From the ‘Vine 19,
April 3, 2000
WRITING AN “HONEST EVALUATION”: THE JACOBSON DEPO
BACKGROUND:
NOT!
Consider the “greenhouse” saga: At some point after Life Sciences
faculty, prompted by a suggestion from Dean Ruth Jacobson (and oblivious to a
board policy [BP1500] that authorizes only the board to name facilities),
christened (and beplaqued) their newly-constructed greenhouse, President Raghu
P. Mathur, true to totalitarian form, decided again to make an example of a
Mathurian critic, and so he targeted biologist Jeff K[aufmann] for denial of
tenure. Mathur’s plan involved securing a negative
evaluation, and so he pressured Dean Ruth, who had just evaluated Jeff in
May, to evaluate him again—and to ding
him for alleged violations of “college policies and procedures”—violations that
resulted in “discipline.” (Note: Mathur’s strategy—first discipline, then
negative evaluation—violated the contract, which states that “No full-time
faculty shall be disciplined unless the District has fulfilled its obligations
to evaluate [him/her] in accordance with the procedures outlined in Article
XII….”)
But what were the violations? The greenhouse naming? –But that was suggested by Jacobson herself.
Was it the later garden-naming? –But garden-naming isn’t under the purview of
board policy, according to VP Spencer, who handled the reprimand issue.
(See Spencer depo.) What about Jeff’s failure to respond to an e-mail from the
Chancellor? –But Jeff, mindful of
protocol, left the response to his chair, who indeed responded on behalf of
Life Sciences faculty. As you’ll see, Jacobson herself doesn’t seem to know the
answer to this crucial question.
Well, in the end, despite Mathur’s recommendation and Jacobson’s
curious evaluation, owing to tenacious lobbying, faculty and student
demonstrations of support, and Board fears of further litigation and bad press,
Jeff’s tenure transpired unopposed. But don’t kid yourself. This thing could
easily have gone south. It very nearly did.
Mathur’s plan hinged on arranging a
negative instructor evaluation. Here, then, is the ridiculous saga of the
origin and the evolution of that sorry document.
DEPOSED: Ruth
Jacobson
Attorney for the
plaintiff (Jeff Kaufmann): Sharon Robinson (accompanied by co-counsel, Carol
Sobel [Roy Bauer's attorney; attorney for students in district First Amendment cases]
Attorney for the
defendant (Raghu Mathur): Allan E. Wilion
Irvine, CA, March 3,
2000, 2:24 p.m.
Dean Ruth’s in charge:
SHARON ROBINSON: Did
you look at any documents in preparing for this deposition today?
RUTH JACOBSON: I
did…I reviewed again both faculty evaluations for Dr. Kaufmann, and I looked
through portions of the Academic Employee Master Agreement. I…reviewed e-mails
between Dr. Kaufmann and myself regarding setting up appointments…regarding
evaluations….
…..
ROBINSON: …You
mentioned “both faculty evaluations.” Are there two faculty evaluations?
JACOBSON: Yes.
There’s one that was an original that was dated December 15th that included my observation of Dr. Kaufmann
in the classroom and also related to information that was given to me by
President Mathur. And in that particular evaluation, there was a
statement…regarding the fact that I had been informed that Dr. Kaufmann did not
comply with…Board Policy 1500….And then…I have a second one that the
attachments go with….
…..
ROBINSON: …I’m just
wondering, …is this how Jefferey Kaufmann received his evaluation, with these
attachments attached?
JACOBSON: No. The
first three pages was what he received from me.
…..
ROBINSON: …Does
[your] contract…outline and delineate your responsibilities toward faculty
members?
JACOBSON: Not real
specifically, but it does…You’re in charge—as a dean, I am in charge or
responsible for administering the scheduling of classes and the budget and
evaluations of faculty…There is actually a list of faculty—when faculty members
are due for evaluation—that comes out of the Office of Instruction. Pretty much
the deans evaluate based on that list….
…..
ROBINSON: So, as a
dean, would you always then consult that list prior to conducting an evaluation
of a faculty member?
JACOBSON: I look at
the list.
ROBINSON: …Is it a
guide or is it a mandate…?….
JACOBSON: …According
to the Academic Employee Master Agreement, a nontenured faculty needs to be
evaluated every year, once annually for the first four years, and then at the
beginning of the fifth year they become tenured….
Because she wanted it to be an
“honest evaluation”…
ROBINSON: Have you
ever been instructed by anyone to conduct an evaluation of a faculty member?
JACOBSON: Yes.
ROBINSON: When?
JACOBSON: This has
to do with Professor Kaufmann…I was asked to do an evaluation.
…..
ROBINSON: Have you
ever been instructed to evaluate anyone else?
JACOBSON: Not since
I’ve been here.
ROBINSON: Who
instructed you to evaluate Professor Kaufmann?
