L.A. District Attorney to SMC’s Student Government — Obey the Letter and the Spirit of the Brown Act —
A Warning to the Office of Student Life
.jpg)
This is what happens when the remedies of the system are exhausted and inadequate to the task. You go outside of the system. And now the participants in the Office of Student Life – Assistant Dean of Student Life Deyna Hearn, Student Activities Advisor Benny Blaydes, and the Associated Student Board of Directors…plus others – have received a five-page notice about their obligations under the law from the office of the Los Angeles District Attorney. In the unfortunate event of further violations, it’s unlikely the D.A.’s office will limit their involvement to a letter. Violations of the Brown Act are a misdemeanor.
But let’s start back at the beginning.
Let’s say you attend Santa Monica College and care that the student government truly represents the student body of approximately 30,000. So you go to their board meetings only to discover many decisions aren’t made in the public eye – but rather at some other time and place – and are brought to the proceedings. You wonder, “Where are the open deliberations?” “How am I supposed to understand what is happening?” But the student representatives, in so many ways, don’t really seem interested in your participation, questions, or comments. In fact, they become downright cranky when you point out that their ongoing failures to properly do their jobs undermine the students they’re supposed to represent.
Furthermore, the student reps and their advisors have decided that a whole bunch of items of interest are subject to their own private purview, to be considered in closed session. Even though the title of the office they belong to – Student Life – arguably encompasses everything, that point, ironically, is overlooked. They assure you that these items are no business of the public.
You investigate and find out that there are actually clear and easy to read laws (e.g., the Brown Act), rules and regulations in place – from the state level all the way down to the AS Constitution – that protect the rights of the public to monitor their representatives, to know what they are up to, and to participate in their meetings. Great! And besides that, the student reps are responsible for properly implementing these laws.
But when you bring this information up (before, during, and after student governmental meetings) to your student reps and the advisors – Hearn and Blaydes – in the Office of Student Life, nothing changes, for months and months, and the law keeps being violated. Additionally, so much basic information that should be readily available when you ask for it from people working in the self-same office remains consistently hard to come by.
Well, this is not the way things are supposed to work.
These people are either paid (by tuition and taxes) or elected by the students, to provide a certain quality of service to the students. So you send letters to these people and their superiors (e.g. Vice-President of Student Affairs, Dr. Robert “Bobbie” Adams and then-interim, but now-retired President Tom Donner), but no one responds. You complain to every theoretically responsible governing body on campus, including the board of trustees, but to no avail.
You find, much to your dismay, that the student constituency is guided by advisors chosen by the office of the president of SMC (as allowed by a serious flaw in California’s Education Code), instead of someone completely and only accountable to the students. You discover that there is no real advocate – strictly accountable to students – on the entire campus who solely exists to empower students and help them deal with such intransigence and irresponsibility. (Even the Ombuds Office is ultimately answerable to the administration and not truly independent.)
You additionally find that every other constituency – administration, faculty, and classified – is primarily committed to insuring the rights of their own group, and THEN those of the students.
So you go to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, Office of Public Integrity, which is responsive and does take these things very seriously. And in less-than three weeks, they send the AS board of directors (and arguably their advisors who too often assume powers and authorities not belonging to them), a lengthy letter dated June 26 which essentially validates all your year-long complaints as legitimate and serious against the wayward student reps and their advisors .
Perhaps that will get their attention.
And you do another thing.
Since information is so unforthcoming from the Office of Student Life, you send them a cover letter on June 19 along with a 19-page request to inspect documents (for starters) under the California Public Records Act. Amongst the guidelines for compliance are the following:
“The Public Records Act (GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48) is designed to give the public access to information in possession of public agencies: ‘public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the…agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as…provided, [and to receive] an exact copy [of] an identifiable record’ unless impracticable. (§ 6253).
“An agency has 10 days to decide if copies will be provided. In ‘unusual’ cases (request is ‘voluminous,’ seeks records held off-site, OR requires consultation with other agencies), the agency may upon written notice to the requestors give itself an additional 14 days to respond. (§6253(c)) These time periods may not be used solely to delay access to the records. (§ 6253(d))”
Government Code, Sections 6253 and 6253.1, explain, by the way, that if there are any public records an agency wishes to withhold, it must state the reasons for such withholding.
Either information will start to flow from the Office of Student Life in accordance with what should be their mission, or it will ALL be requested via the use of the CPRA. The public has a right to this information. If the people responsible for this state of affairs cared more about responsibly doing their jobs than in thwarting easily answered questions, such measures would be unnecessary.
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:09 am
Unfortunately, most of Associated Student Board of Directors who failed to act in accordance with the Brown Act during this past school year have now moved on and will not have to publicly deal with the embarrassment and consequences of this communication from the D.A.’s office. What was extraordinary during the year was the utter failure, by the entire board and their advisors Assistant Dean of Student Life Deyna Hearn and Student Activities Advisor Benny Blaydes, to publicly and consistently abide by the provisions this statute which protects the rights of the public, but in this case especially the students, to really participate in and monitor their student government.
Those deserving mention and who should not be left off the hook are President Sadia Afolabi, Vice President Jeff Jensen, Secretary Luis Gonzales, Director of Budget Management Christina Colosimo, Director of Student Instructional Support Avraham Sinai, Director of Financial Support Jonathan Michaeli, Director of Academic Support Christian Herrera, Director of Student Outreach Janelle Tucker, Director of Student Services Anuja Ravi, Director of Activities Tamar Jacob, Director of Publicity Robert Nowland, ICC Chair Victoria Pregler, ICC Vice Chair Adel Morad, Student Trustee Belinda Phillips, and, of course, their advisors Hearn and Blaydes.
Special mention goes to Vice President of Student Affairs Dr. Robert “Bobbie” Adams who rarely made an appearance at student government meetings, though they fall within his responsibility, and couldn’t be bothered to speak out publicly about the ongoing violations of the Brown Act, although such was brought to his attention in the fall semester.
