Mathur loses motion

Concerning the discrimination suit brought by former IVC instructor Cely Mora against former IVC President Raghu P. Mathur: reliable sources tell us that Mathur moved for fees against Aracely and the judge denied his motion.

You'll recall that Mora lost the case in Federal Court not long ago. (See Mora's testimony.) Nevertheless, in the course of the trial, Mathur's remarkable unprofessionalism and incompetence were fully revealed by witness testimony and documents, and not only with regard to the hire of the unstable and dangerous Mr. Rod Poindexter. (See Reference checks.)

During the trial, it became plain that Mathur is in the habit of messing with hires and imposing his will against all reason.

Mathur's explanation for hiring Poindexter, a man who appeared to have none of the background necessary for the dean position for which he had applied, came down to alleged information provided during a mysterious reference check, the documentation of which has been lost. Or so said Mathur.

The judge's decision means that the district had to pay over $250,000 to defend Mathur.

Mathur once sued the district to cover expenses incurred when he unsuccessfully sued an instructor and former administrator for revealing (in Dissent) his violation of a student's privacy rights. The district coughed up about $40,000 for the notoriously parsimonious fellow.

As Chancellor, Mathur makes about $300,000 a year, a salary without equal among college districts of the size of the SOCCCD.

Addendum:

Re the unsuccessful lawsuit, I dug this up from an old Dissent:

September 1, 2000: it’s 12:45, and I get a cell-phone call from Wendy P, who’s been teaching all morning. She tells me that she has just served Raghu Mathur with papers regarding his “Judgment Debtor’s Exam.”

I should explain. You see, back in January of 2000, Mr. [Ra]Goo filed a suit against Terry Burgess—and me—regarding my reports, in three issues of Dissent, regarding Mathur’s violation of a student’s right to privacy as delineated by a federal law (FERPA).

That Mathur had violated that law was, at any rate, the conclusion of the district’s lawyer, Spencer Covert (yes, Covert—I’m not makin’ this stuff up!), who had been asked, by then-IVC president Dan Larios, to provide an opinion on the matter. Ironically, Mathur, a man who can neither detect nor pronounce irony, believes that the Dissent stories amounted to a violation of his privacy rights, and so he sued us for $50,000. According to Mathur, the only way I could have secured the documents I reported on was through the help of Terry Burgess, formerly the VP of Instruction. (That’s nonsense. The documents had been readily available on campus for years.) Thus Burgess was included in the suit.

Unfortunately for Raghu, the great state of California has a law (the anti-SLAPP statute) designed to protect citizens from lawsuits that are filed by powerful interests—developers, politicians, et al.—merely in order to silence legitimate criticism. SLAPP suits are burdensome annoyances, or worse, for defendants, but they produce a chilling effect on potential criticism by others as well. They thwart free speech.

To make a long story short, we responded to Mathur’s suit by appealing to the anti-SLAPP statute, which yielded a quick dismissal. In court, Judge Brenner noted that my Dissent reports were both true and newsworthy and that, further, there was no evidence whatsoever that Burgess provided the information regarding Mathur that I had reported. In fact, he hadn’t.

As per the law, Brenner ordered Mathur to pay Burgess and me costs and attorneys fees. That amounted to $34,000 and change. Ouch!

This was months ago.

But, as of this day (Sept. 1), Mathur hasn’t paid. In such situations, the prevailing side files for a “Judgment Debtor Exam.” Once it is granted, the “judgment debtor” is served papers that inform him that he must appear in court on a certain date. “If you fail to appear…you may be subject to arrest and punishment,” say the documents.

On August 29th, Carol Sobel, my attorney, filed for a debtor’s exam for Mathur. The order was granted on that day. So, on this day—the 1st of September—Wendy serves Raghu with the papers:

“Hi Raghu. I’ve got something for you!” chirps Wendy.

He stares but doesn’t move. She hands him the papers, smiling broadly.

Eventually, he takes them, glumly thanks her, and then disappears behind the door of his office.

Later, someone tells me that she thinks she heard Mathur crying and banging his head against a chair. But she isn’t sure.

Could be, though. The document orders Mathur to bring 27 kinds of document, including

All checkbooks, registers, and canceled checks for all savings, checking, credit union, bank, mutual fund accounts and/or all other accounts owned by you and/or you and your spouse for the past three years…All payroll check stubs for you and/or your spouse for the past three years…All passbooks for savings, checking, credit union, bank, mutual fund accounts, and/or all other accounts owned by you and/or your spouse for the past three years…All financial statements listing your assets…during the past three years…All stock registers or other records of stocks presently owned by you…All documents evidencing any partnership interest in property owned by you…All credit card applications…Ownership documents…Your state and federal income tax returns for the past thee years…

—and so on. Jeez, I’d cry too. The exam is set for September 19th.

Above: in the end, Raghu writes the check. There were tears.