JACOBSON: President
Mathur.
ROBINSON: When did
he do this?
JACOBSON: Okay. This
was in December, and there had been a letter of reprimand given to Professor
Kaufmann back in October, which I was not a part of. President Mathur requested
a meeting with me and shared that letter of reprimand because I had never seen
it before….
And then he asked if I would do an
evaluation. And I did an evaluation, and I visited…Professor Kaufmann’s
classroom and evaluated him in the classroom. He did an excellent job. My goal
is to do always an honest evaluation and a fair one. He did an excellent job in
the classroom, interacted very well with his students, and in doing the
evaluation, I indicated that there were many glowing reports in that
evaluation.
I did include what I was informed
[by the president]. There is a statement in that original evaluation I
included…that I had been informed regarding the fact that the college president
had written a letter of reprimand for Professor Kaufmann for not complying with
Board Policy 1500, the naming of college facilities, because I had been
informed, and I felt I had to put that in there because I wanted it to be an
honest evaluation.
ROBINSON: I
understand. Have you ever had meetings with the president before doing faculty
evaluations of other faculty members?
JACOBSON: No.
ROBINSON: [Do] you
think Professor Kaufmann is a good instructor?
JACOBSON: I do.
I have no position at this time:
ROBINSON: Do you
think he deserves to be tenured?
MR. WILION:
Objection. Calls for speculation. Not relevant.
MS. ROBINSON: She
evaluated him.
MR. WILION: It
doesn’t make any difference. It still calls for speculation. Argumentative,
lack of foundation, not within the province of authority.
MS. ROBINSON: Thank
you.
ROBINSON: You can
answer the question [namely, do you think Jeff deserves to be tenured?].
JACOBSON: I have no
position on that at this time.
ROBINSON: Had you
seen the letter of reprimand before you evaluated Professor Kaufmann?
JACOBSON: Yes. That
was what I just stated, that I met with…president Mathur. He requested the
meeting so he could share [the reprimand] with me because I hadn’t seen it,
because I wasn’t involved in that portion of that issue….
ROBINSON: You’re
Professor Kaufmann’s dean?
JACOBSON: Pardon?
ROBINSON: You’re his
dean?
JACOBSON: Yes.
ROBINSON: You
weren’t involved in the letter of reprimand…?
JACOBSON: No.
ROBINSON: Is that
outside the normal procedure for discipline in [the] college?
JACOBSON: I don’t
know….
ROBINSON: Did you
tell Professor Kaufmann you had seen the letter of reprimand before you
evaluated him?
JACOBSON: No.
…..
Special orders:
ROBINSON: Did you
speak to anyone else about the letter of reprimand?
JACOBSON: No. Not
the letter of reprimand.
ROBINSON: Did you
speak to anyone else about the evaluation?
JACOBSON: I spoke with
Vice President Pat Spencer.
…..
ROBINSON: Do you
normally…bring [a faculty evaluation] to your supervisor for review?
JACOBSON: I could.
ROBINSON: Do you?
JACOBSON: No.
ROBINSON: Are there
any other faculty among [those] whom you serve as dean who are up for tenure
this year?
JACOBSON: There are
several.
JACOBSON: Have you
evaluated them?
JACOBSON: I have.
ROBINSON: Were you
instructed to evaluate each one of them?
JACOBSON: No. But
that’s just—you do.
ROBINSON: Were you
instructed to evaluate any one of them other than Professor Kaufmann?
JACOBSON: No.
…..
ROBINSON: …What
other information do you rely on in making an evaluation?
JACOBSON: If faculty
members have participated outside of the classroom and done something
noteworthy, I generally note that…Some of them are very active on campus
outside of the classroom…So I try to recognize them for their contributions.
…..
ROBINSON: So you
decided…at president Mathur’s behest…to evaluate Professor Kaufmann in December
of ’99?
JACOBSON: Yes.
…..
Mathur meets with Dean Ruth:
ROBINSON: So how did
this meeting [with Mathur] take place?
JACOBSON: As I
indicated earlier, it was because he wanted to inform me about the letter of
reprimand because I had no knowledge of it.
ROBINSON: Was it in
his office?
JACOBSON: I think he
felt I needed to be informed, which was appropriate because I was the dean.
ROBINSON: Would it
have been appropriate to include you from the beginning, back in October?
JACOBSON: Probably.
However, Vice President Pat Spencer was the person he selected to deal with the
letter of reprimand. She was his delegate, or at last that was the way I
understood it.
ROBINSON: …How did
the meeting take place? Did he call you to his office or by telephone or did
you meet in the hall? How and when did the meeting with president Mathur take
place?
JACOBSON: Well, he
came to my office…It was the early part of December, I know…It was either the
early part of December or the last of November….
ROBINSON: Was it a
meeting called specifically to discuss Professor Kaufmann?