It should be known that some of the directors, in SMC’s version of student government musical chairs, will be back on the board of directors in other capacities. They include Pregler, Jacob, Phillips, and Morad. Also back will be Lillian Cavalieri who was elected the previous spring (2005) to the position of A.S. President for this last year, but failed to take her post once the year started. And this was after her reign (school year of 2004-2005) as Director of Budget Management which resulted in the A.S. budget ending thousands of dollars in the hole. Her new position – Student Trustee.
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Lillian Cavalieri, student trustee! Ha, ha, ha, ha…….
July 7th, 2006 at 11:27 am
You know students in these positions are only taking them for basic leadership experience. If they have faults or failures, it is because of a learning process.
Trying to attack them in what is a student learning experience that ultimately benefits us all is really in poor taste, especially considering that students are not paid and receive no benefits whatsoever in their duty. It is in really poor character to do all this.
Thanks for trying to destroy a system that has to date benefitted you, as well as thousands of SMC students.
I’m really disappointed.
July 8th, 2006 at 1:22 am
Deconstructing a “Concerned Student’s” Comments:
You know students in these positions are only taking them for basic leadership experience.
Students assume positions on the Associated Student board of directors for many reasons, as opposed to just mere “basic leadership experience.” Interestingly, most students The Siege has interviewed explain that such a position will “look good on my resume’” as the “reason” they’ve signed on. The notion of doing it in order to be of service to others seems a distant idea, if mentioned at all, by most.
And leadership is much more than holding office. In fact, holding office is not, itself, any evidence that any leadership has occurred whatsoever.
If they have faults or failures, it is because of a learning process.
Neither failure nor success can be apportioned to one cause, such as “a learning process.” Certainly, these students deserve much more than is offered to them by their erstwhile advisors (Deyna Hearn and Benny Blaydes), who not only have a very low bar of expectations for the directors, but who are truly unqualified to hold their jobs, as well. And an important point: true leadership doesn’t point the blame for its failures to any other cause or person than itself.
Students, arguably, should be able to expect that if they sacrifice their time and energy to holding an office in student government, the school will provide them with the requisite tools and skills so that the students can function to high levels of achievement. SMC currently fails to fulfill its end of this bargain, with the result that student officeholders and student body suffer greatly because of it.
Trying to attack them in what is a student learning experience that ultimately benefits us all is really in poor taste, especially considering that students are not paid and receive no benefits whatsoever in their duty.
People who assume positions of responsibility must expect that those they answer to - and in this case it is the student body - can and will hold the officeholders accountable for their tenure in office. If the directors rise to the occasion, they should expect to be recognized for such efforts. If they fail to perform – and such a characterization fits the 2005-2006 board of directors – then they can expect to be criticized for their shortcomings.
These students are all adults now, not children to be coddled and cooed over like babies walking for the first time or uttering “mommy.” Such unconditional adulation is for children. In the real world, true action and merit is what elicits applause. This is part of the shifting mindset that younger students must traverse - from thinking like a child who is obedient to his/her elders and expecting to be congratulated for just showing up, to actually stepping up and accomplishing things of real worth. For some it is a rude awakening, accompanied occasionally by tears. But the sooner students negotiate this reality, the sooner they’ll rise to their own real potential. It is a huge disservice to any college student to be treated like a child.
And the fact that the students are uncompensated by pay is irrelevant. That they receive “no benefits” is a failure to understand what those benefits are, of which there are many. Here’s a benefit. Sadia Afolabi – who’ll mostly be remembered during her stint as A.S. president for her clock-watching and abuse of gavel when cutting off speakers during the public comment portion of A.S. meetings – has received a full ride to Occidental College, a very expensive place to go. Of course, without any media to hold her to account at SMC (and the school newspaper, the Corsair, was A.W.O.L. during most of the year regarding student government), there is little objectively known public record of what she actually did, and didn’t, do.
It is in really poor character to do all this.
That you disagree with content expressed herein is fine and, indeed, welcome. That is part of the point - SMC needs to have a dialogue in the public sphere about so many things at the school, but such dialogue doesn’t really exist, accept in small circles beyond the hearing of the greater community. That you would equate a difference in opinion and perceptions of fact, with an issue of character, is merely an ad hominem distraction from a more constructive rebuttal on your part.
Thanks for trying to destroy a system that has to date benefitted (sic) you, as well as thousands of SMC students.
Criticisms and any comments on this site from The Siege, for that matter, are not intended to “destroy a system,” nor could they. A healthy and adult community (of which SMC is one) is interested in and welcomes feedback, both positive and negative, in order to improve. And the fact is that there is really so much more that could be accomplished by a student government which knows its rights, powers, and resources. But who will they learn them from, Hearn and Blaydes?! Or the ever-absent Dr. Robert “Bobbie” Adams, vice president of student affairs?! These people need to be replaced.
I’m really disappointed.
This statement betrays either a certain parental attitude, or a belief that The Siege might be concerned about the approval or disapproval of every reader, or really any specific reader, for that matter. Some will get it, some won’t. That’s how it always is. The Siege couldn’t care less whether any particular person likes or dislikes the positions taken herein. The higher, and much more important, goal and concern of The Siege is that there is an uncensored forum to exchange ideas and opinions, to the ultimate betterment of SMC, and beyond. The Siege is dedicated to helping such a forum(s) to come alive.
July 9th, 2006 at 12:23 am
“People who assume positions of responsibility must expect that those they answer to - and in this case it is the student body - can and will hold the officeholders accountable for their tenure in office.”
I totally agree with you that the student body is responsible for holding administrators accountable for their actions. However, the student body has not been up in arms about Brown Act violations, police discrimination, or any of the other accusations brought up. So attempting to justify lone actions using their name is a blatant misrepresentation. If anything the student body is against what you are doing and has voiced it by walking out of meetings and choosing to vote for other candidates.
“Sadia Afolabi (snip) received a full ride to Occidental College, a very expensive place to go. Of course, without any media to hold her to account at SMC (and the school newspaper, the Corsair, was A.W.O.L. during most of the year regarding student government), there is little objectively known public record of what she actually did, and didn’t, do.”
Had there been public record of what she had done, would you have seen her not attend Occidental? You do realize that you are now in a similar boat transferring with things in the public record that Universities may find worrisome?
