Suspension of Disbelief

Santa Monica Community College District has officially failed to comply with both my requests and the law pertaining to my wrongful suspension, disciplinary hold, and release and inspection of student records. I had given the District until today to begin a suspension appeal hearing, long overdue, and Robert Sammis has simply continued with business as usual. Here is another email to him, copied to President Chui L. Tsang, the Board of Trustees, and the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. Court intervention is long overdue in this matter.

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP


--------------------------- MY EMAIL TO ROBERT SAMMIS --------------------------

ATTENTION: ROBERT SAMMIS, VP PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

RE: SUSPENSION HEARING AND VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS

July 31, 2006

Dear Mr. Sammis,

By copy of this email, I am informing you in writing that I do not agree to your unilateral setting of a suspension hearing for 10:00 a.m. on September 8, 2006 nor do I agree to a suspension hearing on September 15, 2006. You are in violation of my rights to due process. You are in violation of my rights to a timely appeal hearing regarding my suspension. Furthermore, I do not agree to your assertions that I did not provide the information you required concerning setting a suspension appeal hearing.

To reiterate, on or about June 13, 2006 I requested a suspension appeal hearing on this matter for the first week of July. You failed to respond. On or about June 16, 2006, I sent you an email reminder, yet you still failed to respond. At all relevant times, you received my emails and on or about July 17, 2006, you referenced my June 13, 2006 email in your email to me. Thus, you cannot allege that you did not receive timely notice of my request for you to comply with the California Education Code as well as SMC's own administrative regulations.

In a good faith attempt to informally resolve this matter, I emailed SMC President Chui L. Tsang on June 23, 2006 and sent him a certified letter, dated June 29, 2006. I emailed President Tsang again on July 20, 2006 and sent him a certified letter requesting that an appeal hearing begin on this matter no later than July 31, 2006, which is today. He did not respond. On or about July 22, 2006, I sent you notice via email of my certified letter to President Tsang. Furthermore, I emailed you repeatedly thereafter, making myself crystal clear that I insisted on a suspension appeal hearing that was to begin no later than Monday, July 31, 2006. Until your email today, you have failed to respond and the time has elapsed.

At all relevant times, I have objected to an appeal hearing after July 31, 2006 as it fails to comply with the California Education Code and SMC's own administrative regulations governing suspensions. I have provided you with the relevant laws and regulations that enforce my rights and mandate the time for suspension hearings. Despite my efforts to inform you of the law and the District's own policies, and my objections thereto, you have failed to comply. As such, the District is in violation of my rights governing the suspension appeal hearing.

Furthermore, I have objected in writing on numerous occasions to the immediate interim suspension, as it did not comply with the California Penal Code or SMC's own administrative regulations. To reiterate, the interim suspension was not justified, it was never confirmed by President Tsang within the allotted time period, and it is well beyond the maximum 14-day period as set forth by the law. Furthermore, pursuant to SMC's own administrative regulations, I was to be afforded a timely appeal hearing on this matter within 10 days, which SMC did not afford me. As such, the District is in violation of my rights as it continues to prevent me from entering campus without police escort, to which I do not agree.

Moreover, I have repeatedly objected to the wrongful disciplinary hold placed on my enrollment for the summer and fall 2006 respective semesters. To date, the District has failed to remove the disciplinary hold on my enrollment, thus preventing me from enrolling in classes. As such, SMC is in violation of my rights.

Additionally, I have repeatedly requested in writing, for almost one year, for physical inspection of my student records, including disciplinary records. To date, you have ignored my request to view these records. Furthermore, despite written authorization for my representative, Stephen Drury, to view these records, you have denied access to my records to him. Accordingly, the District, including yourself and Judith Penchansky, have been in violation of the California Education Code, its own administrative regulations and board polices, and the provisions as set forth in FERPA.

Furthermore, despite repeated written requests for copies of my disciplinary records, the District did not provide documents until after I filed my suspension appeal on June 6, 2006, denying me access to information that I could have responded to in my appeal. As such, the District was in violation of my rights. Furthermore, I have repeatedly requested copies and access to documents in my disciplinary records that the District to date has failed to disclose, such as any witness statements in my behalf. Accordingly, the District is in violation of my rights.

Moreover, I have repeatedly asked for the names and titles of the appeal hearing committee, including a formal written request as set forth in my June 6, 2006 suspension appeal. To date, you and the District have failed to provide this information to me, despite promptly disclosing this information to at least one other student who had been suspended at SMC. As such, the District is in violation of my rights in that it is being arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory in my case. Despite asking numerous questions to both you and Judith Penchansky regarding my suspension, both of you have failed to respond.

Taken as a whole, the District has, at all relevant times, acted in bad faith regarding my suspension and any appeal of same. The District has never addressed my written grievances, in violation of its own policies and those mandated under the law. The District has not followed any minimal due process in that I was never afforded a formal conference, any finding of facts, nor was any investigation conducted as to the summary allegations and alleged violations of the Student Conduct Code as set forth in Robert Adams' suspension email and letter, dated May 23, 2006.

Despite your written assurances that I would be afforded a hearing within 6 to 10 days, and despite your written guarantees that "All you need to do is simply let me know when you want the hearing to begin", and my confirmation of such, you have failed to provide me a hearing within the mandated time frame. To reiterate, the District has failed to comply with its own written guarantees of due process and has blatantly violated my rights.

For all the foregoing reasons, the suspension should be dismissed in its entirety and the disciplinary hold should be promptly lifted so that I may enroll for classes for the fall semester, which begins in less than one month. As it stands, the District's repeated refusal to comply with the law has damaged me in that many classes I wish to take have already been filled to capacity. Absent a prompt confirmation that the suspension will be dismissed in its entirety for the District's failure to comply with the law and its own written policies, I will have no other alternative than to seek immediate Court intervention to enforce my rights. If I am forced to seek Court intervention, I will seek relief from the Court for any and all attorney's fees incurred as a result.

If you need to review any of my correspondence with the District, copies of such have been placed on my SAVE SMC blog.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Very Truly Yours,

Des Manttari

cc: Chui L. Tsang, President and Superintendent
Robert Adams, Vice-President Student Affairs
Nancy Greenstein, Chair, SMC Board of Trustees
Susan Aminoff, Vice Chair, SMC Board of Trustees
Carol L. Currey, SMC Board of Trustees
Rob Rader, SMC Board of Trustees
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights

---------------------- SAMMIS' EMAIL TO ME -------------------------------

From: "SAMMIS_ROBERT" SAMMIS_ROBERT@smc.edu
To: Phoenix Genesis
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:35:26 -0700

Dear Des:

You have not yet provided me with the name and phone number of the attorney that is representing you in regards to your suspension. As I indicated to you in previous emails, if you did not provide this information by the end of last week, I would go ahead and unilaterally set the date for your suspension hearing. Thus, please be advised that your suspension hearing has been set to begin at 10:00 a.m. on September 8, 2006. In the event that a second day of hearing is necessary, the hearing will reconvene on September 15, 2006. At this time I do not know the location for the hearing. I will let you know the location of the hearing as soon as I am informed as to the location.



Robert Sammis
Vice President, Planning&Development
Santa Monica Community College District
310.434.4206


Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, due process, public schools, appeal hearings, legal, Robert Sammis, Judith Penchansky, President Chui Tsang, SMC Board of Trustees, suspensions, News and politics, student records, California Education Code

CSEA Finds Margaret Quinones Abusive and Aggressive

In a letter from Chapter 36 to Dave Low at the California School Employees Association (CSEA) Governmental Relations Office in Sacramento, sent in April 2004, the Santa Monica College CSEA Executive Board opposed SMC board member Margaret Quinones' potential appointment to the California Community College Board of Governors. The CSEA felt they were "morally bound" to describe its personal experience with Quinones and her alleged behavior, which it "questioned as inappropriate." Philip Hendricks, the President of the CSEA Chapter 36 on behalf of the CSEA Executive Board, wrote the following:

To our regret Ms Quinones failed to remotely live up to her assurances and proceeded after a brief period, to consistently behave abusively and aggressively against classified staff without regard for realistic considerations or appropriate behavior.

