DOT ONE There are times when you have to obey a call which is the highest of all, i.e. the voice of conscience even though such obedience may cost many a bitter tear, and even more, separation from friends, from family, from the state, to which you may belong, from all that you have held as dear as life itself. For this obedience is the law of our being.
~ Mahatma Gandhi
CONNECT THE DOTS: YOU DECIDE
In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.
Conspiracy to defraud was defined in Scott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1974] UKHL 4; [1975] AC 819, 839,[3] per Viscount Dilhorne:
“to defraud” ordinarily means … to deprive a person dishonestly of something which is his or of something to which he is or would or might but for the perpetration of the fraud be entitled.
“….an agreement by two or more [persons] by dishonesty to deprive a person of something which is his or to which he is or would be or might be entitled [or] an agreement by two or more by dishonesty to injure some proprietary right of his suffices to constitute the offence….”
Perjury as a crime is also Obstruction of Justice per se. If in concert with others, who either suborn or fail to report perjury, it represents Conspiracy Against Rights also per se. Compound and related felonies are separate and call for separate and cumulative penalties without “double jeopardy.” These crimes also embody and reveal mens rea and agenda in that there is no need to lie about or commit perjury if one believes a statement to be true and one’s cause to be sound and legal; just as there is no need to cover-up what one truly believes to be clean, only what one knows to be dirty and with serious consequences if discovered. Cover-ups and repression against whistle-blowers reveal consciousness of guilt as well as intent.
Those who commit perjury exhibit the traits of a psychopath:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist; see also: https://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/review-of-snakes-in-suits-when-psychopaths-go-to-work-by-paul-babiak-and-robert-hare/
Interpersonal Affective: Superficiality; Grandiosity; Pathological Mendacity; Cunning/Manipulative; Lack of Remorse or Guilt; Shallow Affect; Callousness; Failure to Accept Responsibility; Lifestyle/Antisocial: Constant Need for Stimulation/Easily bored; Parasitic Life-style; Lack of behavioral Control; Lack of Realistic Long-term Goals; Impulsiveness; Irresponsibility; Juvenile Delinquency; Early Behavioral Problems; Revocation of Conditional Release; Criminal Versatility; Factor Three: Sexual Promiscuity; Many Short-term Relationships; Acquired Behavioral Sociopathy (reliance on sociological strategies and tricks to deceive); Plus: Malignant Narcissism; Predation;
This type of person who would commit Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and other crimes, even if contemptuous of a justice system that is often a fraud, sham and worse, and delivers more injustice than justice, is the type that is full of narcissism, grandiosity, predatory and calculating intentions and figures he or she is above any law even the very same laws he or she will no doubt invoke for his or her own protection. that is a typical psychopath and the business, academic, political, military and entertainment worlds are full of them.
A Conspiracy Case is put together via five basic interrelated and simultaneous dimensions or angles of attack from the macro to the micro and back. It is like putting together a potentially complicated mosaic and without the final product or picture to guide you, initially at least, as to what pieces of the overall mosaic go where and with what other pieces of what colors. For those who simply, summarily and arrogantly dismiss any notions of conspiracies
1) Surveillance (players, connections, means of communication, resources, constraints, strengths, weaknesses, hierarchies, tactics, signals; ways in etc);
2) Calculated Pressures from outside, capitalizing on tensions and rivalries inside to reveal vulnerabilities, tactics, key players, potential rollovers, networks etc.
3) Infiltration, Information and Disinformation, seeking and turning disaffected and highly vulnerable insiders;
4) Recognizing, Assessing, Prioritizing, Categorizing and Collecting key “dots”
5) Connecting dots, patterns of dots and dot connections, over time, space and relevant law.
WHEN I WAS IN INDIA, I FOUND MANY LESSONS IN FIGHTS BETWEEN THE MONGOOSE VS COBRA:
MONGOOSE VERSUS BLACK MAMBA
Robert Philip Hanssen (born April 18, 1944) is an American former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent who spied for Soviet and Russian intelligence services against the United States for 22 years from 1979 to 2001. He is serving a life sentence at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado.
Hanssen was arrested on February 18, 2001 at Foxstone Park[2] near his home in Vienna, Virginia, and was charged with selling American secrets to the USSR and subsequently Russia for more than US$1.4 million in cash and diamonds over a 22-year period.[3] On July 6, 2001, he pleaded guilty to 13 counts of espionage in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.[4][5] He was then sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. His activities have been described by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Commission for the Review of FBI Security Programs as “possibly the worst intelligence disaster in U.S. history.”[6]
A LESSON AND SOME IRONY
NOTE: AS A PIECE OF PURE IRONY: HANSSEN SPIED FOR THE KGB AND LATER SVR FOR SOME 22 YEARS WHILE HIGH-UP IN FBI COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE. BUT NEITHER THE KGB NOR SVR KNEW WHO HE WAS BECAUSE OF ELABORATE TRADE-CRAFT. HE WAS FINALLY DISCOVERED AFTER THE FALL OF THE USSR WHEN IN RUSSIAN ARCHIVES, THERE WAS A BAG USED FOR DOCUMENTS WITH HIS FINGER PRINT ON IT. BUT IT WAS A TAPE RECORDING THAT GOT HIM ON WHICH HE GAVE HIS SIGNATURE MANTRA (A TRUE STATEMENT) LATER IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZED BY HIS FORMER PARTNER:
THE KGB HAS POLICIES.
THEY FOLLOW THEM RELIGIOUSLY.
POLICIES [and intentions] CREATE CONSTRAINTS.
CONSTRAINTS CAUSE PATTERNS IN ACTIVITIES.
PATTERNS CAN BE NOTICED.
REAL PEOPLE DEPRIVED AND HURT IN REAL WAYS:
DOT 3
DOT 4
On 18 USC Article I Chapter 13, Parts 241 and 242 Conspiracy Against Rights
DOT 5
Documents Submitted to Thurston County Superior Court
DOT 6
Reporting Crimes to Clark County Sheriff’s Office
DOT 7
Reporting Felony Crimes to Clark County Prosecutors
DOT 8
An Open Letter to All my Students
DOT 9
STATEMENT OF DUTY TO STUDENTS
DOT 10
“ First-rate seeks to hire first-rate because part of the substance of first-rate, is in recognizing, valuing and seeking, rather than fearing, or envying or feeling threatened by, first-rate in others. Second-rate seeks and hires third and fourth-rate so that it looks good in comparison; third and fourth-rate goes on to seek fifth and sixth-rate so they look good; and mediocrity metastasizes like a cancer.” (Homer H. Craven Jr. (1925-1991)
DOT 11
From a former student who signed up to be taught specifically by me and who was induced to do so as my name was still listed on the course schedule even during and after while my replacements were lined up which was BEFORE I and my union representatives were notified of possible pending discipline of one year off without pay. This was all BEFORE the scheduled one-hour hearing on September 26th, 2011, the first day of classes, to determine, the question that clearly had been answered prior to the hearing: if or if not I would be off for one year without pay starting in Winter 2012 (if the question was open pending my responses, then why take me out of the classroom for Fall 2011, depriving students of the most senior and experienced teacher of economics for whom many had signed up specifically and/or leave my name on the course schedule while students were still registering?)
DOT 12
At Clark College, it is like Alice in Wonderland:
From Lewis Carroll’s Alice Through the Looking Glass:
Then the White Rabbit brings in a letter, which serves as evidence. The letter contains a verse, written in someone else’s handwriting, which clears up nothing at all. However, the King thinks that it is very important but Alice corrects him and explains the verse proves nothing. Eventually the King asks the jury for the third time to consider a verdict, and now the Queen contradicts him and says that there should be a sentence first and a verdict afterwards.”
DOT 13
From: michael.
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 12:10 PM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: Macro Economics
Hi, my name is Michael . I took your micro economics class last spring quarter. I was registered for your macro economics class this fall, but I recently checked my schedule and I’ve been switched to a guy named Kraley. This isn’t okay with me, I was wondering if there was a reason, that you knew about, why I was transferred. It also could have been a glitch in the system, and I could still be registered for your class. It’s unlikely though, and I would really like to take your class, not Kraley’s class. I left you a message on your answering machine, but you may not get it until Monday. I will try to catch you on Monday, and hopefully we can figure this out.
-Michael
From: “James Craven”
To: “michael
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 5:42:24 PM
Subject: FW: Macro Economics
Hi Michael,
Please reply to me at this address not at Clark College as I am under suspension with pay until next quarter and then off for one year without pay. I am charged with hostile, threatening and disrespectful speech. The problem is no complaint has been filed. Further, this time they kept my name on the schedule to draw in students like you when they had already told me I will not be teaching, and, and this is the good part, BEFORE my hearing this Monday, September 26th, 2011 that is supposed to be about the very question of if or if not I am guilty and, if so, what discipline do I deserve (already set).
The last time I got two quarters off for the same thing (felony truth telling and refusal to turn a blind eye to or participate in any corruption) that time they took my name off the schedule and replaced it with replacement names, again BEFORE the one Laudermill hearing I got to determine, again, if or if not I was guilty.
What was I protesting? Well we have a bunch of adjuncts hired around me as department head of economics and the only one qualified to vet teachers for competence in economics and the teaching of it (John Fite, the only other full-time tenured economist got his masters from Georgetown in the early 1970s, never once worked as an economist, took no additional courses, never taught prior to coming to Clark) and I do not know what most of them look like and have never spoken to the others—and I am department head.
I am sending you something that tells the whole story or a lot of it. Please tell as many students as possible that they need to investigate if they are being ripped off and in this case, as they did with you, they kept my name on the schedule (after screwing up last time and taking it off before the hearing) to draw in students not caring one bit who was teaching and how and by whom had the teachers been vetted.
I have my hearing on Monday at 1 pm and it will be taped plus all of this has been turned over to the attorney general. Please keep these messages secure but I owe you and the other students an explanation and I will be writing an open letter to the students. See next messages coming for what is going on.
take care,
Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 06:14:13 +0000
From: michael
To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Macro Economics
Oh my Gosh! This is some crazy stuff! Although, I can’t say I’m surprised. You never hold back when it comes to speak the TRUTH! That’s what I loved about your class. I will mention this to as many of the students I know about from your previous classes as I can. Anything I can do to help. As far as Clark lying to me about who my professor for Economics would be, I feel very ripped off, and wish there was something I could do. I wish you the best of luck on your hearing, and I hope that no injustice is found so that you can continue to teach in the incredible way that you do! I thoroughly enjoyed your micro econ class. You truly are a fantastic teacher!
-Michael
(P.S. if anything I’ve said in my emails thus far can help you in any way, feel free to use them!)
And this was my response to Michael’s response:
Michael,
Thanks for the note and I must and will confess my own guilt in some of this: I trusted and did not vet (in most cases not allowed to but in two or more cases they were “colleagues” whom were already established and subject to other forms of assessment) but I have not even met and not vetted Baily, Newman, Bayer, Foreman; I never seen John Fite teach one class but he sat through a whole course of mine; Adnan Hamideh has an MBA and is not qualified to teach upper-level economics; I have met Atkinson but have not vetted her except in a job interview for full-time which she did not get; Shon Kraley has been vetted by me. Mr. McCay was hired against my protest, without being vetted by me (I will post ALL my exchanges with him) and not vetted or qualified, in my professional opinion, to be teaching Economic Geography 101. And I am head of economics (see attached on how they once promoted me). What is wrong with that picture? And you can see from some of the documents that I sent that I have been protesting this and other forms of corruption for a long time.
One thing all of you can do is go to the media…and the students have a right to know all of this as I am scheduled for discipline to commence for one year off without pay, next quarter so there was no reason to take me out of the classroom other than they were providing work, with my classes, for these adjuncts hired through the back door with no verification of credentials or vetting for competence by me and I was available. You can let people know who are in my classes now, particularly Economic Geography, what has gone on, that there are teachers unvetted, and find out how many signed up specifically for my classes. I am in a position of conscience, like a cook ordered to serve and cover-up the serving of uninspected meat and I have evidence some of the clients have been poisoned and harmed already. Students, even the ones who hate me, are not commodities, or numbers or “FTEs (full time enrollments) or revenue generators, but are, for me, real feeling, complex human beings trusting me and the college to not only be on our game but to care for them as real people with real needs.
thanks for everything and your kind thoughts and words. That is why I became a teacher.
Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
DOT 14
From: Kraley, Shon
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:32 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: RE: Grugman Wells Text
Hi Jim.
It looks like Atkinson has been given full time status for at least Fall term, while I have not. In fact, Bayer has more credits than I do. If there is anything you can do with the new dean, I would very much appreciate it.
Thank you.
Shon
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 11:51 AM
To: Kraley, Shon
Cc: Sullivan, Kimberly; Rourk, Darcy
Subject: RE: Grugman Wells Text
Hi Shon,
Thanks for the note and do you see any problem in that I as head of the department was told nothing about any of this? I am referring this to personnel and the union as I had no idea of any of your situation.
Yes, I not only will try to do something about this but I am doing something about this on the legal front and I do not mean just civil law. This is outrageous and a total contempt and disservice to the students. Mr. Bayer, who once told John Fite “I do not want anything to do with that Indian guy”, who does not have even a bachelor’s degree in economics, I have never met, along with Mr. Newman, Ms Foreman, Mr. Bailey. This is an agency of the Government of the State of Washington, it is not the Rotary, a country club, a favor factory or recruiting agency for backroom cults and cabals, and it is a crime, called Trading in Public Employment and Conspiracy to trade in Public Employment, to use public resources and jobs as favors or as rewards for services rendered–e.g. filing complaints against a targeted person–for friendships, for relatives, or for networking or any personal advantages.
There is one and only one person qualified to vet new adjuncts and that is me–not John Fite whose MA in Economics is from the early 1970s and who never worked as an economist, never taught economics prior to coming to Clark College, and never published anything in economics or worked with the new changes in economic theory and pedagogy in the over thirty years that there have been changes in economics. John, according to his own words, found the one person who would give him credit for the teaching that goes on in a cockpit in the military and in commercial aviation; but with the understanding that there was a whole lot he had missed in the over thirty years since his Masters degree in Economics and that I would mentor him and that he understood how little he knew and how inexperienced he was as an economist and teacher of economics. Further, if we get litigation by students who feel that they were shortchanged and not handed fully-qualified teachers (Econ 201 and 202 are universal transfer courses that are mandated to have some standardization and comparable content and pedagogy for transferability), imagine how all of this will play in a court of law when it comes out that we have had a bunch of adjuncts hired and allowed to teach, hired outside of established procedures for hiring and documentation of credentials and experience without ever having even met the head of economics and at the time in some cases, the division chair at the time.
Further, at my arbitration hearing, both Marcia Roi and Lynn Davidson swore, under penalty of perjury, that Bob Knight said to them “We will have no morale problem here when we get rid of Professor Craven” whereas Bob Knight swore under penalty of perjury at my Employment Security Department appeal hearing, that he never made such a statement to them, and, that when asked about this alleged statement, in two separate hearings, with one of the women present who made the allegation about his statement present, refused to deny it on record only because, he testified, he was there to ask not answer questions. So someone, acting in their official capacity, in official government proceedings, committed perjury. All of that will be explored in Thurston County Superior Court and in other venues with other agencies of the Washington State and Federal Governments. Perjury is very serious business as in Illinois, 13 people on death row, one 45 minutes away from execution, all found later to be absolutely innocent, wound up on death row due to perjury and prosecutorial misconduct. Someone who commits perjury, especially in conjunction with official duties in public employment, is not only attempting to obstruct justice but to steal it.
Imagine, in what country, is it possible for someone to be charged with offenses and then investigated and found guilty by those who made the charges and/or recruited others to make them; then a verdict is given, arrangements are made to hire replacements, the course schedule is changed with my name deleted from my courses for which many students signed up specifically for me as a teacher, all PRIOR to the one Laudermill hearing, [conducted by those who charged me] that I got, to determine if I would or would not be teaching; then the sentence of 108 days off without pay immediately imposed prior to any pending appeal hearings (it was clear how they would go) and PRIOR to arbitration (how could I and my family have been “made whole” if we had won the arbitration?). It is also a crime to make false statements while on the job in public employment.