I respect your desire to create a better community at SMC, but I think calling the District Attorney and constant bashing of the current leadership is the wrong way to bring about your ideas. If anything it has alienated you from the very people you are looking to create a better environment for and put these “dreams” even further out of reach.
July 9th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
A “Concerned Student” should spend more time reading the posts she is commenting on so that she doesn’t misrepresent what others have said.
It’s obvious that Longwing is holding the student government board of directors (not the administrators) accountable, as is the right of every student. What, because they’re students, we should give them a pass? Sorry, no way. L. is right that students should be treated like adults, instead of children expecting to get a happy face. I support L.’s courageous efforts to spotlight the pitiful efforts of the directors, plus exposing the feebleness of SMC’s police. Los Angeles has a police commission to oversee their cops. We need the same thing.
And the Brown Act? Apparently C.S. doesn’t get how important it is for students to actually know what their directors are up to. And it looks like the D.A. thought it important enough to write the directors a five-page letter. Thanks to Longwing, more and more people are learning what’s wrong and how things should be. Many of my friends are happy (in fact, we laugh our asses off) to see this stuff revealed. Maybe then we can fix them. What a concept that the student government could become relevant to the rest of the students.
All it seems C.S. can do is criticize this site. First, she doesn’t have the balls (well, I guess not) to say who she is, which reduces her credibility, and second, the facts exposed on this site could actually be addressed by her. Stop defending them like you’re their mom and then maybe the directors will act like adults who care about doing their jobs.
Maybe those who’ve been exposed will whine and complain about this site. I guess you’ve alienated them Longwing. Whatever. Get over it people. Either grow up or go back to the playpen. People who are screwing up won’t like their deficiencies spotlighted. Always has been, always will be.
Whatever minority of students is alienated by this site, I think C.S. will find many more people will be in support. I don’t think Longwing will be scared away because a few disgruntled people get their panties up in a bunch.
July 9th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
I guess you haven’t read my posts very carefully. I’ve never attacked this site. In fact I think it’s very well done and fits more into the proclaimed goal of creating student community and student empowerment.
The only thing I’ve contended is that by attacking students in govenment, calling the DA, etc, that you guys are betraying what you supposedly stand for and alienating those whom you seem to want to represent.
Notice how many clubs have come to participate in this site? How many of them want the DA to enter into litigation with A.S.? How many of them have asked members of student government to step down? Are you sure your wishes reflect those of the majority, or is the majority here 5 people and the wishes of the 30k others are irrelevant?
How is it you justify speaking on behalf of the majority when they walk out on meetings where this is being discussed, and refuse to vote for candidates that echo this sentiment. You can sit and imagine their wishes as much as you like, but an empty room speaks much more factually about the support for these ideas then the groupthink that I’ve heard so far.
It seems students have responded better to working with administrators and creating forums such as this, and have voiced it in unanimous votes in meetings and coming here to get involved. Why not adjust your efforts to support similar measures to what has worked, rather than a fight that has garnered little if any support from the majority? If student community is the goal, how can you meet it by ignoring the community?
July 10th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Here’s the thing. What The Siege so very much wants is to see the student government shine. How great it would be to see an engaged, responsible, over-achieving, raising-the-bar-for-themselves, visionary, resourceful, problem-solving, willing-to-listen-to-criticism, never-satisfied-with-themselves, goal-oriented, never-say-no, empowered, service-oriented, dynamic, non-excuse-making, committed-to-student-participation, knowing-the-law, knowing-their-own-constitution, empowering, open-to-ideas, humble, and energetic group of student leaders who enliven SMC and its student body with their actions. That’s the idea. So far though, a Deyna Hearn-guided Associated Student board of directors is anything but what has just been described. Deyna Hearn has to go.
I too am a student and would rather be spending my time with studies than in grappling with an intransigent Associated Student board of directors who believe that dialing it in is good enough and who circle the wagons around their co-dependent and unqualified advisors when they are outed for incompetency. The entire year was spent trying to get these people to acknowledge their responsibilities under the law and to the student body, but with little success. If The Siege knew back in December (when it was asked to leave an unlawfully closed meeting by the board of directors) what it knows now, the D.A. would have entered the game at that time and corrected that part of the problem.
What’s remarkable is that a “Concerned Student” (who writes with such familiarity about some of these things that it must be concluded he was probably on the board, since no other students – aside from Nehasi Lee and myself – regularly attended A.S. meetings) is absolutely unwilling to address the failures of the student government regarding the Brown Act (or any of their other failures, for that matter), which the D.A. agrees are violations of the law. Why does it take the seeking of recourse to the civil authorities for the directors to be awakened into responsibility? And what’s wrong with all the higher levels of authority at SMC that they couldn’t care less about helping to solve the problems?
The Siege is interested in the overall vitality and success of the SMC community, especially the students. If the student government (who were so dissociated from the student body that only 407 students voted in this last election for the 2006-2007 board of directors) imagines that their somnambulistic presence in the Office of Student Life during this last year was inspiring to the collective, then they need to immediately stop taking the bad acid someone sold them.
And clubs? In spite of the many initiatives suggested and overwhelmingly supported by most clubs during this past year which would have helped return the power to them (where it belongs), eliminate bogus bureaucracy illegally created by Student Activity Advisor Benny Blaydes et al, and give respect to their participation and ideas, the ICC board – first Kimberly Calitto and Brenda Nicolas, then Victoria Pregler and Adel Morad (plus Jeff Jensen, A.S. vice president, in a couple cameo appearances) – with aiding and abetting by Hearn and Blaydes, did everything they could to stifle such changes.
How to summarize the overall response by Hearn, Blaydes, Calitto, Nicolas, Pregler, and Morad when their presumptive authority was challenged by club members who knew the power, instead, belongs to the assembled clubs? Be afraid, be very afraid. Of course, that was after they had taken all kinds of time-delaying measures to keep the club-empowering initiatives from even being on the ICC agenda. People walked out on many meetings because of the long-winded speeches of dire consequences and disaster from the aforementioned doomsayers. Their non-constructive orations exhausted club members who then gave up. The officeholders and advisors have nothing to be proud of.
