Thursday, June 29, 2006
Monday, June 26, 2006
They Are Using You Adriana. In the next few days one little article will speak volumes. It is now becoming a credibilityissue with U Adriana?
KRIS-TV -
CORPUS CHRISTI - Del Mar Security officers have stepped up their efforts after an alleged sex offense on campus last week. A female student claims it happened around 5 pm last Tuesday on Del-Mar's East Campus. ...
Corpus Christi Caller Times -
By adriana garza Caller-Times. Del Mar College has stepped-up security patrols at the east campus this week after a report of an incident between a female student and an unidentified man that included inappropriate touching. ...
Corpus Christi Caller Times -
By adriana garza Caller-Times. Del Mar College officials touring the new $29 million Health Sciences and Emerging Technology Complex on Tuesday walked through the halls talking about the changes ahead for the college and community. ...
Exploring career options
Friday, June 23, 2006
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Thank you NIKKIM, for the rebuttal response!
dannoynted1 makes a very good point,
"IN THE KNOW": " ever wonder why someone would go through ALL the trouble of filing a complaint?
talk about abusing the "judicial process"
so it is okay with yall folks at DMC that meredith abused his position to see minors change clothes?
if i had been there i would have called the cops on that sico, but i guess he fits right in with use guys!
i guess it is those minors word against ya'll?????
Could he be related to Meredith,Donnell,&Abernathy???????"
Del Mar College Complaints Revisited
June 19, 2006
Details to be published upon receipt of documentation
Details to be published upon receipt of documentation
Nikkim,
Do you support this type of behavior or is it that, it is not one of YOUR loved ones?
Modus Operandi?
Anyone............???
The EEOC can only investigate the documentation & evidence presented (submitted) to their office. As I understand, the MODIFICATION of JOB OPPORTUNITIES and the ongoing grievance process of Theresa Cox (Dean of Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action, Equity, Access, & Compliance) will demondstrate the "STRONG ARM" tactics that transformed the investigator into the witness. There are numerous elements of manipulation and modification to advantage a favorable outcome for the Del Mar College "Powers That Be" / "Finaglers of the Funds Inside Benefactors"
Now we know why DMC pays Mike Westergren the "big bucks"; he defends his client zealously. Mr Westergren earns every penny and IMO he is an invaluable & unconditional advocate for DMC. My regards Mr Westergren.
This second "afterthought" article was published only after I contacted the author of the initial article.
Thank you NIKKIM, for the rebuttal response!
All input is appreciated.
PS for Case 1 & Case 2 links scroll down to bottom of the page and click download
--
Posted by Jaime Kenedeño to Del Mar Electronic Anonymous Input Forum at 6/19/2006 08:43:34 PM
"IN THE KNOW": " ever wonder why someone would go through ALL the trouble of filing a complaint?
talk about abusing the "judicial process"
so it is okay with yall folks at DMC that meredith abused his position to see minors change clothes?
if i had been there i would have called the cops on that sico, but i guess he fits right in with use guys!
i guess it is those minors word against ya'll?????
Could he be related to Meredith,Donnell,&Abernathy???????"
Del Mar College Complaints Revisited
June 19, 2006
Nine complaints filed against Del Mar College during the past two years have been closed, but the flurry of complaints prompted college officials to refine the grievance process last year.
Case 1
Opened: Sept. 10, 2004
Closed: Oct. 17, 2005
Summary: The complainant claimed the college failed to provide reasonable accommodations to him as a faculty member. He also claimed the college retaliated against him by suspending him after he testified in a student's grievance hearing. It is the Office of Civil Rights' policy to decide whether to proceed with an investigation when litigation has been filed concerning the same allegations included in a complaint.
The case was dismissed after the complainant filed a civil rights lawsuit, which is pending in federal court.
Case 2
Opened: Sept. 10, 2004
Closed: Oct. 17, 2005
Summary: The complainant alleged the college expelled her because she filed a discrimination grievance, two sexual harassment grievances and advocated for the rights of Hispanic students.
The case was dismissed after she filed a civil rights lawsuit, which is pending in federal court.
