From the ‘Vine 19, April 3, 2000
[I do believe that, by the time of the depo, Pat Spencer had quit her job as VPI at IVC and had found employment at Fullerton College, up the road.]
IT’S PAT!: THE SPENCER DEPO (MARCH 3, 2000)
BACKGROUND:
You know the story. The life
sciences people struggle to put up a greenhouse and, when they do, Dean Ruth
says, “Why not name it?” And so the
Bio crowd, bein’ clever assholes, name it after Terry Burgess, former IVC
botanist and #1 Mathurian nemesis. Raghu pops a blood vessel and the Bio crowd
is ordered to take the sign down, which they do. But, just then, VP Spencer
gets sly and hints: “Hey, there’s no rule against namin’ a garden!” So that’s what they do. This time, Raghu gets a brainwave:
“Why not fire the untenured guy [Jeff
Kaufmann] over this ‘insubordination’?—Yeah! This board’ll do just about
anything I tell ‘em!”
Well, here’s former VP Spencer’s depo. Highlights: (1) Raghu focuses on
Jeff for no apparent reason (except that Jeff, a Mathurian critic, is untenured
and vulnerable); (2) From the start, Spencer’s clear that a garden ain’t a
facility, but logic don’t count for nothin’ in Gooland; (3) there are lots of
violations of BP1500, but Raghu insists that this one be pursued in isolation, despite Spencer’s concerns; (4)
Spencer’s clear that the “naming” is the work of the Bio group, not Jeff in particular, but Raghu insists that “it’s Jeff”;
(5) Dean Ruth expresses regret at having suggested greenhouse namage, poor
dear; (6) Raghu expedites Jeff’s eval—now that he’s been “disciplined”; (7)
Raghu tells Ruth to check that “needs improvement” box—and, of course, she
OBEYS, sealin’ Jeff’s fate; (8) Raghu doesn’t tell Jeff when he’s the subject
of a “first level” disciplinary action—oh,
well.
—And so on.
FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA,
FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 2000 10:24 A.M.
DEPOSED: Patricia A.
Spencer
ALSO PRESENT: Raghu
Mathur
ATTORNEY FOR
PLAINTIFF (JEFF K) (asking the questions): Carol Sobel [attorney for Roy Bauer; attorney for students in district First Amendment lawsuits]
ATTORNEY FOR THE
DEFENDANT (RAGHU MATHUR): Allan “Clueless” Wilion
PRELIMINARIES:
SOBEL: I’M NOTING FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU ARE A
THIRD PARTY WITNESS IN THIS CASE. YOU’RE PRESENT HERE TODAY PURSUANT TO
SUBPOENA, AND YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TO THIS CASE….COULD YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME
FOR THE RECORD.
SPENCER: PATRICIA A. SPENCER.
SOBEL: AND ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED?
SPENCER: YES.
SOBEL: WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT?
SPENCER: I’M EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, FULLERTON
COLLEGE.
SOBEL: AND PRIOR TO YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH FULLERTON
COLLEGE, WHERE WERE YOU EMPLOYED?
SPENCER: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE.
…..
SOBEL: AND AT IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE YOU WERE THE
VICE PRESIDENT OF INSTRUCTION?
SPENCER: YES.
SOBEL: HOW LONG WERE YOU EMPLOYED THERE?
SPENCER: NINE AND A HALF MONTHS.
SOBEL: IN YOUR POSITION AS VICE PRESIDENT OF
INSTRUCTION AT IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE, DID YOU HAVE CONTACT WITH [LIFE SCIENCES
INSTRUCTOR] JEFFEREY KAUFMANN?
SPENCER: YES.
SOBEL: YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU’RE HERE TODAY
PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA IN A CASE ENTITLED KAUFMANN
VERSUS MATHUR—THAT PROFESSOR KAUFMANN HAS SUED PRESIDENT MATHUR, CORRECT?
SPENCER: YES.
SOBEL: YOU KNOW BOTH OF THOSE PARTIES, CORRECT?
SPENCER: YES….
…..
WHY ONLY JEFF?
SOBEL: I THINK I’D LIKE TO MOVE TO [YOUR]…MEMO
[CONCERNING THE “TERRY BURGESS” GREENHOUSE THAT] YOU JUST DISCUSSED. I’M GOING
TO GIVE YOU A DOCUMENT, AND I’M GOING TO MARK THE DOCUMENT AS EXHIBIT 1…THE
DOCUMENT I’M SHOWING YOU WAS PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS EXHIBIT 2 AT THE DEPOSITION
OF RAGHU MATHUR. TAKE A MOMENT TO LOOK AT THAT…HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT
THIS DOCUMENT?
SPENCER: THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I’VE EVER SEEN IT.
IT’S TWO PAGES, SINGLE-SPACED, SO IT WOULD TAKE ME SOME TIME TO READ IT.
SOBEL: IF YOU FLIP THROUGH EXHIBIT 2: ATTACHED AT
THE LAST PAGE AND MARKED AS ATTACHMENT “E” TO EXHIBIT 2 IS A ONE-PAGE MEMO ON
IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE LETTERHEAD. COULD YOU LOOK AT THAT [MEMO] A MOMENT?…AND
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT DOCUMENT?
SPENCER: YES.
SOBEL: AND THAT IS A MEMO TO “JEFFREY KAUFMANN”
FROM PAT SPENCER, WITH COPIES TO RAGHU MATHUR AND RUTH JACOBSON, DATED
SEPTEMBER 3, 1999. IT SAYS, “RE: NAMING
OF GREENHOUSE.” DID YOU PREPARE THIS DOCUMENT?
SPENCER: YES, I DID, IN CONSULTATION WITH RAGHU
MATHUR.
SOBEL: WHEN IS THE FIRST TIME THAT ANYONE AT
IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THE NAMING OF THE GREENHOUSE?
SPENCER: I COULDN’T…GIVE YOU AN EXACT DATE. IT [WAS
PRIOR] TO THIS MEMO….
SOBEL: DO YOU RECALL WHO IT WAS WHO FIRST SPOKE TO
YOU ABOUT THE GREENHOUSE, THE NAMING
OF THE GREENHOUSE IN PARTICULAR?
SPENCER: RAGHU MATHUR.
SOBEL: WHEN THAT DISCUSSION WITH RAGHU MATHUR TOOK
PLACE, WAS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT?
SPENCER: NO.
SOBEL: DO YOU RECALL WHERE IT TOOK PLACE?
SPENCER: IN HIS OFFICE.
SOBEL: DO YOU RECALL IF IT WAS THE ONLY SUBJECT
DISCUSSED IN YOUR MEETING WITH HIM IN HIS OFFICE ON THAT OCCASION?
SPENCER: I MET WITH RAGHU TWICE A WEEK ON A REGULAR
BASIS AS WELL AS INTERMITENT MEETINGS AS THINGS WOULD OCCUR. I HONESTLY CAN’T
REMEMBER IF THIS WAS FIRST RAISED AT ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS OR IF IT WAS A
SEPARATE MEETING….
SOBEL: DO YOU RECALL WHAT WAS SAID IN THAT MEETING
REGARDING THE GREENHOUSE?
SPENCER: REGARDING THE GREENHOUSE—I DO REMEMBER THAT
RAGHU SAID THAT THE GREENHOUSE HAD BEEN NAMED, THAT THERE WAS A SIGN OUT THERE
ON THE GREENHOUSE, AND I HAD NOT SEEN THE SIGN AT THE TIME. WHEN I’D BEEN OUT
TO THE GREENHOUSE FOR THEIR OPENING THERE WAS NO SIGN AND I HAD NOT BEEN BACK
OUT IN THAT AREA SINCE. RAGHU SAID THERE WAS A SIGN AND THAT IT DID NOT COMPLY
WITH BOARD POLICY 1500. AND I WAS NOT PARTICULARLY FAMILIAR WITH 1500, ALTHOUGH
RAGHU WAS. AND WE DISCUSSED THE POLICY. AND HE ASKED ME TO PREPARE A MEMO TO
ASK—I BELIEVE IN THE BEGINNING HE SAID TO ASK JEFFEREY KAUFMANN AND [LIFE
SCIENCES CHAIR] KATHY SCHMEIDLER TO REMOVE THE SIGN. THIS MEMO WENT THROUGH AT
LEAST THREE RENDITIONS, AS I WROTE ONE AND THEN TOOK IT TO RAGHU AND HE MADE SOME
[SUGGESTIONS] AND I REWROTE IT…IN ONE OF THOSE HE SAID HE WANTED TO GO—JUST GO
TO JEFFEREY KAUFMANN DURING—AFTER THE CONVERSATION I DON’T REMEMBER IF RAGHU
GAVE ME THE BOARD POLICY OR I GOT IT FROM MY OFFICE.