The club process at SMC is so strangulated by nonsensical and presumptuous procedures and paperwork – courtesy, once again, of Hearn and Blaydes – that the real potentials of club involvement and activity are throttled. And since the Hearn/Blaydes regime has shown itself to be less-than concerned about educating students regarding their true rights and how to assert them, most students remain clueless about the dilemmas of the board of directors. This is why students were mum about A.S. misdeeds and inadequacies. The student government is that disconnected from student body.
The sad state of affairs is that the student government and club structure, as it currently exists, does not represent the approximately 30,000 students at SMC. It’s a delusion to think otherwise. These bodies could aspire to true representation and that would be great. But first, the overwhelming evidence of disconnect and failure must be acknowledged. Then you go to work to solve the problem.
About working with administrators. Only the board of directors (and, of course, the administration) seems to think this is the important relationship. The fact is most students have little or no connection with the administration. Instead, students’ admiration and closeness is with the faculty, who give of themselves tirelessly and with endless generosity. Naturally, the administration, in an ongoing campaign generating unwarranted benefits to them, encourages a close relationship with the board of directors. Then it becomes easy to peel off thousands of dollars of student money for administration goals, instead of student needs. This is the problematic outcome of allowing SMC’s president to place his own advisor (Deyna Hearn) in the Office of Student Life. Students should select their own advisors to run this office for them. God forbid if the board realized that they should prioritize the student/faculty relationship as the one of primary importance.
The Siege plans to reach out to the SMC community in ways that the A.S. board of directors hasn’t. We are committed to finding the pulse of the campus and responding in ways that’ll inspire, educate and motivate, and in ways that generates laughter and an awareness that we are all in this together. We’ll have a dialogue, one not controlled by the college, but one that is real and vital. We’ll see what happens. This is my answer to the last question from a “Concerned Student,” a question with unintended irony. The Siege turns it back to the board, “If student community is the goal, how can you meet it by ignoring the community?”
July 10th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Yeah, I guess that is a funny irony. But you are putting yourself in harms way for a majority that, it seems to me, doesn’t care. Even in the past when other more inspiring leaders were in the chair, the majority was ambivalent.
What happens if the tide turns against you? I keep trying to point out at the meetings, that it seems people are getting annoyed and lines are being drawn. I’m sure that’s not what this is about, but it is what will happen.
The only end I can see is your getting the shit end of the stick. It seems like you are in a no-win situation.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
HAHA… reading these comments it looks like a pissing competition with “LongWing” (whose concerns are merely those and not actions actually helping the students) and “Donny Johnson” (please don’t even get me started on that one)/ I respect the fact that you guys are speaking your opinion, but I must agree with “Concerned Student” in saying that you appear to be attacking students. Point Blank. Yes they are student leaders, but foremost, they are students. Most between the ages of 18 and 26. It is a Learning Experience guys.
“What, because they’re students, we should give them a pass? Sorry, no way. L. is right that students should be treated like adults, instead of children expecting to get a happy face. I support L.’s courageous efforts to spotlight the pitiful efforts of the directors”
There is not much to say to this other than I hope never to expect any compassion from this person because apparently there are no feelings to be found in this waxen corpse.
I truly mean no offense, just trying to see what kind of “Human Beings” would actually shred the efforts of some students trying to actually do something productive with their lives.
July 14th, 2006 at 1:30 am
Eh, “no feelings, huh” That really hurts, really. Ooow!
What C.S. and “ScarletsLetter” (and PLEASE, OH PLEASE, don’t even get me started on that one, hold me back, hold me back) have in common is their shared habit of sniveling when students are held accountable, as L. has accurately noted they should be. The general thrust is that students (who, NEWSFLASH, are also adults) are just too fragile. Why, a little criticism might shrivel them right up. Forget about the fact that the board of directors dole out upwards near $300,000 during the year. That’s just play money, don’t you know? So if they blow it, well…it’s only thousands and thousands of misspent dollars belonging to the student body, isn’t it? (Rumor is the directors lavished a few thousand dollars on their own little invitation-only end of the year dinner at some nice restaurant on the Santa Monica pier. Where was the invitation to the rest of us? Maybe somebody can explain how clubs have to have their banquets open to the student body, but the directors don’t? Ooops! Was that a secret?) Where was I? Oh yeah. The directors ARE JUST STUDENTS, silly. Gosh, they showed up didn’t they? Let’s just applaud that. I mean, showing up, that’s the definition of “productivity,” right? Wait, wait! There must be some gold stars around here to give them. A plaque or two. And a trophy. Such is the wished-for universe of C.S. and new-found supporter, S.L., who just can’t seem to address the many specific complaints others have lodged here. Funny that.
S.L. states, “Yes they are student leaders…,” as if we agree. We don’t. Officeholders…perhaps. Leaders, please?! Like the man said, just holding office does not a leader make. The student body deserves so much better as this site is making all too clear.
July 14th, 2006 at 1:35 am
Maybe ScarletslEtter and Concerned Student should think about political careers. They have a knack for avoiding the issues. “Aware” had some killer comments. Read them.
July 14th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
I am an international student and very happy to be at SMC. The teachers here are the best. If I keep my grades up, I hope to transfer to UCLA.
But today I read this thread with a heavy heart. If students want to be in student government then they should not make excuses. Do the job right or don’t do it at all. You don’t know how lucky you are to be given the chance. Don’t mess it up!. We’re not children anymore. If what is written on this website is true, then student government at our college has many problems it must honestly face. Why isn’t the administration involved to help fix this situation? My family has read these things and ask me this question. Or maybe the students can wake up and do the right thing. I hope so.
These things concern me, but I am sad for other reasons. My country, Israel, is on the attack again and killing innocent people in Lebanon and Palestine. I understand why they say they are doing it, but I disagree. There’s other ways to get our soldiers back. When will my people come together to finally get rid of leaders like Netanyahu, Sharon and Olmert? We must select those who will end the constant strife we have with our neighbors and find a way to peace. I understand the problems, but not everyone supports the aggression of our government against the Arabs. Since May 15, 1948, we have been on the offensive. Too many people have suffered on all sides. I pray that this madness ends before others suffer and die.
