And so the case is back on track, with a new judge.
SO HERE'S THE THING.
While Cely's been slogging through the civil courts, this Poindexter fella flames out in spectacular fashion almost immediately!
(That Raghu sure can pick 'em! Remember when he hired a dean who tried to bring a Hilton Hotel to IVC? Ha! He, too, acted as Mathur’s hatchet man, settling scores with Mathur's alleged enemies—like me!)
* * * * *
Anti-discrimination suit against CEO Mathur finally goes to trial next week
Dissent
Monday, August 28, 2006
Back in June of 2001, then-IVC President Raghu Mathur, who currently serves as Chancellor of the SOCCCD, tweaked the hiring process for dean of health sciences, physical education and athletics at the college to get the underling he wanted—a twit he could control—and to avoid getting the underling he did not want, namely, Cely Mora, a strong and highly competent woman. (See Teachers, students protest athletic director’s transfer.)
Long-time Mathur observers know that the former chemistry teacher tends not to get along with women, especially strong and competent women. (See Mathur vs. women.)
 |
| Mathur |
As we reported nearly a year ago,
[In 2001,] then-IVC President Mathur hired a white guy from Virginia to be Dean of Health Sciences, PE, and Athletics at IVC. The guy didn't look like much, on paper or otherwise. That was bad enough, but he was chosen, by Mathur, over Cely Mora, a popular educator with a state-wide reputation for excellence in her field. According to the search committee, she was by far the superior candidate. But
she's a woman, so Raghu decided to go with the guy with sh*tty paper. The guy's name was "Rodney Poindexter." The fellow turned out to be unstable and a danger to others.
People were plenty pissed off. Cely later decided to take the matter to civil court. She sued Mathur personally for racial and gender discrimination. She had a strong case, as these kinds of cases go. But, to the amazement of many observers, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of Mathur; further, he ruled that she must pay Mathur's attorneys fees.
The ruling was ridiculous, and so Cely appealed, and, in August of [2005], the appellate court unanimously decided that the original judge's granting of summary judgment in favor of Mathur was improper, as was his decision concerning attorneys fees.
(To see how well Mathur’s twitular white male turned out, see Complaints, suit filed against college dean.) Well, at long last, court is in session—or, rather, it will be soon! The trial—it's a jury trial—is set for next week, from Tuesday through Thursday, in Los Angeles. Today, several IVC faculty and at least one former administrator were given notices to appear (on the first day of trial, I'm told). Don’t know who else was summoned. Stay tuned.
The discrimination lawsuit: Mathur's "unauthorized baseball diamond" yarn
Dissent
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
OK, I just got home, and it’s been a long day, so I can only give a very brief report on the first day of the “Mora v. Mathur” discrimination trial up in the Federal Court Building in LA. Back in 2001, Aracely Mora, a Latina, was the Director of the Athletics Program at Irvine Valley College and had served for about a year as IVC's interim dean of PE & Athletics. She had received only excellent evaluations and had established a state- and even nationwide reputation in her field.
So she applied for the new Dean job that opened up at Irvine Valley College. In the end, she was among the three finalists sent up by the hiring committee for interview by IVC President, Raghu P. Mathur.
She didn’t get the job. The man who did get the job, Rodney Poindexter, was completely unqualified, and he turned out to be both incompetent, unstable, and a danger to himself and others.
What's more, according to Cely’s lawyer, Carol Sobel, he created a hostile work environment for the female faculty and other female workers. The women were given terrible teaching assignments and endured various other challenges.
Somehow, for the male instructors, these difficulties largely did not arise.
At one point, Poindexter was observed screaming at a female secretary, pinning her to a wall.
When complaints were lodged about Poindexter's frightening behavior—at first informally, later formally—Mathur did nothing about it. Poindexter continued in his job for about a year.
Even before the hiring process, Cely had been told by friends, including administrators, that she had no chance of being selected as dean. She was, after all, a woman, and Mathur didn’t hire women as administrators.
Well, to make a long story short, the jury trial started today. The morning was devoted to selecting a jury. In the afternoon, Cely’s former dean, Greg Bishopp, testified. Tomorrow, members of the 2001 search committee will be called to the stand. The case will continue through Thursday and will resume next Tuesday. It should be over by the middle of next week.
Before the trial is over, we’ll hear some mighty juicy factoids. Even today, things got interesting. Mathur is now claiming that he decided against Cely because she had pursued the construction of a baseball diamond behind his back.
Yeah, but it certainly appears that Mora did no such thing. As Bishopp's testimony today made clear, Mathur was involved in the project from the very beginning.
Well, I’ve gotta go. I’ll report back ASAP.
[The following post was posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007. It was a belated report of the opening session the previous Tuesday (the 24th):]
Discrimination trial: OPENING STATEMENTS
Dissent
Saturday, April 28, 2007
BUSYNESS PREVENTED ME FROM PROVIDING a full report of the first day of the RAGHU MATHUR discrimination trial, including the important “opening statements.” Belatedly, I provide that report below:
The U.S. Courthouse on Spring Street is beautiful and old, built during the Depression. I always enjoy visiting that fine old building.
Naturally, to enter the building, you need to submit to the usual airport-style security screening. These days, you can usually manage to get past the gate without taking off your belt and shoes!
Judge A. Howard Matz’s courtroom is impressive, about 60’ by 60’, with an audience gallery occupying the back one third or so. (I’d show you a picture, but photography is forbidden.)
Jury selection:
Tuesday’s jury selection process was interesting—it’s always fun guessing which side is gonna nix which potential juror. The jury pool was diverse: various backgrounds, ethnicities, etc. The film/TV industry was well represented, but so was auto repair and studentry. Most prospective jurors seemed reasonable, intelligent.
Eventually, the jury was whittled down to about eight people, and Judge Matz briefly lectured them about their task. The Plaintiff, he said, has the burden of proof, but “proving” her claim in this trial doesn’t mean establishing it “beyond a reasonable doubt.” For this case, he said, the standard is the “preponderance of the evidence.” That is, explained Matz, the claim made against the defendant must be more probably true than not true.”
