By Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

Professor and Department Head, Economics 

“ 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)

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?)

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.”

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.

I responded to Michael (see below) which prompted this response from him:

Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 06:14:13 +0000
From: michael
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!

(P.S. if anything I’ve said in my emails thus far can help you in any way, feel free to use them!)

This was the response that I gave to Michael that prompted his comments above:

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,


And this was my response to Michael’s response:


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 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.


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.


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.]

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.


BUS 028, BUS 029, Math 065

Adnan and Steve

BUS 203, BUS 204


BUS 201, BUS 202, BUS 203


BUS 160

Patti and Gene

Mgmt 100/BUS 101


BUS 115, BUS 116, BUS 260, Mgmt 101


BUS 110, Mgmt 106, Mgmt 107


BUS 117, BUS 211

Steve Walsh

BUS 130


BUS 133, Bus 135, Mgmt 122


BUS 201

Steve Konrad

BUS 251, Mgmt 110, Mgmt 120, Mgmt 125, Mgmt 133


Mgmt 103, Mgmt 112, Mgmt 113


Mgmt 132


Mgmt 128


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.


James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

Professor and Department Head, Economics

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.


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,


I had no knowledge of or any involvement in the writing of this letter by Emma Kim that still stands unrebutted by several Clark College administrations:

—–Original Message—–

From: [ <> ]

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.)

                                   Secret file 6 binders, 4900 pages kept since 1994

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 charged 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!!!!

More to follow:

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

This entry was posted in Clark College. Bookmark the permalink.



  2. Pingback: Proposed Revisions To UW Faculty Code.  /  The Ave

  3. Pingback: More Repression Against Whistle-blowers and Corruption in Clark County | Welcome to the Blog of Jim Craven

  4. Pingback: Request From and Response to Governor Inslee and His Staff to Publicize Inslee Meeting | Welcome to the Blog of Jim Craven

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s