ROUGH DRAFT YOU HAVE REQUESTED WE PROVIDE AN INITIAL, UNEDITED TRANSLATION OF A DEPOSITION. WE ARE PLEASED TO DO SO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT: IT IS NOT A "TRANSCRIPT" OR THE "RECORD"; IT IS TO BE VIEWED ONLY BY COUNSEL AND/OR THEIR LEGAL ASSISTANTS; IT WILL NOT BE REPRESENTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART AS AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT; IT WILL NOT BE QUOTED FROM IN WHOLE OR IN PART; ANY DISPARITY BETWEEN IT AND THE FINAL, OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT WILL NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF ANY CONTENTION, ISSUE, MOTION, OR ANY LEGAL SANCTION; THE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER AND ANY AGENTS THEREOF ARE RELEASED FROM ANY LIABILITY THAT MAY ARISE FROM THE PRODUCTION OF THE INITIAL TRANSLATION; IT WILL BE DESTROYED WHEN THE CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT IS AVAILABLE. THE QUALITY OF THE INITIAL TRANSLATION WILL IN PART BE DEPENDENT ON THE PACE OF THE DIALOGUE, CORRECT SPELLINGS OF PROPER NAMES FURNISHED IN ADVANCE, AND THE GENERAL COOPERATION OF ALL THE PARTIES. THE INITIAL TRANSLATION IS APT TO BE REPLETE WITH MISTRANSLATIONS AND NONTRANSLATIONS BECAUSE OF THE ROUGH DRAFT LIMITED INTELLIGENCE OF THE COMPUTER, BUT ONE CAN EXPECT IN EXCESS OF A 95% TRANSLATION RATE. NEVERTHELESS, ANY RELIANCE ON THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE INITIAL TRANSLATION IS AT THE RISK OF THE USER. SINCE THIS SERVICE WILL BE GENERATED BY A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER AS THE IMPARTIAL DEPOSITION OFFICER, IT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUAL ACCESS. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TAKING THE DEPOSITION TO INFORM THE PARTIES OF THE INTENTION TO USE THIS SERVICE. ROUGH DRAFT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ________________________________________ ) LEON JAMES PAGE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ) ) PETITIONER, ) ) VS. )37-2007-00055219-CU-WM-NO ) MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ) DR. VICTORIA MUNOZ RICHART, ) ) RESPONDENTS. ) ________________________________________) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF VICTORIA MUNOZ RICHART-POVALL VISTA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 29, 2008 REPORTED BY: LINDA E. MARQUETTE CSR NO. 11874 ROUGH DRAFT APPEARANCES: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: LAW OFFICES OF RONALD J. COZAD BY RONALD J. COZAD, ESQ. SUITE 214 2006 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 760.431.8200 FOR THE DEFENDANT: STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF & HOLTZ, APC BY JACK M. SLEETH, JR., ESQ. SUITE 200 2488 HISTORIC DECATUR ROAD SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92106 619.232.3122 FOR THE DEFENDANT: WINET, PATRICK & WEAVER BY RANDALL L. WINET, ESQ. SUITE 200 440 S. MELROSE DRIVE VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92081 760-758-6420 ALSO PRESENT: RENE DE LATHAUWER, VIDEOGRAPHER, LEON JAMES PAGE DEPOSITION OF VICTORIA MUNOZ RICHART-POVALL, TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER AT 440 SOUTH MELROSE, SUITE 200 VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ON FRIDAY THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008, AT 9:30 A.M., BEFORE A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LINDA MARQUETTE, CSR NO. 11874. ROUGH DRAFT 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: WE'RE ON THE RECORD NOW. 2 THIS VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF VICTORIA MUNOZ RICHART 3 TAKEN BY JAMES PAGE IN THE MATTER OF PAGES VERSUS 4 MIRACOPA [SIC] COLLEGE COLLEGE DISTRICT SUPERIOR COURT 5 CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CASE 6 NO. 37-20067-00055219-CU-WM-NC. DEPOSITION IS BEING 7 HELD AT WINET, PATRICK, WEAVER 440 SOUTH MELROSE VISTA, 8 CALIFORNIA. THE DATE IS FEBRUARY 29, 2008. 9 MY NAME IS RENE DE LATHAUWER FROM SAN DIEGO 10 VIDEO PRODUCTIONS 4763 GARDENIA STREET, OCEANSIDE. I AM 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER. 12 THE COURT REPORTER IS LINDA MARQUETTE FROM 13 PRECISE REPORTING SERVICE, OFFICES AT 1401 NORTH TUSTIN 14 AVENUE SANTA MONICA -- SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA. AND GOING 15 ON THE RECORD AS OF 9:27:48. 16 AND THE COURT REPORTER WILL SWEAR IN THE 17 WITNESS AFTER WE HAVE THE OPENING [SIC] OF THE LAWYERS. 18 MR. COZAD: RON COZAD APPEARING FOR PETITIONER 19 LEON JAMES PAGE. 20 MR. WINET: RANDY WINET ON BEHALF OF 21 RESPONDENT DR. VICTORIA MUNOZ RICHART. 22 MR. SLEETH: JACK SLEETH ON BEHALF OF 23 MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE. 24 MR. COZAD: WITH ME IS LEON JAMES PAGE. 25 5 ROUGH DRAFT 1 VICTORIA MUNOZ RICHART-POVALL 2 HAVING BEEN ADMINISTERED AN OATH, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 3 EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. COZAD: 5 Q. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR ME, PLEASE? 6 A. VICTORIA MUNOZ RICHART-POVALL. 7 Q. WOULD YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME, PLEASE? 8 A. WHICH ONE, THE HYPHENATED, THE LAST NAME? 9 Q. LET'S DO ALL OF THEM. 10 A. V-I-C-T-O-R-I-A. M U N, WITH A TILDE, 0-Z. 11 R-I-C-H-A-R-T. POVALL, P-O-V-A-L-L. 12 Q. YOUR MAIDEN NAME, PLEASE? 13 A. VICTORIA MUNOZ RICHART. 14 Q. WHAT IS YOUR DATE OF BIRTH? 15 A. 9/29/48. 16 Q. WHAT IS YOUR RESIDENCE? 17 MR. WINET: I DON'T THINK THAT'S REASONABLY 18 CALCULATED TO LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY OF ADMISSIBLE 19 EVIDENCE. I DON'T WANT IT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD. IF WE 20 NEED TO HAVE THAT I CAN PROVIDE THAT PERHAPS OFF THE 21 RECORD. (MARK). 22 BY MR. COZAD: 23 Q. WELL LET ME ASK YOU, THEN, IF YOU WOULD JUST 24 MAIL ME THAT INFORMATION. YOU CAN MARK IT CONFIDENTIAL 25 IF YOU WOULD LIKE I'LL HONOR THAT BUT LET'S AGREE NOW TO 6 ROUGH DRAFT 1 PROVIDE IT. 2 MR. WINET: WELL LET ME ASK WHY IT'S NECESSARY 3 FOR THIS PROCEEDING BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY 4 FOR THIS PROCEEDING WHATSOEVER. 5 MR. COZAD: WELL IDENTIFICATION AND THERE MAY 6 BE POST, POST-HEARING MATTERS THAT WE NEED TO LOCATE 7 HER -- LOCATION MAY BE AN ISSUE. 8 MR. WINET: YOU CAN DO THAT THROUGH OUR 9 OFFICE. 10 MR. COZAD: ARE YOU INSTRUCTING HER NOT TO 11 ANSWER? 12 MR. WINET: I AM. (MARK). 13 BY MR. COZAD: 14 Q. NOW HAVE WE MARKED THE AMENDED NOTICE OF 15 TAKING DEPOSITION YET. 16 (EXHIBIT 1 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 17 A. I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T BRING MY READING GLASSES 18 IN. 19 Q. YOU KNOW I HAVE AN EXTRA PAIR. WOULD YOU LIKE 20 THEM? THEY ARE A TWO? 21 A. I HAVE MY OWN, I JUST DIDN'T BRING IT INTO 22 THIS ROOM. 23 Q. OH WOULD YOU LIKE TO GET THIS? 24 A. MAY I TAKE A BREAK AND GET MY GLASSES. 25 MR. WINET: SURE. MAKE SURE YOU TAKE YOUR MIC 7 ROUGH DRAFT 1 OFF. 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: WE'RE GOING OFF THE RECORD. 3 (RECESS). 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD 5 AND IT IS 9:33:36. 6 BY MR. COZAD: 7 Q. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW EXHIBIT 1 8 BEFORE TODAY? 9 A. NO. 10 Q. HAVE YOU SEEN THE EARLIER NOTICE OF TAKING 11 DEPOSITION THAT WAS SENT APPROXIMATELY TWO MONTHS AGO? 12 A. I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN. 13 Q. ALL RIGHT. 14 A. I HAVE SEEN THIS, THIS ONE PAGE. I DID SEE 15 THIS. 16 Q. OKAY. 17 A. THIS. 18 Q. THERE'S A LIST OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE ASKED FOR 19 YOU TO BRING TO YOUR DEPOSITION. DO YOU UNDERSTAND 20 THAT? 21 A. WELL YOU ASKED MY ATTORNEY I WOULD THINK. 22 Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE ASKED TO YOU BRING 23 SOME DOCUMENTS WITH YOU TO DEPOSITION TODAY? 24 A. NO. 25 Q. DID YOU ASSIST IN THE COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS 8 ROUGH DRAFT 1 IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST TO BRING DOCUMENTS WITH YOU TO 2 DEPOSITION? 3 A. I DID NOT. 4 Q. LET'S MARK AS EXHIBIT 2 THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF 5 DEPOSITION WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. 6 (EXHIBIT 2 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 7 BY MR. COZAD: 8 Q. HAVE YOU SEEN EXHIBIT 2 BEFORE TODAY? 9 A. I DON'T THINK SO. 10 Q. ALL RIGHT. YOU NOTICE WE HAVE THE SAME LIST 11 OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTED IN EACH EXHIBIT? 12 A. IT APPEARS TO BE SO. 13 Q. ALL RIGHT. DID YOU ASSIST AT ALL IN THE 14 COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THESE REQUESTS? 15 A. NO. 16 Q. OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, EXHIBITS FOUR, FIVE AND 17 SIX -- MAY I SEE -- EITHER ONE OF THEM FOR A SECOND 18 MA'AM? IN LIGHT OF THE COURT'S ORDER WE'RE WITHDRAWING 19 FOR THE TIME BEING REQUEST FOUR, FIVE AND SIX THAT 20 RELATE TO SETTLEMENT FUNDS. 21 CAN I HAVE THAT STACK? 22 MR. PAGE: THAT WAS PRODUCED. 23 MR. COZAD: YES. 24 BY MR. COZAD: 25 Q. BEFORE WE STARTED, MA'AM, YOUR ATTORNEY GAVE 9 ROUGH DRAFT 1 ME THREE SETS OF DOCUMENTS. ARE THESE THE DOCUMENTS 2 THAT YOU ARE PRODUCING AT THIS TIME IN RESPONSE TO THE 3 DEPOSITION REQUEST? 4 MR. WINET: WELL I CAN TELL YOU, COUNSEL, THAT 5 OUR OFFICE GATHERED THE DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO ALL OF 6 THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN AND WE 7 PROVIDED THEM TO YOU. IF YOU'RE ASKING THE WITNESS IF 8 SHE'S PRODUCING THEM, WE'RE PRODUCING THEM ON HER 9 BEHALF. 10 BY MR. COZAD: 11 Q. CAN YOU LOCATE YOUR CURRICULUM VITAE OR 12 RESUME? 13 MR. WINET: THAT WAS OBJECTED TO IN OUR 14 OBJECTION TO YOUR NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION. IT'S 15 OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS COURT'S ORDER. THERE'S 16 NOTHING IN THE ORDER THAT REFERENCES THAT WE NEED TO 17 PRODUCE OR SHOULD PRODUCE AN CURRICULUM VITAE SO THERE'S 18 NONE PRODUCED. (MARK). 19 MR. COZAD: OBJECTION. 20 BY MR. COZAD: 21 Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT 22 REFLECT, RELATE TO EVIDENCE OR SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION 23 THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY 24 MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT? 25 A. I WOULD ASSUME THAT WHATEVER MY ATTORNEY HAS 10 ROUGH DRAFT 1 PRODUCED FOR YOU IS RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUEST. IF HE 2 HAS NOT OBJECTED TO IT. 3 Q. HAVE YOU ALSO PRODUCED ALL DOCUMENTS THAT 4 REFLECT, RELATE TO EVIDENCE OR SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION 5 THAT YOUR REPUTATION WAS DAMAGED BY MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY 6 COLLEGE DISTRICT? 7 A. I WOULD ANSWER THAT WHATEVER MY ATTORNEY HAS 8 PROVIDED FOR YOU IS RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUEST YOU HAVE 9 MADE. 10 Q. HAVE YOU PROVIDED COPIES OF ALL PLEADINGS OF 11 ANY ACTION IN WHICH YOUR NAMED AS A PLAINTIFF, 12 PETITIONER, DEFENDANT, RESPONDENT OR CROSS DEFENDANT 13 ARISING FROM OR RELATED TO YOUR EMPLOYMENT AS AN 14 ADMINISTRATOR OF ANY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FROM 1990 15 TO THE PRESENT? 16 MR. WINET: NOW THAT QUESTION WAS OBJECTED TO 17 WITH OUR OBJECTION TO YOUR NOTICE OF DEPOSITION. IT WAS 18 OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS COURT'S ORDER. NOT PART OF 19 THE COURT'S ORDER SO THAT WAS OBJECTED TO (MARK). 20 BY MR. COZAD: 21 Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN NAMED AS A DEFENDANT IN ANY 22 LAWSUIT RELATING TO YOUR EMPLOYMENT AS AN ADMINISTRATOR 23 OF ANY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FROM 1990 TO THE PRESENT? 24 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT THE QUESTION IS 25 OUTSIDE OF THIS COURT'S ORDER, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE 11 ROUGH DRAFT 1 ORDER NOT REASONABLY CALCULATED TO LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY 2 OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN THIS ACTION. WITH THAT 3 OBJECTION STATED YOU CAN ANSWERS THE QUESTION. 4 A. I WOULD THINK SO, YES. 5 BY MR. COZAD: 6 Q. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN NAMED AS A 7 DEFENDANT IN A LAWSUIT RELATING TO YOUR EMPLOYMENT AS AN 8 ADMINISTRATOR IN AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION? 9 MR. WINET: SAME OBJECTIONS. GO AHEAD. 10 A. I DON'T RECALL. 11 BY MR. COZAD: 12 Q. WHAT IS YOUR BEST ESTIMATE, MA'AM? 13 A. MAYBE ONE OR TWO. 14 Q. WHEN WAS THE FIRST? 15 MR. WINET: SAME OBJECTIONS GO AHEAD. 16 A. DURING MY WORK EXPERIENCE WITH THE LA 17 COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT WHICH -- YEAH MAYBE. BUT I 18 DON'T RECALL. 19 BY MR. COZAD: 20 Q. APPROXIMATELY WHEN WAS IT THAT YOU WERE NAMED 21 IN A LAWSUIT INVOLVING YOUR WORK AS AN ADMINISTRATOR IN 22 THE LA UNIFIED COLLEGE DISTRICT? 23 A. I DID NOT SAY LA UNIFIED COLLEGE DISTRICT. 24 Q. I'M SORRY? 25 A. I SAID LA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT. AND I 12 ROUGH DRAFT 1 DON'T RECALL. I DON'T EVEN RECALL IF I WAS NAMED 2 PERSONALLY. BUT MY JOB DESCRIPTION AND MY DUTIES WERE 3 SUCH THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN A LOT OF THE LITIGATION THAT 4 EMANATED AT THAT DISTRICT. MANY OF THE DIFFERENT 5 COLLEGES NOT NECESSARILY DIRECTED AT ME. 6 BY MR. COZAD: 7 Q. WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN 8 LITIGATION AT THE LA DISTRICT? 9 A. I WAS AN ADMINISTRATOR AND I WAS A MEMBER OF 10 THE TEAM, EXECUTIVE TEAM OF EITHER THE COLLEGE OR THE 11 DISTRICT AND AS SUCH WAS INVOLVED IN ANY LITIGATION THAT 12 WAS BROUGHT FORWARD. 13 Q. WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN 14 THOSE POSITIONS? 15 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 16 OVERBROAD, ALSO THE SAME OBJECTIONS AS PREVIOUSLY 17 STATED. GO AHEAD. 18 A. MY RECOLLECTION IS FOR THE MOST PART I WAS -- 19 I SERVED AS A WITNESS OR I CLARIFIED THE EMPLOYMENT 20 MATTERS THAT PERTAINED TO GIVEN EMPLOYEES UNDER EITHER 21 MY SUPERVISION OR SUPERVISION OF THOSE WHO I SUPERVISED 22 BY MR. COZAD: 23 Q. IN WHAT TYPES OF CASES? 24 A. MOST PERSONNEL. EMPLOYMENT. 25 Q. GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPES OF ISSUES THAT 13 ROUGH DRAFT 1 YOU HAD PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT IN REGARDING EMPLOYMENT 2 CASES AT THE LOS ANGELES ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION THAT 3 YOU HELD? 4 MR. WINET: SAME OBJECTIONS. GO AHEAD. 5 A. I REMEMBER A FACULTY MEMBER WHO WAS NOT WELL 6 AND WAS ASKED TO RETIRE. I REMEMBER, I THINK THERE WERE 7 A COUPLE OF FACULTY MEMBERS WHO WERE ENGAGED IN CREATING 8 FALSE STUDENT ROSTERS AND TEACHING CLASSES THAT DID NOT 9 EXIST. LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE? THERE WERE MANY 10 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CASES WHERE THE UNION OR LABOR, 11 YOU KNOW, DEFENDANT EITHER STAFF OR FACULTY WHO WERE 12 EITHER IN DISCIPLINARY MATTERS OR DISMISSAL PROCEEDINGS. 13 BY MR. COZAD: 14 Q. DID THE TYPES OF CASES THAT YOU WERE INVOLVED 15 IN DEAL WITH ISSUES RELATING TO CLAIMS OF DEFORMATION? 16 A. NOT THAT I REMEMBER, NO. 17 Q. DO YOU RECALL ANY CASE THAT YOU HAD EXPERIENCE 18 WITH IN LOS ANGELES THAT DEALT WITH DEFORMATION? 19 MR. WINET: WELL LET ME OBJECT THE QUESTION 20 CALLS FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION AS TO IN ANY WAY INVOLVING 21 DEFORMATION. I THINK IT CALLS FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION ON 22 BEHALF OF A LAY WITNESS. TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN ANSWER, 23 GO AHEAD. 24 A. I DON'T KNOW THE LEGAL DEFINITION OR 25 REQUIREMENTS OF THE WORD DEFORMATION BUT I DON'T RECALL 14 ROUGH DRAFT 1 ANY SUCH CASE. 2 BY MR. COZAD: 3 Q. WHAT ABOUT WRONGFUL TERMINATION? HAD ANY OF 4 THE CASES THAT YOU HAD INVOLVEMENT WITH IN LOS ANGELES 5 DEAL WITH CLAIMS OF WRONGFUL TERMINATION? 6 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, AGAIN THAT CALLS FOR A 7 LEGAL CONCLUSION AND OPINION BASED UPON HER DEFINITION 8 OR YOUR DEFINITION OF WRONGFUL TERMINATION. SO THE 9 QUESTION IS VAGUE, AMBIGUOUS AND CALLS FOR A LEGAL 10 CONCLUSION YOU CAN ANSWER TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN. 11 A. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF 12 WRONGFUL TERMINATION BUT I DO KNOW THAT I WAS INVOLVED 13 IN SEVERAL PROCEEDINGS FOR DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES BASED 14 ON CAUSE AND CHARGES THAT WERE BROUGHT FORTH BY THE 15 COLLEGE DISTRICT, YES. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. WERE YOU INVOLVED IN LITIGATION WHEN YOU 18 WORKED IN LOS ANGELES THAT DEALT WITH CLAIMS OF 19 VIOLATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE? 20 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION IS VAGUE 21 AND AMBIGUOUS AS TO INVOLVED IN LITIGATION AND WHAT 22 WHISTLE BLOWER STATUTE YOU'RE REFERRING TO. THE 23 QUESTION IS OVERBROAD. TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN ANSWER IT, 24 GO AHEAD. 25 A. I DON'T RECALL. 15 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE LAWSUIT THAT YOU 3 ASSISTED IN IN WHICH THE FACULTY MEMBER WHO WAS NOT WELL 4 WAS ASKED TO RETIRE? 5 A. OH I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THAT WHATSOEVER. 6 Q. WHEN WAS IT FILED? 7 A. FIFTEEN, 20 YEARS, 18 YEARS, I DON'T KNOW, 8 LONG TIME AGO. 9 Q. DID YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING YOU 10 INDIVIDUALLY IN THAT CASE? 11 A. NO NO NO NO NO NO. THIS WAS -- THIS WAS A 12 LAWSUIT AGAINST THE DISTRICT. 13 Q. OKAY. 14 A. NO. HUH-UH. 15 Q. ALL RIGHT. 16 A. I HAVE NEVER HAD A PERSONAL ATTORNEY DEFENDING 17 ME. 18 Q. OKAY. 19 A. UNTIL, UNTIL NOW. 20 MR. PAGE: SORRY RANDY. 21 A. SINCE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MY HISTORY. NOT 22 UNTIL I HIRED MR. ODDLY HAVE I EVER RETAINED PERSONAL 23 COUNSEL IN MY ENTIRE CAREER. THAT MAY HELP WITH YOU ANY 24 FUTURE QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. 25 MR. WINET: THAT MIGHT HELP US CUT TO THE 16 ROUGH DRAFT 1 CHASE MAYBE NOT. 2 A. NEVER NEVER SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN MY 3 ENTIRE CAREER THAT I HAVE RETAINED A PERSONAL ATTORNEY 4 WAS MR. OTTILIE AND THAT WAS IT. NEVER BEFORE. I'VE 5 ALWAYS WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH THE COLLEGE'S LEGAL 6 COUNSEL. 7 Q. NOW -- 8 A. OR IN LA YOU DON'T HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL YOU HAD 9 THE COLLEGE -- I MEAN THE DISTRICT HAD ITS OWN COUNSEL 10 AND THEN WE HIRED DIFFERENT FIRMS TO HANDLE THE 11 DIFFERENT LITIGATION. 12 Q. ALL RIGHT. 13 A. INSIDE COUNSEL. 14 Q. THANK YOU FOR THAT. LET ME -- 15 A. SORRY. 16 Q. LET ME TRY TO REFINE MY QUESTIONS A LITTLE BIT 17 HOPEFULLY WE'LL DO THAT AS WE GO. 18 A. OKAY. 19 Q. HAVE YOU EVER HAD AN ATTORNEY REPRESENT YOU 20 PERSONALLY, WHETHER YOU'VE RETAINED THAT ATTORNEY OR NOT 21 IN A CIVIL ACTION ARISING OUT OF YOUR WORK AS AN 22 ADMINISTRATOR SINCE 1990? 23 A. IN A CIVIL ACTION? I DON'T -- I DON'T THINK 24 SO, NO. NOT THAT I RECALL. 25 Q. NOW YOU'VE RETAINED MR. WINET IN THIS CASE. 17 ROUGH DRAFT 1 HE'S REPRESENTING YOU IN THIS CASE INDIVIDUALLY? 2 A. NO. 3 Q. CORRECT? 4 A. I HAVE NOT. MR. WINET IS RETAINED BY THE JPA 5 AND MR. WINET WORKS FOR THE JPA. HE IS MY ATTORNEY BUT 6 HE HAS BEEN RETAINED BY THE JPA. HE DOES NOT -- I DON'T 7 HAVE A PERSONAL CONTRACT. 8 Q. OKAY. 9 A. WITH MR. WINET. 10 Q. WELL THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING TO. I'M ASKING 11 ABOUT WHETHER YOU HAVE HAD AN ATTORNEY REPRESENT YOU IN 12 ANY CIVIL CASE ARISING OUT OF YOUR WORK AS AN 13 ADMINISTRATOR FROM 1990 TO THE PRESENT? 14 MR. WINET: YOU'RE SAYING OUTSIDE OF 15 MR. OTTILIE WHO SHE'S ALREADY REFERRED TO. 16 MR. COZAD: CORRECT. 17 A. ALL OF THE ATTORNEYS THAT I HAVE WORKED, UP 18 UNTIL THIS POINT, UNTIL I HIRED MR. OTTILIE OR EVEN NOW 19 WITH MR. WINET, WERE ATTORNEYS THAT WERE HIRED AND 20 WORKED FOR THE COLLEGES IN WHICH I WORKED. AND SO AS A 21 COLLEGE EMPLOYEE THEY REPRESENTED ME AS WELL AS THE 22 BOARD OF TRUSTEES. 23 BY MR. COZAD: 24 Q. THAT'S -- 25 A. AND ANYBODY ELSE THAT WAS INVOLVED IN ANY 18 ROUGH DRAFT 1 CASE. 2 Q. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU? 3 A. OH OKAY. 4 Q. I'M ASKING BUT THOSE ATTORNEYS? 5 A. YES. 6 Q. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN REPRESENTED 7 PERSONALLY BY AN ATTORNEY WHO HAVE BEEN PAID FOR OR 8 HIRED BY A COLLEGE DISTRICT ON YOUR BEHALF? 9 MR. WINET: OBJECTION -- LET ME OBJECT. THE 10 QUESTION IS OVERBROAD, AMBIGUOUS AND ALSO CALLS FOR 11 SPECULATION ON BEHALF OF THIS WITNESS AS TO THE NUMBER 12 OF ATTORNEYS, THE NUMBER OF CIRCUMSTANCES GIVEN HER 13 POSITIONS WITHIN THE COLLEGE. TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU 14 CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION GO AHEAD. 15 A. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS MAYBE 16 BECAUSE WHEN I WORKED FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IT'S 17 VERY DIFFERENT THE WAY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WORKS 18 WITH ATTORNEYS THAN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO IN THE 19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA I PERSONALLY DID NOT WORK WITH 20 ANYBODY BUT INTERNAL LEGAL COUNSEL FOR LOS ANGELES 21 COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT. THAT'S IN-HOUSE COUNSEL. 22 SO IT WAS NOT RETAINED. IT WAS ANOTHER EMPLOYEE LIKE I 23 WAS. WE WERE PARTNERS. WE WERE -- WE WORKED TOGETHER. 24 WE ANALYZED CASES. WE SERVED AS WITNESSES WHEN 25 NECESSARY. IT WAS JUST PART OF THE INTERNAL PROCEEDINGS 19 ROUGH DRAFT 1 OF LEGAL MATTERS IN A VERY LARGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 2 DISTRICT. IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THE ATTORNEYS 3 BELONG TO THE STATE. THEY DON'T BELONG TO THE COLLEGE. 4 THE COLLEGES ARE GIVEN SERVICES FOR THEIR ATTORNEYS BY 5 THE LEGISLATURE TAKING -- AUTHORIZING FUNDS TO BE GIVEN 6 TO THE STATES LEGAL FIRM THAT THEN ASSIGNS ATTORNEYS TO 7 THE DIFFERENT COLLEGES. SO THEY DON'T BELONG -- THE 8 ATTORNEYS ARE NOT PAID BY THE COLLEGE. THEY ARE STATE 9 EMPLOYEES. AND IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON I WORKED 10 MAYBE WITH, I THINK THEY CHANGED OUR ATTORNEYS THREE OR 11 FOUR TIMES. 12 A. SO I WORKED WITH THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT 13 ATTORNEYS ASSIGNED BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. IN THE 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA I WORKED DIRECTLY WITH IN-HOUSE 15 COUNSEL WITH THE LA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT. AND I 16 WORKED WITH TWO, I THINK THERE WERE THREE OR FOUR 17 IN-HOUSE LEGAL COUNSEL. 18 MR. WINET: COUNSEL, WE'VE LOUD SOME LATITUDE 19 BUT THE RULING FROM THE COURT WAS THE AREAS OF 20 DEPOSITION FOR WHICH THIS DEPOSITION COULD GO FORWARD 21 WAS WHETHER THE DEFENDANT COLLEGE DISTRICT WAS 22 SIGNIFICANTLY EXPOSED TO LITIGATION AND WHETHER THE 23 SETTLEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH. THE 24 QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEING ASKED NOW HAVE NOTHING TO DO 25 WITH THOSE TWO CATEGORIES. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE 20 ROUGH DRAFT 1 WE'RE GOING WITH THIS SINCE THAT IS THE DIRECTION OF THE 2 COURT PURSUANT TO THE MOTIONS. 3 MR. COZAD: I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE AN OFFER OF 4 PROOF. 5 MR. WINET: OKAY. IF YOU WANT TO -- IF YOU'RE 6 GOING TO SHUT THIS DEPOSITION DOWN OR IF YOU'RE GOING TO 7 TRY TO CHARACTERIZE THAT AS MORE THAN IT IS, THEN WE'LL 8 NEED AN ORDER AGAIN. 9 MR. WINET: I'M GOING TO CHARACTERIZE IT AS 10 EXACTLY AS I JUST DID WHICH IS READING FROM THE COURT'S 11 ORDER. 12 MR. COZAD: ALL RIGHT. 13 MR. WINET: SO I'M NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO 14 GO INTO AREAS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THIS COURT'S ORDER AND 15 I'M TRYING TO PROVIDE SOME LATITUDE FAN YOU ARE NOT 16 WILLING TO MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF FROM WHAT I'M SEEING 17 SO FAR YOU ARE NOT WITHIN THE AREA OF THE COURTS'S ORDER 18 SO IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF THEN 19 YOU'RE RIGHT I MEAN IF YOU WANT TO GIVE AN EXPLANATION 20 THAT'S FINE I'M TRYING TO MAKES WITNESS AVAILABLE 21 CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FROM WHAT I'M 22 SEEING SO FAR THE QUESTIONS YOU'VE ASKED AREN'T 23 CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S ORDER. 24 MR. COZAD: OKAY LET'S COME BACK TO IT. 25 MR. WINET: ALL RIGHT. LET'S MARK -- THERE 21 ROUGH DRAFT 1 YOU GO. 2 (EXHIBIT 3 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 3 BY MR. COZAD: 4 Q. HERE WE'VE MARKED EXHIBIT 3 FOR YOU. WOULD 5 YOU DESCRIBE EXHIBIT 3 FOR US, PLEASE? 6 A. WOULD I DESCRIBE IT? 7 Q. YES, PLEASE. WHAT IS IT? 8 A. WELL THE TITLE OF THE DOCUMENT SAYS COMPROMISE 9 AND MUTUAL RELEASE AGREEMENT. 10 Q. OKAY. AND YOU'VE SEEN IT BEFORE? 11 A. YES. 12 Q. WHEN WAS IT CREATED? 13 A. IT WAS CREATED BETWEEN JUNE 19TH AND 14 JUNE 20TH, 2007. 15 Q. AND WHAT DOES IT REFER TO? 16 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION IS 17 OVERBROAD AND VAGUE. GO AHEAD. 18 A. WELL, IT READS "THIS COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT AND 19 MUTUAL RELEASE AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO IN BETWEEN THE 20 MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT COLLEGE CHARLES 21 ADAM SENIOR **CARL LANE MA. 22 Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE IT FOR ME WITHOUT READING THE 23 ENTIRE DOCUMENT? 24 MR. WINET: I THINK SHE WAS READING THE FIRST 25 SENTENCE OF THE DOCUMENT. 22 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. I WAS TRYING TO DESCRIBE THAT IT'S A 2 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OBVIOUSLY THE COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT 3 AND MUTUAL RELEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLEGE, THE 4 TRUSTEES AND MYSELF. 5 BY MR. COZAD: 6 Q. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE REFER TO SECTION 2.4. 7 A. UH-HUH. 8 Q. COULD YOU READ THAT PLEASE? 9 A. I'M SORRY? 10 Q. WOULD YOU READ THAT PLEASE, 2.4? 11 A. COLLEGE AGREES DO PAY RICHART THE SUM OF 12 $650,000 FOR DAMAGES UPON EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT. 13 Q. OKAY. AND THERE ARE OTHER PAYMENTS CALLED FOR 14 IN THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN ADDITION TO THOSE CALLED 15 FOR IN 2.4, CORRECT? 16 A. CORRECT. 17 Q. AND IS IT YOUR KNOWLEDGE THAT OR YOUR BELIEF 18 THAT THOSE PAYMENTS TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 1.5 TO 19 $1.6 MILLION? 20 A. NO. 21 Q. WHAT DO THEY TOTAL? 22 A. I WOULDN'T KNOW HOW TO ADD IT UP. THEY ARE 23 ALL VERY DIFFERENT AMOUNTS. 24 Q. WHAT WAS THE $650,000 PAYMENT FOR? 25 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. THE QUESTION IS 23 ROUGH DRAFT 1 OVERBROAD AND AMBIGUOUS. ALSO MAY LACK FOUNDATION AS TO 2 WHAT DIFFERENT PARTIES CONSIDERED IT TO BE BUT GO AHEAD. 3 A. WELL, THE ENTIRETY OF THE CONSIDERATION, THE 4 MONETARY CONSIDERATION INCLUDING THE $650,000 WAS THE 5 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO RELEASE A COLLEGE OF MY CLAIMS 6 AND SO 650,000 IS A PORTION OF THE ENTIRETY. AND IT WAS 7 A COMPROMISE AMOUNT. IT IS JUST PART OF THE ENTIRETY OF 8 THE TOTALITY OF WHAT WAS AGREED UPON WHICH IS ALL OF THE 9 DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED HERE. 10 Q. WHY WAS IT A PORTIONED TO A PAYMENT OF 11 $650,000? WHY WAS THAT SEPARATED OUT? 12 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION MAY LACK 13 FOUNDATION, MAY CALLS FOR SPECULATION. ALSO TO THE 14 EXTENT THAT THE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO YOU ONLY 15 FROM YOUR ATTORNEY, ANYTHING PROVIDED FROM YOUR 16 ATTORNEYS IS ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. OUTSIDE OF THAT 17 IF YOU HAVE INFORMATION OR KNOWLEDGE GO AHEAD AND 18 PROVIDE THAT. 19 MR. SLEETH: WELL TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SEEKS 20 ANY INFORMATION SHE MAY HAVE ABOUT THE CONFIDENTIAL 21 NEGOTIATIONS OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IN CLOSED SESSION, THE 22 DISTRICT WOULD OBJECT TO THE QUESTION. BUT OTHER THAN 23 THAT KIND OF INFORMATION WHICH I DOUBT YOU HAVE, I HAVE 24 NO OBJECTION TO YOU ANSWERING THE QUESTION. 25 A. I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD, I'M SORRY. 24 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. YOU DON'T -- I'M SORRY? 3 A. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. 4 Q. YOU DON'T KNOW WHY THERE WAS A SEGREGATED 5 AMOUNT PRESCRIBED IN 2.4 OF $650,000? 6 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT AGAIN. IF THE 7 INFORMATION IS OBTAINED BY -- THROUGH YOUR ATTORNEY MR. 8 OTTILIE, THEN YOU CANNOT PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION. IF 9 YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF THE INFORMATION 10 PROVIDED TO YOU BY MR. OTTILIE THEN YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND 11 PROVIDE THAT ANSWER. 12 MR. SLEETH: TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU LEARNED 13 ANYTHING INADVERTENT TENTLY OR OTHERWISE ABOUT WHAT WENT 14 ON IN CLOSED SESSION THE DISTRICT WOULD OBJECT TO THAT. 15 A. I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD. I THINK I ALREADY 16 RESPONDED TO YOUR QUESTION IN FULL IN TERMS OF MY OWN 17 KNOWLEDGE OF -- IT'S A PORTION OF THE ENTIRE SETTLEMENT. 18 IT'S JUST ONE PORTION. THE SAME THAT YOU HAVE IN 2.2. 19 THE SAME THAT YOU HAVE IN 2.3. THE SAME THAT YOU HAVE 20 IN 2.6 AND 2.5. THEY ARE ALL JUST DIFFERENT PARAGRAPHS 21 THAT OUTLINE THE TOTALITY OF THE SETTLEMENT. IT'S JUST 22 LIKE SAYING ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, 23 EIGHT, NINE, 10 THERE'S MORE THAN THAT. 24 BY MR. COZAD: 25 Q. WHAT DOES THE $43,500 REPRESENT? 25 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS HERE. IT REPRESENTS THE 2 AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO MY ATTORNEY. 3 Q. ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT 2.6 ALSO CALLS FOR 4 MEDIATION FEES TO BE PAID TO DAVID MOON, RIGHT? 5 A. CORRECT. 6 Q. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THOSE WERE? 7 A. NO. 8 Q. DID YOU RECEIVE PAYMENT FOR THE BUY OUT OF THE 9 REMAINDER OF YOUR CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY -- OR WITH 10 THE DISTRICT? 11 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT. I'LL OBJECT TO THE 12 USE OF THE TERM BUY OUT OF THE REMAINDER OF THE 13 AGREEMENT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THE LANGUAGE 14 USED IN THE SETTLEMENT RELEASE AND ALSO MAYBE 15 MISCONSTRUED. TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN ANSWER THE 16 QUESTION YOU CAN GO AHEAD. 17 A. MY CONTRACT -- THIS IS NOT A BUYOUT OF MY 18 CONTRACT WHATSOEVER AT ALL. 19 BY MR. COZAD: 20 Q. WHAT IS IT? 21 A. THIS IS A SETTLEMENT OF A CLAIM. 22 Q. WHAT ARE? 23 A. IT IS NOT A CONTRACT BUY OUT. I AM STILL 24 EMPLOYED BY MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT. 25 Q. WHY DO YOU SAY THAT? 26 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. BECAUSE I AM STILL EMPLOYED. 2 Q. EXPLAIN THAT TO ME, PLEASE. 3 A. I AM BEING PAID. I WORK, AS IT STATES HERE, 4 FOR THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE AS A CONSULTANT. I'M 5 AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. 6 Q. TO DO WHAT? 7 A. WHATEVER IS REQUIRED OF ME FOR 18 MONTHS. 8 Q. HAVE YOU BEEN ASKED TO DO ANYTHING FOR THE 9 DISTRICT SINCE JUNE 20TH? 10 A. YES. 11 Q. OF 2007? WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN ASKED TO DO? 12 A. PARTICIPATE WITH MR. WINET IN MANY OF THE 13 LEGAL CASES THAT THE COLLEGE IS INVOLVED IN, INCLUDING 14 THIS ONE. 15 Q. ANYTHING ELSE? 16 A. NO. 17 Q. OKAY. IF YOU WERE ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN 18 ACTIVITIES TO BENEFIT THE INSTRUCTION ASPECT OF THE 19 COLLEGE WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU DO THAT IF ASKED? 20 A. SURE IF I'M ASKED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO 21 DO THAT, OF COURSE, YES I'M THEIR EMPLOYEE. 22 Q. WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU DO WHILE YOU ARE THE 23 EMPLOYEE OF THE COLLEGE DISTRICT IF YOU WERE ASKED? 24 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 25 OVERBROAD, CALLS FOR SPECULATION AS TO WHATEVER COULD BE 27 ROUGH DRAFT 1 ASKED. YOU CAN ANSWER TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN. YOU 2 CAN DO SO BUT I DON'T WANT TO YOU SPECULATE. 3 A. I WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD ASK ME TO DO. 4 BY MR. COZAD: 5 Q. NOW BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE OF WORKING AT 6 MIRACOSTA AND WORKING AT OTHER COLLEGE DISTRICTS WHAT 7 TYPES OF THINGS THAT THEY MIGHT ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE 8 IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS? 9 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION. 10 LACKS FOUNDATION. YOU CAN ANSWER IF YOU HAVE 11 INFORMATION OR KNOWLEDGE IF YOU'RE SPECULATING THEN SAY 12 SO. 13 A. I CANNOT EVEN SPECULATE. I WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT 14 THEY WOULD WANTS ME TO DO. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 15 CLEARLY SPECIFIES THAT I CAN DO -- I CAN WORK ON THEIR 16 REQUEST AND THEN ANY TRANSITIONAL ISSUES THAT THEY WOULD 17 LIKE ME TO WORK ON. SO IT'S WIDE OPEN TO WHATEVER 18 MIRACOSTA'S GOVERNING BOARD WOULD LIKE ME TO DO. 19 Q. WHERE WOULD YOU PERFORM THAT WORK IF ASKED? 20 MR. WINET: OBJECTION CALLS FOR SPECULATION. 21 LACKS FOUNDATION. 22 A. I DON'T KNOW. 23 MR. WINET: ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN. 24 A. I WOULDN'T KNOW. 25 28 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. WOULD YOU ACCEPT A SPACE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE 3 OFFICE TO SAY DO THE WORK THAT YOU'RE ASKED TO DO IN THE 4 NEXT FEW MONTHS IF THEY DO? 5 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION LACKS 6 FOUNDATION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION SINCE NO SUCH REQUEST 7 HAS BEEN MADE. YOU CAN GO AHEAD. 8 A. I WOULDN'T -- I DON'T SEE WHY NOT. 9 BY MR. COZAD: 10 Q. IS THE $650,000 IN SECTION 2.4 WAS THAT A GIFT 11 TO YOU? 12 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION CALLS FOR 13 AN IMPROPER OPINION AND CONCLUSION, LACKS FOUNDATION AS 14 TO THIS WITNESS. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ANSWER. 15 A. I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK SO. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. WHAT WAS IT FOR? 18 A. I -- 19 MR. WINET: WELL OBJECTION. THE QUESTION MAY 20 LACK FOUNDATION MAY ASSUME FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE TO SOME 21 EXTENT IT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED BUT TO THE EXTENT 22 THAT THE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO YOU BY MR. OTTILIE 23 YOU CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION. OUTSIDE OF INFORMATION 24 PROVIDED BY MR. OTTILIE YOU CAN ANSWER. 