Further, you are the only adjunct fully and properly vetted by me and even John Fite has never been fully vetted as I have never seen him teach whereas he has seen me teach a whole course and I have seen you teach and have vetted you twice. I was not even allowed on campus to vote in person on his tenure, and I came very close to voting no on his tenure out of professional responsibility (I voted yes because he was in a situation not under his control). Further, Adnan, in the presence of John Fite and Gerry Smith, said to all of us “You know it is ‘ironic’ [not a word I would use] that the areas in which I am teaching–statistics, accounting and economics–are the subjects I had the least interest in and barely passed with Cs in my MBA program”. Had I known that long ago I would have opposed and will oppose his teaching any economics at any level as this is the kind of statement and reflects an attitude that in my opinion no real educator or someone worthy of being called an educator.
As my father used to say: “Who is it that cares nothing about formal credentials? Those who do not have them; but they do care about credentials of providers when THEY are the demanders of services.”
I do not want to cause you any hardships more than you and your family have suffered, but this has to go to personnel, to the union and to the new Dean. Transparency is coming to Clark College I promise you and this will all be made public as well as the students have rights to critical information in their own market-based decisions and with the scarce resources that many have to deal with.
take care,
Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
DOT 15
When people are drawn in for a specific product or service by advertising or posted schedules and have arranged their lives and schedules accordingly, that the vendor had no intention of delivering and was even taking active steps to ensure that that product or service would not be delivered, that is pure bait and switch fraud. If it involves a simple product like a car for which another replacement may be found at another place, that is not like an educational opportunity. When students are handed unvetted teachers, or perhaps some hired through the backdoor as a result of cronyism and nepotism, not only do students lose in terms of inadequate teaching and not getting what they paid for and need for their own lives and success, but they lose all the good that they could have gained if the vetted and credentialed teacher, for which many signed up specifically had been available.
Bait-and-switch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud, most commonly used in retail sales but also applicable to other contexts. First, customers are “baited” by advertising for a product or service at a low price; second, the customers discover that the advertised good is not available and are “switched” to a costlier product.
RCW 19.230.340
Prohibited practices.
It is a violation of this chapter for any licensee, executive officer, responsible individual, or other person subject to this chapter in connection with the provision of money services to:
(1) Directly or indirectly employ any scheme, device, or artifice to defraud or mislead any person, including but not limited to engaging in bait and switch advertising or sales practices;
(2) Directly or indirectly engage in any unfair or deceptive act or practice toward any person, including but not limited to any false or deceptive statement about fees or other terms of a money transmission or currency exchange;
(3) Directly or indirectly obtain property by fraud or misrepresentation;
(4) Knowingly make, publish, or disseminate any false, deceptive, or misleading information in the provision of money services;
(5) Knowingly receive or take possession for personal use of any property of any money services business, other than in payment for services rendered, and with intent to defraud, omit to make, or cause or direct to omit to make, a full and true entry thereof in the books and accounts of the business;
(6) Make or concur in making any false entry, or omit or concur in omitting any material entry, in the books or accounts of the business;
(7) Knowingly make or publish to the director or director’s designee, or concur in making or publishing to the director or director’s designee any written report, exhibit, or statement of its affairs or pecuniary condition containing any material statement which is false, or omit or concur in omitting any statement required by law to be contained therein; or
(8) Fail to make any report or statement lawfully required by the director or other public official.
[2003 c 287 § 36.]
DOT 16
DOES CLARK COLLEGE NEED OR DESERVE AN APPARENT PERJURER (ACCORDING TO SWORN TESTIMONIES OF LYNN DAVIDSON AND MARCIA ROI OF THE WEA/AHE)–AND MORE–AS PRESIDENT OF CLARK COLLEGE?
GRIEVANCE ONE HEARING WITH WEA REPS AND HR DIRECTOR DARCY ROURK
Recorded Audio Dec-22-2012 12-35-03 PM
GRIEVANCE HEARING II WITH KNIGHT, COOK, BOWERS DECEMBER 18, 2012
GRIEVANCE II DEC 28, 2012
“FINDING” BY CLARK COLLEGE PRESIDENT ROBERT KNIGHT OF THE SUBJECT OF THESE HEARINGS I AND II
FROM A SWORN BRIEF SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION BY LISA LEWISON OF THE WEA:
JAMES CRAVEN Vs. Clark College Grievant’s Closing Argument
Lisa Lewison hereby submits her Closing Arguments on behalf of James Craven:
I. INTRODUCTION
On Thursday, November 3, 2010 and Friday, November 4, 2010, an arbitration took place on the Clark College Campus in Vancouver, Washington, involving Clark College (hereinafter “the College”) and the Clark College Association of Higher Education (hereinafter “the Association”).
II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The Association and the College stipulated to the following issue statement:
“Did Clark College have just cause to impose a 108-day (2-term) suspension to Professor Craven? If no, what is the appropriate remedy?”
“WEA-Riverside Director Lynn Davidson and AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi testified to a labor management meeting they attended with President Bob Knight and Vice President Rassoul Dastmozd on Friday, November 9, 2007. AHE President Roi testified she told President Knight there was a “…morale problem on the campus.” President Knight responded “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we get rid of Professor Craven.” This was never refuted by management in the hearing. Ms. Davidson testified she was “shocked” President Bob Knight would say something like this to union representatives, and based on her expertise was troubled because his statements showed the union “should expect animosity by the President and the College in future dealings” related to Mr. Craven.
This testimony of Dr. Marcia Roi and Ms. Lynn Davidson, at the arbitration hearing subsequent to the ESD appeal hearing with ALJ Knutson, directly contradicts the sworn testimony of President Knight that he never made nor would ever make the statement “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we ‘get rid’ of Professor Craven”
DOT 17
VERSUS THIS SWORN TESTIMONY OF CLARK COLLEGE PRESIDENT ROBERT KNIGHT:
AND:
DOT 18
Mr. Craven suffered a heart attack and from September 2008, and was on medical leave until April, 2009. While on leave, Ted Kotsakis, Dean of Business and Technology, initiated a Division Chair election to remove Professor Craven from the position of Division Chair, which he had held since 2001 and which he was not due to leave until September 2009.
The Collective Bargaining Agreement (Article III. Personnel, I.) Division Chairs provides clear and unambiguous language delineating the process by which a Division Chair is elected. Mr. Kotsakis, contrary to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, inserted himself in the Division Chair election process which resulted in Mr. Craven losing the Division Chair position, wages, and associated benefits. As a result, Professor Adnan Hamideh was elected Division Chair.
In February 2009 Mr. Craven and Mr. Hamideh exchanged emails on College email related to the responsibilities of Division Chair. Professor Craven received a letter from Mr. Kotsakis on February 17, 2009, notifying him that his email dated February 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM “has been brought to my attention as being threatening, harassing, and abusive” and notifying him that upon his return to work he would be given the opportunity to respond to all concerns raised by this investigation. In fact, as the evidence established, the words threatening, harassing, and abusive were the words of Mr. Kotsakis and others in the administration.
AND:
DOT 19
Mr. Craven received a letter from Katrina Golder, Vice President of Human Resources, on April 27, 2009, referencing e-mail sent on February 6, February 8, and April 20th, 2009. Ms. Golder informed Mr. Craven, “This is to advise you that the College has received a complaint from Adnan Hamideh regarding the emails of April 20, February 6 and February 8, 2009;” the College enclosed copies of the referenced emails and the April 20th complaint, as attachments.
Clearly the College failed to comply with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (Article III. Personnel, A. #5) which states “Any complaint not called to the attention of the faculty member within ten (10) contracted days of notice to the College, may not be used as the basis for any disciplinary action against a faculty member.” Prior to April 27, 2009, Mr. Craven had received no communication from the College that there was any concern regarding a February 8, 2009 email.
The April 27th, 2009 letter said in part, “this is to advise you that the College has received a complaint from Adnan Hamideh regarding the emails of April 20th, February 6 and February 8, 2009.” This was shown to be untrue through the cross-examination of Mr. Hamideh and Ms. Golder. No complaint was filed regarding the February 6th or 8th emails; the only complaint filed was in regard to an April 20th email sent from Mr. Craven to Mr. Hamideh.
Mr. Craven sent an email on April 20, 2009 to Mr. Hamideh, the members of his Division, AHE President Dr. Marcia Roi, and WEA UniServ Director, Lynn Davidson. In this email Mr. Craven expressed displeasure regarding what he viewed as violations to the Collective Bargaining Agreement related to seniority rights and assignment of classes. Mr. Craven testified he used a metaphor in his email which contained the word Palestinian, referring to behavior, not to a specific individual. Professor Gene Johnson and Professor Gerard Smith both testified to their knowledge of Mr. Craven’s use of metaphors in writing and in speech.
AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi, sent an email to all AHE Faculty and Adjuncts on the AHE union list on March 18, 2009. President Roi sent the email specifically on a list set up by the College for union business. Ms. Roi, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Craven all testified to receiving this union communication on the union list. Phil Sheehan, Director of Information and Technology Services, testified to the existence, creation, and purpose of this list, and that this list, indeed, “was specifically meant for union business.”
The title of President Roi’s email was P.S. Academic Freedom and Tenure. Ms. Roi testified she sent the email because there were a lot of rumors and fear on the campus about the denial of tenure of faculty, and that multiple faculty had responded to her email, including Mr. Craven.
AND:
DOT 20
ANIMUS
Mr. Craven attended President Bob Knight’s “Open Public Dialogue” on the campus on October 15, 2007. According to Mr. Craven and Ms. Wheeler’s testimony, because the event was publicized as an “open public dialogue” individuals attended with the assumption it was safe and appropriate to ask questions of President Bob Knight. Mr. Craven testified he asked the President a question about an editorial in the Columbian newspaper, which referred to “hush money” the College paid in recent settlements. Mr Craven asked the president how did he know if public monies had or had not been used as “hush money” to prevent going to trial where possible crimes might be discovered. Mr. Craven reported the President became “visibly angry” with him and his questioning. Ms. Wheeler testified Mr. Knight responded to Mr. Craven, stating “I am worried about your negative attitude and I think you have an anger problem.” Mr. Knight told Mr. Craven “…he was tired of Jim trying to harass people and he was not going to allow him to monopolize this open dialogue and if Jim wanted to communicate, it should be outside of the public forum.” Ms. Wheeler testified “President Knight was agitated and visibly upset” by Mr. Craven’s questions.
Mr. Craven testified he responded to the President, informing him he had sent emails to him on numerous occasions, but he never received a response. Ms. Wheeler testified the President responded “Jim, when I get an email from you I just hit delete.” Mr. Craven testified he responded to the President, reminding him “I am a Division Chair of multiple departments of the College, and I have the right and duty to speak, ask questions, and receive a response.” Mr. Craven was asked to recall how the President’s comment impacted him, and testified “The Presidents response was a summary censorship of my work and that I have nothing of value to say.”
Ms. Wheeler testified nearly 60-100 individuals attended to the forum, and the Presidents tone, body language, and demeanor was visibly different towards Mr. Craven as compared to others who asked questions at the dialogue. Ms. Wheeler, when asked to describe Mr. Knight’s behavior toward Mr. Craven relayed a story about her son who lives and works in Japan, and an incident in which her son, when being introduced in front of a large audience, forgot to bow to one of the individuals on the panel. Ms. Wheeler explained that her son’s boss approached him privately, after the assembly, and admonished him for the cultural gaff in forgetting to bow to one of the panelists. The boss explained to her son that in forgetting to bow he showed disrespect and embarrassed him, however, he waited to address this with him in private, as he did not want him to lose face. Ms. Wheeler relayed this story, as she believed Mr. Knight did not show equal respect to Mr. Craven, and made him “lose face” in the large audience.
Ms. Wheeler and Mr. Craven testified Mr. Craven’s vocal tone, body language, and demeanor were normal and appropriate throughout the dialogue.
WEA-Riverside Director Lynn Davidson and AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi testified to a labor management meeting they attended with President Bob Knight and Vice President Rassoul Dastmozd on Friday, November 9, 2007. AHE President Roi testified she told President Knight there was a “…morale problem on the campus.” President Knight responded “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we get rid of Professor Craven.” This was never refuted by management in the hearing. Ms. Davidson testified she was “shocked” President Bob Knight would say something like this to union representatives, and based on her expertise was troubled because his statements showed the union “should expect animosity by the President and the College in future dealings” related to Mr. Craven. This testimony of Dr. Marcia Roi and Ms. Lynn Davidson, at the arbitration hearing subsequent to the ESD appeal hearing with ALJ Knutson, directly contradicts the sworn testimony of President Knight that he never made nor would make the statement “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we ‘get rid’ of Professor Craven” [is “when we ‘get rid of’ Professor Craven an example of really hostile, threatening, abusive speech and writing especially in the context of someone with known and serious medical disabilities?]
DOT 21
From: Kotsakis, Ted
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:12 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Jim Craven & the Presidents Forum
I have a technical/procedural question. If I am the accuser as it relates to Jim’s behavior in the President’s Forum can I be the one that investigates this incident which could lead to discipline? It seems to me this could be an area that could be questioned. I want this to be as clean as possible on this. If I were investigating someone else’s claim against Jim that seems appropriate.
Your thoughts?
From: Golder, Katrina
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:19 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Jim Craven & the Presidents Forum
I’m not sure it is an investigation per se. It is a supervisor following up with an employee whose behavior you observed to be inappropriate.
From: Kotsakis, Ted Wed 11/14/2007 7:53 AM
To: Golder, Katrina
RE: Jim Craven & the Presidents Forum
I think we have to be squeaky clean here. Jim has already raised the question of how I can be the accuser, judge, and jury. My asking him questions about the meeting will more than likely lead to discipline in some form or another. Let’s not kid ourselves. We all know the behavior he exhibited was unacceptable.
DOT 22
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
Back To Top
________________________________________
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
DOT 23
Ms. Davidson was referred to a letter from Mr. Kotsakis to Mr. Craven, and confirmed she had knowledge of this letter and the attachments, as she was the UniServ Director at the time representing Mr. Craven, and had been cc’d on all correspondence. Ms. Davidson testified Mr. Kotsaksi used the words “threatening, harassing, and abusive” over and over again to describe Mr. Craven and his alleged actions. Once again, it is critical to point out that this was never refuted by the College through testimony or evidence at the hearing. Ms. Davidson was questioned whether she was aware of the contents of the attachments, and she testified they were emails between Mr. Craven, Mr. Hamideh, and department members, sent because “Jim felt the Department Chair had been illegally taken from him and posed a financial hardship for him.”
Ms. Davidson was directed to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and asked if she could speak to the intent of the agreement, and testified, “I helped bargain it, so I can speak to the intent.” Ms. Davidson was directed to Article III. Personnel, I. Division Chairs, and was asked if there was any section of the language which gave the Dean or Management the authority to conduct Division Chair/Department Head Elections. Ms. Davidson testified “No.” Ms. Davidson was asked if she was aware of what the mandatory subjects of bargaining are in Washington State. Ms. Davidson testified “Wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.” Ms. Davidson was asked if anything in the attachments had to do with wages, hours, terms, and conditions of employment. Ms. Davidson testified “Yes, wages and hours of employment.” Ms. Davidson was asked why she was included on these emails between Mr. Craven, Mr. Hamideh, department members, and AHE President Dr. Marcia Roi. Ms. Davidson testified “I had instructed him (Mr. Craven) to cc me on anything that was a union issue. This was, and he included me. I got these because he (Mr. Craven) did not get Department Chair and the fiscal impact to him.” Ms. Davidson was asked if College had received a complaint from Mr. Hamideh regarding the February 6, February 8, and April 20, 2009 emails. Ms. Davidson testified they did not. She continued that the College did not receive a complaint that the February 6, 8, and April 20, 2009 emails were “threatening, harassing and abusive.” The only complaint received was from Mr. Hamideh, in reference to an April 20, 2009 email. In re-direct Ms. Davidson was asked if the College had made a request to bargain new language related to Division Chair/Department Head elections while the term of the contract was closed. Ms. Davidson testified this was not the case.