Opening statements:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Opening statements commenced at about 1:50 on Tuesday.
Carol Sobel, Cely Mora’s attorney, explained that Mora was making two claims: (1) that she was discriminated against—in the dean hire of Spring ’01—because she is a Latina; and (2) Mora and others who worked under Dean Poindexter were allowed by Mathur to suffer a hostile work environment.
Sobel explained that Poindexter’s lack of qualifications for the job was clear from the very beginning, a fact understood by most members of the hiring committee (whose role it was to winnow the field of applicants and make recommendations to the college President). While Mora had long been an Athletic Director at the college and had served as acting Dean for a year, Poindexter had no managerial experience at all; he was in fact an athletic trainer.
When Mora didn’t get the job, she returned to the classroom and took steps to leave room for the new dean to establish himself. Meanwhile, Poindexter’s first action was to take Mora’s office, despite its being a small faculty office that was distant from his assistant’s desk.
Very soon, other disturbing incidents began to occur. Poindexter, a large man, would fly into rages and behave in a menacing manner. He did this only with the women. Department chair Ted W went to IVC President Mathur to express concerns on behalf of the women, but Mathur took no action. Meanwhile, the more the women complained about Poindexter’s behavior, the worse his behavior became.
During the Spring of ’02, a particularly disturbing incident occurred; Poindexter screamed at and menaced a secretary—an event Ted W witnessed himself. The women grew increasingly fearful of Poindexter, and, soon, female PE instructors met with Poindexter only when accompanied by a male colleague.
Poindexter targeted the women of his School in other ways, giving them bad schedules and classes, delaying their pay, etc. The men were given what they wanted.
In April of ’02, after numerous informal complaints, six employees filed a formal “harassment” complaint against Poindexter.
Meanwhile, John Lowe, an instructor who had served on the hiring committee, began to do some digging into the new dean’s background. He discovered disturbing facts about Poindexter that were concealed during the dean search. When he brought the information to the attention of administrators, who acknowledged it, nothing was done.
Later, faculty discovered that Mathur had given Poindexter a “to do” list. But none of the tasks on the list concerned the most important issue, the safety issue.
Eventually, an investigation was launched, but it was not completed until a year after problems had been brought to Mathur’s attention. During that whole time, Poindexter was not removed from the workplace.
The investigation report of October, 2002, concluded that Poindexter did not have the skills to be dean, but that fact was already manifest during the search process in the Spring of ’01.
But if Poindexter was incompetent, why was he only incompetent in his dealings with the women? Even the men acknowledged that Poindexter’s behavioral issues only concerned the women.
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Dennis Walsh presented the statement for the defense. He urged the jury to wait until all of the evidence was presented before they formed a judgment. There are, he said, two separate issues: (1) whether or not Cely Mora was discriminated against because of her race and (2) whether Mathur responded to the existence of a hostile work environment. According to Walsh, if Ms. Mora has a complaint, it is with Poindexter, not with Mathur.
This suit is “something that is personal,” he said. According to Walsh, Mathur had very little involvement in the process that led to Poindexter’s hire in the Spring of 2001. The hiring committee’s job was to produce at least three qualified candidates for him to interview and choose among.
Walsh emphasized that, in the elaborate hiring process, the three candidates sent up to the President of the College (Mathur) were understood to be qualified and on an “equal footing.”
Mathur interviewed the three candidates, including Mora and Poindexter, and he “looked at the big picture stuff.” That (evidently) is why he favored Poindexter over Mora.
Walsh explained who Mathur is. He came to these shores from India and worked his way up to his current high position as Chancellor of the district.
When Mathur interviewed the three candidates, Mora, though a good candidate, didn’t impress. There was no discriminatory intent here.
Walsh further explained that, before the Board of Trustees voted to give Poindexter the job (based on Mathur’s recommendation), they heard from members of the committee and others who objected to Mathur’s selection. They heard all the arguments. Even so, they voted to give Poindexter the job.
Walsh acknowledged that Dean Poindexter “had some problems.” In part, he experienced problems because of faculty, including some members of the committee, said Walsh.
According to Walsh, Mathur and the district responded appropriately to the complaints about Poindexter, for the district launched an investigation. Mathur had nothing to do with that. The “female investigator” eventually filed a report that found no reason to conclude that Poindexter’s behavior re the complaining women was “based on their gender.”
Walsh noted that some of the people who later complained about Poindexter actually recommended him during the hiring process.
Walsh closed by asserting that, when all the facts are laid out, it will be clear that the focus of the “Poindexter” problem was not Mathur, but Poindexter.
Mathur is being sued because this is “personal,” reiterated Walsh.
NOTES:
1. Why had faculty members of the hiring committee forwarded Poindexter’s name to the President for interview? Walsh failed to mention a motivation that has become clear during subsequent testimony. Faculty members of the hiring committee (there were administrators as well) were aware that, were they to fail to send up three applicants (instead of, say, just Mora), Mathur would “shut down” the process, forcing it to start from scratch. Some members of the committee naively supposed that, upon sending up Mora and Poindexter to the second level, Mathur would do the “right thing” and hire the plainly most qualified candidate: Mora.
2. About Mathur’s impressive rise to prominence. Walsh failed to mention the corruption, unseemly conduct, and illegality that attended that saga. Mathur's initial rise to administration occurred during a time in which the then-corrupt faculty union was in league with the "Board Majority" to reorganize the entire district and settle scores. See Dissent archives.
3. Why did the Board of Trustees go along with Mathur’s recommendation to hire Poindexter? Walsh failed to mention that the Board of Trustees had already had a long history of defending their man Mathur against faculty objections and charges of unprofessionalism. Indeed, the faculty had voted “no confidence” in Mathur overwhelmingly, but still the board supported Mathur. Eventually, Mathur was selected as Chancellor; a year later, he endured a 94% vote of “no confidence” (qua Chancellor) among faculty. The board responded by giving Mathur a raise. He now makes about $300,000 a year.