JACOBSON: Well, yes,
because the main issue was the letter of reprimand….
ROBINSON: …So you
discussed the letter of reprimand, and then he told you to do an evaluation of
him; is that right?
JACOBSON: He did ask
me to do an evaluation.
ROBINSON: Did you
have the meeting with him about the letter of reprimand before he told you to
evaluate Professor Kaufmann?
JACOBSON: It was at
the same meeting.
…..
What did he want to see in the
evaluation?
ROBINSON: So you
had…until March 15 to do Professor Kaufmann’s evaluation…Why did you decide to
do it in December [of ‘99]?
JACOBSON: I think
specifically because president Mathur…asked me to do an evaluation. So that
didn’t mean two months later. Or at least that’s what I understood….
ROBINSON: Did he
tell you what he wanted to see in the evaluation?
JACOBSON: I don’t
really recall at this time. The only thing I remember is that, when I think
back on the whole thing, he shared it with me—my thinking on it was, because I
knew of it, I had to put it into the evaluation because I was informed to have
an honest evaluation.
ROBINSON: I see.
…..
The Greenhouse:
ROBINSON: Tell me a
little about the building of the greenhouse. How did that come about?
JACOBSON: It was
actually funded before I was the dean. It was when the last dean managed that
school. There was a proposal submitted apparently by…Professor Kaufmann for
block grant funding. We received funding from the state for equipment and
various kinds of items. And they submitted a proposal for [a greenhouse], and
they were awarded that funding.
…..
ROBINSON: How many
times have you evaluated Professor Kaufmann?
JACOBSON: Two times.
ROBINSON: That was
last May—May of ‘99—and December of ’99?
JACOBSON: Yes….
…..
ROBINSON: Did you
tell [Jeff] you had seen the letter of reprimand before you evaluated him?
JACOBSON: No.
…..
ROBINSON: You’ve
evaluated him twice. Did you find that his performance this year was consistent
with his performance last year?
…..
JACOBSON: Yes.
ROBINSON: In your
opinion as his dean, do you think he is an excellent instructor?
JACOBSON: I do. His
performance in the classroom is excellent.
ROBINSON: Has
president Mathur told you that Kathy Schmeidler is being reviewed by the
president for a possible discipline regarding the greenhouse?
JACOBSON: No.
…..
Can I give ‘im a copy?
ROBINSON: Now, when
in the evaluation process did you meet with Professor Kaufmann?
…..
JACOBSON: …I thought
it was the 15th because I signed it on the 15th.
…..
ROBINSON: Did he ask
you during that conference whether you had seen the letter of reprimand at the
time you prepared the evaluation?
JACOBSON: I don’t
know—I don’t recall at this time that he asked that specific question…But I did
tell him I had been informed [about the reprimand].
….
ROBINSON: What did
he say?
JACOBSON: Well, he
said that he did not—he would—he did not want to sign the evaluation. He
expressed some surprise. I don’t know how surprised he was, but he expressed
some surprise…He asked me if he could have a copy of the evaluation. I
wasn’t—I’ve never had that happen to me before. And because he had refused to
sign it, I called Pat Spencer, because she was my immediate supervisor, and
said, “What is the protocol and proper procedure? I’m not sure.”…Because…he was
not signing it, I checked with Pat Spencer to say, “Can’t I go ahead and”—I had
never done this before. And I wanted to make sure I was following proper
procedures—[I asked,] “Is it appropriate to give him a copy?”
[Spencer] contacted Sabrina Ruminer,
the Director of Human Resources, who indicated that [giving Jeff a copy of his
evaluation] was fine. So I provided him with a copy.
…..
ROBINSON: When was
the next time you saw the evaluation?
…..
JACOBSON: When I
received a copy back.
…..
ROBINSON: Was it
before the winter break?
JACOBSON: No…[In
January] or the first part…of February. Well, no. It was in January sometime.
It was in January, I think.
…..
The “hearsay” issue:
ROBINSON: Now, you
mentioned…two evaluations…How did the second evaluation come to be?
JACOBSON: …The
January 10 e-mail…from Professor Kaufmann to myself indicates that he would
like to meet with me. And it says, “I would like to meet with you as soon as
possible regarding my last evaluation. Specifically, I’m requesting a
modification of the document on the issue of Board Policy 1500”…I responded
that same day….
…..
ROBINSON: You
mentioned a few minutes ago that the first four e-mails we entered as
exhibits—or the first five—dealt with one particular meeting. Can you tell me
when that meeting took place?
JACOBSON: …I think
that was on January 13…This meeting related to the initial e-mail from
Professor Kaufmann regarding his evaluation in reference to Board Policy 1500.
…..
ROBINSON: Who was
present?
