Suin' Safari: kicking Mathur's ass in court

SUIN’ SAFARI!

by Chunk Wheeler [aka Roy Bauer]

Dissent 46, 3/6/00

February 29: After lunch, Carol, a friend of hers, Wendy, and I headed for Judge Michael Brenner’s courtroom in Santa Ana. Our hearing was set for 1:30. 

We entered the building at about 1:20 and found our way to the elevators, where dozens of besuited lawyers stood around like hamsters, nervously eyeing the elevator doors while intermittently consulting wrist-watches. Even Carol seemed worried. Someone murmured: “Type A personalities.” I said: “Hey, don’t worry, baby! It’s 1:23, and we’ve got all the time in the world!”

Three minutes later, we were anxiously climbing the stairs to the third floor. We reached Brenner’s court just before 1:30, but its doors were locked, which meant the earlier session had not finished. A docket crudely posted outside the courtroom listed “Mathur vs. Bauer” dead last out of 24 cases. “What the hell does that mean?” I asked. “It means we’re last,” someone said.

My friend Jan, a lawyer, joined us. “They often put the most interesting cases last,” he said. “So we’re interesting, are we?”, said I. I wasn’t sure I wanted us to be interesting.

The door swung open at 1:40, and we filed in along with all the suits. Mathur was nowhere to be seen. We tried to guess which guy was Corfield, Mathur’s lawyer. Wendy had encountered him—or someone who might have been him—a few days before in Laguna Beach. She described him to me as “kinda a surf bum.” I scoured the room for such a person. I spotted one—way off to the left. He seemed to be lookin’ for the perfect wave. Sand fell from his pockets.

We watched the bailiff, who didn’t seem to have anything to do but swagger. I mentioned that, for many years, trustee John “Brown Boy” Williams was a bailiff. We watched this one as he slowly transferred a piece of paper from one end of the courtroom to another.

At 1:55, for some reason, the courtroom became eerily silent, and everyone stared in anticipation. But Brenner still didn’t show. At 2:00, a man in a judge costume started hangin’ around by the back door chewin’, but he was just teasin’ us, I guess, ‘cuz nothin’ happened.

Brenner emerged at 2:15, and he sure did look like a judge. The first case was Martinez v. Somethin’-or-other. Brenner told the lawyers he wasn’t up to speed, and so let’s do this another day. “My fault,” he said. In the next case, someone didn’t file something, and that wasn’t so good, apparently. Then, in the next case, a lawyer neglected to file the “opposition,” and so Brenner granted the summary judgment. Bang!

A case concerning “Commercial Wastepaper” was up next. Brenner spoke of a “grudge match” that had been going on for a long time. While that went on, I looked over at Corfield, who happily played Beach Blanket Bingo on his legal pad. 

The judge said some critical things about the opposing parties. Wendy whispered something about “Judge Wapner” into my left ear. Meanwhile, Brenner evidently had to impose a $1000 fine on somebody, but he wasn’t sure quite how he oughta do that, and so, after a few moments of Solomonic reflection, he said, “I’ll tell you what; let’s split the difference. Five hundred dollars each.” 

Wow. I hoped he wasn’t gonna pull this splittin’ maneuver in my case. 

A suit involving “American Funds Service” was next. Someone wanted attorneys’ fees, but Brenner turned ‘em down flat. 

By 2:45, the court had moved on to something amusingly referred to as “Green Burrito litigation.” Corfield had had enough; he went outside to wax his surfboard. 

We passed notes around. In her note, Carol opined that Brenner “certainly is very cordial,” and that he has a sense of humor, unlike some o’ those surly and pompous judges she’s used to in Federal Court. Just then, Brenner looked at a one of the lawyers and said, “It’s a pleasure to see you”—which, I figure, was just his juristical way of sayin’: “How’s it goin’, asshole?”

By 3:00, the court had moved on to Klein v. Somebody, and a lawyer or the judge said that the case was just a “rehash.” This talk of rehashing led to more loose talk, and soon, a lawyer misspoke, asserting something about “heat.” “I’ve seen lawyers in heat,” quipped Brenner.

A short, attractive, blond dynamo got up to argue for her client in McCornan v. Pine Creek. Evidently, a landlord refused to rent to a guy because he was an African American. Wow. As the judge and the lawyers spoke, they referred to “sexual orientation,” “homosexual animus,” “outrageous conduct,” and whatnot. We all stared intently: it was just like an episode of LA Law.

At 3:30, Brian Wilson left the room again. Brenner expressed skepticism about something Surfer Girl said…. 

At 3:35, Brenner called for a ten minute recess, apparently to give the court reporter’s digits a rest. We went outside and jawed. I noticed that the case that had just been heard immediately preceded “Mathur v. Bauer” on the docket!

At 3:53, we were back inside, and, sure enough, “Mathur” was next. Here are my notes, which are pretty spotty:

BRENNER: Brenner notes that the case is a motion to strike. [That is, it’s a motion to dismiss the suit.] He asks attorney Sobel what she has to offer.

SOBEL: Carol refers to the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute…she says something about “encouraging” resolution at the earliest possible stage. [The statute is designed to protect people against “Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.” In other words, it’s designed to combat the chilling effect of lawsuits against people who speak out on matters of “public significance.”] The defendant’s burden, she says, is “miniscule.” 

She says the sole cause of Mathur’s action is “invasion of privacy.” If any of the 4 key elements (which she lists) of such a case fails, the case must be dismissed. It is clear, she says, that Mathur is a public official. (Relative to…?) Mathur needs to make a case that the facts are false—or that’s it. 

The articles and documentation in the newsletter concerned Mathur’s conduct as a public official, and the conduct of such people is always a matter of public concern. Hence, Mathur can’t prevail in this case. Keep in mind: he [Mathur] doesn’t contest the facts reported in the newsletters, and they’re enough to “puke a dog off a gut wagon!” [Well, I made up the part about the “gut wagon.”]

Invasion of privacy involves the public disclosure of private facts (and that’s not involved here). Mathur is a public official…

In these cases, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who needs to provide “competent evidence” that he will [likely] prevail (in a trial). Mathur has not met that burden. His papers are devoid of (evidence of the requisite sort).

[Corfield projects cockiness during Carol’s remarks. Now, someone whispers, “Surf’s up!”]

CORFIELD: There’s an important distinction. The defendant’s counsel refers to defamation(?), but our complaint concerns, not defamation, but invasion of privacy. Mathur is suing because the defendant (and Mr. B) stole documents from a file…Bauer and Mr. B stole a letter that is privileged; they stole and published something that is confidential. The issue of truth or falsity—to which defendant’s counsel refers—is a “red herring.” 