To some members of the board, that faculty object to a Mathurian decision is ipso facto a reason to support it.
4. Can we trust Human Resources’ investigation of Poindexter? Walsh failed to mention that the head of Human Resources during the time of the Poindexter matter, Teddi Lorch, had been a member of the corrupt Board of Trustees that, twice, illegally appointed Mathur as President back in 1997. See College board gives former board member district [HR] job. (3/8/01)
See also Former trustee only candidate for district [HR] job (2/22/01); College District Ends Suit by Hiring Former Trustee: Teddi J. Lorch is given the South County job she sought before filing an age-discrimination case in 1999, LA Times, March 9, 2001
The Mathur discrimination trial: according to witnesses, in 1997, Mathur rejected a candidate because of her ethnicity
Day 2 of the Raghu Mathur “discrimination” trial.
Dissent
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
HE SMILED:
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to watch this trial unfold without noticing the trail of disrupted and damaged lives left in the wake of Raghu P. Mathur's pursuit of administrative advancement. You know all the names. —But, no, you don't know all the names. During lunch today, I spoke with (plaintiff) Cely Mora's attorney, Carol, and with various other friends and colleagues. One colleague had a look of sadness on his face as he described the unhappiness of one of the unsung victims of Mathur's profoundly unfortunate 2001 hiring of Rodney Poindexter as Dean of PE, Health Sciences, and Athletics: a non-academic employee who had simply tried to do her job, a quiet job, she thought. But, then, suddenly, she found herself in something big and ugly and incomprehensible. I listened with horror and surprise.
"She just hasn't been able to get past it," explained the colleague.
As he spoke, I looked up and spotted Mathur at the other end of the cafeteria, next to a vending machine, speaking on the phone. He was only a few feet away from his table. There sat his very expensive lawyers—paid for, naturally, by the district. They're good.
Mathur seemed confident. He smiled.
WHAT'S YOUR NAME?
Proceedings started just after 9:00 a.m. Ted Weatherford of PE, a popular and affable instructor, was on the witness stand. He detailed his experiences as a member of the “dean search” that yielded the hire of Rodney Poindexter as Dean of PE, Health Sciences, and Athletics—thanks to the decision by Mathur (then President of Irvine Valley College) to hire that inexperienced White Guy from Virginia instead of the celebrated and experienced and tried-and-true Latina (Aracely Mora) who is now suing his ass.
Well, when that went south and the school ended up with Dean Poindexter, the faculty made a real effort to work with the guy, reported Weatherford. (I've been impressed by the manifest magnanimity of some of these witnesses.)
But, from Day 1, the new dean was a mega-disaster. Ted related several incidents. He described the infamous episode in which Poindexter ran after and screamed at secretary Suzi F. There were other episodes, all involving women, never men. Poindexter messed with their teaching schedules, adopted menacing postures, routinely became angry at them. He didn’t do that to the men.
Eventually, Judge Matz called for a break.
(During the break, Mathur’s lawyer, Dennis W, walked up to me and asked if I minded telling him my name. “Yes, I do mind,” I said. Creep.)
TENNIS SHOES:
Later, we heard about one female instructor’s attempt to secure tennis shoes for her athletes (when Poindexter was dean). For that, she had to meet with her dean—Poindexter. That was the standing order: if you want anything, you must meet personally with the dean. But the meeting (according to one witness) yielded another Poindexterian eruption of frustration and anger and bizarre sudden exits. The instructor was reduced to cowering.
Knowing of these incidents, Ted, the chair of his department, complained to administrator Glenn R, who said: give Rod a chance. Plus: you people are exaggerating.
No they’re not, said Ted.
Under cross, Mathur’s lawyer pursued a favored defense motif: Here, again, someone is testifying for Cely—but isn’t he a close personal friend of hers, Hmmm?
J’accuse!
SCORING ISSUES, NAIVETE:
At about noon, Judge
A. Howard Matz—a prickly and demanding fellow—sent the jury out to lunch, but he kept the two opposing attorneys back to spank ‘em for a while. The jury is “utterly befuddled,” he declared. You need a chronology! Charts!
After lunch, Mathur’s attorney was all over the fact that Ted had given Poindexter a pretty good score after the first-level interview. Plus Ted had joined with the rest of the committee in a decision to send Poindexter’s name along with Mora’s to the next level—to be interviewed by President Mathur.
If Poindexter was so damned unqualified, why were you people sending up his name?
Ted explained that this particular dean search was the second go-round, and if the committee didn’t send up three names, Mathur would shut the process down, and the whole damn thing would start from scratch again. He really thought that Mathur would hire the candidate who was plainly the most qualified.
“I was naïve,” said Ted.
Mathur's attorney unveiled another motif: you faculty didn't want to start the process over, cuz then you might not get on the committee next time! Isn't that it!
DO THE RIGHT THING:
Next up on the witness stand was Ted’s colleague, Martin McGrogan, who also served on the Dean hiring committee. He told very similar tales. No, he definitely didn’t want to send Poindexter’s name up to the next level, but he hoped that Mathur would “do the right thing” by choosing the best candidate.
Mathur’s lawyer again pounced all over the “friendship” that existed between Martin and Mora at the time of the dean search. Wasn’t she a close friend of yours? —Sure, said Martin, but everyone in the School is a close personal friend. That just happens when your work together with a small group of people.
Martin described Poindexter’s meltdowns. It was pretty gruesome.
