that you admit not seeing consisted of exactly the same kinds
of materials that needed to b:e shared with the Accreditation T earn. The " faculty" that you assembled are
on release time and free from scheduling constraints. That select group included only one teaching faculty
member, in stark contrast to the all-teaching faculty group who wished to communicate with the
Accreditation Team; those are the faculty most in touch with the students. A quick review of documents
shows about seventy-five faculty who had serious concerns that needed to be addressed A sample of
them could have been provided to the Accreditation Team for direct consultation ifthese teaching faculty
had been notified in a responsible and timely nianner.

The Orange Coast College 2006 SelfStudy resultedfrom a great deal ofhardwork by a large number
ofpeople on this campus, including faculty, administrators, classified staff, and students. Its composition
was overseen by the college 's Accreditation Steering Committee and two co-chairs, a faculty member and
the Vice President ofInstruction, as well as compiled by Standards Co-chairs and their individual
Standards Committees-a// composed ofa cross-section offaculty and staff The entire draft SelfStudy
was shared campus-wide in May 2006 and again in September 2006, each time with requests for
corrections or changes. Draft versions were posted on the college Portal for campus-wide review
throughout the more than six-month process. The SelfStudy was reviewed in its final version by the
A cademic Senate, the Deans ' Council, the Planning and Budget Committee, and other campus planning
constituencies before being sent to the Commission in November 2006.
Unfortunately, the written input provided during the earlier sessions on the Library, transparency,
program review, and Aviation and Space issue at one of the open forums was neither accepted nor
included by the administration co-chair or you for the draft or final report. While many Senators
expressed concerns and wrote specific action items to be addressed, the VPI and President chose to ignore
finalizing the writing of the follow-up report until February 2008. Additionally, the faculty co-chair was
appointed without input from our faculty and then required at almost literally the last minute to throw a

4
'7J
report together, with one week window for faculty input. While her motives were good, she was placed in
an almost impossible situation, given her approaching deadlines imposed by a fast approaching Board of
Trustees meeting. Even with this administrative obstacle, many faculty stepped up to the plate and spent
their weekend providing written statements that did not make it into the administratively-edited
document, with another loss of transparency and shared governance.

The Commission's policy is not to involve itselfwith personnel matters. /fit feels there is an issue that
affects the credibility ofa campus's &IfStudy, that issue is addressed at the time ofthe visit and in the
follow-up letter stating the Commission 's recommendations. Despite also being approached in 2007 by
individuals who at that time also made allegations about the college's SelfStudy, no such concerns were
raised informally or formally by the Commission, nor were any included in the letters OCC received in
2007 or 2000 from the Commission. Concerns from faculty regarding the processes resulting in the 2006
or 2000 SelfStudy have never been shared with the administration. One can only conclude that claims
that the Commission has concerns or should have concerns about OCC 's 2006 SelfStudy or any prior
study are wholly unsupported by the facts.
The commission concerns itself with the governance model of the college and how students are being
affected by it. Almost any disagreement with administration by faculty or staff can unilaterally rise to a
"personnel issue" to silence dissent. The concerns of the Commission were reflected in their global
recommendations and in the body of the 54 page report. How "no such concerns were raised,"
demonstrates the administrative disconnect. It is clear that the governance mistakes of the past must be
addressed before the campus can continue to serve its students and move forward.

I again thank everyone who helped to produce OCC 's' 2006 SelfStudy. Your dedication to our
maintaining high standards ofexcellence are appreciated and recognized by your colleagues, your
students, and our community. --Bob Dees