Corfield says that Bauer’s attorney hasn’t succeeded (in showing the applicability of the anti-SLAPP statute?). 

Bauer, repeats Corfield, has stolen Mathur’s records. 

Defendant’s counsel today tells us, says C, that Mathur must prove his case. Corfield refers to “Briggs.” …So I don’t have to prove my case; rather, I am obliged only to STATE A CASE. 

The defendant’s moving papers, says C, are largely (1st Amendment?) boilerplate; (hence) they offer “obtuse” [sic; he means “abstruse”] language. 

Bauer’s counsel is [comparing?] apples and oranges. We need to look at Schulmann (a Supreme Court case?). 

BRENNER: “They” [the defendants] stole documents, you say. But there’s no evidence of that (in your papers). You don’t show how this defendant got these papers.

[NOTE: They’re referring to a letter of reprimand (of Mathur), which I had reproduced in Dissent (in January of 1999), that, evidently, is part of Mathur’s personnel file. But, of course, that I had possession of a copy of that document does not suggest that I, or anyone else, stole it from Mathur’s file.]

CORFIELD: (Says something; not much; I took no notes. Corfield describes Mathur as the “president of a university.”)

BRENNER: This defendant [Bauer] got the papers (the letter of reprimand) somehow…How Mathur performed his job in the past is newsworthy. 

(Corfield argues that the events to which the “papers” are related occurred very long ago. In his filings, he refers to them as “ancient”--and thus unnewsworthy. Brenner seems to reject that adjective--“ancient”-- as applied here.) 

SOBEL: Can I respond? [Sobel begins to discuss Schulmann…] 

[At this point, Wendy briefly borrows my pen and tablet, and so my notes have a 2 minute gap.]

BRENNER: (He reads aloud from Schulmann.) 

SOBEL: Carol directs Brenner to a section of Schulmann. The lawyers argue about the “standard” that must be met by the person who brings the suit. The judge favors Carol’s interpretation.

She refers to a “misdirected fax” (from Mr. B to the chancellor), which is cited by Mathur as evidence of my alleged “theft.” [The fax was a copy of a letter in which the district’s attorney, Spencer Covert, opines that Mathur had indeed violated federal law by distributing a student’s transcripts. In fact, Covert’s letter had been widely distributed on campus not long after it was sent by Covert to IVC.] The fax, she says, was sent to the chancellor two days after the publication of the first Dissent at issue in this case. There is no evidence that the fax even got to the defendant (Bauer). The faxed Covert letter never appeared in the newsletter. So where’s the evidence of theft?

BRENNER: Brenner opines that the Dissent stories are newsworthy. Further, there’s “no showing” that the reports were untruthful “that I can see.” There “is no showing” that, in the case of this defendant, the papers were unlawfully obtained. The evidence doesn’t seem to be here.

CORFIELD: Look at Schulmann. It isn’t about theft (?).

BRENNER: You keep saying (that the defendant engaged in theft). But there’s no evidence.

CORFIELD: We don’t have to prove that there was theft. He refers to 425.16 [California’s anti-SLAPP statute] and the Supreme Court.

BRENNER: …Brenner asks (I think) whether there is evidence that the defendants (Bauer and Mr. B) conspired…

Brenner says: I’ve denied these motions before, but the defendant [Bauer] is exercising his 1st Amendment rights. He is reporting on a matter of public interest. 

Finally, Brenner says: I don’t think there’s any evidence…I will grant the motion [to dismiss Mathur’s suit].

CORFIELD: [Corfield looks as though someone has stolen his Woody.] C sputters something about a “leave to amend.”(?)

[Apparently, this “leave to amend” business is a desperate move on C’s part; Brenner responds as though Corfield has committed a faux pas. He indicates that he has made his ruling and that’s that.]

* * * * *

Well, we left the courtroom, and we were pretty damned pleased. Jan, who was very impressed by Carol’s performance, stepped back from her and intoned: “I’m not worthy.” Others squealed or laughed. We wandered down to the hall to the elevators, talking and joking. 

As we waited for the elevator to arrive, Mr. Corfield snuck up behind us and then rudely interrupted, asking Carol about Mr. B’s attorney, with whom he wanted to arrange a conference. Wendy turned to him and said that Corfield was looking for her. As he commenced speaking, Surfer Joe poked Wendy hard in the shoulder, like she was Annette Funicello or somethin’. She kicked sand in his face. (Well, not really. She was very professional.) 

Next: attorneys’ fees. Fun fun fun! —CW

March 2, 2000, 
IRVINE WORLD NEWS
College president’s suit against professor dismissed 

By Laura Hayes

   On Tuesday, an Orange County Superior Court judge granted professor Roy Bauer a special motion to strike an invasion of privacy lawsuit filed against him in January by Raghu Mathur, president of Irvine Valley College. 
   “The motion was based on legislation to protect people like me when they are speaking the truth about a public official,” said Bauer.
   The lawsuit charged that Bauer had published in his newsletter “Dissent” in January 1999 a confidential memorandum that Mathur claims was stolen from his personnel file. The 1996 memo centered on administrative concern with Mathur’s handling of a student’s transcript.
   Carol Sobel, Bauer’s attorney, said the statute employed by the court is aimed at stopping at an early stage a lawsuit aimed at preventing citizens from participating in the legislative process.
   “If the basis in the lawsuit is related to free speech and concerns a matter of public concern, then the lawsuit should be stopped at the earliest possible moment,” said Sobel.
   Judge Michael Brenner ruled that how Mathur performs his duties as college president is a matter of public concern and he didn’t see anything in the published statements that appeared untrue, said Sobel.
   After hearing from both sides, the motion was granted when the judge determined there was not enough evidence that Mathur would prevail in the invasion of privacy claim.
   “You’ve got to show that you’re likely to win,” said Bauer.
   Michael Corfield, Mathur’s attorney, said the judge only considered the defamation of character issue and failed to focus enough attention on the invasion of privacy issue. He said he will talk to Mathur about the possibility of an appeal. 

ASK MISS FORTUNE! (March 2000)

[DISSENT 46, 3/6/00]: 

[By Red Emma]

Dear Miss Fortune: 

     I pulled up the signs and headstones on the lawn. The President ordered me to put them back. Next, I mounted lock boxes on the bulletin boards, then took them down. Finally, I built a $3,000 storage room in the middle of a lobby where I was ordered to hide the photocopy machine, which used to sit in exactly the same place. I feel oddly like Sisyphus, forced to drag the same stone up a hill, only to have it roll down again, except that I was ordered to mount a plaque on my stone and now I’m supposed to take it off. Will my existential suffering never end? 

signed: Maintenance Staff 

Dear Staff: 

       What, you didn’t hear? They’re renaming the library, “The Raghu P. Mathur School Book Depository.” The lawn will now be called the “Grassy Knoll.” I’ll be Jackie, Armando will be Abraham Zapruder. Later, Cedric will be Earl Warren. Regarding Existentialism, I like to cheer myself up by reminding everybody that, despite the uniqueness and isolation of the individual in a hostile or indifferent universe, you can still get people’s attention by showing them your butt. 