Case 3
Opened: Feb. 23, 2005
Closed: Dec. 7, 2005
Summary: The complainant alleged the college retaliated against him after he advocated for a Del Mar student who had filed a grievance against a faculty member concerning alleged discrimination. The complainant said the retaliation resulted in the following instances: when he was told he would be disciplined for unauthorized entry to the Student Government Association office; when he was told he would have to pick a disciplinary sanction for the unauthorized entry; when no one intervened when he was assaulted by another SGA member; and when he was expelled from the Student Government Association after he participated in the grievance hearing.
The case failed to meet all four criteria necessary for the Office of Civil Rights to determine retaliation occurred.
Details to be published upon receipt of documentation
Case 4
Opened: Feb. 22, 2005
Closed: Nov. 22, 2005
Summary: The complainant alleged the college retaliated and discriminated against him based on national origin, creating a racially hostile environment. The complainant said the Student Government Association magistrate used a racial slur against him and he was told he was not allowed to enter the SGA office while students of other races were allowed access. He also said the college retaliated by suspending him from SGA and appointing a biased person to chair his disciplinary hearing.
Investigators determined there was insufficient evidence in all three allegations contained in the complaint
Details to be published upon receipt of documentation
Case 5
Opened: March 29, 2005
Closed: May 19, 2006
Summary: The complainant alleged the college did not investigate a complaint of sexual harassment against a college employee during his dance group's event at the college. The complaint also alleged retaliation based on the report of sexual harassment, saying his dance group's contract to use college facilities changed after he made the report.
Neither the complainant nor the alleged victims of sexual harassment were students or employees of the college. According to OCR policy, the agency has jurisdiction in cases where discrimination occurs in the context of educationally related programs, activities and services. Third parties not involved in such programs are outside the jurisdiction of OCR investigations.
The Office of Civil Rights determined neither the complainant nor the alleged victims of sexual harassment were participating in an educational activity at the college during the time of the alleged violations.
Nikkim,
Do you support this type of behavior or is it that, it is not one of YOUR loved ones?
Case 6
Opened: April 7, 2005
Closed: Sept. 27, 2005
Summary: Complainant alleged college officials retaliated against him after he refused to answer their questions about an open OCR investigation. He said he was suspended for 30 days without pay, required to attend sexual harassment training to maintain employment and required to submit a written apology to his supervisor.
The investigation concluded that college officials did not discuss an open OCR investigation with the complainant, but they did question him on a separate internal grievance, of which he was a part. Investigators found there was insufficient evidence to support his claims.
Modus Operandi?
Anyone............???
Case 7 and 8
Opened: March 24, 2005; July 6, 2005
Closed: May 16, 2005; Aug. 23, 2005
Summary: Cases seven and eight are the same complaint filed twice. The complainant alleged the college discriminated against him in employment based on age, religion and disability.
The first time the complainant filed the case, the OCR closed the file after it was determined the same case was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
According to OCR reports, after the EEOC dismissed the complaint based on "not reasonable cause," it was re-filed with the OCR.
The case was closed after the Office of Civil Rights found the EEOC properly investigated the complaint and appropriate legal standards were applied.
The EEOC can only investigate the documentation & evidence presented (submitted) to their office. As I understand, the MODIFICATION of JOB OPPORTUNITIES and the ongoing grievance process of Theresa Cox (Dean of Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action, Equity, Access, & Compliance) will demondstrate the "STRONG ARM" tactics that transformed the investigator into the witness. There are numerous elements of manipulation and modification to advantage a favorable outcome for the Del Mar College "Powers That Be" / "Finaglers of the Funds Inside Benefactors"
Case 9
Opened: April 4, 2006
Closed: May 9, 2006
Summary: The complainant alleged college officials retaliated against her through employment policies, practices and procedures. She said the college changed her position title, demoted her retroactively, placed her on administrative leave and failed to award her a contract for the 2006-2007 year.
The complaint was closed when OCR officials determined the complainant filed a similar internal grievance with the college's Board of Regents.
Mike Westergren, the college's in-house counsel, said that matter is being handled internally through the proper authorities and he could not comment further on the case.
Now we know why DMC pays Mike Westergren the "big bucks"; he defends his client zealously. Mr Westergren earns every penny and IMO he is an invaluable & unconditional advocate for DMC. My regards Mr Westergren.
This second "afterthought" article was published only after I contacted the author of the initial article.