Madame Arbitrator, the College, through its witnesses Mr. Hamideh and Mr. Kotsatkis, would have you believe that the string of emails between Mr. Craven, Mr. Hamideh, department members, the AHE President, and the WEA-Riverside UniServ Director were simply about a Palestinian cultural slur that was “threatening, harassing, and abusive “ aimed at Mr. Hamideh. In reality, testimony provided by Ms. Davidson, Mr. Hamideh, and Mr. Craven ultimately prove the context and content of the emails were discussions stemming from an illegal Division Chair election, orchestrated by Mr. Kotsakis and contrary to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which resulted in financial and professional loss to Mr. Craven. Mr. Craven testified he used a metaphor, which contain the word Palestinian, decrying an illegal election which left him financially harmed. Mr. Kotsakis confirmed in his testimony that it was he who encouraged the election of a new Division Chair while Mr. Craven was on approved medical leave.
Mr. Johnson was asked what was the purpose of the AHE union list, and testified “It is for internal communication for union members….The College should not be able to discipline employees for this. It is union busting.” Mr. Johnson affirmed the list was similar to an electronic union meeting, and testified:
“Yes, just like how e-learning works well for everyone to have their say. I didn’t know it (the union list) would be censored. It should send a chill up everyone’s spine. Union meetings are for union members to discuss, debate, and vote on whatever they want.”
Mr. Johnson was asked if he had received the P.S. Academic Freedom and Tenure email sent March 20, 2009. Mr. Johnson indicated he had, as AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi and Kim Sullivan had sent it on the union list to all union members. Mr. Johnson testified Kim Sullivan was asking the union members to show up at the Board of Trustee’s meeting to show solidarity based on the recent tenure denials, particularly that of Christina Kopinski, a Journalism Professor, and Advisor to the student newspaper, The Independent. There had been a concern about the College attempting to “…squash free speech.” Mr. Johnson was asked if he had any knowledge of any faculty member being disciplined for speech, and testified:
“No one has ever been disciplined for anything they have said on this list or even the faculty list until now. This is supposed to be a place of free speech, we now have the Nazis here.”
Mr. Johnson was asked if he had any knowledge whether Mr. Craven had been disciplined, and testified: “yes, he was disciplined; he was suspended for two quarters for what he said on the union list. The Administration despises him and want him gone because he questions their authority,” and offered the example of “President Knight, Vice President Dastmozd, and Dean Kotsaki keep walking by the witness area, just to intimidate us.”
Mr. Smith sent an email to Mr. Craven on Wednesday, November 4, 2009 which stated “…but many faculty can attest, and classified as well, that the administration at Clark despises you and wishes you gone, and will use whatever pretense to make that happen.” When asked about his statement, Mr. Smith testified from his experience he has witnessed “…institutional prejudice against the man (Professor Craven)” sharing an example how horrified he was when “Jim was on his death bed and receiving discipline letters (from the College) while in the hospital” in intensive care suffering from a massive heart attack.”
DOT 24
LISA LEWISON’S BRIEF CONTINUES:
Mr. Craven testified to and shared in an email with Ms. Lewison a poignant vignette from Alice in Wonderland that captured, disturbingly well, the College’s actions and approach to due process and the investigation of the allegations made of Mr. Craven. Chapter 12. Alice’s Evidence:
In the meantime Alice has grown so much that she upsets the jury box when she gets up. She hastily tries to put them back in their places. She tells the King that she knows nothing about the stolen arts, which he considers very important. The White Rabbit has to correct him again.
Then the King reads from his notebook, stating that all persons more than a mile high must leave the court. Alice refuses to leave because she suspects that he made up this rule, and the King tells the jury to consider their verdict.
Then the White Rabbit brings in a letter, which serves as evidence. The letter contains a verse, written in someone else’s handwriting, which clears up nothing at all. However, the King thinks that it is very important but Alice corrects him and explains the verse proves nothing. Eventually the King asks the jury for the third time to consider a verdict, and now the Queen contradicts him and says that there should be a sentence first and a verdict afterwards.”
Alice is a fictitious character, yet the reader can find both empathy and humor in her predicament. Sadly, for Mr. Craven, there is no humor to be found in the lack of due process he was afforded, causing him to suffer significant financial and professional injury due to the College’s flippant and cavalier managerial actions.”
Lisa Lewison WEA Representative
DOT25
PLEASE NOTE THESE CONNECTIONS AND DOCUMENTS AS YOU FOLLOW THIS NARRATIVE:
On December 18th 2012 the following exchange took place at the central office of Clark County Sheriff Gary Lucas. Please follow this story and supporting evidence as a narrative down the “Rabbit Hole” into the covert power structure of Vancouver or what some people call “Vantucky” (in reference to stereotypes about people from areas of eastern Kentucky where family trees allegedly do not branch a lot). This is to be followed with supporting evidence and background that flows with the narrative as it happened and is still happening.
Following this evolving narrative will help the readers see not only my supporting and still unrebutted evidence and reasoning for my allegations–and those of others–against the persons named, but also how, when, and why, that evidence came forth.
Please also listen to the tapes of the meetings referred to, and the issues and background discussed, that triggered our exchanges, myself and my friend Dean Lookinghawk, a witness to all of this and more, with Clark County Sheriff Gary Lucas, some Deputies of Sheriff Lucas’ Office, Corporal Chris Leblanc of the Vancouver Police and some past and present elements of law enforcement federal as well as State, Vancouver Police and Washington State Patrol.
This is not some story about me or any one person. Indeed the patterns shown clearly here in the evidence presented in the links, documents, recordings of meetings, applies to many others who are terrified of losing their jobs and lifetime investments of themselves in Clark College. We also have faculty who are beneficiaries of all this, scabs, as they have been hired through the backdoor, without being properly vetted by those qualified to do so, into jobs they would ordinarily have no chance of obtaining as their resumes are extremely thin, and thus undermine both the union and the Contract hence are scabs in the normal usage of the term. So they resort to what scabs and union-busters have always done: go along to get along with management and act as snitches, proxies and absorbers of deflected accountability, non-transparency and legal actions should the victims find the means to fight back.
But just as lies beget more lies, and cover-ups beget more cover-ups, so corruption begets more of itself as well as spinoff forms of corruption as each member of corrupt cabals has the inside information that can take down the others if he or she goes down and they all know it. So as Conspirator Tom Paine put it: “We must all hang together or surely, we shall all hang separately.”
That is what is going on right now at many institutions like Clark College. Those who do corruption for higher ups, in the hope they are buying some job security in times of the cutbacks ahead, do buy some security for awhile. All of a sudden courses are scheduled and allowed to run with 10 students in them when for everyone else 15 students is minimum. And if they do not have enough courses and students to be eligible for medical coverage that few adjuncts qualify for, and while others are losing theirs, these scabs get medical coverage, one-year contracts and even overtime for adjuncts which is unheard of. And adjuncts are even allowed to bump tenured professors, deny seniority and tenure rights if a compliant and captured union allows it.
But in the meantime, students, the community and the institution all suffer when they have been hijacked by a crew desperate to cover-up past and present crimes and to make those who can expose them go away, all with public resources, to keep jobs they are manifestly unfit to hold (as evidence of their fear and avoidance of the normal vetting all others must go through in public employment) and to build little empires that can only create and proliferate more corruption.
There are real people involved here and they are causing real damages. Clark College, and indeed Clark County are riddled with forms of corruption that must be rooted out and exposed as there is simply too much at stake. It is also the duty under law of every public employee to report crimes and forms of waste, fraud and conspiracy against rights when they encounter them without fear or favor and it is a matter of law that law enforcement accept, investigate or fail to investigate complaints without fear or favor and with proper authority for any action or position taken on complaints of alleged crimes submitted to law enforcement.
DOT 26
SOME BACK-STORY: THERE ALWAYS IS
In 1994 I first became a whistle-blower when a faculty member, still at Clark College, bragged to me, and it turned out later and not to my knowledge at the time, to another faculty member, that he was using the State computer system to collect and disseminate pornography, and that some of it likely involved child pornography (from his description of the materials sent and received that included, he said, a polaroid “beaver shot” from a 14 year old girl). My allegations, and those of the other whistle-blower, were sustained even though this person walked on the criminal charges (not those of the Washington Ethics Commission) because of problems with the warrant to go into his computer at Clark College and its execution. (see Watson case in documents referred to in links above and in the narrative to follow). This is what The Columbian reported found in his computer:
On November 13, 1996 The Columbian reported:
“Last November, A Washington State Patrol detective examined 200 disks containing 11,592 files, according to court records. Of those, the detective discovered 1,771 files containing sexually explicit materials.
In addition, a second detective discovered ‘several thousand adult pornographic pictures’ in other Watson computer files, according to a WSP investigative report. Among the images, reported detective Glen Hobbes were depictions of heterosexual and homosexual acts, as well as sex acts between people and animals.
Also seized were several undated e-mail messages between Watson’s college e-mail address and others. Said one, ‘Hi sexy, I was busy on the phone with a new ‘friend’ in Canada. Can’t call her very often, though to[sic] expensive!… By the way, have any sexy photos? He He…If so, send them to Dennis Watson (Or take some new poloroids…he he).”
Even Watson’s stipulation to some of the charges on a separate but related Washington State Ethics Commission ruling was disingenuous and showed he was given assistance in obstructing the investigation:
“I acknowledge that I acted in appropriately when I used the College computers to download pornography from the Internet sites and to transmit personal electronic messages of a sexual nature. Although the Instructor Computer Unser’s Committee (ICUC) did ask me at one time to determine how to access pornographic websites in order to determine how to limit student’s access to those sites [note this is a lie; he volunteered and this ICUC was set up after he had been indicted; see statement of Phil Sheehan below] I exceeded that authority when I downloaded, collected, and stored pornography in my computer in my office. In short, the downloading, collecting, and maintaining of pornography in my faculty office was not related to my official duties, and I should not have done it.”
Why the reference to the ICUC [Instructional Computer User’s Committee to which Watson was appointed AFTER discovery of the porn in his computer] when most of the porn collected was from a time period well before the ICUC was set up even and when the demonstration for which he “volunteered” (was he setting up a cover as the ethics complaint against him had already been filed well before the ICUC was even set up or this exercise occurred?) was on a one time basis. Phile Sheehan wrote:
“…I asked for a volunteer from the committee with experience using the www to conduct the demonstration. Dennis Watson agreed to conduct the demonstration… With the exception of the aforementioned demonstration, Prof. Watson was not asked or directed to continue the exploring and cataloging sexually explicit sites on the Internet by me or, to my knowledge, any other Clark College administrator. Dr. Johnson neither attended or sanctioned the demonstration.”
Response Craven: So why the reference to the ICUC in his statement to the Ethics Board when the ICUC one-time demonstration clearly had nothing to do with the offenses for which Watson was charged? Who gave Dr. Larry Easter the impression that Watson was working at the behest of the ICUC to “research pornography”? Does this irrelevant reference to the ICUC one-time demonstration (with no reference to the fact that he “volunteered”) not suggest that he “volunteered” for this assignment [and was assigned even with the charges against him] to give himself a potential cover for charges that had already been filed and about which the Administration had knowledge? (I alerted the WSP at the time that a potential cover was possibly being constructed and that short of a outright conviction, he would be returned to Clark because of his tight relationship with the Administration–one WSP Detective later said to me “You called it –that he would return–and I just didn’t want to believe it.”)
DOT 27
In 2011 from a public records request I found the following document in the personnel file of Dennis Watson never shown to me, without my knowledge or ability to rebut it, placed in his file in 1997 with the assistance of the WEA Uniserv Director (“my” union):
This letter was discovered on a public records request and never shown to me for rebuttal not put in my personnel file. This was material in reducing Watson's penalty for use of a government computer to collect and disseminate pornography which inlcluded polaroids showing private predatory behavior and not only commerical pornography” width=”640″ height=”480″ class=”size-full wp-image-428″ /> This letter was discovered on a public records request and never shown to me for rebuttal not put in my personnel file. This was material in reducing Watson’s penalty for use of a government computer to collect and disseminate pornography which inlcluded polaroids showing private predatory behavior and not only commercial pornography
DOT 28
Why did I become a whistle-blower even as I had no tenure at the time, and this individual who bragged to me was protected by the Clark College administration and still is? Well in addition to the fact that I had a daughter, and in addition to the fact that I am compelled by my own morality and values not to turn a blind-eye to corruption and crime, there is this that is binding not only on all public employees as I am, but indeed on all citizens. It is called “Misprision of a Felony” and “Obstruction of Justice” and this is what I have tried to present to various elements of Vancouver, State and Federal Law Enforcement over and over in writing and on tape:
DOT 29
Misprision of a Felony
Misprision of a felony is the offense of failure to inform government authorities of a felony that a person knows about. A person commits the crime of misprision of a felony if that person:
• Knows of a federal crime that the person has witnessed or that has come to the person’s attention, or failed to prevent.
• Fails to report it to a federal judge or other federal official (who is not thems4elves involved in the crime).
Federal Crime Reporting Statute
The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge’s mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense.
Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal crime.
Another federal statute exists for reporting high-level corruption in government:
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
This federal statute permits any citizen to file a lawsuit in the federal courts to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful acts. This statute is Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
These two statutes are among the most powerful tools in the hands of the people, even a single person, to report corrupt and criminal activities by federal officials−including federal judges−and to circumvent the blocks by those in key positions in the three branches of government. That statute was also repeatedly blocked by federal judges and Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
________________________________________
Top Government Personnel Repeatedly Violating Crime Reporting Statute
For over 40 years, former federal agent Rodney Stich has attempted to report the continuing corruption in the government’s aviation safety offices related to a series of continuing aviation disasters, and of criminal activities inflicting great harm upon the American people and upon the United States, to:
• Management in government aviation safety offices: FAA and NTSB and political board members.
• Members of Congress.
• Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Federal judges
• Supreme Court Justices.
• Media personnel with a duty to report major corruption of government personnel.
In every instance, the judges and Justices blocked the reporting of the federal crimes. They became enablers to subsequent tragic, sometimes, deadly, and sometimes catastrophic events.
DOT 30
Why am I providing all these links on background and asking the reader to follow them? Because this will explain my own mind-set. I did not become a whistle-blower because of the Clark Administration or various elements of it, since 1994 provably conspiring to “get rid of professor Craven” (more on this quote later) and even opening and maintaining a secret file on me since 1994 (see attached documents and photo of six binders, 4900 pages of email exchanges and whistle-blowing complaints discovered on a previous public records request as a result of the letter of Emma Kim in 2003 alerting to its existence) but the actually reverse is the case: the reprisals came after and were and are a direct response to my whistle-blowing mandated by law. No one ever takes reprisals against whistle-blowers except under pretexts that have been cooked and engineered and/or with petty offenses found and applied with disparate treatment.
But it is also important to understand the reason for Federal Statutes such as 18 USC 4 and the various Obstruction of Justice forms in U.S. Code that actually mandate whistle-blowing as a matter of law. And this is because crime goes on partly because law enforcement cannot be everywhere, but also because people may have real knowledge that could help to stop a crime and prevent future ones by bringing perpetrators to justice. Often people who know about crimes going on and may even be involved at some level, will instead, trade on their knowledge and participation in crimes they know about (“If I go down you all go down with me” or as conspirator and American revolutionary Tom Paine put it: “We must all hang together or surely we shall all hang separately”). Or, there are some that are cowards, opportunists, climbers or just apathetic and will trade their own safety and that of others for what they think is a little security and advancement. As Ben Franklin put it: “Those who would trade their liberty for a little [illusion of] security will neither deserve nor attain either liberty or security.”
But in the case of public employment, as in my case as a tenured professor and public employee AT not FOR Clark College an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, I have additional responsibilities under law, as I have certain rights to go with those responsibilities and duties under law that private-sector employees do not have in addition to not to engage in or help to cover-up crimes and Misprision of a Felony or Obstruction of Justice or any wrong practices while on public time and using public resources and receiving pay.
But in any case, crimes that go unreported only beget more crimes and victims until they are stopped.
