Let me guess... wrote on May 3, 2007 1:34 AM:short a researcher?

Jim wrote on May 3, 2007 7:04 AM:Does the NCT actually pay the author for writing this?

Ron wrote on May 3, 2007 7:33 AM:Thank you to Jim, well done! The faculty think they run the joint... "News Flash" ..... your an employee, get used to it.

Finally! wrote on May 3, 2007 8:02 AM:some basic truths - a 'rip-off' of taxpayer money using college facilities and selling off college property (the trees belonged to the college!) upset the faculty when the news got out and they have behaved like babies. It will be interesting to see when the DA weighs in and hopefully makes some charges, will the faculty go back to what they are supposed to do and that is teach!

Jim wrote on May 3, 2007 9:15 AM:How about writing about the 'so-called' anonymous threat to the college President under investigation by campus security rather than the Oceanside Police Department?

UNBELIEVEABLE! wrote on May 3, 2007 9:55 AM:No mention of Marie Waldron..... Jim, your losing your touch!

Sad about it all wrote on May 3, 2007 11:21 AM:The first Ammendment allows us to say or write anything we want, whether or not our opinion is fully informed. We can ignore the repeated statement that the faculty are NOT simply upset that "popular administrators" have been pushed out, but that a collegial process has been violated on more than just this occasion. We can also try to fit a previously humane, democratic way of doing business into the "real world" hierarchical model of "shut up and do your job". Order and obedience uber alles? ps if someone has profited illegally at the college's expense, we are ALL appalled.

Roetan wrote on May 3, 2007 1:03 PM:One major problem with this column... no evidence of a scheme for personal profit has been uncovered. The college president spent $100,000 on an investigator who did uncover an ever so shocking $300 discrepancy in invoices submitted by an organizationally-challenged department head, who was pursuing, with the college board's encouragement, many, many, entrepreneurial relationships. The worst accusation for which actual evidence exists: an ill-advised business relationship with someone with whom there was also a personal relationship, and the lack of paperwork documenting the myriad exchanges with entrepreneurial partners. Sorry, but that's all there is. Serious problems that needed to be addressed? Indeed, yes, and no member of the faculty has ever said otherwise. But not a scheme for personal profit. And yet the college president seized upon this as a device to purge opponents within the college. She made a public spectacle of it to humiliate those same people and to attempt to grab a theatrical spotlight playing the coveted role of Protector of Public Funds. To be charitable, it's absurd. And in the name of "fiduciary responsibility" Richart will end up costing the taxpayer well over $1 million in investigators and lawyers' fees, and fighting lawsuits by those who have been wrongfully pilloried to resolve issues that could have been fixed at a tiny fraction of the cost. Richart and the board majority have been nothing if not completely irresponsible with taxpayer money. Board member Greg Post said last week that spending $100,000 for a ONE DOLLAR misappropriation of funds is his fiducairy responsibility. That's the level of critical-thinking skills of the current board majority and the college president they hired.

Ron wrote on May 3, 2007 3:04 PM:Hey "Sad about it", no you can't say anything, not at work. You work for the taxpayers who have voted for this board of trustees, they are the boss. Leave the "collegial process" to those who are a part of the process, the employers, aka your bosses, through their elected officials. And finally, you are all NOT appalled, as has been previously stated by your co-workers via this blog and quoted in the paper. They continue to assert, as do you Sir... that they were right, and Ms. Richart needs to go. They have it backwards. The thiefs need to go, and we'll all be glad they did. As to this nutter making threats, I would not be surprised, one bit, to find that they are someone who is connected somehow to the faculty who have provoked this whole situation.

Roberto wrote on May 3, 2007 4:13 PM:Jim: For the most part, I agree with you about 90% of the time. On this issue, you way, way off base. MiraCosta has a long standing reputation for collegiality. This president has no notion of the definition of the word. She made it known early on that she was going to clean house of the top administrators except for a few butt kissers. The Palm Tree fiasco was blown vastly out of proportion. The whole problem could have been resolved justly and quickly with any of the prior presidents of the college and the presidents council of administrators and academic senate leaders. That is how collegiality works. No matter how brilliant one my think they are, an autocrat will not make a successful leader in any educational institution.

delroy wrote on May 3, 2007 4:43 PM:Ron, in the last election (2006), the only supporter of Richart that appeared on the ballot was soundly trounced. In the election before that (2004), the only board member elected was one who is now in the board minority. So where is this public mandate you claim for the board? Research question: When was the last time any of the board majority had a vote cast for them? The "thiefs" [sic] whose actions we should all find appalling are those spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to chase down a $300 invoice discrepancy, and who can't tell you if ANY palm tree was actually sold for personal profit. And all to pursue the college president's agenda.