WE HAVE THE BOOKS IN THE OFFICE. AND I
READ IT, LOOKED UP THE TERMINOLOGY IN THE DICTIONARY, AND STUDIED IT SO I FELT
I WAS ABLE TO WRITE A MEMO THAT DID INDEED ADDRESS BOARD POLICY 1500 AND THE
CONCERN OF THE GREENHOUSE BEING NAMED.
SOBEL: YOU SAID THIS WENT THROUGH THREE REVISIONS
OR VERSIONS…DO YOU RECALL HOW THE EARLIER TWO VERSIONS DIFFER FROM THE FINAL
VERSION, OTHER THAN REMOVING KATHY SCHMEIDLER’S NAME FROM THE RECIPIENT LIST?
SPENCER: LET ME THINK. I CANNOT [REMEMBER] ANY
SPECIFICS….
SOBEL: WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH THESE VARIOUS
VERSIONS, DID YOU DISCUSS EACH VERSION WITH RAGHU MATHUR AS YOU PREPARED IT?
SPENCER: YES.
SOBEL: AND WHEN RAGHU MATHUR TOLD YOU TO HAVE THE
MEMO JUST GO TO JEFFEREY KAUFMANN, DID HE GIVE YOU A REASON WHY?
SPENCER: ONLY IN SOMETHING GENERAL, IN THAT HE FELT
THAT IT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE TO JUST GO TO JEFFEREY, AND I DON’T REMEMBER THE
SPECIFICS.
SOBEL: DO YOU REMEMBER ANY OF THE GENERALITIES
ABOUT WHY HE THOUGHT IT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE TO GO TO JEFF KAUFMANN THAN TO
BOTH KATHY SCHMEIDLER AND JEFF KAUFMANN?
SPENCER: GENERALLY, MY PERCEPTION OF WHAT HE SAID
WAS THAT HE FELT THAT JEFFEREY WAS REALLY THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NAMING
OF THE GREENHOUSE.
SOBEL: DID HE TELL YOU WHY HE THOUGHT THAT
JEFFEREY WAS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NAMING OF THE GREENHOUSE?
SPENCER: I DON’T BELIEVE SO.
SOBEL: DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM ABOUT
WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NAMING OF THE GREENHOUSE?
SPENCER: ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT IN THE BEGINNING I
WROTE THE MEMO TO JEFFEREY KAUFMANN AND KATHY SCHMEIDLER AS CHAIR OF THE AREA.
AND I DID THAT IN MY FIRST DRAFT BECAUSE I HAD—RAGHU HAD SHOWN ME I THINK IT
WAS TWO E-MAILS, AND ONE OF THEM WAS
AN E-MAIL BETWEEN KATHY SCHMEIDLER AND CHANCELLOR SAMPSON ON THE GREENHOUSE
NAMING. SO FROM THAT E-MAIL COMMUNICATION, I FIRST WROTE THE MEMO TO THE BOTH
OF THEM, KATHY AS CHAIR AND JEFFEREY—IF I’M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY.
SOBEL: PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT YOU WROTE THE MEMO,
HAD YOU HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE IN THE LIFE SCIENCES SCHOOL ABOUT THE
NAMING OF THE GREENHOUSE?
SPENCER: YES. WHEN I TRIED TO—IT’S MY STYLE—WHEN I
WRITE A MEMO, WHEN I HAVE A REQUEST, IT IS MY STYLE TO MAKE THAT REQUEST ORALLY FIRST TO SEE IF IT CAN’T BE TAKEN
CARE OF, AND I DID SPEAK TO BOTH JEFFEREY AND KATHY AND TELL THEM THAT THE
NAMING WAS AN ISSUE, THAT IT WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH BOARD POLICY 1500, THAT
I HAD LOOKED AT THE BOARD POLICY, AND I DID FEEL THAT THE GREENHOUSE ITSELF
COULD BE CLASSIFIED AS EITHER A BUILDING OR A FACILITY. THEY DID NOT THINK IT
WAS [A DISTRICT BUILDING] BECAUSE OF THE PARTICULAR FUND THAT…IT HAD BEEN
PURCHASED OUT OF. SO THEY DID NOT THINK THAT IT WAS A BUILDING OR FACILITY.
I SAID I WAS CONFIDENT IN THAT IT
WAS—IT DID COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF A BUILDING AND FACILITY AND
THAT I WOULD BE SENDING THEM A MEMO TO ASK THEM TO REMOVE THE SIGN.
IS IT A BUILDING OR A FACILITY?
SOBEL: AT THE TIME YOU HAD THE DISCUSSIONS WITH
THEM, HAD YOU LOOKED AT THE CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE TO SEE WHETHER IT DEFINED
“BUILDING” OR “FACILITY”?
SPENCER: I WENT THROUGH TITLE 5. I CAN’T REMEMBER. I
WENT—I THINK I WENT THROUGH TITLE 5 AND THE EDUCATION CODE TO TRY TO FIND
SOMETHING. I DIDN’T LOCATE ANYTHING. THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT ISN’T THERE. THEY’RE
BOTH HUGE DOCUMENTS.
…WE HAVE A DICTIONARY IN MY OFFICE,
AND I LOOKED UP [THE WORD] “FACILITY.” I THOUGHT “FACILITY” CAN [BE] MORE OF A
NEBULOUS SORT OF DEFINITION. AND THE DEFINITION, AS I REMEMBER IT, WAS
SOMETHING CONSTRUCTED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE, LIKE A HOSPITAL.
AND FOR ME IT WAS REASONABLE TO
THINK A GREENHOUSE IS A SPECIFIC BUILDING BUILT FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE—FOR
GROWING PLANTS. AND SO THAT WAS REALLY THE FINAL THING THAT CONVINCED ME THAT
THE GREENHOUSE COULD COME UNDER THE CATEGORY OF FACILITY [AND THUS CAME UNDER
BP1500].
SOBEL: WHEN YOU HAD THIS…DISCUSSION, DID YOU HAVE
IT WITH DR. KAUFMANN AND DR. SCHMEIDLER TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME?
SPENCER: MY MEMORY IS THAT…IT WAS IN THEIR OFFICE.
SOBEL: AND DO YOU RECALL IF ANYONE ELSE WAS
PRESENT WHEN YOU SPOKE TO KATHY SCHMEIDLER AND JEFF KAUFMANN ON THAT OCCASION?
SPENCER: I DONT REMEMBER ANYONE ELSE BEING THERE.
THEY TOOK THE SIGN DOWN:
SOBEL: WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THEM, WHAT DID THEY SAY?
SPENCER: [WE HAD] THE DISCUSSION THAT I WAS SHARING
WITH YOU…THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE GREENHOUSE WAS A BUILDING OR A FACILITY,
IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE OF THE FUNDS THAT IT WAS PURCHASED FROM.
…I WAS FAIRLY NEW AT THE COLLEGE,
AND I THINK THEY WERE ALSO TRYING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF ME IN [MY] MAKING THIS
REQUEST AND [THEIR] COMPLYING IN THIS REQUEST. THEY TOLD ME THEY WOULD TAKE THE
SIGN DOWN, WHICH THEY DID…WITHIN THE TIME FRAME, AND THEY ALSO SAID SOMETHING
LIKE, “WE UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM.”
…..
SOBEL: NOW, YOU STATED JUST A MOMENT AGO THAT THEY
TOOK DOWN THE SIGN IN THE TIME FRAME YOU HAD SET; IS THAT CORRECT?
SPENCER: CORRECT.
SOBEL: HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY HAD TAKEN DOWN THE
SIGN?
SPENCER: I WALKED OUT AND LOOKED.
…..
SOBEL: NOW, YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT THIS WAS
THE THIRD VERSION OF THE MEMO THAT YOU PREPARED…DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF
OVER WHAT TIME SPAN THE THREE DRAFTS WERE PREPARED?
