By Charles Loiacono     

“corrupt—to degrade with unsound principles.”                                                                                                              Merriam-Webster

Most reasonable persons would agree that lying, reneging, violating signed agreements, stonewalling, and profiteering are unsound principles that degrade one’s position.

            Therefore, anyone fitting such a definition would be considered corrupt. I seek precision in my use of the word corrupt because most individuals equate corruption with stealing and other over-the-top egregious acts. The principles mentioned above are egregious enough, however, to fit the definition.

            Now that we are clear on the semantics, let’s examine the latest unsound principle that has further degraded this administration’s reputation.

            By the time you read this, Fanelli will have answered the PERB subpoena, and we will have presented evidence before a PERB Administrative Law Judge to prove that the ELI and LINCC programs violated the AFA contract.  Everyone in the college community recognizes that the programs were an attempt to circumvent the AFA and the NCCFT contracts. The aim was to profit by hiring inexperienced instructors that could not get a job teaching anywhere else, pay them far less than union scale, and have them work longer hours. These new employees would have no rights and would work at the pleasure of the employer—a corrupt employer’s dream.

            Crucial in the struggle to prove the true intent of the program was the exposure of the financial records that prove the profiteering motive. We have secured only one statement that shows more than a $600,000 profit in one year. The scam has gone on for about 8 years.

            We have been in the dark concerning the profit made over those 8 years. We don’t know how much profit was made. We don’t know where the money went. We don’t know in what fund the money is kept.

We don’t know if the legislature was apprised of the existence of this money when the administration presented new budget proposals. We have a right to know. The legislature has a right to know. The people have a right to know. But Fanelli has refused to acknowledge that right, even to the extent of defying a subpoena.

            There are only two possible reasons for such action. One, the financial records would prove the profit motive and perhaps expose the administration to a charge of malfeasance. But that doesn’t make much sense, because those records will eventually come out, and trying to cover them up will only show malice of forethought. That would make matters worse.

            Two, administrative vexation at having to explain their action is the other possibility. Could such pique lead to such degradation?

            One is certainly bad, but two shows arrogance that defies reason. If, for example, there were no profit and therefore no malfeasance, why would Fanelli hide the record? This administration should be transparent. This is a college where we train young people to be good, productive citizens. All of us—faculty and administration—should be examples of stand-up character. The administration should certainly show the way through its actions and behavior to be the model of good citizenship. Through their actions they set the standard. Therefore, if they have engaged in a cover-up of profits made by violating contracts and exploiting individuals desperate for work, they set a corrupt standard. And if they have covered-up, stonewalled, and defied a subpoena because they are vexed, they are then guilty of unquestionably unsound principles. That also would put them squarely within the definition of corrupt.