Thank you NIKKIM, for the rebuttal response!
All input is appreciated.
PS for Case 1 & Case 2 links scroll down to bottom of the page and click download
--
Posted by Jaime Kenedeño to Del Mar Electronic Anonymous Input Forum at 6/19/2006 08:43:34 PM
Saturday, June 17, 2006
We bring the public opinion factor into the equation.
nik: "I noticed from your email that you're up writing this CR_P all hours of the night.
nik: "Apparently, you must not have a life, so you're trying to ruin someone else's."
Now make a formidable rebuttal this time without the Ad Hominem filler.
If you can?
If I was defending "your side" you wouldnt need to discredit yourself with weak and unfounded rhetoric.
Although this form of problem solving is a tertiary option, it is by far the most efficient BROADCAST MEDIUM available. As KENEDENO ADVOCATES we advocate for Equal & Fair. We bring the public opinion factor into the equation. As always this excludes any negative resultant due to the value raised exponentially to the infinity power SKWARED.......... furthermore with absolute value bars to boot.
nik: "Apparently, you must not have a life, so you're trying to ruin someone else's."
Ruin lives?
So when the executive organization of Del Mar College act in obtusion to the rules & policies and these actions ruin the lives of DMC students & employees'is it injustice to critique the operatives responsible?
The conspiring parties will be divided and conquered. They all got dirt on each other and who will take the rap?
If you are dirty?
If you have made mistakes?
We will recieve all who privately step forward in discretion.
To continue, is to experience "no quarter" submission.
Don't make the mistake of underestimating us little people for we are very resourceful and very efficient.
As for the best board of regents, I would have to say back in the days when Dr Barth & Mr & Mrs Edgar Cortez were there now that is the BEST OF THE BEST!
Anonymous?
Are you that illiterate?
How many Regents would support a Transparent Executive Committee Operation
IMO Transparency is the best friend of the Board of Regents and DMC.
Now make a formidable rebuttal this time without the Ad Hominem filler.
If you can?
Friday, June 16, 2006
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
workforce investment act "in the know"
Texas Workforce Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Larry Jones
DATE: February 7, 2005 PHONE: (512) 463-8556
Del Mar College Partners with Corpus Christi ISD
for a $424,809 Job-Training Grant from TWC
AUSTIN — The Coastal Bend-area workforce will benefit from a $424,809 job-training grant from the
Texas Workforce Commission’s (TWC) Self-Sufficiency Fund, which helps individuals transition from
public assistance back into the workforce.
Del Mar College has partnered with the Corpus Christi Independent School District (ISD) for
the grant, which will be used to custom-train workers to fill 215 upgraded jobs as certified teachers,
certified paraprofessionals and service-worker supervisors. Workers will receive an average hourly
wage of $15.85 upon completion of training.
"The future of the Coastal Bend depends on a well-educated and well-trained workforce," said
Rep. Gene Seaman. "Del Mar College and Corpus Christi ISD have come up with an innovative
proposal that will help us achieve that goal. This grant not only creates new jobs now, but the higher
quality of graduates being produced by Corpus Christi schools will attract new employers for years to
come. I applaud the Texas Workforce Commission for funding this grant."
"If we are to provide a quality education to our children, we must have a plentiful supply of
qualified teachers and support staff," said Rep. Vilma Luna. "This Self-Sufficiency Fund grant will
ensure that Corpus Christi schools have the professionals who will develop our children into productive
adults. We appreciate the state’s support for this worthy project."
"Assisting all Texans to be self-sufficient is one of our top priorities," said TWC Executive
Director Larry Temple. "Thanks to the Governor and the Legislature, TWC administers these grants
each year, assisting thousands of Texans to enjoy the rewards of this great state."
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, TWC awarded 12 Self-Sufficiency Fund grants, which funded more
than 4,545 jobs. The jobs paid an average hourly wage of $7.88. The grants, which totaled $5,402,486,
benefited 58 Texas employers. The Legislature appropriated $2.9 million to the Self-Sufficiency Fund
for each year of the FY 2004-05 biennium.
Employers seeking more information about the Self-Sufficiency Fund or Skills Development
Fund may visit the TWC Web site at www.texasworkforce.org.
