By Charles Loiacono     

Let the Record Speak for Itself

              Often, when a lawyer doesn’t want a witness under cross-examination to answer a question, he will object and say “the record speaks for itself.” Well, let’s let the verbatim record of the last arbitration hearing on ELI speak for itself.

            We have opposed the ELI/LINCC program for years and for many reasons—not the least of which has been that the program was an undeniable failure. Bob Gaudino, Gene Decker, and I observed that failure first hand. The Fresh Look Committee observed that failure first hand and meticulously recorded their observations.

            We now have the sworn testimony of the program coordinator who oversaw ELI A, ELI B, and LINCC. Her testimony was responsive and contradicts any denial on the failure of a program that went on for seven years with the insistence of the administration and the imprimatur of the Board of Trustees.

            Here then is the truth as expressed by that coordinator, under oath, when questioned by yours truly:

Mr. Loiacono: Now, ESL was taught for many years, and students moved into matriculation as a result of that. Then in 2000 they were moved into ELI.  In 2005, five years later, the Fresh Look Committee wrote a devastating report about the failure of that program.

Mr. Gross: Objection to the question.

Mr. Loiacono: The question hasn’t come yet.

Is it true that the Fresh Look Committee found that there were unqualified people teaching, that indeed some didn’t even have an AA degree?

The Witness: I don’t believe – I believe the teachers always had at least an AA degree. The people in the classroom were found – some of them did not meet the same qualifications that they wanted them to meet, which they did in the academic program. But – I don’t believe that some of them that were teaching in classes – I think they all had at least a bachelor’s degree.

Mr. Loiacono: Isn’t it true that the committee said they could not find documentation on the qualification of the teachers?

Mr. Gross: I think the document speaks for itself.

The Witness: I think that was documented, yes.

Mr. Loiacono: Was the curriculum that you spoke of holistic?

The Witness: It was based on the program that was already running. So it was more holistic than the academic 010, 020, 030 breakdown, but it was not a completely holistic program.

Mr. Loiacono: What did the committee find with regard to the holistic teaching?

The Witness: They found that ELI A was not completely holistic.

Mr. Loiacono: And that was the reason the ELI B, five years later, was changed -- --

The Witness: That was one of the reasons.

Mr. Loiacono: -- -- to make it more holistic?

                            Did that work?

The Witness: In ELI B?

Mr. Loiacono: Yes.

The Witness: After the program was appropriately split into vocational and academic?

Mr. Loiacono: Right.

The Witness: It still -- -- we had a holistic program curriculum, but…the courses were breaking down from holistic courses into discrete skills again.

Mr. Loiacono: So why did B fail, then? What was causing the failure?

The Witness: Well, because the idea was to have a completely holistic program. And when the program was taught by multiple instructors, three sometimes, when the teachers met to really work out an appropriate way to cover material, the skills were breaking down into reading, writing, speaking and listening, which is completely opposite of what the intention was.

Mr. Loiacono: So would it be fair, then, to say that in the seven years of ELI A and ELI B, with all the work and reconditioning that was done, that the program failed – failed to meet the expectations?

The Witness: It failed to meet the expectations that it was supposed to be holistic, yes.

Mr. Loiacono: No more questions.

            Where else in the world, in any government, corporation, business, or college would a program that failed year in and year out for seven long years be continued by the leaders of that entity?

            The answer to that question is obvious. It would not continue unless there was an ulterior motive, and we know what that motive was and is here at NCC—greed and union busting. This administration had zero interest in the fact that hundreds of foreign students were not learning while they allowed ELI A to go on for five years or ELI B to go on for two years. They knew the program was worthless, but it was bringing in millions of dollars in profit, and as important as the money was the fact that they had violated the AFA contract and were exploiting teachers while the wheels of justice were being thwarted by legalistic tricks.

            The record is clear. The Fanelli administration has much to answer for, because their goal in this business violated the very tenets of this college’s mission. There’s not much one can say about the Board of Trustees. They are laymen and laywomen that meet once a month, don’t know much except what they are fed by Fanelli and company, and essentially do what they are told. They made one effort early in the game to solve this sorry mess and actually succeeded, but were convinced by Fanelli and Ostling that breaking their word was easy to do. They were convinced that they didn’t understand the danger of trustees trying to think for themselves.

            There will be serious consequences resulting from this attempt to profit from violating a contract, violating the law, and violating the sacred obligation this administration had to educate any student entering this campus.

            Yet the beat goes on. This arbitration continues. There will be a third hearing. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the stay of arbitration filed by the administration in an effort to stall the arbitration on the LINCC program. Once remanded, that arbitration will be heard. As yet, PERB has not ruled on the LINCC case. Then there is what might well be the knock-out blow, the multi-faceted investigation into the administration’s misuse of taxpayer funds to support F-1 Visa students.

            Our understanding is that letters will soon be sent beginning the preliminary steps into the investigation.

            Once again, it is important to understand that we do not know how this business will end. What we do know is that the ELI program was a failure that continued even though it was a failure, and that the LINCC program is ELI with a few cosmetic changes. It was conceived in the lower depths and continues to darken all those involved in its conception and continuance.