25 A. I THINK I HAVE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION ALREADY. 29 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. WHAT ARE THE NATURE OR WHAT ARE THE CLAIMS 3 THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU SETTLED AS A RESULT OF THIS 4 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? 5 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION CALLS FOR A 6 LEGAL CONCLUSION IN THAT IT ASKS FOR CLAIMS. THE 7 QUESTION ALSO MAY LACK FOUNDATION IN THAT THIS WITNESS 8 IS NOT A LAWYER AND MAY NOT KNOW THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS 9 OF WHAT IS A CLAIM AND WHAT IS NOT A CLAIM. TO THE 10 EXTENT YOU CAN ANSWER AND TO THE EXTENT THE INFORMATION 11 IS OUTSIDE SOMETHING TOLD TO YOU BY MR. OTTILIE GO 12 AHEAD. 13 MR. SLEETH: THE DISTRICT JOINS IN THAT 14 OBJECTION. 15 A. I AM ASSUMING YOU HAVE A COPY OF MR. OTTILIE'S 16 AUGUST 15TH, 2007 LETTER TO THE DISTRICT? IF YOU HAVE 17 THAT THE CLAIMS THAT'S A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND THE CLAIMS 18 ARE CLEARLY OUTLINED THERE. AND I DON'T HAVE NOTHING TO 19 ADD OTHER THAN THAT. 20 BY MR. COZAD: 21 Q. I'M SORRY. WHEN WAS THE OTTILIE LETTER DATED? 22 A. AUGUST 15TH, 2007. 23 Q. OKAY. AND YOUR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS WHEN? 24 A. JUNE 20TH. 25 Q. SO YOU'RE REFERRING ME TO MR. OTTILIE'S LETTER 30 ROUGH DRAFT 1 WHICH IS DATED ALMOST TWO MONTHS AFTER YOUR SETTLEMENT 2 AGREEMENT? 3 A. YES. 4 Q. ALL RIGHT. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW 5 SPECIFICALLY IS AS OF JUNE 20TH? 6 A. UH-HUH. 7 Q. 2007, WHEN YOU ENTERED INTO THE SETTLEMENT 8 AGREEMENT WHAT DID YOU, YOU, UNDERSTAND YOUR CLAIMS TO 9 BE FOR WHICH IT APPEARS YOU WERE PAID MORE THAN 10 $650,000? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION? 11 MR. WINET: THE LATTER PART OF THAT QUESTION 12 IS ARGUMENTATIVE. IF SHE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE 13 QUESTION SHE SHOULD ASK YOU TO REPHRASE IT. THE FIRST 14 PART OF YOUR QUESTION IS A REPEAT OF YOUR PRIOR QUESTION 15 FOR WHICH SHE POINTED OUT THE LETTER IN REGARDS TO MR. 16 OTTILIE. AND MR. OTTILIE'S LETTER DOES NOT REFER TO 17 JUST EVENTS THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN JUNE 20TH AND 18 AUGUST 15TH. IN FACT THE LETTER REFERS TO EVENTS BEFORE 19 THAT. SO THE QUESTION IS ARGUMENTATIVE AS PHRASED. 20 TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION 21 YOU CAN GO AHEAD. 22 MR. SLEETH: THE DISTRICT JOINS IN THAT 23 OBJECTION. AND FURTHER OBJECTS THAT THE ENTIRE QUESTION 24 IS ARGUMENTATIVE INASMUCH AS THAT AUGUST LETTER WAS 25 GENERATED BY MR. OTTILIE AS A RESULT OF THIS LAWSUIT AND 31 ROUGH DRAFT 1 AN ATTEMPT TO CURE THE INFIRMITIES THAT HAD BEEN ALLEGED 2 IN THIS LAWSUIT. 3 MR. COZAD: ALL RIGHT. FOLKS, I'M NOT GOING 4 TO PREACH BUT I THINK YOU'RE COACHING THE WITNESS. AND 5 I WOULD ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOUR OBJECTIONS TO LEGAL 6 OBJECTIONS. 7 BY MR. COZAD: 8 Q. WOULD YOU READ BACK MY QUESTION PLEASE. I'LL 9 ASK THE WITNESS TO LISTEN TO MY QUESTION CAREFULLY AND 10 ANSWER IT IF SHE CAN. 11 MR. WINET: BEFORE YOU READ IT BACK, NO ONE IS 12 COACHING THE WITNESS HERE. YOUR QUESTIONS ARE 13 INAPPROPRIATE AND I'LL OBJECT TO THEM IN THE APPROPRIATE 14 FASHION I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THEM. NOW YOU CAN READ 15 IT BACK. 16 (LAST QUESTION READ.) 17 MR. SLEETH: SAME OBJECTIONS. 18 MR. WINET: SAME. 19 A. I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. AND I HAD ALREADY 20 ANSWERED IT BECAUSE THE CLAIMS AS STIPULATED IN THE 21 AUGUST 15TH, 2007 LETTER OF MY ATTORNEY OUTLINED WHAT 22 CLAIMS I HAD LEADING UP TO THAT DATE. I THOUGHT I HAD 23 ANSWERED THE QUESTION. 24 BY MR. COZAD: 25 Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY 32 ROUGH DRAFT 1 COLLEGE DISTRICT DEFAMED YOU IN ANY WAY? 2 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. THE QUESTION CALLS FOR 3 A LEGAL OPINION. AND AS SUCH THE QUESTION LACKS 4 FOUNDATION AS TO THIS WITNESS. I BELIEVE YOU CAN GET TO 5 THE SAME AREA BY ASKING IT IN A NONLEGAL FASHION. TO 6 THE EXTENT YOU CAN ANSWER GO AHEAD. 7 A. WELL, I DON'T KNOW THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR 8 DEFORMATION. WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT THE BEHAVIOR OF 9 THE -- SOME OF THE TRUSTEES OF MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY 10 COLLEGE HARMED MY REPUTATION. THEY VIOLATED MY PRIVACY 11 RIGHTS. AND MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. AND THEIR BEHAVIOR 12 CREATED A STIGMA AS TO MY CHARACTER THAT WAS VERY 13 HARMFUL. 14 BY MR. COZAD: 15 Q. OKAY. SO YOU'VE MENTIONED HARM TO YOUR 16 REPUTATION. YOU'VE MENTIONED AN INVASION OF SOME -- OF 17 A PRIVACY RIGHT. YOU'VE MENTIONED DUE PROCESS. AND 18 YOU'VE MENTIONED A STIGMA TO YOUR DID I GET THAT STICK 19 MA TO WHAT? STIGMA TO YOUR CHARACTER. ANYTHING ELSE? 20 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 21 OVERBROAD AND AMBIGUOUS. I'LL REINCORPORATE THE SAME 22 OBJECTIONS I STATED BEFORE IN REGARDS TO IT ASKING A 23 LEGAL OPINION. YOU CAN ANSWER. 24 MR. SLEETH: IN ADDITION THE QUESTION IS 25 AMBIGUOUS AS PHRASED. ANYTHING ELSE RELATED TO 33 ROUGH DRAFT 1 DEFORMATION CLAIMS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WAS A HARM? I 2 DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS. 3 BY MR. COZAD: 4 Q. WHAT WERE YOU ANSWERING? 5 A. WHAT WAS I ANSWERING? 6 Q. OKAY. 7 A. I'M CONFUSED. 8 Q. OKAY. LET ME CLEAN THIS UP. 9 A. OKAY. 10 Q. FOR YOU? 11 A. THANK YOU. 12 Q. IN ADDITION TO THE DAMAGE TO YOUR REPUTATION, 13 THE DAMAGE TO YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS ISSUES 14 AND STIGMA TO YOUR CHARACTER, HOW WERE YOU DAMAGED BY 15 ANY ACT OR OMISSION BY THE COLLEGE DISTRICT? 16 A. OH MY GOODNESS. IT WAS MONTHS OF EMOTIONAL 17 TURMOIL. MONTHS OF CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. MONTHS OF 18 ATTACKS ON MY ABILITY TO PERFORM AS THE PRESIDENT. 19 MONTHS OF QUESTIONING MY TRUTHFULNESS. MONTHS OF FALSE 20 STATEMENTS THAT PLAYED IN THE PRESS. CONSTANT 21 CHALLENGES. CONSTANT HUMILIATION IN PUBLIC MEETINGS. 22 IT'S A WHOLE LIST AND EASY TO SUMMARIZE IF YOU READ MR. 23 OTTILIE'S LETTER OF AUGUST 15TH. BECAUSE IT PRETTY MUCH 24 DETAILS EVERYTHING THAT WAS HAPPENING. BUT I'LL BE 25 HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. 34 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. OKAY. YOU UNDERSTAND WHY I AM NOT INTERESTED 2 IN MR. OTTILIE'S LETTER? 3 A. NO. 4 Q. IT WAS WRITTEN BY A LAWYER TWO MONTHS AFTER A 5 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. 6 MR. WINET: HOLD IT HOLD IT. 7 MR. COZAD: MY REAL TRUE FOR YOU TODAY. 8 MR. WINET: HOLD IT. 9 MR. COZAD: LET ME FINISH MY QUESTION PLEASE. 10 MR. WINET: IT'S NOT A QUESTION IT'S A 11 STATEMENT IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE YOU'RE HERE TO ASK 12 QUESTIONS. 13 BY MR. COZAD: 14 Q. MY QUESTION FOR YOU TODAY IS HOW YOU BELIEVE 15 YOU ARE HARMED BY THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT. 16 A. OKAY. MY ANSWER TO YOU IS EVERYTHING I JUST 17 SAID BEFORE AND EVERYTHING THAT'S WRITTEN IN THAT LETTER 18 REPRESENTS HOW I FELT. REPRESENTS WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO 19 ME. IT HAS THE HISTORY OF WHAT HAPPENED TO ME. HOW IT 20 CAME ABOUT AND THE EFFECT IT HAD ON ME. SO YOU MAY NOT 21 BE INTERESTED IN THE LETTER BUT I AM INTERESTED IN THE 22 LETTER BECAUSE IT REFLECTS HOW I FELT. IT REFLECTS WHAT 23 I WENT THROUGH. IT REFLECTS THE CLAIMS I HAD AGAINST 24 THE DISTRICT AND ITS TRUSTEES. 25 Q. WHEN DID YOU FIRST BELIEVE THAT YOU HAD A 35 ROUGH DRAFT 1 CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT? 2 A. I AM REALLY NOT LEGAL AND KNOWLEDGEABLE IN 3 TERMS OF DID I HAVE A CLAIM PER SE. BUT I KNEW THAT I 4 HAD BEEN HURT AND THAT SOMETHING HAD HAPPENED THAT 5 SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. WHEN ON FEBRUARY 2ND, THE 6 THREE SELF-IDENTIFIED MINORITY TRUSTEES, GLORIA 7 CARRANZA, JUDY STRATTAN AND JACQUELINE SIMON ISSUED THE 8 MINORITY REPORT AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT WHEN I, BY THE 9 REQUIREMENTS OF MY JOB I RESPONDED TO THEM IN MY 10 LETTER -- ACTUALLY RESPONDED TO THE BOARD PRESIDENT THAT 11 I FELT THAT MY PRIVACY RIGHTS AND MY DUE PROCESS HAD 12 BEEN VIOLATED BY THEIR MINORITY REPORT, THAT SUBSEQUENT 13 TO THAT ON MARCH -- APRIL -- FEBRUARY 20TH, TRUSTEE 14 STRATTAN READ THE LETTERS IN A PUBLIC MEETING WHEN THERE 15 WERE CONFIDENTIAL PERSONAL LETTERS WRITTEN BETWEEN ME 16 AND MY EMPLOYER. SO FEBRUARY IS WHEN I KNEW THAT THEY 17 HAD CROSSED THE LINE THAT THEY WERE DOING THINGS THAT 18 WERE INAPPROPRIATE. 19 Q. WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE MINORITY REPORT 20 THAT YOU BELIEVED VIOLATED YOUR RIGHTS? 21 A. YES. 22 MR. WINET: LET ME. 23 A. OH. 24 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT AS FAR AS VIOLATING 25 YOUR RIGHTS ONCE AGAIN IT CALLS FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION I 36 ROUGH DRAFT 1 NEED TO STATE THAT OBJECTION. CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND 2 ANSWER THE QUESTION. 3 A. I DON'T KNOW THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS PER SE OF 4 ALL OF THE -- OF WHAT'S INVOLVED IN PRIVACY RIGHTS BUT I 5 DO KNOW BECAUSE I AM BEEN AN ADMINISTRATOR IN HIRE 6 EDUCATION THAT AN EMPLOYEE HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE ANY 7 ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM OR HER HEARD IN CLOSED SESSION 8 AND IN PRIVATE. IT IS THE CHOICE OF THE EMPLOYEE AS TO 9 HOW YOU ARE GOING TO BE PUBLICLY EVALUATED. IT IS NOT, 10 IT IS NOT FOR THE EMPLOYER TO GO OUT AND DO IT WITHOUT 11 THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE EMPLOYEE. 12 BY MR. COZAD: 13 Q. WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? 14 MR. SLEETH: OBJECTION CALLS FOR LEGAL 15 CONCLUSION. 16 MR. WINET: I'LL JOIN. 17 A. IT COMES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM LAWS 18 IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 19 IT CALLS FROM LAWS IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. I CANNOT 20 TELL YOU THE SPECIFIC LAWS. BUT THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF 21 PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO ADHERE 22 TO. 23 BY MR. COZAD: 24 Q. MY UNDERSTANDING IS DIFFERENT FROM YOURS. AND 25 I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE LAW. 37 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. SLEETH: OBJECTION THAT WAS NOT A 2 QUESTION. 3 MR. WINET: HOLD ON HOLD ON WE'RE NOT GOING 4 HERE. YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS BUT YOU STATING TO THE 5 WITNESS WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW HAS NOTHING 6 TO DO WITH THE DEPOSITION. IT'S INAPPROPRIATE. YOU CAN 7 ASK HER ANY QUESTION THAT YOU WANT. WE CAN MAKE 8 WHATEVER OBJECTIONS BUT YOU STATING WHAT YOUR 9 INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW IS, WHICH TO BE HONEST WITH 10 YOU I DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU JUST STATED, IT IS 11 INAPPROPRIATE FOR A DEPOSITION. CAN YOU ASK YOUR NEXT 12 QUESTION. 13 BY MR. COZAD: 14 Q. DO YOU KNOW THE BASIS, THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE 15 STATEMENT THAT YOU JUST MADE? 16 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION CALLS FOR 17 A LEGAL CONCLUSION. LACKS FOUNDATION AS TO THIS 18 WITNESS. YOU CAN GO AHEAD. 19 MR. SLEETH: CALLS FOR LEGAL OPINION. 20 A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. 21 MR. WINET: HE'S ASKING YOU DO YOU KNOW THE 22 CASE LAW OR THE STATUTE FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT YOU 23 JUST STATED. 24 A. OH. 25 MR. WINET: THAT IS WHAT HE'S ASKING YOU FOR. 38 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. I DO NOT. 2 BY MR. COZAD: 3 Q. OKAY. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A TRUSTEE IS 4 PROHIBITED FROM GIVING OPINIONS ABOUT YOUR PERFORMANCE 5 IN PUBLIC? 6 MR. SLEETH: OBJECTION CALLS FOR A LEGAL 7 CONCLUSION. 8 MR. WINET: OBJECTION CALLS FOR LEGAL 9 CONCLUSION ALSO THE QUESTION LACKS FOUNDATION AS TO 10 WHICH ISSUE, WHICH ITEM OF PERFORMANCE AND HOW IT'S 11 PROJECTED. THE QUESTION IS OVERBROAD. TO THE EXTENT 12 YOU CAN ANSWER, YOU CAN GO AHEAD. 13 A. TRUSTEES CAN AUTHORIZE -- HAVE OPINIONS, 14 DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT 15 I COULD MAKE, POINTS OF VIEW, THEY CAN HAVE THEIR OWN 16 WAY OF LOOKING AT A GIVEN PROPOSAL, AT A BOARD POLICY, 17 AND MY FASHION IN WHICH I AM PRESENTING IT OR DO THEY 18 LIKE IT OR DON'T LIKE IT, GENERAL TERMS LIKE THAT. 19 TRUSTEES CAN DO AND SHOULD DO. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE 20 ELECTED FOR. 21 BUT WHEN YOU MAKE A SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO 22 PERSONNEL MATTERS AND PERFORMANCE MATTERS THAT ARE 23 SUPPOSED TO BE DEALT WITH IN A VALUETIVE PROCESS THAT 24 HAS A CRITERIA THAT IS SET FORTH AND IT IS TO BE DONE IN 25 CLOSED SESSION, THOSE THINGS SHOULD NOT OCCUR IN THE 39 ROUGH DRAFT 1 PUBLIC SESSION UNLESS I AS THE EMPLOYEE HAVE ASKED FOR 2 THAT TO HAPPEN. AND DID I NOT. 3 BY MR. COZAD: 4 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE BROWN ACT? 5 A. IN GENERAL TERMS, YES, SIR. 6 Q. IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT THE BROWN ACT PROHIBITS 7 AN OPEN DISCUSSION OF EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE? 8 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, QUESTION CALLS FOR A 9 LEGAL CONCLUSION, CALLS FOR AN IMPROPER OPINION 10 CONCLUSION AS PHRASED I'LL INSTRUCT THE WITNESS NOT TO 11 ANSWER. (MARK). 12 BY MR. COZAD: 13 Q. OKAY. NOW GETTING BACK TO MY EARLIER 14 QUESTIONS, WERE YOU EVER REPRESENTED SEPARATELY IN ANY 15 LAWSUIT IN WHICH YOU WERE NAMED AS A DEFENDANT FROM 1990 16 TO THE PRESENT ARISING OUT OF YOUR WORK AS AN 17 ADMINISTRATOR? 18 MR. WINET: OBJECTION WITHOUT AN OFFER OF 19 PROOF I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT THE WITNESS NOT TO ANSWER. 20 IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS COURT'S ORDER. 21 MR. COZAD: YOUR WITNESS JUST TESTIFIED THAT 22 SHE SETTLED HER CASE IN PART TO RESOLVE ISSUES FOR 23 DAMAGE TO HER REPUTATION, STIGMA TO HER CHARACTER, 24 PRIVACY ISSUES AND THESE RELATE TO DAMAGES. THAT'S MY 25 OFFER OF PROOF. 40 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. WINET: OKAY. CAN WE HAVE HIS LAST 2 QUESTION REREAD. 3 (LAST QUESTION READ.) 4 MR. WINET: I'LL STILL OBJECT TO THE QUESTION 5 BECAUSE IT REFERS TO HER AS BEING A DEFENDANT. I DON'T 6 SEE HOW THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE CLAIMS THAT YOU'VE JUST 7 REFERENCED. BUT YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ANSWER TO THE 8 EXTENT THAT CAN YOU TO THAT QUESTION. 9 A. I THINK I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION AND I 10 SAID NO. I WORKED WITH LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE DIFFERENT 11 DISTRICTS. 12 MR. SLEETH: I'M GOING TO BRING A LITTLE LATE 13 MOTION TO STRIKE HERE. I WAS NOT WIDE AWAKE. I DON'T 14 RECALL THAT SHE EVER TESTIFIED SHE WAS A DEFENDANT. I 15 HEARD HER TALKING ABOUT WORKING WITH COUNSEL. I THINK 16 IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU WENT BACK AND EXPLORED WHETHER 17 SHE WAS A DEFENDANT BEFORE YOU ASSUME THAT SHE WAS. 18 MR. WINET: I THINK, THANK IT'S UNCLEAR FROM 19 THE RECORD TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. I DON'T THINK THAT 20 SHE KNOWS IF SHE HAS EVER BEEN A DEFENDANT SEPARATE AND 21 APART FROM THE DISTRICT IS WHAT HER TESTIMONY WAS BEFORE 22 BUT WE CAN LOOK AT THE RECORD. 23 (EXHIBIT 4 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 24 MR. COZAD: LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT WE'LL MARK AS 25 EXHIBIT 4. 41 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. I THINK SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE CABLE 2 BECAUSE IT KEEPS PULLING ME. I AM ABOUT TO FALL OFF THE 3 TABLE HERE. 4 MR. WINET: LET ME SEE IF I CAN HELP. IT 5 KEEPS PULLING TO THE RIGHT. 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: LET ME ADJUST IT. 7 MR. WINET: I'LL LET YOU DO IT. 8 A. I'M SORRY I'M GOING TO END UP UNDER THE TABLE 9 HERE. SOMEHOW I FEEL IT TUGGING ON ME. 10 MR. SLEETH: ARE WE OFF THE RECORD? 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: NO, I'M SORRY. LET ME GO 12 OFF THE RECORD FOR A MINUTE HERE AND I'LL READJUST THAT. 13 JUST HOLD ON. 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: WE'RE GOING OFF THE RECORD 15 AT 102043. 16 (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.) 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: BACK ON THE RECORD AT 1023. 18 A. THANK YOU. 19 BY MR. COZAD: 20 Q. AS I RECALL I THINK I SHOWED YOU EXHIBIT 4. 21 WOULD YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT 4 AND TELL ME WHAT THAT IS? 22 A. IT LOOKS LIKE THE VITAE THAT'S IN MY 23 DISSERTATION. 24 Q. ALL RIGHT. WHEN WAS IT PREPARED? 25 A. I WOULD THINK 1998. I'M NOT SURE. I HAVE SO 42 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MANY VITAES BUT IT COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE. YES. BUT 2 MAYBE 1998. 3 Q. DID YOU PREPARE IT? 4 A. YEAH. UH-HUH. 5 Q. IS EVERYTHING IN IT TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE? 6 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT THE QUESTION IS 7 COMPOUND. GO AHEAD AND REVIEW IT. AND THEN GO AHEAD 8 AND ANSWER THE QUESTION. 9 A. WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT IT WAS FOR. 10 BY MR. COZAD: 11 Q. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU BELIEVE IS 12 INACCURATE IN THE VITAE THAT YOU PREPARED? 13 A. IT'S NOT THAT IT'S INACCURATE BUT FOR -- IF 14 I -- IF THIS IS THE ONE FOR THE, FROM MY DISSERTATION -- 15 CAN I ASK A QUESTION? IS THAT WHERE YOU GOT IT FROM? 16 Q. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM. I'D LIKE TO 17 KNOW, IT'S YOURS, RIGHT? 18 A. YEAH. OH YEAH, YEAH. 19 Q. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING INACCURATE IN 20 IT? 21 A. WELL, THE ADVICE CHANCELLOR POSITION WAS AN 22 INTERIM POSITION AND THE WORD INTERIM IS NOT THERE. 23 THAT'S THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF RIGHT NOW. I DON'T 24 REMEMBER MANY OF THESE PUBLICATIONS BUT ... IT LOOKS 25 LIKE IT IS FROM MY DISSERTATION BECAUSE MY DISSERTATION, 43 ROUGH DRAFT 1 REFERENCE TO MY DISSERTATION IS DOWN HERE. 2 Q. YOU DON'T RECALL THESE PUBLICATIONS? 3 A. I MEAN I RECALL SOME OF THEM BUT I DON'T 4 RECALL ALL OF THEM. THEY HAPPENED A LONG TIME AGO. I 5 DON'T -- WHAT I'M SAYING IS, I THINK THIS WAS THE TITLE 6 OF IT AND I GOT THEM FROM THE TITLE OF IT BUT I DON'T 7 REMEMBER THEM. MANY OF THEM. MANY OF THEM I DO 8 REMEMBER. 9 Q. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE DIPLOMA THAT YOU 10 RECEIVED FROM THE SCHOOL IN MEXICO CITY? 11 A. YEP. 12 Q. DO YOU HAVE A -- THE DEGREE RECEIVED FROM THE 13 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS? 14 A. YES. 15 Q. AND THE SAME WITH UCLA? 16 A. YES. 17 Q. LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT WE'LL MARK AS NEXT IN 18 ORDER AS NO. 5. 19 (EXHIBIT 5 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 20 BY MR. COZAD: 21 Q. ENTITLED PRESIDENT'S BIOGRAPHY. 22 A. UH-HUH. 23 Q. DID YOU PREPARE THIS? 24 A. IT DOESN'T LOOK FAMILIAR TO ME, NO. 25 Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN IT BEFORE? 44 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. I DON'T THINK SO. 2 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE INFORMATION CAME FROM 3 THAT IS CONTAINED IN THE EXHIBIT? 4 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION LACKS 5 FOUNDATION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. YOU CAN 6 ANSWER. 7 A. I DON'T KNOW. 8 BY MR. COZAD: 9 Q. WHAT WAS YOUR REPUTATION LIKE AT THE LOS 10 ANGELES COLLEGE DISTRICT? 11 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 12 OVERBROAD AND AMBIGUOUS, LACKS FOUNDATION AS TO PERSON, 13 LOCATION, TIME. GO AHEAD. 14 MR. SLEETH: THE DISTRICT OBJECTS ON THE 15 GROUNDS IT IS NOT CALCULATED TO LEAD TO RELEVANT 16 EVIDENCE. 17 A. WELL I THINK I WORKED THERE FOR ALMOST 28 18 YEARS OR SO. I STARTED IN A FACULTY POSITION AND ENDED 19 WITHIN THE SAME COLLEGE DISTRICT, SAME EMPLOYER 28 YEARS 20 OR SO, DON'T HOLD ME TO IT I DON'T HAVE THE TIME IN 21 FRONT OF ME. AND AS AN INTERIM ADVICE CHANCELLOR I 22 PROMOTED. I MOVED IN INCREASING LEVELS OF 23 RESPONSIBILITY AND I WOULD SAY THAT IT WAS A GOOD 24 REPUTATION GIVEN THE FACT THAT I WAS HIRED WITHIN THE 25 SAME EMPLOYER GROUP FROM A FACULTY POSITION ALL THE WAY 45 ROUGH DRAFT 1 UP TO THE DISTRICT POSITION OF ADVICE CHANCELLOR. 2 Q. WHEN DID YOU LEAVE? 3 A. 1998. 4 Q. AND WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR 5 LEAVING? 6 A. I ACCEPTED THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT AT 7 CASCADE YEAH COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN WASHINGTON STATE. 8 Q. WERE YOU TOLD THAT YOU HAD ONE YEAR TO FIND 9 OTHER WORK ARRANGEMENTS? 10 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. 11 MR. COZAD: IN LOS ANGELES. 12 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION IS NOT 13 REASONABLY CALCULATED TO LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY OF 14 ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. LACKS FOUNDATION. 15 YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN. 16 MR. SLEETH: JOIN. 17 A. ABSOLUTELY NOT. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO 18 REASON FOR ME TO LOOK -- I HAD TENURE. I WAS A TENURED 19 EMPLOYEE. I HAD BEEN THERE MANY YEARS. AND WHOEVER 20 SAID THAT TO YOU OR WHEREVER YOU'RE ASKING THAT QUESTION 21 I AM ADAMANTLY DENYING THAT THAT WAS THE CASE. 22 MR. COZAD: OKAY. 23 A. I'M SORRY. SORRY. 24 Q. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. 25 MR. WINET: LET'S -- CAN WE TAKE JUST ONE 46 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MOMENT. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: WE'RE OFF THE RECORD. 3 WE'RE OFF THE RECORD AT 1029. 4 (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.) 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: WE ARE BACK ON THE RECORDS 6 AT 103046. 7 BY MR. COZAD: 8 Q. OKAY. HOW LONG WERE YOU AT CASCADIA? 9 A. '98 TO 2004. 10 Q. AND WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR 11 LEAVING CASCADIA? 12 MR. WINET: OBJECTION NOT REASONABLY 13 CALCULATED TO LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY OF ADMISSIBLE 14 EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. MAY LACK FOUNDATION TO SOME 15 EXTENT AND CALL FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION. GO AHEAD. 16 MR. SLEETH: JOIN. 17 A. I ACCEPTED THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT AT 18 MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE. 19 BY MR. COZAD: 20 Q. WAS IT SUGGESTED TO YOU AT CASCADIA THAT YOU 21 SHOULD FIND OTHER EMPLOYMENT? 22 A. NO. 23 Q. DID YOU LEAVE CASCADIA AMIDST ANY UNREST OR 24 PUBLICLY STATED DISSATISFACTION WITH YOUR WORK? 25 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION MAY LACK 47 ROUGH DRAFT 1 FOUNDATION, MAY CALLS FOR SPECULATION AS TO EVERY PERSON 2 AND EVERY OPINION. BUT GO AHEAD. 3 A. AT THE TIME I LEFT CASCADIA, WE HAD JUST 4 SUCCESSFULLY CONCLUDED A LEGAL BATTLE WITH SOME FACULTY 5 MEMBER WHO WERE NOT GRANTED TENURE. AND THOSE FACULTY 6 MEMBERS WHO WERE NOT GRANTED TENURE WERE NOT VERY HAPPY 7 PEOPLE AND THEY WERE NO LONGER EMPLOYEES OF THE COLLEGE. 8 BY MR. COZAD: 9 Q. ANY OTHER DISCORD AT CASCADIA THAT WAS 10 PUBLICLY REPORTED? 11 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 12 OVERBROAD, VAGUE AS STATED BUT GO AHEAD. 13 A. THERE WAS A LOT OF PUBLICITY BECAUSE CASCADIA 14 WAS THE BRAND-NEW COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND THE UNION THAT 15 REPRESENTED FACULTY ORGANIZED LABOR WANTED TO BE 16 RECOGNIZED BY THE FACULTY. AND THEY PROMISED THE 17 FACULTY THAT IF THEY WERE SELECTED AS THEIR 18 REPRESENTATIVE THAT IS THEY WOULD SAVE THE JOBS OF THESE 19 FACULTY MEMBERS WHO WERE NOT -- WERE RECOMMENDED FOR NOT 20 RECEIVING TENURE. AND AS SUCH, THE UNION LAUNCHED A 21 HUGE PUBLIC NEWS CAMPAIGN AGAINST ME AND THE BOARD AND 22 THE COLLEGE. IN THE END WE SUCCEEDED. 23 Q. WAS IT PUBLICLY REPORTED THAT YOUR POLICIES AT 24 CASCADIA LED TO A SITUATION OF HIGH TURNOVER WITHIN THE 25 FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS AT CASCADIA? 48 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION MAY ASSUME 2 FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND ALSO MAY LACK FOUNDATION AS TO 3 THIS WITNESS KNOWING EVERYTHING THAT WAS PUBLICLY 4 REPORTED. YOU CAN ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU KNOW. 5 MR. SLEETH: THE OBJECTION IT MAY MISSTATE 6 FACTS AND LACKS FOUNDATION AS TO HER ABILITY TO CREATE 7 POLICIES IN THE IN THAT BOARDS USUALLY CREATE POLICIES. 8 A. I THINK A LOT WAS PUBLICLY REPORTED. I DON'T 9 RECALL ALL OF THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES. IT'S BEEN A LONG 10 TIME. 11 BY MR. COZAD: 12 Q. WERE YOU ALLEGED TO HAVE CREATED MORALE 13 PROBLEMS AT CASCADIA? 14 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION AGAIN 15 ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. LACKS FOUNDATION. AND 16 IT MAY ASK THE WITNESS TO SPECULATE AS TO EACH AND EVERY 17 REPORT OF ONE OR ANOTHER PERSON ALLEGING SOMETHING. YOU 18 CAN ANSWER WHAT YOU KNOW. 19 A. WELL, I DO KNOW THAT THE UNION ENCOURAGED A 20 LOT OF THE FACULTY TO SAY A LOT OF THE THINGS TO PUT 21 PRESSURE BOTH ON ME AND ON THE BOARD TO WITHDRAW THE 22 DENIAL OF TENURE. AND THEY SAID ALL KINDS OF THINGS 23 THAT WERE UNTRUE. AND ALLEGED ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT 24 DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TRUTH. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT 25 YOU'RE REFERRING TO BUT I'M SURE IT HAPPENED. AND IT 49 ROUGH DRAFT 1 DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT WAS TRUE. 2 BY MR. COZAD: 3 Q. DID 11 FORMER CURRENT SALARIED EMPLOYEES DID 4 THE PRESS THAT THEY LEFT THE COLLEGE BECAUSE OF THE 5 CAUSTIC ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU, DR. RICHART CREATED? 6 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. THE QUESTION LACKS 7 FOUNDATION ALSO ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THIRD, 8 IT ASKS THE WITNESS TO SPECULATE AS TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE 9 REPORT TODAY A PAPER SO IT LACKS FOUNDATION. YOU CAN 10 ANSWER WHAT YOU KNOW. 11 A. I DON'T REMEMBER. 12 BY MR. COZAD: 13 Q. DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF CASCADIA, WHILE IT 14 WAS UNDER YOUR DIRECTION AND CONTROL, DID 10 OF THE 15 COLLEGE 64 EMPLOYEES RESIGN? 16 MR. WINET: SAME OBJECTIONS. 17 A. YOU CAN ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU KNOW. 18 A. NO. 19 BY MR. COZAD: 20 Q. WAS THAT REPORTED IN THE PRESS THOUGH? 21 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION LACKS 22 FOUNDATION, MAY CALLS FOR SPECULATION. ASSUMES FACTS 23 THAT ARE REPORTED IN THE PRESS ARE TRUE WHICH WE KNOW 24 ARE NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS THE CASE. GO AHEAD AND 25 ANSWER TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN. 50 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. MR. COZAD LET ME CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR YOU. 2 THE FIRST YEAR WHERE I WAS PRESIDENT AT CASCADIA 3 COMMUNITY COLLEGE, CASCADIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE ONLY HAD 4 THREE EMPLOYEES. MYSELF, MY SECRETARY AND THE 5 ARCHITECT. 6 BY MR. COZAD: 7 Q. WITH AS IT REPORTED IN THE SEE ATAL POST 8 INTELLIGENCE ON JUNE 42003 THAT AT THE ENDS OF ITS THIRD 9 YEAR THE COLLEGE HAD 73 EMPLOYEES AND EXPERIENCED A 10 TOTAL OF 25 RESIGNATIONS. MOSTLY AMONG SALARIED STAFF? 11 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. 12 BY MR. COZAD: 13 Q. WAS THAT REPORTED IN THE PRESS? 14 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION LACKS 15 FOUNDATION CALLS FOR SPECULATION TO THE EXTENT YOU KNOW 16 GO AHEAD. 17 A. I DON'T KNOW. 18 BY MR. COZAD: 19 Q. WAS IT ALSO REPORTED IN THE PRESS THAT YOUR 20 EMPLOYEES AT THE COLLEGE COMPLAINED THAT YOU RUN 21 CASCADIA BY FEAR AND INTIMIDATION? 22 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION LACKS 23 FOUNDATION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN 24 EVIDENCE. ASK THE WITNESS TO SPECULATE. TO THE EXTENT 25 THAT YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS REPORTED IN THE 51 ROUGH DRAFT 1 PRESS GO AHEAD AND ANSWER. 2 A. I DO BELIEVE IT WAS REPORTED IN THE PRESS. 3 AND I THINK THAT A LOT OF THAT WAS AN ATTEMPT BY SOME OF 4 THE LABOR UNION AND SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES TO TRY TO 5 CHARACTERIZE WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THE DENIAL OF THE 6 TENURE AS THAT. BUT IT'S UNFOUNDED. 7 MR. COZAD: LET ME SHOW WHAT YOU WE'LL MARK AS 8 EXHIBITS 6. 9 (EXHIBIT 6 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 10 BY MR. COZAD: 11 Q. THIS APPEARS TO BE AN ARTICLE FROM THE SEATTLE 12 POST INTELLIGENCER DATED JUNE 24, 2003 DID YOU EVER SEE 13 THAT ARTICLE? 14 A. I DID. 15 Q. AND YOU WERE INTERVIEWED FOR IT, WEREN'T YOU? 16 A. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. 17 Q. WHEN YOU APPLIED FOR YOUR POSITION AT 18 MIRACOSTA DID YOU TELL THEM ABOUT THIS CONTROVERSY THAT 19 TOOK PLACE AT CASCADIA? 20 A. ABSOLUTELY, YES. 21 Q. WHO DID YOU TELL? 22 A. I TOLD THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR SURE. AND 23 PLUS I ANSWERED THE MANY, MANY QUESTIONS THAT THE 24 COMMITTEE HAD ABOUT IT THAT THE COMMITTEE WHO 25 INTERVIEWED ME ABOUT THAT HAD IT AND ALL OF THE 52 ROUGH DRAFT 1 REFERENCE CHECKS THAT BOTH THE ACADEMIC PRESS AND THE 2 CLASSIFIED PRESIDENT BY TALKING INDIVIDUALLY WITH A LOT 3 OF THE EMPLOYEES AT THE COLLEGE BY TALKING TO BOARD 4 MEMBERS OF CASCADIA, BY TALKING TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS OF 5 CASCADIA. IT WAS WELL-KNOWN. AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO 6 INTERVIEWED ME, THE INTERVIEWERS WHO DID THE BACKGROUND 7 CHECK KNEW ABOUT IT. I MENTIONED IT. AND WHEN THE 8 THREE TRUSTEES AND TWO ACADEMIC CENTER PRESIDENT AND 9 CLASSIFIED SENATE PRESIDENT DID AN ON-SITE VISIT, A FULL 10 DAY, OF INTERVIEWS AT CASCADIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF 11 COMMUNITY MEMBERS, FACULTY, STAFF, STUDENTS AND THE 12 BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS WELL AS THE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE 13 COLLEGE, THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON. AND THEY 14 ASKED ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE ASKED TO 15 KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH WAS ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED. 16 Q. YOU MENTIONED AN ACADEMY CENTER PRESIDENT? 17 A. UH-HUH. 18 Q. AND A CLASSIFIED CENTER PRESIDENT WHO WERE 19 THOSE PEOPLE? 20 A. MR. JONATHAN COLE WAS THE ACADEMIC SENATE 21 PRESIDENT AND LORI SCHNEIDER WAS THE CLASSIFIED SENATE 22 PRESIDENT. 23 Q. NOW DID YOU INTERVIEW DIRECTLY WITH THEM? 24 A. YES. 25 Q. AS YOU APPLIED AT MIRACOSTA? 53 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. YES. 2 Q. AND YOU GAVE FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE TROUBLES 3 THAT WERE EXPERIENCED AT CASCADIA WHILE YOU WERE THERE? 4 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS VAGUE 5 AND AMBIGUOUS AS TO THE USE OF THE WORD FULL DISCLOSURE 6 OF TROUBLES. THE QUESTION IS TOO OVERBROAD TO REALLY BE 7 ABLE TO ANSWER BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN GO AHEAD. 8 A. I GAVE FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE FACT THAT WE 9 WERE HAVING PERSONNEL PROBLEMS. AND WHAT THEY WERE IN 10 TERMS OF THE LEGAL SUITS OF THE FACULTY WHO WERE NOT 11 GRANTED TENURE, YES AND I DID NOT VIOLATE ANY OF THE 12 PRIVACY RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEES EITHER. 13 BY MR. COZAD: 14 Q. OKAY. DID YOU TELL ANY OF THE TRUSTEES AT 15 CASCADIA, THAT THEY WERE PROHIBITED FROM DISCLOSING 16 PERSONNEL INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO YOU IN CONNECTION 17 WITH YOUR APPLICATION WITH MIRACOSTA? 18 A. CAN YOU REPHRASE YOUR QUESTION? I DID NOT 19 UNDERSTAND IT. 20 Q. LET'S REREAD IT. 21 (LAST QUESTION READ.) 22 A. NO. 23 BY MR. COZAD: 24 Q. WHAT IS THE -- HOW'S CASCADIA ORGANIZED? WHAT 25 IS ITS GOVERNING BODY? HOW IS IT ORGANIZED? 54 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 2 OVERBROAD AND VAGUE. GO AHEAD. 3 A. YOU MEAN ARE THEY GOVERNED BY A BOARD OF 4 TRUSTEES? 5 BY MR. COZAD: 6 Q. SURE. 7 A. YES, THEY ARE GOVERNED BY A BOARD OF TRUSTEES 8 AND APPOINTED BOARD OF TRUSTEES APPOINTED BY THE 9 GOVERNOR. 10 Q. OKAY. LET ME SHOW WHAT YOU WE'LL MARK AS 11 EXHIBIT 7. 12 (EXHIBIT 7 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 13 BY MR. COZAD: 14 Q. IT APPEARS TO BE A UNION NEWSLETTER CALLED 15 SOUNDINGS. THIS ONE IS DATED OCTOBER 13, 2003. DO YOU 16 SEE DOWN AT THE BOTTOM LEFT? 17 A. UH-HUH. 18 Q. FIRST PAGE IT SAYS LABOR PAINS AT CASCADIA? 19 A. UH-HUH. 20 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS PUBLICATIONS? 21 A. NO. 22 Q. HAVE YOU EVER READ THIS ARTICLE? 23 A. I DON'T THINK SO. 24 Q. WERE YOU AWARE THAT THIS PUBLICATIONS CONTAINS 25 A REFERENCE THAT STATES THAT MANY FORMER CURRENT AND 55 ROUGH DRAFT 1 STAFF AND FACULTY COMPLAINS THAT MEMBERS OF THE UPPER 2 ADMINISTRATION RUN CASCADIA BY FEAR AND INTIMIDATION? 3 MR. WINET: OBJECTION BASED UPON HER LAST 4 ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION LACKS FOUNDATION 5 BECAUSE SHE'S NEVER SEEN IT OR READ IT BUT YOU CAN GO 6 AHEAD AND ANSWER IT TO THE EXTENT THAT CAN YOU. 7 A. NO. 8 BY MR. COZAD: 9 Q. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE DID THE TRUSTEES AT CASCADIA 10 DISCLOSE ALL OF THE PERSONNEL INFORMATION CONCERNING YOU 11 TO MR. COLE AND MS. \SNYDER\SCHNEIDER WHEN THEY DID 12 THEIR BACKGROUND CHECKS AND VISITS TO SAY CASCADIA? 13 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION CALLS FOR 14 SPECULATION, LACKS FOUNDATION. 15 A. I DON'T KNOW. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. DID YOU EVER ASK ANY OF THE TRUSTEES NOT TO 18 DISCLOSE INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH RESPECT TO THE 19 MIRACOSTA BACKGROUND CHECKING? 20 A. NO. 21 Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE REPORT IN THE PRESS 22 ABOUT YOU RULING CASCADIA BY FEAR AND INTIMIDATION HURT 23 YOUR REPUTATION? 