Del Mar College contacts: Melinda Eddleman, (361) 698-1247 or meddlem@delmar.edu, or
Claudia Jackson
###
The Texas Workforce Commission is a state agency dedicated to helping Texas employers, workers and
communities prosper economically. For details on TWC and the services it offers in unison with its
network of local workforce development boards, call (512) 463-8556 or visit www.texasworkforce.org.
Texas Workforce Commission • 512-463-8942 • http://www.texasworkforce.org • Equal Opportunity Employer
Relay Texas • 1-800-735-2989 (TDD) • 1-800-735-2988 (Voice)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Larry Jones
DATE: February 7, 2005 PHONE: (512) 463-8556
Del Mar College Partners with Corpus Christi ISD
for a $424,809 Job-Training Grant from TWC
AUSTIN — The Coastal Bend-area workforce will benefit from a $424,809 job-training grant from the
Texas Workforce Commission’s (TWC) Self-Sufficiency Fund, which helps individuals transition from
public assistance back into the workforce.
Del Mar College has partnered with the Corpus Christi Independent School District (ISD) for
the grant, which will be used to custom-train workers to fill 215 upgraded jobs as certified teachers,
certified paraprofessionals and service-worker supervisors. Workers will receive an average hourly
wage of $15.85 upon completion of training.
"The future of the Coastal Bend depends on a well-educated and well-trained workforce," said
Rep. Gene Seaman. "Del Mar College and Corpus Christi ISD have come up with an innovative
proposal that will help us achieve that goal. This grant not only creates new jobs now, but the higher
quality of graduates being produced by Corpus Christi schools will attract new employers for years to
come. I applaud the Texas Workforce Commission for funding this grant."
"If we are to provide a quality education to our children, we must have a plentiful supply of
qualified teachers and support staff," said Rep. Vilma Luna. "This Self-Sufficiency Fund grant will
ensure that Corpus Christi schools have the professionals who will develop our children into productive
adults. We appreciate the state’s support for this worthy project."
"Assisting all Texans to be self-sufficient is one of our top priorities," said TWC Executive
Director Larry Temple. "Thanks to the Governor and the Legislature, TWC administers these grants
each year, assisting thousands of Texans to enjoy the rewards of this great state."
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, TWC awarded 12 Self-Sufficiency Fund grants, which funded more
than 4,545 jobs. The jobs paid an average hourly wage of $7.88. The grants, which totaled $5,402,486,
benefited 58 Texas employers. The Legislature appropriated $2.9 million to the Self-Sufficiency Fund
for each year of the FY 2004-05 biennium.
Employers seeking more information about the Self-Sufficiency Fund or Skills Development
Fund may visit the TWC Web site at www.texasworkforce.org.
Del Mar College contacts: Melinda Eddleman, (361) 698-1247 or meddlem@delmar.edu, or
Claudia Jackson
###
The Texas Workforce Commission is a state agency dedicated to helping Texas employers, workers and
communities prosper economically. For details on TWC and the services it offers in unison with its
network of local workforce development boards, call (512) 463-8556 or visit www.texasworkforce.org.
Texas Workforce Commission • 512-463-8942 • http://www.texasworkforce.org • Equal Opportunity Employer
Relay Texas • 1-800-735-2989 (TDD) • 1-800-735-2988 (Voice)
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
who is making the 5million profit?
Del Mar College Approves Small Business Services Contract With City
The City of Corpus Christi and Del Mar College are pleased to announce that the college has approved a contract with the City for expanding and enhancing small business services in Corpus Christi. Under the contract, selected business organizations, including ACCION Texas, the Westside Business Association, the Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Contractors Association will join Del Mar College’s Small Business Development Center and Procurement Technical Assistance Center at Del Mar’s new South Campus, which is scheduled to open in August, 2005.
In addtion to bringing these business organizations together at one location, the Del Mar College Small Business Development Center will provide additional outreach to historically underutilized businesses, increase technical assistance to businesses needing microloans, create a state-of-the-art plan review room, and enhance access to professional services.
Business owners are invited to contact the Small Business Development Center to obtain information about the services and to register for them. All of the center’s services are free of charge, confidential and professional.