JACOBSON: Professor
Kaufmann, Professor Dan Rivas [Kaufmann’s Faculty Association rep], and
myself…Basically, Professor Kaufmann felt that what he wanted to occur was for
me to remove the statement regarding Board Policy 1500 because both he and Dan,
as the Faculty Association representative, felt it was hearsay. [Article XII of the contract states that “Hearsay
statements shall be excluded from written evaluations.”]
And I listened to what they had to
say. And I said I would be happy to consider it; I needed to read the contract
carefully again to make sure that I wasn’t violating the contract because I did
not want to violate the contract. I wanted the evaluation to be honest….
…..
ROBINSON: Did you
actually reread the contract?
JACOBSON: After the
meeting.
ROBINSON: What did
you decide?
Sabrina Ruminer advises a revision:
JACOBSON: I decided
perhaps it could be hearsay, based on [what] I had been informed. And I
realized that maybe my statement wasn’t very clear.
And so I made an appointment with
Sabrina Ruminer, the Director of Human Resources, as to counsel with her. I
said, “I’m concerned that, perhaps the way I have stated this, this is hearsay.
I did in fact, read the document, letter of reprimand. I was informed verbally,
but I also read it; and that, maybe the way I have stated this, this is hearsay
and maybe I am in violation of the contract.”
So she and I discussed it. She said,
“Did you read it?” I said, “yes.” Then she said, “What you need to do is you
need to revise your evaluation, and it needs to read clearly that you were
informed and you reviewed the letter of reprimand to eliminate the hearsay
involving that.”…She also stated that to comply with the contract, if there was
something that…needed improvement, there needed to be a statement there to that
effect on how to improve. So I included a statement on how to improve. That
was—
ROBINSON: Did
president Mathur inform you that he was recommending Jeff be denied tenure
based on this evaluation?
JACOBSON: I don’t
recall that at this time. I don’t recall him saying that to me at all.
ROBINSON: In the
evaluation, you assessed Professor Kaufmann as needing improvement in his
attitude to [the] college?
…..
Dinged for violating policies:
JACOBSON: Basically,
[I assessed him regarding the heading:] follows
college policies and procedures. And that has to do with the board policy
that affects both institutions. Actually, the whole district, for that matter.
…..
ROBINSON: So you
decided that he failed to follow college policies and procedures, and therefore
gave him a “needs improvement” rating?
JACOBSON: Because of
the letter of reprimand.
ROBINSON: Did you
rely on anything else besides the letter of reprimand in making that decision?
JACOBSON: No. That
was the main reference.
ROBINSON: Have you
ever witnessed [Jeff] violating a school policy?
JACOBSON: Not that I
can recall at this time.
ROBINSON: Have you
ever witnessed professor Kaufmann perform any acts of insubordination during
his—during the time you’ve known him here at IVC?
JACOBSON: Not that I
can recall at this time.
…..
ROBINSON: Have you
ever given a “needs improvement” to another instructor in this same subheading,
“Follows college policies and procedures”?
JACOBSON: I have not
had any occasion to do that.
ROBINSON: What is
the relationship between purported violation of BP1500 and Professor Kaufmann’s
attitude to [the] college? How are they related?
JACOBSON: I look at
the example here, “follows college policies and procedures.” That is what I
base my evaluation on. The specific text there.
ROBINSON: How long
did the meeting last with you, Professor Kaufmann, and Professor Rivas?
JACOBSON: About 50
minutes…The bulk of the discussion was the reference to the Academic Employee
Master Agreement and that particular statement in his evaluation that alludes
to the naming of the college facilities. They were stating they felt it was
hearsay.
…..
ROBINSON: Did you
discuss your concern [regarding violating the contract] with president Mathur?
JACOBSON: I did. I
mentioned it to him…I expressed my concern about violating the contract…And he
suggested that we have a meeting with Sabrina to discuss it…. [Ultimately,
Jacobson’s conference with Ruminer did not include Mathur.]
…..
ROBINSON: Did you
actually change the evaluation after that meeting with Sabrina on the 20th?
JACOBSON: I did.
That’s the revised version.
…..
The revised evaluation:
ROBINSON: Could you
read to me what part was the new part of the evaluation that you added?
JACOBSON: “I have
been informed and reviewed the letter of reprimand that the college president
has given him for not complying with Board Policy 1500,” dash, ”naming of
college facilities. For future improvement, I recommend that Dr. Kaufmann
follow college policies and procedures.”
….
ROBINSON: Why was
the revision made?…I’m unclear.
JACOBSON: Because
Professor Kaufmann indicated that the original statement was hearsay and in violation of the
contract. I was trying to clarify it to eliminate the hearsay and to comply
with the contract.
…..
ROBINSON: So do you
believe this January 20 revision [of the evaluation] is a more accurate
statement?
JACOBSON: Yes. Because
when I…made the original statement and said I had been informed, it was my
assumption that that—I guess, in my mind, I thought that that was clear, but it
wasn’t.