Dear Miss Fortune: 

     I’m flying back to the Fatherland this weekend, where I expect full and speedy recovery from brain damage I suffered while buying a raincoat in London. I understand there may be work for me at IVC. 

signed: Augusto 

Dear General: 

      Yes, I think we’ve got a place for you on our winning team. You’ll be a real “feather in our cap.” How does “Director-of-Student-Affairs-For-Life” suit you? With your people skills, talent at stifling dissent, and shiny jackboots, you’ll fit right in. It’ll be like Oktoberfest all year round. Plus, we’ve got one Trustee who’s a really big fan. 

Dear Miss Fortune: 

     It’s me, again, the illegally-appointed president of a small community college, thinking positively, bringing people together and spreading the One True Light. Meanwhile, the judge threw out my SLAPP suit and now I’ve spent my raise on lawyers’ fees. How can I get the district to cover my losses? 

signed: Slapped 

Dear Slapped: 

     I’d ask for another security stipend, but if that doesn’t work, how about this: sue yourself. As President, the district lawyers will be required to defend you. Clever, huh? You lose, you win. I’m sure there’s a down side, but it can’t be any worse than teaching your new pet pit bull “Stipey” how to distinguish the Kate Clark mannequin from the Wendy Phillips one. 

Dear Miss Fortune: 

     I’m responsible for the financial records of the former Faculty Association PAC, which I kept for the longest time in a black box. Now they’re in a pretty red box with balloons and horsies painted on the side. When I wind the little handle, a funny tune plays and, after a while, a happy clown pops up and surprises me with a subpoena. What should I do? 

signed: Surprised 

Dear Surprised: 

      I’d put those nasty old records in an old F.A. ballot box, unmarked. That’s the last place anybody’d look. 

Dear Miss Fortune: 

     I recall your brave position opposing “same-sex” marriage in the last trustees election, so maybe you can help me out. Should I vote for Prop 22 because I hate others or just because I hate myself? They’re not like us, are they? 

signed: Anonymous 

Dear Anonymous: 

     You sound kinda existential. Some of my best friends are existential. We had one living next door. Once I dated an existentialist, but I’d never let my daughter marry one. When faced with difficult moral choices, I find it best to follow the example of Raghu Mathur. In that spirit, I’m taking down your name, foolishly included in your return address, photocopying this letter, and handing it out to the whole Board. Federal law, my ass! 

Dear Miss Fortune: 

     I’m so scared to join the union. Somebody might find out. I’m scared to write a letter to the editor because somebody might recognize my name. I’m scared to look a certain untenured Biology teacher in the eyes. And, now I’m being asked by colleagues to speak out like the rest of them at a special meeting on March 9. Help! 

signed: Xavier Onassis 

Dear Save: 

      Hey, I like your spirit! You tell your small group of disgruntled faculty colleagues to try showing up at that Thursday, March 9, special board meeting. Yeah, just try. You try and attend that meeting. We haven’t said where it is or what time, so you can try, all right. Hah! 

 —MISS FORTUNE

The Jacobson Depo: re firing an instructor for naming a greenhouse

From the ‘Vine 19, April 3, 2000

WRITING AN “HONEST EVALUATION”: THE JACOBSON DEPO

BACKGROUND:

One might suppose that, when it comes to tenure and evaluations, faculty are protected by the contract, by various policies and procedures, and by friendly deans.

NOT!

Consider the “greenhouse” saga: At some point after Life Sciences faculty, prompted by a suggestion from Dean Ruth Jacobson (and oblivious to a board policy [BP1500] that authorizes only the board to name facilities), christened (and beplaqued) their newly-constructed greenhouse, President Raghu P. Mathur, true to totalitarian form, decided again to make an example of a Mathurian critic, and so he targeted biologist Jeff K[aufmann] for denial of tenure. Mathur’s plan involved securing a negative evaluation, and so he pressured Dean Ruth, who had just evaluated Jeff in May, to evaluate him again—and to ding him for alleged violations of “college policies and procedures”—violations that resulted in “discipline.” (Note: Mathur’s strategy—first discipline, then negative evaluation—violated the contract, which states that “No full-time faculty shall be disciplined unless the District has fulfilled its obligations to evaluate [him/her] in accordance with the procedures outlined in Article XII….”)

But what were the violations? The greenhouse naming? –But that was suggested by Jacobson herself. Was it the later garden-naming? –But garden-naming isn’t under the purview of board policy, according to VP Spencer, who handled the reprimand issue. (See Spencer depo.) What about Jeff’s failure to respond to an e-mail from the Chancellor? –But Jeff, mindful of protocol, left the response to his chair, who indeed responded on behalf of Life Sciences faculty. As you’ll see, Jacobson herself doesn’t seem to know the answer to this crucial question.

Well, in the end, despite Mathur’s recommendation and Jacobson’s curious evaluation, owing to tenacious lobbying, faculty and student demonstrations of support, and Board fears of further litigation and bad press, Jeff’s tenure transpired unopposed. But don’t kid yourself. This thing could easily have gone south. It very nearly did.

            Mathur’s plan hinged on arranging a negative instructor evaluation. Here, then, is the ridiculous saga of the origin and the evolution of that sorry document.

DEPOSED: Ruth Jacobson

Attorney for the plaintiff (Jeff Kaufmann): Sharon Robinson (accompanied by co-counsel, Carol Sobel [Roy Bauer's attorney; attorney for students in district First Amendment cases]

Attorney for the defendant (Raghu Mathur): Allan E. Wilion

Irvine, CA, March 3, 2000, 2:24 p.m.

Dean Ruth’s in charge:

SHARON ROBINSON: Did you look at any documents in preparing for this deposition today?

RUTH JACOBSON: I did…I reviewed again both faculty evaluations for Dr. Kaufmann, and I looked through portions of the Academic Employee Master Agreement. I…reviewed e-mails between Dr. Kaufmann and myself regarding setting up appointments…regarding evaluations….

…..

ROBINSON: …You mentioned “both faculty evaluations.” Are there two faculty evaluations?

JACOBSON: Yes. There’s one that was an original that was dated December 15th that included my observation of Dr. Kaufmann in the classroom and also related to information that was given to me by President Mathur. And in that particular evaluation, there was a statement…regarding the fact that I had been informed that Dr. Kaufmann did not comply with…Board Policy 1500….And then…I have a second one that the attachments go with….

…..