Del Mar College and the City of Corpus Christi began preparing for the contract through a separate short-term contract for outreach to targeted businesses. Since this contract began in September of 2004, 302 new Corpus Christi business clients have been assisted by the center, and 146 jobs have been created as a result of business startups, expansions and contracts obtained by the businesses. Local clients have reported contracts totaling $8,384,991 and investments totaling $2,926,129 since September 2004. In addition, the center has conducted 38 seminars and conferences, which were attended by 604 individuals.
The City of Corpus Christi and Del Mar College both look at this agreement as a foundation for building future support of local business growth and job creation.
Contact: Patricia Garcia, Sr. Management Analyst, City of Corpus Christi 361-844-1785 or Ann Fierova, Director, Small Business Development Center 361-698-1964
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Click on each link more self dealing sexual harrassment MODIFICATION OF JOB OPPORTUNITIES documentation coming forth soon! Hvalinka v. Schubert
Thursday, June 08, 2006
The Retaliation and Harassment Continues After the Shooting
The Retaliation and Harassment Continues After the Shooting
35. Obviously, Mr. Benitez was in no condition to immediately resume his daily teaching duties. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the parallel provisions of Texas law, Del Mar accommodated Mr. Benitez’s disability by allowing him to teach from home via the internet, among other things.
36. Matula and others within the Del Mar administration bided their time while Mr. Benitez recovered, waiting for the opportunity to eliminate him as a member of the faculty. They begin trying to build a case against Mr. Benitez by having Huegler interrogate students who called with questions about Mr. Benitez’s classes. In a
Complaint
Page 10 of 23
statement dated April 16, 2004, Michelle Marshall described an incident that occurred at the beginning of the spring semester:
I signed up for 2 of Mr. Benitez [sic] online classes and I had to call over there to talk to Karen [Huegler] since I could not access them at all. She informed me that she would email Mr. Benitez and also informed me that she was gonna go to her boss with the problem. I told her please not to do that, and to let him respond and then I would call her back if I didn’t hear from him. She made me feel like I was in the middle and I had a feeling that Karen and her bosses were attempting to build a conspiracy case against him to try to fire him since I had heard that from other students as well. I felt that they were trying to use me as bait in an attempt to entrapment [sic] Mr. Benitez and I didn’t appreciate that. I felt that it appeared they were acting in bad faith since she called me about a week later wanting to know what happened. I informed her that I spoke with him and everything was okay. I then hung up. She insisted on wanting to know what happened and I felt like it was between me and my instructor and I didn’t tell her anything.
On May 10, 2004, Mark Garcia described a similar incident from the beginning of the spring semester: I called to get some information from Mr. Benitez, about an online course that I was taking when [sic] I tried to get a hold of him, a secretary by the name of Karen, [sic] answered the phone and started asking me so many questions. I felt like I was being interrogated. I tried a number of times to get a hold of him, but when she would answer the phone she would ask so many questions about what I needed. In the way she was doing it [sic] seemed like I was a criminal being ask [sic] so many question [sic]. I tried numerous times to see if I could get a hold of Mr. Benitez, but every time she would answer I would just say wrong department and hang up. It wasn’t until I got Mr. Benitez [sic] e-mail address I started to get the information I needed instead of feeling like I was on trial. I felt like she and her department were deliberately trying to setup Mr. Benitez. I also felt that they deliberately worked against him because he helps many of the students who ask for his help.
35. Obviously, Mr. Benitez was in no condition to immediately resume his daily teaching duties. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the parallel provisions of Texas law, Del Mar accommodated Mr. Benitez’s disability by allowing him to teach from home via the internet, among other things.
36. Matula and others within the Del Mar administration bided their time while Mr. Benitez recovered, waiting for the opportunity to eliminate him as a member of the faculty. They begin trying to build a case against Mr. Benitez by having Huegler interrogate students who called with questions about Mr. Benitez’s classes. In a
Complaint
Page 10 of 23
statement dated April 16, 2004, Michelle Marshall described an incident that occurred at the beginning of the spring semester:
I signed up for 2 of Mr. Benitez [sic] online classes and I had to call over there to talk to Karen [Huegler] since I could not access them at all. She informed me that she would email Mr. Benitez and also informed me that she was gonna go to her boss with the problem. I told her please not to do that, and to let him respond and then I would call her back if I didn’t hear from him. She made me feel like I was in the middle and I had a feeling that Karen and her bosses were attempting to build a conspiracy case against him to try to fire him since I had heard that from other students as well. I felt that they were trying to use me as bait in an attempt to entrapment [sic] Mr. Benitez and I didn’t appreciate that. I felt that it appeared they were acting in bad faith since she called me about a week later wanting to know what happened. I informed her that I spoke with him and everything was okay. I then hung up. She insisted on wanting to know what happened and I felt like it was between me and my instructor and I didn’t tell her anything.