Hendricks goes on to add:

We have no reason to expect that her attitude or behavior would be any different on the CCCBOG and we recommend that you carefully examine her record and credentials with a view toward recommending to our legislative allies that they oppose her appointment to the California Community College Board of Governors.


Margaret Quinones at SMC Board of Trustees Meeting (April 10, 2006)

Despite the CSEA's objections, Governor Schwarzenegger appointed Quinones to the Board of Governors, where she sits alongside former SMC counselor, administrator, and consultant, Benita Haley. According to SMC News and Events for April 29, 2006:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced today (April 29) he has appointed former SMC counselor and administrator Benita Haley to the California Community Colleges Board of Governors. She was appointed to a two-year term. The appointment comes less than three weeks after Schwarzenegger named SMC Board of Trustees Chair Dr. Margaret Quiñones to the 17-member board.

The Board of Governors oversees and makes policies for the statewide community college system, the largest higher education system in the world with 2.8 million students at 109 campuses.

“Benita Haley has years of experience as a counselor, former administrator and government relations expert,” said SMC President Dr. Piedad F. Robertson. “She will be an asset to the Board of Governors.”

On or about June 9, 2004, the Executive Committee, in preparation with the president, presented an action item to the Classified Senate concerning congratulatory letters to the two women. Action Item No. 3 read as follows:

It is recommended that the Classified Senate review and approve the following congratulatory letters to Dr. Margaret Quiñones and Benita Haley

Comment: The Executive Committee, respectfully request that the Classified Senate approve the following letters to Dr. Margaret Quiñones and Benita Haley for their recent appointment by Governor Schwarzenegger to the Board of Governors.

Former President Robertson's judgments and opinions held little weight with the SMC Classified Senate, who gave her a vote of no confidence. In a Classified Senate Resolution of no confidence in the current President/Superintendent of Santa Monica College (Adopted: May 28, 2003), the Classified Senate found that Robertson lacked credible or transparent responses and that her actions held contempt for the college. The Classified Senate further alleges that "decisions made by the President/Superintendent have and continue to result in damage to the mission of this college and have harmed student access to education as a result of reductions and eliminations made outside the scope of shared governance." Of course their "grave concerns" were either "ignored or treated with contempt."

In the Classified Senate's Call to Action, they sought among their relief a request for a "forensic audit from the state" as set forth below:

Because there has been no transparency at the college for some time regarding budgetary matters it is imperative that the college be audited so that the entire community can know with certainty where the college is financially and what actual resources it has with which to move forward.

They claimed that it would be "irresponsible" for the Board to reward Robertson's actions, "given the widespread dissatisfaction with her performance leading up to and continuing through this budget crisis." Robertson has since left the college to take over the Education Commission of the States (ECS) in Denver, Colorado. The ECS, however, has allegedly been suffering from Robertson's leadership as well, struggling with top-level resignations and financial problems. See our related blog article: Our Education: Where Does All the Money Go? To see the full CSEA letter in Adobe PDF format, click HERE. To view Margaret Quinones' SMC Board of Trustees 2004 re-election campaign contributions, click on either PART 1 or PART 2.

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP


Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, California School Employees Association, public schools, classified senate, Margaret Quinones, Piedad Robertson, no confidence, SMC Board of Trustees, California Community Colleges, board of governors, News and politics, Benita Haley, Arnold Schwarzenegger

SMC's Sand Bucket Mentality

Historically, there has been widespread discontent at Santa Monica Community College among its faculty and classified staff. Previously, we've covered the SMC Faculty March and Rally as well as the outspoken comments by the faculty to the SMC Board of Trustees on April 10, 2006. We've also made available online the CSEA 2004 Survey Comments that were critical of both the SMC Board of Trustees and former SMC President Piedad Robertson. Although President Chui L. Tsang has replaced Robertson, the faculty is still up in arms over its contract negotiations, or lack thereof.

Now online is another official 3-page document from April 2002 by the Joint Respect and Professionalism Task Force that reveals the classified staffs' uncensored complaints against management and upper administrative management at the college. The Joint Committee accuses SMC's management of having a "sand bucket mentality." Under "what needs to change" topics include the following: employee morale, ethical violations, favoritism, vindictive managers, and ego adjustment of managers. Furthermore, the document alleges that management has recruited departmental "spies", threatened staff's jobs, and treated staff as if they were second and third class citizens.

Under "barriers to change" topics discussed ranged from the following: lack of respect, professionalism, fear, communication, adversarial attitude, favoritism, lack of encouragement, lack of support, and vindictive managers. The document states that SMC's leadership is a "failure" and "dysfunctional" and that the Board, President, and senior staff are "disconnected" from the "realities of college." Apparently, the staff alleges that the management both fails and refuses to solve problems. In fact, the staff states: "Managers manage by intimidation" and implement "double standard management policies." There is perceived bias by Human Resources, then under the control of Robert Sammis, and the "potential for retaliation for voicing an opinion." (That sounds all too familiar!) With the potential for retaliation and secret "spies" implanted in departments, one can readily understand why there is a "total lack of trust."

The staff contends that SMC has a "rigid hierarchy structure with power at top- feels more like a corporation than a college." If SMC is acting like a corporation, it is failing on its return on investment in its human capital. The "divide and conquer" mentality of management and administration does not produce a productive work environment for classified staff or faculty. In the end, unhappy employees lead to a mismanaged college that has a negative impact on students such as ourselves.

The staff calls for an urgent need for accountability. Under "suggestions for improvement," the staff pleads for management and senior staff to "show concern and respect for staff and students" and to "encourage higher education." The staff calls for an "end to favoritism, nepotism and gossip" and to have "actual" governance over the allegedly "bogus" governance they have too long endured. They cry out for "honest two-way communication and mutual respect" (something that is still lacking among administration and the rest of us at SMC). They also ask for "agendized regular departmental meetings where minutes are taken." As of June 2006, SMC has allegedly still failed to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act, as can be seen in the Los Angeles District Attorney's letter. The staff closes with a request for "leadership" rather than mere "management." The problem remains: who in SMC's top-heavy administration is truly qualified to lead the college into the future?

I have converted the document (originally in word format) to Adobe PDF. You can read the full text HERE. To read more about other problems at SMC, I urge you to check out the excellent blog, The Siege Online, and the official SAVE SMC website. Hopefully, the more we expose the problems, the closer we may come to a solution. However, the approach that SMC's administration has taken, ratified by the Board of Trustees through its Human Resources budget, was not cheap. Here's the cost breakdown from the SMC Board of Trustees agendas:

From the SMC Board of Trustees Agenda, dated January 14, 2002:

FACILITATORS FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS

JOAN GOLDSMITH and KEN CLOKE from the Center for Dispute Resolution to
facilitate discussions via focus groups with classified employees and District
managers to improve communications and relationships, for a fee of $2,000 per day
plus expenses each not to exceed $16,000.

Funding Source: 2001-2002 Budget/Human Resources

From the SMC Board of Trustees Agenda, dated November 5, 2001.

CONTRACTS AND CONSULTANTS

1. JOAN GOLDSMITH from the Center for Dispute Resolution to facilitate discussions
with California School Employees Association, Chapter 36 for a fee of $2,000 per day
plus expenses not to exceed $6,000.