Excuse me for going off topic, but the message needs to get out. Please don’t erase this.
Shabbat shalom.
July 15th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Ok, so let me get this straight. Anyone who politely disagress with D.J. is a sniveling, apparently stupid, no-balled, incompetant woman? Did I leave anything out? Again, you ridicule what you are supposed to support, which is inclusion. Way to take one step forward and 5 steps back.
Also, Aware has many valid opinions and sentiments. However, I would just like to interject, that at the last elections many of the students who ran for government positions, ran unopposed. Before we try and vilify them, maybe we should consider the lack of those interested in leading. Maybe the problem isn’t solely within student government, but also an ambivalent majority that cares little about the process. Instead of vilifying them, why not just run against them at the next election? If it is a change desired, that is the method that modern federalism dictates. It seems the solution is clear, just build up a better soapbox and turn out the vote.
July 15th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Oh come on. Politely?! Your comments were full of insult and innuendo, of “I truly mean no offense,” then laying out your final insult.
Let me help you understand what I wrote, which was that S.L. and C.S. (you) have this “shared habit of sniveling when students are held accountable.” Didn’t say you’re stupid. Or incompetent. (Of course, IF YOU WERE ON THE BOARD, then naturally some of the criticisms on this website will surely apply to you too. Maybe that’s what’s going on here.) I think we can agree that a majority of women don’t have balls. For you to infer these other characteristics is curious. A class in elementary logic might help you avoid such foundation-less conclusions in the future.
Face it, you get twisted that anyone might expect students to do more than just show up. If anyone dares to suggest the performance of officeholders is less than satisfactory, you two start whining. It’s easy to conclude neither of you has worked in real jobs much, because if you had, then you would understand that every role comes with expectations. Do your job badly and the boss will complain. And trust me on this, if you whined about that, you’d quickly find out how little such an attitude is appreciated by the boss. It’s the way to get your ass fired.
You’d rather the standard to which student officeholders were held was the one found in the playpen, where the children play. That’s a big part of the problem.
July 15th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
My mistake, the comments of questionable politeness were from S.L., not C.S., who just jumps to conclusions based on….?
See, make a mistake and be willing to admit it. That’s how you do it. Why is that so hard to figure out for student officeholders?
July 15th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Wow, so now we are incapable of holding jobs as well? What a sparkling person.
Nice to have an intellectual debate with you…
July 15th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
C.S. is fast becoming famous for her leaps to unfounded conclusions and misstatements of my words. ONLY CHICKS consistently display such illogic, as every guy knows… (Inviting politically-correct, gender-speak-sensitive types to get piqued now. Whatever. A poll of the male population would support that most guys believe this to be true.)
Logic: a cornerstone of “intellectual debate.” And if such debate is what you want (which would be great) the idea is to respond specifically to specific points the other people have made. You should give it a try.
July 15th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
There we go, at least the honesty shines through. I think my debate with you has ended.
July 15th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
I like this Siege very much. I am new student at Santa Monica College. My friend told me about this. He also like this Siege. I see it first time today. So many things I not know about. What means the letter from district attorney? Students are in trouble? I think maybe you have good information for international student. Thank you.
July 15th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
You know, I honestly can’t help but be a little upset with your last comment. I don’t think LWing would agree with either. In fact, many of his ideas and proposals were furthered by a rather intelligent and involved woman at school, whom I’ve come to respect a great deal. I can’t remember her name offhand unfortunately. Also, our current president is a woman who is not only very involved in A.S., but is highly articulate and intelligent, and whom I’ve come to respect and trust a great deal.
I just want you to know, trying to slant women who work unmeasurably hard, just due to their gender is a sign of complete ignorance. I don’t think I could disagree more with such a sentiment. In fact if you look at the “Top Recent SMC Student Leaders,” you’ll see a good portion who are women. Ones who were intelligent, articulate, involved. Some of them even represented people like you by lobbying local government and even the United States Legislature to help empower students and give people like yourself a better chance at an education. But I guess they are just “illogical chicks as every guy knows.”
Also, for the record I’ve never admitted to being a man or woman. I don’t think it contributes either way to the discussion. Besides, I understand the reasoning you are using. If I am a woman, you’ve already proclaimed that makes me somehow stupid, and if I claim to be a man, your next comment will be something along the lines of “well you sure aren’t acting like one.” I just haven’t been willing to go after the bait.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Hmmm. Disconnect for a bit of time and look what happens – dialogue. But how to moderate or just lay off will probably always be a question, especially in the coming months following the heavy promotion The Siege will soon be doing and the expected surge in participation.
This thread illustrates the dilemma. There is much of value written here and since The Siege has little interest in being a control freak, a lot of latitude will be given so people can have room to work out their differences. Nothing like SMC’s ambiguous and student-undermining “Code of Student Conduct” and its speech code will be found here. I’ve written further on this matter in the “How to Participate” sidebar regarding the rules of engagement on The Siege.
Donny Johnson, I appreciate your support and attention to the details of the debate at hand, but you had to know that your rather pointed gender-oriented comments virtually guaranteed a less-than-appreciative response. Gender-related issues, or even trying to distinguish between the attitudes, actions, priorities, et al, of genders is a present-day mine-field for discussion. People will ABSOLUTELY get upset when the topic is broached. But it’s one that the slumbering SMC community needs to participate in and thus a forum(s) for such exchanges must arise. Ideally, The Siege can help this along.
As a “Concerned Student” correctly points out, about half of the “Top Recent Student Leaders” listed on this site are women. (The Siege admits its list is somewhat of a presumption. Some will say the list is wrong – either omitting some deserving or including some not-so-deserving. Were there a way to have a legitimate measure of such a classification at SMC of student leaders, some kind of official record-keeping which would allow the institutional-memory-challenged student body to access the recent and more distant past, then perhaps community recognition of those who were really exemplary could occur.)