ROBINSON: …I’m just wondering, …is this how Jefferey Kaufmann received his evaluation, with these attachments attached?

JACOBSON: No. The first three pages was what he received from me.

…..

ROBINSON: …Does [your] contract…outline and delineate your responsibilities toward faculty members?

JACOBSON: Not real specifically, but it does…You’re in charge—as a dean, I am in charge or responsible for administering the scheduling of classes and the budget and evaluations of faculty…There is actually a list of faculty—when faculty members are due for evaluation—that comes out of the Office of Instruction. Pretty much the deans evaluate based on that list….

…..

ROBINSON: So, as a dean, would you always then consult that list prior to conducting an evaluation of a faculty member?

JACOBSON: I look at the list.

ROBINSON: …Is it a guide or is it a mandate…?….

JACOBSON: …According to the Academic Employee Master Agreement, a nontenured faculty needs to be evaluated every year, once annually for the first four years, and then at the beginning of the fifth year they become tenured….

Because she wanted it to be an “honest evaluation”…

ROBINSON: Have you ever been instructed by anyone to conduct an evaluation of a faculty member?

JACOBSON: Yes.

ROBINSON: When?

JACOBSON: This has to do with Professor Kaufmann…I was asked to do an evaluation.

…..

ROBINSON: Have you ever been instructed to evaluate anyone else?

JACOBSON: Not since I’ve been here.

ROBINSON: Who instructed you to evaluate Professor Kaufmann?

JACOBSON: President Mathur.

ROBINSON: When did he do this?

JACOBSON: Okay. This was in December, and there had been a letter of reprimand given to Professor Kaufmann back in October, which I was not a part of. President Mathur requested a meeting with me and shared that letter of reprimand because I had never seen it before….

            And then he asked if I would do an evaluation. And I did an evaluation, and I visited…Professor Kaufmann’s classroom and evaluated him in the classroom. He did an excellent job. My goal is to do always an honest evaluation and a fair one. He did an excellent job in the classroom, interacted very well with his students, and in doing the evaluation, I indicated that there were many glowing reports in that evaluation.

            I did include what I was informed [by the president]. There is a statement in that original evaluation I included…that I had been informed regarding the fact that the college president had written a letter of reprimand for Professor Kaufmann for not complying with Board Policy 1500, the naming of college facilities, because I had been informed, and I felt I had to put that in there because I wanted it to be an honest evaluation.

ROBINSON: I understand. Have you ever had meetings with the president before doing faculty evaluations of other faculty members?

JACOBSON: No.

ROBINSON: [Do] you think Professor Kaufmann is a good instructor?

JACOBSON: I do.

I have no position at this time:

ROBINSON: Do you think he deserves to be tenured?

MR. WILION: Objection. Calls for speculation. Not relevant.

MS. ROBINSON: She evaluated him.

MR. WILION: It doesn’t make any difference. It still calls for speculation. Argumentative, lack of foundation, not within the province of authority.

MS. ROBINSON: Thank you.

ROBINSON: You can answer the question [namely, do you think Jeff deserves to be tenured?].

JACOBSON: I have no position on that at this time.

ROBINSON: Had you seen the letter of reprimand before you evaluated Professor Kaufmann?

JACOBSON: Yes. That was what I just stated, that I met with…president Mathur. He requested the meeting so he could share [the reprimand] with me because I hadn’t seen it, because I wasn’t involved in that portion of that issue….

ROBINSON: You’re Professor Kaufmann’s dean?

JACOBSON: Pardon?

ROBINSON: You’re his dean?

JACOBSON: Yes.

ROBINSON: You weren’t involved in the letter of reprimand…?

JACOBSON: No.

ROBINSON: Is that outside the normal procedure for discipline in [the] college?

JACOBSON: I don’t know….

ROBINSON: Did you tell Professor Kaufmann you had seen the letter of reprimand before you evaluated him?

JACOBSON: No.

…..

Special orders:

ROBINSON: Did you speak to anyone else about the letter of reprimand?

JACOBSON: No. Not the letter of reprimand.

ROBINSON: Did you speak to anyone else about the evaluation?

JACOBSON: I spoke with Vice President Pat Spencer.

…..

ROBINSON: Do you normally…bring [a faculty evaluation] to your supervisor for review?

JACOBSON: I could.

ROBINSON: Do you?

JACOBSON: No.

ROBINSON: Are there any other faculty among [those] whom you serve as dean who are up for tenure this year?

JACOBSON: There are several.

JACOBSON: Have you evaluated them?

JACOBSON: I have.

ROBINSON: Were you instructed to evaluate each one of them?

JACOBSON: No. But that’s just—you do.

ROBINSON: Were you instructed to evaluate any one of them other than Professor Kaufmann?

JACOBSON: No.

…..

ROBINSON: …What other information do you rely on in making an evaluation?

JACOBSON: If faculty members have participated outside of the classroom and done something noteworthy, I generally note that…Some of them are very active on campus outside of the classroom…So I try to recognize them for their contributions.

…..

ROBINSON: So you decided…at president Mathur’s behest…to evaluate Professor Kaufmann in December of ’99?

JACOBSON: Yes.

…..

Mathur meets with Dean Ruth:

ROBINSON: So how did this meeting [with Mathur] take place?

JACOBSON: As I indicated earlier, it was because he wanted to inform me about the letter of reprimand because I had no knowledge of it.

ROBINSON: Was it in his office?

JACOBSON: I think he felt I needed to be informed, which was appropriate because I was the dean.

ROBINSON: Would it have been appropriate to include you from the beginning, back in October?

JACOBSON: Probably. However, Vice President Pat Spencer was the person he selected to deal with the letter of reprimand. She was his delegate, or at last that was the way I understood it.

ROBINSON: …How did the meeting take place? Did he call you to his office or by telephone or did you meet in the hall? How and when did the meeting with president Mathur take place?

JACOBSON: Well, he came to my office…It was the early part of December, I know…It was either the early part of December or the last of November….

ROBINSON: Was it a meeting called specifically to discuss Professor Kaufmann?

JACOBSON: Well, yes, because the main issue was the letter of reprimand….

ROBINSON: …So you discussed the letter of reprimand, and then he told you to do an evaluation of him; is that right?

JACOBSON: He did ask me to do an evaluation.

ROBINSON: Did you have the meeting with him about the letter of reprimand before he told you to evaluate Professor Kaufmann?

JACOBSON: It was at the same meeting.

…..

What did he want to see in the evaluation?

ROBINSON: So you had…until March 15 to do Professor Kaufmann’s evaluation…Why did you decide to do it in December [of ‘99]?

JACOBSON: I think specifically because president Mathur…asked me to do an evaluation. So that didn’t mean two months later. Or at least that’s what I understood….