24 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT. FIRST OF ALL, THE 25 QUESTION LACKS FOUNDATION BECAUSE SHE SAID SHE HADN'T 56 ROUGH DRAFT 1 SEEN IT BEFORE TODAY. SECOND OF ALL, REFERRING TO THIS 2 AS INCREASE THE PRESS WHEN IT'S AN UNION PUBLICATIONS 3 FOR UNION MEMBERS IS INAPPROPRIATE AND MISCHARACTERIZES 4 THE DOCUMENT. 5 MR. COZAD: MR. WIN AT THE TIME IS CONFUSED 6 LET ME REPHRASE MY QUESTION SO IT'S VERY CLEAR. 7 BY MR. COZAD: 8 Q. REFERRING TO THE ARTICLE IN THE SEATTLE POST 9 INTELLIGENCER, DATED JUNE 24, 2003, AND THE REFERENCES 10 TO PEOPLE SAYING THAT YOU RUN CASCADIA BY FEAR AND 11 INTIMIDATION, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WAS HURTFUL TO YOUR 12 REPUTATION? 13 A. I KNEW WHAT THE INTENT WAS. I KNEW THAT IT 14 WAS THE LABOR ORGANIZATION TRYING TO DISCREDIT ME AND 15 DISCREDIT -- ACTUALLY ALSO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. AND I 16 KNEW THAT IT WAS UNTRUE. 17 MR. WINET: I'M SORRY, COUNSEL. I'M TRYING TO 18 READ THROUGH IT. MAYBE -- I'M PROBABLY JUST MISSING IT 19 BUT I DON'T SEE IN THIS ARTICLE WHERE IT SAYS SHE'S 20 RUNNING THE SCHOOL BY FEAR AND INTIMIDATION CAN YOU 21 POINT IT OUT TO ME IN EXHIBIT 6 THE BASIS FOR YOUR LAST 22 QUESTION? 23 MR. COZAD: NINTH PARAGRAPH, SECOND PAGE. LET 24 ME READ IT. "BY THE ENDS OF ITS THIRD YEAR THE COLLEGE 25 HAD 73 EMPLOYEES AND HAD EXPERIENCED A TOTAL OF 25 57 ROUGH DRAFT 1 RESIGNATIONS MOSTLY AMONG SALARIED STAFF. MANY OF THOSE 2 INTERVIEWED COMPLAINED THAT MEMBERS OF UPPER MANAGEMENT 3 QUOTE RUN CASCADIA BY FEAR AND INTIMIDATION. 4 MR. SLEETH: MOTION TO STRIKE ALL OF THE 5 FOREGOING TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE MISREPRESENTATION OF 6 THE STATEMENT. IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT VICTORIA 7 RICHART. 8 MR. WINET: I'LL AGREE THE LAST PREVIOUS 9 STATEMENT WAS AND THE QUESTION YOU HAD ASKED BEFORE WAS 10 THAT THAT SUCCESSFUL REFERENCED HER AND OBVIOUSLY IT 11 DOES NOT. SO THE PRIOR QUESTION WAS AN INAPPROPRIATE 12 QUESTION. IT JUST TALKS ABOUT UPPER MANAGEMENT AND MANY 13 PEOPLE REFERENCING THAT. SO THE QUESTION IS 14 INAPPROPRIATE AND LACKS FOUNDATION. I ALSO MOVE TO 15 STRIKE. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. DID THE WASHINGTON STATE EXECUTIVE ETHICS 18 BOARD OPEN A CASE INVOLVING YOU E E B CASE NO. 03-018? 19 A. YES. 20 Q. WHAT DID THAT CONCERN? 21 A. IT CONCERNED WHAT ENDED UP BEING THE 22 INAPPROPRIATE USE OF A CREDIT CARD TAN WAS DUE TO THE 23 FACT THAT I WAS MISINFORMED BY THE COLLEGE STAFF ON THE 24 APPROPRIATE USE OF THE CREDIT CARD. AND WASHINGTON 25 STATE CLOSED THE CASE AND HAD NO -- THERE WAS NO ISSUE 58 ROUGH DRAFT 1 WITH IT. 2 Q. LET'S MARK AS EXHIBIT 8 A COPY OF WHAT APPEARS 3 TO BE MEETING MINUTES DATED JANUARY 14, 2005 OF THE WITH 4 AN EXECUTIVE ETHICS BOARD. 5 (EXHIBIT 8 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 6 BY MR. COZAD: 7 Q. IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT PAGE 2, PLEASE. AT THE 8 BOTTOM. 9 A. UH-HUH. 10 Q. IS THIS THE REFERENCE TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE 11 CASE INVOLVING YOU? 12 A. I DON'T KNOW. 13 Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE? 14 A. NO. 15 Q. YEAH, WHAT WAS THE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF THE 16 CREDIT CARD THAT WAS -- LED TO THIS? 17 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION IS NOT 18 REASONABLY CALCULATED TO LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY OF 19 ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. MAY LACK FOUNDATION. 20 A. MAY INVADE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, BUT GO AHEAD. IF 21 YOU RECALL. 22 MR. SLEETH: WELL THE CHARGE WAS DISMISSED. 23 THE CHARGES AGAINST HER WERE DISMISSED IF IT COULD 24 POSSIBLY LEAD TO RELEVANT EVIDENCE. 25 MR. COZAD: YOU KNOW YOU GUYS ARE PREACHING ON 59 ROUGH DRAFT 1 THE RECORD HERE. YOU'RE COACHING IF YOU HAVE A LEGAL 2 OBJECTION PLEASE STATE IT. 3 MR. WINET: IT'S NOT REASONABLY CALCULATED TO 4 LEAD TO THE DESTROYER OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE I INSTRUCT 5 THE WITNESS NOT ANSWER. I'VE STATED IT. (MARK). 6 BY MR. COZAD: 7 Q. OKAY. WHO IS TYLER DULAM? 8 A. TYLER DULAM? I DON'T REMEMBER. 9 Q. DID YOU ASK TYLER DULAM TO INCREASE YOUR 10 CREDIT LIMIT ON YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT CREDIT CARD WHILE 11 YOU WERE AT CASCADIA? 12 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, NOT REASONABLY 13 CALCULATED TO LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY OF ADMISSIBLE 14 EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. I INSTRUCT HER NOT TO ANSWER. 15 (MARK). 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. DID YOU THREATEN TYLER DULAM WITH IMMEDIATE 18 DISMISSAL IF HE WOULD NOT -- IS THAT A MALE OR DO YOU 19 KNOW? 20 A. I DON'T REMEMBER. 21 Q. OKAY. DID YOU THREATEN A COLLEGE EMPLOYEE AT 22 CASCADIA WITH DISMISSAL IF THAT PERSON DID NOT INCREASE 23 THE CREDIT LIMIT ON YOUR COLLEGE CREDIT CARD? 24 MR. WINET: SAME OBJECTION. SAME INSTRUCTION. 25 (MARK). 60 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. DID YOU THREATEN THAT EMPLOYEE'S SUPERVISOR 3 WITH DISMISSAL FOR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OCCURRED IN 4 CONNECTION WITH INCREASING THE LIMIT ON YOUR CREDIT 5 CARD? 6 MR. WINET: SAME OBJECTION. SAME INSTRUCTION. 7 (MARK). 8 MR. COZAD: LET'S TAKE A SHORT BREAK. 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: OFF THE RECORD. IT IS 10 1052. 11 (RECESS). 12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: BACK ON THE RECORD IT'S 13 1104. 14 (EXHIBIT 9 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 15 BY MR. COZAD: 16 Q. WHEN WERE YOU HIRED TO BEGIN WORK AT MIRACOSTA 17 COMMUNITY COLLEGE? 18 A. 2004. 19 Q. AND WHEN YOU WERE HIRED DID YOU FEEL YOU HAD 20 THE SUPPORT OF ALL OF THE TRUSTEES? 21 A. YES. 22 Q. DID YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAD THE SUPPORT OF AT 23 LEAST MOST OF THE FACULTY AT MIRACOSTA WHEN YOU STARTED? 24 A. YES. 25 Q. THEN WAS, WAS YOUR CONTRACT WITH MIRACOSTA 61 ROUGH DRAFT 1 EXTENDED IN JULY OF 2006? 2 A. YES. 3 Q. BY HOW MANY YEARS WAS IT EXTENDED? 4 A. TO 2,010. 5 Q. SO IT WAS A FOUR YEAR CONTRACT? 6 A. UH-HUH. 7 Q. YES? 8 A. YES. I'M SORRY. 9 Q. OKAY. NORMALLY I DON'T GIVE THE ADMONITION -- 10 WELL NORMALLY I DO GIVE THE ADMONITIONS AT THE BEGINNING 11 OF A DEPOSITION BUT I THOUGHT TODAY WOULDN'T BE 12 NECESSARY? 13 A. NO IT'S NOT NECESSARY I'M SORRY, YES. 14 Q. OKAY. 15 A. YES. 16 Q. JUST SO WE KNOW YOU HAVE TO SAY? 17 A. YES. 18 Q. YES AND NO OR SPEAK AUDIBLY? 19 A. YES. 20 Q. YOU ARE UNDER OATH YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT? 21 A. YES. 22 Q. SO NOW LOOKING AT WHAT WE'VE MARKED AS 23 EXHIBIT 9, I BELIEVE, ENTITLED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT IS 24 THIS YOUR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED JULY 18 OF 2006? 25 A. IT LOOKS LIKE IT, YES UH-HUH. 62 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. ALL RIGHT. AND IF YOU WOULD PAGE OVER TO 2 PAGE 3 PLEASE UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS, PARAGRAPH TWO. 3 A. YOU HAD YOU. 4 Q. IS THAT A YES? 5 A. YES. 6 Q. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU SEE THE REFERENCE TO 7 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53260? 8 A. YES. 9 Q. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT CODE SECTION BEFORE 10 JULY 18 OF 2006? 11 A. YES. 12 Q. IS THAT A SECTION THAT YOU BECAME FAMILIAR 13 WITH WHEN YOU WERE AT LOS ANGELES, THE LOS ANGELES 14 COLLEGE DISTRICT? 15 A. I DON'T RECALL THAT. 16 Q. OKAY. WHAT IS YOUR GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF 17 THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53260? 18 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR IMPROPER 19 LEGAL OPINION AND CONCLUSION, MAY LACK FOUNDATION. MAY 20 CALL FOR AN IMPROPER EXPERT AND LEGAL OPINION. YOU CAN 21 ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN. 22 A. I KNOW NO MORE THAN WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE IN 23 SECTION TWO. 24 BY MR. COZAD: 25 Q. OKAY. SO YOU AGREED -- STRIKE THAT. 63 ROUGH DRAFT 1 DID YOU AGREE TO THIS PROVISION SECTION TWO ON 2 PAGE 3? 3 A. YES. 4 Q. WHAT WAS YOUR -- WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING 5 AS TO THE EFFECT OF WHAT YOU AGREED TO? 6 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION IS VAGUE 7 AND AMBIGUOUS, LACKS FOUNDATION. ANSWER IF IF YOU 8 UNDERSTAND IT. 9 A. IT'S THE SAME AS WHAT I HAD SAID BEFORE, WHICH 10 IS, WHAT'S WRITTEN IN SECTION TWO. THAT'S WHAT MY 11 UNDERSTANDING IS. 12 BY MR. COZAD: 13 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY INDEPENDENT UNDERSTANDING OF 14 WHAT SECTION TWO MEANS OTHER THAN THE LANGUAGE OF 15 SECTION TWO? 16 MR. WINET: SAME OBJECTIONS. GO AHEAD AND 17 ANSWER, IF YOU CAN. 18 A. NO. 19 BY MR. COZAD: 20 Q. YOU CAN'T DESCRIBE THIS TO ME AS A LAYPERSON, 21 WHAT THIS MEANS? 22 MR. WINET: WELL LET ME OBJECT THAT'S A 23 DIFFERENT QUESTION. NOW IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE. ARE YOU 24 ASKING HER TO DESCRIBE THIS AS A LAYPERSON RATHER THAN 25 JUST SAYING. 64 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. COZAD: ALL RIGHT. 2 MR. WINET: THAT'S WHAT THE QUESTION IS. 3 MR. COZAD: LET ME WITHDRAW THE QUESTION. 4 BY MR. COZAD: 5 Q. WHAT DID IT MEAN TO YOU IN YOUR OWN WORDS AS 6 OF THE TIME YOU SIGNED THIS CONTRACT? 7 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, QUESTION MAY CALL FOR A 8 LEGAL OPINION AND CONCLUSION BUT GO AHEAD. 9 A. WELL NOT KNOWING THE LEGAL PARAMETERS OF THIS 10 SECTION THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT TO MEAN WAS THAT IF IF 11 IT WAS MUTUALLY AGREED BETWEEN THE BOARD AND ME, THAT WE 12 NEEDED TO SEPARATE THAT THIS WOULD BE THE TERMS OF 13 SEPARATION. 14 BY MR. COZAD: 15 Q. IS THIS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF YOUR 16 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF JUNE 18 -- 17 A. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HEAR THE BEGINNING OF YOUR 18 QUESTION. 19 Q. I'M SORRY IS THIS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF 20 YOUR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 18, 2006? 21 A. IT LOOKS LIKE IT, YES. 22 Q. ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU TOOK EMPLOYMENT WITH 23 MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT DID YOU AGREE TO 24 DEAL WITH THE STUDENTS, STAFF AND PERSONS FROM THE 25 COMMUNITY IN A HUMANE, FAIR AND DIGNIFIED MANNER? 65 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. YES. 2 Q. DID YOU AGREE TO MAKE DECISIONS BY A PROCESS 3 IN WHICH OPENNESS AND COLLEGIATE ARE MAINTAINED? 4 A. YES. 5 Q. DOES THE WORD COLLEGIATE HAVE SOME MEANING 6 WITHIN THE CULTURE AT MIRACOSTA COLLEGE? 7 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS VAGUE 8 AND AMBIGUOUS AND CALLS FOR SPECULATION AS TO WHAT OTHER 9 PEOPLE MAY THINK IT MEANS. CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND ANSWER. 10 A. YEAH I THINK THAT EACH COLLEGE HAS THEIR OWN 11 INTERPRETATION, THEIR OWN VIEW, THEIR OWN ASSESSMENT OF 12 WHAT COLLEGIATE IS, YES. 13 BY MR. COZAD: 14 Q. BUT IN PARTICULAR DID MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY 15 COLLEGE DISTRICT HAVE SOMETHING THAT THEY CALLED A 16 POLICY OF COLLEGIALITY? 17 A. I THINK I ANSWERED THAT QUESTION ALREADY AND 18 THE ANSWER IS YES JUST AS ALL OF THE COLLEGES IN THE 19 STATE AND THE NATION HAVE, YES. 20 Q. WHAT WAS THE MIRACOSTA VERSION OF THE POLICY 21 OF COLLEGIALITY WHILE YOU WERE THERE? 22 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 23 OVERBROAD CALLS FOR IMPROPER OPINION AND CONCLUSION AS 24 TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE MAY HAVE AS A DEFINITION. YOU CAN 25 PROVIDE YOUR OWN. 66 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. YOU KNOW IT'S A VERY BROAD DEFINITION AND THE 2 MIRACOSTA -- YOU'RE ASKING SPECIFICALLY OF MIRACOSTA AND 3 THEY HAVE A WHOLE BOOKLET THAT EXPLAINS THEIR 4 EXPECTATIONS AND I DON'T RECALL ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF 5 THE BOOKLETS. BUT IT BASICALLY MEANS THAT YOU DISCUSS 6 ITEMS, YOU DISCUSS THEM, YOU TALK ABOUT THEM AND THEN IN 7 THE END THE DECISION IS REACHED ONCE YOU HAVE RECEIVED 8 INPUT FROM ALL OF THE DIFFERENT PARTIES. 9 BY MR. COZAD: 10 Q. AND THAT WAS A POLICY THAT WAS EXPECTED TO BE 11 ADHERED TO BY THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE COLLEGE AS WELL 12 AS THE FACULTY AND OTHERS? 13 A. IT'S NOT A POLICY, NO. COLLEGIALITY IS A 14 TERM. IT'S A TERM THAT DESCRIBES THE PROCESS BUT IT'S 15 NOT A POLICY. 16 Q. WHEN YOU TOOK EMPLOYMENT AT MIRACOSTA 17 COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT DID YOU AGREE THAT YOU AS 18 SUPERINTENDENT PRESIDENT MAY NOT PERMIT FINANCIAL 19 CONDITIONS THAT RISK FINANCIAL OR FISCAL JEOPARDY OR 20 COMPROMISE THE TRUSTEE PROVISIONS STATEMENTS OR 21 PRIORITIES? 22 A. YES. 23 Q. WHEN YOU TOOK EMPLOYMENT AS SUPERINTENDENTS 24 PRESIDENT OF MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT DID 25 YOU AGREE THAT YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW THE PUBLIC IMAGE OF 67 ROUGH DRAFT 1 THE COLLEGE TO BE TARNISHED? 2 A. YES. 3 Q. WHEN YOU TOOK THAT EMPLOYMENT DID YOU AGREE 4 THAT YOU WOULD NOT PERMIT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN 5 AWARDING PURCHASES OR OTHER CONTRACTS OR HIRING OF 6 EMPLOYEES? 7 A. I BELIEVE YOU'RE READING FROM THE BOARD POLICY 8 GOVERNANCE EXECTIVE BOUNDARIES. AND I AGREED TO ADHERE 9 TO THE EXECUTIVE -- TO THE POLICY GOVERNANCE MEASURES 10 BUT I AM NOT SURE IF YOU'RE READING EXACTLY WHAT IS 11 THERE OR NOT. SO I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE ANSWERING 12 YOUR QUESTIONS IN RELATION TO WHAT EXACTLY IS WRITTEN 13 THERE. I DID AGREE TO ADHERE TO THE POLICY GOVERNANCE 14 OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE. 15 Q. OKAY. LET'S MARK AS EXHIBIT 10 WHAT APPEARS 16 TO BE A GENERAL EXECUTIVE BOUNDARIES. 17 (EXHIBIT 10 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 18 BY MR. COZAD: 19 Q. DO YOU RECOGNIZE? 20 A. UH-HUH. 21 Q. EXHIBIT 10? 22 A. I DO. 23 Q. ARE THOSE THE POLICIES THAT YOU AGREED TO 24 ADHERE TO? 25 A. YES. 68 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. IN TAKING EMPLOYMENT WITH MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY 2 COLLEGE DISTRICT? 3 A. YES. 4 Q. DID YOU ALSO AGREE THAT YOU WOULD NOT 5 UNNECESSARILY EXPOSE THE DISTRICT, ITS BOARD OR STAFF TO 6 CLAIMS OF LIABILITY? 7 A. IF IT'S PART OF THE POLICY GOVERNANCE MODEL 8 THAT YOU'RE READING FROM THE ANSWER WOULD CONTINUE TO BE 9 YES. IT'S A WHOLE PACKAGE, IT'S A MULTIPAGE PACKAGE. 10 SO IT COMES, IT'S -- IT COMES WITH THE RESPONSIBILITIES 11 OF THE CEO, THE ENTIRE PACKAGE. 12 Q. OKAY. LET'S MARK AS EXHIBIT 11 WHAT APPEARS 13 TO BE PAGE 9 OF A DOCUMENT ENTITLED EXECUTIVE BOUNDARIES 14 ASSET PROTECTION. 15 (EXHIBIT 11 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 16 A. THE ANSWER IS YES. 17 BY MR. COZAD: 18 Q. ALSO, IN TAKING EMPLOYMENT AT MIRACOSTA DID 19 YOU AGREE THAT YOU WOULD NOT LET THE BOARD BE UNAWARE OF 20 RELEVANT TRENDS, ACTUAL OR ANTICIPATED LEGAL ACTION 21 ANTICIPATED ADVERSE MEDIA COVERAGE, MATERIAL EXTERNAL 22 AND INTERNAL CHANGES, PARTICULARLY CHANGES IN THE 23 ASSUMPTIONS UPON WHICH ANY BOARD POLICY HAS PREVIOUSLY 24 BEEN ESTABLISHED? 25 A. AGAIN IF YOU'RE READING FROM THE BOARD POLICY 69 ROUGH DRAFT 1 DOCUMENT THE ANSWER IS YES. I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU'RE 2 READING FROM BUT IF YOU ARE READING FROM THAT DOCUMENT 3 THE ANSWER IS YES. 4 Q. DID YOU ALSO AGREE THAT YOU WOULD NOT FAIL TO 5 MARSHALL FOR THE BOARD AS MANY STAFF AND EXTERNAL POINTS 6 OF VIEW ISSUES AND OPTIONS AS NEEDED FOR FULLY INFORMED 7 BOARD CHOICES PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO FACULTY ON 8 ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL MATTERS AND TO STAFF AND 9 STUDENTS ON POLICIES THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANT AFFECT ON 10 THEM? 11 A. AGAIN, IF YOU ARE READING FROM THE POLICY 12 GOVERNANCE SET OF POLICIES THAT ARE THE EXECUTIVE 13 BOUNDARIES AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE READING FROM, THEN THE 14 ANSWER IS YES. 15 Q. DID YOU AGREE IN ACCEPTING EMPLOYMENT AT 16 MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE THAT YOU WOULD DEAL WITH THE 17 BOARD AS A WHOLE EXCEPT WHEN FULFILLING INDIVIDUAL 18 REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION OR RESPONDING TO OFFICERS OR 19 COMMITTEES DULY CHARGED BY THE BOARD? 20 A. IF THAT IS ONE OF THE ITEMS IN A SET OF MANY 21 ITEMS THAT IS LISTED IN THE BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE 22 DOCUMENT FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON EXECUTIVE 23 BOUNDARIES THEN THE ANSWER IS YES. 24 Q. OKAY. LET'S MARK AS EXHIBIT 12 A DOCUMENT 25 ENTITLED EXECUTIVE BOUNDARIES PAGE 11, COMMUNICATIONS 70 ROUGH DRAFT 1 AND SUPPORT TO THE BOARD. 2 (EXHIBIT NUMBER MARKED FOR 3 IDENTIFICATION.) 4 BY MR. COZAD: 5 Q. CAN YOU VERIFY THAT THOSE ARE THE POLICIES OF 6 THE SCHOOL THAT YOU AGREED TO? 7 A. THESE ARE SOME OF THEM, YES. 8 Q. DID YOU ALSO AGREE THAT IF YOU WERE TO -- 9 YEAH, NEVER MIND. 10 MR. COZAD: OKAY LET'S MARK AS EXHIBIT 13 WHAT 11 APPEARS TO BE A POLICY CONCERNING COLLEGIAL GOVERNANCE 12 THAT'S PAGE 16 THROUGH 20. 13 (EXHIBIT 13 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 14 A. UH-HUH. 15 BY MR. COZAD: 16 Q. OKAY ARE THOSE THE POLICY OF COLLEGIALITY WE 17 WERE REFERRING TO EARLIER? 18 A. THIS IS THE THE POLICY GOVERNANCE POLICY TITLE 19 OF COLLEGIAL GOVERNANCE, YES. 20 Q. OKAY AND ALL OF THOSE POLICIES THAT WE JUST 21 WENT THROUGH ARE ITEMS OF PUBLIC RECORD, AREN'T THEY? 22 A. YES. 23 Q. THEY ARE POSTED ON THE INTERNET AND AVAILABLE 24 FOR ANYBODY TO SEE? 25 A. YES. 71 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. AND SOME OF THEM DO CONCERN LIMITATIONS ON 2 YOUR JOB DUTIES OR WHAT YOU'RE EXPECTED TO DO, WOULDN'T 3 YOU AGREE? 4 A. WHAT THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT IS EXPECTED 5 TO DO AND THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT DUTIES, YES. 6 Q. OKAY. SO YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT 7 MIRACOSTA HAD PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED LIMITATIONS OR 8 BOUNDARIES BY WHICH THE PRESIDENT/SUPERINTENDENTS WAS 9 EXPECTED TO ADHERE TO? 10 A. YES. 11 Q. ALL RIGHT. ALSO, THE FACT THAT, THE FACT THAT 12 YOU'RE UNDER CONTRACT TO THE COLLEGE DISTRICT WAS A 13 MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD, WASN'T IT? 14 A. DO YOU MEAN WHEN I WAS HIRED? 15 Q. YES, WHEN YOU WERE HIRED. 16 A. YES. 17 Q. OKAY. AND WHEN YOUR CONTRACT WAS EXTENDED FOR 18 FOUR YEARS THAT WAS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD AS WELL, 19 WASN'T IT? 20 A. YES. 21 Q. OKAY. IN FACT, YOUR ANNUAL SALARY WAS 22 REPORTED IN THE PRESS, WASN'T IT? 23 A. I BELIEVE SO. 24 Q. THAT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD, CORRECT? 25 A. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD 72 ROUGH DRAFT 1 OR NOT BUT I THINK IT WAS REPORTED, YES. 2 Q. OKAY. LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT WE'LL MARK AS 3 EXHIBIT 14. IT APPEARS TO BE A UP IN ARTICLE CONCERNING 4 THE EXTENSION OF YOUR CONTRACT. 5 (EXHIBIT 14 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 6 A. OKAY. 7 BY MR. COZAD: 8 Q. OKAY. LET'S MARK AS EXHIBIT 15 WHAT APPEARS 9 TO BE A PRESS RELEASE DATED MAY 30TH, 2006. TAKE A LOOK 10 AT THAT PLEASE. 11 (EXHIBIT NUMBER MARKED FOR 12 IDENTIFICATION.) 13 A. UH-HUH. 14 BY MR. COZAD: 15 Q. WHO DRAFTED THIS PRESS RELEASE? 16 A. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHO DRAFTED IT. 17 Q. WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF IT? 18 A. THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION. I DON'T 19 KNOW WHAT INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS OUR LEGAL COUNSEL 20 MR. SHINOFF'S OFFICE. I DON'T REMEMBER ATTORNEY 21 EXACTLY. I PROBABLY WAS INVOLVED AS WELL AS THE 22 PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD MR. RO DOLL FOR FERNANDEZ AT THE 23 TIME. 24 Q. DID THE OFFICE OF -- I'M SORRY WHAT WAS THE 25 OFFICE OF PUBLIC SOMETHING? 73 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE. 2 Q. AND THAT OFFICE WORKED DIRECTLY FOR YOU 3 CORRECT? 4 A. YES. 5 Q. AND YOU HAD SIGNIFICANT PARTICIPATION IN THE 6 PRESS RELEASES THAT THE OFFICE WOULD PRODUCE FROM TIME 7 TO TIME? 8 MR. WINET: OBJECTION AS TO THE QUESTION BEING 9 OVERBROAD AS TO ALL PRESS RELEASES BUT YOU CAN GO AHEAD. 10 A. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. 11 MR. COZAD: SURE. 12 Q. DURING YOUR STAY AT MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY 13 COLLEGE DISTRICT, DID YOU HAVE SIGNIFICANT INVOLVEMENT 14 IN THE PRESS RELEASES THAT WERE PRODUCED BY THE OFFICE 15 THAT YOU DESCRIBED? 16 A. NO NOT SIGNIFICANT INVOLVEMENT, NO. 17 MR. PAGE: WE HAVE TO STOP THERE FOR THE TAPE. 18 MR. COZAD: ALL RIGHT CHANGE OF TAPE. 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: ALL RIGHT OFF THE RECORD. 20 (RECESS). 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. 22 1138 [SIC] 23 BY MR. COZAD: 24 Q. DID YOU APPROVE THIS PRESS RELEASE BEFORE IT 25 WAS SENT OUT? 74 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. I DID NOT HAVE THE FINAL APPROVAL ON THIS. IT 2 WAS A CONCERTED EFFORT BETWEEN OUR LEGAL COUNSEL AND THE 3 BOARD PRESIDENT AND MYSELF. SO IT WAS JOINTLY DEVELOPED 4 PRESS RELEASE. 5 Q. DID YOU EVER TELL ANYBODY THAT YOU ARE THE 6 OFFICE OF MARKETING AND MEDIA RELATIONS? 7 A. I DID SAY TO MR. IRELAND. HE WAS INTERVIEWING 8 ME REGARDING A PRESS RELEASE. AND I SAID TO HIM THAT 9 THE OFFICE OF MEDIA RELATIONS REPORTS TO ME AND THAT I 10 TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY AND HE CAN THINK OF ME AS THE 11 OFFICE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS. HE WANTED TO KNOW WHO HAD 12 WRITTEN A PARTICULAR PRESS RELEASE. AND I WAS TELLING 13 HIM THAT THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING I WAS GOING TO DIVULGE 14 THAT I WOULD TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL 15 PUBLICATIONS -- I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ALL OF 16 THE PRESS RELEASES AND FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS AT THE 17 COLLEGE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU AS THE 18 SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT, THAT'S WHAT IS EXPECTED TO BE. 19 Q. SO WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE TIME THAT THIS 20 PRESS RELEASE WAS PUT OUT THAT YOU INTENDED TO CONVEY TO 21 THE PRESS? 22 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 23 OVERBROAD AND VAGUE. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ANSWER. 24 A. ARE YOU ASKING ME WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE 25 COLLEGE? 75 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. I'M JUST ASKING FOR BACKGROUND OF THE PRESS 3 RELEASE. 4 MR. WINET: SAME OBJECTION, GO AHEAD. 5 A. WELL THE PRESS RELEASE STIPULATES WHAT IT'S 6 ABOUT. THE PRESS RELEASE IS ABOUT ACTION TAKEN ON 7 ALLEGED IMPROPER ACTIVITIES. THE FACT THAT WE HAD 8 RECEIVED A WHISTLEBLOWER -- EXACTLY WHAT THE PRESS 9 RELEASE SAYS THAT'S WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND THAT'S WHAT 10 WE ISSUED THE THE PRESS RELEASE TO PERFORM THE PUBLIC OF 11 WHAT HAD HAPPENED. 12 BY MR. COZAD: 13 Q. NOW IT SAYS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAS BEEN 14 CONTACTED? 15 A. YES. 16 Q. WHO CONTACTED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE? 17 A. OUR LEGAL COUNSEL AS WELL AS INVESTIGATOR FOR 18 THE COLLEGE, FOR THE -- I WAS WORKING THROUGH OUR LEGAL 19 COUNSEL. WE HAD BEGAN FORWARDING THE INVESTIGATIVE 20 REPORT TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BY THIS TIME. 21 Q. DID YOU CONTACT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 22 YOURSELF? 23 A. EVENTUALLY, YES. AT THIS TIME NO. 24 Q. DID YOU INSTRUCT THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE SCHOOL 25 DISTRICT TO CONTACT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY? 76 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. WINET: THERE'S A CONCERN REGARDING THE 2 ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BUT I THINK YOU CAN GO AHEAD 3 AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITHOUT WAIVING IT SO GO AHEAD. 4 A. I DID NOT INSTRUCT LEGAL COUNSEL. 5 BY MR. COZAD: 6 Q. WHO INSTRUCTED COUNSEL TO CONTACT THE DISTRICT 7 ATTORNEY? 8 A. I WOULD BE VIOLATING. 9 MR. WINET: LET ME, LET ME OBJECT AND I WILL 10 ASK YOU WHEN -- WE'RE NOW GETTING INTO AN AREA IF THERE 11 IS -- IF THE INSTRUCTION IS GIVEN DURING A CLOSED 12 MEETING SESSION THEN YOU NEED TO ADVISE US OF THAT FACT 13 OTHERWISE I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 14 SO GO AHEAD. 15 A. THE INSTRUCTION IS EMANATED FROM CLOSED 16 SESSION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. 17 BY MR. COZAD: 18 Q. IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH -- LET ME READ THE 19 SENTENCE IT SAYS THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT -- THAT'S 20 YOU CORRECT? 21 A. UH-HUH. 22 Q. IMMEDIATELY CONSULTED WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND 23 THE GOVERNING BOARD WHO THEN AUTHORIZED AN INVESTIGATION 24 INTO THE ALLEGED ACTIVITIES. 25 IS THAT HOW IT WENT? 77 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. YES. 2 Q. DID YOU INITIATE THE PROCESS? 3 MR. SLEETH: OBJECTION, VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS AS 4 TO THE MEANING OF INITIATE. 5 MR. WINET: I'LL JOIN. THE QUESTION IS 6 AMBIGUOUS AND OVERBROAD. GO AHEAD. 7 A. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE WORD PROCESS WHAT 8 PROCESS ARE YOU REFERRING TO? 9 BY MR. COZAD: 10 Q. SURE. THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION AT THE 11 SCHOOL CONCERNING THE SALE OF PALM TREES, CORRECT SO 12 FAR? 13 A. YES. 14 Q. DID YOU INITIATE THE INVESTIGATION WHEN YOU 15 CONSULTED WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND THE GOVERNING BOARD? 16 A. I -- LET ME TRY -- I'M THINKING BECAUSE 17 IT'S -- EVERYTHING THAT EMANATED AS A RESULT OF THIS 18 INVESTIGATION CAME FROM CLOSED SESSION SO I'M TRYING TO 19 REMEMBER THE SEQUENCE. AND THE SEQUENCE WAS THAT IT 20 HAPPENED -- IT RESULTED FROM DISCUSSION IN CLOSED 21 SESSION. 22 Q. DISCUSSION THAT YOU INITIATED, CORRECT? 23 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT. IF HE'S ASKING 24 ABOUT YOUR -- IF YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE DISCUSSION OF 25 WHAT SHE HAD IN CLOSED SESSION I'LL INSTRUCT THE WITNESS 78 ROUGH DRAFT 1 NOT TO ANSWER. I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOUR QUESTION ASKS 2 FOR. (MARK). 3 BY MR. COZAD: 4 Q. LET'S MARK AS EXHIBIT 16 AN ARTICLE ENTITLED 5 MIRACOSTA PALM TREE SALE CASE DRAWS CROWD. 6 (EXHIBIT 16 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 7 BY MR. COZAD: 8 Q. ON JUNE 7, 2006, DID THE UNION-TRIBUNE PUBLISH 9 A STORY ABOUT THE PALM TREE INVESTIGATION AND CRITICISM 10 OF THE SYSTEM USED TO INVESTIGATE IT? 11 A. WELL YOU JUST HANDED MY THE WEB PRINT OF SUCH 12 ARTICLE SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THE UNION-TRIBUNE PRINTED 13 IT. 14 Q. YOUR RECOLLECTION WAS THOUGH THAT THERE WAS 15 SIGNIFICANT PRESS COVERAGE OF THE PALM TREE 16 INVESTIGATION? 17 A. YES. 18 Q. AND THAT THAT WAS -- THAT MEANING THE PALM 19 TREE INVESTIGATION -- WAS A MATTER OF WIDESPREAD CONCERN 20 AMONG THE COLLEGE COMMUNITY AND THE PEOPLE IN NORTH 21 SAN DIEGO? 22 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION CALLS FOR 23 AN IMPROPER OPINION AND CONCLUSION IN THAT IT ASKS THE 24 OPINION OF NUMEROUS OTHER INDIVIDUALS. CAN YOU ANSWER 25 TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN. 79 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. WELL I DO KNOW THAT THE COLLEGE EMPLOYEES WERE 2 CONCERNED. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF THE NORTH 3 COUNTY COMMUNITY. I'M SORRY. 4 BY MR. COZAD: 5 Q. OKAY. DID A FORMER HEAD OF THE COLLEGE SMALL 6 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SENATE NAMED CAROLE C A R O L E, 7 ENMARK, E-N-M-A-R-K, TELL THE BOARD -- ACTUALLY IMPLORE 8 THE BOARD TO WEIGH THE BALANCE AND NOT GO OVERBOARD IN 9 THE INVESTIGATION? 10 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT. I THINK THAT THAT 11 QUESTION MISSTATES THE ARTICLE. THERE'S A QUOTE AND THE 12 QUOTE HAS JUST BEEN MISSTATED. 13 BY MR. COZAD: 14 Q. I'M JUST ASKING HER IF THAT'S HER RECOLLECTION 15 OF COMMENTS MADE BY THE SPEAKER. 16 MR. WINET: SO DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT HE'S 17 ASKING YOU A SPECIFIC QUESTION AS TO WHAT REMARKS WERE 18 MADE BY A SPEAKER. YOU GO AHEAD AND ANSWER. 19 A. I DON'T RECALL. 20 BY MR. COZAD: 21 Q. DO YOU REMEMBER A CROWD AT A BOARD MEETING? 22 A. I REMEMBER CROWDS AT A LOT OF BOARD MEETINGS, 23 MR. COZAD. I WISH -- I WISH I COULDN'T REMEMBER THAT 24 BUT I DO REMEMBER THAT. 25 Q. OKAY ALL RIGHT? 80 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. FOR SEVERAL MONTHS SO THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES 2 TO ALL OF THEM. 3 Q. I ACCEPT THAT. AND YOU DO REMEMBER COMMENTS 4 FROM MANY PEOPLE? 5 A. OF COURSE, YES. 6 Q. APPEARING AT THE BOARD MEETINGS? AND MANY OF 7 THEM WERE HIGHLY CRITICAL OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE 8 PALM TREES? 9 A. AMONGST OTHER THINGS YES. 10 Q. AND THAT WAS REPORTED WIDELY IN THE PRESS? 11 A. YES. 12 Q. AND MANY OF THE COMMENTS CONCERNED THINKING 13 THAT THERE WAS AN OVER REACTION TO THIS -- THESE PALM 14 TREE SALES AND QUESTIONS ABOUT CASH HANDLING THAT WAS 15 INAPPROPRIATE WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 16 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 17 OVERBROAD AND TRIES TO STATE THE OPINIONS OF MULTIPLE 18 DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS WITH ONE SENTENCE. THE QUESTION 19 LACKS FOUNDATION. YOU CAN ANSWER. 20 A. I -- CAN YOU REPEAT THE LATTER PART OF YOUR 21 QUESTION? IT CONFUSED ME. 22 BY MR. COZAD: 23 Q. A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THE MEETINGS AT THE 24 BOARD MEETINGS COMPLAINED THAT THE METHODS USED IN THE 25 INVESTIGATION WERE GOING TOO FAR, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH 81 ROUGH DRAFT 1 THAT? 2 MR. WINET: SAME OBJECTIONS GO AHEAD. 3 A. I DON'T PARTICULARLY RECORD -- RECALL THE 4 SPEAKERS SAYING THE METHODS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 5 BY MR. COZAD: 6 Q. WHAT WERE THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY YOU WERE 7 HANDLES THE PALM TREE INVESTIGATION? 8 MR. WINET: YOUR QUESTION NOW IS ADDRESSING 9 THE PEOPLE WHO ADDRESSED THE BOARD? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE 10 REFERRING TO? 11 MR. COZAD: YES. 12 MR. WINET: OKAY. GO AHEAD. 13 A. WHAT WERE THE CONCERNS OF THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE 14 BEFORE THE BOARD REGARDING MY HANDLING OF THE 15 INVESTIGATION? 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. THAT'S RIGHT. 18 A. I WOULD THINK IT WAS THAT THEY DIDN'T LIKE ME 19 INVESTIGATING TO BEGIN WITH. OR MY SUPPORTING THE 20 INVESTIGATION. THEY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY. AND 21 THAT IT WAS EXTENSIVE AND IT WOULD BE EXPENSIVE. 22 Q. WERE THERE COMPLAINTS THAT A LOT OF THE, A LOT 23 OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION WERE GOING ON 24 IN CLOSED SESSION AND WERE NOT BEING MADE PUBLIC? 25 A. ALL THE WAY BETWEEN THE PUBLIC, THE PRESS 82 ROUGH DRAFT 1 RELEASE THAT YOU JUST SHOWED ME, YOUR EXHIBIT 15, WHICH 2 WAS ISSUED ON MAY 30TH, ALL THE WAY TO THE BOARD MEETING 3 OF APRIL 24, 2007, EVERYTHING THAT PERTAINED TO THE 4 INVESTIGATION, ITS RESULTS, AS WELL AS ALL OF THE 5 PERSONNEL ACTIONS THAT THE BOARD WAS CONSIDERING WERE 6 ALL IN EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE BOARD. EMPLOYEES OF THE 7 COLLEGE, THE FACULTY IN PARTICULAR, BUT CLASSIFIED STAFF 8 AS WELL, WANTED US, THE BOARD AND MYSELF AS 9 SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT, TO DISCLOSE THE OUTCOME OF THE 10 INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS TO DISCLOSE THE PERSONAL 11 ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKING PLACE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT 12 UNDERSTAND THEM AND WE COULD NOT DO THAT. 13 Q. OKAY? 14 A. SO THERE WERE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS ON MY PART AS 15 WELL AS ON THE PART OF THE BOARD POLICY GOVERNANCE WILL 16 BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO COMMUNICATE THAT FACT TO THE 17 EMPLOYEES OF THE COLLEGE. 18 Q. DID PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT'S BEEN TERMED A 19 MANDATE OF SILENCE WITHIN THE COLLEGE CONCERNING THIS 20 PALM TREE INVESTIGATION? 21 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT TO THE QUESTION 22 ASKING FOR DID PEOPLE, MEANING THERE WERE MORE THAN ONE 23 OR MULTIPLE IT'S UNCLEAR. NEVERTHELESS GO AHEAD AND 24 ANSWER THE QUESTION TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN. 25 A. IF I RECALL THE ISSUE OF THE MANDATE OF 83 ROUGH DRAFT 1 SILENCE EMANATED FROM THE FACT THAT AT THE PRIVATE PARTY 2 OF EILEEN KRASKOUSKAS EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD BEEN ADVISED 3 BY LEGAL COUNSEL TO MAINTAIN LEGAL CONFIDENTIALITY ON 4 THE INVESTIGATION GIVEN THAT IT AFFECTED AN INDIVIDUAL 5 THAT WORKED FOR HER AT THE TIME AND AT THE TIME NAMES 6 HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED PUBLICLY AT ALL, BASICALLY SAID IN 7 HER -- AT HER RETIREMENT PARTY THAT SHE -- IT WAS REPORT 8 TODAY ME THAT SHE HAD BEEN FIRED INSTEAD OF WHAT SHE 9 ACTUALLY HAD DONE WHICH WAS -- 10 MR. WINET: WAIT. YOU CAN'T SAY. YOU CAN'T 11 SAY. 12 MR. SLEETH: YEAH. 13 A. OKAY. 14 MR. SLEETH: STILL CAN'T SAY. 15 MR. WINET: STILL CAN'T SAY UNLESS -- IF YOU 16 HAVE A -- IF YOU HAVE ANY TYPE OF WAIVER FROM 17 MS. KRASKOUSKAS THEN WE CAN ADDRESS IT BUT WITHOUT THAT 18 WE CANNOT ADDRESS THAT. 19 MR. COZAD: LET'S MOVE ON. 20 MR. WINET: OKAY. 21 MR. COZAD: I'LL MOVE ON. 22 BY MR. COZAD: 23 Q. DID -- DO YOU KNOW A BRENT PICKET? 24 A. YES. 25 Q. WHAT WAS THE TITLE OF BRENT PICKET BACK IN 84 ROUGH DRAFT 1 JUNE OF 2006? 2 A. WELL HE IS A FACULTY MEMBER. BUT AT THE TIME 3 HE HAD BEEN ELECTED TO SERVE AS ACADEMIC SENATE 4 PRESIDENT. 5 Q. AND DID HE COMPLAIN IN PUBLIC AT A BOARD 6 MEETING BEFORE JUNE 7, 2006 THAT, ABOUT A MANDATE OF 7 SILENCE? 8 A. BEFORE JUNE? I DON'T RECALL. 9 Q. AT SOME POINT IN JUNE OF 2006, DID BRENT 10 PICKET COMPLAIN ABOUT A MANDATE OF SILENCE WITHIN THE 11 COLLEGE COMMUNITY? 