SPENCER: …JUST ONE DAY AFTER THE OTHER. I DRAFTED [A
VERSION]…, AND THEN I THINK—I DON’T REMEMBER IF LATER IN THE DAY OR THE NEXT
AFTERNOON I TOOK IT IN, AND RAGHU MADE SOME SUGGESTIONS, AND I WORKED ON IT
AGAIN AND BROUGHT IT BACK THE NEXT DAY. MY MEMORY IS THAT [THE THREE DRAFTS
WERE WRITTEN]…IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
SOBEL: WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY, THEN, THAT IF THIS
MEMO WAS PREPARED ON SEPTEMBER 3RD, 1999, THAT YOUR MEETING WITH RAGHU MATHUR IN
WHICH HE ASKED YOU TO PREPARE THIS MEMO WAS THE VERY END OF AUGUST, BEGINNING
OF SEPTEMBER?
SPENCER: YES.
FROM GREENHOUSE TO GARDEN:
SOBEL: …PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT YOU PREPARED THE
SEPTEMBER 3RD,
1999, MEMO, DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION WITH RAGHU MATHUR ABOUT WHETHER THE
GARDENS OUTSIDE THE GREENHOUSE COULD BE NAMED?
SPENCER: …OTHER THAN THE GREENHOUSE COULD BE NAMED?
SOBEL: YES.
SPENCER: BEFORE THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE MEMO WAS SENT
OUT, YES AS I STARTED—WHEN RAGHU BROUGHT THE ISSUE TO ME OF THE GREENHOUSE…AND
IT’S [NAMING WAS] NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH BOARD POLICY 1500, AS I STARTED
RESEARCHING THE BOARD POLICY AND TRYING TO COME TO THE DETERMINATION OF HOW TO
DO THIS, I DID FIND THAT THERE ARE—THERE WERE AT THE TIME TWO TREES ON THE CAMPUS THAT HAD NAMEPLATES
ON THEM, AND THERE WAS ANOTHER GARDEN [THE DAN LARIOS GARDEN, NAMED AFTER
MATHUR’S PREDECESSOR] THAT HAD A NAMEPLATE ON IT.
SO I WANTED TO KNOW IF INDEED THOSE
HAD BEEN BOARD APPROVED, AND SO I ASKED SOME ADMINISTRATORS WHO HAD BEEN THERE
A LONG TIME, WHO HAD HISTORY—I WANTED TO KNOW OF [THOSE NAMEPLATES’] BOARD
APPROVAL. I CALLED THE BOARD SECRETARY…TO ASK HER TO LOOK IN THE BOARD
POLICY—OR DID SHE HAVE MEMORY OF ANY OF THESE BEING APPROVED? SHE LOOKED
THROUGH SOME RECORDS. I DON’T KNOW HOW EXTENSIVE[LY], BUT SHE SAID SHE HAD NO
MEMORY. SHE DIDNT FIND ANY [RECORDS].
SO I WENT TO RAGHU AND SAID THAT WE
HAVE SOME OTHER TREES, BUSHES, SORT OF GROWING, THINGS THAT HAD NOT BEEN NAMED
[BY THE BOARD, CONTRARY TO 1500?], AND SO IT SEEMED TO ME WE HAD A COMMONALITY
THERE.
NOW, LET ME JUST SAY HERE—I’M TRYING
TO THINK IF I’M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF IN THAT YOU’RE ASKING ABOUT THE
CONVERSATION BEFORE THE NAMING OF THE
GREENHOUSE, AND I AM TRYING TO PINPOINT THIS CONVERSATION, IF IT WAS ACTUALLY
BEFORE THE NAMING OF THE GREENHOUSE ITSELF OR IT WAS AFTER RAGHU TOLD ME THAT
THEY TOOK THE GREENHOUSE SIGN AND PUT IT IN THE DIRT AND CALLED IT THE
GREENHOUSE, PUT IT IN THE GARDEN INSTEAD OF ON THE BUILDING OF THE GREENHOUSE
ITSELF.
SOBEL: DID YOU EVER SEE THE SIGN OUTSIDE THE GREENHOUSE IN THE DIRT?
SPENCER: NO, I DIDNT.
SOBEL: IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXHIBIT THAT’S IN FRONT
OF YOU AND LOOK AT ATTACHMENT “A”—IS THAT THE SIGN THAT WAS ACTUALLY ON THE
GREENHOUSE?
SPENCER: I COULDNT SAY. WHAT I REMEMBER OF THE SIGN
IS THAT IT WAS—I DO REMEMBER THE NAME “TERRY BURGESS” [IVC’S FIRST BOTANIST].
AND I REMEMBER THAT THE SIGN WAS GREEN, AND IT WAS SORT OF A PLASTIC MELAMINE
SORT OF MATERIAL.
SOBEL: AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID YOU’VE NEVER SEEN
THE FIRST TWO PAGES OF THIS [DISCIPLINARY?] DOCUMENT BEFORE. IS THAT CORRECT?
SPENCER: RIGHT. I DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY OF THE
LETTER.
SOBEL: IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU WERE PRESENT ON
OCTOBER 28,1999, AT…WHAT’S DESCRIBED IN HERE AS A SECOND LEVEL…DISCIPLINARY
ACTION INVOLVING JEFFEREY KAUFMANN AND RAGHU MATHUR?
SPENCER: [WITH]…ARMANDO RUIZ?…YES.
SOBEL: DID YOU SEE THIS DOCUMENT AT THAT TIME?
SPENCER: NO. IT WAS READ TO JEFFEREY, BUT I WAS NOT
GIVEN A COPY OF IT.
…..
SOBEL: AND AS IT WAS READ—I’M GOING TO REPRESENT
FOR THE RECORD THAT THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBES SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE
ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS.
YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO COMPARE THESE
DOCUMENTS AND SEE THAT B1 AND B2 ARE NOT THE SAME SIGN AS “A”?
SPENCER: NO.
A GARDEN IS NOT A BUILDING:
SOBEL: OKAY. THANK YOU.
…AT SOME POINT AFTER YOU SPOKE WITH KATHY SCHMEIDLER AND JEFF KAUFMANN
AND TOLD THEM THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO TAKE DOWN THE SIGN FROM THE GREENHOUSE, DID
YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE LIFE SCIENCES SCHOOL CONCERNING
WHETHER THE PLACEMENT OF THE SIGN IN THE GARDEN AREA CAME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
BOARD POLICY 1500?
SPENCER: AT ONE POINT JEFF KAUFMANN SAID TO
ME...EITHER THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PUT THE SIGN IN THE GARDEN OR THEY HAD PUT
THE SIGN IN THE GARDEN, LIKE THE DAN
LARIOS GARDEN, IN THE NAMING OF THE DAN LARIOS GARDEN. I SAID, “I AM IMPLEMENTING
BOARD POLICY 1500, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH BUILDINGS
AND FACILITIES.”
SOBEL: DID YOU TELL THEM THEY COULD NOT PUT THE
SIGN IN THE GARDEN CONSISTENT WITH BOARD POLICY 1500?
SPENCER: NO. BECAUSE I DIDNT SEE THE GARDEN…[AS
UNDER THE SCOPE OF] BOARD POLICY 1500 [AND ITS PROHIBITIONS].
ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS?
SOBEL: NOW, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE MEETING WITH
RAGHU MATHUR, THE DISCUSSION YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE, IN WHICH YOU RAISED
THE ISSUE OF THE TREES WITH THE NAMEPLATES AND THE OTHER GARDEN PLAQUE. WHEN
YOU RAISED THOSE MATTERS TO RAGHU MATHUR, DID HE RESPOND?
SPENCER: YES, HE SAID THAT HE WANTED TO GO AFTER THIS NAMING FIRST AND THAT HE WANTED ME
TO GO AFTER THE OTHERS ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. I EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH THAT,
[FIRST] BECAUSE MY INTERPRETATION—I DID
NOT THINK THAT TREES AND GARDENS FIT UNDER BOARD POLICY 1500, BUT
[SECOND]…WITH THE IDEA OF GOING AFTER ONE OR ANOTHER. MY PREFERENCE IS EITHER
GO AFTER ALL THE TREES, BUSHES, AND
GARDENS OR NONE OF THE TREES, BUSHES, AND GARDENS.
AND I TOLD HIM THAT…I WOULD NOT GO
AFTER ONE GARDEN…I WAS STICKING WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF BOARD POLICY AS
[APPLYING ONLY TO] A BUILDING AND FACILITY.
SOBEL: NOW, WHEN YOU PREPARED THE MEMO ON
SEPTEMBER 3RD,
1999, DID YOU PROVIDE IT TO PROFESSOR KAUFMANN ON THE SAME DAY THAT YOU
PREPARED THE FINAL DRAFT?
