The verdict is in

.

WHATEVER ELSE may be true of Aracely Mora's case against Raghu Mathur, to the trial observer, there can be little doubt that something was very wrong with (1) the Poindexter hire and (2) protections from harassment for women at IVC and the SOCCCD. Without doubt, Poindexter was a disastrous incompetent, a point that is not disputed by the district. Nor is it disputed, apparently, that a simple phone call to Poindexter's previous employer would have made plain the man's incompetence and instability.

With regard to the protection of women, the district appears to be adopting the position that Poindexter was a poor manager, but not a harasser of women. But unless the witnesses at this trial are remarkably accomplished and organized liars, it is quite plain that female employees of the college were subjected to Poindexter's menacing behavior and the college did nothing to protect them. The jury did not judge that these women were protected from a menacing employee. Rather, it rejected the specific claim that Mathur failed to respond to a hostile work environment (for these women). (See Opening statements.)

Please note that the trial's verdict in no way challenges the fact that Poindexter was a disastrous and foolish hire (thank you, Raghu) or that there were people--women, in fact--who were allowed by the college/district to be terrorized by an employee. Remember: it wasn't until that employee got into a physical altercation that the institution pulled him out of the workplace, despite many months of complaints about his menacing behavior. (The judge decided that Cely's attorney may not refer to the altercation.)

FOR THOSE OF US who have been observing the Mathur trial, it will come as no surprise that Cely lost her case today. It comes as no surprise because, during the course of the trial, we were increasingly aware and concerned that most of the jury of eight gave every indication of being a group of immature young people. One juror was always visibly bored and seemed to be sleeping much of the time. A young man (who works for a game show) seemed often to be snickering and joking to the delight of his new female friends on this jury.

My heart sank each time I looked at these people.

But enough about the jury. My advice: watch Mathur. See what he does now.

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—created by Dean Rodney Poindexter. 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. 

Attorney Carol Sobel

     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

The lost reference: it was "very positive"

.
I attended the Mathur "discrimination" trial today in LA. I'll have more time to report on it tomorrow—I hope! Been too busy tonight to write anything. In the meantime, here's a quick update.

This trial is partly about the infamous Poindexter dean hire of 2001, which looks seriously dodgy. Prima facie, Rodney Poindexter wasn't even remotely qualified for the deanship (of Health Sciences, PE and Athletics at Irvine Valley College)—he had no supervisory or administrative experience—while Cely was amply qualified. And yet Mathur hired Poindexter, who turned out to be grossly incompetent, unstable, and, according to some, a danger to female employees.

That Raghu sure can pick 'em!

Part of the hiring process is the checking of references. All reference checks require documentation. They must be done using a special form provided by HR. So when the hiring committee forwarded three candidates, the chair of the committee (then-VPI Glenn Roquemore) went off (by himself, as it turns out; in court, he said nobody volunteered to go with him) and did the reference checks using those forms.

Today in court, the jury had a chance to look at them—filled out by Glenn Roquemore re Poindexter's 3 references.

It soon became clear that the three "references" for Poindexter were decidedly unimpressive (one was a former student). One "reference" declined to offer an unqualified recommendation for the P-man. These refs added up to practically nothing.

During the second-level interview of Poindexter, Mathur evidently got it into his head to ask Poindexter for a fourth reference. (That's what he said today, under questioning from Cely Mora's attorney, Carol Sobel.) That's odd.

And he didn't ask the other two applicants for a further reference. Strange, ain't it?

So, says Mathur, Poindexter gave him a name and a number.

Mathur now claims that he called the reference, and (surprise!) "it was very positive."

Naturally, he used the required form. It sure would be great if we could look at that form, find out who had such great things to say about Poinsie. We wanna read the superlatives for ourselves!

OK, so where's the form? Can we see it?

Today, Mathur acknowledged that that form has not been produced.

I assume that means that it disappeared. (Got any other interpretations out there?)

Garsh, that's odd! Doncha think? And it was so very positive, too!

TOMORROW: closing arguments. The jury goes off to make its decision.