On May 10, 2004, Mark Garcia described a similar incident from the beginning of the spring semester: I called to get some information from Mr. Benitez, about an online course that I was taking when [sic] I tried to get a hold of him, a secretary by the name of Karen, [sic] answered the phone and started asking me so many questions. I felt like I was being interrogated. I tried a number of times to get a hold of him, but when she would answer the phone she would ask so many questions about what I needed. In the way she was doing it [sic] seemed like I was a criminal being ask [sic] so many question [sic]. I tried numerous times to see if I could get a hold of Mr. Benitez, but every time she would answer I would just say wrong department and hang up. It wasn’t until I got Mr. Benitez [sic] e-mail address I started to get the information I needed instead of feeling like I was on trial. I felt like she and her department were deliberately trying to setup Mr. Benitez. I also felt that they deliberately worked against him because he helps many of the students who ask for his help.
Del Mar – In-House Counsel Michael Westergren and Vice President Garcia – were present at the trial of Reynolds, providing assistance to the defense
32. Mr. Benitez survived the shooting. Perez was eventually captured, and he confessed that Reynolds paid him to murder Mr. Benitez. In August 2005, Perez was convicted of attempted capital murder and sentenced to sixty years in prison.
33. In September 2005, Reynolds was tried for solicitation of capital murder. Apparently concerned that Del Mar bears responsibility for the shooting due to Matula’s knowledge of Reynolds’ activities, representatives of Del Mar – including In-House Counsel Michael Westergren and Vice President Garcia – were present at the trial of Reynolds, providing assistance to the defense team and disparaging Mr. Benitez to the prosecution. Del Mar’s efforts to defeat the prosecution of Reynolds were unsuccessful. Reynolds was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
34. Although he survived, Mr. Benitez suffered horrific injuries. Mr. Benitez endured multiple operations, an extended hospitalization, and the loss of portions of his colon, intestines, and part of a kidney. He was not of sound mind for weeks after the shooting and remains partially disabled to this day.
33. In September 2005, Reynolds was tried for solicitation of capital murder. Apparently concerned that Del Mar bears responsibility for the shooting due to Matula’s knowledge of Reynolds’ activities, representatives of Del Mar – including In-House Counsel Michael Westergren and Vice President Garcia – were present at the trial of Reynolds, providing assistance to the defense team and disparaging Mr. Benitez to the prosecution. Del Mar’s efforts to defeat the prosecution of Reynolds were unsuccessful. Reynolds was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
34. Although he survived, Mr. Benitez suffered horrific injuries. Mr. Benitez endured multiple operations, an extended hospitalization, and the loss of portions of his colon, intestines, and part of a kidney. He was not of sound mind for weeks after the shooting and remains partially disabled to this day.
Mr. Benitez answered a knock at the door to find a gunman, Francisco Perez, waiting for him.
The Attempted Capital Murder of Mr. Benitez
31. On the morning of August 9, 2003, Mr. Benitez was getting dressed in preparation for a trip to Mexico. To his surprise, Elizabeth Reynolds arrived at his house and stated that she was coming with him. A few minutes later, Mr. Benitez answered a knock at the door to find a gunman, Francisco Perez, waiting for him. Perez chased Mr. Benitez through the house, shot him seven times, and left him for dead. Reynolds would later claim that Perez kidnapped her and then released her in a deserted area.
31. On the morning of August 9, 2003, Mr. Benitez was getting dressed in preparation for a trip to Mexico. To his surprise, Elizabeth Reynolds arrived at his house and stated that she was coming with him. A few minutes later, Mr. Benitez answered a knock at the door to find a gunman, Francisco Perez, waiting for him. Perez chased Mr. Benitez through the house, shot him seven times, and left him for dead. Reynolds would later claim that Perez kidnapped her and then released her in a deserted area.