12 A. WELL IN THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE THAT YOU GAVE 13 ME EXHIBIT 16, IT SAYS THAT BRENT PICKET PRESIDENT OF 14 THE ACADEMIC SENATE OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS ASKED 15 THAT THE MANDATE OF SILENCE BE LIFTED. 16 Q. ALL RIGHT. DID -- WHO IS GREG HOPE? 17 A. GREG HOPE WAS A CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE OF THE 18 COLLEGE. 19 Q. WAS HE AN IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT OF THE 20 CLASSIFIED SENATE AS OF JUNE 7, 2006? 21 A. HE WAS A PAST PRESIDENT OF THE CLASSIFIED 22 SENATE. I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT YEAR. 23 Q. DID HE COMPLAIN THAT THE INVESTIGATION INTO 24 THE PALM TREES WAS LEADING TO THE COLLEGE DYING BEFORE 25 OUR VERY EYES? 85 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. SLEETH: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE QUOTE. 2 MR. COZAD: ALL RIGHT LET ME QUOTE IT. 3 BY MR. COZAD: 4 Q. DID MR. HOPE SAY QUOTE THE CULTURE OF THE 5 COLLEGE IS DYING BEFORE OUR EYES CLOSED QUOTE? 6 MR. WINET: OBJECTION MAY MISSTATE THE QUOTE 7 BECAUSE OF THE PARENTHESES WE DON'T KNOW. 8 MR. COZAD: I UNDERSTAND. 9 MR. WINET: BUT GO AHEAD. 10 A. I MEAN YOU'RE READING FROM THE UNION-TRIBUNE'S 11 ARTICLE, EXHIBIT 16, SO THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. 12 BY MR. COZAD: 13 Q. ALL RIGHT. WERE THERE COMPLAINTS BY MR. HOPE 14 AND OTHERS ABOUT AN ATMOSPHERE OF FEAR AMONG THE STAFF 15 MEMBERS AT MIRACOSTA COLLEGE IN ABOUT JUNE 7 OF 2006? 16 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. THE QUESTION IS 17 COMPOUND BECAUSE YOU NOT ONLY INCLUDED MR. HOPE BUT YOU 18 SAID AND OTHERS. SO THE QUESTION IS COMPOUND AS 19 PHRASED. IF YOU COULD I WOULD LIKE TO BREAK IT UP BUT 20 IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO I'LL HAVE THE WITNESS ANSWER THE 21 QUESTION. BECAUSE IT'S COMPOUND. 22 MR. COZAD: WELL LET'S DO THAT. 23 BY MR. COZAD: 24 Q. ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6 OR JUNE 7, 2006, DID GREG 25 HOPE, THE IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT OF THE CLASSIFIED 86 ROUGH DRAFT 1 SENATE COMPLAIN ABOUT AN ATMOSPHERE OF FEAR AMONG STAFF 2 MEMBERS? 3 A. WELL HE IS QUOTED IN THE ARTICLE OF THE 4 UNION-TRIBUNE THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN ME AS EXHIBIT 16 SO 5 I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHEN HE SAID IT. BUT I DON'T HAVE A 6 RECOLLECTION OF THE EXACT TIME OR DATE. 7 Q. BUT DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF HIM 8 COMPLAINING ABOUT AN ATMOSPHERE OF FEAR? 9 A. I HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF HIM SPEAKING BEFORE 10 THE BOARD AT SEVERAL OCCASIONS WITH ALL -- VERY NEGATIVE 11 COMMENTS. 12 Q. OKAY? 13 A. SPECIFIC WORDS I DON'T RECALL ON THIS 14 PARTICULAR DATE. 15 Q. DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF OTHERS SPEAKING 16 BEFORE THE BOARD COMPLAINING ABOUT AN ATMOSPHERE OF FEAR 17 AT THE COLLEGE? 18 A. I THINK THAT THEY USED A LOT OF WORDS, FEAR, 19 INTIMIDATION, SILENCE, PEOPLE WERE UNHAPPY AND THEY WERE 20 SAYING MANY THINGS. AND I THINK YOU CAN REFER TO THE 21 BOARD MINUTES TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE SAID. I DON'T 22 HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION. THERE WERE VERY MANY 23 MONTHS OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS BEFORE THE BOARD. 24 Q. OKAY. LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT WE'LL MARK AS 25 EXHIBIT 17 ENTITLED -- IT'S AN U T ARTICLE AUDIT FIND 87 ROUGH DRAFT 1 PROBLEMS WITH MIRACOSTA RECORDS. 2 (EXHIBIT 17 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 3 MR. WINET: SOMEONE IS MAKING POPCORN IN OUR 4 KITCHEN JUST TO MAKE US ALL HUNGRY. 5 MR. SLEETH: IT'S WORKING. OH I'M SORRY I 6 SPOKE FOR EVERYBODY ELSE I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WORKING 7 FOR EVERYBODY ELSE. IT'S WORKING FOR ME. 8 BY MR. COZAD: 9 Q. OKAY SHOWING YOU EXHIBIT 17, DOES THIS ARTICLE 10 REFLECT THAT THERE WAS AN AUDIT BEING CONDUCTED AT 11 MIRACOSTA CONCERNING CASH HANDLING RECORDS? 12 A. YES. I ORDERED THE AUDIT TO BE CONDUCTED ONCE 13 I FOUND OUT WHAT, IN FEBRUARY WHAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD 14 ALLEGED REGARDING THE SALE OF PALM TREES IN THE 15 HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT. 16 Q. ALL RIGHT. LET'S SHOW YOU WHAT WE WILL MARK 17 NEXT, EXHIBIT 18. ENTITLED NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING. 18 IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT PAGE 2. WILL UNDER 19 APPROVE RENEWAL OF SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT CONTRACT AND 20 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTRACT. 21 A. I'M SORRY THAT'S NOT WHAT I HAVE. 22 MR. WINET: NO THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE WE'RE 23 TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS HERE. 24 MR. COZAD: OKAY. 25 A. I HAVE OCTOBER 3RD, THERE'S NOT SUCH AN AGENDA 88 ROUGH DRAFT 1 ITEM ON THIS EXHIBIT. 2 MR. COZAD: WHY DON'T YOU PASS THOSE BACK AND 3 WE'LL COME BACK AROUND TO IT. THANK YOU. 4 BY MR. COZAD: 5 Q. WELL AS OF JULY 18, 2006, WHICH AS I RECALL IS 6 THE RENEWAL OF YOUR CONTRACT, DID THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 7 UNANIMOUSLY APPROVE THAT? 8 A. YES. 9 Q. AND DID THEY ALSO AGREE TO INCREASE YOUR 10 AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE $100 A MONTH? 11 A. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME I DON'T RECALL 12 EXACTLY THE EXACT DETAILS. WHATEVER IS IN THE PUBLIC 13 RECORD IS WHAT THEY APPROVED. 14 Q. DO YOU HAVE RECOLLECTION OF AN INCREASE OF A 15 HUNDRED DOLLARS PER MONTH TO COVER OUT-OF-POCKET 16 EXPENSES AS WELL? 17 A. I DON'T RECALL THE DETAILS I'M SORRY. IT'S -- 18 IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. IT'S IN THE PUBLIC RECORD AND 19 IT'S IN MY CONTRACT SO I CAN REFER BACK TO THE CONTRACT. 20 DO YOU WANT ME TO DO THAT? 21 Q. NO. 22 A. BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY BUT I CAN GO 23 BACK TO THE EXHIBIT YOU GAVE ME. 24 Q. OKAY. ARE YOU SUBMITTING REQUESTS FOR EXPENSE 25 REIMBURSEMENT? 89 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. NO. 2 Q. AT THIS POINT? 3 A. NO. 4 Q. ARE YOU BEING PAID FOR EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 5 NOW THAT YOU'VE LEFT THE -- WELL AS OF JUNE 20TH, 2007? 6 A. I HAVE NEVER SUBMITTED EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT. 7 Q. ALL RIGHT BUT AS OF JUNE 20TH, 2007? 8 A. UH-HUH. 9 Q. HAVE YOU BEEN RECEIVING REIMBURSEMENT FOR 10 EXPENSES? 11 A. NO. 12 Q. OKAY. LET'S SHOW YOU WHAT WE'LL MARK AS 13 EXHIBIT 19. 14 COURT REPORTER: DO YOU WANT TO MARK IT AS 18 15 SINCE YOU WITHDREW THE OTHER ONE? 16 MR. COZAD: YEAH 18 WILL BE FINE. 17 (EXHIBIT 18 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 18 BY MR. COZAD: 19 Q. DO YOU RECALL THIS ARTICLE BEING PRINTED IN 20 THE UNION-TRIBUNE ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006? 21 MR. WINET: YOU MEAN SEPTEMBER 6? 22 MR. COZAD: YEAH I'M SORRY. 23 MR. SLEETH: EXCUSE ME. 24 BY MR. COZAD: 25 Q. LET ME RESTATE MY QUESTION. DO YOU RECALL 90 ROUGH DRAFT 1 THIS ARTICLE ENTITLED MIRACOSTA TRUSTEES TRY TO MEND 2 FENCES WITH ANGRY FACULTY PRINTED IN THE UNION-TRIBUNE 3 ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 6, 2006? 4 A. I DON'T RECALL THE ARTICLE PRECISELY, NO. I 5 CAN READ IT NOW IF YOU WANT ME TO. 6 Q. OKAY. 7 A. OKAY. 8 Q. DO YOU RECALL A BOARD MEETING SHORTLY BEFORE 9 JUNE 6, 2006, IN WHICH -- 10 MR. PAGE: JUNE. 11 MR. COZAD: BOY. 12 BY MR. COZAD: 13 Q. DO YOU RECALL A BOARD MEETING SHORTLY BEFORE 14 SEPTEMBER 62006 IN WHICH THERE WERE ANGRY FACULTY 15 MEMBERS DISCUSSING THE ENFORCED LEAVE OF JULIE HATOFF? 16 A. I REMEMBER THE BOARD MEETING. I'M ASSUMING 17 THAT THAT WAS THE DATE. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT 18 DATE. 19 Q. OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER A BOARD MEETING WHERE 20 AFTERWARDS YOU AND BOARD PRESIDENT MR. FERNANDEZ HELD A 21 NEWS CONFERENCE TO DEFLECT SOME CHARGES THAT HAD BEEN 22 MADE AGAINST YOUR, YOUR HANDLING OF THE SITUATION? 23 A. IF YOU MEAN THE SITUATION, YOU MEAN THE 24 PLACEMENT OF VICE PRESIDENT HATOFF ON ADD -- PAID 25 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE? 91 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. YES. 2 A. YES, I DO REMEMBER. 3 Q. OKAY. AND YOU -- IS THIS QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO 4 YOU CORRECT? DID YOU SAY QUOTE, I BELIEVE I HAVE ACTED 5 LEGALLY ETHICALLY AND MORALLY? 6 A. YES. 7 Q. DID PEOPLE COMPLAIN AT THE BOARD MEETING OF 8 UNILATERAL ACTIONS OF THE BOARD WITHOUT CONSULTING THE 9 FACULTY AS RELATES TO MS. HATOFF? 10 MR. WINET: I'M SORRY COULD I HAVE THAT 11 QUESTION READ BACK I DIDN'T HEAR IT ALL. 12 (LAST QUESTION READ.) 13 A. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY THAT. IT WOULD 14 NOT SURPRISE ME BUT I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT I RECALL 15 EXACTLY THOSE WORDS. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. DID PEOPLE GENERALLY COMPLAIN ABOUT UNILATERAL 18 ACTIONS OF THE BOARD WITHOUT CONSULTING THE FACULTY? 19 A. AS I SAID I DON'T RECALL THE USE OF THE WORD 20 UNILATERAL ACTION BY THE BOARD WITHOUT CONSULTING THE 21 FACULTY. I DO REMEMBER INDIVIDUALS BEING VERY UPSET 22 ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF VICE PRESIDENT HATOFF ON PAID 23 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE. BUT I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFIC 24 COMPLAINT THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. 25 Q. OKAY. YOU DO RECALL FROM TIME TO TIME FACULTY 92 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MEMBERS COMPLAINING THAT THEY WEREN'T BEING CONSULTED 2 WITH RESPECT TO THE HATOFF MATTER? 3 A. THAT'S CORRECT, YES. 4 Q. OKAY. AND THAT WAS A COMMON COMPLAINT, WASN'T 5 IT? 6 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 7 AMBIGUOUS AS TO THE USE OF THE WORD COMMON BUT YOU CAN 8 GO AHEAD. 9 A. I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY COMMON. 10 BY MR. COZAD: 11 Q. OKAY. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU HEARD MORE 12 THAN A COUPLE OF TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF A MONTH OR TWO, 13 WOULD YOU? 14 A. NO OH YES. 15 Q. AGREE WITH THAT? 16 A. THERE WERE A LOT OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS BEFORE THE 17 BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THAT MATTER. 18 Q. DID ONE RETIRED NURSING INSTRUCTOR SAY THAT 19 THE PRESIDENT MEANING YOU AND THE BOARD QUOTE HAVE CUT 20 THE HEART OUT OF MIRACOSTA CLOSED QUOTE? 21 A. WILL IF IT'S QUOTED WITHIN THE TRIBUNE AND 22 YOU'RE READING FROM IT THAT'S WHERE I'M -- I HAVE -- I 23 DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AT THE TIME. BUT 24 YOU'RE READING FROM IT. 25 MR. WINET: YEAH, BUT YOU KNOW, HE IS ASKING 93 ROUGH DRAFT 1 YOU THE SPECIFIC BECAUSE HE'S ASKING YOU THE QUESTION. 2 AND JUST BECAUSE THE TRIBUNE PRINTS SOMETHING. 3 A. DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S WHAT IT WAS SAID. 4 MR. WINET: DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NECESSARILY 5 ACCURATE SO YOU NEED TO TELL HIM WHAT YOUR MEMORY IS. 6 AND IF -- I THINK YOU'RE DOING SO BUT I'M JUST SAYING. 7 A. OKAY. 8 MR. WINET: JUST BECAUSE IT'S IN THE ARTICLE 9 DON'T ASSUME. 10 A. OKAY. 11 MR. WINET: THEY HAVE RECORDED IT ACCURATELY. 12 A. THANK YOU I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFIC 13 LANGUAGE. 14 BY MR. COZAD: 15 Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THE REPORT IS INACCURATE? 16 MR. WINET: YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THIS REPORT? 17 MR. COZAD: RIGHT. 18 A. I, I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T HAVE THE -- I 19 MEAN I WOULDN'T KNOW OTHERWISE. THERE WERE SO MANY 20 SPEAKERS THAT SPOKE WITH SUCH EMPHASIS THAT, YOU KNOW, I 21 DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFIC WORDS. 22 BY MR. COZAD: 23 Q. LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT WE'LL MARK AS EXHIBITS 19 24 IT APPEARS TO BE A MEMORANDUM DATED OCTOBER 3RD, 2006. 25 (EXHIBIT 20 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 94 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. UH-HUH. 2 MR. WINET: HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. 3 BY MR. COZAD: 4 Q. LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT WE HAVE MARKED AS 5 EXHIBIT 20? 6 A. DO I NEED 19 IN REFERENCE TO 20? 7 Q. I WILL ASK YOU ABOUT IT IN A MOMENT. 8 A. OKAY. 9 Q. DO YOU RECALL SEEING THIS NOTICE OF REGULAR 10 HEARING ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 27, 2006? 11 A. YOU MEAN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF 12 TRUSTEES ON OCTOBER 3RD? 13 Q. WELL, DO YOU RECALL SEEING THE NOTICE? 14 MR. WINET: WHERE IT SAYS NOTICE OF REGULAR 15 MEETING. 16 A. REGULAR MEETING. 17 MR. WINET: YOU MENTIONED HEARING. 18 A. YOU SAID HEARING. 19 MR. COZAD: OKAY. 20 A. IT'S THE MEETING YOU MEANT, RIGHT? 21 BY MR. COZAD: 22 Q. IT'S THE MEETING I MEANT. 23 A. OKAY, YES. 24 Q. ALL RIGHT. YOU RECALL SEEING IT? 25 A. YES. 95 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. IN FACT, PART OF YOUR DUTIES AS OFFICE OF 2 PRESIDENT SUPERINTENDENTS IS TO PREPARE AN APPROVED 3 NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETINGS CORRECT? 4 A. YES. 5 Q. DID YOU PREPARE THIS NOTICE? 6 A. I DID. 7 Q. WHAT DATE DID YOU DISSEMINATE THE NOTICE? 8 A. I DON'T DISSEMINATE THEM. MY EXECUTIVE 9 ASSISTANT DOES. SHE'S THE ONE THAT TYPES IT AND 10 DISSEMINATES IT. I APPROVE OF IT. I DON'T RECALL THE 11 DATE SHE DISSEMINATED IT. 12 Q. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A DATE SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 13 ON THE FIRST PAGE. WHAT DOES THAT DATE REFER TO? 14 A. MAYBE THE DAY THAT SHE POSTED IT. 15 Q. ALL RIGHT. DID MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE 16 HAVE A PRACTICE OF ATTACHING COPIES OF RESOLUTIONS TO 17 NOTICES OF REGULAR MEETINGS SO THAT PERSONS CAN REVIEW 18 THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION PRIOR TO THE MEETING? 19 A. FOR MOST BOARD MEETINGS THAT'S THE PRACTICE 20 WITH JUST ABOUT ANY TYPE OF ACTION ITEM. HOWEVER THERE 21 ARE MANY TIMES THAT STAFF OR SOMEONE ELSE WITHIN THE 22 COLLEGE IS PREPARING AN ITEM THAT IS GOING TO BE 23 DISTRIBUTED AT THE BOARD MEETING SO THE ITEM IS NOTED 24 BUT THE MATERIALS ARE NOT POSTED OR DISTRIBUTED WITH THE 25 AGENDA WHEN THE AGENDA PACKET IS DISTRIBUTED. BUT FOR 96 ROUGH DRAFT 1 THE MOST PART, YOU KNOW, WE ATTEMPT -- WELL, AT THE TIME 2 I WAS THERE, WE ATTEMPTED TO DO IT TO PUT IT ALTOGETHER, 3 HAVE ALL OF THE BACKUP MATERIALS PRESENT. 4 Q. OKAY. ON PAGE 2, ITEM -- ROMAN NUMERAL I, 5 SUBPARAGRAPH TWO, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 07-07 CONCERNING 6 THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT." ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH 7 THAT RESOLUTION? 8 A. I AM NOW, YES. 9 Q. WHAT DID IT CONCERN? 10 A. IT WAS A RESOLUTION APPROVING OR ADOPTING A 11 LETTER IN SUPPORT OF ME BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. 12 Q. WAS THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ATTACHED TO THE 13 NOTICE ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2006? 14 MR. WINET: OBJECTION MAY LACK FOUNDATION. 15 MAY CALLS FOR SPECULATION. GO AHEAD. 16 A. NO. IT WAS NOT. 17 BY MR. COZAD: 18 Q. WHY NOT? 19 A. IT WAS NOT READY TO BE PUBLISHED. 20 Q. WAS THERE SOME REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE A 21 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOLUTION IN THE NOTICE OF 22 SEPTEMBER 27? 23 A. I DIDN'T KNOW THE CONTENTS OF IT. 24 Q. WHO ASKED YOU TO PLACE THE RESOLUTION INTO THE 25 MINUTE -- INTO THE NOTICE? 97 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD. 2 Q. WHO WAS? 3 A. RODOLFO FERNANDEZ. 4 Q. DID MR. FERNANDEZ TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THE 5 CONTENTS OF THE RESOLUTION? 6 A. I KNEW OF THE CONTENTS OF THE GENERAL IDEA, 7 NOT THE CONTENTS BUT THE GENERAL IDEA OR INTENT OF THE 8 RESOLUTION BECAUSE IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME IN CLOSED 9 SESSION PRIOR TO WHEN THIS WAS POSTED. 10 Q. AND YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE GENERAL CONTENTS 11 AS OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 WAS WHAT -- 2006 IS WHAT? 12 A. USUAL -- 13 MR. WINET: COUNSEL BEFORE SHE ANSWERS THAT 14 QUESTION I NEED TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL FOR THE SCHOOL. 15 MR. COZAD: OKAY. 16 MR. SLEETH: WAS I ASLEEP SORRY? 17 (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.) 18 MR. WINET: COUNSEL, THE REASON WHY I'M JUST 19 CONCERNED ABOUT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF INVADING 20 ISSUES INVOLVING CLOSED SESSION. I DON'T THINK WE'RE 21 THERE. BUT THAT WAS WHY I WAS CONSULTING WITH HIM. SO 22 I JUST -- I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IF WE GET INTO 23 THAT AREA, THEN I HAVE TO ADDRESS IT WHEN WE GET TO IT 24 BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO BACK WITH YOUR QUESTION AND 25 THE WITNESS CAN ANSWER IT. 98 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. SLEETH: TO THE EXTENT THAT YOUR ANSWER 2 DOES NOT INCLUDE INFORMATION THAT YOU LEARNED IN A 3 CLOSED SESSION I HAVE NO OBJECTION. 4 A. OKAY. CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE? 5 (LAST QUESTION READ.) 6 A. I HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE GENERAL 7 CONTENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 27TH. 8 BY MR. COZAD: 9 Q. WERE YOU EVER ASKED FOR A COPY OF THE 10 RESOLUTION BEFORE THE MEETING? 11 A. YES. 12 Q. WHO ASKED YOU FOR IT? 13 A. THAT WAS EXHIBIT 19 YOU GAVE ME WHICH IS THE 14 PRESIDENT OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE MR. COLE. 15 Q. OKAY. AND? 16 A. COULD I -- I JUST WANT TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE 17 GOING TO ASK ME ABOUT. 18 MR. WINET: HERE. 19 A. NO HE HAS MY COPY. 20 MR. COZAD: GIVE ME A MOMENT. 21 MR. WINET: HERE YOU GO YOU CAN SHARE WITH ME. 22 A. GO RIGHT AHEAD MR. COZAD. I'M SORRY. 23 BY MR. COZAD: 24 Q. SURE. 25 DID YOU EVER MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO HAVE A COPY 99 ROUGH DRAFT 1 OF THE RESOLUTION AVAILABLE FOR MR. COLE BEFORE THE 2 HEARING -- BEFORE THE MEETING? 3 A. NO. 4 Q. PRIOR TO THE MEETING WERE YOU AWARE OF THE 5 STATUS OF THE RESOLUTION WHETHER IT WAS BEING DRAFTED OR 6 REVISED OR WHAT? 7 A. PRIOR TO THE MEETING I WAS INFORMED THAT THE 8 PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD HAD NOT COMPLETED THE DRAFTING OF 9 THE RESOLUTION AND THE -- THE DRAFTING OF THE LETTER. 10 Q. OKAY. AND HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THAT? 11 A. I WAS TOLD BY MR. FERNANDEZ. 12 Q. OKAY? 13 A. I'M NOT SURE LET ME BACK UP I'M NOT SURE IF 14 MR. FERNANDEZ TOLD ME PERSONALLY OR TOLD MY EXECUTIVE 15 ASSISTANTS WHO THEN TOLD ME BUT SAME. 16 Q. SOMEHOW YOU CAME TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 17 LETTER, WHATEVER IT WAS, WAS BEING PREPARED AND BEING 18 CIRCULATED OR DRAFTED OR FINALIZED? 19 A. WAS BEING PREPARED AND IT WASN'T COMPLETED. 20 Q. OKAY? 21 A. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WAS COMPLETED JUST 22 BEFORE THE MEETING BEGAN AND THAT'S WHEN IT WAS MADE 23 AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY, INCLUDING MYSELF. 24 Q. WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU FOUND OUT 25 WHAT THE RESOLUTION CONCERNED? 100 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. WINET: YOU MEAN THE GENERAL TOPIC OF IT? 2 MR. COZAD: YES. 3 A. THE CONTENTS OF IT. 4 MR. WINET: BUT YOUR QUESTION WAS THE GENERAL 5 TOPIC. 6 MR. COZAD: WE'RE SPLITTING HAIRS HERE. 7 MR. WINET: ACTUALLY WE'RE NOT BECAUSE THERE'S 8 THE RESOLUTION ITSELF AND THEN JUST THE GENERAL OF WHAT 9 SHE UNDERSTOOD IT TO GENERALLY BE. I THINK THERE'S A 10 DIFFERENCE. 11 A. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IN GENERAL, 12 THE RESOLUTION WAS GOING TO ADOPT A LETTER OF SUPPORT 13 FOR ME. 14 BY MR. COZAD: 15 Q. WHEN DID YOU FIND THAT OUT? 16 A. A COUPLE OF WEEKS BEFORE OCTOBER 3RD. 17 Q. DID YOU TELL MR. COLE WHEN HE ASKED YOU FOR AN 18 ADVANCE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION THAT THE RESOLUTION 19 CONCERNED A LETTER OF SUPPORT THAT WAS BEING PREPARED 20 FOR YOU? 21 A. I DID NOT. 22 Q. DID MR. COLE ASK YOU ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 28, 23 2006, IF YOU KNEW WHAT THE GENERAL TOPIC OF THE 24 RESOLUTION IS? 25 A. MR. COZAD I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY. WHAT I 101 ROUGH DRAFT 1 REMEMBER IS THE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE GENERAL INTENT WAS 2 LEARNED IN CLOSED SESSION SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR 3 ME TO SHARE SOMETHING WITH AN EMPLOYEE THAT PERTAINED TO 4 SOMETHING I HAD LEARNED IN CLOSED SESSION. SO I'M 5 NOT -- 6 Q. WHEN? 7 A. SURE WHAT IT IS THAT I SAID TO MR. COLE. I 8 DON'T RECALL. 9 Q. WHEN DID THE CLOSED SESSION OCCUR WHERE THERE 10 WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POTENTIAL PREPARATION OF A 11 LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR YOU? 12 A. IT WAS TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THIS BOARD MEETING, 13 I WOULD THINK BECAUSE OUR BOARD MEETINGS -- THE 14 MIRACOSTA BOARD MEETINGS WERE TWO WEEKS APART SO I WOULD 15 ASSUME THAT'S WHEN IT HAPPENED. 16 Q. WAS THERE SOME REASON WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT THE 17 PREPARATION OF A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR YOU WAS SOMETHING 18 THAT HAD TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL THE BOARD MEETING 19 OF OCTOBER 3RD? 20 A. IN MY OPINION, I HAD LEARNED THE INTENT OF 21 WHAT THE BOARD PRESIDENT AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 22 WANTED TO DO IN CLOSED SESSION SO I DIDN'T FEEL I WAS AT 23 LIBERTY TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION. 24 Q. DID YOU TELL MR. COLE THAT YOU WERE -- YOU DID 25 NOT FEEL YOU WERE AT LIBERTY TO SHARE THE INFORMATION? 102 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. I DON'T RECALL WHAT I SAID, MR. COZAD. I 2 TRULY DON'T RECALL WHAT I SAID TO MR. COLE. 3 Q. DID YOU SAY, MR. COLE, I DON'T HAVE IT, SORRY? 4 A. PROBABLY BECAUSE THAT'S THE TRUTH. I DIDN'T 5 HAVE IT. 6 Q. BUT YOU KNEW WHAT IT CONCERNED? 7 A. I HAD A GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT THE INTENT WAS. 8 Q. DID YOU THINK THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR 9 MR. COLE TO ASK YOU FOR THE CONTENTS OF THE RESOLUTION 10 ON SEPTEMBER 28? 11 A. YES, OF COURSE, YES. 12 Q. NOW, DID YOUR EXCHANGE WITH MR. COLE GIVE RISE 13 TO A MEMORANDUM HE PREPARED ON OCTOBER 3RD, 2006? 14 A. I DON'T KNOW. 15 Q. OKAY. LET ME SHOW WHAT YOU WE'VE MARKED AS 16 EXHIBITS 19. DO YOU RECALL THIS MEMORANDUM? 17 A. I DON'T RECALL BACK THEN I JUST SAW IT WHEN 18 YOU GAVE IT TO ME EARLIER TODAY BUT THAT'S, THAT'S MY 19 RECOLLECTION. 20 Q. PRIOR TO OCTOBER 3RD, 2006, DID YOU EVER 21 OBJECT TO THE BOARD PREPARING A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR 22 YOU? 23 MR. WINET: CAN YOU ANSWER THAT WITH A YES OR 24 NO. 25 A. YES. 103 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. WHEN DID YOU OBJECT? 3 A. OCTOBER 2ND. 4 Q. WHO DID YOU OBJECT TO? 5 A. THE BOARD. 6 Q. IN WHAT WAY DID YOU MAKE THE OBJECTION KNOWN? 7 MR. WINET: COUNSEL, I NEED TO GO OFF THE 8 RECORD, NOT TO SPEAK TO THE WITNESS, BUT TO SPEAK TO THE 9 COLLEGE BECAUSE THERE'S A LETTER THAT'S BEEN REFERENCED 10 BEFORE THAT'S THE ONLY DOCUMENT I BELIEVE THAT WE'VE NOT 11 PRODUCED TO YOU IS AN OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 DOCUMENT THAT IS 12 REFERRED TO AS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT DOCUMENT. 13 MR. COZAD: LET'S TAKE A SHORT BREAK. 14 MR. WINET: SURE. 15 MR. COZAD: YOU CONFER AND WE'LL TAKE IT UP 16 WHEN WE GET BACK. 17 MR. WINET: THANK YOU. 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: WE'RE OFF THE RECORD AT 19 1215. 20 (RECESS) BACK ON THE RECORD 1219. 21 MR. WINET: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. I HAVE 22 BEFORE ME AN OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 LETTER THAT IS LISTED AS 23 CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION. AND THE 24 DISCUSSION I HAD OFF THE RECORD IS THERE'S A CONCERN 25 THAT IF WE PRODUCE THIS DOCUMENT THAT THERE'S GOING TO 104 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BE A CLAIM OF A WAIVER OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE 2 BETWEEN DR. RICHART AND HER ATTORNEYS AND/OR A WAIVER OF 3 THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE COLLEGE. 4 AND DR. RICHART IN ADDITION, THERE'S A PARAGRAPH IN THE 5 LETTER THAT ARGUABLY REFERS TO AN ISSUE OF CONVERSATION 6 IN A CLOSED SESSION. IF WE PRODUCE THIS LETTER, WHICH 7 WE'RE WILLING TO DO SO, AS LONG AS THERE IS AN AGREEMENT 8 THAT THE PRODUCTION OF THIS LETTER DOES NOT WAIVE THE 9 ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE FROM DR. RICHART TO THE 10 COLLEGE DR. RICHART OR HER OWN COUNSEL OR ANY 11 LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE CONCERNING CLOSED SESSION 12 COMMUNICATIONS. SO THAT'S THE OFFER WE WOULD BE WILLING 13 TO PRODUCE IT BUT THE PROBLEM BEING IS WE DON'T WANT 14 ANYONE ELSE SAYING WELL OKAY BECAUSE YOU PRODUCED THIS 15 DOCUMENT YOU'VE WAIVED SOME OTHER PRIVILEGE. 16 MR. COZAD: AS TO OTHER DOCUMENTS AND OTHER 17 COMMUNICATIONS? 18 MR. SLEETH: NOT -- I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY 19 OTHER DOCUMENT THAT IS WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT BUT AS TO 20 OTHER COMMUNICATIONS. 21 MR. WINET: OTHER COMMUNICATIONS. 22 MR. COZAD: OKAY. 23 MR. WINET: AND SO IF WE CAN HAVE THAT 24 STIPULATION ON THE RECORD THEN I BELIEVE WE CAN PRODUCE. 25 MR. SLEETH: LET ME JUST SAY ONE MORE THING. 105 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. WINET: SURE. 2 MR. SLEETH: I'M AUTHORIZED BY THE COLLEGE TO 3 WITHDRAW THE OBJECTION THAT WE HAD TO THE PRODUCTION OF 4 THIS DOCUMENT WHICH WAS RELATED TO THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH 5 THAT COMMUNICATED INFORMATION OUT OF A PREVIOUS CLOSED 6 SESSION. AND THAT IS THE ONLY ISSUE THAT I HAD RAISED. 7 DR. RICHART'S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AS TO OTHER 8 PARAGRAPHS. SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT PRIVILEGES INVOLVED 9 HERE. 10 MR. COZAD: OKAY. I'LL STIPULATE TO THAT. 11 MR. WINET: OKAY. IS THAT AGREED. 12 MR. COZAD: FINE. 13 MR. WINET: IS THAT AGREED TO BY YOUR CLIENTS 14 WHO IS ALSO PRESENT, MR. PAGE? 15 MR. PAGE: COULD THEY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO DR. 16 RICHART HAS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE WITH? 17 MR. WINET: THERE WAS A LETTER WRITTEN BY I 18 BELIEVE IT WAS ACTUALLY MR. SLEETH DATED MARCH 15TH OR 19 MARCH 14TH THAT'S PROUD IN THESE RECORDS THAT HE 20 DISCUSSES HIS ISSUE INVOLVING WHETHER IT IS. WHETHER IN 21 FACT IT IS OR IT IS NOT IS REALLY NOT WHAT I'M CONCERNED 22 ABOUT BECAUSE IF WE HAVE THE STIPULATION THEN I DON'T 23 HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT. 24 MR. SLEETH: I PERSONALLY THINK SHE MAY NOT 25 HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND MAY NOT HAVE HAD 106 ROUGH DRAFT 1 ANY SEPARATE RIGHT AT THAT POINT. BUT I'M NOT SURE 2 ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THERE WERE THREATS INVOLVED AND 3 SHE -- WE MAY HAVE BEEN REPRESENTING BOTH HER AND THE 4 COLLEGE AT THAT POINT ON THE BASIS OF THREATS. AND I 5 DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT DEBATE. 6 MR. PAGE: ALL RIGHT. 7 MR. COZAD: WELL WE'LL STIPULATE TO THAT. 8 MR. WINET: OKAY. AND THAT WAS MR. PAGE HAS 9 AGREED TO IT AS THE PARTY IN THE CASE; IS THAT RIGHT? 10 MR. COZAD: THAT'S RIGHT. 11 MR. WINET: WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS THIS IS 12 A THREE PAGE DOCUMENT WHAT I WANT TO DO IS GET THE THIRD 13 PAGE FROM THE STACK OF RECORDS AND I'LL MAKE COPIES FOR 14 EVERYBODY AND WE'LL PRODUCE IT SO LET'S GO OFF THE 15 RECORD JUST FOR ANOTHER THREE MINUTES OR SO. 16 MR. SLEETH: LET HIM READ IT NOW. DO YOU HAVE 17 A PROBLEM WITH THAT WITHOUT -- 18 MR. WINET: NOT AT ALL. 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: GOING OFF THE RECORD. 20 12:23 P.M. 21 (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.) BEINGS 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD AT 23 13637 SORRY. 24 BY MR. COZAD: 25 Q. RANDY DID WE GIVE ONE OF THESE TO THE COURT 107 ROUGH DRAFT 1 REPORTER? 2 MR. WINET: I THINK THE WITNESS HAS GOT ONE 3 WHICH I THINK WOULD BE THE EXHIBIT. 4 MR. COZAD: ALL RIGHT THEN. 5 (EXHIBIT NUMBER MARKED FOR 6 IDENTIFICATION.) 7 MR. COZAD: RANDY WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO IS 8 MARK THIS SEPARATELY? THE POLICY TITLE COMMUNICATION 9 AND SUPPORT TO THE BOARD. 10 MR. WINET: YOU CAN. 11 MR. COZAD: OR TOGETHER DEPENDING ON WHETHER 12 IT'S THE SAME DOCUMENT. 13 MR. WINET: IT'S REFERRED TO IN THE LETTER 14 THAT'S WHY IT'S THERE. SO I THINK THE PREFERABLE WAY TO 15 DO IT IS ATTACH IT AS PART OF THE LETTER. 16 MR. PAGE: DID IT COME WITH THE LETTER. 17 THE WITNESS: YES. 18 MR. WINET: YES. 19 MR. COZAD: OKAY MISS TREE SOLVED LET ME SHOW 20 YOU EXHIBIT 21. 21 BY MR. COZAD: 22 Q. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT EXHIBIT 21 IS A LETTER 23 THAT YOU WROTE ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 2 TO THE MEMBERS OF 24 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES THAT RUNS THREE PAGES AND ATTACHED 25 TO IT APPEARS TO BE A POLICY TITLED COMMUNICATION AND 108 ROUGH DRAFT 1 SUPPORT TO THE BOARD? 2 A. UH-HUH. 3 Q. HAVE I CORRECTLY DESCRIBED IN GENERAL? 4 A. YES. 5 Q. THIS? 6 A. YES. 7 Q. EXHIBIT NUMBER? 8 A. EXHIBIT 21. 9 Q. YES. WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WHEN 10 YOU SENT EXHIBIT 21 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF 11 TRUSTEES? 12 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. THE QUESTION IS 13 OVERBROAD. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ANSWER. 14 A. WELL I WAS COMMUNICATING TO THEM EXACTLY WHAT 15 I WROTE IN THE LETTER THAT I FELT THAT THE INFORMATION I 16 HAD RECEIVED FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD REGARDING 17 THE INTENT OF TRUSTEE CAN A RAINS A TO EVALUATE ME IN 18 PUBLIC WOULD CAUSE PROBLEMS AND PARTICULARLY PURSUANT TO 19 THE BOARD POLICY TO MENTION WHICH IS POLICY ON EXECUTIVE 20 BOUNDARIES COMMUNICATION AND SUPPORT TO THE BOARD. IF I 21 FAIL TO ADVISE THE BOARD IF IN THE C O'S OPINIONS THE 22 BOARD IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH HIS OWN POLICY THE 23 PROCESS BOARD AND BOARD STAFF RELATIONS IF I CANNILY 24 NOTICE CASE OF BOARD V HAVER THAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE 25 WORK RELATIONSHIP TO THE BOARD AND THE SUPERINTENDENTS 109 ROUGH DRAFT 1 AND PRESIDENT THEN I WOULD BE VIOLATING MY OWN EXECUTIVE 2 BOUNDARIES AND I FELT THAT FLAG WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD 3 WHICH WAS THAT I WAS GOING TO RECEIVE A PUBLIC 4 EVALUATION BY TRUSTEE CARRANZA AT THIS BOARD MEETING 5 WOULD DO THAT AND THAT'S WHAT I COMMUNICATED. 6 Q. OKAY. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE POLICY WHICH IS ON 7 PAGE 4 HERE. 8 A. UH-HUH. 9 Q. WHAT EXACTLY WAS IT ABOUT WHAT YOU THOUGHT 10 WOULD HAPPEN THAT WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 11 BOARD'S POLICIES? 12 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS VAGUE. 13 GO AHEAD. IF YOU UNDERSTAND IT. 14 A. WELL, THE PARTICULAR BOARD POLICY REQUIRES ME 15 TO INFORM THE BOARD OF AN ACTION THAT IS GOING TO BE 16 TAKEN BY EITHER THE BOARD OR A MEMBER OF THE BOARD, 17 EXCUSE ME, I THINK THAT LUNCH -- THAT ANY BEHAVIOR 18 EITHER BY INDIVIDUAL TRUSTEE OR THE GROUP AS A BOARD AS 19 A WHOLE IS THAT IF I GO NOTIFY THEM IN MY OPINION THAT 20 WHATEVER THEY WERE GOING TO DO ABOUT TO DO OR PLANNING 21 TO DO THAT I NEEDED TO NOTIFY THEM THAT IT WOULD BE 22 BOARD BEHAVIOR THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL IN MY MIND TO 23 THE WORK RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE C O. SO 24 THE INTENT OF THE BOARD POLICY ATTACHED TO THIS LETTER 25 IS FOR ME TO ADVISE THEM OF THAT FACT. SO THAT WAS THE 110 ROUGH DRAFT 1 INTENT OF THAT BOARD POLICY. 2 Q. WHAT WAS IT THAT YOU THOUGHT WOULD HAPPEN THAT 3 WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR WORK RELATIONSHIP? 4 A. WHAT I THOUGHT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WAS THAT 5 TRUSTEE CARRANZA WAS GOING TO VALUE WAIT ME IN THE 6 PUBLIC SAYING NEGATIVE THINGS THAT I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT 7 WAS BECAUSE I HAD NOT HEARD AS I STATE IN MY LETTER AND 8 ANY CHARGES OR ANY DISAGREEMENT ON HER PART WITH 9 ANYTHING THAT I HAD DONE. 10 Q. WHAT'S -- WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE WORD 11 EVALUATE? 12 A. EVALUATE MY PERFORMANCE AS A CEO. THAT'S WHAT 13 I MEAN. 14 Q. WELL WHAT IF SHE WERE TO JUST GIVE AN OPINION 15 THAT SHE THOUGHT YOU WEREN'T DOING A VERY GOOD JOB? 16 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. 17 BY MR. COZAD: 18 Q. WOULD THAT BE AN EVALUATION IN YOUR 19 CONTEMPLATION THERE? 20 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION CALLS FOR A 21 HYPOTHETICAL -- INCOMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL, ALSO CALLS FOR 22 IMPROPER IMPROPER OPINION THE QUESTION ALSO LACKS 23 FOUNDATION SINCE IT NEVER OCCURRED SO IT CALLS FOR AN 24 IMPROPER OPINION TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN ANSWER IT GO 25 AHEAD. 111 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. I DON'T THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT. I'VE 2 ANSWERED WHAT I THOUGHT AN EVALUATION WOULD BE. 3 BY MR. COZAD: 4 Q. WELL AS AN ADMINISTRATOR YOU HAVE FORMAL 5 EVALUATION TIMES DON'T YOU? 6 A. I'M SORRY? 7 Q. WHEN YOU WERE AN ADMINISTRATOR FOR MIRACOSTA 8 I'M SORRY DURING YOUR TERM AS ADMINISTRATOR AT MIRACOSTA 9 YOU'RE STILL ON THE JOB RIGHT? 10 A. YES YES. 11 Q. OKAY. BUT DURING YOUR TERM AS AN 12 ADMINISTRATOR AT MIRACOSTA YOU HAVE SPECIFIC EVALUATION 13 PERIODS DON'T YOU? 14 A. I HAVE SPECIFIC EVALUATION PERIODS IS THE 15 ENTIRE YEAR. 16 Q. OKAY. 17 A. TWELVE MONTHS. 18 Q. AND YOU ARE? 19 A. 365 DAYS. 20 Q. OKAY. AND YOU ARE EVALUATED PERIODICALLY BY 21 THE TRUSTEES IN YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE IS CONSIDERED 22 CORRECT? 23 A. ANNUALLY. 24 Q. ABLELY ALL RIGHT AND ARE THERE SPECIFIC DATES 25 SET UP FOR THESE EVALUATIONS? 112 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. ANNUALLY AROUND JUNE OF EACH YEAR, MAY JUNE OF 2 EACH YEAR. 3 Q. OKAY. AND WHEN THESE EVALUATIONS TAKE PLACE 4 ARE RECORDS GENERATED? 5 A. YES. 6 Q. WHAT ARE THOSE RECORDS CALLED? 