« Disengenuously Nice... | Main | Enough? »



Stupified, you're right. I was over the top with my comments. I apologize.

We do need to speak as a union with no in-fighting. I hope that is possible.


Blue State Blues, ordinarily I agree with all or much of what you write. However, I cannot agree with your assessment of the Full-time Faculty Constituency Council. That standing committee is the only voice (weak though it may be) for the faculty in the college's current governance structure. The members' intentions are faculty-focused and are good. Unfortunately, the Council lacks any real power to make change. I can assure you that no one earned tenure based solely on his or her participation in the Council.

Why don't we all stop looking for someone to blame? The truth is that we are all to blame. Every single one of us who has failed to take a stand against the injustice that takes place every day at OCC is responsible for the current situation. We are educated professionals who are letting a handful of nitwits dominate us. Perhaps we deserve exactly what we are getting.


I wasn't even referring to the non-tenured when I wrote, "ass-kissers"-they did what they had to do to get tenure. I think that most of us get that.

It is the tenured full-timers that kiss their asses that really have me puzzled. Larson takes away shared governence and replaces it with that sham senate. Wasn't that enough for us to be outraged? No. A group of full-time, tenured people start the Faculty Constituency committee or whatever the hell it's called. It's THOSE people who have been kissing Larson's ass and getting promoted on the back of a bogus committee that piss me off.

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Buzzin' by

The situation with the former Humanities Dean is sad but equally or more sad is that the "ass kissers" most of whom just were trying to stay afloat are those who are not tenured.

Been Here, Done This

Yup. Amen to that idea. Keep your anger cold and keen. Stay focused. Know whom you are speaking to. Don't assume that everyone you believe is tenured actually is. (The person who was formerly the Dean of Humanities, for example.)


Is this new tenure policy finally going to be enough for the administrative ass-kissers to take a stand against Larson and Strada?

We need a Vote of No Confidence on Larson and Strada. NOW.

Buzzin' by

By my calculations which mayn't be 100% accurate, they can tenure five faculty? OMG. Then what happens to those not teneured? Anyone know the tenure legalities? They cannot possibly replace them with adjuncts.


This is just confirmation that we are working for assholes.


There are 119 full time faculty members according to the OCC web-site. Does anyone know how many faculty members are tenured? 77% of 119 is 91.63, the number faculty members that can be tenured according to this formula. Further, this number will go down as full-timers retire. 77% of 115 full-times makes for fewer possible tenured positions.

I guess those non-tenures don't have to worry about jumping through the tenure criteria hoops anymore; no more committee positions, no more search committees, no more round tables, no more club advisor positions. They can focus on teaching and looking for new positions.

It's too bad for the non-tenureds, many of whom relocated from different areas in the country, bought homes, left tenure line positions. They were sold a false bill of goods and now their ability to gain tenure is not based on their performance but an arbitrary number. They accepted their positions under the premise that they would be granted tenure based on good performance. Would they have taken a position at OCC if they did not think they had the potential of being granted tenure? It's really disgusting!

Peanut Gallery

Greetings everyone.Has anyone out there heard that the at the last Trustees meeting, they approved a major revision of the college's tenure policy?. Was this from the PLT? They must have forgotten to include that in the minutes..Several non tenured and very angry faculty have apparently received letters that there is now a cap of 76 or 77% (?)on the total # of tenured faculty which means that the majority of our non-tenured colleagues won't get tenure ever. If this is true, will they all be fired after their tenure period is up and how does this affect the rest of us? Is tenure gone? Is this just a means to restock the ranks with adjunct instructors?

Peanut Gallery

Bebop, I am not sure about that but I seem to think that either they didn't agree on a candidate, there was a split, or if they did want one, he or she was denied upstairs. Either way we're still in the same position. I guess they will start yet another search?


Did the VPAA search produce no recommendation from the committee to the president or from the president to the board?

Peanut Gallery

Oh! What a surprise...The search for a new VP Acad. Affairs produced no recommended candidates. No one out there is qualified? Another year at least of VeePee Dick.Oh yes, but the GOOD news is that there will be another search; why even bother going through the motions when we already know the outcome.


Contract negotiations are at impasse, awaiting the scheduling of mediation.


Since I haven't heard anything officially from the FAOCC I'll ask here:

Has anyone heard anything about the contract negotiations? I know they were mentioned during the May 5th FAOCC meeting as a reason to quickly resolve the election issue so we could move forward as a united association and perhaps avoid the May 22nd benefits mandate from the state, but I haven't heard anything since.

Any information would be greatly appreciated!


Death notices affect people in curious ways. For me, it brings out a sense of charity. I read the entire post of Flyonthewall, twice.

Furthermore, I support with all my heart a compelling addition it offers to Flyonthewall's down thread post comparing the resolution of the contested Faculty Association election to the Supreme Court decision handing the 2000 U.S. presidential election to Bush: "Therefore, the FAOCC action was of no consequence compared to Bush v. Gore."

I can think of no better reason for not making the comparison in the first place.



In both cases the process for resolving the controversy was interrupted by an overreaching and constitutionally unsupportable action by an otherwise legitimate institution. The constitutions and governing documents in both cases provided a procedure for resolving the issues. The legal support for the actions of both the Supreme Court and the FAOCC are not to be found in these documents.

That is all that matters in making the historical comparison – both actions have no basis in a constitutional system of governance or the rule of law.

