STATEMENT OF DUTY AND CONCERN TO CLARK COLLEGE STUDENTS

PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN EVOLVING BLOG IN RESPONSE TO NEW INFORMATION PLEASE CHCK LATEST ENTRIES FOR CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS THAT WILL OCCUR WITH NEW INFORMATION

Federal Crime Reporting Statute
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/title_18_usc_4.html

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.
________________________________________

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 themsselves involved in the crime).
________________________________________
Another Federal Statute for Forcing A
Federal Officer To Perform a Mandatory Duty
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.
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/title_18_usc_4.html
————————————————————————————

TO ALL CLARK COLLEGE STUDENTS AND ESPECIALLY BUSINESS STUDENTS:

I am Jim Craven, Professor of Economics and Geography and Department Head, Economics. I work AT Clark College, but I do not work FOR Clark College or indeed any supervisor there. I am a public employee and I hope servant, of the People as represented by the Government of the State of Washington of which Clark College is an Agency. I am only supervised by some, and under law, only take and carry out lawful orders or what I have been shown to be lawful orders, in the event I question that any orders given are indeed lawful. As a public employee I have duties and responsibilities under law that private-sector employees do not have. For example, if I say or write lies while on duty, that involves at a minimum Misconduct of a Public Employee and Filing a False Report by a Public Employee, both of which are felonies.

Why do public employees have more responsibilities? Because they have more powers and more rights, and thus more responsibilities and checks-and-balances than private-sector employees. What kinds of people want “P-6” (power, perks, pay, promotions, permanence and prominence) with no responsibilities or accountability? They are called psychopaths and academia, along with the business world, politics and the arts–the whole system–are full of them.

I am the first and only real Economist, with a graduate degree and additional coursework in Economics plus other disciplines. To teach Economics at Clark College is supposed to require a minimum of a Masters degree in Economics, not an MBA or an M.Ed (Econ), and some teaching experience at this level. Not only were adjuncts hired without my involvement or being allowed to vet them for what I call the the “Five ‘Cs’ in Teaching”:

1. Competence (is the person fundamentally competent in the core of the discipline no matter what paradigm he or she operates from)

2. Currency (is the person current. A degree in economics from thirty years ago without nothing since them in terms of teaching, research, new courses, publications on issues of the day is worthless on its own and not a credential for employment today per se)

3.Caring (does the person care about students as human beings with rights and needs and not as objects, numbers, FTEs or sources of a cushy job and job security)

4. Commitment (is this person committed to personal growth and development and that of his or her students)’

5. Courage (does this person have the courage to risk his or her job not to follow and to expose and contest illegal orders, crimes in the workplace, harm to the students, fraud and misrepresentation and the like)

But most of the adjuncts I still have never met and do not even know what they look like. And here is how Clark College has used and still is using my own name and credentials at this very moment. And here is the information updated and corrected for accuracy (I have never had nor claimed fluency in the six languages in which I have worked and lived) and some of my present positions as an economist also.

Several have indicated they do not want to meet me even as I am head of Economics and have a resume in academic preparation, teaching experience and working experience in Economics and other disciplines that I am told none of them could come close to. What is wrong with that picture? What have they been told about me? Why would they not want to learn from me, and let me learn from them, given my experience and resume that Clark College takes credit for? Or how about my professional responsibilities to know what is being taught in Econ 101 not only because I am responsible as a full-time and tenured faculty member, and have been called Economics Department Head for some 19-plus years until now my title, even the admission of the existence of an Economics Department is a serious liability (possible litigation to admit the Head of the Economics Department has not even met those adjuncts teaching Economics?) and bad teaching at the 101 level makes my job tougher at the 201 and 202 levels.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” Sir Walter Scott

The following adjunct instructors I have not vetted or really even met. In some cases they were hired without my even knowing they had applied and to whom they had applied to teach. I opposed some of their applications for not having even the minimum required academic degrees on paper (M.A.or M.S, in Economics–no one should be teaching any economics courses who cannot teach them all); or, along with others not only me, for inability to answer even basic, week-three micro and macro economics questions during an interview put equally to all candidates; or, simply because they have been allowed not to have any contact with me, have made comments against me never having met me, one made apparent racist comments about my background, and still remains employed and even with preferences on class schedule, classrooms and overloads which is unprecedented for adjuncts. Why do you think that is?

I simply want to state for the record that I have had no hand whatsoever in the hiring of and do not endorse in any way, the following instructors: Atkinson, Bayer, Foreman, MacKay, Newman, Bailey. I will also add that Economics is indeed a separate department and always has been, and as I have taught MBAs at WSUV, Tsinghua University, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Inter-American University of Puerto Rico and elsewhere. It is a fact that MBAs get only abbreviated Economics and most certainly not enough to be qualified to teach it. None of them is qualified to be on the RIF List for Economics, with specific requirements to be on it, and no adjunct should ever be hired to teach any level of economics that cannot teach all levels and meet the academic requirements to be on the RIF List for economics.

I have taught both Business and Economics courses over my almost 40 years of teaching. In the scheme of things business is far more of a footnote in Economics than the reverse is the case. Economics used to be part of the Social Sciences Division over 20 years ago, it is a separate department in every single university and community college because it is a core requirement in many programs in ways that other social sciences are not, at Clark College, some turf politics got it transferred to Business division. Economics should properly be in Social Sciences because Economic Geography, for example, counts as either Geo107 or Econ 107. This is also because Economics does not just deal with markets and market systems, it deals with both pre and post capitalist systems as well as well as non-market systems for allocations of resources and the basic things markets do.

At WSUV, in the MBA program, the course I taught, Economics 301 or Intermediate Microeconomics, was dropped as a requirement for Marketing and Management majors, but not for Accounting Finance or MIS, if I remember. the attrition rates are high, partly because of the math, but in any case not anyone can teach it as there is a core and foundation that must be laid carefully. For the last 30 years, even as the usual neoclassical dogma is taught over and over, new innovations in pedagogy, inter-disciplinary and heterodox paradigms, economic methodology have taken place.

Any real teacher puts professional duty before personal animosities and prejudices; and it is a mandate of law that all public employees do so. We do not get to play revenge, reprisal and other games with public resources and the welfare of students on the line and even the accreditation and valuation of the academic degrees of Clark College. A real teacher wants access to any and all tools and sources of knowledge to be of services to his or her students in order to be: Competent the fundamentals (of all paradigms not just neoclassical economics) in order to be Current on new developments in order to show Caring for the students as people and not just numbers or sources of a job, thus demonstrating Commitment to one’s own growth and development and that of the students.

Courage (The fifth “C” of Real Teaching): The real test however, is if one has the guts and integrity to lose a job and continue a long legal fight, not to turn a blind eye to injustice, perjury, conspiracy against rights, and all sorts of precedents set to be used against others. And those who would sell out themselves and others, and Clark College is full of such types, just like the “Good Germans” who said “I’m not Jewish, or Sinti-Roma or Homosexual or Communist, and what the hell, we have autobahns, we are proud to be German again, we have food and…” Corruption begets more of the same because each person who does it does not gain, but actually loses their security they traded their consciences away for. Why? Because in a conspiracy, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. And since each holds security and favor with the implied threat “If I go down you all go down with me”, or as Tom Paine put it “We must all hang together or surely we shall all hang separately”, each is vulnerable to being ratted out by the one who is caught or dumped, and these are the types that will cave in and deal against the others if caught.

I am a public employee and have a legal duty that if I believe that persons are being defrauded or put into harm in some way I must report it not only to law enforcement as I have, but also must give public warning because there is too much at stake. I may well be like a cook in a restaurant ordered to serve uninspected meat and/or to keep quiet about it and thus even be taken to be endorsing what I do not endorse hence the reason for this message. It is also as if I were also working in a government restaurant with the additional duties under law to report what I believe to be felonies going on including the defrauding and harm of students.

Here is some of the objective evidence to let you decide who is or is not qualified to teach Economics at Clark College. All documents including emails were taken from public documents submitted in legal venues, sworn under penalty of perjury, and discoverable by any citizen as public issues and affairs of public employment. Further, all the persons named in the documents were provided copies of them long ago and none has attempted to refute them. The investigators were hired by Clark College and or in one case an AA/EEO Officer.

During interviews I ask two standard questions to test technical competence. All candidates get the same questions in the same order.

Further, as the only real economist at the time on the selection committee, I recognized that my own expertise in economics would make me the “go-to” person on evaluating the candidates and I did not want that power alone. As Plato once put it:

“Those who seek power are invariably the least fit to hold and to wield it.” [see essays on psychopathy]

So I trained the others on the committee as to what criteria would reveal a fundamental grasp of the micro and macro concepts that were central in the questions. In other words, I took the power of my expertise to say who or who did not answer the technical questions out of my hands exclusively. Thus the candidates rejected, and who were perceived not to have competently answered the technical questions, and whose candidacies for the full-time tenure-track position were rejected by the whole committee not just me.

PATRICIA ATKINSON

EPSON scanner image

EPSON scanner image

EPSON scanner image

EPSON scanner image

EPSON scanner image

EPSON scanner image

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 met the head of economics and at the time in some cases, the division chair.

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, refused to deny it on record only because 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.

FOR EXAMPLE: DOCUMENTS ON ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CLARK COLLEGE PRESIDENT ROBERT KNIGHT OF PERJURY, CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS AND RELATED FELONIES OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE ACTING IN OFFICIAL CAPACITIES BY AND IN THE SWORN TESIMONIES DR, MARCIA ROI AND MS LYNN DAVIDSON

Roi and Davidson v knight test396

LISA LEWISON
UniServ Representative
WEA-Riverside UniServ Council
5516 NE 107th Avenue, Suite 200
VANCOUVER, WA 98662
(360) 256-0880 Email: llewison@washingtonea.org
IN THE HEARING BEFORE
ARBITRATOR KATHERYN T. WHALEN
______________________________________________________________________________
JAMES CRAVEN )
) GRIEVANT’S CLOSING
Vs. ) ARGUMENT ) )
CLARK COLLEGE )
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”).

[SNIP]

On October 15, 2007, Mr. Craven attended an “Open President’s Dialogue.” Mr. Craven asked a question of President Bob Knight, who angrily shouted him down, effectively silencing the audience for the remainder of the forum. Jennifer Wheeler, former President of the Classified WPEA union attended the forum, and testified she took verbatim notes, which she provided to Mr. Craven and his union.

“On Friday, November 9, 2007 AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi and UniServ Director Lynn Davidson met with President Knight and Vice President of Instruction, Rassoul Dastmozd, for a labor management meeting in his office. While in this meeting AHE President Roi, 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.”

and:

“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.”

[ADDENDUM JMC 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?]

[NOTE ADDENDUM This testimony, by Dr. Marcia Roi and Ms. Lynn Davidson, sworn under penalty of perjury, directly and irreconcilably contradicted the sworn testimony of President Knight during the previous hearing before ALJ Knutson, that he never made such a statement and that, when asked twice, in two different meetings, about if he had made such a statement, he not only denied having made the statement, he also claimed that he had only refused to answer and affirm or deny the statement (meetings were taped), in two separate meetings, because he was there to ask not answer questions.]

OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT KNIGHT IN THE COURT OF ALJ KNUTSON

EPSON scanner image

EPSON scanner image

EPSON scanner image

EPSON scanner image

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 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

FITE-LEMMOND PSU ESD403

ULP399

JOHN BAYER

Ms Johnson:

Per our agreement to allow addendum submissions of supporting documents for my allegations and to extend my comments via-a-vis my complaint against Mr. Bayer, please accept the following.

As I noted to you, the most troubling questions for me and for others who have reviewed this case are: Why would Mr. Bayer, a new adjunct applying to teach Economics, with no apparent academic preparation or teaching experience in Economics, but apparently with preparation in HR no less, take the considerable risk of making a statement to a non-tenured but full-time teacher of Economics, John Fite, that: “I want nothing to do with that Indian guy”; when “that Indian guy” is the first and most senior Economist Clark College has ever had and who has some standing internationally and substantial publications as an Economist? Why would he further ignore John Fite’s appeal to him to see me and work with me, in his own interest, and in the interest of the students he is supposed to serve, by utilizing all available resources to him? What does his attitude and posture say about Mr. Bayer’s fitness to hold his position and what the students, some of whom I would get at higher levels for which Econ 101 is a preparation course, and who need to be properly prepared to succeed at higher levels of Economics, are and will be getting from him? I believe that as Emma Kim noted, and she was once a part of the conspiracy against rights from which she broke, that those who join in the “Craven bashing” get special handling in their favor and those who do not get “special handling” decidedly not in their favor so apparently, and the attached schedules show this, Mr. Bayer is buying himself some “special handling” with the comment he made about not wanting to have anything to do with ‘that Indian guy’.

I had nothing whatsoever to do with the letters from Marcia Roi and Emma Kim. I had neither prior knowledge of nor any influence on the writing or content of these letters. Both of these letters, presented repeatedly to those mentioned in them for rebuttal with no rebuttals given, speak to an ongoing campaign of marginalization, demonization, ostracization, defamation, isolation, piling-on of spurious charges from which I was vindicated when all appeals played out, coordinated use of proxies, rewarded with special handling and differential treatment not accorded other adjuncts and staff, denial of basic due process, retribution against others who supported me or just questioned how I was being treated, serial lying on the part of administrators against me at Clark College, etc. These letters and other supporting documents, support I believe, the allegation that Mr. Bayer felt free to take the risks he took because like others, he has been given a green light to do so and rewarded and handled specially, with State resources and positions, for his “service” to those handling him. It is my contention that he and other adjuncts (three adjuncts are presently scheduled to teach Economics none of whom I even know what they look like and have not been vetted by any teacher of Economics that himself or herself has been fully vetted) are being used not only as proxies against me, to demean my own standing and position as an Economist and teacher of Economics, but as instruments to break loose a tenured position with work to be filled by compliant adjuncts or those perceived to be compliant.