7 A. EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT PRESIDENT. 8 Q. OKAY. AND THERE ARE -- DURING THE EVALUATION 9 PROCESS ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOU TO DISCUSS YOUR 10 JOB PERFORMANCE WITH TRUSTEES? 11 A. UH-HUH. 12 Q. UH-HUH YES? 13 A. YES THERE IS CRITERIA. 14 Q. OKAY. AND IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THE 15 DISCUSSION IS SELF-REFLECTION AND SELF-CRITICISM IN AN 16 EFFORT TO BETTER YOURSELF, ISN'T IT? 17 A. SURE. 18 Q. ISN'T THAT THE GOAL? 19 A. YES. 20 A. YES. 21 Q. AND THOSE ARE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL BECAUSE THEY 22 ARE EVALUATIONS RIGHT? 23 A. CORRECT. 24 Q. THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS AN EXPRESSION OF 25 OPINION BY A TRUSTEE IN PUBLIC ABOUT YOUR JOB 113 ROUGH DRAFT 1 PERFORMANCE THAT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN, ISN'T 2 THAT TRUE? 3 MR. SLEETH: OBJECTION ARGUMENTATIVE. 4 MR. WINET: ALSO INCOMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL AND 5 CALLS FOR AN IMPROPER OPINION AND CONCLUSION. YOU CAN 6 ANSWER IF IT'S THE SAME THING. THAT'S THE QUESTION. 7 A. I DON'T THINK IT'S THE SAME THING. 8 BY MR. COZAD: 9 Q. ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF GLORIA CARRANZA WERE TO 10 HAVE SAID SHE WOULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS LETTER OF 11 SUPPORT YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT LETTER OF 12 SUPPORT BEING PREPARED AND DISSEMINATED DID YOU? 13 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT YOUR QUESTION LACKS 14 FOUNDATION IF YOU READ THE LETTER SHE DID SAY SHE WAS 15 GOING TO VOTE IN SUPPORT. SO THE QUESTION ASSUMES FACTS 16 NOT IN EVIDENCE. 17 MR. COZAD: WOULD YOU READ MY QUESTION AND 18 LET'S ANSWER THAT ONE PLEASE. 19 (LAST QUESTION READ.) 20 A. I WOULD -- I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE 21 LETTER AT THIS TIME -- AT THE TIME THAT I WROTE THIS 22 LETTER. I DIDN'T KNOW THE CONTENTS. 23 A. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT SAID. 24 BY MR. COZAD: 25 Q. BUT YOU KNEW THAT A LETTER OF SUPPORT WAS 114 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BEING SUGGESTED AND WAS BEING PREPARED AS OF OCTOBER 2? 2 A. YES. 3 Q. AND YOU ALSO HEARD INITIALLY THAT GLORIA 4 CARRANZA WOULD BE WILLING TO SIGN THAT LETTER, DIDN'T 5 YOU? 6 A. WELL, I HEARD THAT ALL OF THE TRUSTEES, YES. 7 Q. ALL RIGHT. BY THE WAY YOU DIDN'T HEAR THAT 8 FROM GLORIA CARRANZA DID YOU? 9 A. YES I DID. 10 Q. ALL RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU HEARD THAT GLORIA 11 CARRANZA WOULD SIGN THE LETTER OF SUPPORT YOU DIDN'T 12 HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE LETTER OF SUPPORT DID YOU? 13 A. NO, I DIDN'T, NO. 14 Q. YOUR OBJECTIONS AROSE WHEN SHE TOLD YOU THAT 15 SHE WOULD NOT SIGN THE LETTER, ISN'T THAT SO? 16 A. NO THAT ISN'T CORRECT. 17 Q. WHEN DID YOUR OBJECTIONS ARISE? 18 A. WHEN THE BOARD PRESIDENT TOLD ME THAT TRUSTEE 19 CARRANZA WAS GOING TO EVALUATE ME PUBLICLY AT A BOARD 20 MEETING. 21 Q. DID YOU ASK WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY EVALUATE ME 22 PUBLICLY? DID YOU ASK? 23 A. I DON'T RECALL IF I ASKED THOSE SAME 24 PARTICULAR QUESTION -- THOSE PARTICULAR WORDS BUT I DID 25 ASK WHAT WAS THE INTENT. 115 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. DID GLORIA CARRANZA EVER TELL YOU SHE WAS 2 INTENDING TO DO A FORMAL EVALUATION OF YOU IN PUBLIC? 3 A. NO. 4 Q. DID ANYONE EVER TELL YOU THAT GLORIA CARRANZA 5 WAS GOING TO DO A FORMAL EVALUATION OF YOU IN PUBLIC? 6 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS VAGUE 7 AND AMBIGUOUS AS TO THE USE OF THE WORD FORMAL. YOU CAN 8 ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN. 9 A. NO. 10 BY MR. COZAD: 11 Q. DID YOU FEEL THAT GLORIA CARRANZA'S VOTE 12 NOT -- STRIKE THAT. 13 DID YOU FEEL THAT THE DECISION BY GLORIA 14 CARRANZA NOT TO SIGN THE LETTER OF SUPPORT HUMILIATED 15 YOU IN PUBLIC? 16 MR. WINET: WELL, OBJECTION, IT ASSUMES THAT 17 THAT BECAME PUBLIC SO THE QUESTION LACKS FOUNDATION AS 18 IT'S STATED. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AS IT'S STATED. 19 COULD I ASK YOU TO REPHRASE IT? JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE 20 WORDING YOU CAN EASILY REPHRASE IT IT DOESN'T MAKE 21 SENSE. 22 MR. COZAD: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. 23 BY MR. COZAD: 24 Q. DID GLORIA CARRANZA SIGN THE LETTER OF 25 SUPPORT? 116 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. NO. 2 Q. DID -- DID THE LETTER OF SUPPORT CONTAIN ANY 3 REFERENCE THAT SHE DID NOT SIGN IT? 4 A. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. 5 Q. THE LETTER OF SUPPORT WAS DATED OCTOBER 3, 6 2006, WASN'T IT? 7 A. YES. 8 Q. AND IT WAS -- THERE'S A REFERENCE ABOVE SEVEN 9 SIGNATURES SINCERELY THE MIRACOSTA GOVERNING BOARD 10 CORRECT? 11 A. I DON'T REMEMBER BUT IF YOU'RE READING FROM IT 12 IT MUST BE SO I MEAN I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. 13 Q. ALL RIGHT ALL OF THE SIGNATURE BLOCKS ARE 14 FULL. DID SHE SIGN IT? 15 A. NO. 16 Q. DID A MEMBER NOT OF THE GOVERNING BOARD NOT 17 SIGN IT? 18 A. NO. 19 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT TO THE LIST OF 20 QUESTIONING -- QUESTIONS BEING ASKED WITHOUT THE WITNESS 21 HAVING THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF HER I JUST WANT THE 22 RECORD TO REFLECT THAT. 23 Q. HOW DID YOU KNOW WHAT GLORIA WAS GOING TO DO 24 GLORIA CARRANZA. 25 MR. WINET: OBJECTION ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN 117 ROUGH DRAFT 1 EVIDENCE THAT SHE DID NOT WHAT SHE WAS GOING TO DO. GO 2 AHEAD. 3 A. I DID NOT KNOW WHAT SHE WAS GOING TO DO. 4 MR. COZAD: OKAY I DON'T WANT TO PLAY THIS 5 GAME ANYMORE. 6 BY MR. COZAD: 7 Q. DID TRUSTEE CARRANZA VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS TO 8 PRIVACY IN DOING WHATEVER SHE DID OR DIDN'T DO IN 9 CONNECTION WITH THE OCTOBER 3RD, 2006 LETTER OF SUPPORT? 10 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT. THE QUESTION, I 11 BELIEVE, HAS JUST REFERRED TO THIS TIME FRAME AND NOT 12 LATER AND I THINK THE QUESTION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED THAT 13 WAY. 14 MR. COZAD: THAT'S WHY I ASKED IT THAT WAY. 15 A. CAN YOU REREAD YOUR LETTER OR READ IT AGAIN. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. ALL RIGHT. LET ME SHOW WHAT YOU WE'LL MARK AS 18 EXHIBIT 22. 19 (EXHIBIT 22 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 20 A. UH-HUH. DOES. 21 BY MR. COZAD: 22 Q. DOES THE FACT THAT TRUSTEE CARRANZA DID NOT 23 SIGN THIS LETTER DO YOU CLAIM THAT THAT CAUSED YOU SOME 24 KINDS OF PUBLIC HUMILIATION? 25 A. NO. 118 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. DO YOU CLAIM THAT HER NOT SIGNING THIS LETTER 2 CAUSED YOU SOME KINDS OF VIOLATION TO YOUR RIGHT OF 3 PRIVACY? 4 A. NO. 5 Q. DO YOU CLAIM THAT THE FACT THAT SHE DIDN'T 6 SIGN THIS LETTER WAS HUMILIATING TO YOU IN ANY WAY? 7 A. THE FACT THAT SHE DID NOT SIGN THIS LETTER? 8 Q. CORRECT? 9 A. YES. NO. NO. 10 Q. I UNDERSTAND. 11 A. I -- 12 MR. WINET: SINCE WE HAVE A YES/NO YOU MAY 13 JUST WANT TO GO AHEAD AND SAY WHAT YOU MEANT. 14 A. I MEAN THAT SHE DID NOT PUBLIC HUMILIATE ME BY 15 NOT SIGNING THIS LETTER. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. OKAY. DID YOU EVER ASK HER TO IF SHE INTENDED 18 TO DO A FORMAL EVALUATION OF YOU IN PUBLIC? 19 A. NO. 20 Q. IF TRUSTEE CARRANZA WERE TO HAVE PUBLICLY SAID 21 ON OCTOBER 3, 2006, THAT IN HER OPINION YOU WEREN'T 22 PROPERLY MANAGING THE COLLEGE, WOULD YOU HAVE CONSIDERED 23 THAT AS A PUBLIC EVALUATION? 24 A. YES, I WOULD HAVE. 25 Q. ALL RIGHT. 119 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. WINET: LET ME. 2 MR. COZAD: AND SO. 3 MR. WINET: LET ME MAKE A BELATED OBJECTION I 4 DIDN'T GET THERE IN TIME. 5 A. OH SORRY. 6 MR. WINET: BUT MY OBJECTION WAS THAT IT CALLS 7 FOR SPECULATION, IT LACKS FOUNDATION, IT'S AN INCOMPLETE 8 HYPOTHETICAL AS PHRASED. 9 BY MR. COZAD: 10 Q. WHEN YOU WROTE YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 2, 2006? 11 A. MAY I -- MAY I CLARIFY WHY I ANSWERED YES? 12 MR. WINET: SURE. 13 MR. COZAD: YOUR LAWYER. 14 MR. WINET: SURE. 15 MR. COZAD: CAN ASK YOU WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN OR 16 YOU CAN WORK IT INTO AN ANSWER. 17 A. YOU DON'T WANT ME TO CLAVER WHY I SAID YES. 18 BY MR. COZAD: 19 Q. I THINK I HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC ANSWER ON THE 20 RECORD? 21 MR. WINET: SO YOU DON'T WANT HER TO CLARIFY. 22 MR. COZAD: HER RECORD WAS VERY CLEAR. 23 MR. WINET: ALL RIGHT SO HE DOESN'T WANT TO 24 YOU CLARIFY AT THIS TIME. THAT'S FINE. 25 MR. COZAD: I'M SURE YOU'LL WORK IT IN. 120 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. NOW AS YOU WROTE YOUR LETTER ON OCTOBER 2, 3 2006, -- STRIKE THAT. 4 LET'S GO BACK 5 BY MR. COZAD: 6 Q. DID YOU ASK ANY TRUSTEE TO CONTACT GLORIA 7 CARRANZA BEFORE OCTOBER 3RD, 2006 AND TELL HER THAT IF 8 SHE DID NOT SUPPORT YOU THERE MAY BE A LAWSUIT AGAINST 9 THE COLLEGE BY YOU? 10 A. NO. 11 Q. DID YOU ASK ANY ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE 12 COLLEGE TO RELAY TO MS. CARRANZA THAT IF SHE DIDN'T 13 SUPPORT YOU ON OCTOBER 3RD THAT YOU WOULD FILE A 14 LAWSUIT? 15 A. NO. 16 Q. DID YOU EVER THREATEN GLORIA CARRANZA WITH ANY 17 TYPE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IF SHE DID NOT SUPPORT YOU IN 18 OR ABOUT OCTOBER 3RD OF 2006? 19 A. NO. WHAT I DID IS WHAT I WROTE IN THE LETTER 20 IN MY CLOSING PARAGRAPH, WHICH IS, THAT I BELIEVE THAT 21 SHE'LL BE VIOLATING MY EMPLOYEE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY AND I 22 WOULD HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO REQUEST FROM THE BOARD ANY 23 AND ALL NECESSARY LEGAL REMEDIES. 24 Q. NOW THAT -- DOES THAT -- DID YOU UNDERSTAND 25 THAT YOU WERE MAKING A THREAT TO BRING LEGAL ACTION? 121 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. NO. 2 Q. WHAT DID THAT MEAN -- YOU'RE SAYING I WOULD 3 HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO REQUEST FROM THE BOARD ANY AND ALL 4 NECESSARY LEGAL REMEDIES" WHAT DID THAT MEAN TO YOU? 5 A. WHAT THAT MEANT TO ME IS THAT IF I WAS GOING 6 TO BE PUBLICLY EVALUATED I WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO HEAR 7 CHARGES AGAINST ME IN CLOSED SESSION AS LEGALLY -- AS MY 8 DUE PROCESS IS REQUIRES. AND THAT THE LEGAL REMEDIES 9 WOULD BE TO ASK THE TRUSTEES TO WAIT UNTIL WE ARE IN 10 CLOSED SESSION AND THEN THEY CAN GIVE ME AN EVALUATION 11 THAT TELLS ME WHAT IT IS THAT I AM DOING WRONG OR WHAT 12 IT IS THAT THEY DON'T AGREE WITH ME THAT IS IN THE 13 PERFORMANCE OF MY DUTIES. 14 Q. BUT A SIMPLE STATEMENT OF OPINION ABOUT THE 15 QUALITY OF YOUR WORK AT MIRACOSTA COLLEGE RELATE TO GO 16 AN ITEM OF PUBLIC INTEREST YOU WOULDN'T CONSIDER THAT TO 17 BE AN EVALUATION, WOULD YOU? 18 MR. WINET: WELL LET ME OBJECT. THE QUESTION 19 IS -- IT LACKS FOUNDATION, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN 20 EVIDENCE. IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL AND CALLS FOR AN IMPROPER 21 OPINION AND CONCLUSION. LACKS FOUNDATION AS TO THIS 22 LITIGATION. WITH ALL OF THOSE OBJECTIONS YOU CAN STILL 23 ANSWER THE QUESTION. 24 A. AN OPINION, TRUSTEES OFFER OPINIONS ALL OF THE 25 TIME ABOUT ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT COMES BEFORE AN 122 ROUGH DRAFT 1 AGENDA ITEM IN A PUBLIC MEETING. AND THAT IS PERFECTLY 2 FINE. BUT YOU DO NOT EVALUATE AN EMPLOYEE EITHER ME OR 3 ANYBODY ELSE AT THE COLLEGE, IN A PUBLIC SETTING. THE 4 EMPLOYEE HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE ANY ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HIM 5 OR HER HEARD IN CLOSED SESSION. AND THAT'S WHAT I 6 MEANT. AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED. IF THERE WAS 7 SOMETHING THAT THE TRUSTEE, THIS PARTICULAR TRUSTEE, HAD 8 DECIDED IN TWO WEEKS THAT HAD GONE WRONG, I HAD NO CLUE 9 WHAT THAT WAS. I HAD NO IDEA. SO I WANTED MY LEGAL DUE 10 RIGHTS TO BE GIVEN BACK TO ME. 11 Q. AND THE RIGHTS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE 12 THE ONES THAT WE MENTIONED EARLIER. YOU DID NOT KNOW 13 WHAT THE LEGAL BASIS WAS OF THEM, CORRECT? 14 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. THE QUESTION IS VAGUE 15 AND ARGUMENTATIVE. I'M UNCLEAR ON THE QUESTION. ANSWER 16 IF YOU UNDERSTAND. 17 BY MR. COZAD: 18 Q. LET ME MAKE IT REAL CLEAR? 19 A. YEAH I DON'T UNDERSTAND SORRY. 20 Q. LET ME MAKE IT REAL CLEAR. THIS WHOLE IDEA 21 THAT A TRUSTEE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO EXPRESS AN OPINION 22 ABOUT YOUR WORK PERFORMANCE IN PUBLIC, YOU CAN'T TELL ME 23 THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THAT, CAN YOU? 24 A. NO, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. 25 Q. ALL RIGHT. WHAT ROLE DID YOU PLAY IN THE 123 ROUGH DRAFT 1 DRAFTING OF THE RESOLUTION? 2 A. NONE. NO ROLE. 3 Q. WERE YOU AWARE THAT TRUSTEES MAY HAVE 4 CONTACTED GLORIA CARRANZA AND TOLD HER THAT IF SHE DID 5 NOT SUPPORT YOU ON THIS LETTER OF SUPPORT YOU WOULD SUE? 6 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT. THE QUESTION IS 7 AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE OF THE WORDING OF THE SENTENCE THAT 8 THE TRUSTEES MAY HAVE CONTACTED HER. I DON'T KNOW HOW 9 SHE CAN ADDRESS THAT WITHOUT SPECULATING. TO THE EXTENT 10 YOU CAN ANSWER, GO AHEAD. 11 A. I DID NOT KNOW THAT. 12 Q. REFERRING TO 22 CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE 13 SIGNATURES AT THE BOTTOM? 14 A. YES. 15 Q. DO YOU WANT TO READ THEM OFF PLEASE? 16 A. RODOLFO FERNANDEZ, CHARLES ADAMS SENIOR, 17 CAROLYN BATISTE, JACQUELINE SIMON, GREGORY POST, HENRY 18 HOLLOWAY AND JEFF -- I CAN'T REMEMBER HIS LAST NAME. I 19 CAN'T READ THE NAME. 20 BY MR. COZAD: 21 Q. WHO IS JEFF? 22 A. HE'S THE STUDENTS BOARD MEMBER. I SHOULD 23 REMEMBER HIS NAME. 24 Q. IS HE A VOTING MEMBER? 25 A. HE CAN MAKE MOTIONS AND SECOND MOTIONS HE CAN 124 ROUGH DRAFT 1 NOT VOTE. 2 Q. OKAY. 3 A. BUT HE IS A MOMENT OF THE BOARD. 4 Q. ALL RIGHT. 5 A. AT MAYOR COLLEGE HIS VOTE IS RECORDED BUT NOT 6 COUNTED BUT IS RECORDED IN THE MINUTES. 7 Q. OKAY LET'S SHOW YOU WHAT WE'LL MARK AS 8 EXHIBIT 23? 9 A. JEFF HALE, I'M SORRY. I SHOULD HAVE 10 REMEMBERED. HE WAS A VERY GOOD STUDENTS TRUSTEE. 11 Q. H A L E? 12 A. H A L E. 13 Q. ALL RIGHT? 14 A. YES. 15 Q. OKAY. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OUT OF -- WELL, 16 LET'S TAKE THAT BACK. SORRY. SORRY FOLKS. 17 (EXHIBIT 23 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 18 BY MR. COZAD: 19 Q. OKAY. ON OCTOBER 18, 2006, DID THE 20 UNION-TRIBUNE REPORT THAT TWO-THIRDS OF THE MIRACOSTA 21 COLLEGE EMPLOYEES SURVEYED BY FACULTY AND STAFF SAID 22 THAT YOU DID NOT MANAGE THE COLLEGE IN AN EFFECTIVE 23 MANNER? 24 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR 25 ITSELF AND THE STATEMENT JUST MADE IS SOMEWHAT 125 ROUGH DRAFT 1 INACCURATELY DESCRIBES THE DOCUMENT. YOU CAN ANSWER. 2 A. I THINK THE NEWS ARTICLE SAYS ALL KINDS OF 3 DIFFERENT THINGS MORE THAN WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED. 4 MR. COZAD: IS IT TRUE THAT TWO-THIRDS OF THE 5 COLLEGE EMPLOYEES STATED THAT YOU WERE NOT AN EFFECTIVE 6 LEADER. 7 MR. SLEETH: OBJECTION MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE. 8 IT'S TWO-THIRDS OF THE EMPLOYEES SURVEYED WHICH COULD BE 9 THREE PEOPLE. 10 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT TO THE SAME GROUNDS. 11 THE QUESTION MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE AND THE INFORMATION. 12 BY MR. COZAD: 13 Q. WAS THERE PUBLISHED IN THE UNION-TRIBUNE A 14 NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION, THE FOLLOWING 15 STATEMENT ON OCTOBER 18, 2006: TWO-THIRDS OF MIRACOSTA 16 COLLEGE EMPLOYEES SURVEYED BY FACULTY AND STAFF 17 ORGANIZATION SAID EMPLOYEES SURVEYED BATTLED COLLEGE 18 PRESIDENT VICTORIA MUNOZ RICHART IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE 19 LEADER? 20 A. YOU JUST READ WHAT THIS WEB PRINTED PAGE IN 21 THE UNION-TRIBUNE SAYS. 22 MR. WINET: THAT'S WHAT HE'S ASKING YOU. DID 23 HE JUST READ THAT. 24 A. YEAH HE DID READ THAT. 25 126 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. IS IT YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT ON OR ABOUT 3 OCTOBER 18, 2006 THERE WAS A SURVEY AT MIRACOSTA 4 COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND RESULTS WERE CRITICAL OF YOUR 5 MANAGEMENT? 6 MR. WINET: THE QUESTION IS OVERBROAD VAGUE 7 ALSO LACKS FOUNDATION GO AHEAD. 8 A. THERE WAS A SURVEY I DON'T RECALL WHEN IT WAS 9 DONE AND WHO WAS SURVEYED. 10 BY MR. COZAD: 11 Q. DID YOU TELL THE REPORTER THAT YOU WERE NOT 12 SURPRISED BY THE RESULTS? 13 A. NO, I DON'T RECALL. 14 Q. DID YOU TELL THE REPORTER THAT YOU CONSIDERED 15 YOURSELF QUOTE FAIR GAME FOR ATTACKS CLOSED QUOTE AS 16 PRESIDENT? 17 A. I DON'T RECALL PRECISELY SAYING THAT AT THAT 18 TIME BUT IT'S NOT -- IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME IF I SAID 19 IT. 20 Q. AS OF OCTOBER 18, 2006, WAS THERE UNREST ON 21 THE CAMPUS BECAUSE OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE 22 HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT? 23 A. YES. 24 Q. PRIOR TO THAT TIME HAD YOU PLACED A LIEN ***AT 25 THAT HERE RAH ON LEAVE? 127 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. THAT IS AN ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN IN CLOSED 2 SESSION, ACTUALLY DIRECTION TO LEGAL COUNSEL. 3 MR. WINET: OKAY. 4 BY MR. COZAD: 5 Q. IS THAT AN ACTION THAT YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY 6 FOR AS PRESIDENT/SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE COMING? 7 MR. WINET: OBJECTION CALLS FOR AN IMPROPER 8 OPINION AND CONCLUSION LACKS FOUNDATION GO AHEAD. 9 A. I MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF 10 TRUSTEES. THAT'S MY JOB ON ALL PERSONNEL ACTIONS. 11 BY MR. COZAD: 12 Q. IN ADDITION? 13 A. THE PERSONNEL ACTIONS THEMSELVES ARE TAKEN BY 14 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS A WHOLE. 15 Q. OKAY. IN ADDITION, HAD JULIE HATOFF BEEN 16 PLACED ON LEAVE AS WELL BY OCTOBER 18, 2006? 17 A. YES. 18 Q. AND SHE WAS WELL-LIKED AND POPULAR FACULTY 19 MEMBER, WASN'T SHE? 20 A. NO. 21 Q. DID YOU PLAY ANY ROLE IN FORCING EILEEN 22 KRASKOUSKAS TO RETIRE? 23 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. THE QUESTION LACKS 24 FOUNDATION AND IS ARGUMENTATIVE THAT SHE WAS FORCED TO 25 RETIRE BY ANYONE. GO AHEAD. 128 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. NO. 2 MR. SLEETH: THE DISTRICT DID -- 3 A. I'M SORRY. 4 MR. SLEETH: IF YOU ARE JUST GOING TO SAY NO I 5 DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. I WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE -- 6 MR. COZAD: KEEP IT AT A NO. 7 MR. SLEETH: KEY ITEMS WE WORRY ABOUT 8 KRASKOUSKAS PRIVACY. 9 A. I'M AWARE OF THAT. 10 MR. SLEETH: OKAY. 11 BY MR. COZAD: 12 Q. NEVERTHELESS, THE PERSONNEL STATUS OF EILEEN 13 KRASKOUSKAS ALLEEN TEXEIRA AND JULIE HATOFF WERE ALL 14 ISSUES ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND DISCUSSION IN 15 OCTOBER 18, 2006 ISN'T THAT SO? 16 A. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND DISCUSSION? YES. 17 Q. OKAY. AND AS OF OCTOBER 18, 2006, YOU WERE 18 IDENTIFIED AS BEING ONE OF THE MAIN PROPONENTS OF THE 19 PERSONNEL ACTION THAT IS WERE BEING TAKEN WITH RESPECT 20 TO ALLEEN TEXEIRA, JULIE HATOFF AND EILEEN KRASKOUSKAS 21 ISN'T IN A SO? 22 MR. WINET: OBJECTION ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN 23 EVIDENCE ALSO THE QUESTION IS COMPOUND YOU CAN ANSWER TO 24 THE EXTENT YOU CAN. 25 A. IF YOUR QUESTION IS THAT PEOPLE WERE SAYING 129 ROUGH DRAFT 1 THAT AS SUPERINTENDENT PRESIDENT IT WAS MY 2 RESPONSIBILITY AND MY DUTY AND ET CETERA, IF THAT'S YOUR 3 QUESTION THEN THE ANSWER IS YES, THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WERE 4 SAYING AND DOING. EVEN THOUGH ON OCTOBER 3RD THE BOARD 5 IN THEIR LETTER OF SUPPORT AND RESOLUTION CLARIFIED THAT 6 ALL OF THE PERSONNEL ACTIONS WERE TAKEN UNDER THE 7 DIRECTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. AND THAT THE 8 ACTIONS WERE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES'S ACTIONS. 9 BY MR. COZAD: 10 Q. NEVERTHELESS YOU WERE IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE 11 COMMENTS OF SOME OF THE PUBLIC AS BEING THE PERSON 12 RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THESE ACTIONS TO BEAR ISN'T 13 THAT TRUE? 14 MR. WINET: OBJECT. 15 A. YES. 16 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT. THE QUESTION MAY 17 CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND LACK FOUNDATION AS TO WHICH 18 MEMBERS AND WHAT THEY ARE SAYING BUT GO AHEAD. 19 A. IN GENERAL AS YOU HAVE STATED, YES. LET'S. 20 MR. COZAD: LET'S SHOW YOU WHAT WE'LL MARK AS 21 EXHIBITS 24. 22 (EXHIBIT NUMBER MARKED FOR 23 IDENTIFICATION.) 24 BY MR. COZAD: 25 Q. ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 30TH, 2006, DID YOU MEET 130 ROUGH DRAFT 1 WITH ABOUT 85 FACULTY MEMBERS AT AN ACADEMIC SENATE 2 MEETING? 3 A. I WOULD NOT KNOW IF THERE WERE ABOUT 85 4 FACULTY POSITION ULTIMATE MEMBERS OR NOT. BUT I DID 5 MEET WITH FACULTY MEMBERS IN A MEETING CALLED BY THE 6 ACADEMIC SENATE, YES. 7 Q. WHAT'S YOUR BEST ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF 8 ATTENDEES? 9 A. I DON'T KNOW, 80, 90, HUNDRED, I DON'T KNOW. 10 Q. DID YOU SAY THAT YOU PROBABLY WOULD DO THE 11 SAME THING IN THEIR SHOES, THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD WHY THEY 12 WERE ANGRY? 13 A. I DID SAY THAT I UNDERSTOOD WHY THEY WERE 14 UPSET, YES. 15 Q. BY NOVEMBER 30TH, 2006, DO YOU AGREE THAT 16 ANIMOSITY BETWEEN YOU AND SOME TEACHERS GREW AFTER JULIE 17 HATOFF WAS PLACED ON LEAVE? 18 A. YES. 19 Q. AND THEN SINCE THEN WOULD YOU AGREE THAT 20 IMPASSIONED SPEECHES WERE BEING MADE ON BOTH SIDE OF THE 21 ISSUE IN SUPPORT OF YOU AND IN OPPOSITION TO YOUR WORK? 22 A. I WOULD SAY IMPASSIONED STATEMENTS. I'M NOT 23 SURE THEY WERE ALL SPEECHES. SOME OF THEM WERE. MOSTLY 24 STATEMENTS I WOULD SAY. 25 Q. I'LL SHOW YOU WHAT WE'LL MARK AS EXHIBIT 25 IT 131 ROUGH DRAFT 1 APPEARS TO BE A MEMORANDUM DATED DECEMBER 14, 2006 FROM 2 JONATHAN COLE TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. 3 (EXHIBIT 25 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 4 BY MR. COZAD: 5 Q. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE? 6 A. YES. 7 Q. AND AGAIN, JONATHAN COLE AT THE TIME WAS HE 8 PRESIDENT OF ACADEMIC SENATE? 9 A. YES. 10 Q. DURING THE SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THIS 11 MEMORANDUM WAS PREPARED HAD YOU MET WITH ACADEMIC SENATE 12 LEADERS AND ATTEMPTED TO RESOLVE SOME OF THE ISSUES? 13 A. YES. 14 Q. WERE THEY SUCCESSFUL? 15 A. NO. 16 Q. ALL RIGHT. LET ME NEXT SHOW YOU WHAT WE WILL 17 MARK AS EXHIBIT 26 WHICH APPEARS TO BE A LETTER OF 18 JANUARY 24, 2007 BY COLLEGE PRESIDENT CHARLES ADAMS TO 19 JONATHAN COLE. 20 (EXHIBIT NUMBER MARKED FOR 21 IDENTIFICATION.) 22 MR. SLEETH: I SEEM TO HAVE JUST LOST THE 23 NUMBER ON THAT. 24 MR. WINET: TWENTY-SIX. 25 132 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS LETTER BEFORE? 3 A. YES. 4 Q. FOURTH PARAGRAPH DOWN. 5 A. UH-HUH. 6 Q. WHERE IT REFERS TO THE LANGUAGE QUOTE AS YOU 7 KNOW THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED A RESOLUTION AND A 8 LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT PRESIDENT? 9 A. UH-HUH. 10 Q. CLOSED QUOTE? 11 A. UH-HUH. 12 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT LETTER HE'S REFERRING TO? 13 A. YES, THE ONES WE HAVE JUST DISCUSSED ON 14 OCTOBER THIRD THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 15 AT THE BOARD MEETING ON OCTOBER 3RD. 16 Q. OKAY. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS IT TRUE THAT THE 17 BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED FOR THE RESOLUTION ON OKAYED 18 THIRD? 19 A. YES. 20 Q. DID GLORIA CARRANZA VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE 21 RESOLUTION? 22 MR. WINET: OBJECTION ASSUMES THAT SHE WAS 23 PRESENTS. LACKS FOUNDATION. GO AHEAD. 24 A. GLORIA CARRANZA WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE BOARD 25 MEETING. SHE CAST NO VOTE. 133 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. OKAY. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN A 3 CORRECT STATEMENT -- STRIKE THAT. 4 TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WOULD IT HAVE BEEN CORRECT 5 TO IMPLY THAT AS OF JANUARY 24, 2007, THAT THE MIRACOSTA 6 COLLEGE BOARD CONTINUES TO UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORT 7 SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT RICHART? 8 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION, 9 LACKS FOUNDATION AS TO THIS WITNESS YOU CAN ANSWER TO 10 THE EXTENT YOU KNOW. 11 A. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS IMPLIED. THIS LETTER 12 DOES NOT IMPLY THAT AT ALL. CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE 13 YOU'RE READING FROM? 14 MR. COZAD: SURE. 15 BY MR. COZAD: 16 Q. PARAGRAPH FOUR THE FIRST SENTENCE AND LET ME 17 READ THE LANGUAGE HERE. "AS YOU KNOW, THE BOARD 18 UNANIMOUSLY VOTED A RESOLUTION AND A LETTER IN SUPPORT 19 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT CLOSED QUOTE. NOW WE 20 KNOW THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE OCTOBER 3RD LETTER? 21 A. CORRECT. 22 Q. RIGHT? 23 AND HERE WE ARE IN JANUARY 24TH OF 2007. BY 24 THAT DATE DID YOU HAVE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT ON THE BOARD? 25 MR. WINET: SAME OBJECTION, LACKS FOUNDATION, 134 ROUGH DRAFT 1 CALLS FOR SPECULATION. ANSWER, IF YOU KNOW. 2 A. THERE HAVE BEEN NO OTHER VOTE BY THE BOARD SO 3 THAT WAS THE ONLY VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THE 4 SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT UP TO THAT DATE. 5 BY MR. COZAD: 6 Q. PRIOR TO JANUARY 24, 2007, DID YOU HAVE 7 INFORMATION THAT SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT YOU NO LONGER HAD 8 UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES? 9 A. LET ME CLARIFY MY THINKING. WHEN YOU ASKED ME 10 ABOUT UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THE BOARD IT IMPLIES A FULL 11 BOARD ACTION, AN ACTION THAT THE BOARD AS A WHOLE TAKES. 12 UP TILL THIS POINT THE TWO ACTIONS IN THIS FISCAL YEAR 13 WERE THE RENEWAL OF MY CONTRACT IN JULY, WHICH HAD SEVEN 14 UNANIMOUS VOTES. AND MY EVALUATION WHICH HAD SEVEN 15 UNANIMOUS VOTES. AND THEN THE RESOLUTION BY THE VOTE ON 16 OCTOBER 3RD THAT HAD SIX VOTES. ONE TRUSTEE ABSENT. 17 THERE WERE NO OTHER OFFICIAL ACTIONS OF THE BOARD THAT 18 HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY SUPPORT OR LACK OF SUPPORT OF 19 THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT. 20 Q. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION I ASKED. 21 WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS HAVE THE COURT REPORTER 22 REREAD MY QUESTION. LET'S LISTEN CAREFULLY TO IT? 23 A. UH-HUH. 24 Q. AND SEE IF WE CAN ANSWER THAT ONE. 25 (LAST QUESTION READ.) 135 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. I THINK I ANSWERED THE QUESTION. 2 BY MR. COZAD: 3 Q. PRIOR TO JANUARY 24, 2007, DID YOU HAVE 4 INFORMATION THAT SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT SOME OF THE 5 TRUSTEES ON THE BOARD NO LONGER CONSIDERED YOUR 6 MANAGEMENT APPROPRIATE? 7 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT TO THE USE OF THE 8 WORD SOME, IMPLIES MORE THAN ONE. SO THE QUESTION IS 9 AMBIGUOUS. 10 A. NO. THE ANSWER IS NO. 11 BY MR. COZAD: 12 Q. DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE DRAFTING OF THE 13 LETTER OF JANUARY 24, 2007? 14 A. I REVIEWED IT WITH MR. LARSON WHO IS AN 15 ATTORNEY THAT THE BOARD PRESIDENT HAD ASKED TO ASSIST 16 HIM IN WRITING THE LETTER. THIS LETTER WAS DRAFTED 17 BETWEEN THE BOARD PRESIDENT AND MR. LARSON WHO IS LEGAL 18 COUNSEL FOR MIRACOSTA ON ACADEMIC MATTERS. 19 Q. AT WHAT STAGE DID YOU REVIEW THIS LETTER? 20 A. WHEN MR. ADAMS WAS IN MY OFFICE SIGNING IT. 21 Q. DID YOU THINK THAT THIS LANGUAGE FIRST 22 SENTENCE IN PARAGRAPH FOUR WAS MISLEADING IN ANY WAY? 23 A. NO. 24 Q. DID YOU PROPOSE ANY CHANGES TO THE LETTER? 25 A. NO. 136 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT WE'LL MARK AS EXHIBIT 27. 2 (EXHIBIT 27 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 3 A. IT'S CHILLY IN HERE. 4 MR. WINET: DO YOU WANT ME TO TURN -- 5 A. JUST A LITTLE BIT IF YOU DON'T MIND. I THINK 6 IT'S BLOWING RIGHT AT ME. SO IT'S -- 7 BY MR. COZAD: 8 Q. OKAY HAVE YOU SEEN EXHIBIT 27 BEFORE? 9 A. YES. 10 Q. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT WAS ON OR ABOUT 11 FEBRUARY 7 -- FEBRUARY 1 OF 2007? 12 A. I DON'T RECALL WHEN I SAW IT. 13 Q. OKAY. THIS APPEARS TO BE A LETTER FROM THE 14 MIRACOSTA COLLEGE ACADEMIC SENATE TO BOARD PRESIDENT 15 CHARLES ADAMS? 16 A. YES. 17 Q. IN RESPONSE TO HIS LETTER OF JANUARY 24? 18 A. YES. 19 Q. THE LAST SENTENCE ON PAGE ONE -- STRIKE THAT. 20 THE SECOND TO THE LAST SENTENCE ON PAGE 1 21 SUGGESTS THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN THE BOARD 22 SUPPORT FOR YOU SINCE THE OCTOBER 3RD LETTER AND 23 MENTIONS A REFERENCE TO THE JOINTS SENATE MID TERM 24 ACCREDITATION SURVEY. WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT? 25 A. IT'S A SURVEY THAT IS DONE FOR THE MID TERM 137 ROUGH DRAFT 1 ACCREDITATION REPORT. 2 Q. AND WHO IS THAT PERFORMED BY? 3 A. IT'S PERFORMED BY COLLEGE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE 4 SURVEYED IN RESPONSE -- AND RESPOND TO THE SURVEY. 5 Q. OKAY. AND THE POINT OF IT IS, IS WHAT? 6 A. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BOTH THE ACADEMIC AND 7 THE CLASSIFIED SENATES WANTED TO TAKE AN EMPLOYEE SURVEY 8 SO THAT THEY COULD COMMUNICATE TO THE COMMISSION THE 9 CAMPUS CLIMATE. 10 Q. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY? 11 A. I DON'T RECALL. 12 Q. WERE THEY GENERALLY POSITIVE OR GENERALLY 13 NEGATIVE? 14 A. ABOUT WHAT? 15 Q. YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION AS I PHRASED 16 IT? 17 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT THE QUESTION YOU 18 HAVE JUST STATED NOW IS ARGUMENTATIVE. SO SHE'S ASKED 19 YOU A CLARIFICATION IN THE WAY YOU JUST SAID IT IS 20 ARGUMENTATIVE SO WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID I'LL INSTRUCT HER 21 NOT TO ANSWER IF YOU WANT TO REPHRASE THE QUESTION 22 THAT'S FINE. (MARK). 23 BY MR. COZAD: 24 Q. WHAT'S THE BEST RECOLLECTION OF THE 25 ACCREDITATION SURVEY? 138 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. THE ACCREDITATION SURVEY HAS MANY COMPONENT TO 2 SAY IT AND IN TERMS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE, THE CAMPUS 3 CLIMATE WAS NOT VERY POSITIVE BECAUSE EMPLOYEES WERE 4 UPSET ABOUT ALL OF THE PERSONNEL ACTIONS THAT THE BOARD 5 HAD TAKEN AS WELL AS THE INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF 6 FRAUD IN THE HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT. 7 Q. DID DID THE MIRACOSTA COLLEGE EABLGD ON OR 8 ABOUT FEBRUARY 1, 2007 TELL YOU THAT THEY HAVE PERVASIVE 9 CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR PATTERN OF MANAGEMENT THAT ARE NOT 10 LIMITED TO THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION OF THE HORTICULTURE 11 DEPARTMENT? 12 MR. WINET: OBJECTION I BELIEVE THE QUESTION 13 MAY LACK FOUNDATION AS TO THE DOCUMENT. I HAVE NOT READ 14 THROUGH THE WHOLE THING RIGHT NOW BUT I'LL JUST 15 STATEMENT MY OBJECTION, LACKS FOUNDATION. GO AHEAD AND 16 ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN. 17 A. I DON'T RECOLLECT THAT. 18 BY MR. COZAD: 19 Q. BEFORE FEBRUARY 1, 2007, DID ANY TRUSTEE CAUSE 20 YOU HARM THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT AS 21 PART OF YOUR SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 20TH OF -- JULY? 22 MR. PAGE: JUNE 20TH, 2007. 23 BY MR. COZAD: 24 Q. JUNE 20*9, 2007? 25 MR. WINET: OBJECTION IT MAY CALL FOR A LEGAL 139 ROUGH DRAFT 1 CONCLUSION TO SOME EXTENT BUT GO AHEAD. 2 A. EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LEGAL 3 TERMINOLOGY OF ANY CLAIM THAT COULD CAUSE -- THAT WOULD 4 BE INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT, UP TO FEBRUARY 1ST, I HAD 5 NOT RETAINED LEGAL COUNSEL NOR DID I THINK THAT I HAD 6 BEEN DAMAGED BY MY EMPLOYER, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. 7 BY MR. COZAD: 8 Q. SAME QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL 9 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? 10 A. SAME ANSWER. 11 Q. OKAY. SO PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 2007, YOU 12 DIDN'T FEEL THAT THE COLLEGE DISTRICT OR ANY OF THE 13 INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID ANYTHING TO YOU THAT 14 WOULD GIVE RISE TO A LAWSUIT; IS THAT RIGHT? 15 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT THE QUESTION CALLS 16 FOR IMPROPER OPINION LEGAL CONCLUSION AS TO WHAT WOULD 17 GIVE TRIES A LAWSUIT SO IT CALLS FOR AN IMPROPER LEGAL 18 CONCLUSION AND IMPROPER OPINION. CALLS FOR IMPROPER 19 ANALYSIS BY THE WITNESS. 20 MR. SLEETH: WELL MISSTATES HER TESTIMONY. 21 A. I'M SORRY? 22 MR. WINET: HE SAID MISSTATES HER TESTIMONY. 23 YOU CAN ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN. 24 A. I WOULDN'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT IN RELATION 25 TO GIVE RISE TO A LAWSUIT. I HAD NOT RETAINED LEGAL 140 ROUGH DRAFT 1 COUNSEL SO I WAS NOT PLANNING ON ANY TYPE OF A LEGAL, 2 LEGAL ACTION AROUND AND BEFORE FEBRUARY 1ST. 3 BY MR. COZAD: 4 Q. BEFORE FEBRUARY 1, 2007, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT 5 GLORIA CARRANZA, JACKIE SIMON OR JUDY STRATTAN DEFAMED 6 IN IN ANYWAY? 7 A. WELL. 8 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT ONCE AGAINST BECAUSE 9 HE USED THE WORD DEFAMED. THE QUESTION CALLS FOR AN 10 IMPROPER LEGAL CONCLUSION LACKS FOUNDATION AS TO THIS 11 WITNESS. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ANSWER. 12 A. EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LEGAL 13 DEFINITION OR PARAMETERS OF DEFAMED, UP UNTIL -- BEFORE 14 FEBRUARY 1ST I WAS NOT AWARE OR DID NOT KNOW IF THEY HAD 15 DEFAMED ME OR NOT. SNOOP. 16 Q. PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 2007, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT 17 GLORIA CARRANZA, JACKIE SIMON OR JUDY STRATTAN EVER SAID 18 ANYTHING FALLS ABOUT YOU IN PUBLIC? 19 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, MAY LACK FOUNDATION AS 20 TO THIS WITNESS BUT GO AHEAD AND ANSWER. 21 A. I WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY EVER SAID. SO I 22 CANNOT -- I DON'T -- I CANNOT ANSWER THE WORD EVER. YOU 23 SAID EVER. RIGHT? 24 MR. WINET: I THINK THE QUESTION WAS AS TO 25 YOUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE IS WHAT HE'S ASKING. WERE YOU 141 ROUGH DRAFT 1 AWARE? 2 A. I DON'T RECALL. 