2. KEN CLOKE from the Center for Dispute Resolution to facilitate discussions and
resolution concerning the 50 percent law and collective bargaining with the Faculty
Association for a fee of $2,000 per day plus expenses not to exceed $6,000.

Funding Source: 2001-2002 Budget/Human Resources

3. DR. FRANCES E. KENDALL to provide diversity training to the administrators,
managers, and department chairs for an amount not to exceed $1,000.

Funding Source: 2001-2002 Budget/Human Resources/Diversity Funds

From the SMC Board of Trustees Agenda, September 10, 2001:

CONSULTANTS FOR MEDIATION SERVICES

BARRY WINOGRAD to facilitate mediation/negotiation discussions between the
Santa Monica Community College District and the Faculty Association, for an
amount not to exceed $2,000 per day plus expenses.

2. KEN CLOKE from the Center for Dispute Resolution to facilitate discussions
concerning resolution of the 50 percent law debate, for an amount not to exceed
$2,000 per day plus expenses.

Funding Source: 2001-2002 Budget//Human Resources

From the SMC Board of Trustees Agenda, May 1, 2000:

CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR MANAGEMENT RETREAT

It is recommended that the Board of Trustees approve a contract with the Center for Dispute Resolution to plan and implement a management retreat to be held at the West Coast Long Beach Hotel, July 21-23, 2000, for the amount of $14,000, plus expenses.

Funding Source: District Funds

Comment: The Santa Monica College Management Association has been
discussing the need for management training that is suitable for
both classified and academic managers. To respond to this need,
a retreat is being planned for the fourth weekend in July. The two day
retreat will be attended by 83 managers and confidential
employees.

Ken Cloke and Joan Goldsmith from the Center for Dispute
Resolution, will plan and implement the management retreat. The
agenda for the retreat will be developed after meeting with
individual senior staff members and management leaders. They
will develop and lead workshops on team building, conflict
resolution, and collaboration. A follow-up meeting will be held with
senior staff the day after the retreat.

That's at least $47,000 paid out of District funds, as well as the Human Resources and Diversity Funds (at $2000 per day!), not to mention the expenses for the retreat. Perhaps the administration needs to stop using the good cop-bad cop approach to dealing with its faculty, staff, and students and start treating us all on a level of mutual respect on a daily basis within the boundaries of the college environment.

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP

Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, classified staff, public schools, faculty disputes, mismanagement, human resources, Robert Sammis, sand bucket mentality, accountability, diversity training, News and politics, management association, Ralph M. Brown Act

Robert Sammis Grasps at Straws

On almost a daily basis, Robert Sammis, acting on behalf of Santa Monica College, is finding more and more excuses to delay my suspension appeal hearing while conversely depriving me of my rights to an education at its public community college. This is precisely the same tactic Sammis took when I sought vital public records belonging to the District under the California Public Records Act. Inevitably, Sammis' stonewalling led to litigation against the District and its employees. Sammis' bad faith negotiations with the Santa Monica College Faculty Association also led to litigation. In fact, one of the lawsuits against the District alleged that the college violated "state education codes and SMC's Administrative Regulations" and that the "community college administration also violated legal procedure." Well, that sounds all too familiar. According to the Santa Monica Mirror in its February 2000 article, "On January 14, the State of California’s Public Employees Relations Board (PERB) had found the college guilty of bargaining in bad faith, failure to provide information and threats of retaliation from President Piedad F. Robertson." History sure does repeat itself, even if SMC has had a changing of the guard from President Robertson to President Donner to President Tsang.

If the District continues in this same vein, I foresee yet more litigation in federal court to defend my Constitutional rights. Of course the longer SMC keeps me off its campus, the longer it delays compliance with physical inspection of its records as set forth under the CPRA. Since the District has failed to disclose many records long overdue, since last year, it is setting itself up for more litigation under the CPRA as well. But of course all these lawsuits benefit Robert Sammis' former law firm, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, while depriving the taxpayers its educational dollars spent on far better purposes.

Moreover, the suspension is clearly retaliatory for my seeking compliance with the CPRA. Two of the summary charges against me go to the heart of my meeting with District employees to inspect public records. Even Sammis admitted in a meeting with me back in April that if I dismissed my public records act lawsuit, as part of his settlement negotiation, then the District had no interest in moving forward with the suspension. Despite dismissing the CPRA lawsuit, without prejudice, the District continues to keep me suspended without a hearing or any formal concrete and substantial charges or justification.

It is increasingly apparent that the only way anyone's rights are enforced at Santa Monica College or laws adhered to is through costly litigation. Perhaps it is time that the Board of Trustees and the President come to their senses and release Robert Sammis from his employment from the college. If one takes a simple glance at the District's vast array of outside attorneys at its disposal, it has more than enough legal options afforded to it. Even if it costs the District $250 an hour for sound legal advice that prevents it from entering into expensive lawsuits, it is well worth the extra costs in the long run. As SMCFA President Lantz Simpson so eloquently stated: "We believe it is time to stop playing games and stop trying to justify the unjustifiable. Let's start negotiating seriously and reach a settlement."

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP


-------------------- YET ANOTHER EMAIL TO ROBERT SAMMIS ------------

ATTENTION: ROBERT SAMMIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

July 26, 2006

RE: SMC'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW RE: MY SUSPENSION


Dear Mr. Sammis,

This is a response to your last email to me, contained herein. Again, you misrepresent my emails to you and have failed and refuse to comply with the law and the District's own internal policies. Since there seems to be a perpetual misunderstanding on your part, I will be crystal clear in this email to you, which I am copying to President Tsang, Robert Adams, and the SMC Board of Trustees. Accordingly, the District is receiving both written notice and clarification.

Santa Monica College, through Robert Adams, sent me a suspension notice, via email, on or about May 23, 2006. The District authorized in writing that I had until June 6, 2006 to file an appeal, which I did. I also filed a timely notice to appeal the suspension on May 25, 2006.

Thereafter, on or about June 9, 2006, you wrote a letter to me, in which you stated in relevant part:

Administrative Regulation 4410 (a copy of which is enclosed) provides under F(2)(c) on page 71, "The committee shall convene for an appeal hearing not sooner than six (6) school days and preferably not more than ten (10) school days after receiving notice of intent to appeal." Please contact me as soon as possible so we may discuss a mutually agreeable date and time to schedule your appeal hearing. [emphasis added]

I received your letter on or about June 12, 2006. Immediately thereafter, I contacted you via email on or about June 13, 2006 and suggested tentative dates for the first week in July, not mid-July as you erroneously and repeatedly contend. To be very specific, the District had the following mutually acceptable dates to conduct my appeal hearing: Monday, July 3, 2006; Wednesday, July 5, 2006; Thursday, July 6, 2006, and Friday, July 7, 2006. I even sent you an email reminder on June 16, 2006. Not only did you ignore my request and fail to select one of these dates, you did not bother to set any date in July thus far. Since The Fourth of July is a holiday, the District had four alternative dates to select from to start my appeal hearing.


Accordingly, the District had three entire weeks to prepare its case and gather its witnesses, appeal hearing committee members, and other representatives. Since some of the charges in SMC's suspension letter date as far back as April 2005, the District has had more than enough time to prepare. Since half the charges date as far back as August 2005, the District has almost an entire year to prepare, while conversely not providing documentation to me until after I filed my June 6, 2006 appeal, thus denying me access to this information for almost a year.

