Dr. Martin (Disciplinary Officer for the San Diego Community College District):
Subject: Disciplinary Officer Conduct
When you introduced yourself on 25 Feb 2000, I was willing to give you my version of what I consider false allegations regarding events at the West City Center Counseling Office on 6 Jan 2000 and 18 Jan 2000, but you cut me off. I believe if you had allowed me even a few minutes to describe what happened on each of these days you would have been better prepared for any further necessary "fact-finding." It's unfortunate that the concerns I raised (many more than the three you referenced in your 1 March 2000 letter) apparently confused you regarding my intent regarding meeting with you. To quote, you said: "You stated that you were not willing to meet with me. As a result, I am now writing to establish and schedule a date for an Administrative Conference." In my 10 March 2000 response, I stated that I felt "pursuit of an Administrative Conference at this time is unwarranted and ill-advised."
In conversation with Dean St. John, he stated that he did not know at what point or by whom his report of incidents in the Counseling Office reported by staff became characterized as alleged violations of Policy 3100. For example, every time a custodian encounters a student in an area where students are allowed with approval of office staff, the student should not be subject to a verbal assault by the custodian when the staff member has not indicated to the custodian that there is problem. This is particularly grievous when the custodian walks toward and past the student and "blind-sides" the student in a loud, aggressive, and threatening manner FROM BEHIND!
Such was the case on 6 January 2000 when I was waiting in an area across from Ms. Tracy Melvin's desk, waiting for her to hand me the phone so I could speak to a counselor at the Clairemont campus. I did not hear or see Ms. Melvin object to what the custodian should have been able to see was an acceptable situation, with Ms. Melvin in full control of the situation and me standing calmly and patiently thinking about the matters I wished to speak to the counselor about. In pursuing this alleged violation of Policy 3100, I obviously would want to provide the Grievance Officer involved with a witness statement, not knowing how long Ms. Melvin would remain employed and be contactable.
I was troubled by Ms. Melvin's lack of cooperation in this matter, beginning with no response to my verbalized concerns regarding the events she had just witnessed involving Custodian Otis Williams other than to say I should see Roy Hernandez about it. Suspicious that she might want to shield Mr. Williams from accountability, I nevertheless let the matter drop at that point (as Mr. Williams exited the Counseling Office) and took the matter up with Counselor Hernandez the very next day. He said he "had heard about it" but would not elaborate, and said he would pass my request for a written witness statement on to Ms. Melvin after our meeting. Mr. Hernandez did not notify me whether he fulfilled my request, whether Ms. Melvin would cooperate, or about anything else that might assure more cooperation. After waiting 10 days with no response from either Mr. Hernandez or Ms. Melvin, I asked her directly and politely about whether she had received my request from Mr. Hernandez. She would only say that I needed to talk to Mr. Hernandez about it.
At this point I definitely suspected some cover-up might be occurring judging from her dismissive tone. Yet, there was still the possibility remaining that Mr. Hernandez had a witness letter from her, but had not informed me. Subsequently, Mr. Hernandez claimed he did inform Ms. Melvin of my request for a witness statement after our meeting, but did not receive any indication of Ms. Melvin's willingness or unwillingness to fulfill my request. After contacting Ms. Melvin again to request some clearer indication of her willingness or unwillingness to provide me with a witness statement, she just referred me to Dean St. John. I realized then that my chance of having Ms. Melvin's cooperation were slim to none.
I asked Dean St. John's for his assistance and he just directed me back to Ms. Melvin. Getting the run around was nothing new at West City Center, but this specific run around particularly concerned me because it involved getting Mr. Williams off my back and having my grievance with him actually addressed with hopefully a witness statement in hand. I felt that Mr. Williams would be further emboldened to escalate his attacks on me, if the incident on 6 January 2000 were not adequately addressed. Dozens of complaints about Mr. Williams had previously been ignored.
I felt that if I just had photos of the Counseling Office I might get somewhere with my grievance. I purchased one of those one-time use cameras to document the office setting where the alleged violation by Mr. Williams took place. When I went to take photos on 18 January 2000, I felt Tracy would realize that I was just making an effort to not have the matter with Mr. Williams totally ignored. Instead my intentions were completely mischaracterized and the truth was not told by either of the Counseling Office assistants present.
The District has chosen to turn the true situation around, and based on biased and distorted testimony, has chosen to charge me with violations both in the incident with Mr. Williams and later when I returned to document the office setting with my camera. I believe a more fair and unbiased Disciplinary Officer would have approached these matters differently. If the Dean had been interested in hearing my version before reporting the incident to senior management, or if you as the Disciplinary Officer involved had at least sought to be aware of the circumstances (including an ongoing grievance with both the site dean and Mr. Williams, perhaps the District concerns would have been covered as well as mine.