SPENCER: DID I ACTUALLY DELIVER IT TO HIM ON THE
SAME DAY OF THE FINAL DRAFT? I BELIEVE SO…I KNOW THE TIME LINE WAS SHORT. IT
WAS A PRETTY CONCISE TIME LINE ON ASKING THEM TO REMOVE THE SIGN. AND I MADE
EVERY EFFORT TO GET IT TO THEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
GROUP ACTION: THIS
WASN’T DONE “IN THE DARK”
SOBEL: WHEN YOU SAID, “GET IT TO THEM,” WHO DID YOU GIVE IT TO?
SPENCER: I’M SAYING “THEM” BECAUSE I WAS THINKING OF
KATHY SCHMEIDLER AGAIN [AND] TO JEFF, KNOWING THAT IT’S GOING TO THE GROUP.
SOBEL: WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THEM PREVIOUSLY—”THEM”
BEING JEFF AND KATHY SCHMEIDLER—DID YOU INQUIRE AS TO WHO HAD MADE THE DECISION TO NAME THE GREENHOUSE AFTER TERRY
BURGESS?
SPENCER: NO, IT SEEMED TO ME TO BE A GROUP INITIATIVE. I DIDNT ASK FOR NAMES.
SOBEL: WHY DID IT SEEM TO YOU TO BE A GROUP
INITIATIVE?
SPENCER: JUST BECAUSE I HAD—THEY WERE ALL INVOLVED IN THE
BUILDING OF THE GREENHOUSE. THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE DEDICATION OF THE
GREENHOUSE. THE E-MAILS THAT I’D BEEN SHOWN, THERE WAS ONE FROM JEFF, THERE WAS
ONE FROM KATHY.
THIS WAS NOT—IT DIDN’T APPEAR TO ME
[THAT] THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE IN THE DARK. IT SEEMED TO ME [THAT] THE
NAMING OF [THE GREENHOUSE]…WAS AN OPEN THING THAT THEY WERE DOING AS PART OF
THE GREENHOUSE. IT WASN’T ANYTHING THAT WAS SORT OF DARK AND HIDDEN AND THEY
WERE TRYING TO HIDE. SO IT SEEMED TO ME IT WAS A DEPARTMENT INITIATIVE.
MR. WILION: FOR THE RECORD, I WANT TO MOVE TO STIKE HER
TESTIMONY AS TO THE WORD “SEEM” ON THE BASIS IT CALLS FOR SPECULATION, LACK OF
FOUNDATION.
MS. SOBEL: YOUR OBJECTION IS NOTED.
SOBEL: WHEN YOU SAY THAT IT “SEEMED TO YOU,” ON
WHAT DO YOU BASE THAT STATEMENT?
SPENCER: THE FACT THAT KATHY SCHMEIDLER AND JEFF
KAUFMANN HAD COMMUNICATED TO ME ON THE SUBJECT, ON THE FACT THAT THIS WAS THE
E-MAIL FROM KATHY SCHMEIDLER, THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN KATHY SCHMEIDLER
AND THE CHANCELLOR ON THE ISSUE. SO THOSE ITEMS ARE WHAT MADE ME HAVE THAT
SENSE.
SOBEL: OTHER THAN KATHY SCHMEIDLER AND JEFF
KAUFMANN, DID YOU TALK TO ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE LIFE SCENCES SCHOOL ABOUT
THE NAMING OF THE GREENHOUSE?
SPENCER: I DONT REMEMBER ANY DIRECT COMMUNICATION
WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE LIFE SCIENCE DEPARTMENT ON THAT.
ENTER DEAN RUTH JACOBSON:
SOBEL: DID YOU EVER TALK TO [LIFE SCIENCES] DEAN
[RUTH] JACOBSON ABOUT THE NAMING OF THE GREENHOUSE?
SPENCER: YES.
SOBEL: WHEN DID YOU FIRST TALK TO DEAN JACOBSON
ABOUT THE NAMING OF THE GREENHOUSE?
SPENCER: I BELIEVE MY FIRST MEMORY OF TALKING TO
DEAN JACOBSON ABOUT THE GREENHOUSE WAS WHEN I WAS PREPARING THE MEMO. JEFF
KAUFMANN AND KATHY SCHMEIDLER REPORT TO DEAN JACOBSON [IN THE COLLEGE
HIERARCHY]…I FELT SHE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE COMMUNICATION THAT I WAS PLANNING
TO HAVE.
THAT IS MY PRACTICE. IF I WOULD CALL ANY FACULTY MEMBER, EVEN TO ASK
THEM TO GO OUT TO LUNCH FOR THE FUN OF IT, I WOULD LET THE DEAN KNOW FIRST THAT
I WAS CALLING THEM ABOUT AN ISSUE SO THAT THERE WAS NEVER THIS FEELING THAT I
WAS GOING AROUND BEHIND A DEAN’S BACK.
…..
SOBEL: CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE FIRST CONVERSATION
WAS YOU HAD WITH DEAN JACOBSON THAT YOU RECALL ABOUT THE MEMO?….
SPENCER: THE MEMORY THAT I HAVE OF IT IS WHEN I HAD
THE MEMO WRITTEN, I CALLED HER AND TOLD HER THAT I EITHER HAD WRITTEN IT OR I
WAS FINALIZING THE MEMO AND WHAT THE CONTENT OF THE MEMO WAS AND THAT SHE WOULD
BE GETTING A COPY OF IT [THROUGH] INTERCAMPUS MAIL, AND A COPY WOULD BE GOING
TO THE FACULTY AT THE SAME TIME.
…INTERCAMPUS [MAIL IS]…SOMETIMES
QUICK; SOMETIMES IT TAKES THREE DAYS. I DID NOT WANT JEFF TO GET HIS MEMO AND RUTH NOT TO HAVE HAD HERS AND NOT HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT WAS
GOING ON. I DIDN’T WANT [THE MEMO] TO COME AS A SURPRISE TO HER.
SOBEL: WHEN YOU CONTACTED RUTH JACOBSON TO TELL
HER THAT YOU WERE PREPARING THIS MEMO, DID SHE RESPOND TO YOU?
SPENCER: YES.
SOBEL: WHAT DID SHE SAY?
DEAN RUTH IS CONCERNED:
SPENCER: SHE WAS
CONCERNED FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. SHE [HAD] SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS THAT I
HAD EXPRESSED TO RAGHU: THAT I REALLY FELT THAT GIVEN THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE
COLLEGE AND THE FRICTION IN THE COLLEGE, THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT
WORTH GOING AFTER; THAT THE HARD FEELINGS [AND] NEGATIVE IMPACT THAT THIS WOULD
HAVE ON WORKING RELATIONSHIPS AND THE WORK—[THE] NEGATIVE IMPACT THIS WOULD
HAVE ON THE ENVIRONMENT—IT WAS REALLY NOT, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, A THING THAT
WE SHOULD DO. IT REALLY WASN’T WORTH THE NEGATIVE IMPACT.
DEAN RUTH EXPRESSES “REGRET”:
SHE ALSO—AND I DON’T REMEMBER IF IT
WAS IN THE FIRST CONVERSATION, SECOND, OR THIRD—WE HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS.
SHE ALSO EXPRESSED SOME—I DON’T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY IS THE RIGHT WORD—SOME REGRET BECAUSE SHE TOLD ME THAT AT THE
DEDICATION OF THE GREENHOUSE—AND THE GREENHOUSE WAS NOT NAMED; THERE WAS NO
PLAQUE AT THE DEDICATION—...SHE HAD SAID TO ONE OF THE FACULTY MEMBERS…IN AN
OFFHAND WAY…: “GOSH, WE OUGHT TO NAME THIS BUILDING, NAME THE GREENHOUSE”… SO
SHE EXPRESSED SOME REGRET AT HAVING SAID THAT.
SOBEL: DID SHE TELL YOU THAT SHE HAD ADVISED THE
FACULTY MEMBERS SHE WAS SPEAKING TO [THAT], IF THEY WANTED TO NAME IT, THEY
WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH BOARD POLICY 1500?
SPENCER: NO.
SOBEL: DID SHE SEEM FAMILIAR WITH BOARD POLICY
1500 WHEN YOU INFORMED HER YOU WERE WRITING THIS MEMO ABOUT A VIOLATION OF IT?
SPENCER: NO.