DOT 31 ILLEGAL SECRET FILE KEPT ON ME SINCE WHISTLE-BLOWING IN 1994 ORDERED BY AG’S OFFICE DISCOVERED IN 2003 WITH THE LETTER OF EMMA KIM AND A SERIALLY OBSTRUCTED PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
This letter by Emma Kim was drafted and sent without any prior notice to me or any prior involvement by me in any of the content or allegations in it. This letter alerted me to the existence of an illegal and secret file kept and used against me without my knowledge or ability to rebut it. After my discovery of it and public records request, Clark College demanded 10-cents a page or $490 for 4900 pages of 6 binders that the College had no legal basis to keep. This is Emma Kim’s letter:
DOT 32
From: Nomads3k9s@aol.com [mailto:Nomads3k9s@aol.com ]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 2:38 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: An insider’s view of the civil and employee rights violations at Clark College
Hi Jim,
Please add my voice to the e-Forum at Clark regarding the indoctrination process of Craven bashing. I think my unique insights can explain in part why so many of your colleagues, administration and staff suspend their critical thinking skills when you’re involved. The fact that most of your critics don’t know the history behind the administration’s fertilization efforts is indicative of how deeply rooted the indoctrination process is. Thanks in advance.
Date: February 12, 2003
To: Clark College Staff, Faculty, Staff, ASCC, Administration, Board, Foundation, Foundation Board, and THE INDEPENDENT
From: Emma Kim
RE: An insider’s perspective of your employee and civil rights as practiced by some administrators at Clark.
Many of you will remember me. I worked in Personnel for Donna Kelly and Katrina Golder as their Office Assistant III from January 1997 to March 12, 1999. Several of you have asked me why I left the college. I’m prepared now to provide my answer.
For any employee who has felt like civil or employee rights were violated, you were probably right if Clark’s Personnel department was involved. If anyone has had their mental state questioned after speaking up or out about an issue at the college, your experience is not an isolated one. In fact, there are number of you who’ve had your mental states questioned. Based on my interviews, the common thread is not depression but practicing your freedom of speech to expose a problem at the college.
While I was employed in Personnel, I was privy to questionable hiring practices and privy to the deliberate violations of civil rights. For anyone who has not know what “human resources” functions as, consider what we as a society do to our natural resources and then you’ll have a pretty accurate context to determine your value relative to the power structure. As an HR Administrator, as I laid off 150 members of the workforce, I advised the employees that as a rule of thumb, smile at the HR people, get on their good side, but don’t trust most of them. That was based on my experience with the HR Managers in two Fortune 500 companies I worked for but mostly based on my experiences at Clark. The role of HR personnel is not to protect your rights but to protect the state or company from litigation if rights are violated. It is virtually impossible for any Personnel manager to know all the state and federal employment laws and their nuances, so employee rights are violated all the time. Let me give you specific examples from my two years at Clark. What I’m about to disclose may surprise you and create shifts in your thinking:
While I was an employee in Personnel, I was asked by Donna Kelly to engage in a task that involved the violation of Jim Craven’s civil and employee rights. The specific task was to send all his emails to the AG’s office. (Mind you, not Dennis Watson’s or anyone else’s emails, just Jim Craven’s stuff. For those of you who might be wondering what’s wrong with that, it is illegal to keep separate files on employees. It is also illegal to keep a separate file on anyone practicing their freedom of speech as a dissenter or activist.)
It is important for the reader to know what my filters were at the time when Donna tried to get me involved in violating his rights. I was highly critical, vocal in my criticism and fearful of Jim. I said and held many of the negative sentiments that I continue to hear on campus and continue to read and sense in print. After all, I trusted my new supervisors and coworkers when I was given the run down that Jim was litigious, slanderous, manipulative, a trouble maker, unreasonable, potentially violent and mean. I also asked about Dennis Watson since his emails were being distributed on the master list at the same time as Jim’s. Unlike with Jim, I was given an objective run down on Dennis, that he was caught with child pornography using state resources. There was no subjective demonization like, “Dennis is a creepy slime bag who will eyeball your underage children with a gleam in his eye.”
Equally important for the reader to know in order to understand that Craven bashing is an indoctrination process that all new employees go through as part of an informal orientation is how I felt about working in Personnel for Donna and Katrina. I thought I’d found two of the best bosses ever in my work history. Given those filters, I could see exactly what my department was talking about in Jim’s emails.
Despite my own prejudices which were extreme by my own admission, I clearly understood that Jim’s rights were being violated by the very officer assigned to protect the college from discrimination and harassment. I refused and asked Donna why we were doing something we weren’t suppose to do to which she promptly replied with back peddling, “Oh, that’s okay. You don’t have to do it.” And that was the end of it, so I thought.
Shortly after my refusal to violate Jim’s rights, a central part of my duties that I performed for Donna was eliminated. While I had been privy to sensitive and private documents, all the tasks that included touching or seeing such documents such as copying, faxing, etc. were eliminated. Concerned that Donna had eliminated my job duties as a result of my refusal to violate Jim’s rights, I brought up the elimination of those duties to Katrina who reassured me that changes occurred “all the time.” I was confused and tried to make sense of what was going on. I felt conflicted about Donna. Was I working for an unethical person? How could I be? Donna was married to an African-American civil rights activist. No, maybe I was just making a mountain out of a molehill. Maybe, Katrina was right. Why would Donna violate Jim’s rights? No, way, she wouldn’t do that. She’s the AA/EO officer. These were some of the thoughts that ran through my mind as I tried to make sense of conflicting cues. Through the process of denial, I eventually rationalized that Donna’s intention was benevolent in trying to protect the college from Jim, so I let the issue go. After all, it was about Jim, the campus dreg.
But, the red flag kept bleeding. So, questions about Jim arose and I found myself asking why Jim was so angry, why he was so hell bent on thumping certain administrators. What was this guy all about? As I listened and watched I began to realize that there was more going on than what I’d originally been told. One of the things that seemed strange to me was that I hadn’t heard a single positive remark about Jim since I’d gotten hired. Even if an employee is not well liked, I have enough HR and supervisory experience to know that with critics, there are also supporters. So where were all of Jim’s supporters? I had not met a single supporter, not even amongst the tenured faculty. I had heard that Jim was well liked by students. But that confused the issue for me even more. Why did the students like Jim, but why did Clark’s employees detest him. The only thing I could do was watch and listen and read his emails thoughtfully.
In retrospect, it’s ironic that Donna’s action was what turned on my critical thinking circuitry and made me insatiably curious about what Jim Craven was all about. I was still vocally critical of Jim but given human nature, I feared my supervisors would think I was beginning to support him, so to alleviate any fear that I had subversive intentions, which I didn’t at the time, I told Donna and Katrina that I wanted to talk to Jim and get to know him. In my naiveté, I believed that these two very educated officers would appreciate the fact that I was up front with them and that I was taking initiative to gather information for myself rather than continuing to go on hearsay. After all, I worked in higher Ed where research and knowledge were supposed to be encouraged. Direct research is always better than with secondary or tertiary sources.
Neither discouraged me but each warned me to be careful. Donna reiterated that Jim could be very manipulative and that if given the opportunity, he would twist my statements and use them against me or the department. Given the Craven myths, I was still fearful that Jim would blow me me off as Donna’s and Katrina’s “whore” just because I worked for them. But, I also had enough information by then to offer Craven the benefit of doubt. So, the OAIII from personnel knocked on his office door one day and introduced herself. “Hi Professor Craven? My name is Emma Kim and I work for Donna Kelly and Katrina Golder….”
Since that introduction, Jim and I have become close friends. In fact, I frequently describe him as one of my best friends. I know his extended family and he knows my husband, mother and 13 year old niece, Berlin. He helps out where he can with a 13 year old “at-risk” youth who I mentor who is diagnosed with multiple disorders including ODD, bipolar affect disorder, and ADHD. I regret that I bought into the indoctrination because for two years, the opportunities for developing our friendship were wasted. For two years, the opportunity to expand my mind from the great books Jim’s turned me onto were wasted. For two years, the opportunity to expand my political knowledge from our numerous political discussions was wasted. But most importantly and significantly, Jim was denied the benefit of a supporter that could have made a difference in his life for two years. Clark’s administration is directly responsible. The waste cannot be measured because our friendship is priceless. I respect Jim so much and I can’t emphasize how troubled I am that so many of you continue to criticize him when most of you have never taken the time as I did to research and extrapolate the history of Jim’s troubles at Clark. I read numerous documents and interviewed dozens of people. Piece by piece, I put the jigsaw puzzle together and what the picture revealed was a systematic process the administration used to control dissenters. I’m writing to expose that pattern. It is one the ACLU, US Dept of Education, Civil Rights Division, WA Human Rights Commission and WA DOP is interested in. In fact, WA DOP stated to me unofficially that they were aware of a possible problem at Clark but that they didn’t have the resources to do anything unless the problem reached a certain level. I was encouraged by WA DOP to write a letter to GAAPCOM!!!!
For the reader, given the time and space factor, I am editing out a significant chunk of why I chose to leave the college. The following events took place after my refusal to violate Jim Craven’s civil rights. The significant facts are these:
1) I experienced harassment for two months beginning from the moment I walked into Personnel after my return from family leave by a coworker who violated my rights under state and federal family leave acts. That coworker eventually confessed to harassing me saying that she was angry with me for all the work I’d left her to do while I was gone despite the fact that a former hr administrator named Martha had been hired as my temporary replacement. But when pressed to explain what work I’d left for her, she was unable to list a single task that had made her angry enough to harass me for two months upon my return and which made her angry enough to have no consideration for the tremendous stress and burden I was under while I was caring for family members, one of whom had Alzheimer’s.
2) Despite being one of only two staff members with a college degree, immediately upon my return, despite excellent documented reviews, job history and ethics, my job duties as an OAIIII were eliminated. Upon my return from leave, I performed only OAI duties which were strictly answering phones and helping people at the college. This elimination of job duties was not a directive from my supervisors. They didn’t know my training supervisor had eliminated the duties. That fact surfaced when I was given the following task:
3) When I returned from family leave, I was given a task with a three month deadline to compile the affirmative action data for all permanent positions for the past five years, which represented dozens of positions. The elimination of my job duties actually turned out to be a godsend but as far as my supervisors were concerned, I was still expected (via verbalization) to carry on my normal job duties which included multiple walk ins and phone interruptions while trying to retrieve or extrapolate data from half a dozen sources, some of which were located in the back office, in other departments, in Olympia, and/or in various mediums, electronic and hard copy. (Picture yourself having to get up and find files in another office or another department, bringing the files back to the desk to analyze while people are walking in and phones are ringing, then having to return the files once the information was found. Picture yourself having to do that multiple times several times a day as a part time employee.)
On top of the logistics of data gathering, not a single person in my department knew how to do the analysis from step 1 to the end. So, basically, I also had the task of figuring out how to compile AA data the way Olympia expected it. I’d never been given a deadline date, nor had emphasis ever been placed on compiling the data until I returned from leave. Prior to taking family leave, I’d never been directed, let alone pressured to start the task. Given my work ethic, had the instruction been given, I would have begun the analysis upon being assigned the task.
Given the deadline and since no one knew how to compile the data anyway, Martha could have started the task while I was on leave. That would have provided an additional two months to make sure the baseline report was done correctly. If my coworker was truthful and she had “so much work” to do while I was on leave, the inference is that Martha had very little to do. Keep in mind, that I was being harassed every day while I was desperately trying to get the reports done in between phone calls and walk-ins.
2) Sue Williams, your new AA officer, informed Katrina Golder, not once but twice that I was being harassed.
3) Despite Sue’s disclosure to Katrina, neither Katrina nor Donna stopped the abuse. I had to deal with my own hostile situation.
4) When I asked Donna why she didn’t stop the harassment, she replied that she didn’t know about it.
5) When I asked Katrina why she didn’t stop the harassment, she replied that she didn’t know about it. Please refer to #2.
When Katrina lied to me, I realized that if my supervisors, the Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Officer and the Director of Personnel would not provide me with a hostile free work environment under their supervision, and I had no chance in the world to advance at Clark. The fact that I had to inform them of the harassment that was taking place under their very noses and the fact that I had to ask for a hostile free work environment says enough about their cultural ignorance, lack of skill and failure to fulfill their duties as state officers to provide safety for one of their few ethnic minorities on campus.
In defense of my friend Jim Craven, I respectfully ask every critic to take off your prejudicial filters and not form an opinion about Jim unless you’ve done your homework. Everything that happened to me happened after I defended Jim. I will let the reader conclude whether the elimination of job duties, Katrina’s lie, being forced to meet with the resident clinical psychologist, receiving a disciplinary warning, and being met with continued silence was related to my refusal to violate Jim’s civil rights.
If anyone has a response or would like more information or if you want to add your story to my research, please feel free to contact me a nomads3k9s@aol.com Activism works! Four out of the five administrators who targeted me are no longer employed by the college.
And finally, a special note to Dr. Beyer:
Dr. Beyer, I regret that you denied me an appointment time to discuss these issues with you in private. I informed you that my allegations were of a serious nature. I’ve tried for 2 1/2 years to get accountability as to why I was forced to meet with Mike Christianson. Tana created the problem you’re now facing with me but I don’t have the time or the patience any more to deal privately with this matter. I’m sure you asked who I was. Those closest to you probably provided the answer. And depending on who that person or persons are/were, you may have heard the slander. If you would like to meet with me, I will do so but only with other long time civil rights activists. Two years ago, I did an analysis of all the colleges in the SBTCC system and Clark was the only institution that lost diversity in every single category post I-200. The losses occurred at a time when the ethnic diversity was rapidly gaining in this county. Since I did that analysis, more losses have occurred at the college. DOP is sending the documents for the current year and I will note any changes.
To THE INDEPENDENT: I encourage the college paper to do an investigative report of my allegations. I challenge you to find any misrepresentations or unstruths in my allegations. Because of the affiliation with the college, I will not provide you with sources. I will pass along my sources to a bonafide investigative reporter.
DOT 33
QUESTION TO THE READER: IF YOU WERE ACCUSED OF PERJURY OR SOME CRIME, OR, IF SOMEONE WROTE TO YOU A MEMORANDUM AS TO WHAT TRANSPIRED (IN THAT PERSON’S OPINION) IN A MEETING THE PREVIOUS DAY AND YOU DID NOT AGREE, WOULD YOU NOT REBUT? WOULD YOU JUST LEAVE IN WRITING WHAT YOU BELIEVED TO BE ERRONEOUS ACCOUNTS OF A MEETING THAT JUST TOOK PLACE? ESPECIALLY IF IN DOING SO YOU MIGHT BE STIPULATING TO POSSIBLE FELONIES?