We also applaud our OCC faculty-the ones who worked tirelessly to research, review, and write the
Accr~ditation Report from the very beginning. They worked with dedication and altruism be~JISC they
cared and still care about the school and their students. Unfortunately, many of their voices were muffled,
completely removed from the "shared governance" doctrine-like they didn't exist- and our campus, our
faculty, and our students are not better for this. We approach even now with our concerns for the best for
our students. Sadly, this is something that does not seem to come across in your letter. Countless people
have spent hours working on this report and the ones that preceded it, and some have taken courageous
professional risks in doing so to maintain the quality ofteaching on campus for the students. To block,
remove, or marginalize the voices of so many faculty who share that concern does not bode well for
participatory governance. It is a great loss for us all, the faculty, the students, and the administrators, for
the spirit, the reputation, and the very essence of what has made Orange Coast College great-quality
learning for our students-is at stake. -Your Concerned Faculty and Classified StaffColleagues
EVALUATION FOR RICHARD PAGEL

Of the three vice-presidents, Mr. Pagel seems to be one who either ignores requests or
retaliates against those who ask the wrong questions. We had serious problems in the
faculty offices located in the Lewis Center as evidenced by excerpts from memos below.
Rather than address the problems, he hassled the faculty over where they could and could
not be located. He fmally assigned them to substandard offices when others were
available, while assuring them there was no risk to their health in the Lewis Center. In the
summer of 2007, extensive asbestos contamination and mold was found, which caused a
substantial delay in the rehab of the building. It is noted that as of this date, Mr. Pagel
still has not notified those faculty of the asbestos contamination.

On a related topic, his handling of the Measure C funds has been anything but
transparent. His report to the faculty in 2006 with a Powerpoint presentation was attended
only by a handful of faculty, and his co-chair Kevin Parker did not bother to show up.
After that, he would not release much of the information requested by faculty, who in fact
had to file a Freedom of Information Request with the District to gain what should have
been public records. IN the justification for Measure C funds, the Lewis Center was the
top priority for replacement. After the bond passed, the Lewis Center was bumped to the
bottom of the list, and the Astronomy complex deleted entirely. To add insult to injury,
the District attempted to collect $300 in copying charges from the faculty member who
made the request.

Mr. Pagel has also ignored requests to handle items of immediate safety including
replacing the mercury thermostats in the counseling wing-each of which contain about 5
grams of liquid mercury and could easily be broken. These were also brought to his
attention by a student, and did not receive an answer back to her query.

To: Bob Denton 3/30/2006


I am requesting that my faculty office be moved immediately to Tech 215 (or Tech 213)
from Lewis 216. Aside from the issues with the other Math offices in the same corridor
which the union and EHS is looking into, my office is a converted storage closet that has
no windows and is on the same HVAC air handler as the Marine Sciences lab. For the
entire semester, I have struggled with bronchitis during the week, recovering on the
weekend, only to have it resurface on Monday when I come into a damp 62 degree office
on Monday, as it was after the President's holiday. It is my belief that the bacteria from
the moist air in the lab and the mold from the ceiling water leak is doing the damage. The
air sampling equipment that was placed in the office was not there during air handler
startups after vacations or weekends.

Irrespective of my standing in the Technology division, I am being denied equal access to


facilities that are closer to my classes and students in the Technology building and a
healthful environment. Tech 215 has sat empty for years since Bob Hancock retired,
another math faculty member. Other math and science faculty were moved to offices in

73
the Aviation & Space office area and lounge, after I was transferred from Aviation &
Space, a not so strange irony of cause and effect. Thanks for your help.

To: Christian Teeter, Assistant to the District Chancellor


Cc:Bobby Muir, Riki Kuchek, Abbas Faridi, Steven Drum, Debra Raskin, Art Moore,
Nancy Kryder, Arnold Guerra, Jamie Blair April, 2006