…..
ROBINSON: Did you
notify Professor Kaufmann of the revision?
…..
JACOBSON: I explained
to him that I had met with Sabrina Ruminer, that I…had counseled with her and
that I was very concerned that I might be violating the contract. I wanted to
correct my verbiage in his evaluation to comply with the contract, and I handed
him a copy of the revision.
…..
Wilion’s “so what?”—no “nefarious
plot”:
ROBINSON: There
seems to be yet another evaluation of Mr. Kaufmann, another—
Mr. Wilion: I want
the record to reflect that we’re not talking about different evaluations.
There’s two evaluations, and there are draft copies of these documents. The
notion that there are five different versions of this document includes drafts
of documents. They’re not five different versions of the documents, and somehow
it’s a nefarious plot here to have five different versions of this document.
That’s not the case at all.
Ms. Sobel: Well,
there are at a minimum three different textual elements.
Mr. Wilion: So what?
I have documents that, in draft, I have 85 versions of.
Ms. Sobel: That’s
before you turn it in to a court or give it to someone. These are all after
they were given to Professor Kaufmann. It’s absolutely clear.
Mr. Wilion: So what?
Ms. Sobel: We don’t
have to argue about “so what.” “So what” is what will happen when we go to
trial or we make a summary judgment motion. We don’t have to argue about it
now.
Mr. Wilion: I just
want the record to reflect there are not five different versions of a document.
There are the original document, which was changed at Mr. Kaufmann’s request,
and there are apparently one or two versions of them, earlier versions.
Ms. Sobel: I’m going
to object to this. You’re not testifying here today. And I don’t think Mr.
Kaufmann would agree that the change that was made was a change that he
requested be made.
Mr. Wilion: He did.
Ms. Sobel: No. He
asked that he be fairly evaluated. He did not ask that somebody rewrite it in
the way that they did or that the president put in the comments he did. But
this is inappropriate….
Mr. Wilion: I’m not
going to say anything further. I want the record to reflect [that] there are
not five different versions.
Ms. Sobel: What the
records reflect is we are introducing five exhibits, each of which is somewhat
different, beginning with the first one provided to Professor Kaufmann on
December 15 that is unsigned up to the last one in February of this year.
…..
Where’s the violation?
ROBINSON: In his
comments, [Mathur] says that it’s recommended that Professor Kaufmann adhere to
the board policies and administrative instructions during his employment. Did
you read exhibit 17?…Do you know what he’s referring to in those comments?
JACOBSON: Well, I
read the attachments. And the attachment that went with the evaluation and the
letter of reprimand indicated that there was…an e-mail from Chancellor Sampson
to Professor Kaufmann back in May of ’99 indicating that Professor Kaufmann
needed to go through proper procedures to name the greenhouse.
ROBINSON: So those
are the administrative instructions that he failed to follow?
JACOBSON: That’s my
understanding. That’s part of it, I guess. [In fact, Kaufmann, mindful of
protocol, gave over the task of responding to the Chancellor to his chair,
Kathy Schmeidler, who did respond on behalf of Life Sciences faculty.]
ROBINSON: Is there
another part of it?
JACOBSON: Somewhere—again,
I don’t recall exactly where—I read an e-mail. It may have been part of the
attachments—but from Professor Kaufmann to academic Chair Schmeidler indicating
that she take care of it and that she indicated that she would follow the
proper protocol.
ROBINSON: So how is
that part of his failure to follow administrative instructions?
JACOBSON: Well, of
course, this is secondhand information. But if, in fact, the greenhouse was
named, he did not go through the proper procedures. [Note: As we’ll see, it was
Jacobson who first suggested to the faculty that the greenhouse be named.]
ROBINSON: Did you
think the procedure [in responding to the Chancellor’s e-mail] followed was
proper, for him to go through—to ask Kathy Schmeidler?
JACOBSON: I
probably—if he had asked my advice, which he did not, I would have suggested
that he handle it himself and go ahead and follow Board Policy 1500, which
indicates it does require Board approval to name a facility.
…..
Whose idea was it to name the
greenhouse?
ROBINSON: Whose idea
was it to name the greenhouse?
JACOBSON: I can’t
answer that.
ROBINSON: Why?
JACOBSON: I do not
know who came up with the name.
ROBINSON: Did you
suggest a name?
JACOBSON: No. I suggested naming the greenhouse
because so much effort had gone into constructing it and getting it up…[so] I
said it deserves more merit than just the name “The Greenhouse,” which doesn’t
have much PR polish to it. And I felt it would enhance their educational
program to maybe name it “The Life Sciences and Learning Center” or “Enrichment
Center.” I was thinking of something very generic.
ROBINSON: Was there
a meeting prior to the dedication of the greenhouse where some of this was
discussed?