First of all, I was given 7 days off without pay with no Laudermill hearing, while I was off-contract and/or on sick leave and with timelines suspended and grievances against all personnel actions filed and as far as I knew, and despite the repeated requests to the Clark administration in writing for clarification and acknowledgment that went unanswered, were still pending. When I returned to work, the 7 days off without pay were scheduled to commence the first day of work and then their own arbitrary imposition of the discipline, under protest, was used to justify assigning me to develop online courses and pass my assigned course load on to adjuncts that have been given provable special handling and while none of whom had been vetted by me. In fact, the Summer of 2008, while I was on sick leave, Dean Kotsakis wrote than when I returned from sick leave to teach scheduled classes in Summer of 08, I would only be allowed to teach six credits (protested by AHE in a letter see attached) while all other teachers were allowed to teach 13 or more credits and this also created work for adjuncts favored at my expense and in violation of the AHE Contract on summer workloads and seniority rights of tenured faculty..

Then I was given another 8 days off without a Laudermill hearing again with timelines suspended and later claimed to be missed through no fault of my own as I was following AHE representation. This is under grievance currently but again was imposed upon my return to work in September. The eight days off were from complaints handled by the very persons cited by PERC for violating my basic due process rights when one of the same complainants, an adjunct that has been given provable special handling and that I do not know she even looks like, made a similar charge against me that was not sustained. The other complainant, who wrote her own vitriolic letters to Dean Kotsakis that were never shared with me and who called for my removal as Division Chair which was accomplished through an illegal election predicated on provably false and mutually contradictory statements by Dean Kotsakis, was also apparently involved in leaking privileged personnel information to PSU costing me employment, money and standing at PSU; a request to have this investigated as the offenses occurred with Clark College resources being used was refused by Katrina Golder.

Now we have me on the line for two quarters off without pay and with my medical benefits, and that of my family dropped to be paid solely by me; and this is when I have a known life-threatening medical condition. In fact all of this harassment has occurred against someone with known disabilities and thus this makes this also an ADA complaint.

Sir Walter Scott noted that: “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” Just as one lie begs others to cover the first, so it is that giving special handling to some requires intrigue against others. Just yesterday I got my “Laudermill hearing” on the charges that brought the proposed two quarters off without pay or medical coverage. The hearing was supposed to decide, after finally hearing from me and AHE on the charges, if the proposed penalty, would indeed be imposed and if I would or would not be teaching next quarter. But even before the hearing, the published Winter schedule (which did not include the fourth class I had requested) had been modified over a week ago to show me teaching 5 credits of “Special Projects” (which is voluntary and thus violates the AHE contract assigning me to this) and two other courses to 15 credits. Then it was further modified prior to my Laudermill Hearing to show me teaching no courses with only five credits of Special Projects. Just as in Alice in Wonderland”:

Sentence first then verdict [then the Laudermill hearing]”

And now I got this yesterday from a student who was waiting for my class, a former USMC Master Gunnery Sergeant: Please note the timing of the note as it will be noticed in other venues for sure He had written before wondering why my name was no longer on the schedule and now, after the “hearing” he finds out for sure I will not be teaching next quarter–the subject of the hearing: This shows intent right there. This is especially egregious in that as I noted to you we have the very same persons charging me or causing me to be charged, actually soliciting people to file charges against me (see note of Marcia Roi on AHE list) and given provable special and disparate handling of those who do, they then not only turn their own allegations into charges, but then “judge” their own charges to be valid (without a Laudermill hearing and while I am ill with a life-threaten medical condition) and that I am guilty, then proceed to determine the appropriate discipline without a hearing, but then become those to whom we are forced to appeal when we finally get the hearing and even those to whom we appeal in stages I and II of the grievance process. As you put it: “No checks and balances”. I prefer to put it total contempt for the most basic principles of due process and outright civil and criminal conspiracy against rights. There is also the matter that they still remain in violation of PERC orders to release to me ALL materials forming the basis of or used in any matters involving potential discipline.

I will send more documentation actual evidence (in their own words not mine) for my allegations and request that all submitted materials be attached to my complaint and as addenda to my comments yesterday. These will also be sent to agencies of the Clark County, Washington State and Federal Governments that have been asked to investigate the matters and allegations in this matter. Please regard this as an ADA complaint (will send medical information in their possession) as well as a complaint of both civil and criminal conspiracy against rights (18 USC Article I Chapter 13 Parts 241 and 242) or not just a complaint against one person or one act or statement but as a part of an overall coordinated and ongoing plan against my rights and health.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jim Craven

ADDENDUM ON BAYER EMAILS: NOTE NO HINT OF ANY KIND OF “PROBLEMATIC” TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OR HOSTILITY IN SAME IN CONTRAST TO HIS STATEMENT OF HAVING HAD A PROBLEM WITH ME IN HIS PHONE CONTACTS:

To: Craven, Jim
Sent: Fri 11/20/2009 4:20 PM

Cc:
Subject: How you are doing?
Attachments:
HI Jim,

I just got the word that you will not be teaching next quarter? I really desired your Econ Course. . 

Lord, I hope you are not having more health issue. I am really worried about you and Miss your sage advice.

Let me know when you can how you are.

Your friend,
Bob Putnam

First the sentence, then the verdict, and then the trial or hearing—all by the same individuals exposed as serial liars and driven by extreme malice and animus.

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 into their places. She tells the King that she knows nothing about the stolen tarts, 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 the 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 important but Alice corrects him and explains why 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: Craven, Jim
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:09 AM
To: ‘LLewison@washingtonea.org’; Roi, Marcia; chucktosee@yahoo.com; ‘wheejv@comcast.net’; johnfite@comcast.net; ‘michael011@fastmail.fm’; Serrano, Patti
Subject: Please look at this. Thanks

Dear Lisa and Marcia,

I just found this one. The published schedule shows me teaching Econ Geography 107 and this one shows teaching by Bailey who is not qualified to teach it (vetted by Adnan who is not qualified to vet anyone in Economics and who John Fite apparently refused to vet because of his own status as not having yet been fully vetted) about whom there were complaints last time that the course had virtually no geography in it and was more like Econ 101; Macro M-Th 9-10:20, Macro night M-W 6- 8:20 pm when I had asked specifically for 20 credits and have the seniority per the AHE contract to bump any adjuncts which I am exercising. Here they have me on Special Projects for 5 credits. This is what they do each time and they do not give a damn about these students. We have three adjuncts teaching I do not know what they look like and have not vetted them for competence in the discipline;

Now here, before the hearing on the 20th, about my two quarters off without pay and medical coverage, we see the planning and thus intent in the schedule change here plus we see the intent and pattern of using state resources and trashing the seniority and due process parts of the AHE Contract (and U.S. Constitution) to reward apparently compliant, or perhaps what they perceive to be compliant adjuncts (the kind who summarily declare I want nothing to do with that Indian guy—who happens to be the senior economist with economics degrees and preparation). I have a right to due process and a right to 20 credits and a right to have these legal and contractual rights vigorously defended by AHE.

Bob Knight’s statement, which he refused to deny, is more than enough to show conspiratorial intent and having taken more than one step in furtherance of a common plan to deny me due process, to create a hostile and dangerous workplace (especially given my known medical condition), numerous breaches of the AHE Contract, as well as concrete evidence why Knight, Dastmozd, Golder, and Kotsakis have no business involved in judging me in any way specifically on their own charges and those they cause to be made through rewarded proxies.

Today it is me, tomorrow whose next? This shows the upcoming meeting to be a fraud and the result already a fait accompli—that is conspiracy per se.

Please respond to and address these concerns

Thanks,’

Jim

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 7:54 AM
To: Kotsakis, Ted
Subject: economics instructor for Jan. ’08 term; letter and attached resume
________________________________________
From: john bayer [mailto:johnabayer@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:56 PM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: economics instructor for Jan. ’08 term; letter and attached resume
6 Dec. 2007

Dear Jim,

Ms. Vicki Collins told me to send my resume and call you about teaching economics this January.
[The chair of business programs at Marylhurst suggested I contact Clark College.]

Attached is my resume.

I tell students in Week 1 that ‘economics might be the most important course they’ll ever take’, and then proceed to tell them if they learn the lessons, they will be able to do the following:
 make better decisions as consumers,
 be more valuable as employees, and,
 have a better ‘b.s. meter’ at election time.

This gets there attention, and then for the term I try to drive home lessons to achieve the above.
I’ll try calling you tomorrow, Friday 10:00 AM to see if we have anything else to discuss.

Thanks for taking time to review this and my resume.

Sincerely,

John Bayer
503.232.1514

From: john bayer [mailto:johnabayer@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:45 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: thanks for taking my call [teaching econ].

Hi Jim,

The call left me wanting to reiterate the following:

— learning objectives [clearly defined] have primacy in instruction/learning;
— I stress that economics is ‘really about decision making’ — and then drive that with whatever texts I am asked to use.

My preference for a text is David Colander, but I’ve used Slavin, Schiller and a couple of others too.

I’m in agreement that student learning outcomes the objective.

Best regards, John Bayer

MAC MACKAY

From: Hamideh, Adnan
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 4:49 PM
To: Craven, Jim; ‘mccay4213@comcast.net’
Cc: Fite, John; Kotsakis, Ted
Subject: RE: Meeting

Jim,

We have one Econ 101 section that we need to staff for the Fall. John met with Mac and encouraged him to apply for it, so he sent his resume to all of us. Part of my job as a division chair is to hire adjunct instructors and I will interview Mac and others for this position and will ask John to be part of the process since him and I teach Econ 101.

Since you teach mainly the 200 level, I will ask you to get involved in the hiring process when and if we need someone for those courses. So you don’t need to worry about this one.
Mac,

Thanks for dropping your resume in my office. I am sorry I did not have time to talk to you more since I was in the middle of a project with another professor. I will drop by the tutoring center between 12 and 12:30 on Tuesday to chat a bit.
Thanks
Adnan
________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 11:33 AM
To: ‘mccay4213@comcast.net’
Cc: Fite, John; Hamideh, Adnan
Subject: RE: Meeting

Dear Mr. McCay,

I am not aware of any opening for part-time instructor of economics, but my method, when I have been allowed to vet adjuncts, is to find out what an applicant really KNOWS as we have had in the past individuals “teaching” through death by power point, no structure, no communications with or reference to the pedagogical and content needs of me, the senior economist and Head of Economics, whose courses require lower-level courses properly taught and content articulated with my own courses. We currently have a potential ticking time bomb as if there are serious and numerous student complaints, and if students decide individually or class-action-wise to sue the college for having allegedly suffered malpractice in the classroom, and if a simple discovery process reveals that an adjunct was not hired or vetted through standardized and documented procedures, we are wide open for damages—and should be. Further, this is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, it is not a fraternity or sorority, not a country club, not a community networking organization like Rotary, teachers are also public employees with legal responsibilities and constraints, and students have a right to have their teachers properly vetted, in standardized and documented processes which is what I have always sought to do and how I was myself hired and vetted over many years in many venues. Adjuncts do not to get to choose who vets them or how they are vetted because it is those who do the vetting and are most qualified to do so, who are accountable to the students and law; when I was a pilot I did not get to choose my check pilots or self-anoint/certify myself as an examiner check pilot and then give myself my own check rides acting as my own check pilot, nor did I get to choose the tests, maneuvers and parameters to which I would be subject; and I did not get to “choose” which aircraft I felt like flying rated or not. When I teach in China, all my lectures are filmed and reviewed/vetted by senior faculty at Tsinghua and other institutions, senior faculty are always present, partly out of concern for the welfare of students and partly for national security reasons, and I do not resent it at all; I welcome it because it shows me where I need to sharpen up or where I simply do not know what I thought I knew. We have had at least four individuals teaching here that I have not vetted by me and without my even having been consulted on their hiring; and my being on disciplinary leave was, in my opinion that I will document in other venues, not a cause, but an effect, of the desire and intention to have some people hired without being vetted by me and a desire to allow them to “choose” with whom they felt more comfortable being vetted; but, if there are problems, it will be me, the senior economist, with over thirty years of teaching economics at all levels—high school to post-doctoral—and in a variety of courses both neoclassical and political economy, that they will go after in any allegations of unqualified teachers having been hired and causing tangible damages to students at Clark College.

There is also the issue of time. I gave you some of my time based on the representation by you and John that it was about your wanting to clear up a previous exchange between us and was assured that this was not just some pretext (the definition of a pretext is a contrived reason for something that covers-up a real reason for something—a kind of lie) leading into this note and I take it rather informal application for employment. Because there may be several applicants for adjunct teaching, because this is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington which means that we public employees are subject to RCWs, WACs and Federal statutes that private-sector employees are not subject to, because we have had bad hires not vetted by me and imploded classes that causes real damages and losses to students in those classes, because I am haunted at the opportunity costs on the students when unqualified teachers are hired (not only the damages of suffering individuals who should not have been hired but also, what the students lost forever when the proper ones were not hired), I am sensitive that all applications are through the front door, with a letter of application, supporting documentation of training and teaching experience (just as we teach our students to apply for employment) and I am not interested in any ex parte mechanisms or processes that are not in writing, standardized for all applicants and will go to paper on any and all cases of individuals hired without my vetting or even consultation with me.