The following memo was sent to VPI Tim Cook for his rebuttal to any part of my account with which he might disagree; no rebuttal ever came:
September 27, 2011
Dear Dr. Cook:
Please confirm or rebut my understanding for the record that the following issues were raised:
1. I with representatives Lisa Lewison and Kim Sullivan met with you, Dr. Darcy Rourk and Dean Blake Bowers in Bauer Hall 211 from 1 pm to 2:13 pm on Monday September 26, 2011 also the first day of classes for Fall Quarter 2011; Both Dr. Rourk and myself taped the meeting;
2. Neither prior to the meeting, during the meeting, nor as of today, was I provided, as requested by AHE representation twice, as well as by myself during the meeting, the exact complaint (the narrative of a complainant, written by the complainant, with specificity as to what is being alleged and on what basis (contract and law), and evidence, in the words of and attested, signed and accountable by, the complainant) of Dr. Adnan Hamideh and ALL supporting materials used and to be used in consideration of a possible three quarters off without pay—and that prompted my summarily being put on administrative leave with pay (still causing the loss of scheduled overtime pay to which I was contractually entitled, causing me to be taken out of the classroom and in breach of my tacit contract with those students arranged their schedules, gave up other opportunities who signed up specifically for me as a teacher);
3. You directed me not to show up to teach the classes I was contracted to teach; you obtained and hired my replacements to teach my classes, prior to our one, one-hour meeting to be presented with and hear my responses to any allegations; and you refused my request, to put in writing, your “directive”, for me not to return to teaching, and the authority and basis for such a directive, along with the basis for WHY any directive that you would give, but not put in writing, should be considered legitimate; also, and most importantly, ignore the effects of your “directives” on my own due process rights as well as the rights of the students to qualified and vetted teachers and the teacher for whom they specifically signed up to be taught by (the reason for putting faculty names on proposed schedules);
4. That my name was kept on the Fall 2011 schedule of courses, while students were still enrolling and after the decision to put me on administrative leave and out of teaching for Fall 2011 and after my replacements had been hired and confirmed to teach; that I informed you of this fact that I found on the schedules (unlike last time when the schedule was changed and replacements hired openly BEFORE my one Laudermill hearing) and asked for an explanation for this use of my name and also expressed the opinion that this constituted a form of fraud against the students who signed up caring who would be teaching them and signed up specifically for me as a teacher as well as a prima facie indication of how the upcoming meeting deciding my possible one year off without pay would likely go; I also informed you that I believed this to involve possible fraud against the students (“bait and switch”)and that the AG had been alerted prior to the meeting;
5. That you specifically had allocated one hour to consider my responses and those of my representatives to the proposed one year off with pay and at no time ever considered my return to the classroom in Fall 2011; further, the timing of the hearing was totally under your control and the hearing could have well taken place well before the commencement of courses (unless of course my replacements had already been promised jobs) to respect the interests of the students to have the teachers they signed up for if at all possible; that I noted and protested all of this in the meeting;
6. That I specifically noted to you that there was one and only one person qualified to vet for technical, pedagogical and professional credentials in economics and that is myself and presented the basis for this assertion and why John Fite does not yet have near sufficient experience or academic and other preparation as an educator or economist to qualify as a “check economist”; I also noted to you that the words to which Dr. Hamideh took exception being played back, were simply his own words as witnessed by John Fite and Gerard Smith both of whom were also expressed being troubled by the statement [laughing]“You know it’s ironic that the same areas in which I am now teaching—statistics, accounting and economics—are the very areas that I had the last interest in and barely passed with Cs in my MBA program”. I noted during the meeting that I did not consider this statement consistent with any kind of educator (not contradicted by you or Dr. Rourk or Dean Bowers) and was partly the basis for my questioning even the fitness to teach economics 101, let alone to vet anyone for credentials, professional standing and pedagogy in economics or geography. I also noted in writing and in this meeting, that I was concerned with not only the welfare of the students and right to be taught by qualified and properly vetted teachers, but also was concerned about potential costly litigation against Clark College in the event that students feel they were shortchanged in their teachers and suffered malpractice and initiated lawsuits, and the fact that various teachers were hired in ad hoc and non-standardized processes and not properly vetted by those qualified to do could support such lawsuits and cause real harm to students and the institution. I have also noted in documents in the possession of Clark College that previous persons hired and not vetted by me resulted in courses imploding, and students not only suffering malpractice, but, more importantly, losing all that they could have gained had teachers properly vetted by those qualified to do so been hired or the classes cancelled (just as a restaurant should not serve uninspected meat);
7. That I took serious exception to the manner, and what I took to be disingenuous representations by Professor Hamideh (that I only teach 200 level courses and am not interested in or do not have a vested interest in econ 101 and how and by whom it is taught) that were employed as I was summarily dismissed by from vetting Mr. McCay; I took serious exception to Professors Adnan Hamideh and that John Fite, who had recruited then vetting him without one word or any documentation to me the Department Head of Economics; that I believe this to be real and very tangible forms of “personal and professional attack”, Blacklisting and intrigue by Professors Hamideh and Fite and all those supporting them. I took serious exception for the record, that Mr. McCay was hired not to teach econ 101 (as represented by Professor Hamideh) but economic geography 107 and that I informed you that I am the only person qualified to vet on economic geography and that in my professional opinion, Mr. McCay’s teaching economic geography 107 is a serious violation of the rights of students to qualified and vetted teachers as well as a summary denial, per se, of my basic rights to due process; I presented you with copies of all of my exchanges with Mr. McCay, Mr. Bayer and findings of the independent investigator on the complaint of Ms Atkinson all of which I believe speak directly to the question of the veracity and integrity of their representations of any interactions with me.
8. That I have raised repeatedly in writing and in this hearing Dr. Hamideh, while division chair (who, took, under repeated and unanswered protests and according to AHE itself, the division chair position from me prior to the end of my term, along with the stipend, in a fraudulent election, based on naked and contradictory representations and misrepresentations embodied in the letters of September 10 vs. Oct 7 2009 of Dean Kotsakis, held while I was on sick leave, an ad hoc election that I did not know about or did not get to even get to cast a vote or make comments for the record); this cost me and my family considerable loss of funds from lost division chair stipends while on sick leave to which I was entitled;
9. That I and or my representatives raised the fact Professor Hamideh, who teaches and has taught only econ 101, never once as division chair consulted me about John Fite teaching specialized courses such as economics and law, political economy, international economics, and other courses (all with low class loads of 20) or ask my opinion on what basis was he qualified to assert himself able to teach such courses (I have taught all of them), all of which have a direct bearing on my own teaching loads and responsibilities (I am teaching econ 201 and 202 because of the needs of the students and the institution and if anyone should and is qualified to be teaching specialized courses it is me); Professor Hamideh never consulted me about the number of courses we should offer, when and how balanced, undertook to change the text for econ 101 without my knowledge or being consulted (a text that I considered overpriced and an ideological polemic), and assigned adjuncts recently hired and unvetted, to draft outcomes assessments instruments for various economics courses without one reference to me and BEFORE the hearing on September 26th 2011—to determine the issue if or if not I would be off for one year without pay.
10. That Dr. Hamideh has sent out the following to the business division, but with me excluded (see to whom sent), 3 days prior to the hearing yesterday (I guess he knows how it will go in advance) to determine if or if not I would be teaching:
________________________________________
From: Hamideh, Adnan
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:50 AM (three days before hearing)
To: Business Division
Cc: Bowers, Blake; Walstead, Brenda; Lea, Jennifer; Serrano, Patti; Wilkins-Luton, Jim
Subject: Course Outcomes
Dear Business Division faculty:
Welcome to Fall 2011!
Your valuable feedback is needed as we continue through this academic year. The Clark College Assessment Committee is continuing to work with the Business Division so that our programs and courses are in compliance with the accreditation board (NWCCU).
Each course that you teach needs outcome and assessment review and monitoring. Patti and I have finished all the Business Division program outcomes for each certificate and degree. Those are available at Jennifer’s desk or can be sent to you electronically. Your help is needed to identify clearly your course outcomes and assessment(s). If you are teaching a class also taught by other business faculty, you will be contacted to collaborate with the other teachers in establishing common outcomes. This can be completed online. Although the outcomes need to be the same, assessment methods of these outcomes may differ. Attached is a format for this work that has been accepted and approved by the Assessment Committee and can serve as a model or a template. For accuracy, please review the amended course descriptions in the updated catalog which is available online.
Below, please see the courses that we would like you to review. Some are individual courses, and some will need collaboration with other faculty members.
Adnan
BUS 028, BUS 029, Math 065
Adnan and Steve
BUS 203, BUS 204
Gene/Steve/Julie/David
BUS 201, BUS 202, BUS 203
Gene
BUS 160
Patti and Gene
Mgmt 100/BUS 101
Patti
BUS 115, BUS 116, BUS 260, Mgmt 101
Dee
BUS 110, Mgmt 106, Mgmt 107
Cheryl
BUS 117, BUS 211
Steve Walsh
BUS 130
Lucia
BUS 133, Bus 135, Mgmt 122
Layne
BUS 201
Steve Konrad
BUS 251, Mgmt 110, Mgmt 120, Mgmt 125, Mgmt 133
Clyde
Mgmt 103, Mgmt 112, Mgmt 113
Mark
Mgmt 132
Darcy
Mgmt 128
Kathy
Mgmt 126
Shon/John F./Trish/John B.
Econ 101, 107, 110, 120, 201, 202
Also, throughout the upcoming academic year, save copies of your students’ work as proof of not only meeting course and program outcomes but also as a basis for improving your courses and the programs.
This work is extremely important and needs to be given the highest priority. The Business Division plans to complete the outcomes and the assessments for our courses by OCTOBER 15, 2011. Please contact me or any of the leading faculty members if you need any help. Please send your finished product to Jennifer Lee.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Adnan Hamideh
Business Division Chair
11. That I asserted to you and my AHE representatives that although I am represented by AHE, one of the most sacred and protected Constitutional rights is to have the capacity and be allowed to participate in or even conduct pro se one’s own defense (defendant knows things that representatives may not) and that our submissions include but are not limited to arguments advanced by AHE representatives. This is especially critical in that I noted the concept of “fruit of the poisoned tree” which is central to due process and equal protection/application of the law guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Clark College-AHE Contract, the Washington State Constitution and various RCWs cited to you in various documents submitted in the past. I advanced the argument that I do not stipulate ever, nor can AHE stipulate away my basic due process rights, whatever their own interests, that the predicates for higher levels of discipline (lower levels having been completed with full due process) do not exist since (and alluded to in your own letter): I was given a) a reprimand with no Laudermill, no appeals; b) 7 days off without pay, no Laudermill hearing, no appeals, while on sick leave, represented by AHE, with discipline arbitrarily imposed and timed to take me out of the classroom upon return with the result of a “taking” of scheduled overtime pay, and students who signed up for me as a teacher denied my services; c) 8 days off without pay, no Laudermill hearings, two levels of appeal, no arbitration; d) two quarters off without pay, arrangements made, replacements hired unvetted by me, the course schedule changed all BEFORE the one Laudermill hearing I got (I do not consider this hearing qualified to be considered a Laudermill hearing) to determine if or if not I would be teaching; e) as I noted to you, it has been reported to the proper authorities that Dr. Marcia Roi and Ms Lynn Davidson, acting in their official capacities, in formal proceedings using public resources on public business, gave sworn testimony—that directly contradicted the sworn testimony of President Robert Knight also acting in his official capacities in another official proceeding—that he said directly to Dr. Roi and Ms Davidson “Morale will improve here when we get rid of professor Craven” and that obviously someone committed perjury and perjury is a serious crime because it not only represents obstruction of justice per se, but also represents an attempt to hijack justice and the truth itself. I asked you a hypothetical that if someone had said or written that “America will be better off only when we ‘get rid of’ the president” would that get that person at least a visit from Secret Service wondering what “get rid of” means and how does such an alleged statement play for someone with some serious medical disabilities. I also noted to all of you that I considered this meeting and those present acting as any kind of fact-finders in a conflict of interest in their personal and professional relationships with the president who is mentioned in an existing request for a criminal investigation.
12. That I noted to you that I consider it my moral and legal duty, as a human being, educator and public servant, to write an open letter to those students who sacrificed, rearranged their schedules and even waited for me as their teacher to give my opinions and supporting evidence as to why I am not available to teach Fall 2011.
13. That I noted to you that as I was not given prior to the meeting, as called for in the Clark College-AHE Contract, the written formal complaint by Dr. Hamideh, written and signed by himself (not simply your representations of his complaint), during the meeting or given any idea of its form other than a complaint was made. The reason why people who are accused have a right to confront accusers and their accusations (denied to me serially in all cases at all levels of discipline) is that if the accuser is lying, the accused may be the best source of refutation with information that the investigators do not have and perhaps were denied by self-serving narratives of either the accuser or accused; accusations are not facts until established with full due process. Thus, I noted, there is no valid complaint and no cause to move forward unless something else is involved. I noted also to you that I take serious exception to having the sentence partially arranged first (taking me out of the classroom and “taking” scheduled overtime pay) BEFORE the summary verdict (in your letter you do not use the word alleged once) BEFORE the hearing, BEFORE serving of a formal complaint and ALL material to be used in fact-finding and forming a verdict BEFORE the presentation of any counter-argument BEFORE and determination of final charges and finding what is needed and proportionate to the charges; only in Alice and Wonderland and Nazi Germany do we get the sentence first then the verdict then the trial then what charges and “evidence” takes to support what is intended at trial.
14. That I noted to Dean Bowers, later reinforced by Lisa Lewison, that I followed protocols and went to him, early July 2011, with no union representative and no tape recorder, allowed his assistant to take copious notes, presented him with supporting evidence and documents for my assertions that I believe there were serious threats to the institution, my own programs and teaching, the rights and needs of students and that certain crimes may be occurring. I noted to him that I would be going to Thurston County Superior Court on an appeal matter related to unemployment benefits when I was off two quarters without pay where the issue of possible perjury in the contradictory testimonies under oath of Mr. Knight versus Dr. Roi and Ms Lewison will be explored. I noted that he had not mentioned when I met with him any complaint by Dr. Hamideh and never acknowledged in writing my discussion with him nor did he send me copies of the notes taken and what was understood that I said. I noted to him that I expect such an acknowledgment and copies of the notes taken by Heather King.
15. I noted to Dr. Rouk that I had also sent her my response to Shon Kraley’s plea for help as his hours had been cut (now he has some of mine) in favor of expanding Mr. Bayer and Ms. Atkinson’s hours of teaching and asked, but was not answered, if there was any nexus between that letter of August 29, 2011 and your own letter of September 1, 2011.
16. Why was your letter of September 1, 2011 sent to my home address when Clark College knows and has often used my official mailing address? The only other time mail was sent to my home address was December 23, 2009, while I was undergoing emergency heart surgery at Southwest Medical, 4 of the same letters, announcing my impending discipline, one registered one not, sent to my official mailing address that Clark College had often used and two, one registered, one not, sent to my home address to arrive on Christmas Eve December 24th. This was taken even by Mr. Stephson as serious indicia of some serious malice and animus on the part of whomever ordered the sending of those letters and to my home while I was in serious medical trouble.
These are my fresh recollections with clarifying addenda from previous submissions in the possession of Clark College, supported by review of my tapes of the arguments advanced. Please confirm or rebut any of my recollections in writing and do so within three days of receipt of this official request as you have given about one week for some kind of decision while I do not accept and protest, in this submission, and please note this, your authority and standing to act as someone who has already expressed in your letter of pre-determined discipline of three quarters off without pay, prior to one word of rebuttal from me, unspecified allegations of Dr. Hamideh, with no formal complaint given to me prior to the meeting (when I am represented by AHE, I am supposed to get ALL that AHE gets including any formal complaints as AHE is not the U.S. mail), with only a few sentences taken out of a totality of communications and contexts, and with what are, in your grammar and syntax, conclusions and a verdict already established, and discipline prescribed and arranged, BEFORE the meeting. That means that again, you are acting as judge of your own charges or charges you believe to be warranted but will not specify, and assessor of discipline; and, I presume, appeal authority on stages I and II of any appeals to what appears to be a foregone conclusion before the meeting.
Thank you for your consideration of this extremely time-sensitive matter. If you wish to rebut either my recollections of my submissions and arguments, or my own assertions and arguments themselves please do so in writing and by September 30, 2011.
Sincerely,
James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Professor and Department Head, Economics
DOT 34
From: Kraley, Shon
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:32 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: RE: Grugman Wells Text
Hi Jim.
It looks like Atkinson has been given full time status for at least Fall term, while I have not. In fact, Bayer has more credits than I do. If there is anything you can do with the new dean, I would very much appreciate it.
Thank you.
Shon
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 11:51 AM
To: Kraley, Shon
Cc: Sullivan, Kimberly; Rourk, Darcy
Subject: RE: Grugman Wells Text
Hi Shon,
Thanks for the note and do you see any problem in that I as head of the department was told nothing about any of this? I am referring this to personnel and the union as I had no idea of any of your situation.
Yes, I not only will try to do something about this but I am doing something about this on the legal front and I do not mean just civil law. This is outrageous and a total contempt and disservice to the students. Mr. Bayer, who once told John Fite “I do not want anything to do with that Indian guy”, who does not have even a bachelor’s degree in economics, I have never met, along with Mr. Newman, Ms Foreman, Mr. Bailey. This is an agency of the Government of the State of Washington, it is not the Rotary, a country club, a favor factory or recruiting agency for backroom cults and cabals, and it is a crime, called Trading in Public Employment and Conspiracy to trade in Public Employment, to use public resources and jobs as favors or as rewards for services rendered–e.g. filing complaints against a targeted person–for friendships, for relatives, or for networking or any personal advantages.