JACOBSON: I have no
knowledge of that.
ROBINSON: When did
you suggest that it might have a name?
JACOBSON: Actually,
in the hall.
ROBINSON: To whom?
JACOBSON: In the
mail room.
ROBINSON: To whom?
JACOBSON: To Jeff
because he had spearheaded the greenhouse…Priscilla Ross may have been standing
there at the time, too, and maybe somebody from another school. It was just out
in the lobby, if you will.
ROBINSON: Did you
advise them of BP 1500 when you suggested that it might be named?
JACOBSON: No. I did
not advise them of BP 1500 because I didn’t know, in fact, it was going to be
named. I just made the suggestion, we need to name it something other than “the
Greenhouse.”
ROBINSON: Did you
know about BP1500?
JACOBSON: I was
aware of it.
ROBINSON: What does
BP1500 state?
JACOBSON: Basically,
it has to do with the naming of facilities. In order to name a facility, it
requires going through board approval and first going through the chancellor,
as I recall.
ROBINSON: Have you
ever been involved in the implementation of BP1500?
JACOBSON: No.
ROBINSON: Have you
ever had to report a faculty member for failing to follow BP1500?
JACOBSON: No.
ROBINSON: Have you
ever heard of another dean reporting a faculty member for failing to follow
BP1500?
JACOBSON: No.
ROBINSON: Have you
ever felt compelled to give the review of “needs improvement” to any faculty member
you’ve evaluated for the faculty member’s failure to follow policies and
procedures?
JACOBSON: No. Only
if the situation warranted it, I would.
ROBINSON: Have you
ever?
JACOBSON: No.
ROBINSON: What
situation would warrant a “needs improvement”?
JACOBSON: Probably
any of the items that are listed here, if there appears to be some problem with
it.
ROBINSON: What about
the Larios Garden? Are you familiar with the Larios Garden here at the IVC
campus? [The (former president Dan) Larios Garden, which until recently sported
a substantial plaque, is situated between A300 and A400. The plaque was never
approved by the board.]
JACOBSON: Not
really. I’ve heard people talk about the Larios Garden, but I haven’t seen it.
ROBINSON: You don’t
know if it has a sign or not?
JACOBSON: No.
ROBINSON: Did you
think it was not proper protocol for Professor Kaufmann to refer the matter to
Schmeidler in response to Chancellor Sampson’s e-mail?
JACOBSON: I think he
probably should have handled it himself…[i.e., he should have personally
answered the Chancellor].
ROBINSON: So is this
protocol written somewhere or is this just something you think is courteous?
…..
JACOBSON: I don’t
think I’ve read that [protocol] anywhere.
…..
“I don’t recall”:
ROBINSON: In
connection with the discipline that Professor Kaufmann would receive over—
JACOBSON: I have no
knowledge of that.
JACOBSON: [Pat
Spencer] never expressed any concern to you?
JACOBSON: It wasn’t
discussed.
ROBINSON: Not
discussed at all?
JACOBSON: I do not—I
have no knowledge of any discussion. There’s a lot of this that occurred
without my knowledge.
ROBINSON: Did you
express any concern to her about it?
JACOBSON: Yes, I was
concerned.
ROBINSON: What was
the content of your concern?
JACOBSON: This had
become an issue. The naming of the greenhouse had become an issue.
ROBINSON: Do you
think it would have affected the environment at the college? [See the Spencer
depo.]
JACOBSON: Could you
please clarify that?
ROBINSON: Was there
any friction or negativity…at that time in the college environment?
JACOBSON: Is there
any friction? Could you restate that?
ROBINSON: Did you
tell Pat Spencer that there was friction or negativity at the college?
JACOBSON: Did I
tell—in what way?
ROBINSON: That the
school environment—that there was a sense of negative feelings among faculty
and administration. Did you tell Pat Spencer that?
JACOBSON: I don’t
recall telling her that at this time. I think there’s common knowledge that
there’s some friction from time to time here.
ROBINSON: Did you
ever discuss that friction with her?
JACOBSON: Clarify it
again.
ROBINSON: Did you
ever discuss that friction with her?
JACOBSON: Probably.
I’m always concerned. I like to see a positive environment in an institution of
higher learning. That’s very important. That’s what we’re all here for.
JACOBSON: Did you
ever express any regret to Pat
Spencer?
JACOBSON: In what
way?
ROBINSON: Did you
ever mention to Pat Spencer that you regretted suggesting that the greenhouse
ought to be named?
JACOBSON: I don’t
recall that at this time.
ROBINSON: Did you
tell Pat Spencer that you thought telling people to take down the greenhouse
plaque would cause friction?
JACOBSON: Repeat
that.
ROBINSON: Did you
tell Pat Spencer that you thought telling people to take down the greenhouse
plaque would cause friction?
JACOBSON: I don’t
recall that at this time.