Finally, this is not only about when you want to meet, it is about my own availability and that of others. But this preemptively suggesting even a topic to lecture on does not cut it. This is done with finalists for full-time positions after they have gone through considerable formal applications and interviews. With all due respect, you name the topic and discipline and I could put together a canned presentation that makes it appear that I know far more than I really do on any subject.

In any case, this is my summer and I am teaching and I have not even seen your resume, transcripts or anything and we have a staged process of hiring even for adjuncts. I am also very busy and it now appears to me now, as I asked you about previously and you denied that your visit was necessitated by my position as senior economist and an intent to apply for work, that your visit and insistence on my time to address any differences (you even told me not to review our past exchanges which is intriguing) appears to me to have been pre-textual and a contrived prelude to this request. In any case, in several upcoming venues, along with accreditation visits to complete a partially failed accreditation visit in the past, Clark College and its hiring/vetting/tenure practices will be subject to very intense scrutiny, transparency and sunlight and I am simply doing what I have always when in my 18 years at Clark College when allowed to do so: met my responsibilities to the students, the institution, the law and my own conscience and to document, as I am with this letter, my own responses to various circumstances at Clark College, possible violations of and/or concerns related to established protocols and laws with respect to hiring and other issues, and my concrete reasons for my positions—always framed in terms of the needs of the students and the laws to which all public employees are subject. I have myself, failed in my own responsibilities, mandated by Law, not to allow personal biases or associations, or being schmoozed or given obvious pretexts and contrivances, interfere with my own responsibilities to make sure that all candidates for adjunct status or tenure in Economics were properly vetted and given standardized treatment without fear or favor; and I plan not only to address and own up to my own failures in the past in public and legal venues, but also never to repeat them if possible.

All applications for adjunct teaching also must first go through HR to be referred to us. We also teach our students to apply with cover letters directing the readers to what the applicant considers the salient evidence for their qualifications and fitness for a given position.

Sincerely,
Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

From: mccay4213@comcast.net [mailto:mccay4213@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:46 AM
To: Craven, Jim; Fite, John
Cc: Hamideh, Adnan; mac
Subject: Meeting
Dear Economics Faculty,

Summer session is beginning next week. If possible, I would like to meet jointly with Jim Craven and John Fite to resolve any questions of my qualifications and abilities as a possible faculty member. I know Professor Craven prefers a classroom setting and presentation as part of this process. If we can find a time to meet, I am more than happy to give a presentation on the topic of your choice. (If left to me, it will the relationship between long run average cost and short run average cost and market entry/exit.) I am also glad to spend whatever time is necessary to answer all questions and hypotheticals. I will be on campus during summer from 10-1 M-Th.

For your convenience an electronic version of my resume is attached.

Mac McCay’

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 11:36 AM
To: Sullivan, Kimberly
Subject: RE: hiring process

Yes, this is part of an ongoing campaign to marginalize and demonize me, to deprecate my standing and professional credentials, to put the personal ahead of the professional and the welfare of students; and Hamideh has taken the Division chair position when he was a part of the Division Chair process in the past (past is context for the present) that, according to AHE, resulted in AHE Contract violations and my loss of owed pay and benefits due to lies told and acted upon as to when my term of service is over.

I never came to the union only passed this on as union interests are involved. This is the same union that got played on timelines suspended while I was on sick leave and allowed me to suffer 7 days off and then 8 days off with no Laudermill Hearing and no appeals with discipline impose upon my return to sick leave timed so as to create employment for unvetted pet adjuncts who are still being given preferences and contrived schedules and course loads to create employment for them (in return for past complaints urged against me by the pet adjuncts)

Heads up, Darcy has called in Ted about my letter to Hamideh (he still has not explained why he would not want me as Head of Economics involved in vetting any adjuncts) about my reference to incompetence and dereliction of duty and they may be cooking up another complaint in which case bring it on as this is my protected opinion and they can bring on their “respect codes” and we can have it out.

At some point, we will look at the content of my missives and of simply the alleged tone.
This is for the union as these unvetted adjuncts hired through non-standardized processes can be used and have been used to undercut the AHE Contract, Tenure and control over hiring and vetting for technical competence.

Take care,

Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

From: Sullivan, Kimberly
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 10:54 AM
To: ‘James Craven’; Craven, Jim
Cc: Hamideh, Adnan

Subject: RE: hiring process

Hi Jim, can you specifically show a point in the contract that has been violated? Otherwise, this is not an AHE matter. I can see that you are frustrated and that you want to best serve your students; given that, unless there is a point in the contract on which we can argue, you will have to go to the state. You are, and have always been, a true champion for the students.

Kimberly

From: James Craven [mailto:omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 8:07 AM
To: Sullivan, Kimberly
Subject: RE: hiring process
Kim,

The response by Hamideh is disingenuous. First of all, not even John Fite was vetted by me as I was prevented from doing so by discipline imposed so that I could not do my job as head of his tenure committee (my wife said I had a duty to vote against his tenure as I had not fully vetted him no matter why but I voted for him hoping that he knew how little he knew and how much he had to catch up on). I am the senior economist, have taught 101 more than both of them put together, I have a vested interest even as a teacher who is teaching lower-level courses that are prep courses for mine, past hires by Hamideh and Fite resulted in bad hires (one of them Newman was hired and dropped twice now for bad performance and leaving classes early chronically), Hamideh himself is not qualified/not vetted to teach economics, but finally, this is Hamideh imposing his personal animus against me and interfering with the most qualified and head of economics to vet for technical competence, he is disrespecting my own preparation as an economist and is continuing this pattern of marginalization and demonization in the workplace that AHE has tolerated being waged against me for years. Also John as clearly cultivated a personal relationship with Mr. MacKay who himself wrote some very vitriolic stuff that he says that now he does not want me to review (why?) as I did not remember him. Further, John and Adnan with no consultation with me scheduled John to teach specialized courses (for which he has also not been vetted) with 10 students or so in them while we have a need and I am teaching to fulfill it, for the basic courses to be taught and this also has created work for his pet adjuncts (possible Trading in Public Employment) at the expense of the needs of the students and the division. Hamideh is doing a disingenuous cover-up to cover his own treachery and serial breach of the AHE Contract and his complicity in aiding and abetting my marginalization and demonization in the workplace, hiring unvetted adjuncts through ad hoc and backdoor procedures, covering-up bad hires with more bad hires etc.

You all do what you want but I am going public, I will find out what the new Dean is about, and taking this to Olympia as I believe it is my duty to do so and I believe that crimes are being committed.

Simple question: Why would anyone not want the best qualified to do the vetting for technical competence unless they are mixing the personal with the professional and care nothing about the welfare of students and the institution? How will all of this play in a court of law? This is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington not a country club, cult or feudal estate.

take care,

Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

From: KSullivan@clark.edu
To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com; AHamideh@clark.edu; jfite@clark.edu
Subject: hiring process
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 23:42:24 +0000

Jim, in a nutshell I see you issue as this: The hiring of Mac was a violation of Appendix C Sec D2a of the contract. “In collaboration with departments, recommend adjunct faculty for hiring.” The contract does not specify department head, but does state that departments should be consulted by the division chair when making hiring recommendations. Is your point that the department was not consulted? If this is the case, I hope this can be settled as a department/division issue which does not require a Dean’s intervention. Why is the Dean necessary for this? Who are the members of your department? (Adnan, who was in on the interview?) So, let’s gather some information and settle this without the dean if possible. Could we meet on Tuesday?

Kimberly
________________________________________
From: James Craven [omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 2:29 PM
To: Gerry Smith; Gene Johnson; Jennifer Wheeler; Marcia Roi; Sullivan, Kimberly
Subject: FYI

________________________________________
From: JCraven@clark.edu
To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: Meeting
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:20:59 +0000
Adnan,

This will not cut it and this will go public. I am the senior economist and Head of Economics. Apparently my title as Department Head is recognized and good enough for John to ask me to sign off on his selected work to qualify for medical benefits while on leave without absence but not for vetting and keeping us out of potential litigation. We have already had a sample of the quality of the vetting by you and John with hires like Neumann whom I still have never met and Bailey whom I never met. You, by your own admission find it “ironic” (not a word I would use) that the three areas in which you are teaching–statistics, economics and accounting–are the very three areas in which you were least interested and barely passed in your MBA program (had I heard that statement long ago I would never have trusted you to teach Economics 101) and John still has never been fully vetted by me.

This is reckless, contemptuous of the rights of the students and my own resume as an economist that both your resume and John’s could not add up to even close. I also regard this as a cover-up of the termination of Neuman(?) also hired by you or with your input. This shows further that you have no understanding of the importance of Econ 101 in terms of preparation for higher level courses and as a stand-alone course with its own needs and mission which any real educator would understand.

In addition to this going public, with an open letter to the students, this will also go to the accreditation team and to the union. One more time: This is not some country club, some cult, some networking association, some fraternity or your private little cult; this is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington and these jobs belong to the People who expect the most qualified hired and expect the most qualified to do the vetting.

This is in my opinion further evidence of [snip] for the position to which you have arrogated yourself and with this act that is contemptuous of the basic rights of the students, you are placing the rights of students and the name and standing of the institution in danger on several fronts and this needs to go public and to government.

Further John mentioned nothing about urging Mr.Mackay to apply for 101, asked me nothing about reviewing previous exchanges between me and Mr. MacKay that Mr. MacKay was concerned about clearing up but did not want me to review, and further John assured me that Mr. MacKay wanting to see me and clear some things up was not related to my position as Head of Economics or pending employment; a statement which now appears as a lie.

Further, I wrote to John prior to his request for my endorsement for him to work some days while on leave without pay enough to qualify him for medical leave; I hereby withdraw that endorsement. It appears too much like a pretext or contrived reason just sufficient to qualify for medical benefits while on sick leave without pay; and since a pretext is a kind of lie, it may well come close to “Filing a False Report by a Public Officer” which is a crime.

memo econ dept head404

RCW 9A.68.020
Requesting unlawful compensation.

(1) A public servant is guilty of requesting unlawful compensation if he or she requests a pecuniary benefit for the performance of an official action knowing that he or she is required to perform that action without compensation or at a level of compensation lower than that requested.

(2) Requesting unlawful compensation 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 or she 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 or she requests, accepts, or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit pursuant to an agreement or understanding that he or she 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.

[2011 c 336 § 390; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.68.050.]

We will settle this in other venues and in public. But I honestly feel that I am in the position of someone ordered to cover-up and turn a blind eye to uninspected meat being served and even cover-up past forms of incompetence and dereliction of duty, even trading in Public Employment–a Class-C felony–which means that by law I must take this to other venues and go public. I am saddened also that never having once seen John Fite teach, while he saw me teach a whole 101 course, Mr. MacKay has been invited twice into his class and you all are having all these chats while the person who built up the economics program over 18 years and has credentials as an educator and economists that you and John could not match put together, has not been consulted and still frozen out of my own duties.
Sincerely,

Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

HERE IS THE BACKGROUND THAT MR MCCAY SPECIFICALLY DID NOT WANT ME TO REMEMBER WHEN HE CAME TO APPLY TO TEACH AT CLARK COLLEGE. HE HAS BEEN GIVEN COURSE LOADS SUFFICIENT TO QUALIFY FOR MEDICAL BENEFITS. PLEASE SEE HIS PRESENT COMPLAINT VERSUS HIS PAST EXPRESSED INTENT TO SEE ME REMOVED FROM CLARK COLLEGE.

McCay complaint

Letter to J Craven 4-25-13

From: mccay4213@comcast.net [mailto:mccay4213@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 7:56 PM

To: Atkinson, Patricia; Hamideh, Adnan; Craven, Jim
Subject: Economics Review From Tutoial Center

I have attached a flyer for a review session I will hold for Micro-economics students. The general format is to work through the Monopoly model. Then I pose a series of questions, ideally answered from students. This inevitably leads into discussions of perfect Competition, Oligopoly and Monopolistic Competition. It is a great opportunity for student see all these things at one time, and reinforce the MR=MC concept.

I have an MA in Economics from UC Santa Barbara and completed the Ph. D. coursework there. I also worked over 20 years years as an energy policy economist.

I would appreciate it if you would let your students know about this opportunity and let them know to drop by the Tutoring Center at 102 Hawkins Hall to register if they are interested.

Feel free to get in touch with me if have questions via e-mail, or evenings at 828-8749.

Thank You,

Mac McCay

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 7:38 AM
To: ‘mccay4213@comcast.net’; Atkinson, Patricia; Hamideh, Adnan
Subject: RE: Economics Review From Tutoial Center

Thank you for the note. Economics is much more than neoclassical, and neoclassical is much more than the standard texts illustrate. In my classes, I teach neoclassical versus institutionalist vs heterodox perspectives and also what is problematic with the MC = MR concept (see attached). This paper was presented in China at the 5th Congress of the World Association of Political Economy and published in vol 2 of the World Review of Political Economy.

You efforts are appreciated but please remember, if students are not given complete pictures in one class it makes a mess for others to clean up (and takes away from content in the next sequence) in other classes plus students show up unprepared for sequence classes. This is why all teachers need to be vetted for technical competence and anyone who would oppose that cares nothing about students or the institution.

As Head of Economics, the first economist ever at Clark College, it is my duty to vet content, pedagogy and teacher of Economics.