I’ve got to say: that Poindexter fella was SERIOUSLY MESSED UP. Worse than I ever knew. BECAUSE OF HER ETHNICITY:
The next witness, Priscilla Ross, was the chair of a hiring committee for a biology instructor back in 1997, when Mathur was appointed interim IVC President. She explained how the committee had judged that one candidate, Maala A (a female of Sri Lankan ethnicity), was stellar, but the remaining candidates were far less impressive. Once again, they faced the likelihood that Mathur, the spanking-new interim President of IVC, would shut down the whole process—forcing a time-consuming restart—were the committee to send up only one name, Maala’s. And so, especially since previous presidents generally went along with search committees' recommendation, this committee sent up the name of the next best candidate, too—a white male who was judged to be minimally qualified. (All others of those interviewed were judged to be unqualified.)
As per custom, Priscilla, as chair of the committee, informed the second level group (Mathur and two Vice Presidents) that, though the committee was sending forward two names, Maala was the unanimous and clear preference of the committee.
To their horror, the hiring committee soon discovered that Mathur had chosen the “minimally qualified” candidate.
The committee then instructed Priscilla to discuss the matter with Mathur. Mathur met with her and explained why he had not selected Maala. Ready?
He had not selected Maala owing to her ethnicity.
Turns out, he didn’t want to be accused of choosing someone of his own ethnicity (Mathur hails from India, which is a stone’s throw from Sri Lanka).
In Raghu's world, it's always about him.
THE STAFF DIVERSITY OFFICER:
The last witness of the day, history professor Frank Marmolejo, was the “Staff Diversity” Officer at the time of the controversial biology hire. One of Mathur’s VPs (Bob L) had expressed concerns about the biology hire (to Frank?), and so Frank met with President Mathur. He asked Mathur to explain his choice, his failure to hire Maala.
According to Frank, Mathur then asserted that the white male was a “better fit for the job.”
Further, Mathur didn’t want to be accused of reverse discrimination.
RIPPLE EFFECTS:
As I write this, I think again about the damage that this ruthless man, Raghu Mathur, has done and continues to do. There are so many victims: some big, some small.
The instructor that Mathur hired in 1997, too, is a victim. He heard about a job, and so he applied for it. He interviewed. He got the job. He did nothing wrong. Plus he's a good guy.
But then there's all this.
More tomorrow. (It'll be an abbreviated session in court). --CW
MATHUR discrimination trial, day 3: courtroom titters
Day 3 (Thursday) of the Raghu Mathur “discrimination” trial
Dissent
Friday, April 27, 2007
DAY THREE:
Day 3 (Thursday) went well for the plaintiff (Mora). John Lowe, a now retired psychology instructor who served on the hiring committee, testified first. He explained that he had brought complaints of a hostile work environment to the relevant administrator (Glenn Roquemore, Mathur’s successor at IVC). Evidently, he had spoken with Mathur about the matter as well.
At one point, Lowe’s memo regarding workplace violence was introduced. The jury sat up. Mathur’s attorney argued that, in “fairness” to Poindexter, administration could not remove him without an investigation. Under redirect, Lowe testified that, in his mind, the issue was not one of fairness. The issue was one of workplace violence.
Next up was Cely, the plaintiff. She was allowed to read from her letter to the board of trustees (of the South Orange County Community College District), which asserted the discrimination allegation and also stated that she was the only administrator of color at the college and when she was not selected as dean, none remained.
According to one courtroom observer, the jury paid close attention to those two facts and also laughed when they saw the scores of the two candidates on the first two rounds. (Both instructors and administrators served on the hiring committee; their scoring differed in interesting ways.)
The trial resumes on Tuesday. Cely will finish her testimony.
Then comes Mathur!
Cely Mora's stunning testimony
Dissent
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
TUESDAY: It’s been another long day, and I don’t have time to report everything that happened at the RAGHU MATHUR discrimination trial today, but I did want to report the first half of Cely Mora’s testimony. It’s pretty riveting:
Here’s the story that emerged from Carol Sobel’s questioning of Cely on the witness stand today (for background, see Discrimination trial: opening statements):
It was not until she witnessed Chancellor Raghu Mathur’s deposition (given in 2003) that she discovered that (so he said) he had decided against hiring her, and in favor of hiring Rodney Poindexter, in part because of her efforts to develop a baseball program and install a baseball field.
“I was shocked,” she testified.
Had Mathur ever mentioned to her that there was a problem with her handling of the baseball program/field? No, never. Mathur “never expressed to me” any dissatisfaction with that.
Back in 1997 (when Mathur ascended to the Presidency of Irvine Valley College, thanks to a series of illegal board actions), he had asked Dean Greg Bishopp and Athletic Director Cely to make a presentation about the Athletics Program before the Exchange Club (a local organization of which Mathur [along with Police Chief Owen Kreza, et al.] was a member). Already then, the development of baseball and the building of a baseball field was part of the grand campus plan, and so it became a part of the presentation. After the presentation, Cely received a “thank you” letter from Mathur.
The jury examined it.
Cely described other aspects of the development of the baseball program—things about which Mathur was clearly apprised or involved. “You need approval [from Mathur] about everything,” she said.
In the spring of 2000, there was a meeting of various persons (including former Angels manager Buck Rodgers) to organize fundraising for the baseball field. Mathur certainly did not indicate disapproval of her efforts at that time.
By the summer of ’02, both colleges received a one-time lump sum, earmarked for athletic facilities. Mathur asked Mora to make a presentation before the board of trustees, requesting the funds specifically for the baseball field.
During his deposition, Mathur had also indicated that Mora had created/pursued a track & field program without his approval, but Mora again testified that all aspects of the development of track & field occurred with Mathur’s full cooperation and approval.
Had Mathur ever communicated to her that her school was expanding sports programs too rapidly? No. On the contrary. He seemed very pleased with the sports programs and the things that were being done to develop them.
Also during the 2003 deposition, Mathur cited his desire to pursue Health Sciences and distance education as a reason for his decision to hire Poindexter and not Mora. But, testified Cely, you can’t teach most of her School’s courses using “distance ed.” That would be like teaching the hairdressing online. It’s “just not practical.”
Plus there were state restrictions concerning the development of Heath Sciences courses using distance education. Still, she was in fact developing distance ed courses where feasible. For instance, she was exploring a TV course on self-defense to be offered on a “trial basis.”