You finally emailed me on or about July 17, 2006. I immediately responded. On or about July 18, 2006, you wrote me an email in which you stated:


If you wish to have input into the date of your hearing, then please have your attorney contact me directly. If I do not here from your attorney or from you if you do not have an attorney by the end of the week, the District will proceed to set the hearing date. Please note that during the summer months most faculty and staff are on vacation and thus we typically do not hold any hearings during the summer months. However, if you and your attorney desire to have a hearing prior to the beginning of the fall semester we will do our best to accommodate such a request. All you need to do is simply let me know when you want the hearing to begin. [emphasis added]

I not only emailed SMC President Chui L. Tsang on or about July 20, 2006, I sent him a certified letter via U.S. mail and made my email and certified letter public on my SAVE SMC blog. I even shortly thereafter provided you a hyperlink to the certified letter, which you referenced back in your email to me. In my email and letter to President Tsang, I stated in relevant part:

Alternatively, if you do not set aside the suspension, then I request an immediate suspension appeal hearing by no later than Monday, July 31, 2006. [emphasis in original]


On or about July 22, 2006, you emailed the following to me in relevant part:

The District has no reason to dismiss your suspension. As I stated in my last two emails, the District is waiting for you or your attorney to let us know what dates for a hearing work for you. If I do not get any dates from you or your attorney by August 1, 2006, the District will proceed to unilaterally set the date for the hearing. [emphasis added]

Since I gave President Tsang notice prior to your July 22, 2006 email, and I subsequently gave you notice on or about July 22, 2006, and multiple times thereafter, the District cannot now assert that I did not comply with its request to respond within its imposed mandates. As you made very clear in your two emails, either I or an attorney could let you know when I wanted the hearing to begin. I indicated in writing that I wanted it to begin "by no later than Monday, July 31, 2006."


To make myself crystal clear, the District had the following dates available for an appeal hearing: Friday, July 21, 2006; Monday, July 24, 2006, Tuesday, July 25, 2006, Wednesday, July 26, 2006, Thursday, July 27, 2006, Friday, July 28, 2006, and Monday, July 31, 2006. Thus, I provided the District with sufficient written notice and seven (7) additional dates for its convenience. Add to this the original four (4) alternative dates, and the District has had at its disposal eleven (11) dates (all school days) to chose from to begin my suspension appeal hearing.

By your June 9, 2006 email to me, the appeal hearing was not to begin until 6 school days after I filed my appeal. Since I filed my appeal on June 6, 2006, this meant that the District could have commenced my appeal hearing on or about June 14, 2006. I emailed you in your official capacity as a representative of the District on June 13, 2006, before the earliest date that any conceivable appeal hearing could begin. Counting from June 14, 2006 to today's date, July 26, 2006, the District has had thirty (30) entire school days at its disposal for an appeal hearing.


The District still has the following three (3) dates at its disposal to begin its suspension appeal hearing: Thursday, July 27, 2006, Friday, July 28, 2006, and Monday, July 31, 2006. As previously indicated in writing, I will NOT grant the District any more extensions of time for the appeal hearing beyond July 31, 2006. Either the District begins the appeal hearing within this time frame, or accordingly, it dismisses the suspension and immediate interim suspension forthwith and removes the wrongful disciplinary hold on my student records and enrollment.

Again, I quote from my July 20, 2006 email and certified letter to President Chui L. Tsang as follows:

California Education Code 66017 states in regards to interim suspensions (as SMC has placed on me) that the suspended person shall be afforded an appeal hearing within 10 days. SMC's Administrative Regulation 4410 governing suspensions states in 2(E)(4): "A reasonable opportunity shall be afforded the suspended student for an appeals committee hearing within ten (10) school days." [emphasis added]

Under Hearing and Appeal Process, 2(F), Time Frame (2)(c), SMC's Administrative Regulation states the following: "The committee shall convene for an appeal hearing not sooner than six (6) school days and preferably not more than ten (10) school days after receiving the notice of intent to appeal. The student shall be given written notice of the time and place of the hearing. [emphasis added]

Nowhere in either the California Education Code or the District's own Administrative Regulations does it state that this time is extended or waived over the summer months, or under any other circumstance whatsoever. As I have previously indicated to the District in writing, the intent of the California Education Code, which the District relies upon in its administrative regulations, is mandatory, not discretionary.

In your most recent email, dated July 25, 2006, you wrote the following to me: "Your hearing will be scheduled for the first part of September." [emphasis added] I specifically do not agree with the District's unilateral postponement of my appeal hearing until the first part of September. Furthermore, as previously indicated herein, I do not agree to any hearing date after July 31, 2006.

As I have made very clear to the District, I have been wrongfully suspended without any hearing or formal conference since on or about May 23, 2006. I have not been allowed to enter campus or to enroll in classes. In fact, I have not been afforded any clear explanation of the unconstitutionally overbroad and ambiguous summary charges against me or any explanation of how I have allegedly violated the various Student Conduct Codes referenced in the District's May 23, 2006 suspension email and letter.

I have not been provided any substantial explanation on precisely why an immediate interim suspension was placed against me. Furthermore, I have not been provided any substantial explanation on precisely why I have been suspended from Santa Monica College for two entire years. I have not been provided the documents I requested and which the District referenced nor have I been provided physical inspection of my disciplinary file for almost one entire year, despite numerous written requests.

To extend my hearing into September is to unconstitutionally deprive me of an education for the fall 2006 semester at Santa Monica College. I do not agree to the District's unilateral deprivation of my Constitutional rights. I do not agree to the District's violation of my due process rights. I do not agree to the District's deprivation of my First Amendment rights.

You further wrote to me the following: "Those who might serve on the committee are not all available until the beginning of the fall semester." If you are aware of precisely who is to appear on the appeal committee, then why have you not provided these individuals names and titles, as I have requested in my June 6, 2006 appeal and in my numerous emails to you? The District's administrative regulations only specific an impartial appeal hearing committee. Accordingly, the District has had more than ample time to put such a hearing committee together.

You further wrote in relevant part:

As I have indicatedt [sic] to you, most faculty and staff are not around during the summer, thus, the District normally does not conduct suspension hearings during the summer. Dean Penchansky is on vacation until the end of August and I am on vacation the last week of August.


I have previously discussed your statement that "most faculty and staff are not around during the summer" in my previous email to you. To reiterate, Professor Jim Keeshen and Pat Green are available during the summer, so this is not a problem. As Ms. Green indicated last year, she does not take her vacation until September, well after the fall semester has started. Thus, this is no excuse to delay the suspension appeal hearing. If you chose to make any of your witnesses unavailable, it is not my obligation or duty to extend the time limits for the hearing to accommodate you. Furthermore, there is no provision in either the California Education Code or the District's own internal administrative regulations to extend the time because witnesses or parties are unavailable.

In this same vein, it is not a valid excuse that Ms. Penchansky is unwilling or unable to attend any appeal hearing until the end of August 2006. When I asked her in writing back in May for a short extension of time to meet with her (after her failure to meet with me since last August 2005), she failed to afford me such a courtesy. In fact, she moved right ahead with her suspension. I am under no duty to now extend such a courtesy to either the District or to her. I have been more than gracious in extending time limits in the past. The result of my generosity has been endless delays upon delays by the District for one reason or another. The District's deprivation of my education by failing to afford me an appeal hearing within a reasonable time far outweighs any of the District's employees inconvenience or interruption to their respective summer vacations. Thus, this is an argument that I do not recognize as valid.

Finally, you have indicated in writing that you are "on vacation the last week in August." This is not a valid argument to extend my appeal hearing until September, but proof that you are now available to begin the hearing immediately. As previously indicated, the District still has the following dates at its disposal to begin the appeal hearing: Thursday, July 27, 2006, Friday, July 28, 2006, and Monday, July 31, 2006. Please indicate in writing, via email to me, which of these dates the District will choose to begin my impartial appeal hearing.