There is one and only one person qualified to vet new adjuncts and that is me–not John Fite whose MA in Economics is from the early 1970s and who never worked as an economist, never taught economics prior to coming to Clark College, and never published anything in economics or worked with the new changes in economic theory and pedagogy in the over thirty years that there have been changes in economics. John, according to his own words, found the one person who would give him credit for the teaching that goes on in a cockpit in the military and in commercial aviation; but with the understanding that there was a whole lot he had missed in the over thirty years since his Masters degree in Economics and that I would mentor him and that he understood how little he knew and how inexperienced he was as an economist and teacher of economics. Further, if we get litigation by students who feel that they were shortchanged and not handed fully-qualified teachers (Econ 201 and 202 are universal transfer courses that are mandated to have some standardization and comparable content and pedagogy for transferability), imagine how all of this will play in a court of law when it comes out that we have had a bunch of adjuncts hired and allowed to teach, hired outside of established procedures for hiring and documentation of credentials and experience without ever having even met the head of economics and at the time in some cases, the division chair at the time.
Further, at my arbitration hearing, both Marcia Roi and Lynn Davidson swore, under penalty of perjury, that Bob Knight said to them “We will have no morale problem here when we get rid of Professor Craven” whereas Bob Knight swore under penalty of perjury at my Employment Security Department appeal hearing, that he never made such a statement to them, and, that when asked about this alleged statement, in two separate hearings, with one of the women present who made the allegation about his statement present, refused to deny it on record only because, he testified, he was there to ask not answer questions. So someone, acting in their official capacity, in official government proceedings, committed perjury. All of that will be explored in Thurston County Superior Court and in other venues with other agencies of the Washington State and Federal Governments. Perjury is very serious business as in Illinois, 13 people on death row, one 45 minutes away from execution, all found later to be absolutely innocent, wound up on death row due to perjury and prosecutorial misconduct. Someone who commits perjury, especially in conjunction with official duties in public employment, is not only attempting to obstruct justice but to steal it.
Imagine, in what country, is it possible for someone to be charged with offenses and then investigated and found guilty by those who made the charges and/or recruited others to make them; then a verdict is given, arrangements are made to hire replacements, the course schedule is changed with my name deleted from my courses for which many students signed up specifically for me as a teacher, all PRIOR to the one Laudermill hearing, [conducted by those who charged me] that I got, to determine if I would or would not be teaching; then the sentence of 108 days off without pay immediately imposed prior to any pending appeal hearings (it was clear how they would go) and PRIOR to arbitration (how could I and my family have been “made whole” if we had won the arbitration?). It is also a crime to make false statements while on the job in public employment.
Further, you are the only adjunct fully and properly vetted by me and even John Fite has never been fully vetted as I have never seen him teach whereas he has seen me teach a whole course and I have seen you teach and have vetted you twice. I was not even allowed on campus to vote in person on his tenure, and I came very close to voting no on his tenure out of professional responsibility (I voted yes because he was in a situation not under his control). Further, Adnan, in the presence of John Fite and Gerry Smith, said to all of us “You know it is ‘ironic’ [not a word I would use] that the areas in which I am teaching–statistics, accounting and economics–are the subjects I had the least interest in and barely passed with Cs in my MBA program”. Had I known that long ago I would have opposed and will oppose his teaching any economics at any level as this is the kind of statement and reflects an attitude that in my opinion no real educator or someone worthy of being called an educator.
As my father used to say: “Who is it that cares nothing about formal credentials? Those who do not have them; but they do care about credentials of providers when THEY are the demanders of services.”
I do not want to cause you any hardships more than you and your family have suffered, but this has to go to personnel, to the union and to the new Dean. Transparency is coming to Clark College I promise you and this will all be made public as well as the students have rights to critical information in their own market-based decisions and with the scarce resources that many have to deal with.
take care,
Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
I had no knowledge of or any involvement in the writing of the above letter by Emma Kim that still stands unrebutted by several Clark College administrations. This was published on the Campus Master List with no rebuttal–only repression.
DOT 35
From The Columbian
Local view: College bypassing competitive search
» In Our View: Get Off the Fence
» In Our View: WSUV Weighs Anchor
» Local view: College bypassing competitive search
The Columbian
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
by JIM CRAVEN
It is not only employers who routinely “Google” potential employees. Potential employees now routinely “Google” potential employers. And what would potential employees, such as potential college presidents, find when they “Google” Clark College?
They will find two very costly and morale-dampening bad hires and two firings of Clark presidents in less than five years. They will find numerous failed searches for deans and faculty and a large contingent of “interim” deans and others.
But they will not find the removal of some of the trustees chiefly responsible (three of the current five), but not yet held accountable, for these and other costly and morale-disrupting bad hires and subsequent firings and/or nonhirings, as well as the unconscionable dismissals of some faculty, staff and administrators with substance.
Why is there now a proposal to circumvent free, fair and open competition for the position of Clark College president?
If there were open competition for the position, there would likely be few substantive applicants, thus providing counterevidence against the continual assertions of improved morale at Clark.
Another reason appears to be that a major qualification for Clark College president is how well one can get along with — and shield from accountability — the Clark College Board of Trustees, whose own roles in the mess at Clark no one seems to want to discuss.
Lack of credentials a plus
All kinds of assertions and even “grades” are being handed out to Bob Knight as interim president. Indeed I, too, praise many of the qualities he appears to have and to demonstrate.
As for his supposed lack of “credentials” in education, I consider his background to be a plus, not a minus. Credentials, even in education, come in many forms and I consider Knight’s background far better than that of his fired predecessors for sure — including in education.
Only in America can someone who has never been an educator or leader, with a meager résumé and degree, go off and in two years or less get a quickie “Executive” Ph.D or Ed.D in “Educational Leadership,” become instantly “credentialed” and then start off as a community college president. This was the case in the last two failed presidents.
Not about Knight
But this is not about Bob Knight, however many good qualities he might have. He might very well turn out to be exactly the best person for this job at this time, especially given the campus turmoil of the past five years. This is about the resources and position of Clark College not belonging to anyone, especially the trustees. They belong to the people of the state of Washington.
We teach that free, fair and open competition brings better quality; that applies, then, to selecting college presidents. Further, we have all kinds of assertions of better morale at Clark, but with no empirical evidence.
Further, this proposal is not fair to Bob Knight as it taints him as having obtained his position through a summary appointment by a frightened Clark College Board of Trustees, thus circumventing free, fair and open competition — presumably potentially problematic for his candidacy.
This proposal also puts the candidacy of Bob Knight into the very hands of the same committee and trustees who were unable to find suitable candidates in previous open searches and/or were responsible for the two previous bad hires that necessitated the present search for a president at Clark College.
As they used to say in Malayalam, the language of Kerala, India, where I once lived: “If the crow takes a bath, can it become a swan?” The answer: “No, it is what it is.”
The same applies here. No matter how they dress it up, the proposal to circumvent free, fair and open competition for the job of president is what it is, and what is really behind it, the real motives, are what they really are.
Jim Craven is professor of economics and chairman of the business division at Clark College.
DOT 36
In our view: This Isn’t Whining
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Clark faculty has a right to speak up
At first glance, it’s tempting to chide the Clark College faculty for its formal protest on Monday of the hiring of Bob Knight as president. Knight appears to be a very good – perhaps excellent – choice. He is collaborative, not paranoid or overly sensitive, and is of good spirit. He performed admirably as interim president for 10 months.
As that thinking goes, the faculty ought to quit whining. But two other factors top that reaction:
– The faculty protested the “hiring” of Knight, not Knight himself. The letter delivered Monday to the five trustees from the faculty union was not critical of Knight, but of the process – and thus of the trustees.
They disregarded the procedure outlined in the college’s administrative manual for hiring a president.
Had the trustees followed it, nets would have been cast far and wide for applicants. A committee with faculty representatives and others would have played a part in the selection of a president, although the choice rightly still would have been the trustees’.
“This style of governance,” the faculty letter said, “has severely shortchanged Clark College faculty, staff and administrators, the surrounding community, as well as Robert Knight himself of a fair and inclusive process of selection.” The letter also stressed the faculty’s disappointment that no formal, public record was kept of Knight’s town hall meetings that preceding his formal selection. Faculty trust of the trustees, the letter said, “is diminishing with processes such as this.”
– A college faculty that doesn’t care if it has no say in the selection of a president, or that rolls over for the president or trustees like lapdogs, is not the kind of faculty that would well serve students or the community. We’ll take a spirited, but constructive and hard-working, faculty, thank you. Knight, for that matter, shows every sign of graciously and openly interacting with such faculty members.
Throughout the turmoil at Clark in recent years, with the ouster of two presidents and the hiring of Knight, this page has argued for trustees to be more open to hearing directly from faculty, staff and students. We wish we were as optimistic about that happening as we are about Knight’s potential as Clark College president.
http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/06272007news159031.cfm
1.Comment by James Craven -July 02, 2007 @ 05:48 PM
The issue may have not been Bob Knight initially, but he is becoming part of the issue and problem.
The Columbian once quoted me as saying that Bob, even without a Doctorate, was AS qualified as Branch and Hasart. I did indeed say that. But I always regarded both Hasart and Branch as not minimally qualified, even–or perhaps especially given– their “Educational Leadership” Doctorates combined with neither really having been a leader or educator of anything. That means I was not suggesting Bob was the best qualified for the position, I did not believe that then and do not believe that now; I merely noted AS qualified as Branch and Hasart.
When Bob made interim President, and my favorable comments about him were quoted, he wrote to me thanking me for my kind words saying he hoped I would “keep him honest”. I wrote back that honest is what one does when no one is looking and if one had to be kept honest, one is not honest.
The actions of the Board of Trustees show utter contempt for the concept and meaning of “Trustee”. At a time when morale is at an all-time low, when we suffer numerous “Interim” administrators as a result of failed searches, when very costly bad hires have resulted in costly buying out of contracts and firings, what we call “social capital” in economics (institutions and arrangements that foster trust, hope, cohesion, cooperation) are more imperative than ever yet the so-called “Trustees” (largely political networkers with no substantive experience in education) use their authority and powers more recklessly than ever.
And what does Bob Knight have to say about all of this? Nothing. Someone with a shred of honor, realizing what this latest move by the Clark Board of “Trustees” will do further to damage and divide this institution, would insist, upon threat of resignation, to have a full, free and fair and open competition for such an important position–especially in the context of the several failed presidents Clark has had to suffer and the damages they generated; that is what real honor is about.
No, I’m sorry but Bob Knight has impeached himself as qualified to hold his present position by repeating the same kinds of insulated imperial arrogance we had to suffer from the likes of Johnson, Hasart and Branch before him.
There is simply too much at stake.
Jim Craven
DOT 37
Accessibility should be educational
Friday, September 14, 2007
By Gregg Herrington, Editorial writer
I give up. I’ve failed over the years to convince Clark College trustees to invite the public to send them e-mail, comments, questions and concerns. They’ve beaten me into submission by doing nothing.
The trustees are no more accessible today via easily accessible e-mail than they were during the campus turmoil of recent years when they delegated to Clark presidents the responsibility for washing, rinsing and spinning most communication to the board. As a result, they saw nothing amiss until the situations on campus were dire.
Now, those presidents are gone, but the board still doesn’t want e-mail from just anybody. Go to http://www.clark.edu and you find trustees’ biographies and this note: “For additional information about the Board of Trustees, contact the President’s Office.”
Wanted: Probing board members.
It was the appointment last week of Mark Stoker to a vacancy on the Vancouver School Board that brought this to mind. He’s a lawyer with business and civic credentials who might be a probing, insightful school board member. Or, he might be a go-along-to-get-along guy, a “team player.”
Here’s hoping Stoker’s a bit of a maverick (as every member of every board should be) who will probe and not depend on the administration for all his information and perceptions.
For example, sooner or later McLoughlin Middle School Principal Richard Reeves likely will be summoned to report to the school board on how that school’s dress code is going in its first year.
I called Reeves and asked him about “Mac Attire.” He said that so far the new dress code (solid grays, tans, reds and blacks with no substantial logos or printing) is having a “calming, get-down-to-business” effect and that faculty and staff help set that tone by wearing business clothes or Mac Attire.
I visited the school at dismissal time and watched from outside as orderly students emerged and male faculty members in shirts and ties chatted amiably with the kids in the bus-loading area.
If I were a board member, I’d also talk about the Mac dress code one-on-one with students, teachers, cooks, janitors and parents of my choosing.
As the McLoughlin experiment is analyzed this year, all local school boards at least ought to consider expanding the model to their middle schools. And, while they’re all doing that, they might examine adherence to their regular dress codes. I happened by one high school at dismissal time this week and saw several girls in tops cut low enough that they – rather than literature, biology or geometry – would have held my attention if I were a 16-year-old in class with them.
This isn’t to suggest there aren’t some members of some school boards who don’t do independent probing now, even if it makes superintendents uneasy. I challenge Stoker, and whatever new school board members are elected in November, to be that kind of board member.
Communication report card
To contact a school board member – about dress codes or anything else – district Web pages should get you started, but sometimes don’t. That suggests they’d rather not be bothered. My report card:
Grade A
Battle Ground: http://www.bgsd.k12.wa.us . Click “School Board,” then “The Directors” for mail and e-mail addresses and phone numbers.
Green Mountain: http://www.greenmountainschool.us . “School Board” for home and e-mail addresses and phone numbers.
Hockinson: http://www.hock.k12.wa.us . “School Board,” then “School Board Members” for e-mail addresses and phone numbers.
La Center: http://www.lacenterschools.org . “School Board” for phone numbers, then click on names for e-mail connections.
Grade B
Camas: http://www.camas.wednet.edu . Under “District Info” click “School Board” then “Board Members” for their respective district e-mail addresses.)
Washougal: http://www.washougal.k12.wa.us . “School Board,” then “Contact Information” for e-mail addresses (except Orlan Gessford, who says he has no e-mail but “I’m in the book.”)
Ridgefield: http://www.ridge.k12.wa.us . “School Board” to get e-mail connections.
Grade C
Evergreen: http://www.evergreenps.org . “About Us,” then “School Board.” At bottom of text is a common district e-mail address.
Grade F (aka ‘Clark Trustees Award’)
Vancouver: http://www.vansd.org . “General District Information,” then “Board of Directors.” It offers no phone numbers, e-mail addresses or smoke signal codes.
Gregg Herrington ‘s column of personal opinion appears on the Other Opinions page each Friday. Reach him at
gregg.herrington@columbian.com
DOT 38
The Columbian
March 23, 2009
College Denies Tenure to Student Newspaper’s Adviser Who Urged Aggressive Reporting
The Board of Trustees at Clark College, rejecting the unanimous recommendation of a faculty committee, denied tenure last week to the adviser of the college’s student newspaper in a move that some believe was designed to quash dissent against the administration.
According to The Columbian, a local newspaper in Vancouver, Wash., the journalism professor, Christina Kopinski, fought the administration’s desire to prescreen articles before they were published and advocated a more aggressive brand of journalism when she took over as faculty adviser to The Independent, in 2006. The newspaper subsequently published a number of articles criticizing campus security and certain administrative decisions.
While Clark’s president, Robert Knight, said the accuracy of some of The Independent’s reporting had been questionable, he denied that the articles or Ms. Kopinski’s new philosophy had anything to do with the board’s decision to fire her. Sherry Parker, president of the college’s board, told the Columbian she was “very confident that the process was done properly.”
Don Erskine and Sandy Williams, two long-serving English professors who were on the committee that reviewed Ms. Kopinski’s file and who voted to recommend her for tenure, each toldThe Columbian that her tenure file contained no compromising information. Several of Ms. Kopinski’s colleagues and some of her journalism students said the board was trying to silence criticism.
Ms. Kopinski, who said she believes her contract was violated, is reportedly filing a grievance against the college.—Stev
DOT 39
Ex-coach wins lawsuit against Clark College
Kiser was fired as women’s basketball coach in 2002
By Greg Jayne
Columbian Sports Editor
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Trev Kiser, a former women’s basketball coach at Clark College who had sued the school alleging wrongful termination, was awarded $545,000 Thursday by a jury in Thurston County.
“It was a good verdict today,” Kiser said, before referring questions to his lawyer.
Kiser coached at Clark from fall 1997 through March 2002. According to the lawsuit, “Clark College terminated Kiser because he took action promoting compliance with and expressing concern regarding non-compliance with Title IX.”
Lawyer Jean Huffington of Seattle-based McKay Huffington & Tyler said: “The college said he had engaged in misconduct, as far as per diem reimbursements and expenses.