CONSIDERING “INPUT,” MATHUR STYLE:
SOBEL: YOU INDICATED IN DESCRIBING YOUR CONVERSATION
WITH RUTH JACOBSON THAT SHE EXPRESSED TO YOU THE SAME SENTIMENT THAT YOU HAD
EXPRESSED TO RAGHU MATHUR—ABOUT IT NOT BEING WORTH GOING AFTER. WHEN WAS IT
THAT YOU EXPRESSED THAT SENTIMENT TO RAGHU MATHUR?
SPENCER: THAT WAS IN PART OF OUR FIRST DISCUSSIONS
WHEN HE INFORMED ME THAT THERE WAS A NAMEPLATE UP ON THE GREENHOUSE AND THAT HE
WAS REQUESTING THAT I TAKE STEPS TO HAVE IT REMOVED.
SOBEL: WHEN YOU EXPRESSED THAT SENTIMENT TO RAGHU
MATHUR IN THAT FIRST MEETING, DID HE RESPOND TO YOU ON THAT ISSUE?
SPENCER: YES. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, HE ASKED ME
SOME MORE QUESTIONS AND JUST ABOUT MY FEELNGS AND SAID THAT HE WOULD CONSIDER
THEM, BUT THEN, IN THE END, IT WAS HIS DIRECTION TO GO FORWARD.
SPENCER PLEADS FOR CONSISTENCY, REASON—TO NO AVAIL:
SOBEL: NOW, AFTER PREPARING THE SEPTEMBER 3RD
MEMO, DID YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH RAGHU MATHUR ABOUT REMOVING THE
OTHER PLAQUES ON TREES AND THE ROCK THAT YOU HAD IDENTIFIED…?
SPENCER: AT THE…POINT WHERE I WAS TOLD THAT THE
SIGN…HAD BEEN PUT IN THE GARDEN, RAGHU REQUESTED THAT I TAKE STEPS TO HAVE THAT
SIGN REMOVED. I ARGUED THAT I DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE POLICY COVERED SIGNING
GARDENS IN TREES AND BUSHES THAT WE HAD; THAT I KNOW OF THREE OTHER INSTANCES
THAT WERE NOT BOARD APPROVED AND THAT TO GO AFTER ONE OF THOSE WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO HANDLE THAT.
I TOLD HIM THAT I DID NOT BELIEVE
THAT WE WOULD HAVE DISTRICT SUPPORT ON DOING THEM ONE AT A TIME. I TOLD HIM
AGAIN [ABOUT] MY PERCEPTION THAT THE NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENT ON THE CAMPUS WOULD ONLY
BE INCREASED BY SUCH AN ACTION AND THAT THE COST TO WORKING RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN PACULTY AND ADMINISTATION WAS REALLY NOT WORTH DOING THIS.
AND I CONTINUED TO EXPRESS THAT I
FELT WE EITHER NEEDED TO DO ONE TREE OR BUSH OR NO TREES AND BUSHES, AND I EXPRESSED
TO HIM, “I CERTAINLY DON’T THINK…WE SHOULD HAVE EVERY TREE, BUSH, OR PIECE OF
CONCRETE NAMED, BUT WE NEED A BOARD POLICY THAT SAYS SOMETHING LIKE, ‘ANY
DISTRICT PROPERTY TO BE NAMED MUST BE BOARD APPROVED.’”
AND I ALSO EXPRESSED THAT CONCERN TO
[TRUSTEE] NANCY PADBERG IN A LUNCH MEETING. I TOLD HER, “I CERTAINLY DON’T WANT
TO SEE EVERY BLADE OP GRASS ON THIS CAMPUS WITH A NAME PLAQUE ON IT, BUT I NEED
A BOARD POLICY THAT IS MORE SPECIFIC,
THAT JUST SAYS,’COLLEGE PROPERTY TO BE NAMED MUST BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD.’”
…..
SOBEL: …WHEN DID YOU LEAVE IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE
EMPLOYMENT?
SPENCER: I BELIEVE THE LAST DATE WAS [JANUARY] 17TH [2000].…
SOBEL: OTHER THAN RUTH JACOBSON, NANCY PADBERG,
AND RAGHU MATHUR, HAVE YOU HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE ELSE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OR BOARD AT IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE REGARDING THE NAMING OF THE
GREENHOUSE?
…..
BABY, WE CAN WORK THIS OUT:
SPENCER: I BELIEVE I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH
CHANCELLOR SAMPSON.
SOBEL: WHEN DID YOU HAVE THAT DISCUSSION?
SPENCER: I COULDN’T ACTUALLY PINPOINT THE DATE. IT
WAS IN THE PROCESS OF WHEN ALL OF THESE EVENTS WERE TAKING PLACE….
SOBEL: WAS THAT DISCUSSION IN PERSON?
…..
SPENCER: IT WAS AT THE DISTRICT—IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
IN HIS OFFICE OR ONE OF THE CONFERENCE ROOMS NEXT DOOR…I EXPRESSED TO HIM MY
CONCERN OVER THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENT THAT THIS WOULD
CAUSE. I ALSO INFORMED HIM, BECAUSE I WAS CALLING THE BOARD SECRETARY…AND
MAKING A REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION. AND IN PROTOCOL, IT SEEMED APPROPRIATE
TO ME THAT HE SHOULD KNOW I’M MAKING CALLS TO THE BOARD SECRETARY.
SOBEL: WHEN YOU HAD THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE
CHANCELLOR REGARDING THIS ISSUE AND YOUR EXPRESSION OF YOUR VIEWS ON IT, DID
CHANCELLOR SAMPSON RESPOND?
SPENCER: NOT TO ANY GREAT LEVEL. HE DID AGREE THAT
THE ENVIRONMENT WAS VERY DIFFICULT, A LOT OF CONFLICT. AND THIS CONVERSATION,
I’M PRETTY CONFIDENT, WAS BEFORE THE MOVING OF THE SIGN INTO THE DIRT OR
GARDEN...AND AT THAT POINT…HE SEEMED TO THINK THAT [THIS ISSUE]…WOULD BE
RESOLVED AND IT WOULD BE FINE.
SOBEL: NOW, WAS THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE
CHANCELLOR BEFORE YOU PREPARED THE
FINAL DRAFT OF THE SEPTEMBER 3RD MEMO?
SPENCER: I DON’T THINK SO, NO.
SOBEL: AFTER THAT, THEN?
SPENCER: I THINK SO, YEAH. I THINK SO.
SOBEL: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER IT WAS BEFORE OR
AFTER AT LEAST SOME MEMBER OF THE LIFE SCIENCES SCHOOL REMOVED THE SIGN FROM
THE GREENHOUSE, OR SOME PERSON REMOVED THE SIGN FROM THE GREENHOUSE?
SPENCER: I CAN’T BE SURE.
SOBEL: WHEN YOU SPOKE TO CHANCELLOR SAMPSON AT
THAT TIME, DID CHANCELLOR SAMPSON INDICATE TO YOU THAT HE BELIEVED THAT KATHY
SCHMEIDLER AND JEFF KAUFMANN HAD BEEN INSUBORDINATE
IN THE MEETING WITH RAGHU MATHUR TO NAME THE BUILDING UNDER BOARD POLICY 1500?
SPENCER: …I HAVE NO MEMORY OF CEDRIC USING THE WORD
“INSUBORDINATE.” WHAT I REMEMBER HIM SAYING WAS THAT HE HAD DIRECTED—AND I
DON’T REMEMBER IF HE SAID KATHY OR JEFF—HE—MAYBE HE JUST SAID HE HAD DIRECTED
THEM TO SEE RAGHU MATHUR AND WORK WITH HIM ON THE ISSUE.
SOBEL: AND DO I RECALL CORRECTLY IT WAS YOUR
TESTIMONY A MOMENT AGO THAT, IN THAT CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH CHANCELLOR
SAMPSON, HE CONVEYED TO YOU THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THE MATTER WOULD BE WORKED
OUT?
SPENCER: THAT WAS MY IMPRESSION OF WHAT HE SAID;
THAT HE HAD TOLD THE FACULTY TO WORK WITH RAGHU, AND HE WAS SURE THAT SOMEHOW
IT WOULD BE WORKED OUT.
SOBEL: DID YOU EVER INITIATE A DISCUSSION WITH
RAGHU MATHUR ABOUT WHETHER THE GREENHOUSE GARDENS WERE INCLUDED WITHIN BOARD
POLICY 1500?
