|
by Des Kilkeary, Language Arts Division
The
more one delves into the recent history of the college parking policy at
GCC, the more confusing and Orwellian it becomes.
An
objective analysis indicates that last year the implementation of
the parking policy was particularly unfair to new hires and part-time
teachers relegated to the general parking areas (Lots B & C) where
students park. A number of these parking places were indeed
designated for staff, but not enough. When staff members arrived for
work at various times of the day, there were no spaces available, so
they parked wherever they could fit in, and this led to the recent
change in parking enforcement which allows only one citation dismissal
per semester, a change that won't solve the problem of insufficient
spaces.
How
big is the problem? Chief Wagg informed me that "from January
2001 through August 2001 there were 1,676 citations issued," and
"20% of the total citations were issued to staff." Now
that seems like a significant figure. Why so high?
One
answer can be found in the memorandum issued by the College
Police Dept on August 21, 2001 which announces that "half of Circle
Drive has been dedicated to construction needs," and "a number
of staff and business associates have been moved to other lots."
While
the new allocations were properly based on seniority, they nevertheless
led to a predictable situation akin to musical parking spaces for the
adjunct professors and staff at the low end of the parking chain who
were forced to compete with students for parking spaces. The
displacement, by the way, was expected to last approximately two
years, well into 2003.
That
parking problems were anticipated is further shown by the
following directive to adjunct faculty (found in the same memorandum and
printed in boldface type, mind you) , "if you cannot find a parking
space in either lot, please exit to Mountain Street and try any of the
city parking lots on Verdugo Road or Canada." It should have said
lots of luck, but instead advised, "it would be best if you arrived
early," a comment which clearly indicates an unconscionable
ignorance of the fact that many of our part-time teachers (so-called
freeway fliers) work at two or even three different community colleges,
and when they arrive at Glendale College (later in the day as some
must), the parking lot is often full.
Their unhappy alternatives include driving around Lots A and B
until a space opens up (might be a very long wait), squeezing into an
illegal space and going to teach the waiting class (and getting a
parking ticket), driving down Mountain Street to find a spot (somewhere
in the city of Glendale), or giving up and going home (losing the hourly
wage). Getting there earlier, if possible, would only cause the same
dilemma for someone else.
Apparently,
many of our desperate faculty chose to squeeze into an illegal space and
were cited, and the increase in citations became the justification for
the new one-dismissal policy.
Chief
Wagg said, "in the year since the parking policy was initiated
there has been a steady improvement in the campus parking
environment;" however, I believe it has not come from the one
dismissal rule, but rather from belatedly designating more staff parking
spaces. The Chief stated, "I added over fifty additional staff
parking spaces in the northwest corner of lot B. There are now
seventy-five spaces dedicated to staff parking in this area," and
"I will continue to add parking spaces as needed." Here
we may have the real reason why things have "improved," more
dedicated parking spaces for staff, yet we are still saddled with the
draconian one-dismissal rule which potentially penalizes all faculty and
staff for minor infractions like forgetting to post a tag twice in one
semester.
So
the first difficulty involved a flawed solution to a real problem
which was later ameliorated by common sense. The second difficulty,
and this is where things get even more Orwellian, involves the means by
which the new one-dismissal policy was put into effect.
Initially,
I was informed by Chief Wagg that he had made the policy changes as he
felt necessary, and that this unilateral action was
partly due to the deactivation of the campus Parking Committee.
Accordingly, a significant policy change occurred without input from the
various factions represented by the Parking Committee, a change which I
found disturbing, so I suggested that the Parking Committee be
re-established.
Imagine my surprise when I received
a memo from Larry Serot in February in which he said, "I take
responsibility for the change in the enforcement practices. I
directed Chief
Wagg
to enforce the Board-approved Parking Policy….[and] The change did not
go through governance because we were enforcing existing
regulations." This was truly amazing: Larry had discovered
that the new policy was really an old Board Policy (3710) approved way
back on December 16th, 1996, but curiously never implemented or
acknowledged until now. How Orwellian, and how convenient! He
added, "I hope you will include this fact in your follow-up
article." So here it is, except it is not a fact as we shall
see, but a rather tortured interpretation.