With Del Mar doing nothing, the campaign against Mr. Benitez and Ms. Lopez took a shocking and horrific turn.
28. Mr. Benitez did not remain silent in the face of this outrageous conduct. On July 22, 2003, an attorney hired by Mr. Benitez to respond to the Wood, Bodkin & Wolter allegations sent a letter to Rivera pointing out that Matula was invading the privacy of Mr. Benitez and committing numerous violations of the rules of Del Mar. The letter stated: “The investigation by Dean Matula is retaliatory in nature and her hiring a private law firm to conduct such an investigation was a violation of Mr. Benitez’s and Melody Lopez’s confidentiality and privacy rights under Del Mar College Policies.” Del Mar was thus on notice of what Matula was doing and why it was a problem. However, Del Mar took no action, and instead wholly failed to supervise Matula or stop her vendetta.
29. Mr. Benitez filed a grievance against Matula on July 28, 2003, based on the stalking, harassment, and retaliation. Del Mar took no action on that grievance, once again demonstrating deliberate indifference to the policy violations and civil rights abuses being committed by the members of its administration.
30. With Del Mar doing nothing, the campaign against Mr. Benitez and Ms. Lopez took a shocking and horrific turn.
29. Mr. Benitez filed a grievance against Matula on July 28, 2003, based on the stalking, harassment, and retaliation. Del Mar took no action on that grievance, once again demonstrating deliberate indifference to the policy violations and civil rights abuses being committed by the members of its administration.
30. With Del Mar doing nothing, the campaign against Mr. Benitez and Ms. Lopez took a shocking and horrific turn.
Leticia Clark and Angie Alonso claimed that they was just obeying orders.
23. In April 2003, Matula directed her secretaries, Leticia Clark and Angie Alonso, to begin stalking Ms. Lopez and Mr. Benitez. Two days after the Committee hearing, Clark and Alonso followed Ms. Lopez and a friend to a Whataburger near the campus and attempted to eavesdrop on their conversation. This sort of stalking became a regular occurrence, as Clark went so far as to follow Ms. Lopez to her home in Aransas Pass and take photographs. Ms. Lopez became sufficiently upset that she filed criminal reports with the police departments in both Corpus Christi and Aransas Pass. Ms. Lopez would later file a lawsuit against Clark, but the suit was dismissed when Clark claimed that she was just obeying orders.
24. Matula also hired a law firm to assist in the stalking of Mr. Benitez and Ms. Lopez. On May 16, 2003, John D. Bell of the law firm of Wood, Boykin & Wolter sent a letter to Teresa Cox, the Dean of EEOC and Human Resources at Del Mar, identifying his firm as counsel for Matula and demanding that Ms. Lopez and Mr. Benitez be investigated. Among other things, the letter revealed that Mr. Benitez and Ms. Lopez had been stalked and photographed and that Mr. Benitez’s cell phone records had been obtained and examined for evidence of calls to Ms. Lopez.
25. At some point, Matula made contact with Elizabeth Reynolds, a woman who considered herself to be a jilted paramour of Mr. Benitez. Like Matula, Reynolds was out for revenge. On information and belief, Reynolds joined in the stalking of Ms. Lopez and Mr. Benitez, and provided photographs to Matula. On numerous occasions, Reynolds was seen in the vicinity of Matula’s office, even though she had no business being there. On information and belief, Matula and Reynolds had regular telephone conversations. Even though she knew that Mr. Benitez was being stalked by a person
Complaint
Page 7 of 23
who she did not know well and who was not within her control, Matula failed to warn Mr. Benitez of the possible danger.
26. On July 28, 2003, Matula sent a memorandum to Dean Cox claiming that a mysterious “Mrs. Gonzalez” had called to complain that Mr. Benitez was sexually harassing her daughter and other students. The call had conveniently arrived when Matula was out of town, and most of the narrative consisted of a memorandum written by Clark, who took the call in Matula’s absence. However, Matula claimed to have spoken to “Mrs. Gonzalez” afterwards. Naturally, “Mrs. Gonzalez” declined to name her daughter, to give any identification information, or to provide a telephone number. Nevertheless, Matula demanded that Dean Cox investigate the allegations “[i]n order to protect the College.” Matula did not, and of course could not, provide Dean Cox with any information that would allow her to investigate the fabricated allegation. Mr. Benitez was not formally notified of these allegations until November 2003.