…..
The garden sign—or plaque?:
ROBINSON: Did you
ever discuss the sign in the garden
by the greenhouse with Pat Spencer? [After VP Spencer indicated that board
policy 1500 does not prohibit the naming of gardens—see
Spencer depo—the Life Sciences
faculty erected a sign near the greenhouse, naming the garden.]
JACOBSON: No.
ROBINSON: Did you
ever discuss it with Raghu Mathur?
JACOBSON: No. I
didn’t even know it was there.
ROBINSON: When did
you discover it was there?
JACOBSON: Probably
[when I read a story in] the local newspaper…I can’t answer that at this time.
ROBINSON: Was it the
subject of the letter of reprimand?
JACOBSON: No.
ROBINSON: No?
JACOBSON: Not that I
recall.
ROBINSON: So what
exactly was the letter of reprimand regarding…?
JACOBSON: Wait a
minute. Let me go back. Restate that again.
ROBINSON: The letter
of reprimand: Did that deal only with the plaque
on the greenhouse?
JACOBSON: The letter
of reprimand dealt with not complying with Board policy. As I understand it, it
started out with the nameplate on the greenhouse, and then apparently there was
some nameplate that had been placed in the garden.
You’re not invited:
ROBINSON: When did
you first learn about the letter of reprimand?
JACOBSON: When
president Mathur met with me. No. I take that back. He had called me in
before—[to inform me] that there was a meeting with Professor Kaufmann. And I
don’t know who all was in that meeting. Vice President Spencer. And [he]
informed me that there was going to be this meeting, and this [reprimand] was
going to be given, but I was not invited to participate. He didn’t say that to
me, but he was informing me that that was going to take place.
ROBINSON: President
Mathur informed you that a meeting would take place that you wouldn’t be
invited to?
JACOBSON: He didn’t
say it that way. But he said there would be—he informed me that there was going
to be a letter of reprimand given to Jeff Kaufmann.
What misconduct?
ROBINSON: It was
your understanding that that letter of reprimand included what misconduct?…
JACOBSON: That dealt
with the board policy 1500, not complying with that.
ROBINSON: Is…it your
understanding that the nameplate on the greenhouse and the sign in the garden
were the same sign?
JACOBSON: I have no
knowledge of that.
ROBINSON: So let me
get this straight. Tell me once again…When you decided that Professor Kaufmann
needed improvement because of his failure to follow college policies and
procedures, what exactly did you rely on to come to that conclusion?
JACOBSON: The letter
of reprimand.
ROBINSON: And the
letter of reprimand was based on his failure to follow board policy 1500 in
placing a plaque naming the greenhouse; is that it?
JACOBSON: And the
garden, I guess.
ROBINSON: And the
garden?
JACOBSON: Yes.
ROBINSON: Did
Professor Mathur ever discuss with you the garden sign?
JACOBSON: …Only when
we met and he shared the letter of reprimand with me, provided it for me to
read.
ROBINSON: Was the
sign in the garden up at that time?
JACOBSON: I have no
knowledge of that.
Room for improvement:
ROBINSON:
Now, in this evaluation you’ve stated that he needs improvement in his following
college policies and procedures. Have you given him an opportunity to improve
in that area? [According to Article XII (1H) of the contract, “The academic
employee’s evaluator shall take positive action to correct any cited
deficiencies. Such action shall include specific written recommendations for
improvement.”]
JACOBSON: Restate
that.
ROBINSON: What did
you do to give Professor Kaufmann an opportunity to improve in that area?
JACOBSON: I
basically stated in the evaluation that he needed to follow the board policy
and the procedures in the future, which in this case would have meant going
through the proper channels to place a sign.
ROBINSON: Was that
in your original evaluation or was it in the revised one?
JACOBSON: It was in
both.
ROBINSON: In both?
Is there a provision in the contract that regards an opportunity to improve?
JACOBSON: Yes.
That’s why I made that statement. That was part of the revision.
ROBINSON: And what
about a reevaluation? Do you want to explain that policy for us, please?
JACOBSON:
Reevaluation? [According to Article XII (1G) of the contract, “Any academic
employee who receives a negative evaluation shall, upon request, be entitled to
a subsequent observation, conference and written evaluation.”]
ROBINSON: Is there
also a provision for reevaluation?
JACOBSON: It states
in the contract there can be a reevaluation.
ROBINSON: There can be or there must be?
JACOBSON: I’d have
to read it…[It is handed to her. She reads it aloud.] Oh, yes.
ROBINSON: Did
Professor Kaufmann request a subsequent observation, conference, or written
evaluation?
JACOBSON: He has
not.
ROBINSON: What
opportunity would Professor Kaufmann have to improve and be reevaluated in a
tenure year?
JACOBSON: I don’t
know.
…..