Since time is of the essence, I respectfully request that you confirm one of the above three dates provided herein to begin the appeal hearing by the close of business today. Alternatively, as previously indicated, if the District is unwilling or unable to confirm one of these three dates, then I request that the District confirm its intent to promptly dismiss my suspension, including any interim suspension. Additionally, I request that the District confirm in writing that it will promptly remove the enrollment hold so that I may enroll in classes for fall semester. Finally, I request that the District confirm in writing its intent to release those records I have requested and to provide me with a date, time, and location that I and my authorized representative, Stephen Drury, are able to physically inspect my disciplinary records as required by law.


Absent an appeal hearing by no later than July 31, 2006, or a dismissal of my suspension, the District will leave me no other alternative but to seek Court intervention for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as requests for damages and any and all attorney fees I may incur as a result of the District's failure and refusal to uphold my Constitutional rights, to which it is both morally and legally bound.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Very Truly Yours,

Des Manttari /s/

cc: Chui L. Tsang, President and Superintendent
Robert Adams, Vice-President Student Affairs
Nancy Greenstein, Chair, SMC Board of Trustees
Susan Aminoff, Vice Chair, SMC Board of Trustees
Carol L. Currey, SMC Board of Trustees
Rob Rader, SMC Board of Trustees
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights

------------------ ROBERT SAMMIS' EMAIL TO ME --------------------------

From: "SAMMIS_ROBERT" SAMMIS_ROBERT@smc.edu

To: "Phoenix Genesis"

Subject: RE: SMC's Failure to Comply with the Law

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:34:59 -0700

Des:

I have reread your emails and I am sorry but I am not finding where you provided me with specific dates that your attorney would be available for the hearing, other than a brief reference to your attorney not being available until sometime in mid-July. If you are represented by an attorney, it would be much more productive for he/she to contact me directly so we may schedule multiple days for your hearing. As I have indicatedt [sic] to you, most faculty and staff are not around during the summer, thus, the District normally does not conduct suspension hearings during the summer. Dean Penchansky is on vaction [sic] until the end of August and I am on vacation the last week in August. Those who might serve on the committee are not all available until the beginning of the fall semester. Your hearing will be scheduled for the first part of September. Again, please have your attorney contact me so we can set multiple dates beginning in September for the hearing. I agree that it will take more than one day for the hearing.

If you are not represented by counsel, please let me know.

Robert Sammis


Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, faculty association, public schools, suspensions, appeal hearings, California education code, administrative regulations, lawsuits, Robert Sammis, Judith Penchansky, News and politics, student rights, California Public Records Act

Santa Monica College Fails to Uphold the Law

Yet another email response to Robert Sammis in his capacity as both legal counsel and vice president of planning and development for Santa Monica College. Each day that goes by, SMC and Sammis are continuing to fail to uphold its student rights and the Constitution, to which it is both legally and morally bound. Both President Chui L. Tsang and the SMC Board of Trustees, continue to ratify Sammis' actions and inactions by its perpetual silence. Since Sammis is blatantly denying the fact that I have requested a hearing date up to and including July 31, 2006, I have had to bold this date in my email to him to make myself crystal clear. If SMC does not give me an appeal hearing by July 31, 2006, the suspension should be null and void and I can move the court for relief if necessary.

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP


------------------- YET ANOTHER EMAIL TO ROBERT SAMMIS -------------

ATTENTION: ROBERT SAMMIS, SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

July 25, 2006

RE: SMC'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND ITS OWN POLICES RE: RELEASE OF INFORMATION AND MANDATED REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING APPEAL HEARING.

Dear Mr. Sammis,

In your recent email response to me earlier today, you wrote in relevant part: "The District will proceed with the suspension hearing." You also claimed that I have failed to provide you with "specific dates" which is a misrepresentation of fact. You further wrote: "How difficult can it be to provide such information." You also indicated that you are representing the District regarding my suspension to the hearing committee.

I have provided dates for the suspension hearing up to and including July 31, 2006. I have provided these dates via email, certified mail, and public notice to the District. I have additionally provided these dates in multiple correspondences. It is the District that fails to tell me precisely which date between the time I first gave sufficient notice (July 20, 2006) and July 31, 2006 (the last available date for the District to move forward with a hearing) it wishes to choose. Since we are running out of time, as even you indicated, please immediately provide me with the date for the hearing between now and July 31, 2006.

Furthermore, I have indicated in writing that we need more than one day to hold the suspension hearing. Moreover, I have previously provided the District with tentative dates, up to the first week of July, which the District never complied with. Accordingly, my offer to extend the time to July 31, 2006 is more than generous at this point. The District has had more than enough time to gather its witnesses (if any) and prepare its evidence (if any). Your repeated attempts to stall for time do not grant you any further extension under the law. To make myself extremely clear, I will not grant any extension of time for a suspension appeal hearing after July 31, 2006. Either the District will move forward or it will dismiss the suspension accordingly.

As to your statement, "How difficult can it be to provide such information," that is a question the District should ask itself. I have written over and over again for almost one entire year for inspection of my student disciplinary files. To date, the District has refused to comply with the laws under the California Education Code, FERPA, and its own written policies. Please provide a date, prior to July 31, 2006, whereby both me and my written authorized representative, Stephen E. Drury, can view these records held in the Office of Judicial Affairs, and controlled by Campus Disciplinarian, Judith Penchansky.

I have repeatedly written the District regarding the release of records and documents in its possession that it has referenced or otherwise knows, or should know, exists in my disciplinary files. To date, the District is in violation of the law for its refusal to disclose these records. In fact, you made further misrepresentations of the truth when you indicated both orally and in writing to me that there were no such records, yet subsequently produced quite a few. Accordingly, you have deprived me of timely notice and once again violated the law. Please provide me with a date prior to July 31, 2006 when the District intends to release the remainder of these records and documents.

In the same vein, I have repeatedly sought in writing, including through my June 6, 2006 appeal, to obtain the names and titles of the allegedly impartial appeal hearing committee. As previously indicated, this information was promptly disclosed, upon request, to at least one other student who was suspended by the District and Judith Penchansky. To date, you have refused to release this information. Please provide this information to me prior to July 31, 2006.

Since the District has access to information it has provided to others, yet failed to disclose to me, some of which for almost one entire year, it has taken an unfair advantage in this situation. The District has had adequate time to meet with its various employees, legal representatives, and third parties. It has had adequate time to prepare any arguments or evidence against me, yet failed to afford me any sort of minimal due process to prepare my case by disclosing these records to me. Since the District unilaterally decided I was in violation of the Student Conduct Code, without affording me any input into these allegations, the District has violated my rights and its own internal polices and administrative regulations. By continuing to withhold my access to campus via its interim suspension, by failing to allow me to attend class, or to remove the wrongful disciplinary hold on my student records and enrollment, the District continues to be in violation of my rights. In fact, each day the District refuses to disclose records, allow inspection of my disciplinary file, and refuses to set a date for the suspension hearing as mandated by law, the District is in violation of my rights.

As stated on numerous occasions, the District is not only in violation of my due process rights, it has been in violation of my rights as a disabled student. Despite requesting advocacy from the SMC ADA Compliance Officer, as required by law, the District has failed to respond. The fact that Professor Jim Keeshen was allowed to make his March 1, 2006 public speech in his ET 18 Storyboarding class at the Academy of Entertainment and Technology regarding my alleged disability and to threaten his students with retaliation including being kicked out of school, was a blatant disregard for my rights and the rights of any students he would allegedly target in his unlawful retaliation.