Women’s contributions in every strata of our world have been and are, arguably, momentous and considerable. Our student government (instead of just the SMC Foundation or Associates) should be inviting many of these extraordinary women of our times to speak to SMC students, women such as: Indian novelist and world activist, Arundati Roy; writer and social activist Bell Hooks; writer and editor in chief for The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel; writer and mystic, Caroline Myss; author Camille Paglia; Senator Barbara Boxer; Vice-Premier Minister Sima Samar of Afghanistan; Antoinette Batumubwira of Burundi.
The list is endless of those who could be invited (The Siege, by the way – no expert on who are the amazing women of the world.) by a visionary and empowered Associated Student Board of Directors. Perhaps they could reach out to the SMC community in a way that invites such ideas of whom the student body would appreciate listening to.
Just a couple of additional items.
Concerned Student, you mention that “many of his (our own) ideas and proposals were furthered by a rather intelligent and involved woman at school, whom I’ve come to respect a great deal.” If you’ve come to have so much respect for her, it seems rather odd you’d forget her name. That just doesn’t equate in my head. If you happen to recollect who that women is, please share her name, because SMC students need to know who is fighting for their empowerment.
And after having read the back and forth between you and Donny Johnson, I fail to see where he says you are stupid. Clearly, you are bright, plus temperate and reasonable in most of your comments, although it would be interesting to have you respond to some of the many specific complaints raised herein.
One last thing. Uri, The Siege is fully behind and supportive of your sentiments regarding the terrible escalating conflict involving Israel and its neighbors. As I’m sure you’ll agree, that too is a topic rife with emotion on all sides and one which will unleash powerful responses no matter one’s position. So naturally, The Siege will have to take it up.
July 16th, 2006 at 10:26 am
“Gender-related issues, or even trying to distinguish between the attitudes, actions, priorities, et al, of genders is a present-day mine-field for discussion. People will ABSOLUTELY get upset when the topic is broached. But it’s one that the slumbering SMC community needs to participate in and thus a forum(s) for such exchanges must arise. Ideally, The Siege can help this along.”
So can one take this to mean that the topic of “chicks being illogical as every guy knows,” will one day be one of the exchanges that The Siege helps along?
July 16th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Dear Concerned Student,
I am going to leave up your last comment which speaks volumes following the attempts of Donny Johnson and myself to clarify things and reassure you that no one has it out for you.
But here’s this. The great thing about publishing this site is that after our patience has run out, when someone, nonetheless, continues to jump to one unsupported conclusion after another, The Siege can say “enough.” If you want to address specific issues raised here, fine. If, on the other hand, you can only muster up reactionary positions, we have little interest in that. Your repeated tendency to hyper-reactivity will not become our problem. Further comments like the last one from you will be removed henceforth.
July 16th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Thank you.
July 16th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
The sentiments I’ve received here I think illustrate the problem you face. If you look in my comments, you will find a response to all the questions posed. Everything I’ve posted is polite, inobscene, addresses countering ideas, and even propose new ones related to the arguement (with the exception of the comment about women which I found offensive, and which seemed to slide). However, each comment is met with disdain and supposition that I am somehow a member of the board, woman, etc. I am now facing deletion, even though others have said many more scurrilous things.
I don’t believe this to be the open forum you claim.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
“Chicks being illogical as every guy knows,” is NOT the position of The Siege. This is “Concerned Student’s” mischaracterization of something Donny Johnson wrote earlier, which was that “C.S. is fast becoming famous for her leaps to unfounded conclusions and misstatements of my words. ONLY CHICKS consistently display such illogic, as every guy knows.” While as a guy, I can understand what Donny was driving at (as in guys get guyspeak, like women get their own kind of speak), even he admitted that such a statement would provoke dissatisfaction. And it has.
But this is not the topic of this thread, which has gone far afield. Women and men have major differences, but in today’s world, it takes little for the debate to slide into a morass of emotionalism and unclear thinking. Nevertheless, The Siege intends to jump in on this topic sometime in the near future and see if the SMC can come up with honest and constructive dialogue on the matter.
The goal is for this to be an open forum. But to have no guidelines in place, to let an “anything goes” approach to govern, is to insure a downgraded experience for readers, as anybody who has spent time on unmoderated sites knows.
The Siege doesn’t care if people use profanity, humor and satire (both of which in written form can be tricky, since some will miss the intended jest), are confrontational, or the like. But repeated mischaracterization of other’s words or positions which is followed by attacks on them (a logical fallacy known as creating a “straw man”), just wastes the readers time and muddies the issues. Creating strawmen is something Concerned Student has frequently done on this thread. The Siege has little patience for it, no matter how “polite” or “inobscene” it is.
Logical fallacies, in general, will get short shrift herein.
As for disagreeing, disagree away! That’s what happens in the real world, and it’s a healthy thing. Ideally, if people can support their positions with fact or well-reasoned argument, then we are potentially uplifted to higher levels of understanding.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Please explain the mischaracterization of D.J.’s comment about women, as to my understanding they are the same statement, with the words modified for readability.
Also, you’ve mentioned my “leaps to unfounded conclusions and misstatements of (your) words.”
Please specificy which unfounded conclusions I’ve arrived at. So far you’re only claim is that D.J. has not directly called me stupid. If that is what leads you to make a broad miscategorezation, let me explain. If someone speaks condescendingly in a consistent, almost constant manner, what does that imply?
If evidence is what you desire:
“A “Concerned Student” should spend more time reading the posts she is commenting on”
“It’s easy to conclude neither of you has worked in real jobs”
I fail to see how I could not infer that D.J. perceives me to be ignorant in these posts. That you cannot see that, and attack me based on my making “unjustified conclusions” just shows a bias toward the issue.
As for “misstatements,” I have quoted your source material exactly and in context.
Also, I fail to see how I’ve “attacked” anyone.
“repeated mischaracterization of other’s words or positions which is followed by attacks on them”
Did I attack anyone? I don’t remember, and I’m sorry if I did. I’m not here to try to tear anyone down, and I don’t believe I structured my responses or posts in that way. If you can show me how, maybe it would make it clearer.
Please provide evidence, because I’ve made efforts to justify my claims and conclusions.
