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