Given the fact that you stated that the District did not support Professor Keeshen's position, I find it curious that it allowed Ms. Penchansky to violate my rights under the First Amendment to communicate with Professor Keeshen about this issue and to further suspend me. Although Professor Keeshen could express his viewpoint, in violation of FERPA confidentiality and the disability policies of the District, and Thomas J. Baker could further contact Professor Keeshen via email to paint my reputation in a false light and to seek advocacy against me, my viewpoints and grievances were unconstitutionally denied.

Clearly, by moving forward with this retaliatory suspension, the District is leaving itself wide open for a lawsuit of which it would not prevail in court. That alone is grounds to immediately dismiss this suspension. Since President Tsang and the various members of the SMC Board of Trustees have been kept informed and up to date on these issues and grievances, and by the District's failure to adequately respond or intervene, the District will be hard pressed to deny any liability or hide behind any immunity.

Since you have provided legal counsel to Thomas J. Baker, one of my accusers, on a legal matter outside the District's authorization or jurisdiction, as previously indicated in my last email to you, you are far from an impartial person to represent the District on any appeal hearing. As such, you should immediately recuse yourself from any appeal hearing pertaining to my suspension. Accordingly, the District should substitute you with impartial legal counsel that would best represent both my rights as a student and any rights the District may have as well. Please indicate whether you plan to recuse yourself from any hearing prior to July 31, 2006.

Since time is of the essence, I eagerly await your prompt response. Absent any response from the District, or its continued refusal to either provide a hearing date on or before July 31, 2006 or to alternatively dismiss the suspension and remove the enrollment hold, I will reserve my right to move forward with Court intervention to enforce the rights that the District is so blatantly and persistently ignoring.

Very Truly Yours,

Des Manttari /s/

Cc: Chui L. Tsang, President and Superintendent
SMC Board of Trustees: Nancy Greenstein, Susan Aminoff, Carole Currey, and Rob Rader

Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, Academy of Entertainment and Technology, public schools, constitutional rights, wrongful suspension, appeal hearings, student records, discrimination, Robert Sammis, Judith Penchansky, News and politics, Thomas J. Baker, Jim Keeshen

SMC's Failure to Adhere to its Due Process Guarantees

Robert Sammis is getting progressively more nasty and evasive in his emails to me. Meanwhile, Santa Monica College President Chui L. Tsang has simply lapsed into silence, in sharp contrast to his designation as champion of student First Amendment rights. Despite copying my numerous written emails to the SMC Board of Trustees, they too have been curiously silent. If the District was so convinced of its charges against me, it would be eager to proceed forward at a swift pace. However, it seems that the District's smear campaign simply isn't holding up very well under public scrutiny, as was to be expected. If the District cannot defend itself in its own kangaroo court, of which it unilaterally controls, it will fail miserably in any defense in a real court of law as to why its administrators and Board of Trustees are continuing to deprive me of my education. Accordingly, I give Santa Monica College a red light rating for its lack of due process rights and for its vague, ambiguous, and Constitutionally overbroad student conduct codes.

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP


------------------- YET ANOTHER EMAIL TO ROBERT SAMMIS -----------------

ATTENTION: ROBERT SAMMIS, SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

July 25, 2006

Dear Mr. Sammis,

In your last email you wrote in part the following to me: "No matter how often you write your self serving views of the facts, you will not convince the District to dismiss your suspension." Is this comment by you, acting as an official representative of Santa Monica Community College District, the biased attitude you will take as an allegedly impartial representative in any allegedly impartial appeal hearing? If this is so, then I will not be afforded any opportunity to effectively present my case before the District as you have made a unilateral decision that any arguments I might raise or defense I might present before the appeal hearing committee are merely "self serving views."

As you should be well aware, I have every right to raise valid questions pertaining to my suspension, such as whether the District has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, whether the District's action is based on a determination of fact, made or implied by the District, that is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the record as a whole, and whether the District's action is otherwise unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, I have every right to hold SMC accountable to its administrative regulations governing prompt disclosure of my disciplinary records, inspection of my disciplinary records, and timely hearing on my suspension (especially given the fact that you yourself were the one who authorized the immediate interim suspension without any prior hearing on its validity and continue to refuse to provide me with a prompt hearing as I have repeatedly requested in writing).

As a general rule, administrative regulations (such as fall into the category of SMC's AR 4410 governing student conduct and appeal hearings) have the force and effect of law. In fact, SMC repeatedly relies upon numerous provisions of the California Education Code to justify AR 4410. Accordingly, I was to be afforded a timely appeal hearing within 10 days. I have written you, along with President Tsang and the SMC Board of Trustees, to comply with the law. I have given repeated notice that I expect an appeal hearing no later than Monday, July 31, 2006, and have given you timely written notice of such. To ignore this request, and the law, is grounds to invalidate the suspension as null and void. Add to this your ever-growing lack of impartiality, and there is further justification to set aside the suspension.

SMC is not only legally and morally bound to uphold the Constitutional guarantees of due process, it is contractually obligated by virtue of its advertisement of such. According to SMC's statements in its College Policies governing College Conduct:

SMC has an established "due process" through which its disciplinary and removal powers are exercised. As a further safeguard of student rights, an appeal procedure exists for these policies, as well as for appeals of grades, matriculation, and disqualification. The Student Conduct Appeals Committee will hear student appeals.

SMC's Master Plan for Education, found online at SMC's website, states:

The Office of Student Judicial Affairs is perceived as a place where students go to have problems solved, to sit down and come to agreements, to gather information, and to feel that they have experienced "due process." In addition to improving campus morale, this approach has the potential of assisting the College in avoiding costly litigation.

Even Judith Penchansky wrote in your May 9, 2006 email to me, which was copied to you: "no decision has been made regarding your suspension and if that occurs, you will have the right to full due process." Despite these written promises, I was not afforded due process or timely notice. Instead, while I was issued a suspension email, dated May 23, 2006, immediately denying me access to my ET 14 web design course at AET, Ms. Penchansky was emailing numerous individuals at SMC, including my ET 14 professor, Zeny Baduel and yourself, indicating that I "should not be on campus (any of the campuses) beginning Tuesday, May 30, 2006." Of course I never received this contradictory notice from her until you provided it to me after the fact, on or about June 12, 2006. Therefore, I was deprived of my rights to enter campus since on or about May 23, 2006. That alone is justification to dismiss the suspension.

Furthermore, SMC advertises under its goals, a community of mutual respect as follows:

The College will be exemplary as a diverse community of mutual respect- a community characterized by respect for the individual, free exchange of ideas, broad collaboration, and participation in college governance.

Somehow, the District has failed repeatedly to live up to its advertised guarantees toward its students of due process and mutual respect. When the District repeatedly closes its eyes to providing me an appeal hearing either prior to its suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter, it is denying me due process of law contrary to the safeguards established by the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, I am entitled to have the Court enjoin SMC's administrators to remove all reference to my suspension from my student records, including disciplinary records, as to be reinstated as a student with all my full privileges and rights restored.

To date, I was never given a hearing to determine the operative facts (if any) underlying the suspension, including the immediate interim suspension, nor was I provided a formal conference, subsequent to the effective date of the suspension, to discuss it with Judith Penchansky, acting in her official capacity as Campus Disciplinarian. Moreover, the District did not even provide me with the bulk of the documentation it had in its possession, as allegedly contained in my disciplinary files, until after I filed my timely appeal, thus depriving me the opportunity to adequately respond to many false allegations against me. In fact, some of these documents that contained these allegations were withheld from me for almost ten entire months.