Also, if I have not provided a tit-for-tat response, it is because those answers have already been covered by previous posts.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
If Donny Johnson perceives you (Concerned Student) “to be ignorant in these posts,” as you say, that is merely his impression. Maybe he is wrong. Maybe you are incredibly knowledgeable about that which you write. Obviously, that’s not how he saw it. Surely you have spoken to people who represent as if they are informed on something, when from your vantage point, coming from intense study or experience on the matter, you recognize the person has no idea of what they are talking about. People do it all the time, strongly expressing their positions when they’ve done little investigation to even justify an opinion. How refreshing it is (and quite rare) when someone says, “I just haven’t looked into that subject much yet, so I can’t really assert much of an opinion.” The Siege is humbled when it hears such words.
Ignorance is not stupidity. If someone implies that you are ignorant, you are not alone in that predicament. We are all ignorant about most things. In fact, the longer you tread the path of the student, the more you will realize you are ignorant about virtually everything, relatively speaking. Hopefully, some humility follows. It’s obvious The Siege has none of it, though, but we’re messed up.
You ask, “If someone speaks condescendingly in a consistent, almost constant manner, what does that imply?” I guess it could imply a great many things (if in fact the tone was condescending, as opposed to disdainful, mocking, patronizing, et al), but I am not interested in speculating what those things might all be, other than that “someone” was expressing their position with a certain color indicating they disagree with you. The Siege is less concerned with the tone than with the substance of the content. Friendly or in your face, it doesn’t matter.
For instance, if someone was to say, “George W. Bush is the most honorable guy who’s ever sat in the Oval Office,” either we’re looking for the punch line, or we want to see a reasoned argument about how someone could even string such words together. (Yeah, okay, we did, but, you know, we’re The Siege.) Absent it being a joke, we’d expect people to pounce on such an absurdity, and with all kinds of attitude. Colorless, dull essays are for torturing the professor who dared give the assignment in class. This isn’t that.
As for “jumping to conclusions,” the thread speaks for itself. I don’t want to rehash it. This series of comments has wildly deviated from the topic, which was centered on the Office of Student Life’s receipt of a letter from the D.A., and why. It would be good to have comments on that, besides the round and round on how unfair some think it is to criticize students.
You express yourself well and it is good to have your contributions.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:53 am
I think everyone here is making valid comments. However, arguing among ourselves disempowers all of us who are students at SMC. The focus of these comments should be directed to the intended topic, specifically, why our school is holding closed session meetings in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, and how to educate those in power to comply with the law. The Act states as follows:
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
I know that Longwing has worked tirelessly for the rights of the students to be informed. If he has exhausted his administrative remedies, it is necessary to seek outside intervention to enforce the law. If SMC is unwilling, or unable, to comply with the law, and thus keep its own house in order, then someone else, District Attorney, or otherwise, must step in.
Regardless of whether a student becomes an ICC rep, an AS member, or a student trustee, they should familiarize themselves with all relevant SMC Board Policies, Administrative Regulations, and California Education Codes and Government Codes that apply. If one takes a class, one receives a grade presumably that is fair and equitable to the mastery of the subject matter. If a student who holds a position of power willingly accepts that position, the student should also be graded accordingly. Someone who is responsible would gladly accept the criticism and try to improve. We should place principles over personalities. Let’s embrace the message, not personally attack the messengers.
If Concerned Student has anyone he or she admires, it would be helpful to know his or her name, and what that person has done to champion our rights as students. Believe me, we need more courageous students who are willing to step up to the plate. Conversely, if there is anyone who is intentionally or negligently disregarding our rights, we should be informed of such individuals so that we can address them in their public capacity in order to have meaningful dialogue.
We are all students. We all have something to contribute and we all make mistakes. Is this not part of the learning process? Rather than generalize over whether men or women are more logical, let’s focus on the specifics of how we are going to improve our school, a school that is struggling with enrollment recovery issues, lacks general accountability, and tramples student rights. Longwing has provided a forum to bring forth very crucial issues that need to be addressed. Let’s help him along by contributing positive suggestions and encouragement.
Like Longwing, I have worked tirelessly to expose problems at our school. I know the time and energy such a blog takes to run. I, too, have received both praise and personal attacks. I have received tremendous backlash from those in power such as administrators and campus police. When the civil rights movement was going forward in the 1960s, Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had two opposing viewpoints. When civil rights activists started arguing over their various camps, the entire movement suffered. United we are strong and divided we shall fall. Let’s try to ask what we have to each offer. Together, we will all have a stronger unified voice.
July 21st, 2006 at 11:36 am
“If Concerned Student has anyone he or she admires, it would be helpful to know his or her name, and what that person has done to champion our rights as students.”
Like I said, I forgot her name, but she has dark shoulder length hair and looks a little like Angelina Jolie.
Also, you state:
“Like Longwing, I have worked tirelessly to expose problems at our school. I know the time and energy such a blog takes to run. I, too, have received both praise and personal attacks. I have received tremendous backlash from those in power such as administrators and campus police.”
I just wanted to get some clarification since it was put out there. You know, I’ve been checking your site as well, and I saw some of the accusations levied against you in your suspension:
“You disrupted the AET lab in April 2005 and campus police were called.”
“You made threatening remarks about lab employees at the AET to Professor Jim Keeshen in Spring 2005.”
“You took unauthorized photographs of students and lab employees at the AET lab on August 10, 2005.”
“You disrupted the office of Pat Green on August 17, 2005 and campus police were called.”
“You disrupted the office of Judy Fritz on August 19, 2005 and campus police were called.”
“You harassed Professor Keeshan [sic] on February 27, 2006, at his ET2 Storytelling class and campus police were called.”
“You harassed Professor Keeshan [sic] on March 6, 2006, at his ET2 Storytelling class.”
“You ignored Dean Penchansky’s letter of March 6, 2006, which stated that you were not to communicate with Professor Keeshen either in person, via telephone, or by e-mail, when you e-mailed him on March 15, 2006.”
“You were asked to leave the SMC Gaming Club on Friday, March 24, 2006 and campus police were called.”
“You disrupted the AET lab on May 8, 2006, demanding that the lab tech remove a student who was using the lab, claiming that he was not entitled to use the lab.”