To Sad about it wrote on May 3, 2007 4:59 PM:What other occasions? I read this same type of comment in the blog the last time this topic was published by NTC and I've still not heard just what these other alleged offenses are. Speak up! Your asking for someone to be fired! If "Palmgate" is not the issue, what is?

Thanks Jim wrote on May 3, 2007 6:56 PM:It's mind-boggling how the faculty can't see or rather admit that the findings in this palm investigation revealed blatantly illegal activities. If the same scenarios had happened at Palomar or any other college, the same intelligent people would be singing a different tune. I also suspect that if the culprits in this case were unpopular or less influential faculty members, you'd be hearing the sound of crickets, rather than the incessant whining from faculty members. This whole thing makes you wonder what other little schemes are going on at the college.

To To Sad wrote on May 4, 2007 9:22 AM:The first 10 items in the Faculty's Declaration of No Confidence are unrelated to palmgate. Here they are verbatim: 1) In the fall of 2004, the 5300 building was demolished without significant consultation and over objections that were communicated directly to Richart. Despite their protests, the occupants of offices in the building were displaced with only a few days’ notice. 2) When the “cultural magnet” proposal went before the Academic Master Plan Committee (AMPC) in fall 2005, Richart informed the Academic Senate President that AMPC did not have the option to disapprove the plan because the Board was already committed to it. 3) Although the theatre remodel was not on the five-year construction plan, it was put out to bid in 2005 and construction began in 2006 without the project’s ever having been approved by the Planning and Budgeting Council. 4) Richart has committed significant funds to other facilities projects, including installation of air conditioning in the dance studio and remodeling of the restrooms in the Oceanside Student Center, without collegial consultation. 5) The final steps of the recent college website redesign were made without broad faculty consultation, and resulted in a rigid system which makes it extremely difficult for individual faculty or staff members to modify and update web pages, limiting faculty freedom of expression. 6) Richart appropriated the Classified Senate office in the administration building for other purposes, relocating it to what was once a storage closet. Richart engaged in unfair treatment of a probationary faculty member, resulting in a chilling of speech on campus, widespread fears about job security among other nontenured faculty, and concerns that the protections formerly provided through collegial governance have been eroded. 7) When a probationary faculty member made statements before the Board in February 2006 critical of an action initiated by Richart that he found personally humiliating, she publicly criticized his statement after he had left, and announced that he would be asked to attend a formal meeting with her and the Vice President for Student Services. 8) In that meeting, Richart told the probationary faculty member that his statements before the Board constituted a complaint of unlawful discrimination which represented a financial liability to the college. He was informed that he had to write a letter of apology and legal release for the college, and that if he did not write such a letter, it could affect the Board’s decision to renew his contract. This appears to be in contradiction to Education Code section 80739, which states that no employee may be disciplined simply for making a statement before the Board; and Title 5, section 59320 et seq. and Board Procedure I.D-04, which specify that a complaint of unlawful discrimination must be made in writing, using a form approved by the Chancellor’s office. Rather than decreasing the District’s financial risk, Richart’s actions could have been interpreted as retaliation and could have created potential liability for the District. 9) Partly as a result of this incident, a second probationary faculty member left the college for another position. One of the reasons she cited was the institutional climate. 10) When she was asked about these events in September 2006, Richart indicated that she did not see how she could have handled the incident differently. -It's not about the palm trees (although that was handled poorly, too.) Too Too Sad

Wake Up! wrote on May 4, 2007 6:45 PM:Hey Jim, wake up! One, it's not the whole Board that the faculty are complaining about -- just the four Board members who keep stonewalling and won't allow any real discussion of why this "investigation" has cost the taxpayers over $1 million. Two, NO VOTERS NEVER ELECTED THESE FOUR. They were appointed by other Board members and have been running unopposed ever since. It's time the voters had a real choice!

It's Not Just the Faculty! wrote on May 5, 2007 7:47 PM:The media keeps portraying the Miracosta faculty as spoiled, well-paid whiners. However, this is NOT just about Palmgate and it is NOT just the faculty who have negatively been affected by the psycho and her puppets, who are ruining the morale of not only faculty, but staff and students as well. Don't believe everything you read in the papers. There is a lot more to this problem. However, the board and administrators hide behind Palmgate to make the faculty look bad!