3 BY MR. COZAD: 4 Q. PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 2007, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT 5 GLORIA CARRANZA, JACKIE SIMON OR JUDY STRATTAN EVER 6 INTENTIONALLY TRIED TO CREATE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FOR 7 YOU? 8 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION CALLS FOR 9 IMPROPER LEGAL CONCLUSION, LACKS FOUNDATION, ALSO CALLS 10 FOR SPECULATION AND IMPROPER OPINION AND CONCLUSION. 11 YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN. 12 A. I CANNOT SPECULATE ON THAT. 13 BY MR. COZAD: 14 Q. PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 2007 DO YOU BELIEVE THAT 15 GLORIA CARRANZA, JACKIE SIMON OR JUDY STRATTAN EVER DID 16 ANYTHING TO CREATE A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR YOU? 17 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR IMPROPER 18 LEGAL CONCLUSION, LACKS FOUNDATION, IS IT BECAUSE THE 19 QUESTION CONTAINS WITHIN IT A LEGAL TERM OF ART. TO THE 20 EXTENT YOU CAN ANSWER GO AHEAD. 21 A. I DON'T THINK SO. 22 BY MR. COZAD: 23 Q. PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 2007 DO YOU BELIEVE 24 GLORIA CARRANZA, JACKIE SIMON OR JUDY STRATTAN EVER SAID 25 ANYTHING PUBLIC ABOUT YOU THAT WAS MALICIOUS? 142 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION LACKS 2 FOUNDATION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION. YOU CAN ANSWER TO 3 WHAT YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF. 4 A. I HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, 5 NOT NECESSARILY COLLEGE EMPLOYEES, THAT MENTIONED TO ME 6 SOME OF THE NEGATIVE STATEMENTS THAT WERE BEING SAID IN 7 THE COMMUNITY. BUT THAT'S AS FAR AS I KNOW. 8 BY MR. COZAD: 9 Q. ALL RIGHT. NOW PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 2007, DID 10 ANYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, 11 EVER SAY ANYTHING FALSE ABOUT YOU IN PUBLIC? 12 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 13 OVERBROAD. VAGUE. YOU CAN ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU 14 KNOW. 15 A. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 2007, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE 18 DID ANY EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF THE MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY 19 COLLEGE EVER SAY ANYTHING FALSE ABOUT YOU IN PUBLIC? 20 A. CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION PLEASE I WAS 21 DISTRACTED WITH THE NOTICE THAT THE TAPE IS GOING TO 22 END. 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: TEN MINUTES. 24 MR. COZAD: SURE. IF THE REPORTER WOULD. 25 (LAST QUESTION READ.) 143 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. YES. 2 BY MR. COZAD: 3 Q. AND WHO WAS THAT? 4 A. THE ACADEMIC SENATE PRESIDENT AS WELL AS MANY 5 OF THE EMPLOYEES THAT CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO REPORT ON 6 THE CONTENTS OF THE VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE OF THE 7 SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT. 8 Q. NOW WHEN YOU SAY THAT -- WHO WAS THE PERSON 9 WITH THE ACADEMIC SENATE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO WELL 10 THERE WERE MANY MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE BUT THE 11 PRESIDENT OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE READ THE 35-POINT -- 12 PRIOR -- EXCUSE ME. YOU SAID PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1ST, 13 RIGHT? 14 Q. YES. 15 A. HE READ IT LATER. AND THE QUESTION WAS THEY 16 SAID, RIGHT? OR READ OR STATED? WHAT I'M TRYING TO 17 SAY. 18 MR. WINET: DO YOU HAVE THE QUESTION IN MIND 19 BECAUSE IF NOT WE COULD HAVE IT READ BACK. 20 A. YEAH READ IT TO ME AGAIN PLEASE. 21 (LAST QUESTION READ.) 22 A. YEAH THE ANSWER IS YES. AND IT'S THE 23 STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN PUBLIC PURSUANT TO THE VOTE 24 OF NO CONFIDENCE THAT THE FULL TIME FACULTY HAD TAKEN ON 25 I THINK IT WAS NOVEMBER 30TH, AND THEN THE SUBSEQUENT 144 ROUGH DRAFT 1 STATEMENTS IN PUBLIC SETTINGS. 2 BY MR. COZAD: 3 Q. OKAY. WE'LL GET DO THAT. PRIOR TO 4 FEBRUARY 1, 2007, DID ANY EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF THE 5 MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISCLOSE ANY PRIVATE FACTS 6 ABOUT YOU THAT THEY WERE BOUND TO KEEP CONFIDENTIAL? 7 A. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. 8 MR. COZAD: MIGHT AS WELL DO IT NOW. 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING OFF 10 THE RECORD AT 2:38. 11 (RECESS) 12 (EXHIBIT 28 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: WE'RE ON THE RECORD. THIS 14 IS TAPE NO. 3. IT IS 251. 15 BY MR. COZAD: 16 Q. OKAY. WE HAVE MARKED ITEM 28; IS THAT RIGHT? 17 COURT REPORTER: (NODS.) 18 BY MR. COZAD: 19 Q. WHICH APPEARS TO BE A MEMORANDUM DATED 20 FEBRUARY 1 ENTITLED MINORITY RESPONSE. HAVE YOU SEEN 21 EXHIBIT 28 BEFORE? 22 A. NOT IN THIS FORMAT BUT I HAVE SEEN IT IN TERMS 23 OF ITS CONTENTS. 24 Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE FORMAT THAT YOU RECALL 25 SEEING IT IN? 145 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. THE ITEMS WERE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION SOMEHOW 2 MY MEMORY SAYS THAT THEY WERE IN AN IN -- IT WAS FURTHER 3 UP. SO THE BREAK WAS NOT WHERE IT SHOWS. THAT'S MY 4 ONLY RECOLLECTION. THE FORMAT LOOKS DIFFERENT. THE 5 CONTENTS SEEMS THE SAME. 6 Q. OKAY. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WORKING WITH IT? 7 A. YES OH, SURE. 8 Q. AS WE HAVE IT HERE? 9 A. OF COURSE. 10 Q. THANK YOU. DESCRIBE FOR ME WHAT YOU RECALL 11 WERE THE EVENTS THAT LED UP TO THIS DOCUMENT BEING 12 PRODUCED. 13 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS VAGUE 14 AND AMBIGUOUS. LACKS FOUNDATION AS TO WHO PROUD IT. 15 YOU CAN ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN. 16 A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN WHAT EVENTS LED DO 17 THIS. I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T -- I'M NOT THE AUTHOR OF 18 THIS EXHIBIT SO I WOULDN'T KNOW THAT. 19 BY MR. COZAD: 20 Q. OKAY. WHEN DID YOU FIRST READ EXHIBIT 28? 21 A. I BELIEVE IT WAS ON FEBRUARY 2ND BUT I AM NOT 22 SURE IF IT WAS THE FIRST OR THE SECOND. 23 Q. WHO DID YOU -- STRIKE THAT. 24 WHO DID YOU UNDERSTAND PROUD EXHIBIT 28? 25 A. I BELIEVE IT'S THE SIGNATORIES, TRUSTEE 146 ROUGH DRAFT 1 CARRANZA, TRUSTEE SIMON AND TRUSTEE STRATTAN. 2 Q. AND WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUBJECT 3 OF THE MINORITY RESPONSE? 4 A. THE WAY -- EXACTLY WHAT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH 5 READS WHICH IS -- AND I'M GOING TO READ FROM THE 6 DOCUMENT WE ISSUED THIS MINORITY RESPONSE IN ORDER TO 7 OFFICIALLY STATE OUR POSITION AS SOME OF THE RECENT 8 RESPONSES GIVEN BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO THE CONCERNS 9 EXPRESS THE BY THE ACADEMIC SENATE. ON REFERENCES REFER 10 TO PRESIDENT ADAMS LETTER DATED JANUARY 24TH, 2007. 11 Q. OKAY. SO THIS IS A RESPONSE GIVEN BY THREE 12 TRUSTEES CONCERNING ISSUES THAT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED AND 13 ADDRESSED IN PUBLIC MEETINGS PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 2007? 14 MR. WINET: OBJECTION MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY 15 IN THE DOCUMENT. YOU CAN ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN. 16 A. I DID NOT THINK THAT THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO 17 PUBLIC MEETINGS. I THINK IT'S IN REFERENCE TO THE 18 RECENT RESPONSES SO IT'S A COMBINATION OF CORRESPONDENCE 19 I WOULD IMAGINE AND MEETING ACTIVITIES. 20 BY MR. COZAD: 21 Q. OKAY. BUT THE GENERAL TOPIC CONCERNS YOUR 22 MANAGEMENT OF THE COLLEGE DURING THE MONTHS PRIOR TO 23 FEBRUARY 1, 2007, DOESN'T IT? 24 A. I'M SORRY? CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? 25 MR. COZAD: SURE LET'S HAVE IT REREAD. 147 ROUGH DRAFT 1 (LAST QUESTION READ.) 2 A. SOME OF THE CONTENT REFERS TO THAT. THE OTHER 3 CONTENT REFERS TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES -- TO BOARD OF 4 TRUSTEES EXPECTATIONS. 5 BY MR. COZAD: 6 Q. OKAY. NOW YOU'VE READ THIS CAREFULLY, MORE 7 THAN A FEW TIMES? 8 A. I'VE READ IT. I'VE READ IT THEN. I HAVE NOT 9 READ IT LATELY, NO. 10 Q. OKAY. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ANY STATEMENT IN 11 EXHIBIT 28 CONSTITUTES DEFORMATION AGAINST YOU? 12 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION CALLS FOR 13 IMPROPER LEGAL CONCLUSION AND THAT THE QUESTION REFERS 14 TO THE TERM DEFORMATION AS A LEGAL TERM. TO THE EXTENT 15 YOU CAN ANSWER GO AHEAD. 16 A. WELL I HAVE NO LEGAL REFERENCE AS TO WHAT 17 DEFORMATION IS INCLUDED IN THE LEGAL TERMS. WHAT I FELT 18 WAS THAT THIS MINORITY REPORT WAS A PUBLIC EVALUATION OF 19 MY PERFORMANCE FROM MY EMPLOYER, THUS IT VIOLATED MY DUE 20 PROCESS RIGHTS AS WELL AS MY PRIVACY RIGHTS. THAT'S HOW 21 I FELT. 22 BY MR. COZAD: 23 Q. AND WHEN DID YOU HAVE THAT FEELING? 24 A. WHEN I READ IT, WHETHER IT WAS FEBRUARY 1ST OR 25 FEBRUARY 2ND I DON'T RECALL WHICH DAY EXACTLY. 148 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. OKAY. GOING BACK TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 2, 2 2006. AND IF YOU HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU, IF YOU 3 COULD GIVE ME THE EXHIBIT NUMBER I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. 4 A. TWENTY-ONE. 5 Q. IS THAT EXHIBIT 21? 6 A. TWENTY-ONE. 7 Q. OKAY. NOW IN EXHIBIT 21 WHEN YOU WERE TELLING 8 ME ABOUT THAT YOU SAID YOU WERE CONCERNED THAT GLORIA 9 CARRANZA MIGHT GIVE YOU A PUBLIC EVALUATION AND THAT 10 THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE YOU SOME KIND OF HARM? 11 A. I DON'T THINK I SAID THAT, NO. 12 Q. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING IN EXHIBIT 28 13 THAT YOU BELIEVE IS FALSE AS -- WITH REGARD TO YOU? 14 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT BECAUSE I BELIEVE 15 MUCH OF EXHIBIT 28 IS AN OPINION RATHER THAN A STATEMENT 16 OF FACT, BUT YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE QUESTION. 17 A. WELL I WOULD HAVE TO READ IT AGAIN. I HAVEN'T 18 READ IT IN QUITE SOME TIME. 19 MR. WINET: GO AHEAD AND DO SO. 20 MR. COZAD: LET ME TELL YOU WHERE I'M GOING 21 HERE MAYBE THAT WILL HELP. 22 A. UH-HUH. 23 Q. WHEN WE STARTED TO WE TALKED ABOUT YOUR 24 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLEGE AND DAMAGES THAT 25 YOU SUFFERED BEING PART OF THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? 149 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. YES. 2 Q. WHAT I REALLY WANTS TO KNOW WITH RESPECT TO 3 EXHIBIT 28 IF THERE WAS ANYTHING SAID IN EXHIBIT 28 THAT 4 YOU THINK LED TO THE DAMAGES THAT WERE PART OF THE 5 SETTLEMENT. WERE YOU WRONGED IN ANY WAY BY WHAT WAS 6 SAID IN EXHIBIT 28? 7 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. 8 BY MR. COZAD: 9 Q. AND WE GO THROUGH -- WE'LL GO THROUGH THE 10 INDIVIDUAL THEORIES AND SUB THEORIES AND ELEMENTS. BUT 11 THAT'S BASICALLY WHERE I'M GOING SO -- 12 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. 13 MR. COZAD: MAKE IT EASIER. 14 MR. WINET: OBJECTION ASKED AND ANSWERED. BUT 15 GO AHEAD AND READ THE DOCUMENT AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THE 16 QUESTION READ SO THAT YOU HAVE THE QUESTION IN MIND 17 BEFORE YOU READ THE DOCUMENT AND THEN YOU CAN READ THE 18 DOCUMENT AND ANSWER IS THAT AGREEABLE, COUNSEL? 19 MR. COZAD: I'M SORRY. 20 MR. WINET: LET'S HAVE YOUR QUESTION READ AS 21 FAR AS THE LAST QUESTION AND -- 22 MR. COZAD: SURE. 23 MR. WINET: -- AND THEN SHE CAN READ THE 24 DOCUMENT AND ANSWER. 25 MR. COZAD: OKAY. 150 ROUGH DRAFT 1 (LAST QUESTION READ.) 2 A. SHALL I ANSWER NOW? 3 MR. WINET: YES, IF YOU'RE READY. 4 A. I THINK I WAS WRONGED. I THINK MY DUE PROCESS 5 RIGHTS AND MY PRIVACY RIGHTS WERE VELTD BY THE ISSUANCE 6 OF THE MINORITY REPORT. 7 BY MR. COZAD: 8 Q. ANYTHING ELSE? 9 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION IS 10 AMBIGUOUS NOW. YOU CAN ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN. 11 A. WELL I THINK THIS WAS ALSO -- IT WAS -- I 12 UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE A PUBLIC EVALUATION OF MY 13 PERFORMANCE IN A PUBLIC SETTING, WHICH AGAIN IS A 14 VIOLATION OF MY PRIVACY RIGHTS AND MY DUE PROCESS 15 RIGHTS. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. ANYTHING ELSE? 18 MR. WINET: SAME OBJECTION. GO AHEAD. 19 A. YES, I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT, WHAT I FELT AT 20 THE TIME. AND I RESPONDED ACCORDINGLY IN A LETTER THAT 21 I WROTE TO THE BOARD PRESIDENT. 22 BY MR. COZAD: 23 Q. OKAY. NOW THIS PUBLIC EVALUATION HARM THAT 24 WAS DONE TO YOU HOW DID THAT MANIFEST ITSELF TO YOU? 25 HOW DID THAT HARM YOU? 151 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. HOW DID IT HARM ME? 2 Q. YES. 3 A. MY EMPLOYER WAS MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT MY 4 PERFORMANCE IN A PUBLIC SETTING WITHOUT GIVING ME THE 5 DUE PROCESS OF HEARING WHAT IT IS THAT THEY NEEDED TO 6 TELL ME IN THE APPROPRIATE WAY WHICH IS THROUGH A CLOSED 7 SESSION AND GIVING ME THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO IT. 8 Q. OKAY. AND WHAT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE YOU 9 REFERRING TO? 10 A. WHAT I JUST SAID. 11 MR. SLEETH: OBJECTION CALLS FOR LEGAL 12 CONCLUSION. 13 MR. WINET: JOIN. GO AHEAD. 14 A. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED NOT KNOWING THE TOTAL 15 LEGALITY OF PERSONNEL MATTERS I DO KNOW THAT ALL 16 EMPLOYEES HAVE THE RIGHT TO HEAR ANY CHARGES MADE 17 AGAINST THEM BY THEIR EMPLOYER IN PRIVATE, IN CLOSED 18 SESSION. 19 BY MR. COZAD: 20 BY MR. COZAD: 21 Q. BUT -- 22 A. AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING FOR. AFFORD ME 23 MY DUE PROCESS WHAT IT IS THAT YOU HAVE TO TELL ME AND 24 LET ME KNOW WHAT IT IS BUT DON'T DO IT IN THE PUBLIC 25 SETTING BECAUSE I HAVE NOT WAIVED MY PRIVACY RIGHTS. 152 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. OKAY. NOW DO YOU AGREE WITH MR. WINET'S 2 COMMENTS THAT THIS IS LARGELY A STATEMENT OF OPINION? 3 MR. WINET: WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID 4 LARGELY, I SAID A LOT OF IT IS. 5 MR. COZAD: OKAY. 6 MR. WINET: SO THE QUESTION LACKS FOUNDATION, 7 ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. CALLS FOR AN IMPROPER 8 OPINION AND CONCLUSION. YOU CAN ANSWER. 9 A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT -- YOU GUYS ARE TALKING 10 LAWYER TALK AND I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME 11 I'M SORRY. 12 BY MR. COZAD: 13 Q. ALL RIGHT. 14 A. I DIDN'T GET THAT PART OF -- 15 MR. WINET: NO. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. LET'S MOVE ON. LET'S MOVE ON. 18 OF ALL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU THINK THAT 19 TRUSTEES DID THAT HARMED YOU? 20 A. UH-HUH. 21 Q. -- WHERE DOES THIS RANK? 22 A. THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF IT. 23 Q. OKAY. SO NOW LET'S, LET'S LOOK AT IT 24 CAREFULLY. AND I'D LIKE YOU TO POINT OUT TO ME THE 25 LANGUAGE WHERE YOU BELIEVE MADE REFERENCE SPECIFICALLY 153 ROUGH DRAFT 1 TO YOU AND THEIR EVALUATION AS AN EMPLOYEE OF YOU? I'D 2 LIKE YOU TO POINT TO ME THE EXACT LANGUAGE. 3 A. YOU SAY LET'S REVIEW IT CAREFULLY ARE YOU 4 GOING TO GO PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH OR DO YOU WANT ME TO 5 DO THAT? 6 Q. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH YOU DOING IT BUT I JUST 7 WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GO THROUGH THIS VERY CAREFULLY 8 AND THAT YOU POINT OUT WHATEVER LANGUAGE THERE IS THAT 9 YOU THINK HAD ENTITLED YOU TO SEEK DAMAGES FROM THE 10 COLLEGE DISTRICT? 11 A. WELL, JUST THIS ONE PIECE OF PAPER DOESN'T 12 ENTITLE ME TO SEEK DAMAGES BY THE COLLEGE DISTRICT. 13 THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING AND A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR 14 THAT STARTED WITH THIS DOCUMENT AND CONTINUED ALL THE 15 WAY THROUGH THE END OF JUNE OR JUNE 5TH WAS -- WELL 16 ACTUALLY JUNE 8TH. 17 Q. BY PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR WHAT DO YOU MEAN? 18 A. TRUSTEES, THREE SO-CALLED SELF-IDENTIFIED 19 MINORITY TRUSTEES DOING AND SAYING THINGS IN PUBLIC 20 MEETINGS THAT COMPLETELY DEVOIDED ME OF MY PRIVACY 21 RIGHTS CREATED A STIGMA, A HORAL STIGMA ABOUT MY 22 PERFORMANCE AT THE COLLEGE. THEY BECAME THE, THE HEAD 23 OF THE SERPENT LET'S SAY IN TERMS OF KILLING MY 24 REPUTATION, MY LIKELIHOOD MY ENTIRE CAREER AND DID BY 25 MAKING PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT COMPLETELY STIGMA 154 ROUGH DRAFT 1 ADVERTISED ME AND CREATED THE APPEARANCE THAT I WAS 2 SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT. 3 Q. OKAY. WELL NOW IS THIS THE FIRST PUBLIC 4 STATEMENT THAT YOU KNOW OF IN WHICH THESE THREE MINORITY 5 TRUSTEES EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION WITH YOUR WORK? 6 A. THIS IS THE FIRST WRITTEN DOCUMENT WHERE THESE 7 TRUSTEES IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AS MINORITY TRUSTEES AND 8 STATED SOME ELEMENTS OF CONCERN TO ME THAT TOLD ME THAT 9 THEY WERE VIOLATING MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND MY PRIVACY 10 RIGHTS BY CONDUCTING A PUBLIC EVALUATION. 11 Q. PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 2007, DID YOU BELIEVE YOU 12 HAD THE FULL UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THE BOARD? 13 A. GOO. 14 MR. WINET: PRIOR TO WHEN? I'M SORRY. 15 MR. COZAD: FEBRUARY 1, 2007. 16 A. THEY'D THE FULL -- THERE WERE NO ACTION ITEMS 17 I HAD ANSWER THAT HAD FOR YOU BEFORE. THERE WERE NO -- 18 EITHER IN CLOSED SESSION OR IN PRIVATE SESSION ACTION 19 ITEMS IN SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OTHER THAN THE TWO 20 THAT I JUST REFERRED TO. MY EVALUATION IN JUNE OF 2008 21 [SIC] AND THE BOARD RESOLUTION ON OCTOBER 3RD. SO TO 22 ASK ME FULL BOARD SUPPORT, I HAVE NO ANSWER OTHER THAN 23 TO TELL YOU THE TWO THINGS THAT I KNOW FOR SURE ARE FULL 24 BOARD VOTE. 25 MR. WINET: TOON CLARIFY THE RECORD I THINK 155 ROUGH DRAFT 1 THE WITNESS ACCIDENTALLY SAID JUNE OF 2008 RATHER THAN 2 JUNE OF 2006. 3 A. SORRY. 4 MR. COZAD: NO PROBLEM. 5 A. JUNE 18TH THERE'S AN EIGHT THERE. 6 MR. COZAD: FAR BE IT FOR ME TO CRITICIZE 7 SOMEBODY THAT MISSTATES A DATE HERE AND THERE BUT. 8 A. SORRY. 9 Q. ALL RIGHT. YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS TO HAVE 10 A DIVIDED BOARD, DON'T YOU? 11 A. OF COURSE, YES. 12 Q. OKAY. AND THAT'S WHERE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE A 13 TOUGH TIME AGREEING ON THINGS? 14 A. YES, YES. 15 Q. ALL RIGHT. NOW AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2007 DID YOU 16 COME TO THE BELIEF THAT YOU NOW HAVE A DIVIDED BOARD AT 17 LEAST AS RESPECTS TO THE SUPPORT THAT THE BOARD HAS FOR 18 YOU? 19 A. AS OF FEBRUARY 1ST, YES. 20 Q. ALL RIGHT. 21 A. FIRST OR SECOND. LIKE I SAID, I DON'T 22 REMEMBER IF I READ IT ON THE FIRST OR THE SECOND. 23 Q. OKAY. SO WAS IT, WAS IT THIS DOCUMENT THAT 24 LED TO YOU BELIEVE NOW I'VE GOT A DIVIDED BOARD? 25 A. I WOULD THINK SO, YES, YES. 156 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. ALL RIGHT. NOW, LET'S, LET'S GO THROUGH THE 2 DOCUMENT AND PLEASE SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU 3 BELIEVE REFLECTS AN ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT EVALUATION OF 4 YOU. 5 A. ITEM FOUR, THE RESOLUTION OF THE SUPPORT OF 6 ATTEND WAS ISSUED WELL IN ADVANCE OF VOTE OF NO 7 CONFIDENCE FLAG AND THE CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY THEREFORE 8 THE BOARD HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS OF THE ACADEMIC 9 SENATE."THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY, BOARD PRESIDENT ADAMS 10 ALSO STATES THAT THE BOARD ISSUED AN OFFICIAL BOARD 11 RESPONSE NOTICE FORM OF A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT OF THE 12 SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT AND THAT THE ACADEMIC SENATE 13 HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY INFORMED OF THIS RESPONSE. THIS IS 14 AN INCORRECT STATEMENT. THE RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT OF 15 THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 3RD. 16 THE REST LUGES WAS ADOPTED WELL BEFORE THE NO CONFIDENCE 17 VOTE WHICH WAS TAKEN ON NOVEMBER 30TH. THE BOARD 18 SUPPORT FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT WAS NOT IN 19 RESPONSE TO ANYTHING. THE BOARD SIMPLY DECIDED TO ISSUE 20 THE RESOLUTION WHICH THE WARD OF TRUSTEE HENRY HOLE WAY 21 ASCII MOVE TO TAKE THE LAW OFF OF VICTORIA'S SHOULDER 22 THE RESULTS OF THE JOINTS SENATE MID TERM ACCREDITATION 23 CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY WERE ALL SUPER SENT TO THE BOARD 24 MID OCTOBER AFTER THE BOARD'S VOTES OF SUPPORT." 25 157 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. WAS IT ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST READ THAT CAUSED 3 YOU HARM? 4 A. WELL I THINK IT WAS DISMISSING WHAT I 5 CONSIDERED TO BE A KEY DOCUMENT THAT WAS ACTED BY THE 6 ENTIRE BOARD MINUS TRUSTEE CARRANZA WHO WAS NOT PRESENTS 7 IN WHICH THE STATED THE FACTS OF MY PERFORMANCE AND IN 8 THIS PARAGRAPH AND IN THIS SECTION THESE MINORITY 9 TRUSTEES ARE SAYING IT'S NOT TRUE, THAT THE STATEMENT IS 10 INCORRECT. AND IT ISN'T INCORRECT. THE BOARD ACTED. 11 THAT'S THE ONLY -- THE ONE AND ONLY OFFICIAL BOARD 12 ACTION IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT SO 13 IT'S NOT INCORRECT. IT'S A CORRECT STATEMENT IN THE 14 LETTER OF PRESIDENT ADAMS SO THEY ARE DISMISSING IT AS, 15 AS A NONISSUE AND GIVING THEISM PLI INDICATION THAT IT 16 WAS UNTRUE SO WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IN ESSENCE WHAT WAS 17 SAID BY THE ENTIRE BOARD IS NOT TRUE. 18 Q. OKAY WAS THIS STATEMENT MALICIOUS TOWARDS YOU? 19 MR. WINET: OBJECTION CALLS FOR IMPROPER 20 OPINION AND CONCLUSION CALLS FOR SPECULATION LACKS 21 FOUNDATION AS TO THIS WITNESS. ANSWER IF YOU KNOW. 22 A. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY PARTICULAR LEGAL 23 DEFINITION OF MALICIOUS THAT I'M -- THAT I SHOULD KNOW 24 BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT. WHAT I DO FEEL IS THAT THE 25 INTENT WAS MALICIOUS PARTICULARLY BY THE WAY THAT IT IS 158 ROUGH DRAFT 1 WRITTEN BASICALLY SAYING IT WAS JUST NOTHING. YES. 2 CONSIDERING THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT. 3 BY MR. COZAD: 4 Q. I'M SORRY ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS STATEMENT 5 UNDER NO. 4, PAGE 2, REFLECTS A MALICIOUS INTENT BY THE 6 PEOPLE WRITING? 7 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. 8 MR. COZAD: WRITING THIS. 9 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION CALLS FOR 10 SPECULATION. IT ASKS FOR IMPROPER OPINION AND 11 CONCLUSION AS TO WHAT ANOTHER PERSON'S INTENT IS. THIS 12 WITNESS CAN ONLY TESTIFY AS TO WHAT HER INTERPRETATION 13 OF IT IS, NOT SOMEONE ELSE'S INTENT. I THINK THAT'S 14 WHAT SHE'S TESTIFIED TO BUT YOU CAN GO AHEAD. 15 MR. SLEETH: IT'S ALSO VAGUE AS TO WHICH 16 DEFINITION OF MALICIOUS WE'RE GOING TO USE. 17 MR. COZAD: COULD YOU GO BACK TO HER ANSWER 18 PLEASE WHERE. 19 MR. COZAD: OKAY WHAT IT SAYS READ THE ANSWER. 20 MR. WINET: ONCE AGAIN LET ME OBJECT THE 21 QUESTION FIRST OF ALL REQUIRES A LEGAL CONCLUSION. 22 SECOND OF ALL THE QUESTION ASKS HER TO IDENTIFY A 23 LANGUAGE TO EXPRESS THE INTENT OF THE AUTHOR WHICH WOULD 24 ASK HER TO SPECULATE. SHE'S TESTIFIED AS TO WHAT HER 25 FEELING, HER BELIEF IS AND HER INTERPRETATION OF IT. 159 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BUT SHE CANNOT TESTIFY AS TO SOMEONE ELSE'S INTENT OR 2 SOMEONE ELSE'S THINKING. AND THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE 3 QUESTION THAT YOU'VE ASKED. 4 MR. SLEETH: IT'S ALSO AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE WE'RE 5 NOT SURE IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MALICE FOR PUNITIVE 6 DAMAGES OR MALICE FOR 47 C. 7 MS. CAMPBELL: THAT'S PART OF THE LEGAL 8 OBJECTION AS FAR AS THE LEGAL CONCLUSION. 9 MR. COZAD: CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION, 10 PLEASE? 11 A. I THINK I DID. I ANSWERED THAT THE WAY IT WAS 12 WRITTEN I HAD THE FEELING THAT IT WAS PURPOSELY 13 MALICIOUS AGAINST ME. 14 BY MR. COZAD: 15 Q. OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN EXHIBIT 28 16 THAT YOU BELIEVE REFLECTS A PUBLIC EVALUATION OF YOUR 17 WORK THAT GAVE RISE TO YOUR CLAIM FOR DAMAGES? 18 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT THE QUESTION CALLS 19 FOR LEGAL CONCLUSION IN THE FINAL REFERENCE THE OF THE 20 SENTENCE IN GIVING RISE TO YOUR CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. YOU 21 CAN GO AHEAD AND ANSWER. 22 A. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THIS WAS THE BEGINNING OF 23 A SERIES OF BEHAVIOR PATTERN THAT THE THREE 24 SELF-IDENTIFIED MINORITY TRUSTEES ENGAGED IN. ISOLATED 25 IS DIFFERENT SO I THINK THAT YOUR QUESTION IS IS THERE 160 ROUGH DRAFT 1 ANY WORDS OR SENTENCES THAT ISOLATED, ARE THE ONES THAT 2 FORM MY CLAIM. AND IT'S THE BEGINNING OF A PATTERN OF 3 BEHAVIOR. AND THAT'S WHAT I OBJECTED TO. AND CONTINUE 4 TO OBJECT TO IT. 5 Q. WOULD YOU READ MY QUESTION PLEASE. 6 MR. COZAD: **CAN I ASK TO LISTEN TO THE 7 QUESTION AND TENANCY WITH A YES OR NO IF YOU CAN PLEASE. 8 (LAST QUESTION READ.) 9 A. YES. 10 BY MR. COZAD: 11 Q. WHERE WOULD THAT BE? 12 A. NO. 5. THE BOARD MINORITY IS ASKING FOR THE 13 BOARD TO CONSIDER THE 35 CONCERNS MENTIONED IN THE 14 ACADEMIC SENATE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE VOTE OF NO 15 CONFIDENCE ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 22, 2006 AND HOW -- AND 16 THE QUESTION IS -- AND THIS IS THE KEY FOR ME -- AND 17 HOW, BOTTOM OF PAGE 2, "***AND HOW THIS 18 SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT HAS VIOLATED THE EXECUTIVE 19 BOUNDARIES AS SPECIFIED IN THE BOARD OF POLICY GOVERNING 20 STATEMENT AND CONTRAVENED THE EXPRESS INTENT OF THE 21 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE SET FORTH IN A B 1725 RELATING TO 22 THE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ACADEMIC 23 SENATE."TO ME THIS WRITTEN BY MY EMPLOYER IMPLIED THAT 24 THEY BELIEVED THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT HAD 25 VIOLATED THE EXECTIVE BOUNDARIES AS SPECIFIED IN BOARD 161 ROUGH DRAFT 1 POLICY GOVERNING STATEMENT. AND THAT I HAD CONTRA VEND 2 THE EXPRESS INTENT OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE SET 3 FORTH IN A B 1725. 4 Q. NOW AS YOU READ THIS ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT 5 THE AUTHORS OF THIS EXHIBIT, 28, ARE STATING AS A FACT 6 THAT YOU WENT BEYOND THE EXECUTIVE BOUNDARIES AND 7 VIOLATED STATUTE OF SOME KIND? 8 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION CALLS FOR 9 SPECULATION, LACKS FOUNDATION, ASKING THIS WITNESS TO 10 GET INTO THE MIND OR INTENT OF THE AUTHOR OF THE 11 DOCUMENT. AS SUCH IT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. ANSWER IF 12 YOU KNOW. 13 A. I DON'T KNOW THEIR INTENT. WHAT I TESTIFIED 14 IS AS TO HOW I INTERPRETED WHAT THEY WROTE. 15 BY MR. COZAD: 16 Q. WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME ON THE FOURTH 17 LINE, THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 2 THAT THE AUTHORS ARE 18 SAYING THAT THERE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT THE BOARD 19 HAS NOT YET ADDRESSED? AND THEN THEY REFER TO 35 20 CONCERNS MENTIONED IN AN ACADEMIC SENATE DECLARATION 21 THAT RAISE ISSUES ABOUT EXECUTIVE BOUNDARIES? 22 A. NO. 23 MR. WINET: NOW -- 24 BY MR. COZAD: 25 Q. IS YOUR READING DIFFERENT? 162 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT. THE QUESTION JUST 2 QUOTED DOES NOT PROPERLY OR COMPLETELY QUOTE THE PORTION 3 SPECIFIED IN THE WAY IT'S PHRASED AND ASKING IF THE 4 WITNESS AGREES WITH AN IMPROPER PARAPHRASING OF A 5 SENTENCE IS ARGUMENTATIVE THE WAY IT'S PHRASED. YOU CAN 6 NEVERTHELESS ANSWER THE QUESTION. 7 A. I'VE LOST THE QUESTION NOW. CAN YOU REPEAT 8 THE QUESTION, PLEASE? 9 (LAST QUESTION READ.) 10 A. MY READING IS DIFFERENT. 11 BY MR. COZAD: 12 Q. OKAY. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS IS A STATEMENT 13 OF FACT? 14 MR. WINET: OBJECTION. 15 BY MR. COZAD: 16 Q. BY THE MINORITY TRUSTEES? 17 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION CALLS FOR 18 A LEGAL CONCLUSION. IT ALSO CALLS FOR SPECULATION AS TO 19 WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE'S MIND OR INTENT IS. YOU CAN ANSWER 20 TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU KNOW. 21 A. WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT WHEN THE BOARD -- WHEN 22 THE ACADEMIC SENATE FIRST PRESENTED AND THE FACULTY 23 PRESENTED THE REPORT OF THE DECLARATION OF THE VOTE OF 24 NO CONFIDENCE AND THE VOTE THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE, THE 25 BOARD ADDRESSED THAT. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THE ACADEMIC 163 ROUGH DRAFT 1 SENATE PRESIDENT MADE MENTION OF THE VIOLATION OF 2 EXECUTIVE BOUNDARIES WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE NO 3 CONFIDENCE VOTE. SO THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT 4 ISSUES AND ITEMS. AND BY THE WAY I READ WHAT THESE 5 TRUSTEES WROTE, THE WAY I INTERPRETED IT, EITHER ON 6 FEBRUARY 1ST OR FEBRUARY 2ND, WAS THAT THEY WERE SAYING 7 THAT I HAD VIOLATED THE EXECUTIVE BOUNDARIES. THAT WAS 8 MY INTERPRETATION. 9 BY MR. COZAD: 10 Q. OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WITHIN 11 EXHIBIT 28 THAT YOU BELIEVE HARMED YOU? 12 A. I DON'T THINK SO. 13 Q. ON FEBRUARY 2ND, 2007, DID YOU WRITE A LETTER 14 TO PRESIDENT CHARLES ADAMS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE 15 MINORITY REPORT SIGNED BY TRUSTEE SIMON, CARRANZA AND 16 STRATTAN? 17 A. I WOULD NOT CHARACTERIZE IT AS COMPLAINING. I 18 WROTE A LETTER TO PRESIDENT ADAMS, YES. 19 Q. ALL RIGHT. DID YOU SAY THAT YOUR CONTRACT IS 20 VERY CLEAR ABOUT YOUR EVALUATION PROCESS? 21 A. I DON'T HAVE THE LETTER IN FRONT OF ME BUT IF 22 I RECALL, THAT IS IN GENERAL TERMS OF WHAT I SAID YES. 23 IF YOU HAVE THE LETTER I WOULD APPRECIATE SEEING A COPY 24 OF IT. 25 Q. I'LL BE HAPPY TO IN A MOMENT. DOES YOUR 164 ROUGH DRAFT 1 CONTRACT -- IS YOUR CONTRACT VERY CLEAR ABOUT YOUR 2 EVALUATION PROCESS? 3 A. YES. I'LL READ FROM IT. 4 Q. PLEASE. 5 A. I'LL FIND THE EXHIBIT. IT'S EXHIBIT 9. 6 Q. THANK YOU. 7 A. AND IT'S PAGE 3, EVALUATION. THE 8 SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT IS SUBJECT TO ANNUAL EVALUATION 9 BASED ON GOVERNING BOARD ADOPTED CRITERIA AND 10 PROCEDURES. 11 Q. OKAY. AND WHAT IS IT ABOUT THAT STATEMENT 12 THAT SAYS IF ANYTHING, THAT SAYS IT HAS TO BE DONE IN 13 PRIVATE? 14 A. IT'S, IT'S THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF THE 15 COLLEGE PLUS PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS. 16 Q. OKAY. 17 MR. SLEETH: AM I TANGLED UP. 18 MR. WINET: THERE YOU GO. 19 MR. SLEETH: SORRY. 20 BY MR. COZAD: 21 Q. AND IT'S YOUR POSITION THAT THE EXHIBIT THAT 22 WE'VE NOW COME TO KNOW AS 28, THE MINORITY RESPONSE DOES 23 CONSTITUTE AN EVALUATION, A PERSONNEL EVALUATION OF YOU? 24 A. THAT IS WHAT I FELT AND INTERPRETED AND 25 BELIEVED, YES. 165 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. STILL? 2 A. YES. 3 Q. DID YOU, DID YOU TELL MR. ADAMS IN THIS LETTER 4 THAT IT MAY BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO REVEAL 5 INFORMATION THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO YOUR ARRIVAL? 6 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT JUST ON THIS BASIS 7 AND MAKE THE RECORD THAT COUNSEL IS READING FROM THE 8 LETTER WITHOUT GIVING IT TO THE WITNESS AND THESE 9 QUESTIONS ARE ALL BASED UPON COUNSEL READING FROM THE 10 LETTER AND NOT PROVIDING IT TO THE WITNESS SO THAT WE 11 HAVE A CLEAR RECORD. 12 MR. COZAD: TELL YOU WHAT. LET'S MARK IT AS 13 EXHIBIT 29. 14 (EXHIBIT 29 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 15 MR. COZAD: I'LL LET YOU MARK IT. 16 A. YES. 17 BY MR. COZAD: 18 Q. ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID 19 "THIS ACTION CAUSES ME TO BELIEVE THAT IT MAY BE IN MY 20 BEST INTEREST TO PUBLICLY REVEAL ALL OF THE MISCONDUCT 21 THAT HAS OCCURRED AT MIRACOSTA COLLEGE PRIOR TO MY 22 ARRIVAL?" 23 A. IT HAS TO DO WITH MY THIRD PARAGRAPH, WHICH 24 BASICALLY SAYS THAT "I'M SORRY THAT -- I'M WRITING TO 25 PRESIDENT ADAMS AND I SAY I'M SORRY YOUR BURDENED WITH 166 ROUGH DRAFT 1 THIS AT THE TIME THAT YOUR FOCUS SHOULD REMAIN ON THE 2 INSTITUTION BUT I CANNOT AND WILL BE SACRIFICED.." 3 I BELIEVE THAT THESE TRUSTEES WERE TRYING TO 4 MAKE ME LOOK LIKE I WAS THE MOST HORRIBLE THING THAT HAD 5 HAPPENED TO THIS INSTITUTION. AND WE'RE SIDING WITH THE 6 ACADEMIC SENATE AND THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAD ISSUED A VOTE 7 OF NO CONFIDENCE THAT WAS BASED ON FALSEHOODS, INNUENDO, 8 GOSSIP, HEARSAY, NAME IT, OTHER THAN ANY REALITY. AND 9 THAT IT WAS IN MY BEST INTEREST TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IT 10 WAS THAT I FOUND IN ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT I HAD TO 11 ENGAGE IN TO CLEAN UP THE COLLEGE AND BRING IN 12 ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES FOR THE COLLEGE THAT WERE 13 PRACTICALLY NONEXISTENT. AND IT WAS IMPORTANT -- I 14 DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE MY ROLE WAS NOT TO SHED 15 ANY NEGATIVE LIGHT ON THE COLLEGE. BUT THEY NOW WERE 16 MAKING ME THE SCAPEGOAT FOR SOMETHING THAT I HAD NOT 17 DONE. AND, TAN BECAME VERY OBVIOUS AS TIME PROGRESSED 18 THAT THAT'S WAS THE INTENT AND WAS TO RUIN ME. 19 Q. DID, DID EITHER MS. CARRANZA, MISS STRATTAN OR 20 THE OTHER TRUSTEE? 21 A. MS. SIMON. 22 Q. SIMON, I'M SORRY, DID EITHER OF THEM TELL THAT 23 YOU THEY BELIEVED THIS LETTER CONSTITUTED A THREAT? 24 A. NO. THIS LETTER? 25 Q. THIS -- 167 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. THE LETTER, THE MINORITY REPORT? 2 Q. YES. NO. 3 A. MY LETTER? 4 Q. DID KNIT MINORITY TRUSTEES EVER TELL YOU THAT 5 EXHIBIT 29, THE LETTER THAT YOU WROTE TO MR. ADAMS ON 6 FEBRUARY 2 2007, CONTAINED A THREAT? 7 A. I DON'T RECALL EVER -- ANYBODY SAYING THAT TO 8 ME, NO. NOT OF THIS LETTER, NO. 9 Q. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD IT STATED IN ANY PUBLIC 10 FORUM THAT THIS LETTER, EXHIBIT 29, CONSTITUTED A 11 THREAT? 12 A. NOT THIS LETTER, NO. IT WAS NOT INTENDED AS A 13 THREAT AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS READ AS A THREAT. IT 14 WAS A SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACT. 15 Q. WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE MINORITY TRUSTEES WORDS 16 OR ACTIONS THAT GO BEYOND WHAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD 17 PERMIT? 18 MR. WINET: OBJECTION MAY CALL FOR A LEGAL 19 CONCLUSION AND IMPROPER OPINION AND CONCLUSION ON BEHALF 20 OF THE WITNESS. GO AHEAD. 