And were accused of:
“Assault, battery or any threat of force or violence upon a student, college personnel.”
“Continued disruptive behavior, continued willful disobedience, habitual profanity or vulgarity, or the open and persistent defiance of the authority of, or persistent abuse of, college personnel.”
and many other charges listed at http://savesmc.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_savesmc_archive.html
I’m just wondering, did you ever refute any of these accusations?
I only ask in response to what was already put out there as part of your original post.
July 21st, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Dear Concerned Student,
I am more than happy to respond to your last email, and SMC’s long laundry list of allegations against me to undermine my credibility. Since I have covered this issue extensively on my blog, I will be concise.
As to the first two allegations, I was exonerated of these charges by SMC Campus Disciplinarian Judith Penchansky in her letter to me a year ago. To bring these charges again is in violation of my Constitutional rights as it places me in “double jeopardy.” In other words, a person should not be charged with the same crime twice, esp. after one has been found innocent.
I have written many blog articles about these charges and the wrongful suspension in general. The AET Advanced Search link on my SAVE SMC blog will take you to a comprehensive database that I have built with keywords and topics pertaining to what I have written about over the last year.
I filed a timely appeal concerning my suspension on June 6, 2006. At this time, the California Education Code states that SMC should have given me an appeal hearing within 10 days. To date, SMC continues to violate my rights by denying me such a hearing. Since SMC has lost its jurisdication due to its failure to comply with the law, I have requested that the suspension be set aside. You can also read my two certified letters to President Chui L. Tsang either on my blog or in my database.
To date, SMC has also violated the law for almost a year by failing to allow me to physically inspect my disciplinary files. Moreover, no one at SMC has ever met with me in person to discuss these allegations, except for the first two of which I was exonerated over a year ago. In fact, Professor Jim Keeshen confirmed that he was blackmailed to write false allegations against me on fear of job loss. This too, is covered extensively on my blog.
If SMC does not elect to set aside the suspension and goes through with the appeal hearing, I have made it open to the public. You are more than welcome to attend if you wish. I think it will be a very educational process for all of us, to help understand how SMC operates without even a hint of fundamental fairness or consistency and how our First Amendment rights and due process rights have been grossly violated.
In any reasonable court of law, a person is found innocent before proven guilty. However, at Santa Monica College, a person is found guilty before being proven innocent. The burden of proof should lie with the accuser, not the accused. If I felt I was guilty of these charges, I would not advertise that fact in a public forum such as my blog. I only do so because I feel I am innocent and so that others similarly situated may be helped to fight their wrongful suspension or expulsion from school.
I hope this answers your legitimate questions.
Very Truly Yours,
Des Manttari,
Student, Santa Monica College
July 21st, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Thanks for your response.
I was just wondering, if these individuals don’t actually view your behavior as dangerous, then what makes this case so special that so many individuals would rally to try and have you exluded, and in many cases seek to have you removed by police? Are there some other factors involved? The claims of abuse listed on your site do not seem to add up to the version of the events that were posted. It makes it hard to figure out who is in the wrong.
Also, I read on your website your request for an extension of your suspension hearing due to your lawyer being on vacation. Is it fair to complain that the extension deadline has breached the 10 day period when you specifically requested extra time to coordinate with your lawyer?
July 22nd, 2006 at 2:24 am
Dear Concerned Student,
In answer to your questions in the first paragraph, I can only ask you to take the time to start from my first posting and read through my blog in chronological order. I think it will give you a much clearer picture. I would also urge you to do the same with this blog. Also, the information on my SAVE SMC website is also very helpful. Information I will post in the future will perhaps shed more light on the whole story.
As to your question about campus police, SMC has used its police against other students (not just me) including two known members of the Corsair staff. SMCPD’s police logs are very revealing.
As to your question in the second paragraph regarding the time for the appeal, if you read through my correspondence with both Robert Sammis and President Tsang, you will see that I promptly responded and suggested several days, up until the first week of July. I was trying to be flexible. Despite my efforts, Sammis did not respond for over a month, well after any possible extension of the mandated 10 day period. Even after SMC’s long silence, and another chance to set an appeal hearing, both Sammis and President Tsang have lapsed into silence. Again, I would re-read my blog pertaining to all these emails and letters between SMC and myself.
I would also suggest reading the SMC Faculty Association website to see what a courageous long-standing battle our faculty members have had to fight to try to get their rights acknowledged by Robert Sammis, who is the lead negotiator for our school. Those in charge of the Faculty Association are very admirable role models for all of us.
I hope my answers point you in the right direction.
Des
July 23rd, 2006 at 10:42 am
It seems a good time to remind would-be commenters about the rules of engagement.
The topic under discussion is the original post or the thread of any argument pertaining thereto. All are welcome to throw in with their perspectives, facts, and or/opinions which are germane to the discussion.
While The Siege will allow a certain latitude beyond that, some people have decided to go off on their own little tangents which really have nothing to do with what is offered for discussion. If you want just want to rant against another commenter instead of stay on topic – as in challenging other’s topic-oriented positions – I’ll probably kill that comment. So here’s the heads-up. Don’t waste your time composing irrelevant comments - they’ll get flushed.
And one other thing. If a commenter thinks they are clever enough to contribute under multiple anonymous identities and not get caught, gosh, think again.
July 23rd, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Some of my posts were somewhat off-topic, however, I thought they pertained to claims that were brought up that I wanted to clarify a little.
But something in there was somewhat cryptic:
“And one other thing. If a commenter thinks they are clever enough to contribute under multiple anonymous identities and not get caught, gosh, think again.”
Huh? Did I miss something?
July 23rd, 2006 at 3:29 pm
The Siege has already killed a few out-of-control comments by those who’d rather attack other commenters, like you Concerned Student, than in furthering the debate initiated by the original post.
What you characterize as a “cryptic” comment will not be so to those who imagine they can engage in sock puppetry here on The Siege. Click on the wikipedia link to find out more.
July 23rd, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Sorry, I thought you were referring to my previous comments in your earlier post.
Can we know who the sock puppeteers are?