Your conduct on 25 February is of additional concern, since you informed me that you became involved at the direction of Vice President Jim Smith, who along with your colleague, Mr. Bill Grimes, were the employees most involved with hearing and addressing my long-term problems concerning West City Center managers and employees under their supervision.
It is deeply troubling that you were not willing to more carefully consider the larger picture, including the ongoing and unresolved grievances to which I repeatedly referre. I object to any minimizing of the obvious effect defending myself in a more adversarial has had on me. Not only is there a significant stigma attached to it, but this process further erodes my credibility in pursuing far more grievous issues concerning District employees such as Vice President Jim Smith, who according to you, specifically directed this latest wave of retaliation. Who is left to do the fact-finding on the Vice President? According to Mr. Smith, it would be President Bobby Wilson, who cut off my e-mail contact with the Vice-President and has not responded to either my request to meet with him or my e-mail requests for additional information.
In the American legal system prosecutors and judges are required to play separate roles for justice to prevail. I believe that the same individual can't just wear two different hats and switch between them when students' rights are on the line. I believe that President Wilson has already compromised any neutrality and ability to make fair decisions by not only his unfairness and unresponsiveness but by his cutting off an often used channel for efficient exchange of information.
Rather than proceed on a more informal and less adversarial basis, you instead misinterpreted my expressed concerns to mean that I would not attend an Administrative Conference, when I never said that I wouldn't. Note that the Administrative Conference procedure limits sanctions imposed to a maximum 10-day suspension. Then without responding to the concerns I raised on 10 March 2000 , the VERY NEXT TIME I hear from you is with a 22 March 2000 letter which began "You are hereby charged with violation of San Diego Community College District Policy 3100 . . . " and followed with the warning that you would pursue a TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION WITHOUT CITING ANY FURTHER VIOLATION OF POLICY 3100.
Please consider my loss and the loss in credibility the San Diego Community College District necessarily suffers by recommending such harsh and unjustified sanctions against a student expressing his or her point of view as protected by Policy 3100. How can the conspirators against such free expression be expected to admit it when in one form or another everyone involved has something at stake — and something to lose. And how can such an outrageous threat to a good student's progress be fairly based on a seemingly intentional MISINTERPRETATION of my correspondence following your cutting me off from sharing my side in person?
Essentially, you are threatening me with a two-year halt in my access to affordable programs necessary to achieve my educational goals. In trying to deprive me of programs, the District will not eliminate my point of view nor keep its credibility from falling in the eyes of those informed of the District's repressive tactics. Let's consider how the District kept me on edge not dealing with my grievances, and waited for an opportunity to strike back out of fear of being faced with more. The District's opportunity came when in trying to document my grievances further by obtaining a witness report from an office assistant, the employee refused and then was willing to make up a distorted report to defend herself and a grudge-holding custodian from further scrutiny.
Ten days later, I requested the opportunity to take some photos of the Counseling Office to document where the custodian verbally assaulted me, bellowing from one foot behind my head to move from where I felt I had a right and permission to be. So, in my opinion, the office assistant fabricated a story to hide the truth of what happened both regarding the custodian's assault on 6 January 2000 and when I came to document the scene with my camera on 18 January 2000. I believe she was lying to protect herself and her friend the custodian from further scrutiny and fact-finding.
With staff permission, I have stood in the same place in the Counseling Office at other times without incident or objection, yet Mr. Otis Williams, I believe wanted to "show off" how tough he was to a student he had a grudge against for my criticizing his treatment of faculty. I also believe he was "marking" what he considered to be his "territory" with a macho show of aggression toward me. Ms.Tracy Melvin, who I believe feared possible retaliation from Mr. Williams and immersion in a potentially messy dispute if she told the truth, decided against providing a fair and truthful witness statement to me, and instead, chose to accuse me of wrongdoing.
[NOTE: Later, on 27 March 2000, I received a notice from Dr. Martin, serving as a Disciplinary Officer for the District, informing me I would need to appear at a formal hearing to defend myself against charges I knew were false. These charges were based on Ms. Melvin's written statement, Mr. Otis J. William's (the custodian's) written statement, and Nelia Carbaugh's (another office assistant's) written statement, but I wasn't provided these statements and the "revised" list of four Disciplinary Committee members until 4 April 2000, three days before the start of the hearing.]
Back on 18 January 2000, after getting no co-operation from Ms. Melvin nor site management (which has repeatedly failed to address grudge issues concerning Mr. Williams), I requested from Counseling office staff the opportunity to take photos of the office environment to show the layout of the room in which I was assaulted to further document the unresolved grievance against Mr. Williams.
