Thursday, May 3, 2007

Mathur: reference checks for Poindexter

.
Once again, I’ve got little time—gotta run off to my classes soon. So this’ll have to be quick. (My report concerns the Raghu Mathur discrimination trial up in federal court in LA. Aracely Mora is suing Mathur for discrimination in hiring and for failing to protect her from a hostile work environment.) That should go to the jury today.)

Yesterday, Cely Mora finished her testimony, then Mathur got up on the stand. Under questioning from Mora attorney Carol Sobel, we learned of the Chancellor’s responsibilities, upholding policies and whatnot. Ditto for the Presidential gig at IVC.

Sobel noted that, during his deposition, Mathur claimed that he had never been a defendant nor a plaintiff in a lawsuit. “No,” he said.

Well, as we all know, he has been both.

Mathur acknowledged that, before interviewing the three finalists for the dean (of Health Science, PE, and Athletics) position back in 2001, he had read the data from the reference checks that had been done by then-VPI Roquemore. (Mathur was IVC Prez then.)

One oddity of this case is the fact that Poindexter was hired despite no one’s having contacted his current employer. (Eventually, that employer was contacted, and it was revealed that P had some of the same issues there that turned up at IVC.) Since P didn’t mention that employer among his references, the hiring committee was prevented from doing that. But was Mathur prevented? Under questioning, Mathur seemed to imply that he, too, was prohibited from doing that, though, he said, he could ask for another reference (without specifying).

As near as I could tell, Sobel revealed that he was under no such prohibition.

We examined the three “reference check” forms for Poindexter’s three references. (These revealed the results of the reference checks—calls to Poindexter’s references, and their answers to a series of questions.) One reference was a former student. Sobel questioned Mathur about that. “We serve the students,” said Mathur. That is, their input is very important (I suppose that’s what he meant).

Another reference was a basketball coach. Sobel sought to have Mathur explain what about these references revealed that Poindexter had the qualifications for the dean job. It was rough going. Mathur can be obtuse.

The third reference was a prior employer at the US Sports Academy. Sobel asked Mathur if he recalled that that reference “couldn’t recommend Poindexter without reservation.” The reference said he had no knowledge of P’s administrative abilities.

Sobel then turned to Mathur’s request for a fourth reference. It was “very positive,” said Raghu. Oddly, the reference check form for the fourth reference “has not been produced.” Mathur acknowledged that. WOW.

Was there anything in Poindexter’s resume that revealed that P had experience running an intercollegiate athletics program? There was much testimony about that. Mathur claimed there was evidence in the resume that P had experience as a “director” of athletic training--hence experience as a supervisor/administrator. There was some dispute about that.

Do you know what chairs of Athletic Training do? No, not specifically.

Sobel asked for Mathur’s documentation—or just notes—regarding his fourth reference check. At one point, Sobel said: “You have no evidence that you called the additional reference?” No, apparently.

“I do recall that the reference check was very positive,” said Mathur.

Sobel then focused on Mathur’s claim that Mora had failed to develop curricula (when she served as Acting Dean prior to Poindexter’s hire). Hadn’t she developed a massage therapy program? Didn’t she put through curricula for that? Doesn’t the President of the college approve all courses that go through the curriculum process? Mathur acknowledged this. He claimed to be “only vaguely” aware of Mora’s efforts on behalf of massage therapy.

Sobel returned to the three (initial) reference checks. One was a Scott P. Evidently, Scott was one of Poindexter’s students. On the form, it showed that Scott couldn’t rate Poindexter with regard to relations with management. He was a student.

Another reference, Hal W, had been P’s dean for over a year. Hal claimed that he only observed Poindexter’s work as a trainer; he claimed not to know about P’s administrative abilities. So, when it came to rating P on that, he didn’t offer a response.

So the three references did not indicate that Poindexter had any administrative experience? Yes.

Why ask for the fourth ref? Mathur “wanted additional information.”

--Well, I’ve gotta run. I’ll try to finish this later today. Sorry to leave you hanging. --CW

27 comments:

  1. Is there a senate meeting today?

    Can someone put a vote of confidence on the agenda?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I second that 9:54. Let's have a vote of confidence on Mathur. This guy is a cancer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. People can speak from the floor of the senate - and make a motion.

    If we can't take action today, we can request that such a motion be agendized for the first meeting of next semester.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If this happened in the business world, what would happen to Raghu?

    If this happened in the government, where public trust and taxpayer money was at stake, what would happen to Raghu?

    oops, we ARE related to government aren't we? overseen by elected officials, spending the people's money, serving the interests and needs of teh community...what's going to happen to this irresponsible public employee?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I hope the trustees are reading this and seeing Raghu do on the stand what he has done to us all these years: LIE, LIE, LIE.

    Cely tried to build a baseball field without consulting him: LIE.

    Cely never developed curriculum: LIE. (Just ask the courses committee for records and minutes.)

    Raghu was never a defendent or plaintiff in a lawsuit: LIE.

    Rodney Poindexter was the most impressive, qualified candidate: LIE.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The academic senates and their meaningless votes of no confidence. Just another self-imposed, self-rightous act from a bunch of liberal looney toons. Like get a life, already!