ROBINSON: Did he tell you what he wanted to see in the evaluation?

JACOBSON: I don’t really recall at this time. The only thing I remember is that, when I think back on the whole thing, he shared it with me—my thinking on it was, because I knew of it, I had to put it into the evaluation because I was informed to have an honest evaluation.

ROBINSON: I see.

…..

The Greenhouse:

ROBINSON: Tell me a little about the building of the greenhouse. How did that come about?

JACOBSON: It was actually funded before I was the dean. It was when the last dean managed that school. There was a proposal submitted apparently by…Professor Kaufmann for block grant funding. We received funding from the state for equipment and various kinds of items. And they submitted a proposal for [a greenhouse], and they were awarded that funding.

…..

ROBINSON: How many times have you evaluated Professor Kaufmann?

JACOBSON: Two times.

ROBINSON: That was last May—May of ‘99—and December of ’99?

JACOBSON: Yes….

…..

ROBINSON: Did you tell [Jeff] you had seen the letter of reprimand before you evaluated him?

JACOBSON: No.

…..

ROBINSON: You’ve evaluated him twice. Did you find that his performance this year was consistent with his performance last year?

…..

JACOBSON: Yes.

ROBINSON: In your opinion as his dean, do you think he is an excellent instructor?

JACOBSON: I do. His performance in the classroom is excellent.

ROBINSON: Has president Mathur told you that Kathy Schmeidler is being reviewed by the president for a possible discipline regarding the greenhouse?

JACOBSON: No.

…..

Can I give ‘im a copy?

ROBINSON: Now, when in the evaluation process did you meet with Professor Kaufmann?

…..

JACOBSON: …I thought it was the 15th because I signed it on the 15th.

…..

ROBINSON: Did he ask you during that conference whether you had seen the letter of reprimand at the time you prepared the evaluation?

JACOBSON: I don’t know—I don’t recall at this time that he asked that specific question…But I did tell him I had been informed [about the reprimand].

….

ROBINSON: What did he say?

JACOBSON: Well, he said that he did not—he would—he did not want to sign the evaluation. He expressed some surprise. I don’t know how surprised he was, but he expressed some surprise…He asked me if he could have a copy of the evaluation. I wasn’t—I’ve never had that happen to me before. And because he had refused to sign it, I called Pat Spencer, because she was my immediate supervisor, and said, “What is the protocol and proper procedure? I’m not sure.”…Because…he was not signing it, I checked with Pat Spencer to say, “Can’t I go ahead and”—I had never done this before. And I wanted to make sure I was following proper procedures—[I asked,] “Is it appropriate to give him a copy?”

            [Spencer] contacted Sabrina Ruminer, the Director of Human Resources, who indicated that [giving Jeff a copy of his evaluation] was fine. So I provided him with a copy.

…..

ROBINSON: When was the next time you saw the evaluation?

…..

JACOBSON: When I received a copy back.

…..

ROBINSON: Was it before the winter break?

JACOBSON: No…[In January] or the first part…of February. Well, no. It was in January sometime. It was in January, I think.

…..

The “hearsay” issue:

ROBINSON: Now, you mentioned…two evaluations…How did the second evaluation come to be?

JACOBSON: …The January 10 e-mail…from Professor Kaufmann to myself indicates that he would like to meet with me. And it says, “I would like to meet with you as soon as possible regarding my last evaluation. Specifically, I’m requesting a modification of the document on the issue of Board Policy 1500”…I responded that same day….

…..

ROBINSON: You mentioned a few minutes ago that the first four e-mails we entered as exhibits—or the first five—dealt with one particular meeting. Can you tell me when that meeting took place?

JACOBSON: …I think that was on January 13…This meeting related to the initial e-mail from Professor Kaufmann regarding his evaluation in reference to Board Policy 1500.

…..

ROBINSON: Who was present?

JACOBSON: Professor Kaufmann, Professor Dan Rivas [Kaufmann’s Faculty Association rep], and myself…Basically, Professor Kaufmann felt that what he wanted to occur was for me to remove the statement regarding Board Policy 1500 because both he and Dan, as the Faculty Association representative, felt it was hearsay. [Article XII of the contract states that “Hearsay statements shall be excluded from written evaluations.”]

            And I listened to what they had to say. And I said I would be happy to consider it; I needed to read the contract carefully again to make sure that I wasn’t violating the contract because I did not want to violate the contract. I wanted the evaluation to be honest….

…..

ROBINSON: Did you actually reread the contract?

JACOBSON: After the meeting.

ROBINSON: What did you decide?

Sabrina Ruminer advises a revision:

JACOBSON: I decided perhaps it could be hearsay, based on [what] I had been informed. And I realized that maybe my statement wasn’t very clear.

            And so I made an appointment with Sabrina Ruminer, the Director of Human Resources, as to counsel with her. I said, “I’m concerned that, perhaps the way I have stated this, this is hearsay. I did in fact, read the document, letter of reprimand. I was informed verbally, but I also read it; and that, maybe the way I have stated this, this is hearsay and maybe I am in violation of the contract.”

            So she and I discussed it. She said, “Did you read it?” I said, “yes.” Then she said, “What you need to do is you need to revise your evaluation, and it needs to read clearly that you were informed and you reviewed the letter of reprimand to eliminate the hearsay involving that.”…She also stated that to comply with the contract, if there was something that…needed improvement, there needed to be a statement there to that effect on how to improve. So I included a statement on how to improve. That was—

ROBINSON: Did president Mathur inform you that he was recommending Jeff be denied tenure based on this evaluation?

JACOBSON: I don’t recall that at this time. I don’t recall him saying that to me at all.

ROBINSON: In the evaluation, you assessed Professor Kaufmann as needing improvement in his attitude to [the] college?

…..

Dinged for violating policies:

JACOBSON: Basically, [I assessed him regarding the heading:] follows college policies and procedures. And that has to do with the board policy that affects both institutions. Actually, the whole district, for that matter.

…..

ROBINSON: So you decided that he failed to follow college policies and procedures, and therefore gave him a “needs improvement” rating?

JACOBSON: Because of the letter of reprimand.

ROBINSON: Did you rely on anything else besides the letter of reprimand in making that decision?

JACOBSON: No. That was the main reference.

ROBINSON: Have you ever witnessed [Jeff] violating a school policy?

JACOBSON: Not that I can recall at this time.

ROBINSON: Have you ever witnessed professor Kaufmann perform any acts of insubordination during his—during the time you’ve known him here at IVC?

JACOBSON: Not that I can recall at this time.

…..

ROBINSON: Have you ever given a “needs improvement” to another instructor in this same subheading, “Follows college policies and procedures”?

JACOBSON: I have not had any occasion to do that.