21 A. BEGINNING WITH THE MINORITY REPORT. EIGHTEEN 22 DAYS LATER TRUSTEE STRATTAN AT A PUBLIC MEETING READ 23 THIS LETTER AND CHALLENGED ME PUBLICLY. THIS IS A 24 CONFIDENTIAL LETTER TO MY EMPLOYER. ONCE AGAIN VIOLATED 25 MY PRIVACY RIGHTS. I HADN'T -- SHE HAD NOT ASKED FOR IT 168 ROUGH DRAFT 1 NOR HAD I WAIVED MY PRIVACY RIGHTS. SHE CHALLENGED 2 EVERY WORD THAT I WROTE IN THIS LETTER. AND IMPLIED AT 3 THAT BOARD MEETING THAT I WAS THE ONE THAT HAD LEAKED 4 THE REPORT THAT HAD BEEN ON THE INVESTIGATION THAT HAD 5 BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE NORTH COUNTY TIMES ON THE 18TH OF 6 FEBRUARY. THEN ON -- THIS BOARD MEETING ON 7 FEBRUARY 20TH, IN ADDITION TO HER READING THIS LETTER, 8 SHE READS AGAIN THE LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE 9 BOARD TO THE TRUSTEES IN WHICH HE ANNOUNCED -- HE TOLD 10 HIM THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THEY HAD VIOLATED MY 11 PRIVACY -- THE MINORITY TRUSTEES HAD VIOLATED MY PRIVACY 12 RIGHTS. AND MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND THAT THEY SHOULD 13 STOP IT. 14 EIGHTEEN DAYS LATER THEY PUT IT IN THE PUBLIC 15 EYE. AND THEY CHALLENGED ME AND THE PRESIDENT AS TO WHY 16 IT IS THAT, YOU KNOW -- WHY DO YOU THINK THIS LETTER 17 SHOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLIC. WE WELL THEY KNOW VERY WELL 18 FROM AN EMPLOYEE TO ITS EMPLOYER IS NOT A PUBLIC 19 DOCUMENT. 20 AND THEN TO TOP IT ALL OFF, TRUSTEE CARRANZA 21 ACCUSES ME OF THREATENING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL FOR THE 22 LETTER THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW WHICH WAS WRITTEN ABLY ME 23 ON OCTOBER 2ND. SHE BASICALLY SAID THAT I THREATENED 24 HER. THAT I THREATENED HER. WHICH I DID NOT THREATEN 25 HER. THERE WAS NO THREAT IN THAT LETTER. BUT SHE MADE 169 ROUGH DRAFT 1 THIS STATEMENT IN PUBLIC WHICH THEN JUST WENT WILD ON 2 THE CAMPUS AND IN THE PRESS. AND IN CALIFORNIA 3 THREATENING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL IS A CRIMINAL ACT. SO 4 THEN THE SENATE TAKES THAT AND SAYS NOW WE'RE GOING TO 5 REPORT YOU TO THE GRAND JURY PRESIDENT. AND WE'RE GOING 6 TO REPORT YOU TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THREATENING A 7 PUBLIC OFFICIAL. FROM THAT POINT FORWARD, AT EVERY 8 BOARD MEETING THERE WAS JUST CONSTANT HUMILIATION, 9 CONSTANT ATTACKS ON ME BY THE EMPLOYEES WHO NOW HAD 10 THREE CAM UNIONS THAT WERE SUPPORTING THEM. 11 Q. WHAT WAS ALL OF THE MISCONDUCT THAT OCCURRED 12 AT MIRACOSTA COLLEGE PRIOR TO YOUR ARRIVAL THAT YOU 13 SUGGESTED THAT YOU WOULD REVEAL? 14 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN 15 ASKED AND ANSWERED BUT GO AHEAD MAYBE IN MORE DETAIL. 16 A. WELL, JUST IN THE FRAUD FOR THE HOOTER COUPLE 17 TOUR DEPARTMENT THERE HAD BEEN A WHISTLEBLOWER IN 1995. 18 A. THE COLLEGE KNEW ABOUT IT. THE PRESIDENT KNEW 19 ABOUT IT. THE VICE PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT IT. IT WAS 20 KNOWN -- AND NOTHING WAS DONE. IT CONTINUED. CAUSE 21 IT'S 1995. 22 DID NOT ARRIVE IN MIRACOSTA UNTIL 2004. SO TO 23 SAY THAT I HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH RUNNING A PRIVATE 24 BUSINESS FOR PROFIT, CASH PROFIT, IN THE HORTICULTURE 25 DEPARTMENT OF THE COLLEGE DEFINITELY WAS NOT MY DOING. 170 ROUGH DRAFT 1 SO WE ACT ON IT. WE DID THE CASH HANDLING AUDIT WHICH 2 HAD NOT BEEN DONE AT THIS COLLEGE. IT DEMONSTRATED AN 3 ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WEAKNESS IN THE FACT THAT THE COLLEGE 4 HAD HAD DIFFERENT GENERAL AUDITS THAT HAD RECOMMENDED 5 TIGHTER CONTROLS FOR CASH HANDLING PARTICULARLY IN THE 6 HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT. NOTHING HAD BEEN DONE. 7 THE BUDGETING SYSTEM OF THE COLLEGE WAS 8 DEFINITELY NOT TRANSPARENT. SO I HAD CHANGED THAT I 9 CHANGED THE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES OF 10 THE COLLEGE. THERE WAS THIS LESS AFFAIR OF BEHAVIOR OF 11 THE COLLEGE. AND THE BOARD HAD ASKED ME WHEN THEY HIRED 12 ME THEY KNEW THAT THERE WAS A LAS SIT AFFAIR IT WAS THE 13 MAYOR KOAS A WAY OF DOING BUSINESS AND WHEN THEY HIRED 14 ME THEY SAID WE NEED TO TIGHTEN CONTROLS. I WAS 15 DIRECTED TO TIGHTEN CONTROLS. AND I DID. AND WE WERE 16 VERY SUCCESSFUL. BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TIGHTEN 17 CONTROLS IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHEN THE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT 18 BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY DO -- AND THESE ARE 19 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. AND I TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY ABUSE OF 20 PUBLIC FUNDS BY EMPLOYEES. AND IT WAS LIKE OH YOU 21 SHOULD LOOK THE OTHER WAY. YOU SHOULDN'T PAY ATTENTION 22 TO THOSE THINGS. THE WAY WE DO THINGS HERE IS WE JUST 23 KINDS OF LET IT HAPPEN. AND I DIDN'T LET IT HAPPEN. 24 AND HERE I AM TODAY. 25 Q. DID THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY MAKE SOME FINDINGS 171 ROUGH DRAFT 1 OF THE -- OF THEIR INVESTIGATION OF THE PALM TREE 2 SITUATION? 3 A. WELL I'M SURE HE D I'M NOT AWARE OF THEM. 4 Q. YOU DON'T KNOW? 5 A. HE DIDN'T SHARE THEM WITH ME. 6 Q. YOU NEVER HEARD THAT THEY FOUND AT MOST $306 7 OF -- 8 A. NO NO NO NO. 9 MR. WINET: HOLD IT HOLD IT THAT'S A SLEWS 10 MISSTATEMENT. 11 A. ABSOLUTE. 12 MR. WINET: THAT'S ALL THEY FOUND THAT IS SUCH 13 A MISSTATEMENT IT IS LAUGHABLE. 14 MR. COZAD: OKAY. 15 MR. WINET: SO WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND ASK 16 ANOTHER QUESTION. 17 BY MR. COZAD: 18 Q. WHAT DID THEY FIND? 19 A. WELL WE -- 20 MR. WINET: HOLD IT HOLD IT. LET ME OBJECT. 21 THE QUESTION CALLS FOR AN IMPROPER OPINION AND 22 CONCLUSION ON BEHALF OF THIS WITNESS AS TO WHAT THE 23 DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOUND. SHE CAN TESTIFY AS TO WHAT SHE 24 HEARD. BUT THAT'S WHAT SHE CAN TESTIFY TO. SO YOU CAN 25 GO AHEAD AND TESTIFY AS TO WHAT YOU HEARD. 172 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. SLEETH: AND I ALSO WANTS TO JUST PUT MY 2 OR IN THE WATER THAT I OBJECT THAT THE QUESTION ASKED IF 3 THE D.A. MADE FINDINGS. HE MADE A CHARGE AGAINST AT 4 THAT HER RAH AND THERE WAS A GUILTY PLEA AND THERE'S 5 EVIDENCE BEHIND THAT AND SHE MAY KNOW ABOUT THAT BUT I 6 DON'T THINK ANYBODY KNOWS ABOUT ANY FINDINGS. THAT'S 7 TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS. YOU'RE WELCOMED TO ASK THEM 8 BUT THIS MAY CREATE SOME CONFUSION. SO. 9 MR. WINET: SO ... 10 MR. SLEETH: VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS IS THE 11 OBJECTION. 12 MR. WINET: I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHAT DO 13 YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH AT THAT HER RAH I 14 THINK THAT'S WHAT HE'S ASKING. 15 A. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. I'LL TAKE WHAT CAN I GET? 18 A. I CAN GIVE YOU MORE. 19 Q. PLEASE DOMPLEGHTS IN TERMS OF YOUR QUESTION 20 ABOUT WHAT DO I KNOW ABOUT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S 21 FINDINGS I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE DISTRICT 22 ATTORNEY'S FINDINGS. HE DIDN'T SHARE THAT WITH ME. 23 WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FILED 24 CHARGES AGAINST AT THAT HER RAH AND SHE'S NOW -- SHE 25 PLEADED GUILTY TO FELONY GRAND THEFT. WHAT I DO KNOW IS 173 ROUGH DRAFT 1 WE PROVIDED -- WE THE COLLEGE IN THE INVESTIGATION IF 2 YOU HAVE READ THE ESI REPORT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE 3 COLLEGE FOUND THAT THERE WERE YEARS OF CASH HANDLING FOR 4 WHICH THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY. YOU DON'T -- WE HAVE 5 NO IDEA HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WERE PUT IN CANS 6 OR IN BAGS IN PEOPLE'S POCKETS AND THAT'S WHAT WE FOUND 7 AND THAT'S WHAT WE FORWARDED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. 8 THE END RESULT IS THAT THE TEACHER DID -- WAS CONVICTED 9 AS A FELON AND PLEADED GUILTY FELONY GRAND THEFT. 10 THE $300 YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THE 11 DIFFERENT -- THERE WAS ONE MISTAKE THAT THIS WOMAN MADE. 12 AND WAS THAT INSTEAD OF ACCEPTING CASH FOR ONE SALE OF A 13 SERIES OF PALM TREES SHE ACCEPTED A CHECK. AND WHAT SHE 14 DID THEN IS SHE FALSIFIED THE INVOICE AND GAVE $300 MORE 15 TO HER PARTNER FOR THE SALE OF THE TREES WHICH WAS ABOUT 16 $2,500. AND WE HAD ALREADY GOTTEN THE $2,500 OI THE 17 COLLEGE HAD ALREADY RECEIVED THE $2,500. SO THE 18 DIFFERENCE IN THE FALSIFIED INVOICE WAS $300. AND 19 THAT'S WHAT WAS -- YOU KNOW THE SIMPLE NOT CASH EVIDENCE 20 THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY USED IN THIS CASE PLUS -- BUT 21 THERE WAS A LOT MORE THAT WAS THERE OF ENORMOUS AMOUNT 22 OF MONEY THAT WAS JUST EXCHANGED IN CASH. WITH NO 23 RECEIPTS. 24 BY MR. COZAD: 25 Q. HOW MUCH DID THE INVESTIGATION COST THE 174 ROUGH DRAFT 1 COLLEGE? 2 MR. WINET: OBJECTION CALLS FOR SPECULATION, 3 LACKS FOUNDATION. ANSWER IF YOU KNOW. 4 A. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY. I MADE A 5 PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON BOTH 6 MARCH 20TH, APRIL 24TH, AFTERNOON AT THE MAY 15TH BOARD 7 MEETING AND THOSE SHOULD BE ON THE RECORD. 8 BY MR. COZAD: 9 Q. YOU HAVE HEARD IT ESTIMATED BY OTHERS THAT THE 10 INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING THE INVESTIGATORS FEES AND THE 11 LAW FIRM FEES AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH LAWSUITS 12 ARISING FROM THIS PALM TREE AFFAIR WERE WELL OVER A 13 MILLION DOLLARS, HAVEN'T YOU? 14 MR. WINET: HOLD IT HOLD IT LET ME OBJECT 15 FIRST OF ALL THE QUESTION ITSELF COMPLETELY LACKS 16 FOUNDATION. THERE'S NO BASIS FOR IT. BUT YOU CAN 17 ANSWER THE QUESTION. DID YOU HEAR THAT? 18 A. I DID HEAR IT FROM TRUSTEE CARRANZA. 19 BY MR. COZAD: 20 Q. ALL RIGHT? 21 A. YES, VERY SPECIFICALLY. AND I PROVIDED A 22 REPORT CONTRADICTING HER ASSERTIONS. 23 Q. OKAY. AND THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION IN 24 PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT THE ACTUAL COSTS WERE, NOBODY SEEMED 25 TO KNOW, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 175 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. WINET: HOLD IT. THAT'S TWO QUESTIONS. 2 A. THAT'S TWO QUESTIONS. 3 MR. WINET: CAN YOU BREAK THEM DOWN PLEASE? 4 MR. COZAD: NO. WOULD YOU READ THE QUESTION 5 PLEASE. 6 MR. WINET: YOU'RE GOING TO GET AN INSTRUCTION 7 BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING TWO QUESTIONS IN ONES. 8 MR. COZAD: FINE WITH ME. 9 MR. WINET: GO AHEAD AND READ THE QUESTION AND 10 I'LL INSTRUCT HER NOT TO ANSWER AND THEN HE CAN ASK HER 11 ANOTHER ONE. 12 QUESTION READ: 13 MR. WINET: THAT DOESN'T SOUND THAT COMPOUND 14 GO AHEAD. 15 A. I DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. OKAY. WHAT DID YOU MEAN IN THE LAST SENTENCE 18 OF EXHIBIT 29 WHEN YOU SAID IT WOULD BE IN YOUR BEST 19 INTEREST? 20 A. I BELIEVE I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. 21 DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER IT AGAIN? 22 Q. HOW WOULD IT HELP YOU TO REVEAL ALL OF THIS 23 MISCONDUCT? 24 A. NOT TO BE SACRIFICED AS THE MAKER OF THE 25 PROBLEMS AT THE COLLEGE. 176 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. WHO HELPED YOU WRITE THIS LETTER FEBRUARY 2, 2 2007? 3 A. THIS LETTER WAS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN 4 THE COLLEGE'S LEGAL ATTORNEY MR. DAN SHINOFF, FORMER 5 PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, MR. FERNANDEZ AND THE CURRENT 6 MEMBER -- PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD MR. ADAMS. 7 THE WITNESS: MAY I GET SOME WATER. 8 MR. WINET: YES, PLEASE DO. 9 BY MR. COZAD: 10 Q. ARE YOU READY? 11 A. UH-HUH YES. 12 Q. DID MR. SHINOFF EVER HELP YOU DRAFT LETTERS 13 WITH RESPECT TO YOUR RIGHTS AGAINST THE COLLEGE? 14 MR. WINET: WELL, LET ME OBJECT. I THINK 15 THAT -- ARE YOU SAYING OUTSIDE OF THIS? BECAUSE SHE 16 JUST SAID -- 17 MR. COZAD: YEAH OUTSIDE OF THIS. 18 MR. WINET: OUTSIDE OF THIS LETTER. 19 MR. COZAD: SURE. 20 A. THE LETTER THAT YOU WERE GIVEN A COPY OF 21 TODAY, THE OCTOBER 3RD LETTER. 22 BY MR. COZAD: 23 Q. YES? 24 A. WAS ALSO PROOFREAD BY MR. SHINOFF. 25 MR. WINET: I THINK IT WAS OCTOBER 2ND. 177 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. EXCUSE ME OCTOBER 2ND YES. THAT LETTER WAS 2 WRITTEN UNDER THE DIRECTION OF PRESIDENT -- BOARD 3 PRESIDENT FERNANDEZ AND REVIEWED BY MR. SHINOFF. IT'S 4 EXHIBIT -- I THINK IT'S EXHIBIT 21. 5 BY MR. COZAD: 6 Q. DID MR. SHINOFF MAKE ANY CHANGES TO 7 EXHIBIT 21? 8 A. I DON'T RECALL. 9 Q. DID MR. SHINOFF MAKE ANY CHANGES TO 10 EXHIBIT 29? 11 A. I DON'T RECALL. 12 Q. WAS IT YOUR PRACTICE TO SHARE WITH MR. SHINOFF 13 INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE COLLEGE? 14 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 15 OVERBROAD AND VAGUE. YOU CAN ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU 16 CAN. 17 MR. SLEETH: IT ALSO ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN 18 EVIDENCE. SHE SAID THAT THREE PEOPLE WERE INVOLVED, NOT 19 WHO INVOLVED MR. SHINOFF. 20 A. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY 21 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COLLEGE. 22 BY MR. COZAD: 23 Q. ALL RIGHT. YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2, 2007 24 STATES AN INTENTION TO TAKE ACTION ADVERSE TO THE 25 COLLEGE, DOESN'T IT? 178 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. SLEETH: OBJECTION CALLS FOR A LEGAL 2 CONCLUSION, VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS. 3 MR. WINET: I'LL JOIN AND ALSO I THINK TO SOME 4 EXTENT IT MISSTATES THE LETTER YOU CAN ANSWER. 5 A. I DON'T SEE WHAT ADVERSE ACTION AGAINST THE 6 COLLEGE THIS IS. 7 BY MR. COZAD: 8 Q. YOU'RE TAKING THE POSITION IN YOUR 9 FEBRUARY 2ND LETTER THAT THE COLLEGE HAS VIOLATED YOUR 10 RIGHTS AND HARMED YOU? 11 A. UH-HUH. 12 Q. AND THAT YOU MAY PUBLICLY REVEAL INFORMATION 13 ABOUT MISCONDUCT IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING SACRIFICED. 14 MR. SLEETH: I OBJECT TO THAT CHARACTERIZATION 15 AS MISSTATING THE FACTS. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. DID MR. SHINOFF REVIEW THIS LETTER BEFORE IT 18 WENT OUT WITH THAT LANGUAGE IN IT? 19 MR. WINET: HOLD IT. YOU JUST MISSTATED. 20 BECAUSE OF YOUR LAST STATEMENT YOU'VE NOW MISSTATED THE 21 LETTER. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT STATED WHAT THE LETTER 22 SAYS. SO AS THE QUESTION IS CURRENTLY PHRASED, IT 23 MISSTATES THE LETTER. I'LL INSTRUCK THE WITNESS NOT TO 24 ANSWER. 25 A. (MARK) YOU CAN REPHRASE IF YOU WOULD LIKE. 179 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. DID MR. SHINOFF REVIEW THIS LETTER BEFORE IT 3 WENT OUT? 4 A. YES. 5 Q. ON WHOSE BEHALF WAS MR. SHINOFF ACTING WHEN HE 6 REVIEWED THIS LETTER? 7 A. ON. 8 MR. WINET: OBJECTION CALLS FOR SPECULATION, 9 MAY LACK FOUNDATION GO AHEAD. 10 A. THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD. 11 BY MR. COZAD: 12 Q. DID YOU BELIEVE THAT MR. SHINOFF HALF CONFLICT 13 OF INTEREST IN ASSISTING YOU IN PREPARING THIS LETTER 14 FEBRUARY 2, 2007? 15 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT THE QUESTION CALLS 16 FOR AN IMPROPER OPINION AND CONCLUSION ON BEHALF OF THIS 17 WITNESS. IT LACKS FOUNDATION AS TO WHETHER SHE WOULD 18 KNOW OR NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS A CONFLICT OF 19 INTEREST. IT CALLS FOR AN IMPROPER LEGAL OPINION ON 20 BEHALF OF THIS WITNESS TO THE EXTENT YOU KNOW CAN YOU 21 ANSWER. 22 A. I DON'T KNOW. 23 BY MR. COZAD: 24 Q. DID YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ASKING THE 25 ATTORNEY FOR THE COLLEGE BOARD TO ASSIST YOU IN 180 ROUGH DRAFT 1 PREPARING A LETTER ON YOUR BEHALF AGAINST THE COLLEGE 2 BOARD? 3 A. I DID NOT ASK THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COLLEGE TO 4 ASSIST ME. 5 MR. SLEETH: THERE. 6 BY MR. COZAD: 7 Q. DID YOU ALLOW THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COLLEGE TO 8 ASSIST YOU? 9 A. UNDER THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD'S DIRECTION, 10 YES. 11 Q. DID YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE 12 BOARD HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN ASKING THE COLLEGE 13 ATTORNEY TO ASSIST YOU IN PREPARING THIS LETTER? 14 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR IMPROPER 15 LEGAL OPINION AND CONCLUSION, IT LACKS FOUNDATION AS TO 16 THIS WITNESS. 17 MR. SLEETH: ASSUMES -- GO AHEAD. 18 MR. WINET: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE YOU 19 CAN ANSWER TO THE EXTENT YOU KNOW. 20 MR. SLEETH: JOIN. 21 A. I DON'T KNOW. 22 BY MR. COZAD: 23 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHY MR. ADAMS DIRECTED MR. SHINOFF 24 TO HELP YOU DRAFT THE LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2? 25 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION 181 ROUGH DRAFT 1 LACKS FOUNDATION FOUNDATION ANSWER WHAT YOU KNOW. 2 A. I DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT, NO, I DON'T. 3 BY MR. COZAD: 4 Q. DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE 5 ATTORNEY FOR THE COLLEGE TO ASSIST THE PRESIDENT IN 6 MATTERS CONTRARY TO THE STATEMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL BOARD 7 MEMBERS? 8 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 9 OVERBROAD. FURTHER THE QUESTION LACKS FOUNDATION. 10 THIRD IT CALLS FOR AN IMPROPER LEGAL OPINION AND 11 CONCLUSION AND ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE KNOWN TO 12 THIS WITNESS. TO THE EXTENT YOU KNOW AND YOU CAN 13 PROVIDE AN ANSWER, GO AHEAD. 14 A. THE LEGAL COUNSEL WAS NOT ASSISTING THE 15 PRESIDENT. THE LEGAL COUNSEL WAS UNDER DIRECTION OF THE 16 PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD. 17 BY MR. COZAD: 18 Q. REFERRING TO THE EXHIBIT 21 WHICH WAS YOUR 19 LETTER OF OCTOBER 2, 2006? 20 A. UH-HUH. 21 Q. -- DID MR. SHINOFF ADD THE LANGUAGE QUOTE THIS 22 ACTION WILL STIGMATIZE MY NAME MY CHARACTER AND MY 23 PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION? 24 A. I DON'T THINK SO. 25 Q. WHO PREPARED THE FIRST DRAFT OF YOUR 182 ROUGH DRAFT 1 OCTOBER 2, 2007 LETTER? 2 A. I DON'T REMEMBER IF THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE 3 DRAFT. I DON'T RECALL THAT. I DON'T KNOW. 4 Q. OKAY. DID YOU PREPARE? 5 A. YEAH I PREPARED IT. 6 Q. ALL RIGHT. HOW DID IT GET TO MR. SHINOFF? 7 A. WE WERE ALL PRESENTS IN MY OFFICE. 8 Q. WERE YOU PREPARING THIS LETTER WITH OTHERS 9 PRESENT? 10 A. I ALREADY TESTIFIED TO THAT FACT, YES, SIR. 11 Q. OKAY? 12 A. I DID. 13 Q. WHO WAS THERE? 14 A. THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD MR. ADAMS, THE 15 FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, MR. FERNANDEZ, AND THE 16 LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE DANIEL SHINOFF AND MYSELF. 17 Q. OKAY. AND EVERY ONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE 18 DRAFTING OF THE LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2, 2007? 19 A. YES. 20 Q. THE ENTIRE TIME? 21 A. THE ENTIRE TIME. 22 Q. GETTING BACK TO THE OCTOBER 2ND LETTER, 23 EXHIBIT 21. WERE OTHERS PRESENT WHEN YOU DRAFTED THIS 24 LETTER? 25 A. NO. 183 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. HOW WAS IT THAT IT CAME TO BE REVIEWED BY MR. 2 SHINOFF? 3 A. THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, MR. FERNANDEZ 4 ASKED ME TO SEND MR. SHINOFF A LETTER AND I UNDERSTAND 5 THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD HAD ASKED MR. SHINOFF TO 6 REVIEW IT. 7 Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH MR. 8 SHINOFF ABOUT THIS LETTER OF OCTOBER 2, 2006 BEFORE IT 9 WENT OUT? 10 A. YOU KNOW I DON'T REMEMBER. I REMEMBER FAXING 11 IT TO HIS OFFICE AND I REMEMBER GETTING THE OKAY BUT I 12 DON'T REMEMBER IN WHAT FASHION THAT WAS. I DON'T 13 REMEMBER IF I HEARD IT FROM THE BOARD PRESIDENT OR IF I 14 HEARD IT VIA FAX FROM -- NO I DON'T THINK SO IT WAS NOT 15 A FAX BACK. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A PHONE CALL. I CAN'T 16 REMEMBER. 17 Q. DID YOU ADD ANYTHING TO THE LETTER OR CHANGE 18 ANYTHING TO THE LETTER OF OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 AFTER MR. 19 SHINOFF GAVE YOU THE OKAY TO SEND IT OUT? 20 A. NO. 21 Q. DID MR. SHINOFF REVIEW AND IMPROVE THE 22 LANGUAGE WHICH SAYS QUOTE MY INTENT IN WRITING THIS 23 LETTER IS TO ADVISE YOU THAT IF IN THE PUBLIC SESSION ON 24 OCTOBER 3RD, 2006, TRUST TRUSTEE CARRANZA PROCEEDS AS 25 SHE HAS DISCUSSED WITH BOARD PRESIDENT FERNANDEZ AND 184 ROUGH DRAFT 1 CAUSES ME PUBLIC HUMILIATION SHE WILL BE VIOLATING MY 2 EMPLOYEE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY AND I WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT 3 TO REQUEST FROM THE BOARD ANY AND ALL NECESSARY LEGAL 4 REMEDIES? "? 5 A. CAN YOU READ THE BEGINNING OF THE QUESTION. 6 QUESTION: 7 A. I THINK HE REVIEWED IT I'M NOT SURE I DON'T 8 RECALL WHETHER HE IMPROVED IT OR NOT BUT HE REVIEWED IT, 9 YES. 10 Q. I SAID APPROVED? 11 A. I HEARD IMPROVED. 12 Q. OKAY. THEN I WILL EAT THAT ONE. I WOULD LIKE 13 TO READ IT BACK SO WE HAVE A GOOD QUESTION. 14 **** 15 A. YES. 16 Q. OKAY. 17 BY MR. COZAD: 18 (EXHIBIT 30 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 19 BY MR. COZAD: 20 Q. BACK WHEN YOU DRAFTED THE LETTER OF 21 FEBRUARY 2, 2007, HOW LONG WAS YOUR MEETING IN YOUR 22 OFFICE WITH MR. SHINOFF, MR. FERNANDEZ AND MR. ADAMS? 23 A. OH I DON'T RECALL. 24 Q. WHAT ELSE WAS DISCUSSED DURING THE MEETING? 25 MR. SLEETH: OBJECTION ATTORNEY-CLIENT 185 ROUGH DRAFT 1 PRIVILEGE. 2 MR. WINET: LET'S FIRST OF ALL ASK IF ANYTHING 3 OTHER THAN THE LETTER WAS DISCUSSED THAT MIGHT SAVE US A 4 LOT OF TIME. 5 MR. COZAD: SURE. 6 A. I DON'T RECALL. 7 BY MR. COZAD: 8 Q. WE'LL GIVE MR. WINET SOME CREDIT FOR THIS ONE 9 YOU DON'T RECALL? 10 A. NO. 11 Q. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE TO EXHIBIT 30, WHICH I 12 BELIEVE YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. WAS THIS LETTER -- 13 WELL, STRIKE THAT. 14 EXHIBIT 30 APPEARS TO BE A LETTER TO THE BOARD 15 OF TRUSTEES FROM CHARLES ADAMS DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2007, 16 CORRECT? 17 A. YES, UH-HUH. 18 Q. NOW WAS THIS ALSO DRAFTED IN YOUR MEETING WITH 19 MR. FERNANDEZ, SHINOFF AND ADAMS? 20 A. YOU KNOW, I DON'T RECALL. AND I DON'T KNOW 21 WHAT LETTER HE'S REFERRING TO IN THIS LETTER SO I'M 22 REALLY -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE 23 ATTACHMENT ISN'T HERE SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S 24 REFERRING TO. 25 Q. OKAY. 186 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. SLEETH: WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO TAKE A 2 BREAK WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR DOCUMENTS? 3 MR. COZAD: IF YOU WOULD LIKE. I DON'T MIND 4 BREAKS. 5 MR. WINET: WE'RE ABOUT AT THE HOUR POINT 6 LET'S DO THAT. 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: WE'RE OFF THE RECORD AT 8 356. 9 (RECESS). 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD 11 409. 12 BY MR. COZAD: 13 Q. OKAY WITH WHAT I HOPE IS OUR LAST SET OF 14 QUESTIONS ON EXHIBIT 29. REFERRING TO THE LAST SENTENCE 15 AGAIN, THE WORD MISCONDUCT. DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION 16 OF MISCONDUCT PERFORMED BY OR COMMITTED BY GLORIA 17 CARRANZA AS A TRUSTEE AS IT RELATES TO THIS LETTER 18 FEBRUARY 2, 2007? 19 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 20 AMBIGUOUS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION? 21 A. AM I AWARE OF MISCONDUCT BY GLORIA CARRANZA AS 22 OF FEBRUARY 2ND? 23 BY MR. COZAD: 24 Q. AS IT RELATES TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2ND, 25 2007. 187 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. WINET: YOU'RE REFERRING TO SOMETHING 2 OTHER THAN THE MINORITY REPORT THAT WIEWF ALREADY BEEN 3 THROUGH? 4 MR. COZAD: YEAH. 5 A. NO. 6 BY MR. COZAD: 7 Q. LET ME TELL YOU WHY I'M ASKING THIS? 8 A. I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WORD 9 MISCONDUCT IN RELATION TO WHAT I MEANT IN THAT LETTER. 10 Q. RIGHT. WELL, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT SEVERAL 11 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES? 12 A. UH-HUH. 13 Q. AND YOUR MENTION OF THE WORD MISCONDUCT? 14 A. UH-HUH. 15 Q. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN I LEAVE HERE 16 TODAY I KNOW ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS SOME SUGGESTION THAT 17 ANY OF THEM COMMITTED SOME KIND OF MISCONDUCT THAT YOU 18 REFERENCE IN YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2, 2007 OTHER THAN 19 WHAT YOU'VE TOLD ME ABOUT YOUR COMPLAINTS? 20 A. NO, I THINK -- NO, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING 21 THAT. AND I'M -- I HAVE A MINTS IN MY MOUTH SO I'M ON 22 VIDEO THE REASON THAT I'M SPEAKING FUNNY IS BECAUSE I 23 HAVE A MINTS IN MY MOUTH KNOW MY MOUTH. WHAT I MEANT BY 24 MISCONDUCT WAS WHAT I BELIEVED TO BE EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT 25 IN THE SENSE THAT IN MY OPINION THERE HAD BEEN A PATTERN 188 ROUGH DRAFT 1 AT THE COLLEGE OF LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY. AND CAN YOU 2 SAY THAT THERE WAS LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY STARTING FROM 3 THE BOARD DOWN? IN THAT CASE, IF YOU ASK ME THAT 4 QUESTION I WOULD SAY YES. BUT WHAT I MEANT IN THAT 5 LETTER IS THAT THERE WAS -- IN MY OPINION MISCONDUCT ON 6 THE PART OF THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE COLLEGE 7 THAT DID NOT HOLD EMPLOYEES ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THEY WERE 8 TOLD BY AUDITORS REPEATEDLY THAT THEY NEEDED TO FIX 9 CERTAIN THINGS. WHEN THEY HAD HAD WHISTLEBLOWER 10 COMPLAINT THAT IS GAVE THEM INFORMATION ABOUT A PRIVATE 11 BUSINESS TAKING PLACE IN THE HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT IN 12 1995 AND DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT. WHAT I MEANT WAS THE 13 COLLEGE PRESIDENT THAT -- THE PREVIOUS COLLEGE PRESIDENT 14 TAKING WITH HIM ALL OF THE FILES IN THE PRESIDENT'S 15 OFFICE SO WHEN I ARRIVED I HAD NOT ONE SINGLE FILE IN MY 16 OFFICE. WHEN THE VICE PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS LEFT, I 17 FOUND OUT WHEN I HIRED THE NEXT VICE PRESIDENT THAT ALL 18 OF THE FILINGS IN THE VICE PRESIDENT BUSINESS OFFICE WAS 19 ALSO GONE. THAT'S THE KINDS OF MISCONDUCT I WAS TALKING 20 ABOUT. 21 Q. ALL RIGHT. OKAY LET'S SHOW YOU WHAT WE'VE 22 MARKED AS EXHIBIT 31. 23 (EXHIBIT 31 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 24 MR. COZAD: WHICH IS MY ONLY COPY. 25 MR. WINET: DO YOU WANT ME TO RUN IT THROUGH 189 ROUGH DRAFT 1 THE COPIER TAKE ME ABOUT ONE MINUTE. 2 MR. SLEETH: LET ME JUST LOOK AT IT AND THEN 3 I'LL BE HAPPY. 4 MR. COZAD: SORRY RENE. 5 MR. WINET: I'VE SEEN IT. 6 BY MR. COZAD: 7 Q. OKAY. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE EXHIBIT 31 FOR ME, 8 PLEASE SINCE YOU HAVE IT? 9 A. IT'S A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 2ND, MIRACOSTA 10 COLLEGE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES. IT'S ADDRESSED TO 11 THE TRIES HE'S. IT'S FROM CHARLES ADAMS SENIOR THE 12 PRESIDENT. ENCLOSING MY LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2ND FROM THE 13 SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT. AND STATING THAT TRUSTEE 14 CARRANZA SIMON AND STRATTAN HAD VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS 15 RIGHTS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT. IF YOU HAVE 16 OPINIONS ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE 17 SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT, THIS MUST BE DONE IN CLOSED 18 SESSION WHERE IT IS ON THE AGENDA FOR EVALUATION. YOU 19 MUST NOT MAKE ANY PUBLIC EVALUATION STATEMENTS. 20 CORDIALLY SIGNED BY MR. ADD DAMS. 21 Q. WERE YOU PRESENTS WHEN EXHIBIT 31 WAS 22 PREPARED? 23 A. YES SIR. 24 Q. WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT? 25 A. MR. ADAMS, MR. FERNANDEZ AND LEGAL COUNSEL DAN 190 ROUGH DRAFT 1 SHINOFF. 2 Q. WHO -- DID SOMEBODY DICTATE THE LETTER? 3 A. I DON'T RECALL THAT. 4 Q. HOW WAS IT SCRIBED IF YOU WILL, OR PUT 5 TOGETHER? 6 A. LIKE I SAID BEFORE IT WAS A GROUP. WE WERE 7 ALL IN THE SAME MEETING. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A PORTION 8 OF MR. ADAMS -- IT COULD HAVE BEEN -- I DON'T REMEMBER 9 REALLY. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY. 10 Q. MAY I SEE IT FOR A MOMENT? 11 A. YEAH. 12 Q. DID MR. SHINOFF COME UP WITH THE LANGUAGE 13 QUOTE TRUSTEE CARRANZA, SIMON AND STRATTAN HAD VIOLATED 14 THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT"? 15 A. I DON'T REMEMBER. 16 Q. DID MR. SHINOFF SEE THIS LANGUAGE BEFORE IT 17 WAS -- THIS LETTER WAS FINALIZED? 18 A. YES, SIR. 19 Q. DID YOU BELIEVE THAT MR. SHINOFF HAD A 20 CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN ASSISTING PRODUCTION OF THIS 21 LETTER IN WHICH HE STATES THAT THREE SITTING TRUSTEES 22 HAD VIOLATED YOUR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS? 23 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT. THE QUESTION CALLS 24 FOR IMPROPER LEGAL OPINION AND CONCLUSION ON BEHALF OF 25 THIS WITNESS. THE QUESTION MAY LACK FOUNDATION, ASSUMES 191 ROUGH DRAFT 1 FACTS THAT ARE PERHAPS NOT IN EVIDENCE AS STATED. AND 2 CALLS FOR THIS WITNESS TO PROVIDE AN EXPERT LEGAL 3 OPINION FOR WHICH SHE'S NOT QUALIFIED TO GIVE. TO THE 4 EXTENT THAT YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU CAN PROVIDE IT 5 THOUGH. 6 MR. SLEETH: JOIN. 7 A. I DON'T KNOW. 8 BY MR. COZAD: 9 Q. DID YOU CONSIDER THAT YOU HAD A CONFLICT OF 10 INTEREST IN HAVING MR. SHINOFF ASSIST IN COMING UP WITH 11 THIS LETTER WITH THIS LANGUAGE STATING THAT THREE 12 TRUSTEES HAD VIOLATED YOUR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS? 13 MR. WINET: OBJECTION CALLS FOR IMPROPER LEGAL 14 OPINION AND CONCLUSION LACKS FOUNDATION ASSUMES THAT THE 15 WITNESS ACTUALLY HAS AN OPINION TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU 16 CAN ANSWER YOU CAN GO AHEAD. 17 MR. SLEETH: JOIN. 18 A. I HAD NO OPINION. 19 BY MR. COZAD: 20 Q. DID YOU EVER TELL TRUSTEES CARRANZA SIMON OR 21 STRATTAN THAT YOU HAD JOINTLY DRAFTED YOUR LETTER OF 22 FEBRUARY 2ND, 2007, ALONG WITH MR. SHINOFF? 23 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION ASSUMES 24 FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. MAY LACK FOUNDATION IN THE WAY 25 ITS STATED. CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND ANSWER. 192 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. IF I RESTATE IT I CAN ANSWER FOR YOU AND WHAT 2 I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THAT WHEN TRUSTEE STRATTAN READ 3 MY LETTER I PROVIDED IN THE PUBLIC MEETING AN 4 EXPLANATION THAT I HAD WRITTEN THIS LETTER UNDER THE 5 ADVICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE LEGAL COUNSEL. SO IT 6 WAS NOT JUST TRUSTEE STRATTAN SIMON AND CARRANZA BUT THE 7 REMAINING OF THE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC WHO WAS PRESENTS 8 AT THE FEBRUARY 20TH BOARD MEETING. 9 BY MR. COZAD: 10 Q. LET'S PUT THAT IN THE PILE. 11 GIVE ME A MOMENT. THIS IS WHAT I WAS SUPPOSED 12 TO BE DOING DURING THE BREAK. SORRY. 13 MR. SLEETH: THE BEST LATE PLANS OF I SUBMIT 14 GANG I LEE. 15 (EXHIBIT 32 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. WE'RE SHOWING YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS 18 EXHIBITS 32 IS THIS A COUNTY ARTICLE OF MARCH 17, 2007 19 ENTITLED COLLEGE OFFICIALS MUM ON TALK WITH PRESIDENT? 20 A. ARE YOU ASKING ME IF THIS IS AN ARTICLE? IF I 21 HAVE BEFORE ME ON EXHIBIT 32 THE ARTICLE? 22 Q. RIGHT. 23 A. I HAVE THE WEB PRINT OF THE ARTICLE FROM THE 24 NORTH COUNTY -- FROM THE TRIBUNE, YES. 25 Q. AND AS OF MARCH 17, 2007 WAS THERE SOME 193 ROUGH DRAFT 1 DISCUSSION THAT YOU MIGHT RESIGN? 2 A. NO. 3 Q. WERE YOU ASKED ON OR ABOUT MARCH 17, 2007 BY 4 LOLA SHERMAN OF THE UNION-TRIBUNE WHETHER YOU HAD ANY 5 PLANS TO RESIGN? 6 A. I DON'T RECALL THE QUESTION. BUT I COULD 7 HAVE, YES. AND EMPLOYEES WERE ASKING ME IF I WAS GOING 8 TO RESIGN. 9 Q. OKAY? 10 A. AS WELL. 11 Q. BUT -- 12 A. BUT THERE WAS NO, ON MY PART, THERE WAS NO 13 INTENT ON RESIGNING ON MY PART AT THIS TIME. 14 Q. OKAY. DID YOU TELL LOLA SHERMAN IN MARCH OF 15 2007 QUOTE I'M NOT GOING TO RESIGN? 16 A. I COULD HAVE YES. 17 (EXHIBIT 33 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 18 BY MR. COZAD: 19 Q. I'M SHOWING WHAT YOU WE'LL MARK AS EXHIBIT 33. 20 A. UH-HUH. 21 Q. HAVE YOU EVER DONE ANY RESEARCH INTO THE BROWN 22 ACT? 23 A. YES. 24 Q. DID YOU PREPARE A MEMORANDUM ON OR ABOUT 25 APRIL 25, 2007 ADDRESSED TO THE ACADEMIC SENATE THAT 194 ROUGH DRAFT 1 REFERENCED THE BROWN ACT? 2 A. I PREPARED AN E-MAIL WHICH IS EXHIBIT 33 OR A 3 COPY OF WHICH IS EXHIBIT 33 THAT I SENT TO THE ACADEMIC 4 SENATE THE CLASSIFIED SENATE COUNSEL AND CLASSIFIED 5 MANAGERS. 6 Q. WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME AWARE OF THE 7 PROVISIONS OF THE BROWN ACT? 8 A. PROBABLY WHEN I WAS EMPLOYED IN THE LOS 9 ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT SOME 30 YEARS AGO. 10 Q. IN YOUR ACADEMIC CAREER DID YOU EVER TAKE ANY 11 COURSE THAT IS FOCUSED ON THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF COLLEGE 12 ADMINISTRATION? 13 A. YES. 14 Q. WHEN DID YOU TAKE THOSE? 15 A. DURING MY DOCTORAL PROGRAM AT UCLA. IT WAS IN 16 HIRE EDUCATION NOT NECESSARILY COLLEGE EDUCATION. 17 Q. OKAY. AND APPROXIMATELY WHAT YEARS WERE 18 THOSE? 19 A. NINETY-SIX TO 98. 20 Q. AND WHAT -- HOW MANY COURSES DID YOU TAKE THAT 21 DEALT WITH THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF HIRE EDUCATION? 22 A. ONE. 23 Q. WAS THE BROWN ACT PART OF THE CURRICULUM? 24 A. IT WAS, YEAH. I'M PRETTY SURE I DON'T 25 REMEMBER EXACTLY. 195 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. WHY DID YOU WRITE THIS E-MAIL OF APRIL 25? 2 A. WHAT HAD HAPPENED IS ON -- AT THE BOARD 3 MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20TH, I WAS -- I EXPLAINED TO THE 4 BOARD THAT I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF PREPARING A PUBLIC 5 PRESENTATION OF THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION AND ALL 6 OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE THAT HAD CREATED 7 SUCH A PROBLEM FOR THE COLLEGE AND THAT IT WAS 8 UNFORTUNATE THAT BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF 9 PRIVACY RIGHTS WE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO HAVE IT READY FOR 10 FEBRUARY 20TH. BUT MY HOPE WAS TO HAVE IT READY FOR THE 11 MARCH 20TH BOARD MEETING. AT THE MARCH 20TH BOARD 12 MEETING, I HAD JUST HEARD FROM MR. SHINOFF THAT THE 13 INVESTIGATOR AND HIM WHO WERE GOING TO BE PART OF THE 14 PRESENTATION AS WELL HAD JUST FINISHED AND WERE READY TO 15 MAKE A PUBLIC PRESENTATION BUT WOULD NOT BE READY FOR 16 MARCH 20TH BUT COULD BE READY FOR THE APRIL 24TH BOARD 17 MEETING. SO AT THAT TIME I ASKED THE BOARD FOR -- IN 18 THE PUBLIC SESSION, THE FULL BOARD FOR APPROVAL OF THE 19 PRESENTATION OF THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION AND ALL 20 OF THE RELATED ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD STILL PROTECT THE 21 PRIVACY RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES BUT WOULD SPEAK TO THE 22 OUTCOME AND WHAT WE HAD FOUND. 