What did Cely think when, during his depo, she heard Mathur’s "reasons" for not hiring her (and hiring Poindexter)? Well, said Cely, he was trying to justify hiring a white male with minimal qualifications and no experience as an administrator.
That is, he had invented an after-the-fact rationale. He was making all of this up.
POINDEXTER ARRIVES:
When Cely returned to IVC in the Fall of 2001, she had very limited contact with Dean Poindexter, she testified.
The first thing he did was to move her out of her office, even though it was not the dean’s office, but a smallish faculty office, distant from his assistant. He seemed to be “establishing his power and control,” she said. So she decided to stay away from him. At first, she was moved to another office in the PE building. Then, after a month, she moved to the B300 building (one building over).
At one point, Suzie F (Poindexter’s secretary) came to her to explain that they were moving Cely’s computer. Cely was perplexed. “He didn’t tell you”? asked Suzie. Evidently, Poindexter had requested the move.
Naturally, Cely felt disrespected, inconvenienced, and harassed. She emailed Poindexter and tried to phone him, but he did not respond. She went to his office three times, but he was not there.
During the 3rd week of the fall (2001) semester, she discovered that one of her classes had been cancelled. She wanted to know why it was cancelled so late. Also, she now needed a new assignment to replace the cancelled class. She tried to telephone and email Poindexter, but he didn’t respond to her communications.
She didn’t want to bump a part-timer from a class, so she decided to work her hours (to replace the cancelled course) in the fitness center. In October, she had a surprise encounter with Suzie F, the secretary. Suzie was running down the hall, crying. Cely asked what was the matter. Suzie blurted out that she “wasn’t going to take it any more,” that he “couldn’t yell at her like that” and “treat her like that.”
Who was doing that? It was Dr. Poindexter, she said.
Until then, Cely had thought that Poindexter had a problem with Cely in particular. Now she began to realize that “this guy has some issues about dealing with women.”
She got calls from two other female instructors, who complained about disrespectful treatment they had endured in dealing with Poindexter. They, too, experienced course cancellations.
THE OCTOBER MEETING:
In October, she attended her first faculty meeting of the semester. Department chair Ted W had explained to her that Poindexter was threatening to “write her up” for not attending the meetings. Besides, Martin M needed her support on some issue. All of the full-time faculty (about 12) were in attendance.
At one point, they discussed a “massage therapy” program (which they had been developing). Cely noted what needed to happen with regard to course development. Poindexter suddenly exploded. “You’re wrong!” he shouted. His face turned red, his body moved forward. He was angry, agitated.
“I was blown away,” said Cely. She had never seen any supervisor behave like that.
Kent M and Martin M made remarks much like Cely’s, but Poindexter didn’t seem to have a problem with them. It was as though, in Poindexter’s mind, a switch would go on and off. He would be yelling and agitated, and then he’d suddenly behave normally—when speaking with the men.
During the meeting, several male faculty offered views concerning who should represent the department at the Orange Empire Conference meeting. Poindexter could handle that. But when Kathryn M offered her view, Poindexter’s switch went off again, only his agitation was worse than before. His body-language was even more aggressive. He would repeat a comment or question as though he were a broken record: “What do you coach! What do you coach! What do you coach!” He moved his head closer to her.
“I was stunned,” said Cely.
At that point, she said nothing. She remained silent. She was very frightened. Poindexter seemed to be out of control.
After that, Cely decided to keep an even lower profile. She stayed out of the building. She didn’t attend the next staff meeting. It seemed to her that Poindexter just couldn’t handle women with anything to say.
But it became impossible to avoid contact with Poindexter. There were issues concerns the summer and spring schedules. At first, she tried to discuss those issues via email and phone, but he simply would not respond, so she had to go to his office.
THE “MUSIC” EPISODE; THE JULIE EPISODE:
In January (of 2002), she did just that, accompanied by Kathy S, a union representative. Cely normally taught summer courses, but Poindexter had not honored any of her requests for summer classes. In the course of the discussion, his face again became red and he started yelling. That switch had gone off again.
Then he did something very odd. He turned on some music. He yelled even louder to be heard over it.
Cely decided to leave. She didn’t want to wait to see what was going to happen next.
About a week or two later, she visited Poindexter again, this time with Kathy and Julie H (Cely, Julie, and Kathryn were the only full-time female faculty in their department). They had come to offer a compromise with regard to summer teaching. Julie, too, had had none of her summer requests honored. She was afraid of Poindexter, but she figured that there was safety in numbers.
Again, at the point that a difference of opinion arose, Poindexter became agitated, his face became red, and he started to yell. Julie slouched and became withdrawn. The women left.
ESCALATION:
In February, there was another department meeting. The summer issues had not yet been resolved, and Poindexter had now cancelled another course of Cely's. All of the women had had classes cancelled (and possibly Ted had one of his courses cancelled). At this meeting, Poindexter’s behavior and demeanor were different. In the small conference room, everyone sat around a table. Poindexter sat at the head. At some point, he became agitated again, only this time he shifted his body toward Kathryn, who was sitting near him. She kept moving her chair away from him, but he kept moving toward her. She was plainly frightened. Cely said that she saw Kathryn start to panic. Kathryn became pale.
The next day, Kathryn called Cely at home. She was crying. She said that she hadn’t slept. She explained that, after the meeting, Poindexter had come up to her and said, “Kathryn, don’t resist me. It’s not in your interests to resist me.”
THE FIRST COMPLAINT:
That’s when they contacted Human Resources. They spoke with Ettie Graham of the HR office. By then, Suzie F had already filed a complaint, which had initiated an investigation. And John Lowe, who had been on the dean hiring committee, had by then spoken with Mathur about Poindexter. The women by then wouldn’t walk to their cars unless accompanied by male colleagues.
