Joe Fulton and all his cronies contributed monetarily to the holier than thou Chris Adler campaign
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Don't Have To Get Physical To Be Someone's "Ho"
-
Them good old boys are at it again. The Del Mar board, after accepting bids, awarded a $26.5 million contract to Bartlett Cocke General Contractors and B. E. Beecroft Construction. Joe Fulton wasn't happy. It didn't matter that his bid was $600,000 higher than Bartlett & Beecroft. In this town, he's entitled to all the large contracts. How dare Del Mar award such a large contract to someone other than the almighty Joe Fulton.
HE WASN'T GOING TO BE DENIED.
He devised a dastardly plan. Joe needed one more vote to undo the deal and to grab what was rightly his. The college intentionally dragged its feet in getting the contract signed so that the plan could be successfully implemented. The President of the school balked, but Joe took care of that "effeminate son-of-bitch."
Joe recruited Chris Adler, an at-large board member, to switch and run against Dorothy Spann in the single member district race. Dorothy became a target because she refused to bow to the almighty boss and undo the contract. Although the President objected, Joe got the college to conveniently stall the signing of the contract until after the election. Well, sure enough, money in this town talks. Joe Fulton and all his cronies contributed monetarily to the holier than thou Chris Adler campaign and Dorothy Spann was history. The rest was so Corpus Christi predictable. With a new "Ho" in his back pocket, the matter was re-visited and brought to a vote. And........... Well............ You know the ending. We are now paying $600,000 more for the project, an old "Ho" is re-born (again, again and again), Dorothy Spann retains her dignity in quiet solitude, the Del Mar president, who wouldn't play games with the BOYS, was booted and the pimp just keeps getting richer. But, again, that's Corpus.
posted by elwhatsamatta
3 comments:
Cases against Del Mar closed
Most complaints lacked sufficient evidence, feds say
By adriana garza Caller-Times
June 19, 2006
Nine complaints filed against Del Mar College through the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights during the past two years have been closed for various reasons, according to documents released by the Education Department.
The cases primarily involved claims of retaliation and discrimination and constituted the most complaints filed against the college with the civil rights office in recent memory, college officials said.
<A TARGET="_blank" HREF="http://adsremote.scripps.com/event.ng/Type=click&FlightID=2031003&AdID=2039851&TargetID=2016958&Targets=2009209,2001053,2003385,2017031,2004033,2016958,2009540,2006392,2020318&RawValues=&Redirect=http:%2f%2fwww.ccsail.com"><IMG SRC="http://images.scripps.com/1x1.gif" WIDTH=120 HEIGHT=600 BORDER=0></A>
"Hopefully they were just a bump in the road," said Mike Westergren, the college's in-house counsel.
Office of Civil Rights officials visited the college several times last year, collecting data and interviewing students and employees as part of their investigation into some of the cases.
Del Mar College President Carlos Garcia said he was happy with what he called a victory for the college.
"All along we felt we'd be cleared of everything," Garcia said.
The Office of Civil Rights determined in most of the cases that there was insufficient evidence. However, two of the cases were dismissed after civil rights lawsuits were filed and one was dismissed because an internal grievance regarding the same matter was filed.
If a violation of the Civil Rights Act had been found, the federal agency would have outlined the non-compliance issues and presented the college with a plan of action that would have included regular visits from the civil rights office representatives.
The college would have had several opportunities to accept the plan, but had they refused, the nearly $18 million the college receives in funding from the Department of Education may have been affected.
The flurry of complaints prompted college officials to refine the grievance process last year because some of the complaints filed with the Office of Civil Rights had not gone through the college's complaint process.
"Discrimination is a non-negotiable for us," Garcia said. "We take any and all allegations seriously."
The biggest change in the process focuses on non-academic complaints and provides an outlet early in the process for mediation with a third party. Students also can appeal a decision made regarding non-academic complaints to a complaint review board composed of students.
The employee grievance process also has been changed, requiring mediation at the informal stage of the grievance process.
Garcia said there also has been an effort in recent years to provide better training for managers in areas including diversity, age discrimination and sexual harassment.
College officials hope the yearly mandatory training will improve sensitivity on campus and make employees more aware of state and federal laws.
Contact Adriana Garza at 886-3618
http://www.caller-times.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_4785553,00.html
Del Mar College Complaints
June 19, 2006
Nine complaints filed against Del Mar College during the past two years have been closed, but the flurry of complaints prompted college officials to refine the grievance process last year.