ROBINSON: What is the relationship between purported violation of BP1500 and Professor Kaufmann’s attitude to [the] college? How are they related?

JACOBSON: I look at the example here, “follows college policies and procedures.” That is what I base my evaluation on. The specific text there.

ROBINSON: How long did the meeting last with you, Professor Kaufmann, and Professor Rivas?

JACOBSON: About 50 minutes…The bulk of the discussion was the reference to the Academic Employee Master Agreement and that particular statement in his evaluation that alludes to the naming of the college facilities. They were stating they felt it was hearsay.

…..

ROBINSON: Did you discuss your concern [regarding violating the contract] with president Mathur?

JACOBSON: I did. I mentioned it to him…I expressed my concern about violating the contract…And he suggested that we have a meeting with Sabrina to discuss it…. [Ultimately, Jacobson’s conference with Ruminer did not include Mathur.]

…..

ROBINSON: Did you actually change the evaluation after that meeting with Sabrina on the 20th?

JACOBSON: I did. That’s the revised version.

…..

The revised evaluation:

ROBINSON: Could you read to me what part was the new part of the evaluation that you added?

JACOBSON: “I have been informed and reviewed the letter of reprimand that the college president has given him for not complying with Board Policy 1500,” dash, ”naming of college facilities. For future improvement, I recommend that Dr. Kaufmann follow college policies and procedures.”

….

ROBINSON: Why was the revision made?…I’m unclear.

JACOBSON: Because Professor Kaufmann indicated that the original statement was hearsay and in violation of the contract. I was trying to clarify it to eliminate the hearsay and to comply with the contract.

…..

ROBINSON: So do you believe this January 20 revision [of the evaluation] is a more accurate statement?

JACOBSON: Yes. Because when I…made the original statement and said I had been informed, it was my assumption that that—I guess, in my mind, I thought that that was clear, but it wasn’t.

…..

ROBINSON: Did you notify Professor Kaufmann of the revision?

…..

JACOBSON: I explained to him that I had met with Sabrina Ruminer, that I…had counseled with her and that I was very concerned that I might be violating the contract. I wanted to correct my verbiage in his evaluation to comply with the contract, and I handed him a copy of the revision.

…..

Wilion’s “so what?”—no “nefarious plot”:

ROBINSON: There seems to be yet another evaluation of Mr. Kaufmann, another—

Mr. Wilion: I want the record to reflect that we’re not talking about different evaluations. There’s two evaluations, and there are draft copies of these documents. The notion that there are five different versions of this document includes drafts of documents. They’re not five different versions of the documents, and somehow it’s a nefarious plot here to have five different versions of this document. That’s not the case at all.

Ms. Sobel: Well, there are at a minimum three different textual elements.

Mr. Wilion: So what? I have documents that, in draft, I have 85 versions of.

Ms. Sobel: That’s before you turn it in to a court or give it to someone. These are all after they were given to Professor Kaufmann. It’s absolutely clear.

Mr. Wilion: So what?

Ms. Sobel: We don’t have to argue about “so what.” “So what” is what will happen when we go to trial or we make a summary judgment motion. We don’t have to argue about it now.

Mr. Wilion: I just want the record to reflect there are not five different versions of a document. There are the original document, which was changed at Mr. Kaufmann’s request, and there are apparently one or two versions of them, earlier versions.

Ms. Sobel: I’m going to object to this. You’re not testifying here today. And I don’t think Mr. Kaufmann would agree that the change that was made was a change that he requested be made.

Mr. Wilion: He did.

Ms. Sobel: No. He asked that he be fairly evaluated. He did not ask that somebody rewrite it in the way that they did or that the president put in the comments he did. But this is inappropriate….

Mr. Wilion: I’m not going to say anything further. I want the record to reflect [that] there are not five different versions.

Ms. Sobel: What the records reflect is we are introducing five exhibits, each of which is somewhat different, beginning with the first one provided to Professor Kaufmann on December 15 that is unsigned up to the last one in February of this year.

…..

Where’s the violation?

ROBINSON: In his comments, [Mathur] says that it’s recommended that Professor Kaufmann adhere to the board policies and administrative instructions during his employment. Did you read exhibit 17?…Do you know what he’s referring to in those comments?

JACOBSON: Well, I read the attachments. And the attachment that went with the evaluation and the letter of reprimand indicated that there was…an e-mail from Chancellor Sampson to Professor Kaufmann back in May of ’99 indicating that Professor Kaufmann needed to go through proper procedures to name the greenhouse.

ROBINSON: So those are the administrative instructions that he failed to follow?

JACOBSON: That’s my understanding. That’s part of it, I guess. [In fact, Kaufmann, mindful of protocol, gave over the task of responding to the Chancellor to his chair, Kathy Schmeidler, who did respond on behalf of Life Sciences faculty.]

ROBINSON: Is there another part of it?

JACOBSON: Somewhere—again, I don’t recall exactly where—I read an e-mail. It may have been part of the attachments—but from Professor Kaufmann to academic Chair Schmeidler indicating that she take care of it and that she indicated that she would follow the proper protocol.

ROBINSON: So how is that part of his failure to follow administrative instructions?

JACOBSON: Well, of course, this is secondhand information. But if, in fact, the greenhouse was named, he did not go through the proper procedures. [Note: As we’ll see, it was Jacobson who first suggested to the faculty that the greenhouse be named.]

ROBINSON: Did you think the procedure [in responding to the Chancellor’s e-mail] followed was proper, for him to go through—to ask Kathy Schmeidler?

JACOBSON: I probably—if he had asked my advice, which he did not, I would have suggested that he handle it himself and go ahead and follow Board Policy 1500, which indicates it does require Board approval to name a facility.

…..

Whose idea was it to name the greenhouse?

ROBINSON: Whose idea was it to name the greenhouse?

JACOBSON: I can’t answer that.

ROBINSON: Why?

JACOBSON: I do not know who came up with the name.

ROBINSON: Did you suggest a name?

JACOBSON: No. I suggested naming the greenhouse because so much effort had gone into constructing it and getting it up…[so] I said it deserves more merit than just the name “The Greenhouse,” which doesn’t have much PR polish to it. And I felt it would enhance their educational program to maybe name it “The Life Sciences and Learning Center” or “Enrichment Center.” I was thinking of something very generic.

ROBINSON: Was there a meeting prior to the dedication of the greenhouse where some of this was discussed?

JACOBSON: I have no knowledge of that.

ROBINSON: When did you suggest that it might have a name?

JACOBSON: Actually, in the hall.

ROBINSON: To whom?

JACOBSON: In the mail room.

ROBINSON: To whom?

