South County College Trustees

* As legal counsel who represented South Orange County Community College District in both lawsuits referenced in the Times’ editorial Jan. 31, I would like to set the facts straight.

The board acted in August 1997 on the selection of a college president upon advice from the previous chancellor who prepared the agenda and advised the board that it was in compliance with the Brown Act.

A ruling from the judge that the board of trustees had to give more detailed notice of the personnel action was in fact “cured and corrected,” but the Brown Act infraction ruling is under appeal.

On the second, more recent lawsuit, the judge dismissed six of the eight causes of action. The judge is wrong as a matter of law when he refers to the board’s conduct as “persistent.”

The actions referred to involve only two board meetings between July and September 1997 out of 19 regularly scheduled meetings held since then, which do not justify being characterized as “persistent.” The board has since corrected and changed its public agenda meeting notices.

No court decision has found fault with the board properly discussing in closed session certain specific personnel items, litigation, employee hiring, etc.--all issues that by law must be taken up in closed session.

What the court found at fault was the lack of detail of an item that was posted on the public meeting agendas.

I will recommend that SOCCCD appeal Superior Court Judge Tully H. Seymour’s decision to order taping of closed session meetings because of errors as a matter of law.

SOCCCD should expect full and complete exoneration by the district attorney based on the evidence and the facts in any potential investigation.

SPENCER E. COVERT

Tustin

A recent accreditation report of the South Orange County Community College District continues accreditation for Saddleback Community College and Irvine Valley College, but raises concern about district governance.

The report praises academic programs, faculty and students, but it calls on the Board of Trustees, faculty and staff to end divisiveness, and advises the board to step back from daily district involvement. The public should be aware that the board will surely comply with the last directive, since current administrators share board support and goals.

Two years ago that was not the case. Policies and structures benefited small groups, nepotism was widespread, and district finances declined. The board responded with reforms to reduce the number of college administrators, compensated at about $100,000 each, from 40 to 19. Deans’ contracts were revised to include goals, and tenure is now linked to performance. Some administrators who would not follow the new direction of the board chose careers elsewhere.

At the Jan. 25 board meeting, a revised organization structure was approved, creating a division of advanced technology in each college to utilize the $6 million of technology installed last year and to respond to the high demand for innovative programs. The board had maintained good labor relations with all its employees. Last year we approved faculty and classified contracts which brought long-term liabilities under control while providing fair wage increases.

The faculty contract directs professors to teach a minimum of 22 students per class, and mandates instructors to teach a full load, usually 10 courses a year. Faculty committee work must be compensated by stipend, not by release from teaching. Consequently, release time fell from $2.3 million in 1996-97 to around $500,000 this year. Teaching only one course a semester for an $80,000 salary is no longer permitted.

The 1996-97 district financial crisis was not dealt with by the CEO, CFO and administrators. The board was not informed of the significance of low reserves in July 1997--$1,191,767--until the state chancellor’s office placed the district on a fiscal watch list. Stringent board measures mentioned above then raised reserves to $3,731,194 a year later. To ensure that level, board policy now mandates a 5% reserve balance.

Such policy changes provoked opposition, even lawsuits, from employees. A recent court decision faulted the district for the manner in which agenda items were written between July and September 1997. Since that 1997 warning, however, correct agenda procedures are always followed.

The board is ready to step back and let qualified administrators manage the district as the Accreditation Commission recommends. I ask faculty, staff, and students to stop the partisan divisions and protect the district from further recrimination. Let’s unite to realize our future opportunities.

DOROTHY FORTUNE

President

South Orange County Community College District

* Your Jan. 31 editorial stated: “ . . . students continue to get a good education.”

But it is in spite of these four trustees, not because of them. Indeed a faculty member I recently spoke to said it is now an embarrassment to mention where they work.

These four trustees, led by Dorothy Fortune, are so steeped in hubris that they cannot acknowledge they have made grave errors. In truth, they are in total denial.

In fact, trustee Steven Frogue wants to know, “Who is evaluating the evaluators?” (Jan. 26, “Accrediting Team Strongly Rebukes Leadership at College District”).

It is amazing to me that this man and the rest of the “gang of four” can continue to remain in office. If ever there was a time or a reason to remove people from elected positions, this is it.

It’s also time we, the voting public, became more knowledgeable about the types of people we place in these positions.

MARY B. MOORE

San Clemente