In deference to your diligent inquiry, here is my response to your points (1-5):

1. The assembled electorate's action was no more legitimate than the Supreme Courts (as per my initial response.)

2. A difference of 1 vote on the Supreme Court is 11% of the possible votes. The difference of 15 votes in the FAOCC membership (given a membership of between 100-120) is 11-15%. Statistically the same. The personal financial gain claim is unfounded in its narrow application and in its broad interpretation of “financial gain” and can therefore be dismissed as dicta.

3. This is addressed in my initial response. Throwing 4 ballots down the memory hole is logically and legally specious as well.

4. This is addressed in my initial response. In addition, 28% (at most) of the “electorate” validated the action.

5. The change in FAOCC leadership would have had no effect of the composition of the negotiation team, therefore this argument is moot. As an historical parallel, the outcome of Bush v. Gore had an immense impact at the most consequential crisis in our history since World War II (9/11). Therefore, the FAOCC action was of no consequence compared to Bush v. Gore.

Again, the only necessary comparison to be made is that both lacked legal legitimacy. I have done so in my initial response.


Appreciate the Bill Handleman death notice, Patrick. Sad day indeed.

Handleman had no truck with the smug pretense of power, as APP readers saw in the opening paragraphs of his October 8, 2006 column "Cultural Showdown at OCC: Controversy Won't Fade Away":

"Jon Larson appears to be a happy man, sitting in his office, sipping coffee. 'Life is good,' he says. 'Enrollment is up 7.1 percent. We just settled two labor contracts. We have the full support of our trustees.

'There are always a handful of people who are unhappy, of course.'

Ah yes, the unhappy ones, the ones who file lawsuits.

Larson is the president of Ocean County College in Dover Township. He is named as a defendant in two lawsuits, one brought by Karen Bosley, a professor at the college, the other by three students who work on the school newspaper, the Viking News.

No matter how hard they pretend it doesn't bother them, the people who run OCC can't make this story go away. It revolves around too important a principle and reflects too wide a divide. This is a sign of the times, a cultural feud played out on a tiny stage, a regular red state-blue state showdown in miniature.

Anyway, I was granted an audience with the president only because I sweet-talked the watchdog. Tara Kelly, a young vice president in charge of riding herd on the media, initially had balked at my request to speak with her boss. She told me he was too busy. She could answer any questions I had. There wasn't much of a story anyway. But if I insisted, she would supply me with any background I needed. That's the way it works, she said.

'I've been doing this a long time, you know,' she assured me in a most condescending manner.

I then told her that I would be writing a column with or without any input from her boss, that I would most certainly mention that he didn't have time to see me, and that I, too, had been 'doing this a long time.'

'Just a minute,' she said, and put me on hold."

Patrick Mitchell

RIP Bill Handleman



Stockholm Syndrome?!?


Onomatopoeia, you crack me up!
I have an existential question for everyone. Do you think that pee-wee VP feels any remorse for selling his soul to Satan? Ms. Manners had no soul to sell; but Dick, he had beliefs and values that he appeared to hold quite passionately. In a matter of a few short years, he has transformed his thoughts and his behaviors to those he used to repudiate and combat. Dick, was it worth it? Are the money and the false sense of accomplishment worth the forfeit of your very essence? No matter how hard you work, how much money you make, or what title you contrive to obtain; you will never be good enough in her eyes. Come back to the Light Side of the Force!


The Vacancy Announcement for Dicks new job is out.

I don't understand how OCC can claim no money for promotions and create yet another highly compensated Vice President's position.

The administration has pulled the professional development portion of faculty of the year award as well. Work hard inside and outside the classroom and you may be lucky enough to get this shiny golden apple!

As of now the faculty do not have a contract which means no pay increase. Yet, we have an extra 100K for another VP. In fact, OCC will be profiting off of the 1.5% state workers will have to pay toward their own health benefits.

Yet amazingly the board has approved yet another VP position. One in which the minimum requirement is a master's degree for the person who basically the president of the college when the president of the college doesn't feel like being president of the college.

I can only hope we get a pool of fabulous candidates and that those who are on the search committee choose someone more qualified than Dick to be the acting president of our prestigious institution.

But don't forget, we are all lucky to have a job!!!


Still scratching my head, but thank you for a very eloquent response, Bebop!


Addressing your questions of intent, HadIt, gets us into conjecture, for none of us can say for certain what goes on in the mind of another, let alone in that of an ambitious operator. Another approach, and just as much to the point, involves a systematic rather than a specific perspective, shifting analysis to the predictable behavior of power groups.

Power groups sustain dominion with a near total reliance on four age-old tactics: fear, favor, force, and falsehood. After the FBI seizes boxes of documents and high-end German sedans from the homes of public officials in a corruption probe, they turn an ear to materials that sing with the soft aspirated consonant.

Within each of your questions, then, search not for conspiracy but for alliteration.


Here are a few questions:

Why were some deans encouraging non-tenured faculty to vote for the challenger?

Why did the challenger not concede after the initial vote?

Are administrators usually involved in the FAOCC's voting?

Encouraging the vote of one candidate over another implies that someone has something to gain by the outcome. What would the administration have to gain if the challenger had won?

The above questions may be rhetorical, but they make me scratch my head. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but this entire ordeal stinks.

The comments to this entry are closed.