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

—– Original Message —–
From: “Jim Craven”
To: “Jim Craven” , mccay4213@comcast.net, “Patricia Atkinson” , “Adnan Hamideh” , “John Fite”
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 3:31:30 PM Subject: RE: Economics Review From Tutoial Center

On another note, please send all future materials and questions also to Professor John Fite as he is the only other vetted tenured professor of economics and needs to know, for his own teaching, what is being taught or supplemented to his own teaching. Adjuncts, who had not been fully vetted as have the tenured professors, and do not have the institutional ties, accountability, and responsibilities that full-time tenured faculty have, do not drive course or text adoptions here, and they are expected to know and comport with the standard curricula in the various courses and sections of them. This issue of disparate content, standards, pedagogy in different courses and sections among different teachers full-time and adjunct must and will be addressed as a matter for accreditation and fairness and service to all students.

Thank you for your efforts.

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

From: mccay4213@comcast.net [mailto:mccay4213@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010
6:22 PM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: Craven, Jim; Atkinson, Patricia; Hamideh, Adnan; Fite, John
Subject: Re: Economics Review From Tutoial Center

As no notice was provided to students you may be safely assured that this 25 year professional, a nationally recognized expert on energy policy, will not offer to share his insights in the future.

—–Original Message—–
From: Craven, Jim [mailto:JCraven@clark.edu]
Sent: Thu 12/2/2010 7:38 AM
To: mccay4213@comcast.net
Cc: Atkinson, Patricia; Hamideh, Adnan; Fite, John; Roi, Marcia; Lewison, Lisa [WA]
Subject: RE: Economics Review From Tutoial Center

I have no idea what prompted your rather over-sensitive reaction to my note. I simply noted that John Fite should be sent any materials dealing with teaching economics. Further, as the first economist in the history of Clark College and as Head of Economics, and as someone who has seen, as have others in other departments, adjuncts hired without being vetted by the full-time and senior faculty in which the adjunct was hired (we have people presently teaching economics that I have never met) and further, we have had some hired without being vetted for technical competence with the result that those classes imploded and those students not only lost with the teacher they were handed, but lost in terms of not having someone more competent to teach. Paper, titles and the like mean little to me without vetting. We have had PhDs currently teaching elsewhere who could not even answer a simple question on the multiplier and accelerator processes and how they are integrated, or even one on cross-price elasticity of demand and its real-world uses.

The attitude that you appear to be displaying (more petulance from you apparently than me) some might feel shows contempt for the students, the program that has been evolved long before your arrival, the responsibilities of the full-time tenured faculty to vet adjuncts (the student’s transcripts do not differentiate if taught by an adjunct or a tenured professor) and the fact that students have a right to believe and know that any teachers they have been handed have been properly vetted. I am a commercial pilot and have been for over 40 years, but I would not walk down to say Delta Airlines and flash my pilot’s licenses and tell them I’m here, load up the 747, and tell me where I need to go and I’ll get there. Or another analogy is that what if I were a chef and were being pressured to handle and cook uninspected meat? And what if I had evidence of people already injured from being handed previously uninspected meat? That is the only spirit in which I wrote; all sorts of people self-proclaim and self-anoint their notions of their own credentials, and that is why, especially in a State institution, no one gets to just drop in and summarily declare themselves fit to teach at any level; and there are also potential liability issues which is why we are supposed to vet anyone in any teaching capacities and have done so as long as I have been here until recently.

This is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington; this is not a country club, a feudal estate or some military barracks. I only expressed my concerns, wished you well, and noted the real-world basis for concerns about anyone just dropping in, whom I and John have never met, whose students you might be tutoring and who knows, perhaps helping or not, to tell me that you are doing tutoring without even a visit to see how you might be useful. Those are my responsibilities and your apparent dismissal of them suggests that you know little about our realities and protocols here and the sound pedagogical reasons for them.

Sorry if I hit a nerve but my own teaching of Economics, from high school level to post-doctoral students, over some 37 years, in diverse cultures and languages, has left me with a lot of horror stories about educational systems and how and for whom they are often run-often not for students but as some kind of country club or fraternity/sorority. I thought that any real educator, concerned for the welfare, rights and needs of the students and the institution, would have understood the intent, content and spirit of my message.

I’m sorry if you took offense at my note, but my concern is what students are being taught and how and if what they are being taught by one teacher aids or inhibits what is being taught by others.

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

From: mccay4213@comcast.net [mailto:mccay4213@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:33 PM

To: Craven, Jim
Cc: Atkinson, Patricia; Hamideh, Adnan; Fite, John; Roi, Marcia; LLewison@washingtonea.org
Subject: Re: Economics Review From Tutoial Center

I provided my credentials in my e-mail asking you to let your students know that they could get a review. You challenged my credentials through some personal puffery based on tenure.

This was not an application for a teaching position, which I will gladly do to replace your self-centered view of your place in the world if an opportunity should arise. [NOTE EXPRESSED INTENT] This was a one hour review session of the textbook material!

I have recently explained my credentials, as a qualified economic policy expert through voire dire in many states, the Federal gov’t of the US, and a Canadian Province. I noted that the faculty of one of America’s great public Universities considers me an expert. I asked for your academic credentials and you did not reply. To use your phrase, “Sorry if I hit a nerve.” Problems with others does not apply to my case since this is clearly about me and your effort to intimidate me to silence. Few tenured professors of economics can explain the problems if the principle of lexicographic preferences is violated, explain the Veblen thesis of opulence and how it voids the entire classical economic model, or why neoclasscial economics is a perjorative. Yet those people do a fine job explaining textbook material. That line of discussion is irrelevant. Relevant to recent economic issues, which group of experts explained in an FERC filing precisely how the California ISO market structure would fail?

As a taxpayer of Washington I ask you to clearly apologize for insulting me, the jurisdictions which consider me an expert, and the University of California. Apologize or stop writing to me and wasting my e-space.

Malcolm M. McCay
Washington Resident and Taxpayer

Thu 12/2/2010 12:51 PM Fri

Dear Folks,

I regard this exchange as pure harassment. I tried to explain my basic reasons for our attempt to control and standardized curricula in the various courses and sections of economics and our need for vetting for technical competence. As you can see from the tone of this letter and these exchanges this individual exhibits hostility, and intimidation.

This is a formal request for someone to have a chat with this person and inform him that I do not wish any more correspondence with him which will be regarded as harassment in the workplace and creating a hostile workplace.

Thank you for your immediate action on this request.

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

—–Original Message—–
From: LLewison@washingtonea.org [mailto:LLewison@washingtonea.org]
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010
7:51 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: RE: Economics Review From Tutoial Center

Jim-
Ignore this guy. He’s trouble.

Hi Lisa,

Fri 12/3/2010 12:33 PM

Got it. Turns out he is a student.

Thanks for your efforts and have you noticed not one word from me and I was not at the AHE rally at the Board so that no one can try to impeach AHE actions invoking my name.

Did you folks get in all my damages? Loss of step increase points (I am supposed to be at H not G), loss of Division Chair stipend, loss of two quarters of overtime…

Take care,
Jim

Jump Forward to June 09, 2011

From: Fite, John
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 9:12 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: FW: My Motion to resolve our Issue

Jim here is a copy of Mac’s message. John

From: mccay4213@comcast.net [mailto:mccay4213@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:46 PM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: Fite, John
Subject: My Motion to resolve our Issue

Dear Professor Craven,

At the end of last calendar year you and I engaged in an exchange of e-mails which was not friendly. I am asking for 3-5 minutes of your time to do what I can to make things right.

Please let me know what time between now and the end of the term when I can come by and do what I can do to set things right. I am much more flexible in my schedule than you and will meet your time and place.

As Ebenezer Scrooge said to the those who had previously asked him for contributions:

“Yes,” said Scrooge. “That is my name , and I fear it may not be pleasant to you.”

The time has passed for me to set things right.

Mac McCay

Call afternoon or evenings at 360-828-8749.

I am at the Tutoring Center 8-12, M-Th, including finals week.

I believe 3-5 minutes during one of your finals may be sufficient. Please let me know your convenience.

Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2011 10:35:47 AM
Subject: RE: My Motion to resolve our Issue
Hello Mac,

Thanks for the note and I do not remember any unpleasant exchanges but then again I have so many exchanges and often offend some who write and sometimes pose questions or make comments to which they do not plan for or perhaps like the answers and responses that follow.

I am very busy today but next week have some time if you just drop in during my exam periods or give me a time.

For those who wish to teach, I do ask technical questions as students have a right to know that anyone teaching them has been vetted for formal credentials and minimums as well as skills that their pieces of paper say/attest they are supposed to have.

Thank you,

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

Thank You for your kind note. You have an exam at 8:00 on Monday. May I meet you at your office before 8:00? If OK, I will arrive about 7:30 and await your arrival. I am anticipating about 3-5 minutes.

Mac McCay

From: mccay4213@comcast.net [mailto:mccay4213@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:46 AM
To: Craven, Jim; Fite, John
Cc: Hamideh, Adnan; mac
Subject: Meeting

Dear Economics Faculty,

Summer session is beginning next week. If possible, I would like to meet jointly with Jim Craven and John Fite to resolve any questions of my qualifications and abilities as a possible faculty member. I know Professor Craven prefers a classroom setting and presentation as part of this process. If we can find a time to meet, I am more than happy to give a presentation on the topic of your choice. (If left to me, it will the relationship between long run average cost and short run average cost and market entry/exit.) I am also glad to spend whatever time is necessary to answer all questions and hypotheticals. I will be on campus during summer from 10-1 M-Th.

For your convenience an electronic version of my resume is attached.

Mac McCay’

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:36 PM

To: Bowers, Blake
Subject: Request to meet

Dear Dean Bowers:

I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to give you some heads up on some issues that I believe bear on your new responsibilities as Dean and issues with which you will likely be dealing in the future.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 11:33 AM
To: ‘mccay4213@comcast.net’
Cc: Fite, John; Hamideh, Adnan
Subject: RE: Meeting
Dear Mr. McCay,

I am not aware of any opening for part-time instructor of economics, but my method, when I have been allowed to vet adjuncts, is to find out what an applicant really KNOWS as we have had in the past individuals “teaching” through death by powerpoint, no structure, no communications with or reference to the pedagogical and content needs of me, the senior economist and Head of Economics, whose courses require lower-level courses properly taught and content articulated with my own courses. We currently have a potential ticking time bomb as if there are serious and numerous student complaints, and if students decide individually or class-action-wise to sue the college for having allegedly suffered malpractice in the classroom, and if a simple discovery process reveals that an adjunct was not hired or vetted through standardized and documented procedures, we are wide open for damages—and should be. Further, this is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, it is not a fraternity or sorority, not a country club, not a community networking organization like Rotary, teachers are also public employees with legal responsibilities and constraints, and students have a right to have their teachers properly vetted, in standardized and documented processes which is what I have always sought to do and how I was myself hired and vetted over many years in many venues. Adjuncts do not to get to choose who vets them or how they are vetted because it is those who do the vetting and are most qualified to do so, who are accountable to the students and law; when I was a pilot I did not get to choose my check pilots or self-anoint/certify myself as an examiner check pilot and then give myself my own checkrides acting as my own check pilot, nor did I get to choose the tests, maneuvers and parameters to which I would be subject; and I did not get to “choose” which aircraft I felt like flying rated or not. When I teach in China, all my lectures are filmed and reviewed/vetted by senior faculty at Tsinghua and other institutions, senior faculty are always present, partly out of concern for the welfare of students and partly for national security reasons, and I do not resent it at all; I welcome it because it shows me where I need to sharpen up or where I simply do not know what I thought I knew. We have had at least four individuals teaching here that I have not vetted by me and without my even having been consulted on their hiring; and my being on disciplinary leave was, in my opinion that I will document in other venues, not a cause, but an effect, of the desire and intention to have some people hired without being vetted by me and a desire to allow them to “choose” with whom they felt more comfortable being vetted; but, if there are problems, it will be me, the senior economist, with over thirty years of teaching economics at all levels—high school to post-doctoral—and in a variety of courses both neoclassical and political economy, that they will go after in any allegations of unqualified teachers having been hired and causing tangible damages to students at Clark College.

There is also the issue of time. I gave you some of my time based on the representation by you and John that it was about your wanting to clear up a previous exchange between us and was assured that this was not just some pretext (the definition of a pretext is a contrived reason for something that covers-up a real reason for something—a kind of lie) leading into this note and I take it rather informal application for employment. Because there may be several applicants for adjunct teaching, because this is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington which means that we public employees are subject to RCWs, WACs and Federal statutes that private-sector employees are not subject to, because we have had bad hires not vetted by me and imploded classes that causes real damages and losses to students in those classes, because I am haunted at the opportunity costs on the students when unqualified teachers are hired (not only the damages of suffering individuals who should not have been hired but also, what the students lost forever when the proper ones were not hired), I am sensitive that all applications are through the front door, with a letter of application, supporting documentation of training and teaching experience (just as we teach our students to apply for employment) and I am not interested in any ex parte mechanisms or processes that are not in writing, standardized for all applicants and will go to paper on any and all cases of individuals hired without my vetting or even consultation with me.

Finally, this is not only about when you want to meet, it is about my own availability and that of others. But this preemptively suggesting even a topic to lecture on does not cut it. This is done with finalists for full-time positions after they have gone through considerable formal applications and interviews. With all due respect, you name the topic and discipline and I could put together a canned presentation that makes it appear that I know far more than I really do on any subject.