FITNESS CENTER EPISODES; OFFICE EPISODES:
Also in the Spring of 2002, Poindexter showed up a couple of times at the fitness center while Cely worked there. He just walked in and stared at her. Then he’d leave. It was unnerving. She reported the incidents to Ettie Graham, among others.
Poindexter would suddenly show up at her office unannounced. He would just come in, stop, look at her—then leave, having said nothing.
A campus cop suggested that she keep a baseball bat in her office, so she did that.
The complaint seemed to produce nothing. So she called Ettie at HR. “We need some help,” she said. “Can you help us?” That’s when Ettie suggested a formal complaint.
Eventually, Poindexter produced a Fall schedule. Unsurprisingly, Cely was given a 5:30-7:00 p.m. tennis class followed by a 7:00-10:00 Health class. That meant that she would have no opportunity to shower and change between classes.
Also, Cely was saddled with classes that had been cancelled previously owing to low enrollment. Cely calculated that 55% of her schedule would be cancelled, and so she informed the Acting Vice President for Instruction (Susan Cooper) and Poindexter.
Today, Cely was asked why only five faculty signed the formal “discrimination and sexual harassment” complaint. She explained that non-tenured faculty were very vulnerable and didn’t sign for that reason. All tenured faculty signed it.
THE INVESTIGATION:
The formal complaint yielded an investigation, which included interviews with an investigator. The report was not finished until November or December of 2002, 7-8 months after the investigation had begun. During that entire period, Poindexter continued as her dean.
Cely was very disappointed with the report. Some of its information was incomplete or inaccurate. The report stated that Cely was concerned about her physical safety, but Cely had said a great deal more than that about her safety concerns.
In May (after she had been interviewed for the investigation), Cely was working at her desk at the fitness center. She seemed to sense something and so she looked up. She was startled to find Poindexter leaning over the front desk counter. His face was red, sweaty. “What do you want, Rod?” asked Cely. Poindexter mumbled unintelligibly. She repeated her question, and he continued to mumble. Cely was terrified.
Cely mentioned the incident to the investigator, but, in the report, it was described in a manner that diminished it, failing to convey the menace of his behavior and her abject terror.
She told the investigator about all of these incidents. She urged HR to move Poindexter away from her and the other women.
CELY LEAVES:
In July of 2002, testified Cely, she just couldn’t take it anymore. (At this point in her testimony, she struggled with tears.) She couldn’t bear to go to work. She couldn’t bear to see the concern on her parents’ faces. Her colleagues would come to her for help, but she couldn’t help them. She couldn’t believe that she had to keep a bat in her office. She couldn’t get anyone to help her and to help the other women. Not Mathur, not anyone.
When she left Irvine Valley College—in July of 2002—Rodney Poindexter was still her dean.
The lost reference: it was "very positive"
Dissent
Thursday, May 3, 2007
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 especially 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 three 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 Poindexter. 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, isn’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 Poindexter. 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?)
Gosh, that's odd! Doncha think? And it was so very positive, too!
TOMORROW: closing arguments. The jury goes off to make its decision.
Mathur: reference checks for Poindexter
Dissent
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Once again, I’ve got little time—gotta run off to my classes soon. So this’ll have to be quick.
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 Glenn Roquemore. (Mathur was IVC Prez then.)
One oddity of this case is the fact that Poindexter was hired despite no one’s having contacted his current employer. (Eventually, that employer was contacted, and it was revealed that P had some of the same issues there that turned up at IVC.) Since P didn’t mention that employer among his references, the hiring committee was prevented from doing that. But was Mathur prevented?
Under questioning, Mathur seemed to imply that he, too, was prohibited from doing that, though, he said, he could ask for another reference (without specifying). As near as I could tell, Sobel revealed that he was under no such prohibition.
We examined the three “reference check” forms for Poindexter’s three references. (These revealed the results of the reference checks—calls to Poindexter’s references, and their answers to a series of questions.)
One reference was a former student.
Sobel questioned Mathur about that. “We serve the students,” said Mathur. That is, their input is very important (I suppose that’s what he meant). Another reference was a basketball coach. Sobel sought to have Mathur explain what about these references revealed that Poindexter had the qualifications for the dean job.
It was rough going. Mathur can be obtuse.
The third reference was a prior employer at the US Sports Academy. Sobel asked Mathur if he recalled that that reference “couldn’t recommend Poindexter without reservation.” The reference said he had no knowledge of P’s administrative abilities.
Sobel then turned to Mathur’s request for a fourth reference. It was “very positive,” said Raghu. Oddly, the reference check form for the fourth reference “has not been produced.” Mathur acknowledged that.
WOW.
Was there anything in Poindexter’s resume that revealed that P had experience running an intercollegiate athletics program? 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 verdict is in (Uh-oh!)
Dissent
Thursday, May 3, 2007
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 Mathur's favor) 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 whole 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.
Get a baseball bat
EXONERATE
Dissent
Friday, May 4, 2007
Today, the district (i.e., Raghu Mathur) issued a press release:
JURY VERDICT EXONERATES...RAGHU P. MATHUR...A federal jury returned a unanimous verdict yesterday finding that there was no illegal discrimination or harassment on the part of Dr. Raghu P. Mathur, Chancellor of the South Orange County Community College, toward Dr. Acely [sic] Mora.
Six years ago, Dr. Mora filed a lawsuit alleging that Dr. Mathur, then President of Irvine Valley College, failed to promote her to a dean’s position based upon her gender and ethnicity. She further alleged that Dr. Mathur failed to remedy a hostile work environment created by the person subsequently hired for the position, Dr. Rodney Poindexter.
After 6 days of testimony and presentation of evidence, the eight member jury of five women and three men returned the verdict in 45 minutes. They found no illegal activity on the part of Dr. Mathur or Dr. Poindexter.
“I am gratified with the jury’s verdict. It underscores that we are able to choose the best candidate, regardless of race, creed or national origin. Our district and colleges do take immediate action to investigate all complaints of discrimination,” said Dr. Mathur [my emphasis].