GARDENS DON’T COUNT: SPENCER ON BP1500
SPENCER: DID I EVER INITIATE IT? I WOULD SAY SO
BECAUSE THAT WAS MY CONCERN. THAT
[THE GARDEN] WAS NOT [INCLUDED]—WHEN
I READ THE POLICY AND LOOKED IT UP IN WEBSTER AND DID MY RESEARCH, IT WAS MY
CONCERN THAT A GARDEN, A TREE, DID NOT FALL UNDER BOARD POLICY 1500. SO I WOULD
SAY YES, I WAS THE INITIATOR OF THAT CONVERSATION.
SOBEL: THATS THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU’VE REPORTED
THAT OCCURRED AFTER THE GREENHOUSE
SIGN WAS TAKEN DOWN, CORRECT?
SPENCER: YES. AND THEN REPLACED IN THE GARDEN AREA,
THE DIRT.
SOBEL: WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME AWARE THAT A SIGN
HAD BEEN PLACED IN THE GARDEN AREA IN THE DIRT OUTSIDE THE GREENHOUSE…?
SPENCER: RAGHU TOLD ME—WELL, FIRST I HAD THE
CONVERSATION THAT I SAID I CAN’T REMEMBER IF JEFF SAID HE WAS GOING TO PUT THE
SIGN UP, OR HE HAD PUT THE SIGN UP, BUT THEN RAGHU TOLD ME THAT THE SIGN WAS IN
THE GARDEN. I DID NOT GO OUT AND LOOK…[RAGHU] TOLD ME IT WAS IN THE GARDEN.
SOBEL: AFTER RAGHU TOLD YOU THAT THE SIGN WAS IN
THE GARDEN, DID YOU TAKE ANY ACTIONS TO HAVE THE SIGN REMOVED?
SPENCER: NO.
SOBEL: AFTER YOU LEARNED THAT THE SIGN WAS IN THE
GARDEN, DID YOU SPEAK TO ANYONE IN THE LIFE SCIENCES SCHOOL ABOUT THE SIGN
HAVING BEEN PLACED IN THE GARDEN?
SPENCER: NO.
SOBEL: …DOES THAT INCLUDE DEAN JACOBSON IN THE
LIFE SCIENCES SCHOOL?…
SPENCER: DID DEAN JACOBSON AND I DISCUSS THAT THE
SIGN HAD BEEN PUT IN THE GARDEN?…YES, WE DID.
SOBEL: WHEN DID YOU DISCUSS THAT WITH HER?
SPENCER: IT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS, I WOULD
SAY, FROM THE POINT THAT RAGHU TOLD ME THAT THE SIGN WAS IN THE GARDEN, AND IT
WAS BROUGHT UP THROUGHOUT THE—UNTIL THE END OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS, I WOULD
SAY.
SOBEL: WHEN YOU SAY, “IT WAS BROUGHT UP,” WHO
BROUGHT IT UP IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS?
RAGHU ORDERS DEAN RUTH TO EVALUATE JEFF—AFTER DISCIPLINE:
SPENCER: I THINK IT WAS JUST PART OF THE COMMUNICATION GOING
BACK AND FORTH AS DEAN JACOBSON WAS WORKING ON THE EVALUATION. RAGHU ASKED TO
HAVE THE EVALUATION DONE, AND I CALLED RUTH TO TELL HER IT NEEDED TO BE DONE.
IT WAS JUST PART OF THE GENERAL DISCUSSION THAT THIS GREENHOUSE NAMING IS WHAT
GOT JEFF INTO THIS PICKLE.
SOBEL: NOW, YOU’VE JUST SAID THAT RAGHU TOLD YOU
THAT THE EVALUATION NEEDED TO BE DONE; WAS THAT CORRECT?
SPENCER: YES.
SOBEL: DO YOU RECALL WHEN IT WAS THAT HE TOLD YOU
THAT?
SPENCER: I COULDN’T GIVE YOU THE EXACT DATE. HE TOLD
ME THAT HE WANTED…TO KNOW WHEN JEFF WAS DUE FOR EVALUATION. HIS DUE DATE, IF I
REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WAS BY MAY OF THIS YEAR [2000]. RAGHU SAID THAT HE WANTED
TO HAVE THE EVALUATION DONE RIGHT AWAY.
AND I SAID, “WELL, WON’T THAT BE A PROBLEM? THE DATE IS UP TO MAY 2ND.” RAGHU SAID NO, HE WANTED IT
DONE NOW.
SO I CALLED DEAN JACOBSON, AND SHE
TOLD ME THAT RAGHU HAD ALREADY SPOKEN TO HER ABOUT DOING THE EVALUATION. SO…IT
HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED WITH HER IN A MEETING WITH RAGHU—THAT SHE WAS TO
START THE EVALUATION.
SOBEL: AT THE TIME THAT RAGHU INFORMED YOU THAT HE
WANTED THE EVALUATION OF PROFESSOR KAUFMANN DONE RIGHT AWAY, WERE YOU AWARE
WHETHER PROFESSOR KAUFMANN HAD JUST BEEN EVALUATED AT THE END OF THE PRIOR
SEMESTER [I.E., IN THE SPRING OF ‘99]?
…..
SPENCER: YES, I BELIEVE I WAS. AND HE WOULD BE—IF I’M
REMEMBERING THE PROCEDURE CORRECTLY—HE WOULD BE EVALUATED AGAIN BECAUSE IT WAS
HIS TENURE YEAR.
SOBEL: DID RAGHU TELL YOU WHY IT WAS HE WANTED HIM
EVALUATED RIGHT AWAY?
SPENCER: I DO NOT BELIEVE HE GAVE ME ANY SPECIFIC
REASON. HE JUST SAID THAT HE WANTED IT BEGUN RIGHT AWAY.
SOBEL: CAN YOU GIVE ME AN IDEA OF WHEN IN THE
SEMESTER THIS DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE BETWEEN YOU AND RAGHU MATHUR ABOUT JEFF
KAUFMANN’S EVALUATION?
LET ME ASK SOME OTHER QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT HELP YOU. DID THIS
DISCUSSION WITH RAGHU MATHUR TAKE PLACE AFTER
THE OCTOBER 28, 1999, DISCIPLINARY MEETING?
SPENCER: YES.
[NOTE: Article XXV of the contract states that “No full-time faculty
shall be disciplined unless the District has fulfilled its obligations to evaluate such faculty member in
accordance with the procedures outlined in Article XII….”]
SOBEL: AND IF THE EVALUATION OCCURRED THE FIRST
WEEK OF DECEMBER, DO YOU HAVE ANY WAY TO GIVE A BETTER ESTIMATE OF WHEN IN LATE
OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER THE DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE?
SPENCER: I CAN SAY THAT THE TIME FRAME BETWEEN WHEN
RAGHU DIRECTED DEAN JACOBSON AND I TO DO THE EVALUATION TO THE TIME THAT IT WAS
DONE WAS VERY SHORT…WE WERE DIRECTED TO DO IT IMMEDIATELY, AND THAT WAS DONE.
ON WHETHER THE SEPT. 3 MEMO WAS A FIRST-LEVEL DISCIPLINARY NOTICE
SOBEL: AND WHEN YOU PREPARED THE [SEPT. 3] MEMO
THAT…IS BEFORE YOU NOW—WHAT WAS YOUR PURPOSE IN PREPARING THAT MEMO?…
SPENCER: [IT] WAS TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF MY
PRESIDENT TO GET THE SIGN REMOVED FROM THE GREENHOUSE.
SOBEL: AND…IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING [THAT] THAT
MEMO SERVED AS A DISCIPLINARY NOTICE?
SPENCER: NO.
SOBEL: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE DISCIPLINARY
PROCESS AT IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE, BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE THERE AS VICE
PRESIDENT OF INSTRUCTION?
SPENCER: ONLY TO THE POINT OF READING IT. I’VE NOT
BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY DISCIPINARY ACTION AT THE COLLEGE EXCEPT FOR THE
PERIPHERAL INVOLVEMENT IN THIS ONE.
SOBEL: IF YOU LOOK AT THE FRONT PAGE OF EXHIBIT 2
THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU—AND I KNOW YOU’VE INDICATED YOU HAD NOT SEEN THIS
LETTER, BUT YOU HAD BEEN PRESENT WHEN IT WAS READ BY RAGHU MATHUR TO JEFFEREY
KAUFMANN ON OCTOBER 28, 1999…THE FIRST LINE OF THE LETTER SAYS, “THIS LETTER
SERVES AS A SECOND LEVEL DISCIPLINARY
ACTION.” DID YOU EVER ISSUE A FIRST-LEVEL DISCIPLINARY ACTION TO JEFFEREY
KAUFMANN REGARDING THE GREENHOUSE?