JACOBSON: To Jeff because he had spearheaded the greenhouse…Priscilla Ross may have been standing there at the time, too, and maybe somebody from another school. It was just out in the lobby, if you will.

ROBINSON: Did you advise them of BP 1500 when you suggested that it might be named?

JACOBSON: No. I did not advise them of BP 1500 because I didn’t know, in fact, it was going to be named. I just made the suggestion, we need to name it something other than “the Greenhouse.”

ROBINSON: Did you know about BP1500?

JACOBSON: I was aware of it.

ROBINSON: What does BP1500 state?

JACOBSON: Basically, it has to do with the naming of facilities. In order to name a facility, it requires going through board approval and first going through the chancellor, as I recall.

ROBINSON: Have you ever been involved in the implementation of BP1500?

JACOBSON: No.

ROBINSON: Have you ever had to report a faculty member for failing to follow BP1500?

JACOBSON: No.

ROBINSON: Have you ever heard of another dean reporting a faculty member for failing to follow BP1500?

JACOBSON: No.

ROBINSON: Have you ever felt compelled to give the review of “needs improvement” to any faculty member you’ve evaluated for the faculty member’s failure to follow policies and procedures?

JACOBSON: No. Only if the situation warranted it, I would.

ROBINSON: Have you ever?

JACOBSON: No.

ROBINSON: What situation would warrant a “needs improvement”?

JACOBSON: Probably any of the items that are listed here, if there appears to be some problem with it.

ROBINSON: What about the Larios Garden? Are you familiar with the Larios Garden here at the IVC campus? [The (former president Dan) Larios Garden, which until recently sported a substantial plaque, is situated between A300 and A400. The plaque was never approved by the board.]

JACOBSON: Not really. I’ve heard people talk about the Larios Garden, but I haven’t seen it.

ROBINSON: You don’t know if it has a sign or not?

JACOBSON: No.

ROBINSON: Did you think it was not proper protocol for Professor Kaufmann to refer the matter to Schmeidler in response to Chancellor Sampson’s e-mail?

JACOBSON: I think he probably should have handled it himself…[i.e., he should have personally answered the Chancellor].

ROBINSON: So is this protocol written somewhere or is this just something you think is courteous?

…..

JACOBSON: I don’t think I’ve read that [protocol] anywhere.

…..

“I don’t recall”:

ROBINSON: In connection with the discipline that Professor Kaufmann would receive over—

JACOBSON: I have no knowledge of that.

JACOBSON: [Pat Spencer] never expressed any concern to you?

JACOBSON: It wasn’t discussed.

ROBINSON: Not discussed at all?

JACOBSON: I do not—I have no knowledge of any discussion. There’s a lot of this that occurred without my knowledge.

ROBINSON: Did you express any concern to her about it?

JACOBSON: Yes, I was concerned.

ROBINSON: What was the content of your concern?

JACOBSON: This had become an issue. The naming of the greenhouse had become an issue.

ROBINSON: Do you think it would have affected the environment at the college? [See the Spencer depo.]

JACOBSON: Could you please clarify that?

ROBINSON: Was there any friction or negativity…at that time in the college environment?

JACOBSON: Is there any friction? Could you restate that?

ROBINSON: Did you tell Pat Spencer that there was friction or negativity at the college?

JACOBSON: Did I tell—in what way?

ROBINSON: That the school environment—that there was a sense of negative feelings among faculty and administration. Did you tell Pat Spencer that?

JACOBSON: I don’t recall telling her that at this time. I think there’s common knowledge that there’s some friction from time to time here.

ROBINSON: Did you ever discuss that friction with her?

JACOBSON: Clarify it again.

ROBINSON: Did you ever discuss that friction with her?

JACOBSON: Probably. I’m always concerned. I like to see a positive environment in an institution of higher learning. That’s very important. That’s what we’re all here for.

JACOBSON: Did you ever express any regret to Pat Spencer?

JACOBSON: In what way?

ROBINSON: Did you ever mention to Pat Spencer that you regretted suggesting that the greenhouse ought to be named?

JACOBSON: I don’t recall that at this time.

ROBINSON: Did you tell Pat Spencer that you thought telling people to take down the greenhouse plaque would cause friction?

JACOBSON: Repeat that.

ROBINSON: Did you tell Pat Spencer that you thought telling people to take down the greenhouse plaque would cause friction?

JACOBSON: I don’t recall that at this time.

…..

The garden sign—or plaque?:

ROBINSON: Did you ever discuss the sign in the garden by the greenhouse with Pat Spencer? [After VP Spencer indicated that board policy 1500 does not prohibit the naming of gardens—see Spencer depo—the Life Sciences faculty erected a sign near the greenhouse, naming the garden.]

JACOBSON: No.

ROBINSON: Did you ever discuss it with Raghu Mathur?

JACOBSON: No. I didn’t even know it was there.

ROBINSON: When did you discover it was there?

JACOBSON: Probably [when I read a story in] the local newspaper…I can’t answer that at this time.

ROBINSON: Was it the subject of the letter of reprimand?

JACOBSON: No.

ROBINSON: No?

JACOBSON: Not that I recall.

ROBINSON: So what exactly was the letter of reprimand regarding…?

JACOBSON: Wait a minute. Let me go back. Restate that again.

ROBINSON: The letter of reprimand: Did that deal only with the plaque on the greenhouse?

JACOBSON: The letter of reprimand dealt with not complying with Board policy. As I understand it, it started out with the nameplate on the greenhouse, and then apparently there was some nameplate that had been placed in the garden.

You’re not invited:

ROBINSON: When did you first learn about the letter of reprimand?

JACOBSON: When president Mathur met with me. No. I take that back. He had called me in before—[to inform me] that there was a meeting with Professor Kaufmann. And I don’t know who all was in that meeting. Vice President Spencer. And [he] informed me that there was going to be this meeting, and this [reprimand] was going to be given, but I was not invited to participate. He didn’t say that to me, but he was informing me that that was going to take place.

ROBINSON: President Mathur informed you that a meeting would take place that you wouldn’t be invited to?

JACOBSON: He didn’t say it that way. But he said there would be—he informed me that there was going to be a letter of reprimand given to Jeff Kaufmann.

What misconduct?

ROBINSON: It was your understanding that that letter of reprimand included what misconduct?…

JACOBSON: That dealt with the board policy 1500, not complying with that.

ROBINSON: Is…it your understanding that the nameplate on the greenhouse and the sign in the garden were the same sign?

JACOBSON: I have no knowledge of that.

ROBINSON: So let me get this straight. Tell me once again…When you decided that Professor Kaufmann needed improvement because of his failure to follow college policies and procedures, what exactly did you rely on to come to that conclusion?

JACOBSON: The letter of reprimand.