The attorney for the case, Dennis J. Walsh, commented, “I’m extremely pleased and honored to represent Dr. Mathur whose commitment to diversity and fairness was obvious during this trial.”
UNDERSCORE
That Raghu sure has a way with words. The verdict, he says, “underscores that we are able to choose the best candidate,” etc. Well, that's nonsense.
But it’s true that things have now been underscored.
As you know, trial testimony revealed that the man that Mathur chose in the spring of 2001 was not the best candidate. This trial, if not this verdict, underscored that Mathur chose the worst candidate.
It underscored, too, that, four years earlier, he refused to choose the best candidate (for a biology position) “because of her ethnicity.” (The hiring committee chair and the Staff Diversity Officer testified that Mathur told them: I refrained from hiring a Sri Lankan candidate because I did not want to be accused of “reverse discrimination.”)
PROTECTED
I wonder how female employees of the district feel about Raghu’s “exoneration”?
Women of the district, I ask you. Now that Mathur and the district’s (non)commitment to protecting you from workplace violence has been laid bare, how would you feel were your boss to scream at you and menace you? Confident of protection?
My advice: get a baseball bat.*
DUCK
At IVC today, everywhere I went, people spoke to me about the expected Mathurian retaliation. It was starting to bug me.
A colleague wrote an email that said simply: “It’s going to be duck and cover—or stop, drop, and roll—for a while.”
Meanwhile, Mathur’s supporters showed their true colors in numerous comments to this blog. Read 'em!
Odd. Mathur's fans all go by the same moniker: “Anonymous.”
Coarse FUR & Mathur's inventiveness
Dissent
Saturday, May 5, 2007
MAN, I wish I could find me a better crew of critics and opponents. The "Friends uv Raghu" (F.U.R.) are an embarrassment. If they don't come up with better stuff soon, I'll have to write my own anti-Dissent comments on this blog.
Have you been reading the comments? There's been lots of support for the Mora forces, but lots of FUR, too.
Evidently, FUR imagine that I, Chunk, instigated Cely's suit, or that Carol Sobel did. —No. Cely had been victimized (does anyone really doubt that?), and she needed an attorney. At some point, she approached Carol. Carol did not approach her.
I have never been involved in this case in any way. (Carol was my First Amendment attorney back in c. 1999-2002.)
My connection to this case amounts to this: I was aware of it. I attended 4 of the 6 days of the trial. I attended and reported on the trial because I support Cely (qua victim of workplace violence, qua victim of Mathur), because Carol is a friend of mine (she is my attorney), and because reporting on this trial made sense for Dissent.
How so? I knew that, whatever the trial's outcome (which was always in doubt, for discrimination suits, I was told, are notoriously difficult to win), testimony would permit highlighting the truth about Mathur.
Example: on the stand, Mathur acknowledged that the documentation for his mysterious "4th reference check" (on Poindexter)—the other three provided no grounds for hiring P—has been lost (or, anyway, has not been produced by the district).
How very convenient for Raghu.
That reminds me of Mathur's 1998 accusation that some IVC faculty were sending him "hate mail" and hate messages—perhaps a half dozen instances. That was mighty convenient, too (Mathur had just suffered a vote of "no confidence").
MATHURIAN CLAIMS, MATHURIAN DOCUMENTATION:
During a subsequent depo (see below), he was asked if he kept any of the mail. No, he said. He was asked if he kept any of the emails. No, he said. He was asked if he kept any of the alleged voicemail. No, he said. He "kept" nothing. Absolutely nothing. He had zero documentation to support his stunning and obnoxious claim.
And now, again, he has no documentation for the crucial claim (to defending the wisdom of his choosing Poindexter) that there was one reference who had "very positive" things to say about Poindexter, the man he hired despite his manifest lack of qualifications.
One needs to ask: how likely is it that this crucial required documentation was lost? Of all the "ref check" forms filed at the district, why is this one lost?
DIGRESSION:
Mathur deposed: Sept. 28, 1999
 |
| Carol Sobel |
During the May 21, 1998, board meeting, Mathur, stung by a recent 74% faculty vote of no confidence, lashed out at an alleged faculty cabal who were, he said, “at the very core” of the vote against him. In the course of his rantings, three instuctors were named, including Bauer [i.e., me]. Remarkably, without offering a shred of evidence, he asserted that “People in this core in the past have sent me mail threats saying, ‘Go back to your country.’ These threats have come from some of these people, I am confident of it. When I went to the Sheriff’s Department and exposed it, all of a sudden those mail threats stopped.” He ended his remarks with a rhetorical flourish, describing how he had arrived on “American shores some 31 years ago with eight dollars in my pocket [and]…a dream.”] The attorney asking the questions is Carol Sobel. Mathur’s attorney, David Larsen, was provided by the district.
Q Did you ever make any statements to the effect that you had received e-mail you perceived to be threats against you?
A Yes.
Q When did you make those statements?
A I made a statement to that effect at a board meeting….
Q What did you tell the board about the e-mail you received?
A That I have received threats. I don’t recall exactly what I said, but something to the effect that I have received threats from a small group of faculty staff members, and that’s essentially what I said.
Q How many threats did you receive?
A I believe I have received about three or four.
Q Were they all received close in time to each other?
A Over a period of time. I don’t know if I would characterize [it as] close together.
Q Over what period of time were they received?
A About six months or so.
Q Did you print them out?
A Some were already imprinted. I received them in the form of letters, and I remember one was a voice mail.
Q So it is not correct then that you received e-mail threats; is that correct?
A I may have received them, but I don’t recall right now.
Q You don’t recall if you received any e-mail threats?
A I’m thinking. I believe I have received one or two….
Q Now, let’s talk about the first threat you recall receiving. Was that voicemail, letter, or e-mail?
A That was a letter.
Q Do you have that letter today?
A I had turned the letters over to the sheriff’s department….
Q Is there some document you can consult to find out the name of the individual at the OC Sheriff’s Department you consulted with?