It appears that while the voters have entrusted us with $200 million for Measure C, the
District is unwilling to provide safe and healthful working conditions to its employees
and students. Renovation of the Lewis Center was Item # 1 in the pre-election justification
for Measure C, and it has suffered neglect as other projects got funded The office
situation behind the Math lab is intolerable, given the availability of offices on campus,
including the Tech Center. Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government
Code Section 6250 et seq., this letter is to request inspection and/or copies of the
following documents in the possession of Coast Community College District.
OCC Maintenance and Operations Work Orders for the HVAC units in the Lewis
building for the last three years. Also any outside vendor POR' s and invoices for
repair of the HVAC units.
The District Environmental Office surveys and followup reports that were
collected for the Lewis Center during the for the past three years, including air
quality and sampling of suspect ceiling tile and carpet
The HVAC blue lines and HVAC details for the Lewis Center.
How the availability of both adjunct and fall-time faculty offices is determined
and a current list of the vacant offices on campus by room number, including the
Art and Technology Centers.
The Measure C Annual Report for 04-05, the Measure C meeting agendas and
minutes for 2006, the Jan-March 06 Quarterly Report The District website is
lacking these and other important items.
Complaints from OCC faculty and students about substanu-d and unhealthful
conditions on the campus as a whole for 2005-2006.

I believe there exist no provisions of law exempting the records from disclosure. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 6257, I ask that you make the records "promptly available,
to me and/or my agents for inspection.

If you believe a portion of the information I have requested is exempt from disclosure by
express provisions of the law, Government Code Section 6257 additionally requires
segregation and deletion of that material in order that the remainder of the information
may be released.

If you believe that an express portion of the law exists to exempt from disclosure all or a
portion of the material I have requested, Government Code Section 6256 also requires
you to notify me of the reasons for the determination not later than 10 calendar days from
your receipt of this request.
If you plan on charging me for any expense incurred in my request to copy documents in
this request after inspection, please notify me in advance. Thank you for your timely
attention to my request. We may remind you, that charges cannot be made for material
which should be normally be easily available to the general campus community.

15
EVALUATION OF V.P. :MELINDA NISH by Ernie Maurer

Since her tenure as vice president, it seems that her natural management style is from the
top down. She does not seem to think independently of the President and has often
missed opportunities to solve problems in the area of instruction. I have personally
attended one of her meet and greet meetings held in the Spring, where she attempted to
gather faculty input I was very disappointed afterwards to have our questions and
concerns ignored, in a memo which seemed to be more about her that anyone else. She
has consistently ignored input from faculty and division deans and has imposed her view
of the universe on middle management. It is very difficult for a division dean to serve
students and enable faculty to do their jobs, when Ms. Nish imposes her preconditions.
She also uses the "this is a personnel issue" to dodge questions about specific areas of
concern. In one specific case, she overrode the illA and division dean in assigning
classes, and told them misleading and false information about another faculty member to
justify her actions. Her habit of stirring up discontent within a department or division
seems to be a recurring theme.
SENT TO BOB DEES FRIDAY , MAY 2, 2008

Members of the group that you claim has impugned the reputation of Orange
Coast would like equal access to publish the rebuttal to the numerous
inaccuracies in your May 1 all-user email, in addition to promoting an ongoing
campus dialogue. The only things impugned were a result of your assertions--
the OCC Faculty Member of the Year and a persistent student reporter. As an
example, the person (not two as you flatly claimed) who talked to the two
committee members showed up ten minutes after learning the team's location--
an hour and a half later than you claim, just as the site visit team was literally
packing to leave.

We would like a hyperlink on OCC homepage under Academics labeled the


"OCC Governance Project" with attachment uploads enabled, a hyperlink
(http://www.governanceproject.blogspot.com/) and header (Coast
Governance Project) in the online weekly Coast-to-Coast directly under the
President's Log, and a header and hyperlink
(http://www.governanceproject.blogspot.com/) under the President' s Log for
the Governance Project on the OCC Portal. We consider this to be an
academic freedom and free speech request, and would like these links enabled
immediately, so we can respond before next Tuesday.