In any case, this is my summer and I am teaching and I have not even seen your resume, transcripts or anything and we have a staged process of hiring even for adjuncts. I am also very busy and it now appears to me now, as I asked you about previously and you denied that your visit was necessitated by my position as senior economist and an intent to apply for work, that your visit and insistence on my time to address any differences (you even told me not to review our past exchanges which is intriguing) appears to me to have been pre-textual and a contrived prelude to this request. In any case, in several upcoming venues, along with accreditation visits to complete a partially failed accreditation visit in the past, Clark College and its hiring/vetting/tenure practices will be subject to very intense scrutiny, transparency and sunlight and I am simply doing what I have always when in my 18 years at Clark College when allowed to do so: met my responsibilities to the students, the institution, the law and my own conscience and to document, as I am with this letter, my own responses to various circumstances at Clark College, possible violations of and/or concerns related to established protocols and laws with respect to hiring and other issues, and my concrete reasons for my positions—always framed in terms of the needs of the students and the laws to which all public employees are subject. I have myself, failed in my own responsibilities, mandated by Law, not to allow personal biases or associations, or being schmoozed or given obvious pretexts and contrivances, interfere with my own responsibilities to make sure that all candidates for adjunct status or tenure in Economics were properly vetted and given standardized treatment without fear or favor; and I plan not only to address and own up to my own failures in the past in public and legal venues, but also never to repeat them if possible.

All applications for adjunct teaching also must first go through HR to be referred to us. We also teach our students to apply with cover letters directing the readers to what the applicant considers the salient evidence for their qualifications and fitness for a given position.

Sincerely,

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

From: Hamideh, Adnan
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 4:49 PM

To: Craven, Jim; ‘mccay4213@comcast.net’
Cc: Fite, John; Kotsakis, Ted
Subject: RE: Meeting
Jim,

We have one Econ 101 section that we need to staff for the Fall. John met with Mac and encouraged him to apply for it, so he sent his resume to all of us. Part of my job as a division chair is to hire adjunct instructors and I will interview Mac and others for this position and will ask John to be part of the process since him and I teach Econ 101.

Since you teach mainly the 200 level, I will ask you to get involved in the hiring process when and if we need someone for those courses. So you don’t need to worry about this one.
Mac,

Thanks for dropping your resume in my office. I am sorry I did not have time to talk to you more since I was in the middle of a project with another professor. I will drop by the tutoring center between 12 and 12:30 on Tuesday to chat a bit.

Thanks

Adnan
________________________________________

From: JCraven@clark.edu
To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: Meeting
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:20:59 +0000

Adnan,

This will not cut it and this will go public. I am the senior economist and Head of Economics. Apparently my title as Department Head is recognized and good enough for John to ask me to sign off on his selected work to qualify for medical benefits while on leave without absence but not for vetting and keeping us out of potential litigation. We have already had a sample of the quality of the vetting by you and John with hires like Neuman whom I still have never met and Bailey whom I never met. You, by your own admission find it “ironic” (not a word I would use) that the three areas in which you are teaching–statistics, economics and accounting–are the very three areas in which you were least interested and barely passed in your MBA program (had I heard that statement long ago I would never have trusted you to teach Economics 101) and John still has never been fully vetted by me.

This is reckless, contemptuous of the rights of the students and my own resume as an economist that both your resume and John’s could not add up to even close. I also regard this as a cover-up of the termionation of Neumann also hired by you or with your input. This shows further that you have no understanding of the importance of Econ 101 in terms of preparation for higher level courses and as a stand-alone course with its own needs and mission which any real educator would understand.

In addition to this going public, with an open letter to the students, this will also go to the accreditation team and to the union. One more time: This is not some country club, some cult, some networking association, some fraternity or your private little cult; this is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington and these jobs belong to the People who expect the most qualified hired and expect the most qualified to do the vetting.

This is in my opinion further evidence of your unfitness for the position to which you have arrogated yourself and with this act that is contemptuous of the basic rights of the students, you are placing the rights of students and the name and standing of the institution in danger on several fronts and this needs to go public and to government.

Further John mentioned nothing about urging Mr.Mackay to apply for 101, asked me nothing about reviewing previous exchanges between me and Mr. MacKay that Mr. MacKay was concerned about clearing up but did not want me to review, and futher John assured me that Mr. MacKay wanting to see me and clear some things up was not related to my position as Head of Economics or pending employment; a statement which now appears as a lie.

Further, I wrote to John prior to his request for my endorsement for him to work some days while on leave without pay enough to qualify him for medical leave; I hereby withdraw that endorsement. It appears too much like a pretext or contrived reason just sufficient to qualifiy for medical benefits while on sick leave without pay, and since a pretext is a kind of lie, it may well come close to “Filing a False Report by a Public Officer” which is a crime.

We will settle this in other venues and in public. But I honestly feel that I am in the position of someone ordered to cover-up and turn a blind eye to uninspected meat being served and even cover-up past forms of incompetence and dereliction of duty, even trading in Public Employment–a Class-C felony–which means that by law I must take this to other venues and go public. I am saddened also that never having once seen John Fite teach, while he saw me teach a whole 101 course, Mr. MacKay has been invited twice into his class and you all are having all these chats while the person who built up the economics program over 18 years and has credentials as an educator and economists that you and John could not match put together, has not been consulted and still frozen out of my own duties.

Sincerely,

Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

Hi Heather,

Thanks so much. As Dean Kotsakis is leaving and this and other matters will likely be on Dean Bowers plate and has some serious implications for the welfare of our courses and standing of this institution, this is why I needed to bring these matters to his attention.

have a good weekend yourself

Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
________________________________________
From: King, Heather
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011
3:03 PM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: Sullivan, Kimberly
Subject: RE: Request to meet
Hi Jim,

I will share this with Dean Bowers. I’m sure he will appreciate the heads-up.

Have a great weekend,
Heather

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 2:56 PM
To: King, Heather
Cc: Sullivan, Kimberly
Subject: RE: Request to meet

Hi Heather,

Thanks for the note and timing. I do not want to sandbag Dean Bowers so here is a heads-up about a time-sensitive issue that I am concerned about that represents, in my opinion, a potential problem and potential source of litigation in the future, possible problems in accreditation, plus possible harm to our students who trust that we have a system in place that those most qualified to vet possible teachers for technical competence in a given academic discipline do so as if there is any litigation, simple discovery by a minimally-qualified lawyer, will likely discover all sorts of short-cuts and even contrivances, lack of proper documentation, lack of completed employment applications (where any untrue statements have legal sanctions unlike with resumes) in the hiring of adjuncts to teach economics past and present. Further, the only adjunct that has been fully and properly vetted to teach all levels of economics is Dr. Kraley and it is my understanding that his own hours have been cut to the point that we may lose him.

Clark College has taken credit for and highlighted my own resume and teaching experience as well as as a working economist and my being summarily denied the opportunity to participarte in the hiring of adjunct faculty teaching lower-level economics, especially when past hires in which I was also denied the opportunity to vet candidates went bad with considerable suffering by students desperately in need of fully and properly vetted candidates, in any kind of legal venue or even under close scrutiny by the Auditor’s Office will not likely play well and could compromise Clark College’s standing and accreditation further than has already been the case.

Sincerely,

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

Thanks for your assistance.

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

Yes, this is part of an ongoing campaign to marginalize and demonize me, to deprecate my standing and professional credentials, to put the personal ahead of the professional and the welfare of students; and Hamideh has taken the Division chair position when he was a part of the Division Chair process in the past (past is context for the present) that, according to AHE, resulted in AHE Contract violations and my loss of owed pay and benefits due to lies told and acted upon as to when my term of service is over.

I never came to the union only passed this on as union interests are involved. This is the same union that got played on timelines suspended while I was on sick leave and allowed me to suffer 7 days off and then 8 days off with no Laudermill Hearing and no appeals with discipline impose upon my return to sick leave timed so as to create employment for unvetted pet adjuncts who are still being given preferences and contrived schedules and course loads to create employment for them (in return for past complaints urged against me by the pet adjuncts)

Heads up, Darcy has called in Ted about my letter to Hamideh (he still has not explained why he would not want me as Head of Economics involved in vetting any adjuncts) about my reference to incompetence and dereliction of duty and they may be cooking up another complaint in which case bring it on as this is my protected opinion and they can bring on their “respect codes” and we can have it out. At some point, we will look at the content of my missives and of simply the alleged tone.

This is for the union as these unvetted adjuncts hired through non-standardized processes can be used and have been used to undercut the AHE Contract, Tenure and control over hiring and vetting for technical competence.

Take care,

Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

From: Sullivan, Kimberly
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011
10:54 AM
To: ‘James Craven’; Craven, Jim
Cc: Hamideh, Adnan
Subject: RE: hiring process

Hi Jim, can you specifically show a point in the contract that has been violated? Otherwise, this is not an AHE matter. I can see that you are frustrated and that you want to best serve your students; given that, unless there is a point in the contract on which we can argue, you will have to go to the state. You are, and have always been, a true champion for the students.

Kimberly

From: James Craven [mailto:omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 8:07 AM
To: Sullivan, Kimberly
Subject: RE: hiring process

Kim,

The response by Hamideh is disingenuous. First of all, not even John Fite was vetted by me as I wa sprevented from doing so by discipline imposed so that I could not do my job as head of his tenure committee (my wife said I had a duty to vote against his tenure as I had not fully vetted him no matter why but I voted for him hoping that he knew how little he knew and how much he had to catch up on). I am the senior economist, have taught 101 more than both of them put together, I have a vested interest even as a teacher who is teaching lower-level courses that are prep courses for mine, past hires by Hamideh and Fite resulted in bad hires (one of them Newman was hired and dropped twice now for bad performance and leaving classes early chronically), Hamideh himself is not qualified/not vetted to teach economics, but finally, this is Hamideh imposing his personal animus against me and interfering with the most qualified and head of economics to vet for technical competence, he is disrespecting my own prparation as an economist and is continuing this pattern of marginalization and demonization in the workplace that AHE has tolerated being waged against me for years. Also John as clearly cultivated a personal relationship with Mr. MacKay who himself wrote some very vitrolic stuff that he says that now he does not want me to review (why?) as I did not remember him. Further, John and Adnan with no consultation with me scheduled John to teach specialized courses (for which he has also not been vetted) with 10 students or so in them while we have a need and I am teaching to fulfull it, for the basic courses to be taught and this also has created work for his pet adjuncts (possible Trading in Public Employment) at the expense of the needs of the students and the division. Hamideh is doing a disingenous cover-up to cover his own treachery and serial breach of the AHE Contract and his complicity in aiding and abetting my marginalization and demonization in the workplace, hiring unvetted adjuncts through ad hoc and backdoor procedures, covering-up bad hires with more bad hires etc.

You all do what you want but I am going public, I will find out what the new Dean is about, and taking this to Olympia as I believe it is my duty to do so and I believe that crimes are being committed.

Simple question: Why would anyone not want the best qualified to do the vetting for technical competence unless they are mixing the personal with the professional and care nothing about the welfare of students and the institution? How will all of this play in a court of law? This is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington not a country club, cult or feudal estate.

take care,

Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

________________________________________
From: KSullivan@clark.edu
To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com; AHamideh@clark.edu; jfite@clark.edu
Subject: hiring process
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 23:42:24 +0000

Jim, in a nutshell I see you issue as this: The hiring of Mac was a violation of Appendix C Sec D2a of the contract. “In collaboration with departments, recommend adjunct faculty for hiring.” The contract does not specify department head, but does state that departments should be consulted by the division chair when making hiring recommendations. Is your point that the department was not consulted? If this is the case, I hope this can be settled as a department/division issue which does not require a Dean’s intervention. Why is the Dean necessary for this? Who are the members of your department? (Adnan, who was in on the interview?) So, let’s gather some information and settle this without the dean if possible. Could we meet on Tuesday?

Kimberly
________________________________________

Mon 6/27/2011 12:07 PM

These are the email exchanges that Mr. McCay did NOT want me to review. This is why it is not some matter of personal preferences/animosities of Hamideh who does the vetting of adjuncts and if either john or Adnan do not understand that, it means that they care nothing about the institution or its students and possible dangers—legal and otherwise—to them. I do not mix the professional with the personal and this is an obligation that all State employees have by law. When I did the Faculty Lecture Series I could have but did not violate the trust placed with me not to use that forum for my own personal issues or to respond in say coded language to those I felt have violated my rights and those of my family over and over while at Clark College.

But I have not only a Constitutional right but a legal obligation to tell what I believe to be the truth in all official matters. Of course those who knowingly tell untruths do not want to be called what they are—liars—but that is the only appropriate term and the answer to any discomfort in being called a liar is not to try to censor the person making a substantiated charge with some notion of “lack of respect” that is nothing more than an intended diversion from the content and supporting evidence of the speech, but for that person to stop lying. The same applies to other forms of incompetence and dereliction of duty as in letting personal animus and malice interfere with finding, valuing, utilizing and listening to the best-qualified to say vet adjuncts for technical competence especially when that same person was involved in past hires that caused class implosions and serious losses for students or where in one case a previous failure was then rehired only to allegedly do some of the same behaviors that caused problems in the past and who is again being replaced I was told by John Fite but never by Adnan.

Further, in my presence and in the presence of John Fite and Gerard Smith, Adnan bragged that it was “ironic” that the very areas in which he was teaching (accounting, economics and statistics) were the very subjects in which he had no or little interest in his MBA program and that he barely passed with C grades. Had I known that his preparation in economics was as marginal as it is, I would have never trusted him to teach even Econ 101 and I hereby challenge, and ask to vet him for technical competence, his teaching of Econ 101. In all my years, not once did Adnan ever share his syllabae, exams or materials with me or ask for my advice on the teaching of economics; Clark College has repeatedly taken credit for my own credentials as an economist and any real educator and who cares about the students and the institution would know that his preparation was thin and attempt to utilize all available resources to deliver qualify teaching (this is exactly what I did when I began to teach Economic Geography as I asked Paul Cassillas who has a Masters in Geography to come to my classes and vet/help me which he did and this is even though I had my own preparation in geography as well as economics). Yet neither John Fite nor Adnan has ever asked me to come to their classes and make suggestions for improving their teaching of economics, never asked me to look at their exams and this is despite the fact that what they do or do not do in the classroom as a direct and material bearing on my own teaching and my own constraints; this is not the behavior of any real educators or those fit to be called educators in my opinion.

Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

THIS IS WHAT MCCAY ASKED ME TO FORGET AND NOT REVIEW:

From: mccay4213@comcast.net [mailto:mccay4213@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 7:56 PM
To: Atkinson, Patricia; Hamideh, Adnan; Craven, Jim
Subject: Economics Review From Tutoial Center

I have attached a flyer for a review session I will hold for Micro-economics students. The general format is to work through the Monopoly model. Then I pose a series of questions, ideally answered from students. This inevitably leads into discussions of perfect Competition, Oligopoly and Monopolistic Competition. It is a great opportunity for student see all these things at one time, and reinforce the MR=MC concept.

I have an MA in Economics from UC Santa Barbara and completed the Ph. D. coursework there. I also worked over 20 years years as an energy policy economist.

I would appreciate it if you would let your students know about this opportunity and let them know to drop by the Tutoring Center at 102 Hawkins Hall to register if they are interested.

Feel free to get in touch with me if have questions via e-mail, or evenings at 828-8749.

Thank You,

Mac McCay

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 7:38 AM
To: ‘mccay4213@comcast.net’; Atkinson, Patricia; Hamideh, Adnan
Subject: RE: Economics Review From Tutoial Center

Thank you for the note. Economics is much more than neoclassical, and neoclassical is much more than the standard texts illustrate. In my classes, I teach neoclassical versus institutionalist vs heterodox perspectives and also what is problematic with the MC = MR concept (see attached). This paper was presented in China at the 5th Congress of the World Association of Political Economy and published in vol 2 of the World Review of Political Economy.

You efforts are appreciated but please remember, if students are not given complete pictures in one class it makes a mess for others to clean up (and takes away from content in the next sequence) in other classes plus students show up unprepared for sequence classes. This is why all teachers need to be vetted for technical competence and anyone who would oppose that cares nothing about students or the institution.

As Head of Economics, the first economist ever at Clark College, it is my duty to vet content, pedagogy and teacher of Economics.

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

—– Original Message —–
From: “Jim Craven”
To: “Jim Craven” , mccay4213@comcast.net, “Patricia Atkinson” , “Adnan Hamideh” , “John Fite”
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 3:31:30 PM

Subject: RE: Economics Review From Tutoial Center
On another note, please send all future materials and questions also to Professor John Fite as he is the only other tenured and vetted professor of economics and needs to know, for his own teaching, what is being taught or supplemented to his own teaching. Adjuncts, who had not been fully vetted as have the tenured professors, and do not have the institutional ties, accountability, and responsibilities that full-time tenured faculty have, do not drive course or text adoptions here, and they are expected to know and comport with the standard curricula in the various courses and sections of them. This issue of disparate content, standards, pedagogy in different courses and sections among different teachers full-time and adjunct must and will be addressed as a matter for accreditation and fairness and service to all students.

Thank you for your efforts.

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

From: mccay4213@comcast.net [mailto:mccay4213@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 6:22 PM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: Craven, Jim; Atkinson, Patricia; Hamideh, Adnan; Fite, John
Subject: Re: Economics Review From Tutoial Center

As no notice was provided to students you may be safely assured that this 25 year professional, a nationally recognized expert on energy policy, will not offer to share his insights in the future.

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:39 AM

To: ‘mccay4213@comcast.net’
Cc: Atkinson, Patricia; Hamideh, Adnan; Fite, John; Roi, Marcia; ‘LLewison@washingtonea.org’
Subject: RE: Economics Review From Tutoial Center

I have no idea what prompted your rather over-sensitive reaction to my note. I simply noted that John Fite should be sent any materials dealing with teaching economics. Further, as the first economist in the history of Clark College and as Head of Economics, and as someone who has seen, as have others in other departments, adjuncts hired without being vetted by the full-time and senior faculty in which the adjunct was hired (we have people presently teaching economics that I have never met) and further, we have had some hired without being vetted for technical competence with the result that those classes imploded and those students not only lost with the teacher they were handed, but lost in terms of not having someone more competent to teach. Paper, titles and the like mean little to me without vetting. We have had PhDs currently teaching elsewhere who could not even answer a simple question on the multiplier and accelerator processes and how they are integrated, or even one on cross-price elasticity of demand and its real-world uses.

The attitude that you appear to be displaying (more petulance from you apparently than me) some might feel shows contempt for the students, the program that has been evolved long before your arrival, the responsibilities of the full-time tenured faculty to vet adjuncts (the student’s transcripts do not differentiate if taught by an adjunct or a tenured professor) and the fact that students have a right to believe and know that any teachers they have been handed have been properly vetted. I am a commercial pilot and have been for over 40 years, but I would not walk down to say Delta Airlines and flash my pilot’s licenses and tell them I’m here, load up the 747, and tell me where I need to go and I’ll get there. Or another analogy is that what if I were a chef and were being pressured to handle and cook uninspected meat? And what if I had evidence of people already injured from being handed previously uninspected meat? That is the only spirit in which I wrote; all sorts of people self-proclaim and self-anoint their notions of their own credentials, and that is why, especially in a State institution, no one gets to just drop in and summarily declare themselves fit to teach at any level; and there are also potential liability issues which is why we are supposed to vet anyone in any teaching capacities and have done so as long as I have been here until recently.

This is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington; this is not a country club, a feudal estate or some military barracks. I only expressed my concerns, wished you well, and noted the real-world basis for concerns about anyone just dropping in, whom I and John have never met, whose students you might be tutoring and who knows, perhaps helping or not, to tell me that you are doing tutoring without even a visit to see how you might be useful. Those are my responsibilities and your apparent dismissal of them suggests that you know little about our realities and protocols here and the sound pedagogical reasons for them.

Sorry if I hit a nerve but my own teaching of Economics, from high school level to post-doctoral students, over some 37 years, in diverse cultures and languages, has left me with a lot of horror stories about educational systems and how and for whom they are often run—often not for students but as some kind of country club or fraternity/sorority. I thought that any real educator, concerned for the welfare, rights and needs of the students and the institution, would have understood the intent, content and spirit of my message.

I’m sorry if you took offense at my note, but my concern is what students are being taught and how and if what they are being taught by one teacher aids or inhibits what is being taught by others.

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

Summary:

Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in 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 Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;…

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section 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, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

EPSON scanner image

EPSON scanner image

Golder Response398

ULP399
________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 11:33 AM
To: ‘mccay4213@comcast.net’
Cc: Fite, John; Hamideh, Adnan
Subject: RE: Meeting

Dear Mr. McCay,

I am not aware of any opening for part-time instructor of economics, but my method, when I have been allowed to vet adjuncts, is to find out what an applicant really KNOWS as we have had in the past individuals “teaching” through death by power point, no structure, no communications with or reference to the pedagogical and content needs of me, the senior economist and Head of Economics, whose courses require lower-level courses properly taught and content articulated with my own courses. We currently have a potential ticking time bomb as if there are serious and numerous student complaints, and if students decide individually or class-action-wise to sue the college for having allegedly suffered malpractice in the classroom, and if a simple discovery process reveals that an adjunct was not hired or vetted through standardized and documented procedures, we are wide open for damages—and should be. Further, this is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, it is not a fraternity or sorority, not a country club, not a community networking organization like Rotary, teachers are also public employees with legal responsibilities and constraints, and students have a right to have their teachers properly vetted, in standardized and documented processes which is what I have always sought to do and how I was myself hired and vetted over many years in many venues. Adjuncts do not to get to choose who vets them or how they are vetted because it is those who do the vetting and are most qualified to do so, who are accountable to the students and law; when I was a pilot I did not get to choose my check pilots or self-anoint/certify myself as an examiner check pilot and then give myself my own check rides acting as my own check pilot, nor did I get to choose the tests, maneuvers and parameters to which I would be subject; and I did not get to “choose” which aircraft I felt like flying rated or not. When I teach in China, all my lectures are filmed and reviewed/vetted by senior faculty at Tsinghua and other institutions, senior faculty are always present, partly out of concern for the welfare of students and partly for national security reasons, and I do not resent it at all; I welcome it because it shows me where I need to sharpen up or where I simply do not know what I thought I knew. We have had at least four individuals teaching here that I have not vetted by me and without my even having been consulted on their hiring; and my being on disciplinary leave was, in my opinion that I will document in other venues, not a cause, but an effect, of the desire and intention to have some people hired without being vetted by me and a desire to allow them to “choose” with whom they felt more comfortable being vetted; but, if there are problems, it will be me, the senior economist, with over thirty years of teaching economics at all levels—high school to post-doctoral—and in a variety of courses both neoclassical and political economy, that they will go after in any allegations of unqualified teachers having been hired and causing tangible damages to students at Clark College.

There is also the issue of time. I gave you some of my time based on the representation by you and John that it was about your wanting to clear up a previous exchange between us and was assured that this was not just some pretext (the definition of a pretext is a contrived reason for something that covers-up a real reason for something—a kind of lie) leading into this note and I take it rather informal application for employment. Because there may be several applicants for adjunct teaching, because this is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington which means that we public employees are subject to RCWs, WACs and Federal statutes that private-sector employees are not subject to, because we have had bad hires not vetted by me and imploded classes that causes real damages and losses to students in those classes, because I am haunted at the opportunity costs on the students when unqualified teachers are hired (not only the damages of suffering individuals who should not have been hired but also, what the students lost forever when the proper ones were not hired), I am sensitive that all applications are through the front door, with a letter of application, supporting documentation of training and teaching experience (just as we teach our students to apply for employment) and I am not interested in any ex parte mechanisms or processes that are not in writing, standardized for all applicants and will go to paper on any and all cases of individuals hired without my vetting or even consultation with me.

Finally, this is not only about when you want to meet, it is about my own availability and that of others. But this preemptively suggesting even a topic to lecture on does not cut it. This is done with finalists for full-time positions after they have gone through considerable formal applications and interviews. With all due respect, you name the topic and discipline and I could put together a canned presentation that makes it appear that I know far more than I really do on any subject.

In any case, this is my summer and I am teaching and I have not even seen your resume, transcripts or anything and we have a staged process of hiring even for adjuncts. I am also very busy and it now appears to me now, as I asked you about previously and you denied that your visit was necessitated by my position as senior economist and an intent to apply for work, that your visit and insistence on my time to address any differences (you even told me not to review our past exchanges which is intriguing) appears to me to have been pre-textual and a contrived prelude to this request. In any case, in several upcoming venues, along with accreditation visits to complete a partially failed accreditation visit in the past, Clark College and its hiring/vetting/tenure practices will be subject to very intense scrutiny, transparency and sunlight and I am simply doing what I have always when in my 18 years at Clark College when allowed to do so: met my responsibilities to the students, the institution, the law and my own conscience and to document, as I am with this letter, my own responses to various circumstances at Clark College, possible violations of and/or concerns related to established protocols and laws with respect to hiring and other issues, and my concrete reasons for my positions—always framed in terms of the needs of the students and the laws to which all public employees are subject. I have myself, failed in my own responsibilities, mandated by Law, not to allow personal biases or associations, or being schmoozed or given obvious pretexts and contrivances, interfere with my own responsibilities to make sure that all candidates for adjunct status or tenure in Economics were properly vetted and given standardized treatment without fear or favor; and I plan not only to address and own up to my own failures in the past in public and legal venues, but also never to repeat them if possible.

All applications for adjunct teaching also must first go through HR to be referred to us. We also teach our students to apply with cover letters directing the readers to what the applicant considers the salient evidence for their qualifications and fitness for a given position.

Sincerely,

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
From: mccay4213@comcast.net [mailto:mccay4213@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:46 AM

To: Craven, Jim; Fite, John
Cc: Hamideh, Adnan; mac
Subject: Meeting
Dear Economics Faculty,

Summer session is beginning next week. If possible, I would like to meet jointly with Jim Craven and John Fite to resolve any questions of my qualifications and abilities as a possible faculty member. I know Professor Craven prefers a classroom setting and presentation as part of this process. If we can find a time to meet, I am more than happy to give a presentation on the topic of your choice. (If left to me, it will the relationship between long run average cost and short run average cost and market entry/exit.) I am also glad to spend whatever time is necessary to answer all questions and hypotheticals. I will be on campus during summer from 10-1 M-Th.