23 AND AT THAT TIME TRUSTEE CARRANZA AND STRATTAN 24 WERE VERY STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE RELEASE OF THE -- TO 25 THE PRESENTATION AND TO THE RELEASE OF THE INVESTIGATIVE 196 ROUGH DRAFT 1 REPORT. AND I BECAME VERY CONCERNED AS TO WHAT, WHAT 2 WOULD PROMPT THEM TO NOT WANT TO HAVE WHAT I CONSIDERED 3 TO BE THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO KNOW WHAT HAD HAPPENED 4 FINALLY AFTER ALL OF THESE MONTHS AND WHAT THE COLLEGE 5 HAD DONE ABOUT IT. SO WE ARRIVED AT THE MEETING OF 6 APRIL -- THE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 24TH AND THE -- I 7 MADE A PRESENTATION ON WHAT HAD HAPPENED ALONG WITH MR. 8 SHINOFF WHO DID ALL OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE 9 INVESTIGATOR MR. PRICE DID A SUMMER REPORT OF HIS 10 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS. 11 AND THEY WERE HEAVILY CHALLENGED BY TRUSTEE 12 CARRANZA AND TRUSTEE STRATTAN AND SIMON THAT INSISTED 13 THAT THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THE INVESTIGATION REPORT AND 14 THEY DIDN'T TRUST THE FINDINGS. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF 15 COME AND GO AND COME AND GO OF INFORMATION AND SO I FELT 16 THAT IT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO WRITE TO THE ENTIRE 17 COLLEGE COMMUNITY EXPRESSING MY OPINION AS TO WHAT HAD 18 HAPPENED AND ASKING EVERYBODY ONCE AGAIN TO TRY TO WORK 19 TOGETHER. LET'S SEE IF WE COULD GET THIS, YOU KNOW, 20 THIS BEHIND US AND CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER. SO THAT 21 WAS THE INTENT. 22 Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY ASSISTANCE WITH THIS E-MAIL? 23 A. NO. 24 Q. ON PAGE 2, THE SECOND TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH, 25 IT SAYS AS A LEADER I HAVE BEEN IN THE PUBLIC EYE MANY 197 ROUGH DRAFT 1 TIMES WITH EMPLOYEES OR GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES OR ORGANIZED 2 LABOR WHO HAVE LAUNCHED WELL ORCHESTRATED MEDIA 3 CAMPAIGNS AGAINST ME." 4 WHAT WELL ORCHESTRATED MEDIA CAMPAIGNS AGAINST 5 YOU WERE THERE OTHER THAN WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY TOLD ME 6 ABOUT AT, I PRESUME AT CASCADIA? 7 A. THERE WERE OTHERS WITHIN THE LA DISTRICT AT 8 TIMES DEPENDING UPON WHATEVER LEGAL CASE WE WERE DEALING 9 WITH. AND THE POINT OF THIS THERE CAN PARAGRAPH WAS TO 10 LET THE EMPLOYEES KNOW THAT WHAT -- MY SECOND SENTENCE 11 WHICH IS HOWEVER EACH AND EVERY TIME THE BOARD I SERVE 12 PREVAILED IN ALL OF ITS ACTIONS AND WHY, BECAUSE AS A 13 LEADER I STAND FOR THE TRUTH AND I DO NOT COMPROMISE MY 14 PROFESSIONAL OR PERSONAL ETHICS. WHICH IS THE SAME 15 MESSAGE THEY'D GIVEN TO THE ACADEMIC SENATE WHEN THEY 16 PRESENTED ME WITH THEIR VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE. 17 Q. LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT WE'LL MARK AS 18 EXHIBITS 34. 19 (EXHIBIT 34 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 20 BY MR. COZAD: 21 Q. NOW DOES THIS APPEAR TO BE AN UNION-TRIBUNE 22 ARTICLE OF APRIL 26, 2007, ENTITLED MIRACOSTA COLLEGE 23 PRESIDENT ASKS FACULTY FOR HEALING? 24 A. YES. 25 Q. AND BY THIS TIME WAS IT REPORTED THAT 198 ROUGH DRAFT 1 INVESTIGATOR PRICE'S BILL FOR HIS WORK ON THE PALM TREE 2 CASE WAS HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS? THAT IT COST HUNDRED 3 THOUSAND DOLLARS? 4 A. ARE YOU READING FROM THE REPORT? 5 MR. WINET: ARE YOU ASKING. 6 MR. COZAD: YES. 7 MR. WINET: IF THAT'S HOW MUCH IT DID COST. 8 MR. COZAD: NO I'M ASKING HER WHETHER THAT WAS 9 THE REPORT AT THE TIME AND SHE -- 10 A. I DON'T RECALL LIKE I SAID I PRESENTED, AT 11 THIS MEETING A PRELIMINARY REPORT AND THEN I PRESENTED 12 THE COLLEGE'S FINAL REPORT AT THE MAY MEETING. I 13 DON'T -- AT THIS POINT IN TIME I DON'T RECALL WHICH IS 14 WHAT. 15 BY MR. COZAD: 16 Q. OKAY. WAS IT ALSO REPORTED AT THE TIME THAT 17 THERE WERE COMPLAINTS ABOUT YOUR HANDLING OF OTHER 18 MATTERS IN ADDITION TO THE PALM TREE CASE? 19 A. YES. THE VOIT VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IS WHAT 20 THEY WERE REFERRING TO. AND ALL OF THE 35 ITEMS. 21 MR. COLE THE PRESIDENT OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE AT THE 22 FEBRUARY 20TH MEETING READ ALL 35 CHARGES. AND THEN 23 ALSO ALL OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF MY VIOLATION OF THE 24 EXECUTIVE BOUNDARIES. 25 Q. OKAY. LET ME SHOW WHAT YOU WE WILL NOW MARK 199 ROUGH DRAFT 1 AS EXHIBIT 35. 2 (EXHIBIT NUMBER MARKED FOR 3 IDENTIFICATION.) 4 BY MR. COZAD: 5 Q. WHICH APPEARS TO BE A COMMENTARY PIECE 6 PREPARED BY LOGAN JENKINS ON APRIL 26, 2007 ENTITLED 7 MIRACOSTA'S ODD SENSE OF FIDUCIARY DUTY? 8 A. UH-HUH. 9 Q. WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING IN APPROXIMATELY 10 APRIL 26TH OF 2007 THAT THERE WAS CRITICISM BEING 11 LEVELED AGAINST THE COLLEGE FOR SPENDING ROUGHLY 12 $100,000 TO INVESTIGATE THE PALM TREE INCIDENT? 13 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT. THE QUESTION IS 14 OVERBROAD AND VAGUE AS TO WHO HAD CRITICISM OTHER THAN 15 MR. JENKINS. SO I'M NOT SURE THE QUESTION IS CLEAR. 16 ARE YOU ASKING OUTSIDE OF THIS ARTICLE WAS THERE 17 CRITICISM? I ASSUME THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. 18 MR. COZAD: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION LET'S 19 ANSWER QUIT, PLEASE. 20 MR. WINET: I'M NOT SURE ON THE QUESTION 21 THAT'S YES I WAS ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION. JUST TRYING 22 TO -- IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME. 23 MR. COZAD: I THINK SHE CAN HANDLE IT. 24 MR. WINET: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. 25 A. I UNDERSTAND THAT HE'S ASKING ME IF 200 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. JENKINS COMMENTARY SAID THAT THERE WAS AN IN ORDER 2 NANTD AMOUNTED OF MONEY, HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. AND 3 THAT'S WHAT HE WRITES IN HIS COLUMN. 4 BY MR. COZAD: 5 Q. OKAY. SO WE AGREE THAT MR. JENKINS LEVELED 6 SOME CRITICISM? 7 A. OH YES. 8 Q. THAT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS WAS SPENT? 9 A. UH-HUH. 10 Q. NOW DID SOMEBODY ELSE THAT YOU KNOW OF LEVEL 11 SOME CRITICISM THAT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS WAS SPENT 12 TO INVESTIGATE THE PALM TREE CASE? 13 A. I WILL ANSWER IT BUT I'LL REPHRASE IT IN THAT 14 THERE WAS A LOT OF CRITICISM THAT THERE HAD BEEN A -- A 15 LOT OF MONEY SPENT, NOT NECESSARILY A HUNDRED THOUSAND. 16 SO WHAT I WANTED TO ANSWER TO YOU IS THE FACT THAT YES 17 THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING BEFORE THE 18 BOARD, TRUSTEE CARRANZA WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THE EXCESSIVE 19 AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HAD BEEN SPENT. THERE WERE A LOT 20 OF, A LOT OF NUMBERS BEING THROWN OUT OTHER THAN HUNDRED 21 THOUSAND AND YES THERE WAS CRITICISM THAT THE COLLEGE 22 HAD SPENT MONEY INVESTIGATING THE PALM TREE. SO I THINK 23 THAT'S WHAT YOU WANTED TO HEAR, MAYBE. 24 MR. WINET: YOU DID ANSWER HOPEFULLY YOU DID 25 ANSWER HIS FULL QUESTION BUT HE'LL COME BACK WITH 201 ROUGH DRAFT 1 ANOTHER ONE IF YOU DIDN'T. 2 A. OKAY. 3 BY MR. COZAD: 4 Q. YOU ACTUALLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION AND THEN 5 SOME. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT IN FACT, SOME OF THE 6 NUMBERS FOR THE INVESTIGATION WERE HUNDRED $29,000, OR 7 OTHER -- A MYRIAD OF OTHER NUMBERS MENTIONED, CORRECT? 8 A. THERE WERE A LOT OF INDIVIDUALS FROM THE 9 PUBLIC WERE ISSUING DIFFERENT NUMBERS. AND AS THE -- 10 WHAT I TRIED TO EXPLAIN ON BOTH MARCH -- I THINK IT WAS 11 MARCH 20TH, I'M NOT SURE, BUT DEFINITELY ON APRIL 24TH 12 AND THEN AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING WHICH -- OF MAY 15TH, 13 WAS THAT THE COLLEGE WAS STILL IN THE PROCESS OF 14 RECEIVING INVOICES. AND WE COULDN'T -- AND ON 15 APRIL 24TH WE DIDN'T HAVE THE FINAL FINAL BILL. WE HAD 16 A PRELIMINARY BILL. OR A PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE LET ME 17 PUT IT THAT WAY. ON MAY 15TH I PRESENTED THE FULL 18 ESTIMATE OF COSTS. AND IT WAS STILL BEING CHALLENGED, 19 PARTICULARLY BY TRUSTEE CARRANZA WHO KEPT INSISTING THAT 20 THE COLLEGE HAD SPENT A MILLION DOLLARS AND THE 21 COLLEGE'S FINANCES OR THE FINANCIAL RECORDS THAT I WAS 22 GIVEN BY THE VICE PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS SERVICES DID NOT 23 COINCIDE WITH TRUSTEE CARRANZA'S ASSERTIONS. 24 Q. WHAT WAS SPENT ON THE LEGAL FEES WITH RESPECT 25 TO THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE PALM TREES? 202 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. I DON'T RECALL. 2 Q. WAS IT -- WAS IT MORE THAN HUNDRED THOUSAND 3 DOLLARS? 4 A. I DON'T RECALL. I MEAN I WAS DEALING WITH 5 MANY, MANY COSTS AT THE COLLEGE. I DON'T RECALL 6 SPECIFICS. 7 Q. OKAY? 8 A. IT'S A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. I'M SURE CAN YOU HAVE 9 IT. IT WAS PRESENTED AT THE BOARD. 10 Q. OKAY. 11 MR. PAGE: I THINK THAT'S IT. 12 THE WITNESS: YEAH I THINK THAT'S THE 13 PRELIMINARY ONE. 14 BY MR. COZAD: 15 Q. OKAY. LET'S SKIP TO THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS 16 36. 17 (EXHIBIT NUMBER MARKED FOR 18 IDENTIFICATION.) 19 MR. COZAD: BEAR WITH ME A SECOND, PLEASE. 20 BY MR. COZAD: 21 Q. OKAY. WOULD YOU EXPLAIN FOR US WHAT 22 EXHIBIT 36 REPRESENTS? 23 A. WELL IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT'S A BILLING 24 STATEMENT BY ESI INTERNATIONAL FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH 25 MAY 14TH, 2007. IT SAYS THAT IT WAS PREPARED BY 203 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. ROBERT PRICE. 2 Q. WHO IS ROBERT PRICE? 3 A. MR. ROBERT PRICE IS -- WAS THE INVESTIGATOR 4 THAT WAS HIRED TO WORK UNDER MR. SHINOFF TO DO THE 5 INVESTIGATION ON THE ALLEGED FRAUD ON THE HORTICULTURE 6 DEPARTMENT. 7 Q. AND THE NAME OF HIS COMPANY? 8 A. ESI INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED. 9 Q. WHO HIRED MR. PRICE? 10 A. MR. SHINOFF. 11 Q. WHO DIRECTED MR. SHINOFF TO HIRE MR. PRICE? 12 A. WELL THE DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO LEGAL COUNSEL 13 IN CLOSED SESSION. 14 Q. WHO INITIATED THE DISCUSSION TO BE HAD IN 15 CLOSED SESSION? 16 MR. SLEETH: OBJECTION CLOSED SESSION. 17 MR. WINET: YEAH. I'LL -- 18 MR. COZAD: NO I'M SORRY. I'M ASKING ABOUT -- 19 THERE HAS TO BE SOME TYPE OF SETTING OR A REQUEST FOR A 20 DISCUSSION IN CLOSED SESSION. AM I WRONG? 21 MR. WINET: I STILL THINK YOU'RE ASKING IF 22 THERE IS -- WHO INITIATED THE DISCUSSION IN CLOSED 23 SESSION. THAT'S -- YOU'RE ASKING OUTSIDE OF CLOSED 24 SESSION? 25 MR. COZAD: YEAH. 204 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. WINET: WHO PUT THE MATTER ON THE AGENDA. 2 MR. COZAD: YEAH VERY GOOD THANK YOU. 3 EXCELLENT. 4 MR. SLEETH: THAT'S COOL QUESTION. 5 MR. WINET: DO YOU KNOW. 6 A. I DO KNOW. 7 MR. COZAD: OKAY. 8 A. IT WAS IN FEBRUARY IT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION 9 OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS, MR. ED COAT TO 10 CONTACT THE MIRACOSTA'S LEGAL COUNSEL, MR. SHINOFF. 11 MR. ED COAT WHO IS AT MIRACOSTA THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR 12 BUSINESS SERVICES IS IN CHARGE OF HANDLING ALL OF THE 13 LEGAL MATTERS FOR THE COLLEGE AND HAS AUTHORITY TO 14 RETAIN COUNSEL. AND MR. SHINOFF'S FIRM HAD WORKED FOR 15 MIRACOSTA FOR QUITE SOME TIME. SO MR. COAT RECOMMENDED 16 THAT WE PROVIDE THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT THAT HAD 17 FINALLY BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COLLEGE IN WRITING IN 18 FEBRUARY. AND THE DETAIL WITHIN THE WHISTLEBLOWER 19 COMPLAINT WAS SUCH THAT -- PLUS THE VERY LIMITED 20 INVESTIGATION THAT THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES HAD 21 DONE BETWEEN DECEMBER WHEN SHE HEARD THE VERBAL 22 WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT TO THE TIME THAT IT WAS WRITTEN 23 IN FEBRUARY HAD ALL KINDS OF VERY DIFFERENT 24 CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS. AND WE, MR. COAT, THE VICE 25 PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS SERVICES TOLD ME THAT WE DID NOT 205 ROUGH DRAFT 1 HAVE WITHIN THE COLLEGE THE PERSONNEL WHO COULD HANDLE A 2 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND WANTED TO GET ADVICE FROM 3 LEGAL COUNSEL. 4 I MET WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND THE VICE 5 PRESIDENT FOR BUSINESS SERVICES COLLEGE RISK MANAGER AND 6 THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND AFTER HEARING AND 7 READING THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WE -- AND I 8 APPROVED -- WE AGREED THAT IT WAS TIME TO LET THE BOARD 9 KNOW AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD TO HIRE AN 10 INVESTIGATOR TO WORK FOR MR. SHINOFF, WHO WOULD KNOW HOW 11 TO HANDLE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES IN A 12 COLLEGE. 13 Q. DID THE BOARD VOTE TO RETAIN MR. PRICE'S 14 COMPANY BEFORE IT WAS RETAINED? 15 MR. WINET: ISN'T THAT ASKING FOR INFORMATION 16 IN CLOSED SESSION? 17 MR. PAGE: IT WOULD BE A PUBLICLY REPORTED 18 VOTE. 19 MR. SLEETH: IT WOULD BE REPORTED OUT. I 20 THINK IT WAS. 21 A. IT WAS NOT -- THERE WAS NO, NO DIRECT ACTION 22 BY THE BOARD BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT BY THE 23 BOARD TO HIRE MR. BOB PRICE. MR. PRICE WAS WORKING FOR 24 OF MR. SHINOFF. MR. PRICE DID NOT WORK FOR THE COLLEGE. 25 206 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. WHO INSTRUCTED MR. SHINOFF TO BEGIN WORKING 3 TOWARD AN INVESTIGATION ON THE PALM TREES? 4 A. THE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN IN CLOSED SESSION. 5 Q. BY THE ENTIRE BOARD? 6 MR. COZAD: OKAY. 7 MR. WINET: I ASSUME. 8 MR. COZAD: YOU'RE RIGHT. 9 MR. WINET: SHE CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 10 MR. COZAD: YOU'RE RIGHT. OKAY YOU KNOW I'M 11 NEW TO THIS STUFF. HIDE AND SEEK. 12 MR. SLEETH: BUT YOU COULD ANSWER IF THERE WAS 13 AUTHORIZATION REPORTED OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION FOR 14 SHINOFF TO INVESTIGATOR DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO MR. 15 SHINOFF. 16 A. THERE WAS NO REPORT OUT TO THE OPEN SESSION 17 BECAUSE IT WAS JUST THE BOARD GIVING DIRECTION. 18 MR. SLEETH: OKAY. 19 A. TO LEGAL COUNSEL. 20 MR. SLEETH: OKAY. 21 BY MR. COZAD: 22 Q. DO I READ THIS CORRECTLY THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT 23 CHARGED BY ESI INTERNATIONAL FOR THE PALM TREE 24 INVESTIGATION FROM FEBRUARY 1, 2007 THROUGH MAY 14, 25 2007, IS $195,627? 207 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. THAT'S WHAT THIS REPORT SAYS. 2 Q. AND THAT 161.3 HOURS WAS SPENT ON COMPUTING 3 THE LOSS FOR INSURANCE CLAIMS AND D.A.'S INVESTIGATIONS? 4 A. THAT'S WHAT THIS REPORT SAYS. 5 Q. DID YOU NOTICE THIS $24,000 CHARGE JUST FOR 6 ONE ENTRY TO COMPUTE A LOSS? 7 MR. WINET: WELL LET ME OBJECT. I THINK THE 8 QUESTION THE WAY IT'S PHRASED MAY ASSUME FACTS NOT 9 EVIDENCE IN AND LACK FOUNDATION FOR THE WAY IT'S STATED 10 JUST BECAUSE IT'S A LINE ITEM. BUT GO AHEAD. 11 A. I KNOW WHAT -- ONLY WHAT YOU SEE OR WHAT I SEE 12 IN THIS REPORT, WHICH IS WHAT IT SAYS. I DON'T KNOW ANY 13 MORE THAN THAT. 14 BY MR. COZAD: 15 Q. DID YOU AS THE COLLEGE PRESIDENT AND 16 SUPERINTENDENT INQUIRE INTO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THAT 17 CHARGE? 18 A. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THIS PARTICULAR 19 BREAKDOWN. IT COULD HAVE GONE DIRECTLY TO THE VICE 20 PRESIDENT FOR BUSINESS SERVICES. THE REPORT THAT IS I 21 SAW WERE REPORTS THAT CAME FROM THE OFFICE OF THE VICE 22 PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS SERVICES TO ME. I DON'T OVERSEE 23 THE BILLINGS. 24 A. I DO NOT OVERSEE THE VOICE OF ANYBODY. THAT'S 25 NOT PART OF MY DUTY. 208 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO VIEW THIS CHARGE HERE 2 AS 175 HOURS FOR BRIEFING OF BOARD ATTORNEY AND 3 ADMINISTRATORS FOR A CHARGE OF $26,370? 4 A. AS I SAID I DON'T RECALL THIS, THIS PARTICULAR 5 CHART. I HAVE SEEN ANOTHER CHART SIMILAR TO THIS. BUT 6 I WOULD NOT BE THE ONE INQUIRING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE 7 TRUTHFULNESS OR THE HONESTY OR THE FACT OF THE CHARGE. 8 IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS SUBMITTED WITH BACKUP DOCUMENTS. 9 AND I DON'T HAVE THAT. THAT'S SOMETHING THE BUSINESS 10 SERVICES AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DOES. I DON'T SEE 11 THAT. 12 Q. WERE YOU AWARE OF A CHARGE OF $32,000 13 REPRESENTING 213 HOURS BY THIS INVESTIGATOR WITH THE 14 DESCRIPTION OF THE WORD QUOTE REPORTING CLOSED QUOTE? 15 A. I DO KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF 16 INQUIRIES AND DEMANDS BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. 17 THERE WAS A LOT OF INQUIRY AND ADDITIONAL DEMANDS BY 18 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THE VICE PRESIDENT HATOFF ASKED 19 FOR AN EXTENDED INVESTIGATION AS TO THE CULTURE OF THE 20 COLLEGE TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE BOARD AUTHORIZE 21 AND INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS SPENT IN 22 INVESTIGATING THIS. THAT'S WHAT I RECALL. 23 Q. WAS THERE ANY CRITICISM BY EITHER FACULTY, 24 STUDENTS OR TRUSTEES, THAT THESE CHARGES WERE 25 INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE WORK THAT WAS BEING PERFORMED? 209 ROUGH DRAFT 1 A. NOT THAT I RECALL. 2 Q. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY CRITICISM FOR ALLOWING ESI 3 TO BILL THESE CHARGES TO THE COLLEGE? 4 A. NO, NOT THAT I RECALL. 5 Q. LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT WE'LL MARK AS EXHIBIT 37. 6 (EXHIBIT 37 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.) 7 BY MR. COZAD: 8 Q. BRING BACK MEMORIES? 9 A. NO. 10 Q. READY? DO YOU RECOGNIZE EXHIBIT 37? 11 A. NO, NOT AT ALL. 12 Q. OKAY THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT YOU PREPARED? 13 A. NO. 14 Q. IS THIS A TRANSCRIPT OF A REPORT GIVEN AT A 15 BOARD MEETING ON OR ABOUT MAY 15, 07? 16 A. THIS IS A BAD TRANSCRIPT. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. 17 IT HAS ALL KINDS OF WRONG THINGS IT WAS NOT TRUSTEE 18 POST -- THIS IS NOT RIGHT AT ALL. 19 Q. OKAY. THE POINT IS, YOU DIDN'T PREPARE IT? 20 A. OF COURSE NOT, NO, NO. 21 Q. AND IT APPEARS TO BE INACCURATE? 22 MR. WINET: WELL LET ME OBJECT YOU'RE ASKING 23 ABOUT A FOUR PAGE DOCUMENT SAYING THE WHOLE THING IS 24 INACCURATE. 25 MR. COZAD: NO. LET ME TAKE THAT BACK. 210 ROUGH DRAFT 1 BY MR. COZAD: 2 Q. THERE APPEAR TO BE SOME INACCURACY ON IT ON A 3 CASUAL REVIEW? 4 A. YES. 5 Q. MR. WINET HAS NODDED HIS HEAD IN 6 APPROVEMENT -- IN APPROVAL OF MY QUESTION. I'M GLAD TO 7 SAY AT 448 ON FRIDAY. THANKS FOR THE ICED TEA? 8 A. I DID MAKE A REPORT AND THERE'S AN OFFICIAL 9 COPY OF THE REPORT. IT IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT BECAUSE IT 10 WAS READ. 11 Q. OKAY? 12 A. BY ME INTO THE RECORD AND I'M SURE THAT YOU 13 CAN GET THE ACTUAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT. 14 Q. THERE'S A RECORDING OF IT AS WELL, ISN'T 15 THERE? 16 A. OBVIOUSLY THERE IS. AN INACCURATE RECORDING 17 OF IT. 18 Q. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MARK THE NEXT ONE AS 19 EXHIBIT 38. 20 (EXHIBIT NUMBER MARKED FOR 21 IDENTIFICATION.) 22 A. OH GOD. 23 BY MR. COZAD: 24 Q. OKAY. ON OR ABOUT MAY 22, 2007, DID 30 OR SO 25 FORMER TRUSTEES, ADMINISTRATORS, DEANS AND INSTRUCTORS 211 ROUGH DRAFT 1 SEND A LETTER TO MIRACOSTA COLLEGE DEMANDING THE 2 IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF YOURSELF AS COLLEGE PRESIDENT? 3 A. I BELIEVE THAT THE LETTER CAME EARLIER THAN 4 MAY 22ND. AND THEN IT APPEARS AS A ONE-PAGE AD IN THE 5 NORTH COUNTY TIMES. 6 Q. OKAY. AND THAT INCLUDED REQUEST BY A LEON -- 7 HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE HIS LAST NAME, BEAR RAH DAD? 8 A. YES UH-HUH. 9 Q. BLIGHT CAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR FROM 1970 TO 10 2003. ALSO MAKING THE REQUEST*** WHAMPLEGHTS REQUEST? 11 Q. THE REQUEST THAT YOU BE REMOVED AS COLLEGE 12 PRESIDENT? 13 A. YEAH I BELIEVE HE WAS THE ONE THAT TRANSMITTED 14 THE E-MAIL THAT CAME OUT. I THINK IT WAS ON MAY 20TH. 15 BUT HE WAS ONE OF THE SIGNATORIES, YES. 16 Q. OKAY. AND THEN THERE WAS A CHARGE AT LEAST 17 THAT, AT LEAST A MILLION DOLLARS WAS SPENT INVESTIGATING 18 THE ILLEGAL SALE OF PALM TREES ON THE CAMPUS? 19 A. THAT WAS TRUSTEE CARRANZA'S ASSERTION, YES. 20 Q. THEN THERE'S A SENTENCE HERE. AND I'M NOT 21 ASKING YOU TO AGREE WITH IT. BUT WAS -- IT WAS 22 REPORTED, WASN'T IT, THAT THE COLLEGE LOSS IS $305.33 23 WITH RESPECT TO THE UNAUTHORIZED SALE OF PALM TREES? 24 MR. WINET: OBJECT THE QUESTION IS UNCLEAR TO 25 ME. ARE YOU ASKING IS THIS WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS? 212 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. COZAD: OKAY. 2 BY MR. COZAD: 3 Q. IT WAS REPORTED IN THE NEWSPAPER AS FOLLOWS: 4 IN A QUOTATION ATTRIBUTED TO 30 FORMER TRUSTEES QUOTE, 5 WE ARE SHOCKED TO LEARN THE COLLEGE'S LOSS IS BUT 6 $305.33 THROUGH THER HANDSETS BUT WELL INTENTIONS OF A 7 TEACHER STRUGGLING TO MAKE HER PROGRAM THE BEST IN THE 8 STATE"? 9 MR. SLEETH: BY A LITTLE FELONY BUT WELL 10 INTENTION. 11 A. YOU'RE ASKING ME IF THAT'S WHAT THIS ARTICLE 12 IS QUOTED AS SAYING, YES. IF YOU ASK ME WHAT THEIR 13 ASSERTION IS CORRECT THE ANSWER IS NO. IT IS INCORRECT. 14 THIS IS VERY INCORRECT. NO. 1 YOU CANNOT BE A LITTLE 15 THIEF. YOU ARE EITHER A THIEF OR YOU ARE NOT. THAT'S 16 NO. 1. NO. 2, LIKE I HAVE SAID BEFORE AND I HAVE 17 REPEATEDLY, REPEATEDLY SAID IN PUBLIC MEETINGS, THERE IS 18 EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF CASH THAT WAS TAKEN 19 AWAY AND PUT IN COFFEE CANS AND BAGS, ET CETERA THAT IS 20 WE CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR. THERE WERE NO RECEIPTS. AND 21 FINALLY, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS SPENT BY THE 22 COLLEGE IN MAINTAINING THIS PRIVATE BUSINESS FROM 1998 23 UNTIL WE FOUND OUT IN 2006, IT'S MONEY THAT THE PUBLIC 24 LOST. NOW I WAS ABLE TO ACT AND RETAIN THE TREES THAT 25 WERE REMAINING, EVEN THOUGH MISS AT THAT HER RAH AND HER 213 ROUGH DRAFT 1 FORMER PARTNER TRIED TO TAKE THE TREES IN APRIL OF 2006 2 WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE HOLD OF THE TREES AND KEEP THEM. 3 SO NOW THEY HAVE BECOME PART OF THE COLLEGE INVENTORY. 4 BUT HAD WE NOT DONE THAT, THOSE TREES WOULD BE GONE. 5 AND ALL OF THE MONEY THAT WAS SPENT IN MAINTAINING THE 6 TREES WHILE THEY SOLD THEM FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES, WOULD 7 HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY LOST. 8 Q. DON'T YOU THINK THERE WAS A HONEST 9 DISAGREEMENT OVER WHETHER THE EXPENSE RELATING TO THE 10 PALM TRY THING WAS REALLY WORTH IT? 11 A. NO, SIR. 12 Q. TO O HE? 13 A. NO, SIR. 14 Q. DON'T YOU THINK THERE WAS A HONEST 15 DISAGREEMENT THAT WHETHER THOSE EXPENDITURES WERE WISE 16 IN LIGHT OF THE AT LEAST WHAT SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT WAS 17 THE ULTIMATE FIND \NOT GUILTY\{^ING}IN? 18 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT. THE QUESTION IS 19 KIND OF OVERBROAD, VAGUE, PARTICULARLY WITH THE USE OF 20 THE WORD HONEST SO GO AHEAD. 21 A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THOSE EXPENSES. 22 WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE EXPENSES OF MAINTAINING THE 23 EXPENSES OF THE COLLEGE. 24 MR. COZAD: INTO NO NO. 25 A. SO THEY COULD RUN A PRIVATE BUSINESS? 214 ROUGH DRAFT 1 Q. NO WHAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE ESTIMATED TO BE IN 2 EXCESS OF A MILLION DOLLARS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION 3 CONCERNING THE PALM TREES. WHETHER THAT WAS A WISE USE 4 OF COLLEGE FUNDS ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT, AT LEAST 5 THE D.A. REPORTEDLY FOUND? 6 MR. SLEETH: OBJECTION ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN 7 EVIDENCE. HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE A HONEST 8 MISUNDERSTANDING WHEN YOU'VE MISSTATED THE AMOUNT OF THE 9 COSTS OF THE INVESTIGATION BY 10 FOLD? 10 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT THE QUESTION LACKS 11 FOUNDATION BECAUSE YOU ARE USING THE STATEMENT THAT HAS 12 NO BASIS AND NO FOUNDATION. SO THE OBJECTION IS WHAT IT 13 IS. DO YOU HAVE THE QUESTION IN MIND? 14 A. I HAVE THE QUESTION IN MIND AND THE ANSWER IS 15 I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT. 16 BY MR. COZAD: 17 Q. OKAY. DO YOU FEEL THAT THE PEOPLE WHO 18 DISAGREED WITH YOUR HANDLING OF THE PALM TREE CASE 19 DISAGREED IN BAD FAITH THAT THEY WERE SOMEHOW DEALING 20 WITH YOU IN A MALICIOUS WAY? 21 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT. THE QUESTION LACKS 22 FOUNDATION. ALSO, IT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, 23 THAT IS THOSE INDIVIDUALS ACTUALLY KNEW WHAT WAS GOING 24 ON WITH THE PERSONNEL DURING THE TIME IT WAS OCCURRING. 25 SO THE QUESTION LACKS FOUNDATION, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN 215 ROUGH DRAFT 1 EVIDENCE. AND CALLS FOR AN IMPROPER OPINION AND 2 CONCLUSION ON BEHALF OF THIS WITNESS AS TO WHAT OTHER 3 PEOPLE ARE THINKING AND THE REASON FOR THEM THINKING. 4 WITH ALL OF THAT YOU CAN STILL GO AHEAD AND ANSWER TO 5 THE EXTENT CAN YOU. 6 A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THINKING. 7 BY MR. COZAD: 8 Q. OKAY. WELL THERE WAS A BIG CONTROVERSY ABOUT 9 THE PALM TREES. I'M TRYING TO FIND ANY ROOM FOR 10 AGREEMENT HERE. THERE WAS A BIG CONTROVERSY ABOUT 11 WHETHER IT WAS SMARTS TO HAVE THE INVESTIGATION ABOUT 12 THE PALM TREES. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT MUCH? 13 A. YES, THERE'S CONTROVERSY NEW COULDN'T THERE'S 14 ALWAYS TWO SIDES AND YOU HAVE STATED ONE SIDE YOU HAVE 15 NOT STATED THE OTHER SIDE WHICH IS THE SIDE OF THE BOARD 16 OF TRUSTEES AND THE COLLEGE PRESIDENT AND WHAT WE 17 REPORTED AND WHAT HAS BEEN MADE AS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. 18 SO DO YOU WANT -- YOU KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DECIDED 19 TO MISINTERPRET WHAT THE COLLEGE SAID, WHAT THE OFFICIAL 20 RECORDS OF THE COLLEGE HAVE, WHAT THE OFFICIAL 21 STATEMENTS ARE. THAT'S THEIR OPINION. THEY ARE WELCOME 22 TO DISAGREE. 23 BY MR. COZAD: 24 Q. DIDN'T THE MINORITY TRUSTEES SIMPLY EXPRESS 25 THEIR OPINION THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH THE MANNER IN 216 ROUGH DRAFT 1 WHICH YOU HANDLED THAT INVESTIGATION? 2 A. NO, THEY DID MUCH MORE THAN THAT. 3 Q. WHY? 4 A. I DON'T KNOW WHY. 5 Q. WHAT WAS IT THAT THEY DID THAT YOU BELIEVE WAS 6 SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD HAVE BEEN SUED FOR OR THE 7 BOARD COULD HAVE BEEN SUED FOR? 8 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THE QUESTION HAS BEEN 9 ALREADY ASKED AND ANSWERED A COUPLE DIFFERENT TIMES. 10 THE QUESTION IS OVERBROAD. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND GO 11 THROUGH THE ITEMS AGAIN. GO AHEAD. 12 A. OKAY. BEGINNING WITH -- 13 BY MR. COZAD: 14 Q. LET ME HELP YOU HERE. ANYTHING YOU HAVEN'T 15 ALREADY TOLD ME ABOUT? 16 A. WELL, YOU KNOW, WHAT I HAVEN'T TOLD YOU IS 17 THAT THE TRUSTEES WERE TOLD BY LEGAL COUNSEL REPEATEDLY, 18 EVERY TIME THEY TRIED TO DO SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF THE DUE 19 PROCESS OF THE EMPLOYEE, THE PRESIDENT, THAT THEY WERE 20 VIOLATING THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF THEIR EMPLOYEE. 21 THEY STILL WENT AHEAD AND DID IT. 22 THEY ACTED TO VOTE ON ALTERING MY CURRENT 23 EVALUATION CRITERIA WHICH IS VERY CLEAR THAT I WAS TWO 24 MONTHS FROM COMPLETING MY THIRD YEAR. AND THEY WANTED 25 TO ALTER THE CRITERIA UNDER WHICH I WAS GOING TO BE 217 ROUGH DRAFT 1 EVALUATED. YOU DON'T DO THAT. 2 WHAT WE AGREED TO DO WAS TO ALTER THE 3 EVALUATION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND THEN YOU CAN MOVE 4 FORWARD IN THAT WAY. BUT YOU CANNOT TELL AN EMPLOYEE I 5 WAS GOING TO -- I WAS GOING TO EVALUATE YOU IN ITEMS A 6 THROUGH B BUT NOW I'M GOING TO ASK -- TO ADD R F AND G. 7 YOU DON'T DO THAT TO THE EMPLOYEE BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW 8 WHAT YOU'RE BEING EVALUATED AGAINST. THEY DID THAT IN 9 PUBLIC SESSION. 10 THEN IN MAY 24TH HE THEY'D GIVEN -- STRATTAN 11 AND CARRANZA GIVE INTERVIEW TO THE TROIB BIEWN SAYING 12 THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PUT ON THE AGENDA AN ITEM TO 13 FIRE ME. THERE'S NO CAUSE. I HAVE NOT GIVEN A SINGLE 14 ELEMENT. NO CAUSE TO FIRE ME. WHAT HAVE I DONE? IN 15 ORDER TO FIRE AN EMPLOYEE, IN ORDER TO DISMISS AN 16 EMPLOYEE YOU HAVE TO HAVE CAUSE. YOU DON'T GO TO THE 17 PRESS AND TELL THE PRESS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIRE A 18 PERSON. YOU DO NOT GO TO THE PRESS AND YOU TELL -- AND 19 TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THE COLLEGE COMMUNITY AND SAY THAT 20 I THREATENED A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. YOU DON'T SAY THAT I AM 21 LYING EVERY TIME THAT I SAY ANYTHING AND I PRESENTS 22 DOCUMENTATION AFTER DOCUMENTATION IN WRITING WITH 23 EVIDENCE. 24 IT WAS A VERY PERSONAL -- IN MY OPINION, FROM 25 FEBRUARY 1 UNTIL, YOU KNOW EVEN AS FAR AS MAY 17TH, I'M 218 ROUGH DRAFT 1 TRYING TO WORK THINGS OUT WITH THESE TRUSTEES. I'M 2 TRYING TO BRING THE COLLEGE TOGETHER. I DON'T WANT TO 3 GIVE UP. BUT BY MAY 17TH I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU I WAS 4 JUST WEEKS AWAY FROM QUITTING BECAUSE THESE INDIVIDUALS 5 WERE FORCING ME. THEY HAD STIGMATIZED ME. THEY HAD 6 SAID THAT I WAS WHAT I WAS NOT. THEY HAD ACCUSED ME OF 7 THINGS THAT WERE TOTALLY INADEQUATE. AND UNTRUE. THEY 8 HAD NOT DONE ANYTHING THAT THEIR OWN LEGAL COUNSEL HAD 9 TOLD THEM TO STOP DOING MY LEGAL COUNSEL WHO WROTE TO 10 THEM ON MARCH 19TH SAID PLEASE DO NOT SAY ANY THING 11 ABOUT HER EVALUATION IN THE PUBLIC PROCESS. HER 12 PERSONNEL MATTERS MUST BE HANDLED IN CONFIDENTIALITY. 13 MY OWN ATTORNEY. THEY STILL DID IT. 14 Q. YOUR OWN ATTORNEY MS? 15 A. NO. MY OWN ATTORNEY IS NOT MR. SHINOFF. MY 16 OWN ATTORNEY IS MR. OTTILIE. 17 Q. OH I'M SORRY MR. SHINOFF -- 18 A. WHEN I REFERRED TO MR. SHINOFF I REFERRED TO 19 THE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE, MR. SHINOFF. MY 20 PERSONAL ATTORNEY IS MR. ROBERT OTTILIE AT THE TIME. 21 Q. BUT THE ATTORNEY THAT HELPED YOU WRITE THE 22 LETTER FEBRUARY 2 WAS MR. SHINOFF? HE WAS NOT ACTING ON 23 YOUR BEHALF? 24 A. I ALREADY ANSWER THAT HAD. 25 MR. WINET: LET ME OBJECT TO THE USE OF THE 219 ROUGH DRAFT 1 WORD HELPED YOU WRITE THE LETTER. I'M NOT SURE THAT 2 THAT'S AN ACCURATE CHARACTERIZATION BUT YOU CAN ALREADY 3 ANSWER. 4 A. I HAVE ALREADY ANSWER THAT HAD QUESTION 5 PREVIOUSLY. I MENTIONED TO YOU THAT THAT LETTER WAS 6 WRITTEN UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD PRESIDENT AND 7 MR. SHINOFF WAS WORKING FOR THE BOARD PRESIDENT. SO HE 8 IS NOT MY PERSONAL ATTORNEY. MR. OTTILIE IS MY PERSONAL 9 ATTORNEY. 10 BY MR. COZAD: 11 Q. HAS MR. -- 12 A. I WAS TRYING TO FINISH THE PREVIOUS. 13 Q. SURE. GO AHEAD. 14 A. EVEN AFTER MR. OTTILIE ON MARCH 19TH WRITES TO 15 THE BOARD TO SAY PLEASE DO NOT DO ANY OF THESE THINGS IN 16 PUBLIC. DO NOT VIOLATE HER RIGHTS. DO NOT VIOLATE HER 17 DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. THEY STILL DO IT. AND COME 18 MAY 17TH, I TRIED A LOT -- YOU KNOW I'M PUTTING A BOARD 19 RETREAT TOGETHER TO GET THEM TO MEDIATE RELATIONS 20 BETWEEN WHAT WE NOW HAVE IS A SPLINTERED BOARD, A 4/3 21 BOARD. I BRING IN FACILITATORS FROM THE SAN DIEGO BASED 22 NATIONAL MEDIATION CENTER TO REPEED INCARCERATE AND 23 RETREAT IT'S SCHEDULED FOR THE 23RD OF MARCH. CARRANZA 24 AND STRIKE THAT TAN CAN'T MAKE IT SO WE HAVE TO MOVE IT 25 TO THE 23 OF APRIL BUT I'M WORKING PUTTING THAT TOGETHER 220 ROUGH DRAFT 1 I'M WORKING ON PUTTING TOGETHER A WORKSHOP ON POLICY 2 GOVERNMENT SO THAT TRUSTEES UNDERSTAND THE ROLE OF 3 PRESIDENT IN RELATION TO THE POLICY GOVERNANCE THAT 4 MODEL WHAT MAYOR HAS. I'M TRYING TO GET THEM TO WORK 5 TOGETHER. I CONTINUED TO TRY TO WORK WITH THE ACADEMIC 6 SENATE. I'M DOING MY BEST TO GET FLAG US MOVE FORWARD. 7 AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THE THREE MINORITY 8 TRUSTEES VIOLATE MY RIGHTS. STIGMATIZE ME AND CONTINUE 9 TO PUBLICLY HUMILIATE ME. SO YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO THE 10 POINT ON MAY 17TH THAT I ASKED MY ATTORNEY AND MR. 11 SHINOFF AGREED -- 12 MR. WINET: WELL OKAY. YOU ASKED THEM 13 TOGETHER BECAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TO GO INTO 14 CONVERSATION WITH MR. OTTILIE. 15 A. NO NO. 16 MR. WINET: OKAY. 17 A. TO TRY TO COME TOGETHER TO SEE IF THE BOARD 18 UNDERSTANDS HOW THEY ARE HARMING ME AND SO THEY CAN 19 STOP. AND ONCE AGAIN, THE THREE TRUSTEES REFUSED TO 20 MEET. IF THEY ARE GOING TO MEET THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT 21 IN PUBLIC. THEY IN STHAIS IF THEY ARE GOING TO TALK 22 ABOUT MY PERFORMANCE IT'S GOING TO BE IN PUBLIC AND THEY 23 REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE. 24 BY MR. COZAD: 25 Q. AND YOU DIDN'T WANT ANYTHING THEY SAID 221 ROUGH DRAFT 1 CRITICAL OF YOU TO BE SAID IN PUBLIC CORRECT? 2 MR. WINET: OBJECTION THE QUESTION IS 3 OVERBROAD AS TO ANYTHING THEY MAY SAY WOULD BE -- 4 ANYTHING CRITICAL BE IN PUBLIC BUT GO AHEAD. 5 A. I WAS ASSERTING MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER 6 THE LAW AND MY PRIVACY RIGHTS AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE 7 COLLEGE. 8 BY MR. COZAD: 9 BY MR. COZAD: 10 Q. AND THEY WERE ASSERTING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT 11 RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND THEIR RIGHT TO REPRESENT THEIR 12 CONSTITUENCY THAT VOTED THEM INTO OFFICE ISN'T THAT 13 TRUE? 14 MR. WINET: OBJECTION, THAT QUESTION IS 15 ARGUMENTATIVE. IT ALSO CALLS FOR AN IMPROPER LEGAL 16 CONCLUSION ON BEHALF OF THIS WITNESS. I BELIEVE IT ALSO 17 MISSTATES THE LAW IN CALIFORNIA. BUT YOU CAN ANSWER TO 18 THE EXTENT THAT YOU KNOW. 19 A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THINKING OR DOING. 20 ALL I SNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING TO ME. 21 BY MR. COZAD: 22 Q. OKAY. HE'S CHANGING THE VIDEO. IT IS 503. 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: LET'S GO OFF THE RECORD 24 IT'S 503 ENDS OF TAPE NO. 3. 25 (RECESS). 222 ROUGH DRAFT 1 MR. COZAD: SO WE'RE GOING TO FINISH UP FOR 2 TODAY. AND RECONVENE 1 P.M. TUESDAY MARCH 4TH HERE, NO 3 FURTHER NOTICE WILL BE PROVIDED. EVERYBODY WAIVE ANY 4 FURTHER NOTICE? 5 MR. SLEETH: WAIVE FURTHER IN THE STIPULATE 6 THAT IT'S A CONTINUANCE OF THE DEPOSITION. 7 MR. COZAD: YEAH. 8 MR. WINET: GREATS AGREED. 9 MR. COZAD: OKAY VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. THE 10 TIME IS 5:20 P.M. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 223