On a personal note, it seems the administration subscribes to the new twist to


an old saying: one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. You seem to
think that faculty critics of the administration are personnel problems, which
absolves you of explaining and documenting your actions and assertions.
Your continuing denial of the seriousness of the current state of the college,
and the decline of career education programs while trying to marginalize critics
of the administration, demonstrates you have not taken to heart any of the
broad-based faculty concerns expressed this academic year. Literally when the
space topics are in the news every day
http:/ldailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/02/97 51 09.aspx, you have
personally blocked the teaching of any college's space classes at OCC for the
past seven years claiming it is a "personnel issue" and are moving core
astronomy classes off campus to Coastline. It seems personnel issues have now
come to include students, such as our student reporter, and not in a positive
way.

From : Dees, Bob


Sent: Mon 5/5/2008 10:40 AM
To: Maurer, Ernie

~1
Subject: RE: Equal access to campus on-line resources

Since you never inquired as to the time and place of the open meeting
with the team chair, it 's understandable that you didn ' t see him until
after 10 : 30. I have made a correction to the article I posted.

The addition of a link to an outside private party site is a technica l


matter. I will take it under advisement.

Departments and divisions decide which classes to offer . My


recollection is that the Space classes regularly enrolled fe wer than 5
or 10 students . Regarding my role in the offering of astronomy courses,
I don ' t know what you are referring to.

Robert Dees, President


5/26/08

Re: Evaluation of the Vice Presid~nt of Instruction:

I am writing to strongly encourage the Board of Trustees to review their policy for the
evaluation of managerial personnel. In particular, I believe the policy should be
permanently changed to elaborate a process for all faculty to participate in the evaluation
of the Vice President of Instruction, now, and for all future Vice Presidents of Instruction
employed by the Coast Community College District.

As I understand, the current policy allows for evaluative input only from those invited to
comment. I do not know how many faculty are currently invited to respond. However
the responsibilities of the Vice President of Instruction DIRECTLY affects ALL faculty.
In areas of curriculum, student success, shared governance, institutional planning and
budget development, accreditation, Ed. Program development, and more. Just as faculty
are evaluated by all students in their classroom, so should the Vice President of
Instruction be evaluated through a transparent process that gathers input from a broad
range and representative proportion of faculty.

I have reviewed the current evaluation form used for the performance review of the Vice
President of Instruction publicly available on the portal. Since the actual questions used
for the "behavioral survey" have not been made available, I can only restate that I believe
the most accurate information would be obtained in a "behavioral survey" if the
procedures for gathering feedback were revisited and considered with shared governance
in mind

For example, the items listed under the section for the supervisor's review (leadership,
communication, judgment/decision making ) would be greatly illuminated by including
faculty responses to these very same performance issues. How the performance of the
VP of Instruction affects the quality of education and the classroom experience for
students should be of grave concern. Faculty are at the heart of this institution; we are a
school.

Faculty evaluations of the Vice President oflnstruction are not peer reviews, and so I
encourage the Board to develop a model similar to how students evaluate faculty.
Because of the power a teacher has over a student in the classroom, students are allowed
to submit their evaluations anonymously. The evaluation process should be one that
promotes open dialogue about both strengths and weaknesses through constructive
criticism. When a student submits an evaluation of a faculty member, in addition to open
comments, they are given a series of questions on which they rate their teacher on a
sliding scale addressing key areas (e.g. clear and helpful communication, fairness,
accessibility, etc.) of the teacher' s performance. Faculty should be given the same
options in the evaluation of the Vice President of Instruction-measurable scores
addressing specific performance issues on a sliding scale of effectiveness (in addition to
free form commentary), and the ability to submit comments anonymously. Lastly, and
most importantly, the overall performance review of the Vice President of Instruction
should include direct reference to the faculty evaluation results. I would hope that one of
the goals ofthe Vice President of Instruction is to maintain a quality educational
experience at the institution; how can performance towards this goal be fully and
accurately measured, if a broad range of faculty are not consuhed for feedback?

I hope that the Board of Trustees will pursue a more representative and equitable
evaluation process ofthis crucial leadership position. I encourage you to implement this
change now and make it a permanent process for the future.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Eve Luckring
Associate Professor, Photography
Division of Visual and Performing Arts
Orange Coast College