For your convenience an electronic version of my resume is attached.
________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 4:52 PM
To: Fite, John
Cc: ‘Patricia Atkinson’; Kraley, Shon; Foreman, Cynthia
Subject: RE: Grugman Wells Text
________________________________________
From: Fite, John
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 11:29 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: ‘Patricia Atkinson’; Kraley, Shon; Foreman, Cynthia
Subject: Grugman Wells Text

Jim I haven’t seen anything on our new text for Econ 201/202. If customizing the text I would like to have the Core chapters for both Micro & Macro plus the optional chapter “ Macroeconomics: Events and Ideas. John

This is what I know for sure. The text has been kept whole except for additions that I made to reflect that in the last 30 years, even with the same neoclassical stuff they have been peddling since my first economics class in 1965, there have been some significant changes in both economics and the pedagogy of it even in the so-called “mainstream”. There also new proposals from AEA and others for new innovations in the teaching of economics (see Teagle Foundation Report by Colander et al) Instructors are free to use or not use the potions they choose (however I must say that am getting tired of students who have had 101 and other sections of 201/202 who still do not know what a slope of a function is or what even a function is and Econ 101 was supposed to be a preparation course in addition to a substitution in lieu of the minimums for 201/202 which are English 101 and Math 095). Any further changes, I want a rationale in writing as students may drop and pick up a course later with a different text if the text has been further modified further. Last year I obtained and reviewed thoroughly seven different potential texts, and I know Colander personally and well, within a more affordable price range and came up with Krugman after considerable vetting of the relevant texts (Krugman is also out of date on the MC = MR stuff, on the incorporation of time and space into neoclassical theory, critiques of neoclassical theory etc). I did the best I could with what I had to work with. Further, we cannot get any further price reductions even with further customization. When I was an adjunct over many years, I understood well that those who had preceded me and indeed who hired me, and who had built up and had responsibility for a program that allowed me to have the job for which I was hired–and yes thoroughly vetted by senior economists as I should have been–I understood further that they understood the turf, the students, the program etc better than I did so I worked with the texts and approaches (content and structures) that were in use and then made my own additions always working with the full-time teachers as they also had a direct interest in what I was doing or proposing to teach had a direct . This seems to me to be in the realm of the basics in being student–rather than self–centered and being fit to call myself any kind of an educator trying to serve the students and their needs.

Craven, Jim

EPSON scanner image

THE LAW RELEVANT TO THESE ISSUES

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 for Forcing A Federal Officer To Perform a Mandatory Duty

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 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.

18 USC § 241 – CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS USC-prelim

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section 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, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section 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, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Source

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a),Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1),Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L),Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a),Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

RCW 69.50.407
Conspiracy.

Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this chapter is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both which may not exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.
[1971 ex.s. c 308 § 69.50.407.]

Chapter 9A.72 RCW
PERJURY AND INTERFERENCE WITH OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Complete Chapter

RCW 9A.68.050
Trading in special influence.

(1) A person is guilty of trading in special influence if:

(a) He or she 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 or she requests, accepts, or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit pursuant to an agreement or understanding that he or she 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.
[2011 c 336 § 390; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.68.050.]

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 or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or

(b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.

(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.

[2011 c 336 § 408; 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: RCW 42.20.100.

RCW 49.44.010
Blacklisting — Penalty.

Every person in this state who shall willfully and maliciously, send or deliver, or make or cause to be made, for the purpose of being delivered or sent or part with the possession of any paper, letter or writing, with or without name signed thereto, or signed with a fictitious name, or with any letter, mark or other designation, or publish or cause to be published any statement for the purpose of preventing any other person from obtaining employment in this state or elsewhere, and every person who shall willfully and maliciously “blacklist” or cause to be “blacklisted” any person or persons, by writing, printing or publishing, or causing the same to be done, the name, or mark, or designation representing the name of any person in any paper, pamphlet, circular or book, together with any statement concerning persons so named, or publish or cause to be published that any person is a member of any secret organization, for the purpose of preventing such person from securing employment, or who shall willfully and maliciously make or issue any statement or paper that will tend to influence or prejudice the mind of any employer against the person of such person seeking employment, or any person who shall do any of the things mentioned in this section for the purpose of causing the discharge of any person employed by any railroad or other company, corporation, individual or individuals, shall, on conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ninety days nor more than three hundred sixty-four days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
[2011 c 96 § 42; 1899 c 23 § 1; RRS § 7599.]

Notes:

Findings — Intent — 2011 c 96: See note following RCW 9A.20.021.

RCW 42.20.070
Misappropriation and falsification of accounts by public officer.

Every public officer, and every other person receiving money on behalf or for or on account of the people of the state or of any department of the state government or of any bureau or fund created by law in which the people are directly or indirectly interested, or for or on account of any county, city, town, or any school, diking, drainage, or irrigation district, who:

(1) Appropriates to his or her own use or the use of any person not entitled thereto, without authority of law, any money so received by him or her as such officer or otherwise; or

(2) Knowingly keeps any false account, or makes any false entry or erasure in any account, of or relating to any money so received by him or her; or

(3) Fraudulently alters, falsifies, conceals, destroys, or obliterates any such account; or

(4) Willfully omits or refuses to pay over to the state, its officer or agent authorized by law to receive the same, or to such county, city, town, or such school, diking, drainage, or irrigation district or to the proper officer or authority empowered to demand and receive the same, any money received by him or her as such officer when it is a duty imposed upon him or her by law to pay over and account for the same,

is guilty of a class B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than fifteen years.
[2003 c 53 § 219; 1992 c 7 § 37; 1909 c 249 § 317; RRS § 2569. Prior: Code 1881 § 890; 1873 p 202 § 92; 1854 p 91 § 83.]
Notes:

Intent — Effective date — 2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.

RCW 42.20.080
Other violations by officers.

*** CHANGE IN 2012 *** (SEE 6095.SL) ***

Every officer or other person mentioned in RCW 42.20.070, who shall willfully 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.
[1909 c 249 § 318; RRS § 2570.]

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.]

Notes:
Official misconduct by public servant: RCW 9A.80.010.

RCW 9A.36.070
Coercion.

(1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he or she has a legal right to engage in.

(2) “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(27) (a), (b), or (c).

(3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 9A.36.080
Malicious harassment — Definition and criminal penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:

(a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;

(b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or

(c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property. The fear must be a fear that a reasonable person would have under all the circumstances. For purposes of this section, a “reasonable person” is a reasonable person who is a member of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or who has the same mental, physical, or sensory handicap as the victim. Words alone do not constitute malicious harassment unless the context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat. Threatening words do not constitute malicious harassment if it is apparent to the victim that the person does not have the ability to carry out the threat.

(2) In any prosecution for malicious harassment, unless evidence exists which explains to the trier of fact’s satisfaction that the person did not intend to threaten the victim or victims, the trier of fact may infer that the person intended to threaten a specific victim or group of victims because of the person’s perception of the victim’s or victims’ race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap if the person commits one of the following acts:

(a) Burns a cross on property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of African American heritage; or

(b) Defaces property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of Jewish heritage by defacing the property with a swastika.

This subsection only applies to the creation of a reasonable inference for evidentiary purposes. This subsection does not restrict the state’s ability to prosecute a person under subsection (1) of this section when the facts of a particular case do not fall within (a) or (b) of this subsection.

(3) It is not a defense that the accused was mistaken that the victim was a member of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or had a mental, physical, or sensory handicap.

(4) Evidence of expressions or associations of the accused may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the crime charged. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.

(5) Every person who commits another crime during the commission of a crime under this section may be punished and prosecuted for the other crime separately.

(6) For the purposes of this section:

(a) “Sexual orientation” has the same meaning as in RCW 49.60.040.

(b) “Threat” means to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to:

(i) Cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or

(ii) Cause physical damage immediately or in the future to the property of a person threatened or that of any other person.

(7) Malicious harassment is a class C felony.

(8) The penalties provided in this section for malicious harassment do not preclude the victims from seeking any other remedies otherwise available under law.

(9) Nothing in this section confers or expands any civil rights or protections to any group or class identified under this section, beyond those rights or protections that exist under the federal or state Constitution or the civil laws of the state of Washington.
[2010 c 119 § 1; 2009 c 180 § 1; 1993 c 127 § 2; 1989 c 95 § 1; 1984 c 268 § 1; 1981 c 267 § 1.]

Notes:
Severability — 1993 c 127: See note following RCW 9A.36.078.
Construction — 1989 c 95: “The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purpose.” [1989 c 95 § 3.]
Severability — 1989 c 95: “If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.” [1989 c 95 § 4.]
Harassment: Chapters 9A.46 and 10.14 RCW.

RCW 9A.36.083
Malicious harassment — Civil action.

In addition to the criminal penalty provided in RCW 9A.36.080 for committing a crime of malicious harassment, the victim may bring a civil cause of action for malicious harassment against the harasser. A person may be liable to the victim of malicious harassment for actual damages, punitive damages of up to ten thousand dollars, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing the action.
[1993 c 127 § 3.]
Notes:
Severability — 1993 c 127: See note following RCW 9A.36.078.

RCW 9A.36.160
Failing to summon assistance.

A person is guilty of the crime of failing to summon assistance if:

(1) He or she was present when a crime was committed against another person; and

(2) He or she knows that the other person has suffered substantial bodily harm as a result of the crime committed against the other person and that the other person is in need of assistance; and

(3) He or she could reasonably summon assistance for the person in need without danger to himself or herself and without interference with an important duty owed to a third party; and

(4) He or she fails to summon assistance for the person in need; and

(5) Another person is not summoning or has not summoned assistance for the person in need of such assistance.
[2005 c 209 § 1.]

RCW 9A.36.161
Failing to summon assistance — Penalty.

A violation of RCW 9A.36.160 is a misdemeanor.
[2005 c 209 § 2.]

RCW 9A.56.010
Definitions.

The following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Access device” means any card, plate, code, account number, or other means of account access that can be used alone or in conjunction with another access device to obtain money, goods, services, or anything else of value, or that can be used to initiate a transfer of funds, other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument;

(2) “Appropriate lost or misdelivered property or services” means obtaining or exerting control over the property or services of another which the actor knows to have been lost or mislaid, or to have been delivered under a mistake as to identity of the recipient or as to the nature or amount of the property;

(3) “Beverage crate” means a plastic or metal box-like container used by a manufacturer or distributor in the transportation or distribution of individually packaged beverages to retail outlets, and affixed with language stating “property of . . . . .,” “owned by . . . . .,” or other markings or words identifying ownership;

(4) “By color or aid of deception” means that the deception operated to bring about the obtaining of the property or services; it is not necessary that deception be the sole means of obtaining the property or services;

(5) “Deception” occurs when an actor knowingly:

(a) Creates or confirms another’s false impression which the actor knows to be false; or

(b) Fails to correct another’s impression which the actor previously has created or confirmed; or

(c) Prevents another from acquiring information material to the disposition of the property involved; or

(d) Transfers or encumbers property without disclosing a lien, adverse claim, or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of the property, whether that impediment is or is not valid, or is or is not a matter of official record; or

(e) Promises performance which the actor does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed;

(6) “Deprive” in addition to its common meaning means to make unauthorized use or an unauthorized copy of records, information, data, trade secrets, or computer programs;

(7) “Mail,” in addition to its common meaning, means any letter, postal card, package, bag, or other item that is addressed to a specific address for delivery by the United States postal service or any commercial carrier performing the function of delivering similar items to residences or businesses, provided the mail:

(a)(i) Is addressed with a specific person’s name, family name, or company, business, or corporation name on the outside of the item of mail or on the contents inside; and

(ii) Is not addressed to a generic unnamed occupant or resident of the address without an identifiable person, family, or company, business, or corporation name on the outside of the item of mail or on the contents inside; and

(b) Has been left for collection or delivery in any letter box, mailbox, mail receptacle, or other authorized depository for mail, or given to a mail carrier, or left with any private business that provides mailboxes or mail addresses for customers or when left in a similar location for collection or delivery by any commercial carrier; or

(c) Is in transit with a postal service, mail carrier, letter carrier, commercial carrier, or that is at or in a postal vehicle, postal station, mailbox, postal airplane, transit station, or similar location of a commercial carrier; or

(d) Has been delivered to the intended address, but has not been received by the intended addressee.

Mail, for purposes of chapter 164, Laws of 2011, does not include magazines, catalogs, direct mail inserts, newsletters, advertising circulars, or any mail that is considered third-class mail by the United States postal service;

(8) “Mailbox,” in addition to its common meaning, means any authorized depository or receptacle of mail for the United States postal service or authorized depository for a commercial carrier that provides services to the general public, including any address to which mail is or can be addressed, or a place where the United States postal service or equivalent commercial carrier delivers mail to its addressee;

(9) “Merchandise pallet” means a wood or plastic carrier designed and manufactured as an item on which products can be placed before or during transport to retail outlets, manufacturers, or contractors, and affixed with language stating “property of . . .,” “owned by . . .,” or other markings or words identifying ownership;

(10) “Obtain control over” in addition to its common meaning, means:

(a) In relation to property, to bring about a transfer or purported transfer to the obtainer or another of a legally recognized interest in the property; or

(b) In relation to labor or service, to secure performance thereof for the benefits of the obtainer or another;

(11) “Owner” means a person, other than the actor, who has possession of or any other interest in the property or services involved, and without whose consent the actor has no authority to exert control over the property or services;

(12) “Parking area” means a parking lot or other property provided by retailers for use by a customer for parking an automobile or other vehicle;

(13) “Receive” includes, but is not limited to, acquiring title, possession, control, or a security interest, or any other interest in the property;

(14) “Received by the intended addressee” means that the addressee, owner of the delivery mailbox, or authorized agent has removed the delivered mail from its delivery mailbox;

(15) “Services” includes, but is not limited to, labor, professional services, transportation services, electronic computer services, the supplying of hotel accommodations, restaurant services, entertainment, the supplying of equipment for use, and the supplying of commodities of a public utility nature such as gas, electricity, steam, and water;

(16) “Shopping cart” means a basket mounted on wheels or similar container generally used in a retail establishment by a customer for the purpose of transporting goods of any kind;

(17) “Stolen” means obtained by theft, robbery, or extortion;

(18) “Subscription television service” means cable or encrypted video and related audio and data services intended for viewing on a home television by authorized members of the public only, who have agreed to pay a fee for the service. Subscription services include but are not limited to those video services presently delivered by coaxial cable, fiber optic cable, terrestrial microwave, television broadcast, and satellite transmission;

(19) “Telecommunication device” means (a) any type of instrument, device, machine, or equipment that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic or electronic communications; or (b) any part of such an instrument, device, machine, or equipment, or any computer circuit, computer chip, electronic mechanism, or other component, that is capable of facilitating the transmission or reception of telephonic or electronic communications;

(20) “Telecommunication service” includes any service other than subscription television service provided for a charge or compensation to facilitate the transmission, transfer, or reception of a telephonic communication or an electronic communication;

(21) Value. (a) “Value” means the market value of the property or services at the time and in the approximate area of the criminal act.