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Raghu is a really sweet & lovable person. Just talk to him and you'll find out for yourselves. The problem is that you folks won't talk to him, you'd rather scheme behind his back ;o)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Faculty’s vote of no confidence in Raghu Mathur:
    No confidence = 98%
    This is the part of their survey that they don’t disclose;
    (Sample size = 8, Margin of Error = ±89%, Confidence Level = 11%)

    ReplyDelete
  11. 5:54 and 6:47:

    You've learned well from your master! Raise issues based on obvious factual error ("Sample size = 8, Margin of Error = ±89%, Confidence Level = 11%"), and then make claims about one of his many public persona ("sweet") that has nothing to do with evidence about his incompetence. Wrong on both counts.

    Actually, depending on which of the several votes of no confidence taken you refer to, the number of faculty participating was closer to 89% of ALL the faculty...not a mere "8" voters. And as to your comments about his "sweet and lovable side," at first I thought you were being jocular. Yelling at faculty and staff? Causing people to go out on stress leave or quit after just a few weeks? Bringing about an extremely competent manager's heartattack in his very office as he is yelling at the person? Asking faculty leaders to "pray" with him, and making all sorts of false accusations about faculty "threats"--please! There IS no sitting down and talking with him rationally--at least to the irrational, illogical side of his personality that he shows all but a select few who do his bidding. You two seem to be on that list; 96% of us have no confidence in him for just those reasons and because of people like you!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey...
    So im sitting in the juror's boxs thinking..."who is this strange fat guy writing down every thing?..
    I thought he was Sobel's puppet.
    WRONG!!!
    THIS IS THE SAME CREEP THAT WOULDNT STOP LOOKING AT ME IN THE CAFE...AND THE SAME ASS HOLE THAT FOLLOWED ME WHEN I GOT OFF THE STAIRS..
    Now im thinking..."Now THIS is good grounds for a HARASSMENT CASE!!!"
    In the end i enjoyed my time in the box. I got to meet 7 other interresting people, a good judge, and a damn good lawyer(Walsh). As far as the outcome of the case...Well i think it was fair. yhe evidence was all there...or not there in Dr.Mora's case...But at some point you've gotta realize that you can't keep blaming the man for something he had no control over. Sorry Dr.Mora...
    "HELL HATH NO FURRY LIKE A WOMAN SCORNED."

    ReplyDelete
  13. The verdict is in: 8-0 in favor of Mathur. Ha ha, Chunk, you can't get anything right. Who lies about accreditation? Chunk. Who lies about the strength of Mora's case? Chunk. Who lies about the district's problems? Chunk. Who lies, lies, lies? Chunk, not Mathur, at least according to an impartial jury.

    8-0. The jurors said Mora and Sobel were wasting their time.

    8-0. I sure hope your Board is paying attention. My guess is they'll hear about this. And laugh at you and your fellow kool aid drinkers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Faculty’s vote of no confidence in Raghu Mathur:
    No confidence = 98%
    This is the part of their survey that they don’t disclose;
    (Sample size = 8, Margin of Error = ±89%, Confidence Level = 11%)

    ReplyDelete
  15. The funny part is the 4 years of precious attorney time (@ $600 per hour?) Carol Sobel wasted by taking this pro-bono case.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey Chuck! I guess you've now become the TURD IN THE PUNCHBOWL! Your now FUBAR!
    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha LOL LOL LOL LOSFL (SF = so f-ing)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Want to bet Mora turned down a nice settlement just so Sobel and Chunk could pursue their anti-Mathur vendetta? That's what's appalling.

    Maybe Chunk should change his nom de blog to "Ahab."

    Sobel will take it in the pocket book. Hopefully Chunk's tattered credibility will suffer as much.

    It was Mora who was the victim here, but obviously not a victim of Mathur. Hope she files a claim against Sobel.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't think this was about anyone's pocketbook.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 8:10, are you implying you're a jury member?

    ReplyDelete
  20. It was about Carol's pocketbook. It's always about Carol's pocketbook. She used Cely to chase her arch-enemy Mathur and money from the district. Now Cely gets nothing and is probably on the hook for the district's costs. This will get ugly for Cely before it gets better, and Mathur comes out on top.

    You and your kool aid drinking buddies just can't win, can you, Chunk? Even the juror's show up to guest blog because you paint such a miserable picture of what really could be a great district without your constant negativity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Go Raghu! Go Poindexter!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mora should report Sobel to the OC Bar Assn. and get her dis-barred. That way Sobel will have more time to devote to the Ugly People's Club of America (UPCA)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Also, maybe she could start doing commercials for Jenny Craig? Oh, I just realized that won't work because she's too ugly. She would be up against Kristy and Valery and tha't wouldn't work. Help me out here. We need to find carol a new career because law isn't working for her.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, now, 1:43 and 1:47, you have just established a new standard for ugliness. What an awful experience it must be, being you.

    ReplyDelete

Trolls and flamers will be cursed by our team of black magicians