A I did try, but I think maybe—yeah. I can try.
Q Well, you said it’s somebody you work[ed] with [at the Sheriff’s Dept.]. In what capacity did you work with the person?
A Whatever his official capacity was. I don’t remember. But I went to file a complaint, reported it to the receptionist. She brought one of the inspectors and I told the story and he wanted copies of those [letters] turned over. And he advised me to talk it up in the college, which I did. And this was after two or three such letters I have received, and in the time being, it stopped. The threats had stopped.
Q Where did you go to report this?
A Laguna Hills Sheriff’s Department….
Q Do you recall when it was that you went to the…Sheriff’s Department?…
A I believe it was sometime in 1990.
Q Did you receive these in 1990?
A Yes.
Q Was there some reason why you waited nine years to raise this with the board?
A It’s because the threats were becoming more violent in nature in terms of references to dropping granite or in terms of attacks on me, on my implications of attacks on my body and so forth. I felt that I had to convey my concerns to the board.
Q Between 1990 and the time Professor Bauer started publishing the Dissent and ‘Vine, which I believe was sometime in late ’97, how many letters did you receive conveying threats to you?
A As I indicated, three to four letters I received, and I did report at the time also to the chancellor of the district.
Q I understand that. You indicated, if I understood your prior testimony—and if I’m incorrect, correct me—that you had received three or four letters at the time you went to the OC Sheriff’s Department, which now turns out to be in 1990?
MR. LARSEN: What do you mean “now” turns out to be 1990? Probably always been. MS. SOBEL: The witness testified that he went to the board a year ago. The e-mail threats have now become several letters and voice mail and perhaps one or two e-mails, and the letters were all in 1990, so I’m just trying to make sure that I have this chronology accurate.
MR. LARSEN: Your questions and tone of voice are argumentative. That’s all. Go ahead.
MS. SOBEL: I appreciate it, but you can imagine my surprise that these [incidents] turned out to be eight years earlier.
Q In between the letter that you received that caused you to go to the…Sheriff’s Department and the time you spoke to the board, how many letters did you receive conveying threats to you?
A All together including e-mail, voice mail, written letters—
Q I’m just asking for the letters right now, Mr. Mathur.
A It was all together about half a dozen.
Q When were the other three or two received by you? Were they after you went to the sheriff’s department?
A Yes.
Q When was that?
A Some were received in the last couple of years.
Q When you say the last couple of years, Mr. Mathur, can you be more specific? We are only talking about two or three letters here, so were they received in 1990 after you went to the sheriff’s department, or were they received in 1995?
A Well, some [were] received in the 1990 time frame. Some have been received in the last—two or three have also been received in the last couple [of] years.
Q Do you have copies of any of the letters? We are now up to about six or seven…..
A I will have to look into my files and find out if I do or don’t.
Q Did you turn over the subsequent letters to the OC Sheriff’s Department as well?
A This time, I didn’t because—
MR. LARSEN: Well, you answered the question.
Q Why didn’t you go back to the OC Sheriff’s Department, if you received more letters?
A Because of my experience from the first time. What they advised me was to talk it up, and that’s what I’ve done, and that’s why I chose to talk about it at the public board meeting.
Q Had you received the letters just prior to the time you spoke at the public board meeting?
A It’s possible. But I can’t give an exact time frame.
Q Were any of the letters signed?
A They were unsigned.
Q What do you recall was the content of the first letter you received?
A “Go back to your country where you came from.”
Q And that was one of the letters in 1990, correct?
A No. This is one of the letters I receive now.
Q Is that the first letter you recall receiving?
A In the recent times, yes.
Q Was the letter handwritten or typed?
A It was typed.
Q Was it typed in just a regular type face or words cut out of a magazine and pasted on paper?
A No. Typed.
Q Was there anything about the letter that was distinctive that suggested to you what the source might have been?
A No. Seemed it was written by someone from within the college.
Q Why did it seem like it was written by someone from within the college?
A Because this is where Bauer was publishing newsletters and creating a hostile work environment.
Q When do you recall receiving this letter?
A Before I made those comments at the public board meeting.
Q But you don’t know when?
A I can’t give you the exact time….
Q Did you look at it to see where it was mailed from?
A Yes.
Q What did it say?
A Santa Ana.
Q And did you keep the envelope?
A I may have. Like I said, I don’t know whether I saved the letters or not, based on my experience with the previous situation.
Q Did you inform anybody at the time you received the letter that you had received it?
A Informed my family.
Q Did you receive the letter at home or at work?
A At home….
Q Who did you show the letter to in your family?
A Showed it to my wife….
Q Now, other than saying “Go back to your country where you came from,” what else did the letter say?
A I don’t recall. That was the statement that stands out in my mind.
Q How long was the letter?
A About half a page.
Q And you don’t recall anything else said in the letter?
A No.
Q Other than the fact that Professor Bauer was publishing his newsletter, do you have any other basis on which you form the conclusion this came from somebody within the Irvine Valley College campus?
A No, I don’t.
For the entire depo, go to Mathur’s deposition
Subdued
Dissent
Friday, May 11, 2007
MY FRIENDS down south tell me that, at today’s special meeting of the District Leadership Council, Chancellor Mathur briefly held forth on his recent court experience, lecturing those in attendance.
Given his key role in the disastrous & embarrassing & disturbing Rodney Poindexter episode—which of course yielded his recent courtroom adventure—one might suppose that Mathur would take the opportunity to warn others against his many and egregious errors.
I'm told that he acknowledged no errors. Then he asked for questions.
There were none.
The meeting was over.
Maybe somebody told the fellow to take the high road and he thinks this is it.
Mathur loses motion
Dissent
Friday, June 22, 2007
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 using them to pursue payback and control.
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 ("strategic litigation against public participation") 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.
* * *
FINALLY
There is some evidence that John Rodney Poindexter is now 74 years old and living in Henderson, NV