To add further abuse of due process, on or about April 21, 2006, you indicated to me that you had provided me with the complete documentation as contained in my disciplinary file, knowing full well that you were withholding, or allowing Ms. Penchansky to withhold, many documents against me that I could have easily refuted if they were timely disclosed. Either you willfully concealed these documents from me on this date, or alternatively, these documents were manufactured at a late date and simply backdated. Neither explanation points favorably toward the District's guarantees of due process, especially given the severity and length of my suspension from the college. Had I been afforded my rights to physically inspect my disciplinary records, as I had repeatedly requested prior to our April 21, 2006 meeting, this matter would have been settled. I question now what other documentation is either included in my disciplinary files that is still being withheld or what relevant documents have been omitted without my permission or authorization, such as any favorable witness statements on my behalf (which the District has repeatedly denied me despite my requests).

Your overarching bias in this case, along with Ms. Penchansky's, has not stopped there. On or about May 9, 2006, prior to my suspension, you (along with Ms. Penchansky) met with two of my accusers, Thomas J. Baker and his business partner Mario Alarcon, and went over the temporary restraining order I obtained against Mr. Baker. According to Ms. Penchansky's email to SMC Professor Howard A. Stahl:

Robert went over the Order and advised him on how to respond. Thomas' court date is May 25, 2006 and I have asked the AS program leaders (Benny Blaydes and Deyna Hearn) to provide Thomas with letters of support.

Despite the fact that I had filed legitimate grievances against Mr. Baker and the SMC Game Club to Ms. Hearn on or about May 8, 2006, the District took it upon itself to wholeheartedly support Mr. Baker. The District even went so far as to make sure that I was suspended right before the Court date, to further prejudice any chance I had of a successful outcome. Is it any wonder the suspension was so sloppily thrown together with its lack of clear and convincing charges against me?

Despite the fact that the District continued to have written dialogue with Mr. Baker (including Professor Jim Keeshen and Judith Penchansky), Ms. Penchansky not only indicated in writing that she refused to have a written dialogue with me, but she prohibited me from having any avenue of communication with Professor Keeshen. However, the District allowed Professor Keeshen to continue to communicate unilaterally with me after Ms. Penchansky' written chilling of my First Amendment rights. While I was not afforded any conferences with anyone to discuss either my legitimate grievances or the false allegations against me, those adverse to me were afforded many such conferences with Ms. Penchansky, Ms. Hearn, and you.

Clearly, the District cannot support any claims of fundamental fairness. To offer legal advice to Mr. Baker in legal matters outside the bounds of the District's jurisdiction and control was a gross violation of my rights. If the District was willing to provide legal expertise and preparation of court filings to one of its students free of charge, then I should also have been afforded free legal counsel as well in this matter. The fact that Mr. Baker's answer under penalty of perjury, which you helped him to draft, was inconsistent with his statements to the SMCPD upon which you justified your suspension of me, is grounds enough for dismissal of my suspension. The District will be hard pressed to hide behind lack of knowledge as to Mr. Baker's statements surrounding the March 24, 2006 incident given its active involvement in the drafting of his responses both inside and outside the parameters of the college.

The District is constrained to recognize a student's legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and which may not be taken away for misconduct without adherence to the minimum procedures required by that Clause. The Due Process Clause also forbids arbitrary deprivations of liberty. "Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him," the minimal requirements of the Clause must be satisfied.

The District has suspended me for two years, including the immediate interim suspension based on less than convincing or substantiated charges of misconduct. As has been made clear, the District supported these charges as is evident in your involvement with Mr. Baker's restraining order answer, well in advance of any formal determination to suspend me, thus interfering with my good standing among my fellow students and teachers. It is apparent that the claimed right of the District to determine unilaterally and without process whether the misconduct has occurred immediately collides with the requirements of the Constitution. A two-year suspension, without a timely appeal hearing, is a severe detriment and grievous loss from which I continue to suffer for the past two months, since the date I filed my notice to appeal on May 25, 2006.

Neither the property interest in educational benefits denied nor the liberty interest in reputation, which is also implicated, is so insubstantial that suspensions may constitutionally be imposed by any procedure the school chooses, no matter how arbitrary. As the Supreme Court has made clear:

"[Fairness] can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights. . . ." "Secrecy is not congenial to truth-seeking and self-righteousness gives too slender an assurance of rightness. No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it."

In fact, SMC's own Bill of Rights emphasizes a "search for truth." If the District is unwilling to move forward with its search for truth with a timely suspension hearing, as I have repeated indicated in writing, then it should now dismiss any and all of its vague, ambiguous, and overbroad summary charges and alleged student conduct code violations against me.

Again, by copy of this email to you, I am requesting that the District confirm its intent to provide me with an impartial appeal hearing by July 31, 2006, long overdue by law and its own written policies, or to dismiss the suspension with prejudice. Additionally, by copy of this email to you, please confirm whether the District is to provide me prompt inspection of my disciplinary files, the disclosure of the names and titles of the appeal hearing committee, and the release of copies of any and all missing documents in my disciplinary records that I have previously mentioned in detail in previous correspondence with you. Furthermore, I request that a copy of this email be printed out and included in my disciplinary records at SMC.

Since time is of the essence, I expect a response by the close of business today. To reiterate, a public educational institution such as Santa Monica College is morally and legally bound to adhere to the Constitution, the California Education Code, and its own administrative regulations, board policies, and its Student Bill of Rights.

Very Truly Yours,

Des Manttari /s/

Cc: Chui L. Tsang, President and Superintendent
SMC Board of Trustees: Nancy Greenstein, Susan Aminoff, Carole Currey, and Rob Rader
Robert Adams, Vice President of Student Affairs
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights


----------------- ROBERT SAMMIS' EMAIL RESPONSE TO ME -------------------

From: "SAMMIS_ROBERT" SAMMIS_ROBERT@smc.edu
To: "Phoenix Genesis"
Subject: RE: Failure to Comply with SMC Administrative Regulations re Suspension
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:24:24 -0700

Des:

No matter how often you write your self serving view of the facts, you will not convince the District to dismiss your suspension. Again, if you are represented by an attorney, as you have stated you are, please send me his/her name so I may schedule your suspension hearing.

Robert Sammis

Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, Academy of Entertainment and Technology, public schools, due process, student rights, Fourteenth Amendment, smear campaign, suspensions, Robert Sammis, Judith Penchansky, News and politics, Constitutional law, Bill of Rights

SMC's Violations of its Administrative Regulations

Yet another email response to Robert Sammis. It's really apparent that Santa Monica Community College District is unwilling and unprepared to move along in a timely fashion to defend its flimsy allegations against me. The suspension should be dismissed immediately.

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP

----------------------- MY EMAIL TO ROBERT SAMMIS -----------------------

ATTENTION: ROBERT SAMMIS, VP PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

July 24, 2006

RE: SMC'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS CONCERNING SUSPENSION APPEAL HEARING OF DES MANTTARI

Dear Mr. Sammis,

Earlier today, you sent me an email in which you wrote in relevant part: "The last email that I recall you mentioning dates was an email expressing that your lawyer would be available sometime in mid-July but that you were not sure given his schedule."

Perhaps you should not base your information on your failed recollections, but on the face of my various written correspondence to you, which is far more accurate. To reiterate, on or about June 13, 2006, I emailed you the following in relevant part:

"To give you a tentative date, I would suggest sometime around the first week of July ... . I feel we will need more than one day for the appeal hearing and would like you to please provide some tentative dates that would suit your calendar." [emphasis added]

You did not respond to this email. Again, on or about June 16, 2006, I sent you another email reminded, to which you never responded. As you can plainly see, I never stated I agreed or suggested any appeal hearing in "mid-July" as you erroneously contend.