Larry's
understanding of the new policy reflects Orwellian doublespeak at its
best. "This does not mean, as your article in the
Chaparral
implied, that 'two strikes and you're out' but rather that
employees
must now go through the process that is included in
Administrative Regulation 3710 and traffic Regulations." There are
at least two contradictory problems here: first, we have Chief
Wagg's interpretation of the new policy stated in his GCC Police memo
to the faculty, "staff members who have been cited for a parking
violation will be allowed ONE DISMISSAL PER SEMESTER" which plainly
says two strikes and you're out, but Larry doesn't think so; secondly,
Board Policy 3710 says absolutely nothing about one dismissal per
semester, but Larry thinks it does, or perhaps he doesn't (I'm not sure
at this point), but the chief knows, but Larry contradicts him, and the
memo speaks for itself. Well, more on this confusion in a minute.
The
above policy explanation also appeared in Larry's January
Governance Status Report. The e-mail, sent to everyone at the college,
ended with his apology to me for neither he nor the Police Dept. having
given me the "new/old" (you choose) information about Board
Policy 3710 for my article, but it also implies that the point of my
article was erroneous since I was not a party to the well kept secret.
Faced with this bizarre situation, I
decided to read Board Policy 3710 and its accompanying Administrative
Regulations to see if the new policy said anything about one dismissal
per semester. It didn't. In fact, the Board Policy seems to be
purposely vague. It does refer to the California Vehicle Code and
Special College Rules and Regulations which are enumerated in the
Administrative Regulations, allowing the
college
to manage things pretty much as it sees fit, which until now has meant a
user-friendly policy. The enforcement article states:
"persons violating the
regulations may
receive citations
[italics
mine]
that will be processed according to College Policy and State Law."
It
seems clear that the regulation does not put a limit on the number of
dismissals nor mandate a harsh policy. It does not use words like
will, shall, or must— it distinctly says may. It certainly does
not demand a mindless one dismissal per semester approach, and allows
for an administrative review.
Regarding
policy, the
regulations specifically state: "the
bail/fines for the above violations are set after review annually, by
the College Parking Committee...." So the one thing that is
certain is that Board Administrative Regulation 3710 both endorses and
empowers the Parking Committee to determine the fines, not the Police
Department, not the Vice President. It would appear that the
committee could set or dismiss the bail/fines as it deems appropriate,
and that the Board expected an annual review by the committee
(which I remind you no longer exists).
Regarding
enforcement, the Board Policy is clear: the Vice President of
Administrative Services has the "responsibility for the day-to-day
administration and
operation of traffic, parking and other regulations," however, this
does not include the power to make or change policy. Currently, the
Vice President is not doing a very good job of administering the Board
Policy since the Parking Committee is not functioning at all, so
enforcement is clearly out of compliance with the policy.
After
close scrutiny, I couldn't find any text in Board Policy
supporting Larry's assertion that he had the unilateral power to change
the old parking policy as he had. But I did find an item in the
minutes of the Administrative Affairs Committee, Nov. 29, 2001 (a
committee chaired by Larry) saying, "Larry is recommending the
elimination of the Parking Committee, and that parking issues should be
addressed at Administrative Affairs Meetings. A recommendation on this
proposal will be presented at the next meeting (scheduled for Mar.
14th)." It was interesting to note that Larry was recommending an
action that would be out of compliance with his newly discovered Board
Policy, but he was.
In the December Chaparral,
I strongly urged the re-establishment of the Parking Committee to
oversee the parking policy. Apparently I am
not
alone in this opinion. The good news is that both the Student
Affairs Committee and the Governance Review Committee are proposing to
Campus Executive that the parking Committee be reinstituted as a
subcommittee of Administrative Affairs. The bad news is that Larry,
ironically the Chairman of the
Administrative Affairs Committee and staunch supporter of Board
Policy, didn't want it resurrected.
I
attended the March meeting to see what would happen, and I was very
surprised.
This
is the point where our story unexpectedly transitions from the
Orwellian to the Kafkaesque. I witnessed a truly remarkable
metamorphosis at the March Administrative Affairs Committee
Meeting where Larry Serot transformed himself from an adamant foe of the
Parking Committee to become its veritable champion. Larry decided
that it would be a good thing if we reconstituted the committee, but
amazingly, a much better thing if he became its chair, so he appointed
himself on the spot. We will have a new parking czar who functions on
two committee levels.
It
is very unusual for the chair of a major committee to also chair one of
its sub-committees, especially when that individual strongly opposed the
sub-committee's very existence. It is also unusual that
the sub-committee doesn't elect its own chair, so one can only wonder
at Larry's motivation. But that soon became clear: he
wanted to
supervise a new mission statement for the Parking Committee, he
wanted to fashion new language,
new
rules —one of which I'm sure
will be "ONE DISMISSAL PER
SEMESTER." So our next task is to make sure that we have good
people (critical thinkers) appointed to the
committee to monitor the actions of the would-be parking czar. &
|