I believe false, exaggerated, or otherwise misleading information may have been provided by counselor Shera Heitmann and I am certain that false information has been provided by the two office assistants and the custodian. The campus police officers who came out to investigate where the only ones who communicated accurately in a joint statement. So it is largely on false and distorted information that the District's charges are based, and the political motives to stifle my free expression and curb possible further embarssment to the District need to be considered.
I believe Shera Heitmann, who has refused to testify, took a dislike to me two years ago when I was trying to track down Policy 3100 because the office staff repeatedly couldn't come up with it. Her negative attitude toward me for initiating improvements that have no priority to her has continued to this day, and I believe her attitude toward me has grown worse and even more testy as she learned of my criticism of other counselors.
I believe Ms. Heitmann severely over-reacts to any criticism (constructive or otherwise) of any staff member that she currently approves of. My desiring photos of the Counseling Office demonstrates reasonable persistence in addressing a problem that site management neglected to correct. I object to management, or SDCCD Continuing Education treating me as a target for persecution rather than embracing my constructive intent as part of the reforms long over due.
In our approximately 15 minute meeting when I first met you, I shared some of the complexities of the intolerable conditions at West City Center. You gave no indication of being aware of the extent of the mismanagement problems and the myriad abuses and long-term neglect that faculty and students have had to endure. Hearing this, you rather suddenly broke off our meeting. I considered asking you to remain for clearer closure, but you suddenly stiffened, and seemed anxious to be off, so I didn't continue, as I did not know your schedule, and you did not verbalize a reason for the abrupt change.
Perhaps prior arrangement for this meeting on the 25 Feb 2000 at West City Center would have served your intent better, and you would not have left with the mistaken impression that I would not meet with you. The failure to clearly and thoroughly document events has been a problem in my relationship with Continuing education employees that indicates a less than equal and professional effort on the side of management. I feel I've been placed on a slippery slope and treated in ways that I might slide down even faster, rather than be recognized for my good intentions, and helped UP!
I have made repeated requests to arrange a separate meeting with Brian Stockert for needed policy clarification, but he has not yet directly responded to my requests. In my opinion, to rush into a formal hearing with unanswered information requests still unfulfilled to President Wilson, Vice-President Smith, Ms. Neault, Mr. Stockert, West City Center Managers, West City Center counseling staff and yourself violates due process.
Unfortunately, the West City Managers appear motivated to keep me in the dark regarding many matters, and to silence me and other employees from discussing issues and campus conditions that are both embarrassing to them and to the District. Perhaps you do not realize that some "fixes" are being attempted through the effort of the teachers' union, but these fixes may fizzle or come too late to do me any good if I am suspended on such questionable grounds.
I believe the above named employees, as potential mentors, among their other duties, have a guidance responsibility to students as well as staff. No one, for example, has addressed with me the student advocacy vacuum. The District has failed to walk its talk. I don't feel valued and respected.
Although I am not yet fully aware of the District's history in defending itself against litigation, this would seem to set a new precedent for overreaction, and makes District Disciplinary Officers appear to be prosecutors rather than even-handed in protecting the rights of all involved. I believe these are embarrassing times for the District, and forward-thinking and progressive students should be welcomed as part of a successful community "mix" toward actualizing a higher vision, rather than be driven out in a retaliative conspiracy of denial and misrepresentation.
I believe that we are entering an era of both greater transparency as well as greater "deceit." I sincerely hope that you are willing to help the District regain lost credibility, rather than risk further negative publicity, especially with regard to continued mistreatment of students.
The allegations against me are false, and symtomatic themselves of a district that has yet to fully recognize and respond to its own shortcomings. The San Diego Community College District can either step out of the shadow of denial and follow its stated mission in all respects, or remain an adversary of student-driven change.
Sincerely,
Tom Darling
edutrue@mailcity.com
The District administrators circled their wagons, and used lies and distortions by District employees to suspend me in May of 2000, rather than deal with serious gaps in professional behavior and policy conformance. In order to suspend me, the District arranged a kangaroo court, and despite my strong objections. I formally protested the biased "Disciplinary Committee" selection and the unfair actions by the Disciplinary Officer selected to pursue two ridiculously and distorted allegations:
(1) Taking photos of the Counseling Office where I was assaulted by a custodian;
(2)Walking up to a secretary's desk to receive a phone call when there was a sign to one side that was supposed to demark a staff only area, but which clearly did not.
It was so obvious that certain individuals would resort to any ruse to get rid of me rather than respond adequately to the embarassing management and employee issues I raised. It has been hard to stomach this ugly first-hand encounter with the entrenched hypocrisy in our schools.