(b) Whether or not they have been issued or delivered, written instruments, except those having a readily ascertained market value, shall be evaluated as follows:

(i) The value of an instrument constituting an evidence of debt, such as a check, draft, or promissory note, shall be deemed the amount due or collectible thereon or thereby, that figure ordinarily being the face amount of the indebtedness less any portion thereof which has been satisfied;

(ii) The value of a ticket or equivalent instrument which evidences a right to receive transportation, entertainment, or other service shall be deemed the price stated thereon, if any; and if no price is stated thereon, the value shall be deemed the price of such ticket or equivalent instrument which the issuer charged the general public;

(iii) The value of any other instrument that creates, releases, discharges, or otherwise affects any valuable legal right, privilege, or obligation shall be deemed the greatest amount of economic loss which the owner of the instrument might reasonably suffer by virtue of the loss of the instrument.

(c) Except as provided in RCW 9A.56.340(4) and 9A.56.350(4), whenever any series of transactions which constitute theft, would, when considered separately, constitute theft in the third degree because of value, and said series of transactions are a part of a criminal episode or a common scheme or plan, then the transactions may be aggregated in one count and the sum of the value of all said transactions shall be the value considered in determining the degree of theft involved.

For purposes of this subsection, “criminal episode” means a series of thefts committed by the same person from one or more mercantile establishments on three or more occasions within a five-day period.

(d) Whenever any person is charged with possessing stolen property and such person has unlawfully in his possession at the same time the stolen property of more than one person, then the stolen property possessed may be aggregated in one count and the sum of the value of all said stolen property shall be the value considered in determining the degree of theft involved. Thefts committed by the same person in different counties that have been aggregated in one county may be prosecuted in any county in which one of the thefts occurred.

(e) Property or services having value that cannot be ascertained pursuant to the standards set forth above shall be deemed to be of a value not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars;

(22) “Wrongfully obtains” or “exerts unauthorized control” means:

(a) To take the property or services of another;

(b) Having any property or services in one’s possession, custody or control as bailee, factor, lessee, pledgee, renter, servant, attorney, agent, employee, trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, or officer of any person, estate, association, or corporation, or as a public officer, or person authorized by agreement or competent authority to take or hold such possession, custody, or control, to secrete, withhold, or appropriate the same to his or her own use or to the use of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto; or

(c) Having any property or services in one’s possession, custody, or control as partner, to secrete, withhold, or appropriate the same to his or her use or to the use of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto, where the use is unauthorized by the partnership agreement.

[2011 c 164 § 2; 2006 c 277 § 4; 2002 c 97 § 1; 1999 c 143 § 36; 1998 c 236 § 1; 1997 c 346 § 2; 1995 c 92 § 1; 1987 c 140 § 1; 1986 c 257 § 2; 1985 c 382 § 1; 1984 c 273 § 6; 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 8; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.56.010.]

Notes:

Intent — 2011 c 164: “It is important to the citizens of this state to have confidence in the security of the mail. Mail contains personal information, medical records, and financial documents. Theft of mail has become a serious problem in our state because mail is a key source of information for identity thieves. Currently, there is no law that adequately addresses the seriousness of this crime. This act is intended to accurately recognize the seriousness of taking personal, medical, or financial identifying information and compromising the integrity of our mail system.” [2011 c 164 § 1.]

Severability — 1986 c 257: “If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.” [1986 c 257 § 37.]

Severability — 1985 c 382: “If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.” [1985 c 382 § 3.]

Effective date — Severability — 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38: See notes following RCW 9A.08.020.

RCW 9A.56.020
Theft — Definition, defense.

(1) “Theft” means:

(a) To wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services; or

(b) By color or aid of deception to obtain control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services; or

(c) To appropriate lost or misdelivery of property or services of another, or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services.

(2) In any prosecution for theft, it shall be a sufficient defense that:

(a) The property or service was appropriated openly and avowedly under a claim of title made in good faith, even though the claim be untenable; or

(b) The property was merchandise pallets that were received by a pallet recycler or repairer in the ordinary course of its business.
[2004 c 122 § 1; 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 9; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.56.020.]
Notes:

Effective date — Severability — 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38: See notes following RCW 9A.08.020.
Civil action for shoplifting by adults, minors: RCW 4.24.230.

RCW 9A.56.380
Possession of stolen mail.

(1) A person is guilty of possession of stolen mail if he or she: (a) Possesses stolen mail addressed to three or more different mailboxes; and (b) possesses a minimum of ten separate pieces of stolen mail.

(2) “Possesses stolen mail” means to knowingly receive, retain, possess, conceal, or dispose of stolen mail knowing that it has been stolen, and to withhold or appropriate to the use of any person other than the true owner, or the person to whom the mail is addressed.

(3) The fact that the person who stole the mail has not been convicted, apprehended, or identified is not a defense to the charge of possessing stolen mail.

(4) Each set of ten separate pieces of stolen mail addressed to three or more different mailboxes constitutes a separate and distinct crime and may be punished accordingly.

(5) Possession of stolen mail is a class C felony.
[2011 c 164 § 4.]
Notes:
Intent — 2011 c 164: See note following RCW 9A.56.010.

RCW 9A.56.390
Mail theft — Possession of stolen mail — Commission of other crime.

Every person who, in the commission of mail theft or possession of stolen mail, shall commit any other crime, may be punished therefor as well as for the mail theft or possession of stolen mail, and may be prosecuted for each crime separately.
[2011 c 164 § 5.]

Notes:
Intent — 2011 c 164: See note following RCW 9A.56.010.

RCW 9A.60.050
False certification.

(1) A person is guilty of false certification, if, being an officer authorized to take a proof or acknowledgment of an instrument which by law may be recorded, he or she knowingly certifies falsely that the execution of such instrument was acknowledged by any party thereto or that the execution thereof was proved.

(2) False certification is a gross misdemeanor.
[2011 c 336 § 384; 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 15; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 §9A.60.050 .]
Notes:
Effective date — Severability — 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38: See notes following RCW 9A.08.020.

RCW 9A.60.070
False academic credentials — Unlawful issuance or use — Definitions — Penalties.

*** CHANGE IN 2012 *** (SEE 2483-S2.SL) ***

(1) A person is guilty of issuing a false academic credential if the person knowingly:

(a) Grants or awards a false academic credential or offers to grant or award a false academic credential in violation of this section;

(b) Represents that a credit earned or granted by the person in violation of this section can be applied toward a credential offered by another person;

(c) Grants or offers to grant a credit for which a representation as described in (b) of this subsection is made; or

(d) Solicits another person to seek a credential or to earn a credit the person knows is offered in violation of this section.

(2) A person is guilty of knowingly using a false academic credential if the person knowingly uses a false academic credential or falsely claims to have a credential issued by an institution of higher education that is accredited by an accrediting association recognized as such by rule of the *higher education coordinating board:

(a) In a written or oral advertisement or other promotion of a business; or

(b) With the intent to:

(i) Obtain employment;

(ii) Obtain a license or certificate to practice a trade, profession, or occupation;

(iii) Obtain a promotion, compensation or other benefit, or an increase in compensation or other benefit, in employment or in the practice of a trade, profession, or occupation;

(iv) Obtain admission to an educational program in this state; or

(v) Gain a position in government with authority over another person, regardless of whether the person receives compensation for the position.

(3) The definitions in this subsection apply throughout this section and RCW 28B.85.220.

(a) “False academic credential” means a document that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of an academic or professional course of instruction beyond the secondary level that results in the attainment of an academic certificate, degree, or rank, and that is not issued by a person or entity that: (i) Is an entity accredited by an agency recognized as such by rule of the *higher education coordinating board or has the international equivalents of such accreditation; or (ii) is an entity authorized as a degree-granting institution by the *higher education coordinating board; or (iii) is an entity exempt from the requirements of authorization as a degree-granting institution by the *higher education coordinating board; or (iv) is an entity that has been granted a waiver by the *higher education coordinating board from the requirements of authorization by the board. Such documents include, but are not limited to, academic certificates, degrees, coursework, degree credits, transcripts, or certification of completion of a degree.

(b) “Grant” means award, bestow, confer, convey, sell, or give.

(c) “Offer,” in addition to its usual meanings, means advertise, publicize, or solicit.

(d) “Operate” includes but is not limited to the following:

(i) Offering courses in person, by correspondence, or by electronic media at or to any Washington location for degree credit;

(ii) Granting or offering to grant degrees in Washington;

(iii) Maintaining or advertising a Washington location, mailing address, computer server, or telephone number, for any purpose, other than for contact with the institution’s former students for any legitimate purpose related to the students having attended the institution.

(4) Issuing a false academic credential is a class C felony.

(5) Knowingly using a false academic credential is a gross misdemeanor.
[2006 c 234 § 2.]

Notes:
*Reviser’s note: The higher education coordinating board was abolished by 2011 1st sp.s. c 11 § 301, effective July 1, 2012.

RCW 9A.68.010
Bribery.

(1) A person is guilty of bribery if:

(a) With the intent to secure a particular result in a particular matter involving the exercise of the public servant’s vote, opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion, or other action in his or her official capacity, he or she offers, confers, or agrees to confer any pecuniary benefit upon such public servant; or

(b) Being a public servant, he or she requests, accepts, or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit pursuant to an agreement or understanding that his or her vote, opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion, or other action as a public servant will be used to secure or attempt to secure a particular result in a particular matter.

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the public servant sought to be influenced was not qualified to act in the desired way, whether because he or she had not yet assumed office, lacked jurisdiction, or for any other reason.

(3) Bribery is a class B felony.
[2011 c 336 § 386; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.68.010.]

RCW 9A.68.020
Requesting unlawful compensation.

(1) A public servant is guilty of requesting unlawful compensation if he or she requests a pecuniary benefit for the performance of an official action knowing that he or she is required to perform that action without compensation or at a level of compensation lower than that requested.

(2) Requesting unlawful compensation is a class C felony.
[2011 c 336 § 387; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.68.020.]

RCW 9A.68.030
Receiving or granting unlawful compensation.

(1) A person is guilty of receiving or granting unlawful compensation if:

(a) Being a public servant, he or she requests, accepts, or agrees to accept compensation for advice or other assistance in preparing a bill, contract, claim, or transaction regarding which he or she knows he or she is likely to have an official discretion to exercise; or

(b) He or she knowingly offers, pays, or agrees to pay compensation to a public servant for advice or other assistance in preparing or promoting a bill, contract, claim, or other transaction regarding which the public servant is likely to have an official discretion to exercise.

(2) Receiving or granting unlawful compensation is a class C felony.
[2011 c 336 § 388; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.68.030.]

About jimcraven10

About jimcraven10 1. Citizenship: Blackfoot, U.S. and Canadian; 2. Position: tenured Professor of Economics and Geography; Dept. Head, Economics; 3. Teaching, Consulting and Research experience: approx 40 + years all levels high school to post-doctoral U.S. Canada, Europe, China, India, Puerto Rico and parts of E. Asia; 4. Work past and present: U.S. Army 1963-66; Member: Veterans for Peace; former VVAW; Veterans for 9-11 Truth; Scholars for 9-11 Truth; Pilots for 9-11 Truth; World Association for Political Economy; Editorial Board International Critical Thought; 4.. U.S. Commercial-Instrument Pilot ; FAA Licensed Ground Instructor (Basic, Advanced, Instrument and Simulators); 5. Research Areas and Publications: International law (on genocide, rights of nations, war and war crimes); Imperialism (nature, history, logic, trajectories, mechanisms and effects); Economic Geography (time and space modeling in political economy; globalization--logic and effects; Political Economy and Geography of Imperialism); Indigenous versus non-Indigenous Law; Political Economy of Socialism and Socialist Construction; 6. Member, Editorial Board, "International Critical Thought" published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; International Advisory Board and Columnist 4th Media Group, http://www.4thMedia.org (Beijing); 7. Other Websites publications at http://www.aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com; wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com;https://jimcraven10.wordpress.com; 8.Biography available in: Marquis Who’s Who: in the World (16th-18th; 20th; 22nd -31st (2014) Editions); Who’s Who in America (51st-61st;63rd-68th(2014) Editions); Who’s Who in the West (24th- 27th Editions);Who’s Who in Science and Engineering (3rd to 6th, 8th, 11th (2011-2012) Editions); Who’s Who in Finance and Industry (29th to 37th Editions); Who’s Who in American Education (6th Edition). ------------------- 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
This entry was posted in 9-11 Videos and Articles, Clark College, CLARK COLLEGE: PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ON SERIOUS ISSUES, CORRUPTION IN "HIGHER" EDUCATION, Indigenous Issues, Psychopaths and Sociopaths in Politics, Psychopaths in Management, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to STATEMENT OF DUTY AND CONCERN TO CLARK COLLEGE STUDENTS

  1. Pingback: APPEALS COURT RULING BOLSTERS PROFESSOR’S FREE-SPEECH RIGHTS | Welcome to the Blog of Jim Craven

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s