SPENCER: NO. I PERSONALLY DID NOT.
SOBEL: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE ELSE WHO ISSUED A
FIRST-LEVEL DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST JEFFEREY KAUFMANN FOR THE GREENHOUSE
NAMING?
SPENCER: I’M NOT PERSONALLY AWARE OF THAT, NO.
SOBEL: WERE YOU EVER INFORMED BY RAGHU MATHUR IN
THE COURSE OF MEETING WITH HIM REGARDING THE NAMING OF THE GREENHOUSE AND THE
GREENHOUSE GARDEN THAT YOU WERE INSTRUCTED TO ISSUE A FIRST-LEVEL DISCIPLINARY
ACTION AGAINST PROFESSOR KAUFMANN?
SPENCER: NO.
[So, apparently,
Jeff had been treated to a first level disciplinary action but did not know it.]
…..
JACOBSON AGONIZES:
SOBEL: AFTER YOUR INITIAL DISCUSSION WITH RUTH
JACOBSON IN WHICH YOU LEARNED THAT SHE HAD ALREADY BEEN INFORMED BY RAGHU
MATHUR THAT HE WANTED AN EVALUATION OF PROFESSOR KAUFMANN DONE IMMEDIATELY, DID
YOU HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH DEAN JACOBSON CONCERNING THE EVALUATION?
SPENCER: YES. WE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS. SHE WAS
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT DOING AN EVALUATION, ABOUT WRITING THE EVALUATION. SHE
EXPRESSED TO ME THAT IT WAS HER PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT THAT JEFF KAUFMANN WAS AN
EXCELLENT INSTRUCTOR…I BELIEVE SHE SAID THAT THE FORMER EVALUATIONS HAD GIVEN
HIM EXCELLENT REVIEWS BECAUSE HE WAS A HIGH-QUALITY TEACHER.
SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION AND WHAT HER
ROLE WOULD BE IN IT. SHE WAS CONCERNED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO CREATE SOME VERY
NEGATIVE WORKING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HER AND THE FACULTY, WHICH IS A PROBLEM
FOR A DEAN…[A DEAN IS] THE FRONT LINE PERSON WITH THE FACULTY, SO THAT WHEN
YOU‘RE THE ADMINISTRATOR AND YOU’RE ASKING A FACULTY MEMBER TO CREATE A NEW
PROGRAM OR CUT BACK ON THEIR BUDGET, IF YOUR WORKING RELATIONSHIP IS NOT GOOD,
IT CAN MAKE THOSE THINGS DIFFICULT.
SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE ACTUAL
WRITING OF THE EVALUATION AND THE CLASSROOM OBSERVATION BECAUSE SHE KEPT
SAYING, “MY COMMENTS WILL SHOW THAT HE’S AN EXCELLENT INSTRUCTOR, I’M SURE.”
I SAID, “WELL, JUST GO DO THE OBSERVATION AND WRITE DOWN WHAT YOU SAW,
NOT YOUR OPINION, BUT WRITE DOWN WHAT YOU SAW. DO WHAT YOU’VE BEEN TRAINED TO
DO: A CLINICAL OBSERVATION. WHAT DID YOU SEE
IN THE CLASSROOM? WHAT DID JEFFERY DO
AND SAY? WHAT DID THE STUDENTS DO AND
SAY?
“WRITE DOWN…THE ACTIVITIES THAT YOU
SAW, RATHER THAN WRITING AN EVALUATION THAT IS PHRASED MORE IN ‘WELL, I THINK
HE WAS,’ ‘IT SEEMED TO BE,’ ‘IT LOOKED LIKE.’ JUST WRITE ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES
YOU SAW AND BE VERY CLEAR AND GIVE GOOD DETAIL, AND LET WHAT YOU SAW SPEAK FOR
ITSELF.”
I DON’T REMEMBER—WE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS, SO I’M PUTTING SEVERAL
CONVERSATIONS TOGETHER. I DON’T REMEMBER IF IT WAS IN THE FIRST CONVERSATION WE
HAD ON THE EVALUATION OR THE SECOND CONVERSATION WE HAD ON THE EVALUATION. DEAN
JACOBSON WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE SHE SAID THAT
RAGHU HAD ASKED HER TO MARK IN ONE OF THE SQUARES, THE—I THINK IT’S CALLED
“NEEDS IMPROVEMENT,” “UNSATISFACTORY,” OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT—IN THE
[CRITERION] THAT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT FOLLOWING COLLEGE PROCEDURES.
AND I ASKED HER IF SHE HAD OBSERVED JEFFEREY NOT FOLLOWING
PROCEDURES, AND SHE SAID NO. AND WE AGREED THAT THIS [REQUEST] HAD HAD TO DO
WITH THE GREENHOUSE INCIDENT. AND BOTH OF OUR CONCERNS WAS THAT DEAN JACOBSON
WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE WRITING OF THE MEMO…TO MY KNOWLEDGE, SHE HAD NO
KNOWLEDGE OF…THE REPRIMAND LETTER. SHE HAD NOT SEEN IT OR READ IT. SHE WAS NOT
INCLUDED IN THE MEETING WHERE THE LETTER WAS READ OUT LOUD. I HAD NOT INVOLVED
HER IN THE WRITING OF THE MEMO TO REMOVE THE SIGN.
SO WITH HER INTERACTIONS WITH JEFF,
SHE DIDN’T EXPRESS TO ME THAT THERE WAS ANY PROBLEM WITH [JEFF’S] FOLLOWING THE
[COLLEGE] PROCEDURES, THAT IT WAS OUTSIDE OF HER [OBSERVATION]. SO SHE WAS
ASKING MY ADVICE ON CHECKING THE BOX OR NOT CHECKING THE BOX.
AND I TOLD HER I REALLY…COULDN’T ADVISE HER; THAT I WANTED TO CALL
SABRINA RUMINER, WHO IS OUR DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES, AND TALK TO HER ABOUT
IT…WITH RUTH NOT ACTUALLY BEING INVOLVED IN THE GREENHOUSE PAPERWORK…I COULDN’T
ADVISE RUTH COMFORTABLY TO SAY, “CHECK THE BOX.”
SO I CALLED SABRINA. SHE SAID THAT
“YES, INDEED, RUTH”—AND I CAN’T REMEMBER—EITHER [RUTH] “COULD” OR “SHOULD”—MARK
THE BOX AS RAGHU REQUESTED, BECAUSE INDEED IT WAS THE PRESIDENT’S PERSPECTIVE
THAT JEFF HAD NOT FOLLOWED PREOCEDURE.”
SOBEL: NOW, IN YOUR POSITION AS VICE PRESIDENT OF
INSTRUCTION AT IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE, WERE YOU MADE AWARE OF ANY MATERIALS
DESCRIBING HOW EVALUATIONS WERE TO BE CONDUCTED?
SPENCER: YES. IT’S PRETTY PRESCRIPTIVE. IT’S LAID
OUT STEP BY STEP.
SOBEL: WHERE IS THAT LAID OUT?
SPENCER: LET’S SEE…IT’S EITHER IN THE CONTRACT OR
REGULATIONS….
SOBEL: I WILL SHOW YOU A MARKED ACADEMIC MASTER
AGREEMENT, 1997 TO 2000. I DON’T HAVE COPIES…I’M NOT GOING TO MARK IT AS AN
EXHIBIT…I’M OPENING IT TO PAGE 25, AND IT’S ARTICLE 12, FACULTY EVALUATION
PROCEDURES. IF YOU’D TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND TELL ME IF THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE
TALKING ABOUT—THE PRESCRIPTIVE DOCUMENT THAT TELLS YOU HOW TO DO AN EVALUATION.
[NOTE: section L of Article 12 states: “The evaluator shall not base his/her
evaluation of an academic employee on any information which was not collected
through the evaluation procedures. Hearsay statements shall be excluded from
written evaluations.”]
SPENCER: YES, THIS IS IT.
SOBEL: …ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER MATERIALS THAT
WOULD PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO SOMEONE PREPARING AN EVALUATION AS TO HOW EACH OF THE
BOXES WERE TO BE COMPLETED?
SPENCER: NO, I’M NOT.