“In my view, the jury concluded that Clark College made such a rush to judgment that Trev did something wrong that there must have been more to it.”
Kiser initially filed suit in 2005, beginning an elongated process that led to Thursday’s verdict. According to Huffington, the suit initially was dismissed, then was reinstated by the Washington State Court of Appeals and was returned to the Superior Court for Thurston County.
Because Clark College is a state institution, plaintiffs may file suit against the school either in Clark County or Thurston County, which includes the state capital of Olympia.
Huffington broke down the verdict like this: $180,000 for back pay, from the time of the firing to the beginning of the trial; $150,000 for future pay, which was hampered by the firing; and $215,000 for emotional distress.
In addition, Judge Paula Casey will determine and award attorney’s fees to Kiser, adding to the total damages.
Clark College president Bob Knight said: “I would just have to say we are disappointed in the verdict. Clark College is reviewing our options. It would be inappropriate to comment further.”
Knight added that the payment, if it stands, will come out of Clark’s operational funds.
Knight was not employed by Clark College at the time that Kiser was fired. Of the three Clark employees who played a role in the firing according to the lawsuit, none of them have remained at Clark.
While Kiser claimed that the firing came after he questioned the college’s Title IX compliance, the lawsuit did not address the issue of that compliance. Title IX is a federal law that deals in part with gender equity for men’s and women’s athletic teams at institutions that receive federal money.
“It is in no way a finding that anybody violated it,” Huffington said of the Title IX questions. “It’s about laws that govern employment. If it’s a verdict on anything, it’s a verdict on personnel issues. ”
DOT 39
Local view: College bypassing competitive search
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
by JIM CRAVEN
It is not only employers who routinely “Google” potential employees. Potential employees now routinely “Google” potential employers. And what would potential employees, such as potential college presidents, find when they “Google” Clark College?
They will find two very costly and morale-dampening bad hires and two firings of Clark presidents in less than five years. They will find numerous failed searches for deans and faculty and a large contingent of “interim” deans and others.
But they will not find the removal of some of the trustees chiefly responsible (three of the current five), but not yet held accountable, for these and other costly and morale-disrupting bad hires and subsequent firings and/or non-hirings, as well as the unconscionable dismissals of some faculty, staff and administrators with substance.
Why is there now a proposal to circumvent free, fair and open competition for the position of Clark College president?
If there were open competition for the position, there would likely be few substantive applicants, thus providing counterevidence against the continual assertions of improved morale at Clark.
Another reason appears to be that a major qualification for Clark College president is how well one can get along with — and shield from accountability — the Clark College Board of Trustees, whose own roles in the mess at Clark no one seems to want to discuss.
Lack of credentials a plus
All kinds of assertions and even “grades” are being handed out to Bob Knight as interim president. Indeed I, too, praise many of the qualities he appears to have and to demonstrate.
As for his supposed lack of “credentials” in education, I consider his background to be a plus, not a minus. Credentials, even in education, come in many forms and I consider Knight’s background far better than that of his fired predecessors for sure — including in education.
Only in America can someone who has never been an educator or leader, with a meager résumé and degree, go off and in two years or less get a quickie “Executive” Ph.D or Ed.D in “Educational Leadership,” become instantly “credentialed” and then start off as a community college president. This was the case in the last two failed presidents.
Not about Knight
But this is not about Bob Knight, however many good qualities he might have. He might very well turn out to be exactly the best person for this job at this time, especially given the campus turmoil of the past five years. This is about the resources and position of Clark College not belonging to anyone, especially the trustees. They belong to the people of the state of Washington.
We teach that free, fair and open competition brings better quality; that applies, then, to selecting college presidents. Further, we have all kinds of assertions of better morale at Clark, but with no empirical evidence.
Further, this proposal is not fair to Bob Knight as it taints him as having obtained his position through a summary appointment by a frightened Clark College Board of Trustees, thus circumventing free, fair and open competition — presumably potentially problematic for his candidacy.
This proposal also puts the candidacy of Bob Knight into the very hands of the same committee and trustees who were unable to find suitable candidates in previous open searches and/or were responsible for the two previous bad hires that necessitated the present search for a president at Clark College.
As they used to say in Malayalam, the language of Kerala, India, where I once lived: “If the crow takes a bath, can it become a swan?” The answer: “No, it is what it is.”
The same applies here. No matter how they dress it up, the proposal to circumvent free, fair and open competition for the job of president is what it is, and what is really behind it, the real motives, are what they really are.
Jim Craven is professor of economics and chairman of the business division at Clark College.
DOT 40
This document is in the public record and stands unrebutted:
From:
Sent: Fri 10/26/2007 11:58 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Disciplinary action and notes taken at the Open Presidents Dialogue
Lynn and Marcia, per professor Craven’s request, the following are some notes I took at the President’s forum on Oct 16th, 2007 that may directly relate to what Processor Craven is talking about. I am providing this information to you since you are AHE Union representatives and would hope that you keep the source of the information confidential. I respect Professor Craven and have known him for several years and both respect him and appreciate his tenacity over the years to “ask the question that no one else is brave to ask”.
By the way, I was taking notes for the WPEA unit meeting that was scheduled for the following day. Another WPEA Job Rep present was Eugene Carroll. (I say this only because President Bob Knight jokingly said a few days later to me in passing that he “didn’t know I was Jim Craven’s personal secretary”. indicating that Mr. Knight knew I was taking minutes and was “concerned”. Informed Bob as well as others who have called that I was present before Jim arrived with notepad in hand and as is custom – always take notes at ALL meetings I attend. A co-worker called me after the meeting and said that the secretaries in the Admin bldg were “buzzing” because I was taking notes for Jim Craven at the forum” and left the auditorium early with Jim .(I had a media dispatch to attend to and is was coincidental that we both left at the same time). I find it rather humorous that this type of action on my part of taking notes and leaving early would be of any interest to anyone and cause buzzing at the water fountain……. sigh
________________________________________
The Meeting commenced at 2:30pm in Foster Aud.
Mr. Knight asked the audience, (consisting of mostly classified and administrative staff), if there were any questions or comments. Jim asked Mr. Knight if he were aware of any conspiracies against state employee rights that were occurring at Clark. Bob replied with “and your point?”. Jim said that he was aware, as well as other outside agencies, that approximately $175,000 in litigation settlements has occurred in the last year with state funds. Bob told Jim that he was worried about Jim’s negative attitude and accused Jim of having an anger problem. Jim asked Bob if he were a medical professional who could diagnose anyone’s personal emotional issues. Bob said he was tired of Jim trying to harass people. Bob said that he was not going to allow Jim to monopolize the OPEN DIALOGUE today and that if Jim wanted to communicate with Bob it should be outside the Public Forum. Jim said on numerous occasions he has tried to email Bob with his concerns with no response. Bob responded! by saying rather curtly, “Jim when I get an email from you I just delete it”.
Bob then changed the subject abruptly by announcing how proud the college should be to have faculty member Deena Bigsby awarded a prestigious Leadership Award. (He elaborated on what was involved with the process).
________________________________________
I could on here, but mostly the rest of the topics were about how to request funds, the master planning committee, etc. I can produce those minutes if you wish.
More importantly, the response Mr. Knight gave Jim at the beginning of the meeting pretty much squelched any questions from the classified staff about concerns they might have –that may be construed as negative by Mr. Knight or the EC. Mr Knight has made it quite clear at both the Fall Orientation Sessions and at this forum that “negativity” will not be tolerated. I might add here that the college is preparation for an accreditation visit and several committees are addressing the low morale of the college. A college climate survey was sent to the staff and only a very small portion (I think only 5%) of the Classified Staff even responded. No one wants to be a target.
That did not stop Eugene Carroll or I; however in asking pointed questions regarding How our Administrative Staff are evaluated and whether or not they were being held accountable for not attending the mandatory Supervisory training sessions for the new PDP annual evaluation process per our new Union contract. Bob’s responses and attitudes towards both Eugene and I were both respectful and pleasant even though the questions could have been construed as “confrontational”.
Curiously enough I broached the topic of negativity with the Job reps prior to our WPEA Labor Management Meeting yesterday putting the onus on our supervisors that often times THEY are the ones contributing to the negativity in the office. Our Olympia Representative agreed and said that they next time HR or a supervisor says that their is bad chemistry in a dept and the employee should resign, he will respond with “No I think that it is evident that the supervisor is the problem and THEY should resign”. 😉 (that would be a switch).
Later in the Open Dialogue Jim asked Bob if he noted that there were hardly any faculty present and could Bob speculate why that was. Bob said he could not and asked Jim if he knew why. Jim said perhaps it was due to fears of retaliation or intimidation. (I might not have got this down exactly right); however, Bob seemed upset with being asked the rhetorical question.
In summation, I concur and am a witness to the fact that Mr Craven in no way was yelling, shaking fists or acting in a overtly threatening or bullying manner that one would expect of a “derranged man” and yet for the administration to treat him as such is both disrepectful and demeaning not only to Mr Craven but to the rest of the staff who witness such retaliation.
Jim has always been upfront in saying that he may disagree with a philosophical issue but appreciates the dialogue. That is one reason I respect him. Even Jim and I don’t always see eye-to-eye on some things. (Even Liberals and Conservatives can be good friends.) We both will not tolerate fear and intimidation of staff and when witnessing the behavior, a certain righteous indignation rises in our spirits.
I agree with President Knight (and Jim does not contest this)- that the discourse of ideas, thoughts and open communications and feelings, even if contrary or difficult to hear and understand, should be fostered at an academic institution ; however, communication is two way street and both parties must be civil towards one another before communication really can occur.
name deleted
DOT 41
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:12 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Jim Craven & the Presidents Forum
I have a technical/procedural question. If I am the accuser as it relates to Jim’s behavior in the President’s Forum can I be the one that investigates this incident which could lead to discipline? It seems to me this could be an area that could be questioned. I want this to be as clean as possible on this. If I were investigating someone else’s claim against Jim that seems appropriate.
Your thoughts?
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:19 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Jim Craven & the Presidents Forum
I’m not sure it is an investigation per se. It is a supervisor following up with an employee whose behavior you observed to be inappropriate.
From: Kotsakis, Ted Wed 11/14/2007 7:53 AM
To: Golder, Katrina
RE: Jim Craven & the Presidents Forum
I think we have to be squeaky clean here. Jim has already raised the question of how I can be the accuser, judge, and jury. My asking him questions about the meeting will more than likely lead to discipline in some form or another. Let’s not kid ourselves. We all know the behavior he exhibited was unacceptable.
From:
DOT 42
RIGHT AFTER THE PRESIDENT’S “DIALOGUE”, ACCORDING TO THE SWORN TESTIMONIES OF LYNN DAVIDSON, WEA UNISERV REPRESENTATIVE AND DR. MARCIA ROI, CLARK COLLEGE FACULTY AND THEN AHE PRESIDENT CLARK COLLEGE PRESIDENT ROBERT KNIGHT SAID TO THEM BOTH AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE, IN THE CONTEXT OF A GENERAL DISCUSSION ABOUT MORALE ON CAMPUS, THAT “THERE IS NO MORALE PROBLEM HERE. MORALE WILL IMPROVE WHEN WE GET RID OF PROFESSOR CRAVEN”
DOT 43
AND:
Mr. Craven suffered a heart attack and from September 2008, and was on medical leave until April, 2009. While on leave, Ted Kotsakis, Dean of Business and Technology, initiated a Division Chair election to remove Professor Craven from the position of Division Chair, which he had held since 2001 and which he was not due to leave until September 2009.
The Collective Bargaining Agreement (Article III. Personnel, I.) Division Chairs provides clear and unambiguous language delineating the process by which a Division Chair is elected. Mr. Kotsakis, contrary to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, inserted himself in the Division Chair election process which resulted in Mr. Craven losing the Division Chair position, wages, and associated benefits. As a result, Professor Adnan Hamideh was elected Division Chair.
In February 2009 Mr. Craven and Mr. Hamideh exchanged emails on College email related to the responsibilities of Division Chair. Professor Craven received a letter from Mr. Kotsakis on February 17, 2009, notifying him that his email dated February 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM “has been brought to my attention as being threatening, harassing, and abusive” and notifying him that upon his return to work he would be given the opportunity to respond to all concerns raised by this investigation. In fact, as the evidence established, the words threatening, harassing, and abusive were the words of Mr. Kotsakis and others in the administration.
AND:
Mr. Craven received a letter from Katrina Golder, Vice President of Human Resources, on April 27, 2009, referencing e-mail sent on February 6, February 8, and April 20th, 2009. Ms. Golder informed Mr. Craven, “This is to advise you that the College has received a complaint from Adnan Hamideh regarding the emails of April 20, February 6 and February 8, 2009;” the College enclosed copies of the referenced emails and the April 20th complaint, as attachments.
Clearly the College failed to comply with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (Article III. Personnel, A. #5) which states “Any complaint not called to the attention of the faculty member within ten (10) contracted days of notice to the College, may not be used as the basis for any disciplinary action against a faculty member.” Prior to April 27, 2009, Mr. Craven had received no communication from the College that there was any concern regarding a February 8, 2009 email.
The April 27th, 2009 letter said in part, “this is to advise you that the College has received a complaint from Adnan Hamideh regarding the emails of April 20th, February 6 and February 8, 2009.” This was shown to be untrue through the cross-examination of Mr. Hamideh and Ms. Golder. No complaint was filed regarding the February 6th or 8th emails; the only complaint filed was in regard to an April 20th email sent from Mr. Craven to Mr. Hamideh.
Mr. Craven sent an email on April 20, 2009 to Mr. Hamideh, the members of his Division, AHE President Dr. Marcia Roi, and WEA UniServ Director, Lynn Davidson. In this email Mr. Craven expressed displeasure regarding what he viewed as violations to the Collective Bargaining Agreement related to seniority rights and assignment of classes. Mr. Craven testified he used a metaphor in his email which contained the word Palestinian, referring to behavior, not to a specific individual. Professor Gene Johnson and Professor Gerard Smith both testified to their knowledge of Mr. Craven’s use of metaphors in writing and in speech.
AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi, sent an email to all AHE Faculty and Adjuncts on the AHE union list on March 18, 2009. President Roi sent the email specifically on a list set up by the College for union business. Ms. Roi, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Craven all testified to receiving this union communication on the union list. Phil Sheehan, Director of Information and Technology Services, testified to the existence, creation, and purpose of this list, and that this list, indeed, “was specifically meant for union business.”
The title of President Roi’s email was P.S. Academic Freedom and Tenure. Ms. Roi testified she sent the email because there were a lot of rumors and fear on the campus about the denial of tenure of faculty, and that multiple faculty had responded to her email, including Mr. Craven.
AND:
DOT 44
ANIMUS
Mr. Craven attended President Bob Knight’s “Open Public Dialogue” on the campus on October 15, 2007. According to Mr. Craven and Ms. Wheeler’s testimony, because the event was publicized as an “open public dialogue” individuals attended with the assumption it was safe and appropriate to ask questions of President Bob Knight. Mr. Craven testified he asked the President a question about an editorial in the Columbian newspaper, which referred to “hush money” the College paid in recent settlements. Mr Craven asked the president how did he know if public monies had or had not been used as “hush money” to prevent going to trial where possible crimes might be discovered. Mr. Craven reported the President became “visibly angry” with him and his questioning. Ms. Wheeler testified Mr. Knight responded to Mr. Craven, stating “I am worried about your negative attitude and I think you have an anger problem.” Mr. Knight told Mr. Craven “…he was tired of Jim trying to harass people and he was not going to allow him to monopolize this open dialogue and if Jim wanted to communicate, it should be outside of the public forum.” Ms. Wheeler testified “President Knight was agitated and visibly upset” by Mr. Craven’s questions.
Mr. Craven testified he responded to the President, informing him he had sent emails to him on numerous occasions, but he never received a response. Ms. Wheeler testified the President responded “Jim, when I get an email from you I just hit delete.” Mr. Craven testified he responded to the President, reminding him “I am a Division Chair of multiple departments of the College, and I have the right and duty to speak, ask questions, and receive a response.” Mr. Craven was asked to recall how the President’s comment impacted him, and testified “The Presidents response was a summary censorship of my work and that I have nothing of value to say.”
