WATT will happen 2 morrow @ the Regents Meeting with CG who LOVES TA. Also, there is an individual (per Cox v. DMC) Who's Welfare is Threatened

Called Meeting of the Board of Regents
12:00 noon, Tuesday, October 3, 2006

The agenda has been posted at http://www.delmar.edu/adminutes/agenda/cagenda.pdf

Susie Kaspar
Executive Assistant to the President
DEL MAR COLLEGE
101 Baldwin Boulevard
Corpus Christi, Texas 78404
(361) 698-1035 (telephone)
(361) 698-1559 (fax)

I would not question the "innocent until proven guilty" safeguard that protects us all and justly so, but there is an elephant in the room and its presence is disturbing the welfare of the college.

According to the Policy and Procedures Manual:

B5.42.4 . . . During the pendency of an investigation or an appeal of a sexual harassment complaint, the [accused] employee . . . may be placed on administrative leave with pay . . . .

This seems to me an eminently reasonable way to protect the health of the college while administrative and/or legal procedures go forward investigating the alleged sexual harassment of a student of the college by a college employee. It has the appearance of proactivity, it protects the employee from any unfair presumption of guilt, it allows the investigation to proceed in a neutral climate, and it has the potential of calming public and press enthusiasm.

I am hopeful, then, that the Board of Regents will place President Garcia on administrative leave until such time as the sexual harassment charges against him are adjudicated by legal authority. Were he to place the well-being of the college ahead of the quest for personal "vindication," Dr. Garcia could spare the Regents the trouble.

Ken

Ken L. Weatherbie, D.A.
Professor of History
Department of Social Sciences
Del Mar College

Ken, you may be right, and I make no particular brief for Garcia, one way or the other, but here are a few questions:

1. Technically, Policy 5.42.4 probably doesn?t apply to the president since the actions that are described there (like reassignment or placement on administrative leave) can be taken against students or employees only by the ?appropriate Vice President,? a condition that doesn?t apply in the president?s case. Nevertheless, it?s pretty clear that the board has the power to place the president on paid administrative leave if it wants to. But the principle that?s used in the policy?at least for the part of the policy that has to do with reassignment?involves a case where continued employment in a particular position would ?threaten the welfare? of a student or other employee. Is there anything about the current situation that indicates that anyone?s welfare is threatened by the president?s continued employment in his current position?

2. How would putting the president on administrative help to protect him ?from any unfair presumption of guilt,? especially if the ?continued threat? principle above is used? It seems to me that placing him on administrative would make most people more likely to assume that he is guilty, whether there?s anything to the charges or not. After all, the policy says ?may,? which for most people probably implies that the action is more likely to be taken if there?s substantial evidence the person is guilty, whether that?s really true or not. And, of course, we don?t know.

3. By calling for the placement of the president on administrative leave, are we applying the same standard that we would apply to a faculty member accused of the same thing? In fact, on the rare occasions when it?s happened, I don?t think that generally faculty members or others have been placed on administrative leave. There could be exceptions to this that I?m not aware of, but it?s probably safe to say that the faculty hasn?t generally called for that action to be taken against anyone, but particularly against faculty members.

4. Finally, how will placing the president on administrative leave have the ?potential of calming public and press enthusiasm?? It seems to me that it?d have just the opposite effect. These are juicy charges and people are naturally inclined to believe them, whether they?re true or not, and, of course, a story like this is a natural for the media. I think it?d make the ?scandal? bigger than it needs to be, at least at present.

Presumably, of course, the regents know more about these charges than we do. The rest of us just don?t know. But I?d be very reluctant to abandon the hallowed ?innocent until proven guilty? principle?it?s a good one. So unless there?s some real threat to someone?s welfare, it?s hard to see how much good can be served by taking the action you?re calling for at this point......................................JC

John,
You may be correct. At least, I can find little fault with your reply. My concern is more with the potential impact these things likely have on the president. I don't believe I could do a good job as an instructor with a lawsuit or two hanging over my head. These types of things have to be distracting. I would likely spend most of my time trying to figure out a good defense, whether or not I was guilty. And most certainly I would be losing a lot of sleep. But then, maybe I just need more sleep than is normal.

Dave

John, like you, I see David's point. I could not bear the burden of a false accusation and teach, so I would welcome administrative leave (paid, I hope). It would be a relief. However, not everyone needs as much sleep as David and I do. Ben Blanco was given ample opportunity to reduce his load while defending against false accusations. He refused, saying that to reduce his effort would give the false accusers an undeserved victory (the appearance of validity). The result: Club of the Year and Professor of the Year and vindication.

So, it all depends on the falsely accused person. David and I would go to the sideline; Ben would refuse. Let's leave it up to President Garcia to decide if he wants to go to the sideline with David and me. He can make the decision; no one else should make it for him.

Well, back to the Classroom.

Ed Cohn

Ask Blanco why Kenedeno & Associates are here