When you finally did reply, on or about July 17, 2006, over a month after I requested tentative dates, you did not provide those dates, or any concrete dates in the future. In my email response to you, dated July 18, 2006, I wrote in relevant part:

"Accordingly, pursuant to California Education Code 66017, "a reasonable opportunity shall be afforded the suspended student for an appeals committee hearing within ten (10) school days." This is even mirrored in SMC Administrative Regulation 4410 Suspension, E (4). I was even willing to extend that time, by mutual agreement, to the first week of July. However, you never responded, nor did President Tsang. Accordingly, that time is elapsed. My appeal was timely filed on June 6, 2006 and it is now 41 days later that you have bothered to contact me. You are even ten days past the time of the reasonable extension I was willing to afford you. Accordingly, you are in violation of my rights and by your unwillingness to respond within the mandated time frame, you have waived your rights to the appeal hearing. Accordingly, the suspension should be null and void and immediately dismissed." [emphasis added]

In a second email to you, again dated July 18, 2006, I wrote the following in relevant part:
"Although you quote from my June 13, 2006 email to you, you leave out the next relevant sentence in which I wrote: "I feel we will need more than one day for the appeal hearing and would like you to please provide some tentative dates that would suit your calendar." [emphasis added]. As with Ms. Penchansky (who failed to provide tentative dates to meet with her with the attorney of my choice), you failed to provide any tentative dates then and you have still failed to provide tentative dates." [emphasis in original]

On or about July 21, 2006, I wrote in relevant part:

"I have responded as of yesterday via email to SMC President Chui L. Tsang via email and certified mail. You can read my response in full online here:

http://www.vtutorials.com/clients/des/savesmc/appeal/pdf/dmct_07-20-06_letter.pdf

Although I have given him, and Santa Monica College, adequate time to respond, President Tsang has not done so. I even emailed him again today, with the same link I provided you, and he has not responded. I asked that he respond by the close of business today."
On or about July 22, 2006, I wrote in relevant part:

"Again, I gave notice to the District via President Chui L. Tsang via email and certified mail regarding a date on or about July 20, 2006. I received no response. I sent him an email reminder on July 21, 2006 and still have not received a response. Thereafter, I emailed you yesterday and included the hyperlink of the Adobe PDF certified letter I sent President Tsang. You of course received this notice as you referenced this document in your recent email to me. To make absolutely sure the District received notice; I have even posted the relevant correspondence on my SAVE SMC blog." [emphasis added]

To date, neither President Tsang nor you have provided with me a hearing date. The July 20, 2006 email to President Tsang (sent also via certified mail) to which I provided you a hyperlink of the Adobe PDF file stated in relevant part:

"Furthermore, on the date I filed my timely appeal, the California Education Code as well as SMC's own Administrative Regulations stated that I was to be afforded an appeal hearing within 10 days. SMC did not set an appeal hearing within this time. On or about June 13, 2006, I emailed Robert Sammis, requesting dates for my appeal. I was even willing to provide an extension until the first week of July. Not hearing back from Mr. Sammis, I sent him a second email on June 16, 2006. Still, he did not respond until on or about July 17, 2006. Now, Mr. Sammis has emailed me again on or about July 18, 2006, now making excuses to postpone the hearing for at least another month.

Mr. Sammis writes the following to me: "Please note that during the summer months most faculty and staff are on vacation and thus we typically do not hold any hearings during the summer months. However, if you and your attorney desire to have a hearing prior to the beginning of the fall semester we will do our best to accommodate such a request."

This is not only unacceptable, but it is in clear violation of the law."

On July 20, 2006, I also wrote in relevant part:

"California Education Code 66017 states in regards to interim suspensions (as SMC has placed on me) that the suspended person shall be afforded an appeal hearing within 10 days. SMC's Administrative Regulation 4410 governing suspensions states in 2(E)(4): "A reasonable opportunity shall be afforded the suspended student for an appeals committee hearing within ten (10) school days." [emphasis added]" [emphasis in original]

"Under Hearing and Appeal Process, 2(F), Time Frame (2)(c), SMC's Administrative Regulation states the following: "The committee shall convene for an appeal hearing not sooner than six (6) school days and preferably not more than ten (10) school days after receiving the notice of intent to appeal. The student shall be given written notice of the time and place of the hearing. If the student fails to appear for the hearing, the decision of the College Disciplinarian shall stand." [emphasis added]" [emphasis in original]

"Clearly, this time has long since expired for SMC to maintain jurisdiction over my suspension or to further extend this time to the beginning of fall semester. I have expressed in my objections to these delays in writing and have thus exhausted my administrative remedies. The non-discretionary hearing and decision time limit of Education Code 66017 and SMC's supporting Administrative Regulations are enforceable as mandatory, not merely directory, and SMC's failure to comply with that time limit deprives it of jurisdiction to proceed with the suspension and interim suspension." [emphasis added]

On July 20, 2006, I also wrote in relevant part:

"For all these reasons, the two-year suspension and interim immediate suspension should be set aside immediately and the wrongful disciplinary hold placed on my student records should be removed so that I can register for fall semester classes."

"Alternatively, if you do not set aside the suspension, then I request an immediate suspension appeal hearing by no later than Monday, July 31, 2006. Accordingly, if such suspension appeal hearing is forthcoming, I am making a written demand once again for the names and titles of the appeal hearing committee, the names of witnesses that SMC plans to call against me, the disclosure of documents that I have repeatedly asked for, and physical inspection of my disciplinary file at least four (4) days prior to any hearing." [emphasis in original]

As you can now clearly see, I have given the District on more than one occasion sufficient notice within a ten-day period to provide me with a suspension appeal hearing. By this written notice to you, as well as by copy of this notice to President Chui L. Tsang, and SMC Board of Trustee members Nancy Greenstein and Susan Aminoff, I will not agree to any more extensions of time for the District to proceed forward. Either you, acting in your official capacity for the District, move forward with a suspension appeal hearing no later than July 31, 2006, or alternatively, dismiss the suspension in its entirety (including the interim immediate suspension) forthwith and remove the enrollment hold so that I can register for fall semester classes at SMC.

Again, I ask in writing that I be provided the names and titles of the appeal hearing committee, physical inspection of my disciplinary files to both me and my authorized written representative Stephen E. Drury, Sr., and the prompt disclosure of any and all favorable witnesses statements and other relevant documents sent to Judith Penchansky, acting in her official capacity as Campus Disciplinarian (as I have outlined in detail in my previous emails to you). I again ask for the names of all witnesses the District plans to call in my case.

I eagerly await your prompt response on this urgent matter. Since time is of the essence, I request that you respond by the close of business on Tuesday, July 25, 2006.

Very Truly Yours,

Des Manttari /s/

CC: Chui L. Tsang, President /Superintendent
Nancy Greenstein, Chair, SMC Board of Trustees
Susan Aminoff, Vice-Chair, SMC Board of Trustees
Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education


---------------------- ROBERT SAMMIS' EMAIL TO ME -----------------------

From: "SAMMIS_ROBERT" SAMMIS_ROBERT@smc.edu
To: "Phoenix Genesis"
Subject: RE: Third Request for Dismissal of Wrongful Suspension
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:40:19 -0700

Des:

The last email that I recall you mentioning dates was an email expressing that your lawyer would be available sometime in mid-July but that you were not sure given his schedule. Please give me tha [sic] name and number of your attorney so I may set the hearing date directly with him/her. I will no longer respond to your requests to have your suspension dismissed. The District actions are consistent with its Administrative Regulation. As I indicated to you in my last email, if you do not respond to this request by the end of the week, the District will set the hearing date without your attorney's input.

Robert Sammis

Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, due process, public schools, administrative regulations, suspensions, student rights, appeal hearings, time requirements, Robert Sammis, Chui Tsang, News and politics, Judith Penchansky, SMC Board of Trustees