Case 1
Opened: Sept. 10, 2004
Closed: Oct. 17, 2005
Summary: The complainant claimed the college failed to provide reasonable accommodations to him as a faculty member. He also claimed the college retaliated against him by suspending him after he testified in a student's grievance hearing. It is the Office of Civil Rights' policy to decide whether to proceed with an investigation when litigation has been filed concerning the same allegations included in a complaint.
The case was dismissed after the complainant filed a civil rights lawsuit, which is pending in federal court.
Case 2
Opened: Sept. 10, 2004
Closed: Oct. 17, 2005
Summary: The complainant alleged the college expelled her because she filed a discrimination grievance, two sexual harassment grievances and advocated for the rights of Hispanic students.
The case was dismissed after she filed a civil rights lawsuit, which is pending in federal court.
Case 3
Opened: Feb. 23, 2005
Closed: Dec. 7, 2005
Summary: The complainant alleged the college retaliated against him after he advocated for a Del Mar student who had filed a grievance against a faculty member concerning alleged discrimination. The complainant said the retaliation resulted in the following instances: when he was told he would be disciplined for unauthorized entry to the Student Government Association office; when he was told he would have to pick a disciplinary sanction for the unauthorized entry; when no one intervened when he was assaulted by another SGA member; and when he was expelled from the Student Government Association after he participated in the grievance hearing.
The case failed to meet all four criteria necessary for the Office of Civil Rights to determine retaliation occurred.
Case 4
Opened: Feb. 22, 2005
Closed: Nov. 22, 2005
Summary: The complainant alleged the college retaliated and discriminated against him based on national origin, creating a racially hostile environment. The complainant said the Student Government Association magistrate used a racial slur against him and he was told he was not allowed to enter the SGA office while students of other races were allowed access. He also said the college retaliated by suspending him from SGA and appointing a biased person to chair his disciplinary hearing.
Investigators determined there was insufficient evidence in all three allegations contained in the complaint
Case 5
Opened: March 29, 2005
Closed: May 19, 2006
Summary: The complainant alleged the college did not investigate a complaint of sexual harassment against a college employee during his dance group's event at the college. The complaint also alleged retaliation based on the report of sexual harassment, saying his dance group's contract to use college facilities changed after he made the report.
Neither the complainant nor the alleged victims of sexual harassment were students or employees of the college. According to OCR policy, the agency has jurisdiction in cases where discrimination occurs in the context of educationally related programs, activities and services. Third parties not involved in such programs are outside the jurisdiction of OCR investigations.
The Office of Civil Rights determined neither the complainant nor the alleged victims of sexual harassment were participating in an educational activity at the college during the time of the alleged violations.
Case 6
Opened: April 7, 2005
Closed: Sept. 27, 2005
Summary: Complainant alleged college officials retaliated against him after he refused to answer their questions about an open OCR investigation. He said he was suspended for 30 days without pay, required to attend sexual harassment training to maintain employment and required to submit a written apology to his supervisor.
The investigation concluded that college officials did not discuss an open OCR investigation with the complainant, but they did question him on a separate internal grievance, of which he was a part. Investigators found there was insufficient evidence to support his claims.
Case 7 and 8
Opened: March 24, 2005; July 6, 2005
Closed: May 16, 2005; Aug. 23, 2005
Summary: Cases seven and eight are the same complaint filed twice. The complainant alleged the college discriminated against him in employment based on age, religion and disability.
The first time the complainant filed the case, the OCR closed the file after it was determined the same case was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
According to OCR reports, after the EEOC dismissed the complaint based on "not reasonable cause," it was re-filed with the OCR.
The case was closed after the Office of Civil Rights found the EEOC properly investigated the complaint and appropriate legal standards were applied.
Case 9
Opened: April 4, 2006
Closed: May 9, 2006
Summary: The complainant alleged college officials retaliated against her through employment policies, practices and procedures. She said the college changed her position title, demoted her retroactively, placed her on administrative leave and failed to award her a contract for the 2006-2007 year.
The complaint was closed when OCR officials determined the complainant filed a similar internal grievance with the college's Board of Regents.
Mike Westergren, the college's in-house counsel, said that matter is being handled internally through the proper authorities and he could not comment further on the case.
I can see right through the BS.
Will somebody please explain the details with respect to each "DISMISSED" complaint?
Adriana, keep on doing that homework.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Please refer to the Benitez federal lawsuit pdf detailing the overclass actions of retaliation & cover up.
If you need a copy please email ME.
Post a Comment