ROBINSON: Have you
taken any positive action to correct the cited deficiencies?
JACOBSON: I don’t
think there’s anything that has occurred where there has been a policy or
procedure involved to work with him. And I might add he has not asked for me to
help him.
ROBINSON: Did you
ever ask anyone in the administration how the “needs improvement” rating would
affect Professor Kaufmann’s chances for tenure?
JACOBSON: Restate
that. [She does.]
JACOBSON: No.
Because I didn’t think there was any reason to ask that.
ROBINSON: Why?
JACOBSON: Restate
that.
ROBINSON: Why?
…..
JACOBSON: I guess I
can’t answer that at this point, at this time.
ROBINSON: Did you
ever talk with Pat Spencer about the “needs improvement” rating?
JACOBSON: No. Not
other than having her review my draft of the comments.
ROBINSON: Have you
ever seen a professor denied tenure because he received a “needs improvement”
in one area?
JACOBSON: No. Not in
my experience.
Honest evaluations:
ROBINSON: As you sit
here today, are you aware that President Mathur has recommended Professor
Kaufmann not be granted tenure based on the “needs improvement” rating you gave him?
JACOBSON: No.
ROBINSON: If you had
never seen the letter of reprimand, would you have given him a “needs
improvement” in any area?
JACOBSON: No.
ROBINSON: Have you
ever discussed with president Mathur whether or not Professor Kaufmann would
get tenure…?
JACOBSON: I think
there’s been some discussion, but I’ve never gotten any kind of an answer. I
did share with President Mathur that I felt [Jeff] was an excellent instructor,
and in terms of the classroom, he performed very well.
ROBINSON: Would you
recommend him for tenure?
JACOBSON: He knew
that at the outset. I explained to him that I was doing the evaluation. It
would reflect what I had seen last year—it would reflect what I had seen this
year. But based on last year, my experience in observing him last year and my
written evaluation, he did an excellent job last year in the classroom.
ROBINSON: Did he do
an excellent job this year in the classroom?
JACOBSON: His
performance was excellent.
ROBINSON: What did
president Mathur say when you told him that?
JACOBSON: He
accepted that just fine. I said, “I have to do an honest evaluation,” and he
said, “That’s what you should do.”
ROBINSON: Why was it
a question that you had to do an honest evaluation? Don’t you do an honest
evaluation every time?
JACOBSON: That’s
part of my personal integrity.
ROBINSON: Did he ask
you to do something other than an honest evaluation?
JACOBSON: No.
…..
ROBINSON: Are you
concerned whether Jeff gets tenure or not?
JACOBSON: Based on
his classroom performance—I would like to see him get tenure based on his
classroom performance.
ROBINSON: His
classroom performance alone?
JACOBSON: But the
total—I guess you have to say that a faculty member’s functions are in the
classroom and outside of the classroom, in that they generally—a faculty member
could be involved in other extracurricular activities on campus. It’s
cumulative in terms of how tenure is awarded.
…..
Balancing act:
ROBINSON: There are
a number of [very positive] things you’ve recounted here in your comments in
the evaluation. I’m wondering, in your view, does the alleged violation of
BP1500 outweigh these other attributes that you’ve noted in the evaluation?
Mr. Wilion: are you
asking for a personal opinion?
Ms. Robinson: I’m
asking for her professional opinion as [Jeff’s] dean and as a member of the—
Mr. Wilion: I object
on the basis it’s outside the scope of her authority. She’s not a member of the
board of trustees. She’s set forth her evaluation. It sets forth an excellent
evaluation. She sets forth the reasons for her evaluation, et cetera.
Therefore, I would object.
Ms. Sobel: We would
object [to your characterization] that it’s an excellent evaluation…in every
respect. Please go on.
[Ms. Robinson repeats
her question.]
Mr. Wilion: Same
objection. Lack of foundation, lack of authority, calls for speculation.
ROBINSON: You can
answer.
JACOBSON: I guess I
don’t feel—based on what he is saying, I don’t know that I have the authority
to make that statement.
ROBINSON: You do.
JACOBSON: Well,
probably—considering there is one negative, I would probably say that it
doesn’t weigh—I mean, it’s a very important thing because I think it’s
extremely important to follow college policies and procedures. Otherwise,
having read that letter of reprimand, I would never have indicated this “needs
improvement” here, if it hadn’t concerned me. And I felt that I had to be
honest in the evaluation.
But the way you’ve stated it, I
mean, there’s one statement as opposed to a number of others very—I think very
very—positive statements, I think, in the evaluation.
ROBINSON: And you
don’t know any other policy that he’s violated?
JACOBSON: I would
probably say it doesn’t weigh that much compared to a lot of the positives. But
I’m not the person that grants tenure.
Ms. Robinson: I
think we’ve finished up here. Thank you very much, Dean Jacobson.
No comments:
Post a Comment