Ms. Wheeler testified nearly 60-100 individuals attended to the forum, and the Presidents tone, body language, and demeanor was visibly different towards Mr. Craven as compared to others who asked questions at the dialogue. Ms. Wheeler, when asked to describe Mr. Knight’s behavior toward Mr. Craven relayed a story about her son who lives and works in Japan, and an incident in which her son, when being introduced in front of a large audience, forgot to bow to one of the individuals on the panel. Ms. Wheeler explained that her son’s boss approached him privately, after the assembly, and admonished him for the cultural gaff in forgetting to bow to one of the panelists. The boss explained to her son that in forgetting to bow he showed disrespect and embarrassed him, however, he waited to address this with him in private, as he did not want him to lose face. Ms. Wheeler relayed this story, as she believed Mr. Knight did not show equal respect to Mr. Craven, and made him “lose face” in the large audience.
Ms. Wheeler and Mr. Craven testified Mr. Craven’s vocal tone, body language, and demeanor were normal and appropriate throughout the dialogue.
WEA-Riverside Director Lynn Davidson and AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi testified to a labor management meeting they attended with President Bob Knight and Vice President Rassoul Dastmozd on Friday, November 9, 2007. AHE President Roi testified she told President Knight there was a “…morale problem on the campus.” President Knight responded “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we get rid of Professor Craven.” This was never refuted by management in the hearing. Ms. Davidson testified she was “shocked” President Bob Knight would say something like this to union representatives, and based on her expertise was troubled because his statements showed the union “should expect animosity by the President and the College in future dealings” related to Mr. Craven. This testimony of Dr. Marcia Roi and Ms. Lynn Davidson, at the arbitration hearing subsequent to the ESD appeal hearing with ALJ Knutson, directly contradicts the sworn testimony of President Knight that he never made nor would make the statement “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we ‘get rid’ of Professor Craven” [is “when we ‘get rid of’ Professor Craven an example of really hostile, threatening, abusive speech and writing especially in the context of someone with known and serious medical disabilities?]
DOT 45
UNION NOTICE ON CLARK COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION RECRUITING FACULTY MEMBERS TO FILE COMPLAINTS AGAINST OTHER FACULTY MEMBERS. THE COMPLAINTS ARE THEN HEARD BY THE VERY PERSONS WHO SOLICITED THE COMPLAINTS AGAINST TARGETED FACULTY MEMBERS AND STAFF. THESE SAME PERSONS THEN “INVESTIGATE” THE VERY COMPLAINTS THEY SOLICITED. THESE SAME PERSONS THEN GIVE A “VERDICT” ON THEIR OWN “INVESTIGATION” OF THEIR OWN CHARGES AND SOLICITED COMPLAINTS. THEY THEN BECOME ASSESSORS OF DISCIPLINE FOR THEIR VERDICT WITH NO SEPARATE PHASE FOR CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATION IN DISCIPLINE AS THE DISCIPLINE WAS PRE-ORDAINED AND REPLACEMENTS HIRED BEFORE ANY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE VERDICT AND THEN APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE. FOR THE COUP DE GRACE, THESE SAME PERSONS ALSO ACT AS APPEAL AUTHORITIES ON TWO OF THREE POSSIBLE LEVELS OF APPEAL.
Clark Admin solicits and policy460
DOT46
ADJUNCTS SOLICITED TO FILE COMPLAINTS REWARDED WITH UNPRECEDENTED COURSE LOADS AND OVERLOADS (20 CREDITS PER QUARTER) GIVEN PRIORITY IN COURSE SCHEDULING AND COURSE SELECTIONS FOR TEACHING, COURSE LOADS TO QUALIFY FOR MEDICAL AND OTHER BENEFITS, ALL WHILE NONE OF THE ADJUNCTS FAVORED SAVE ONE HAD BEEN PROPERLY VETTED, SIGNED OFF BY THE SENIOR ECONOMIST (MYSELF) AS WAS AND IS STANDARD PRACTICE FOR 18 OF MY LAST 20 YEARS AT CLARK COLLEGE AND AT EVERY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AT WHICH I HAVE TAUGHT. THE SAME WAS DONE IN ACCOUNTING WITH MORE THAN TWO ADJUNCTS HIRED WITHOUT BEING VETTED BY THE SENIOR ACCOUNTING TEACHER. SOME EVIDENCE AT”
https://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/statement-of-duty-and-warning-to-clark-college-students/
https://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/open-letter-for-my-students-and-all-clark-college-students/
https://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/documents-from-clark-college-vancouver-wa-public-sworn-under-penalty-of-perjury-accountable-and-unrebutted/
https://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/attempts-to-report-felony-crimes-per-18-usc-4-28-usc-1361-exchanges-with-clark-county-sheriff-gary-lucas/
DOT47
For The Eyes of Governor Locke
Dear Governor Locke:
Thank you for your response letter to some of the matters that I have raised with you. For those matters that you feel that you can do nothing about and about which you referred me to the office of Brian Sonntag, Washington State Auditor, I will take those matters to his office.
I raised other issues about which you can do something. After blowing the whistle on a faculty member who was using State resources to collect and disseminate child pornography, I have been subjected to harassment by that same individual. He has felt free to continue this harassment because he has been offered protection by some members of the Clark Administration and by the refusal to act by some members of the Clark Board of Trustees–appointed/reappointed by you or your predecessor Governor Lowry.
I have been before the Clark Board of Trustees eight times. In the presence of the AAG Ms Terrada, I have given actual physical evidence (redacted tapes, copies of tapes sworn under of penalty not to exist, materially altered public records, sworn deposition and sources in sworn depositions where I alleged that perjury had been committed in a Title VII Federal case). Not once was I given any response to my concerns; not once was I given any rebuttal; not once was I given even an indication that serious evidence had been even considered. This in my opinion, and in the opinion of my WEA representative, gave a tacit “green-light” to–and emboldened–those engaging in continual harassment of me (pornography sent to me, messages that I am being investigated, my credit report sent to me etc).
So Governor, there is something you can do. You can take a look at your own appointees to the position of Trustee. You can ensure that only the most experienced, most honest, most capable and most committed to quality education are placed in the important position of Trustee. You can ensure that the position of Trustee is not used for political patronage, for payback, or for persons seeking higher political levels using Trusteeships as stepping stones.
Please read the following. The human costs of political patronage and dereliction of duty and tacit complicity in harassment through dereliction of duty are simply too great.
Sincerely,
James M. Craven Professor, Dept. Head Economics
DOT48
EVIDENCE OF BACKROOM MACHINATIONS BY CLARK COLLEGE PRESIDENT ROBERT KNIGHT, AND FRAMING OF A COMPLAINT OF SUPPOSED UNNAMED VIOLATIONS OF SUPPOSED UNNAMED POLICIES. ALLEGED OFFENSE? PUTTING OUT ON THE MESSAGE LIST USED TO SELL CATS AND SEND CHIT-CHAT, A LIST, WITHOUT COMMENT, OF LAWS THAT ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW AND COMPORT OURSELVES WITH. IT IS CLEAR IN THIS EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH SOME COMPLAINT AND CHARGES BEING SOLICITED, THAT THE PARTICULAR LAWS AND TEXTS BEING CITED WITHOUT COMMENT PROVOKED CLEAR RESPONSES:
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:22 PM
To: Roi, Marcia; ‘ldavidson@washingtonea.org’
Subject: On denial of grievance on loss of pay
This was central to the letter of reprimand and was not provided to me nor did I get a hearing as it was imposed while off contract.
This was found in a public records request.
Jim
________________________________________
From: Dastmozd, Rassoul
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:02 AM
To: Knight, Robert
Cc: Kotsakis, Ted
Subject: RE: [Messages] RCW (Criminal) for Public Employees (1)
Hi Bob, I am working with ted to address this. Take care, Rassoul
________________________________________
From: Knight, Robert
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 8:46 AM
To: Dastmozd, Rassoul
Cc: Kotsakis, Ted
Subject: FW: [Messages] RCW (Criminal) for Public Employees (1)
Rassoul,
Each and everyone of these messages is a violation of our procedures and needs to be dealt with.
Bob
From: messages-bounces@clark.edu [mailto:messages-bounces@clark.edu]On Behalf Of Craven, Jim
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:06 PM
To: messages@clark.edu
Subject: [Messages] RCW (Criminal) for Public Employees (1)
Trading in public office.
(1) A person is guilty of trading in public office if:
(a) He offers, confers, or agrees to confer any pecuniary benefit upon a public servant pursuant to an agreement or understanding that such actor will or may be appointed to a public office; or
(b) Being a public servant, he requests, accepts, or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit from another person pursuant to an agreement or understanding that such person will or may be appointed to a public office.
(2) Trading in public office is a class C felony.
RCW 9A.68.050
Trading in special influence.
(1) A person is guilty of trading in special influence if:
(a) He offers, confers, or agrees to confer any pecuniary benefit upon another person pursuant to an agreement or understanding that such other person will offer or confer a benefit upon a public servant or procure another to do so with intent thereby to secure or attempt to secure a particular result in a particular matter; or
(b) He requests, accepts, or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit pursuant to an agreement or understanding that he will offer or confer a benefit upon a public servant or procure another to do so with intent thereby to secure or attempt to secure a particular result in a particular matter.
(2) Trading in special influence is a class C felony.
False report.
Every public officer who shall knowingly make any false or misleading statement in any official report or statement, under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[1909 c 249 § 98; RRS § 2350.]
RCW 42.20.080
Other violations by officers.
Every officer or other person mentioned in RCW42.20.070, who shall wilfully disobey any provision of law regulating his official conduct in cases other than those specified in said section, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
42.20.090 <> 42.20.110
RCW 42.20.100
Failure of duty by public officer a misdemeanor.
Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon any public officer or other person holding any public trust or employment, their wilful neglect to perform such duty, except where otherwise specially provided for, shall be a misdemeanor.
[1909 c 249 § 16; RRS § 2268. Prior: Code 1881 § 889; 1854 p 90 § 82.]
RCW 9A.72.010
Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Materially false statement” means any false statement oral or written, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding; whether a false statement is material shall be determined by the court as a matter of law;
(2) “Oath” includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting to the truth of that which is stated; in this chapter, written statements shall be treated as if made under oath if:
(a) The statement was made on or pursuant to instructions on an official form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable;
(b) The statement recites that it was made under oath, the declarant was aware of such recitation at the time he or she made the statement, intended that the statement should be represented as a sworn statement, and the statement was in fact so represented by its delivery or utterance with the signed jurat of an officer authorized to administer oaths appended thereto; or
(c) It is a statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, made within or outside the state of Washington, which is certified or declared to be true under penalty of perjury as provided in RCW9A.72.085.
(3) An oath is “required or authorized by law” when the use of the oath is specifically provided for by statute or regulatory provision or when the oath is administered by a person authorized by state or federal law to administer oaths;
(4) “Official proceeding” means a proceeding heard before any legislative, judicial, administrative, or other government agency or official authorized to hear evidence under oath, including any referee, hearing examiner, commissioner, notary, or other person taking testimony or depositions;
(5) “Juror” means any person who is a member of any jury, including a grand jury, impaneled by any court of this state or by any public servant authorized by law to impanel a jury; the term juror also includes any person who has been drawn or summoned to attend as a prospective juror;
(6) “Testimony” includes oral or written statements, documents, or any other material that may be offered by a witness in an official proceeding.
[2001 c 171 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 30; 1981 c 187 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 §9A.72.010.]
Notes:
9A.72.010 <> 9A.72.030
Intimidating a witness.
(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a witness if a person, by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to:
(a) Influence the testimony of that person;
(b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify;
(c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings; or
(d) Induce that person not to report the information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child, not to have the crime or the abuse or neglect of a minor child prosecuted, or not to give truthful or complete information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(2) A person also is guilty of intimidating a witness if the person directs a threat to a former witness because of the witness’s role in an official proceeding.
(3) As used in this section:
(a) “Threat” means:
(i) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(ii) Threat as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25).
(b) “Current or prospective witness” means:
(i) A person endorsed as a witness in an official proceeding;
(ii) A person whom the actor believes may be called as a witness in any official proceeding; or
(iii) A person whom the actor has reason to believe may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(c) “Former witness” means:
(i) A person who testified in an official proceeding;
(ii) A person who was endorsed as a witness in an official proceeding;
(iii) A person whom the actor knew or believed may have been called as a witness if a hearing or trial had been held; or
(iv) A person whom the actor knew or believed may have provided information related to a criminal investigation or an investigation into the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(4) Intimidating a witness is a class B felony.
[1997 c 29 § 1; 1994 c 271 § 204; 1985 c 327 § 2; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 § 18; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 §9A.72.110.]
Notes:
*Reviser’s note: RCW9A.04.110 was amended by 2005 c 458 § 3, changing subsection (25) to subsection (26); and was subsequently amended by 2007 c 79 § 3, changing subsection (26) to subsection (27).
Finding — 1994 c 271: See note following RCW9A.72.090.
Purpose — Severability — 1994 c 271: See notes following RCW9A.28.020.
RCW 9A.72.150
Tampering with physical evidence.
(1) A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence if, having reason to believe that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority, he:
(a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or alters physical evidence with intent to impair its appearance, character, or availability in such pending or prospective official proceeding; or
(b) Knowingly presents or offers any false physical evidence.
(2) “Physical evidence” as used in this section includes any article, object, document, record, or other thing of physical substance.
(3) Tampering with physical evidence is a gross misdemeanor.
RCW 9A.76.175
Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.
A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. “Material statement” means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.
[2001 c 308 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 32.]
Notes:
Purpose — 2001 c 308: “The purpose of this act is to respond toState v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, the law prohibiting materially false or misleading statements to public servants, enacted as sections 32 and 33, chapter 285, Laws of 1995.” [2001 c 308 § 1.]
Effective date — 2001 c 308: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 14, 2001].” [2001 c 308 § 4.]
Effective date — 1995 c 285: See RCW48.30A.900.
RCW 9A.76.180
Intimidating a public servant.
(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a public servant if, by use of a threat, he attempts to influence a public servant’s vote, opinion, decision, or other official action as a public servant.
(2) For purposes of this section “public servant” shall not include jurors.
(3) “Threat” as used in this section means
(a) to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(b) threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25).
(4) Intimidating a public servant is a class B felony.
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 §9A.76.180.]
Notes:
*Reviser’s note: RCW9A.04.110 was amended by 2005 c 458 § 3, changing subsection (25) to subsection (26); and was subsequently amended by 2007 c 79 § 3, changing subsection (26) to subsection (27).
RCW 9A.80.010
Official misconduct.
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
(a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
(b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.
(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.
[1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 17; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 §9A.80.010.]
Notes:
Effective date — Severability — 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38:See notes following RCW 9A.08.020.
Failure of duty by public officers: RCW42.20.100.
RCW 10.14.020
Definitions.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
(1) “Unlawful harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to such person, and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose. The course of conduct shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner, or, when the course of conduct would cause a reasonable parent to fear for the well-being of their child.
(2) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. “Course of conduct” includes, in addition to any other form of communication, contact, or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.”
[2001 c 260 § 2; 1999 c 27 § 4; 1995 c 127 § 1; 1987 c 280 § 2.]
Notes:
Findings — Intent — 2001 c 260: “The legislature finds that unlawful harassment directed at a child by a person under the age of eighteen is not acceptable and can have serious consequences. The legislature further finds that some interactions between minors, such as “schoolyard scuffles,” though not to be condoned, may not rise to the level of unlawful harassment. It is the intent of the legislature that a protection order sought by the parent or guardian of a child as provided for in this chapter be available only when the alleged behavior of the person under the age of eighteen to be restrained rises to the level set forth in chapter 10.14 RCW.” [2001 c 260 § 1.]
Intent — 1999 c 27: See note following RCW9A.46.020.
RCW 10.14.190
Constitutional rights.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to infringe upon any constitutionally protected rights including, but not limited to, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
[1987 c 280 § 19.]
DOT49
Welcome to the Blog of Jim Craven 
Pingback: APPEALS COURT RULING BOLSTERS PROFESSOR’S FREE-SPEECH RIGHTS | Welcome to the Blog of Jim Craven