DEAN RUTH MARKS THE BOX:
SOBEL: LET ME SHOW
YOU A DOCUMENT AND MARK [IT] AS EXHIBIT 5. AND THIS IS A THREE-PAGE
DOCUMENT…THE FIRST PAGE IS SADDLEBACK COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT INSTRUCTOR’S
EVALUATION REPORT. THE INSTRUCTOR IS JEFFEREY KAUFMANN. THE DATE IS 12/6/99.
THE FIRST PAGE HAS A NUMBER OF
CATEGORIES AND BOXES…“SATISFACTORY OR BETTER” IS ONE CATEGORY OF BOXES AND THE
OTHER CATEGORY OF BOXES BEING “NEEDS IMPROVEMENT.” THE SECOND PAGE IS CALLED
“INSTRUCTOR’S EVALUATION REPORT.” THIS COPY IS COMPLETELY BLANK OTHER THAN TO
HAVE ADDED AS COMMENTS ON THE FIRST TWO CATEGORIES “PLEASE SEE ATTACHED.” AND
THEN ATTACHED IS A ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT WITH TWO SUBHEADINGS—“QUALITIES OR
TECHNIQUES WHICH ARE COMMENDABLE” AS THE FIRST AND “COMMENTS BY EVALUATOR” AS
THE SECOND. THIS DOCUMENT BEARS NO SIGNATURES FOR THE EVALUATOR’S SIGNATURE OR
THE INSTRUCTOR’S SIGNATURE.
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEORE?
SPENCER: YES…IT IS THE FORMAL EVALUATION [FORM] OF
INSTRUCTORS AT IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE, AND THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR IS FOR
JEFFEREY KAUFMANN.
SOBEL: HAD YOU SEEN…THIS VERSION OF [HIS
EVALUATION] PRIOR TO TODAY?
SPENCER: YES.
SOBEL: WHEN DO YOU RECALL FIRST SEEING IT?
SPENCER: AT THE POINT THAT RUTH WAS FINALIZING IT;
SHE HAD DONE HER OBSERVATION, AND SHE JUST ASKED ME IF I WOULD READ IT BEFORE
SHE MET WITH DR. KAUFMANN, AND I DID.
SOBEL: WHEN YOU READ IT, DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION
WITH DEAN JACOBSON ABOUT IT AT THAT TIME?
SPENCER: I THINK WE DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT INDEED
HER OBSERVATION DID TURN OUT TO CONFIRM THE FACT THAT [KAUFMANN]…HAS SOME VERY
HIGH-QUALITY TEACHING TECHNIQUES AND METHODS; THAT HE, FROM ALL ACCOUNTS FROM
OBSERVATION, IS AN EXCELLENT TEACHER.
WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT…WHAT WE THINK
OF AS THE PROFESSIONAL WORK OF AN INSTRUCTOR, THAT HE HAD DONE SOME THINGS IN
THAT AREA. FOR EXAMPLE, THE BIOLOGY LAB MANUAL: THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT…I
THINK—WITHIN THE TIME FRAME SHORTLY BEFORE THE EVALUATION, I BELIEVE IT WAS—WAS
EVEN HIGHLIGHTED AT A FOUNDATION MEETING. JEFF WAS THERE TO SPEAK…AND PASSED
AROUND THE MANUAL FOR OUR FOUNDATION MEMBERS TO LOOK AT.
AND SO I THINK THOSE WERE THE DISCUSSIONS, AND RUTH AND I JUST
DISCUSSED THE CONTENT AS YOU SEE IT.
SOBEL: NOW, IF YOU LOOK UNDER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH
UNDER THE HEADING “COMMENTS BY EVALUATOR,” THERE’S A SENTENCE THAT SAYS, “I
HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS GIVEN HIM A LETTER OF REPRIMAND FOR
NOT COMPLYING WITH BOARD POLICY 1500…NAMING OF COLLEGE FACILITIES.” DID YOU
DISCUSS THAT SENTENCE WITH RUTH JACOBSON AT THE TIME SHE WAS PREPARING THE
EVALUATION?
SPENCER: I’M NOT
SURE IF IT WAS WHILE SHE WAS PREPARING IT OR WHEN WE WERE READING THIS OVER.
SHE WROTE THAT HE WAS INFORMED AND I THINK…SHE WAS SAYING SOMETHING LIKE, “I’VE
BEEN INFORMED. I HAVEN’T SEEN THE LETTER. I WASN’T IN ON THE HEARING. IS THIS
AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO CONVEY THAT?”
…..
THE EXIT INTERVIEW—“NO SECRET”:
SOBEL: LET ME SHOW YOU—WHEN YOU LEFT YOUR
EMPLOYMENT WITH IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE, DID YOU UNDERGO AN EXIT INTERVIEW? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE TERM “EXIT INTERVIEW”?
SPENCER: I’VE NEVER HAD ONE. THE CHANCELLOR REQUESTED AN EXIT
INTERVIEW WITH ME, BUT HIS BROTHER BECAME ILL, AND WE HAD TO CANCEL THAT…I
DON’T KNOW HOW “EXIT INTERVIEW” IS PRECISELY DEFINED. I HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS
WITH GLENN ROQUEMORE BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO BE TAKING OVER FOR ME….
AND THEN I HAD SEVERAL OF THOSE
MEETINGS: CONVERSATIONS WITH RAGHU IN OUR REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE. AND HIS
OFFICE IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM MINE. MANY TIMES I WOULD JUST SEE THE
DOOR OPEN AND POP IN AND SPEAK ABOUT SOMETHING OR ANOTHER. THE LAST SORT OF
THOSE MEETINGS WAS—I THINK IT WAS A MEETING SCHEDULED, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS
GOING TO BE JUST WITH RAGHU.
BUT WHEN I WENT IN, ARMANDO AND
GLENN ROQUEMORE WERE THERE, WHICH MADE SENSE BECAUSE THEY WERE WORKING ON A LOT
OF THINGS TOGETHER, “PARTNERSHIP FOR EXCELLENCE” AND THINGS TOGETHER, AND GLENN
WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAM REVIEW. AND I WAS TURNING MY PART OVER TO GLENN
AND—
SO THAT LAST MEETING WAS THE FOUR OF
US, IN WHICH I PREPARED A WRITTEN LIST OF THE THINGS THAT I FELT I HADN’T QUITE
NAILED DOWN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH GLENN AND WITH RAGHU. WE WENT THROUGH THAT
LIST, AND PEOPLE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS. AND SO THAT WOULD—I GUESS THAT LAST
MEETING MIGHT BE AN EXIT INTERVIEW. I’M NOT SURE.
SOBEL: IN THAT LAST MEETING, WERE YOU ASKED BY ANY
OF THE—I TAKE IT THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE PRESENT IN ADDITION TO YOURSELF:
ARMANDO RUIZ, GLENN ROQUEMORE, AND RAGHU MATHUR?
SPENCER: YES.
SOBEL: DID ANY OF THEM ASK YOU WHETHER YOU TOLD
PROFESSOR KAUFMANN OR ANYONE FROM THE SCHOOL OF LIFE SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
THAT IT WAS OKAY TO NAME IT THE TERRY BURGESS GARDEN?
SPENCER: YES.
SOBEL: AND YOUR ANSWER TO THAT WAS?
SPENCER: NO. I DID NOT TELL THEM THEY COULD PUT A
SIGN IN THE GARDEN…THE ONLY THING I SAID WAS THE COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO A
QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED EARLIER, IN THAT, WHEN JEFF TOLD ME EITHER THEY
WERE—THEY WERE GOING TO OR THEY HAD PUT A SIGN IN THE GARDEN, I SAID THAT I WAS
IMPLEMENTING POLICY 1500 IN REGARDS TO BUILDINGS
AND FACILITIES, AND JUST LEFT IT AT
THAT.
SOBEL: DID YOU TELL HIM THAT 1500, IN YOUR VIEW,
DID NOT APPLY TO THE GARDEN?
SPENCER: I MAY HAVE. I WAS EVEN QUOTED IN THE
“IRVINE WORLD NEWS” AS SAYING THAT. THERE’S AN ARTICLE IN THE PAPER, AND I HAD
MADE THAT COMMENT TO RAGHU. I HAD MADE IT TO NANCY PADBERG, SO THAT WAS NO
SECRET, THAT THAT WAS MY PERSPECTIVE.
MS. SOBEL: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
MR. WILION: I DONT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
No comments:
Post a Comment