ROBINSON: And the letter of reprimand was based on his failure to follow board policy 1500 in placing a plaque naming the greenhouse; is that it?

JACOBSON: And the garden, I guess.

ROBINSON: And the garden?

JACOBSON: Yes.

ROBINSON: Did Professor Mathur ever discuss with you the garden sign?

JACOBSON: …Only when we met and he shared the letter of reprimand with me, provided it for me to read.

ROBINSON: Was the sign in the garden up at that time?

JACOBSON: I have no knowledge of that.

Room for improvement:

ROBINSON: Now, in this evaluation you’ve stated that he needs improvement in his following college policies and procedures. Have you given him an opportunity to improve in that area? [According to Article XII (1H) of the contract, “The academic employee’s evaluator shall take positive action to correct any cited deficiencies. Such action shall include specific written recommendations for improvement.”]

JACOBSON: Restate that.

ROBINSON: What did you do to give Professor Kaufmann an opportunity to improve in that area?

JACOBSON: I basically stated in the evaluation that he needed to follow the board policy and the procedures in the future, which in this case would have meant going through the proper channels to place a sign.

ROBINSON: Was that in your original evaluation or was it in the revised one?

JACOBSON: It was in both.

ROBINSON: In both? Is there a provision in the contract that regards an opportunity to improve?

JACOBSON: Yes. That’s why I made that statement. That was part of the revision.

ROBINSON: And what about a reevaluation? Do you want to explain that policy for us, please?

JACOBSON: Reevaluation? [According to Article XII (1G) of the contract, “Any academic employee who receives a negative evaluation shall, upon request, be entitled to a subsequent observation, conference and written evaluation.”]

ROBINSON: Is there also a provision for reevaluation?

JACOBSON: It states in the contract there can be a reevaluation.

ROBINSON: There can be or there must be?

JACOBSON: I’d have to read it…[It is handed to her. She reads it aloud.] Oh, yes.

ROBINSON: Did Professor Kaufmann request a subsequent observation, conference, or written evaluation?

JACOBSON: He has not.

ROBINSON: What opportunity would Professor Kaufmann have to improve and be reevaluated in a tenure year?

JACOBSON: I don’t know.

…..

ROBINSON: Have you taken any positive action to correct the cited deficiencies?

JACOBSON: I don’t think there’s anything that has occurred where there has been a policy or procedure involved to work with him. And I might add he has not asked for me to help him.

ROBINSON: Did you ever ask anyone in the administration how the “needs improvement” rating would affect Professor Kaufmann’s chances for tenure?

JACOBSON: Restate that. [She does.]

JACOBSON: No. Because I didn’t think there was any reason to ask that.

ROBINSON: Why?

JACOBSON: Restate that.

ROBINSON: Why?

…..

JACOBSON: I guess I can’t answer that at this point, at this time.

ROBINSON: Did you ever talk with Pat Spencer about the “needs improvement” rating?

JACOBSON: No. Not other than having her review my draft of the comments.

ROBINSON: Have you ever seen a professor denied tenure because he received a “needs improvement” in one area?

JACOBSON: No. Not in my experience.

Honest evaluations:

ROBINSON: As you sit here today, are you aware that President Mathur has recommended Professor Kaufmann not be granted tenure based on the “needs improvement” rating you gave him?

JACOBSON: No.

ROBINSON: If you had never seen the letter of reprimand, would you have given him a “needs improvement” in any area?

JACOBSON: No.

ROBINSON: Have you ever discussed with president Mathur whether or not Professor Kaufmann would get tenure…?

JACOBSON: I think there’s been some discussion, but I’ve never gotten any kind of an answer. I did share with President Mathur that I felt [Jeff] was an excellent instructor, and in terms of the classroom, he performed very well.

ROBINSON: Would you recommend him for tenure?

JACOBSON: He knew that at the outset. I explained to him that I was doing the evaluation. It would reflect what I had seen last year—it would reflect what I had seen this year. But based on last year, my experience in observing him last year and my written evaluation, he did an excellent job last year in the classroom.

ROBINSON: Did he do an excellent job this year in the classroom?

JACOBSON: His performance was excellent.

ROBINSON: What did president Mathur say when you told him that?

JACOBSON: He accepted that just fine. I said, “I have to do an honest evaluation,” and he said, “That’s what you should do.”

ROBINSON: Why was it a question that you had to do an honest evaluation? Don’t you do an honest evaluation every time?

JACOBSON: That’s part of my personal integrity.

ROBINSON: Did he ask you to do something other than an honest evaluation?

JACOBSON: No.

…..

ROBINSON: Are you concerned whether Jeff gets tenure or not?

JACOBSON: Based on his classroom performance—I would like to see him get tenure based on his classroom performance.

ROBINSON: His classroom performance alone?

JACOBSON: But the total—I guess you have to say that a faculty member’s functions are in the classroom and outside of the classroom, in that they generally—a faculty member could be involved in other extracurricular activities on campus. It’s cumulative in terms of how tenure is awarded.

…..

Balancing act:

ROBINSON: There are a number of [very positive] things you’ve recounted here in your comments in the evaluation. I’m wondering, in your view, does the alleged violation of BP1500 outweigh these other attributes that you’ve noted in the evaluation?

Mr. Wilion: are you asking for a personal opinion?

Ms. Robinson: I’m asking for her professional opinion as [Jeff’s] dean and as a member of the—

Mr. Wilion: I object on the basis it’s outside the scope of her authority. She’s not a member of the board of trustees. She’s set forth her evaluation. It sets forth an excellent evaluation. She sets forth the reasons for her evaluation, et cetera. Therefore, I would object.

Ms. Sobel: We would object [to your characterization] that it’s an excellent evaluation…in every respect. Please go on.

[Ms. Robinson repeats her question.]

Mr. Wilion: Same objection. Lack of foundation, lack of authority, calls for speculation.

ROBINSON: You can answer.

JACOBSON: I guess I don’t feel—based on what he is saying, I don’t know that I have the authority to make that statement.

ROBINSON: You do.

JACOBSON: Well, probably—considering there is one negative, I would probably say that it doesn’t weigh—I mean, it’s a very important thing because I think it’s extremely important to follow college policies and procedures. Otherwise, having read that letter of reprimand, I would never have indicated this “needs improvement” here, if it hadn’t concerned me. And I felt that I had to be honest in the evaluation.

            But the way you’ve stated it, I mean, there’s one statement as opposed to a number of others very—I think very very—positive statements, I think, in the evaluation.

ROBINSON: And you don’t know any other policy that he’s violated?

JACOBSON: I would probably say it doesn’t weigh that much compared to a lot of the positives. But I’m not the person that grants tenure.

Ms. Robinson: I think we’ve finished up here. Thank you very much, Dean Jacobson.