27. On August 5, 2003, Matula claimed to have received a letter written by Ms. Lopez. Matula took the letter to Dean Cox and asked her to open it. Matula said that she did not want to open it because of the increasingly contentious dealings between Matula and Ms. Lopez, even going so far as to claim that the letter might contain anthrax. Dean Cox declined to open the letter, and instead returned it to Ms. Lopez. Of course, the letter was a forgery and a fabrication. The letter – which contains confidential information about Ms. Lopez such as her social security number that would have been easily available to Matula – accuses Mr. Benitez of sexual harassment, theft, and drunkenness. It appears that the letter was written by Matula’s ally, Elizabeth Reynolds. Del Mar later admitted that the letter was a forgery.
24. Matula also hired a law firm to assist in the stalking of Mr. Benitez and Ms. Lopez. On May 16, 2003, John D. Bell of the law firm of Wood, Boykin & Wolter sent a letter to Teresa Cox, the Dean of EEOC and Human Resources at Del Mar, identifying his firm as counsel for Matula and demanding that Ms. Lopez and Mr. Benitez be investigated. Among other things, the letter revealed that Mr. Benitez and Ms. Lopez had been stalked and photographed and that Mr. Benitez’s cell phone records had been obtained and examined for evidence of calls to Ms. Lopez.
25. At some point, Matula made contact with Elizabeth Reynolds, a woman who considered herself to be a jilted paramour of Mr. Benitez. Like Matula, Reynolds was out for revenge. On information and belief, Reynolds joined in the stalking of Ms. Lopez and Mr. Benitez, and provided photographs to Matula. On numerous occasions, Reynolds was seen in the vicinity of Matula’s office, even though she had no business being there. On information and belief, Matula and Reynolds had regular telephone conversations. Even though she knew that Mr. Benitez was being stalked by a person
Complaint
Page 7 of 23
who she did not know well and who was not within her control, Matula failed to warn Mr. Benitez of the possible danger.
26. On July 28, 2003, Matula sent a memorandum to Dean Cox claiming that a mysterious “Mrs. Gonzalez” had called to complain that Mr. Benitez was sexually harassing her daughter and other students. The call had conveniently arrived when Matula was out of town, and most of the narrative consisted of a memorandum written by Clark, who took the call in Matula’s absence. However, Matula claimed to have spoken to “Mrs. Gonzalez” afterwards. Naturally, “Mrs. Gonzalez” declined to name her daughter, to give any identification information, or to provide a telephone number. Nevertheless, Matula demanded that Dean Cox investigate the allegations “[i]n order to protect the College.” Matula did not, and of course could not, provide Dean Cox with any information that would allow her to investigate the fabricated allegation. Mr. Benitez was not formally notified of these allegations until November 2003.
27. On August 5, 2003, Matula claimed to have received a letter written by Ms. Lopez. Matula took the letter to Dean Cox and asked her to open it. Matula said that she did not want to open it because of the increasingly contentious dealings between Matula and Ms. Lopez, even going so far as to claim that the letter might contain anthrax. Dean Cox declined to open the letter, and instead returned it to Ms. Lopez. Of course, the letter was a forgery and a fabrication. The letter – which contains confidential information about Ms. Lopez such as her social security number that would have been easily available to Matula – accuses Mr. Benitez of sexual harassment, theft, and drunkenness. It appears that the letter was written by Matula’s ally, Elizabeth Reynolds. Del Mar later admitted that the letter was a forgery.
Matula began a series of remarkable actions in retaliation
15. Ms. Lopez initiated the grievance process provided by the rules established by Del Mar, claiming that Huegler had a racial bias against Hispanic students. After Van Wie declined to resolve the issue, the next step in the process was the filing of a formal grievance with Van Wie’s superior, Dean Anne Matula. Having obtained statements from Huegler, Van Wie, Benitez, and another faculty member, Matula rejected the grievance on February 27, 2003.
16. Ms. Lopez appealed Matula’s decision to the Student Grievance Review Committee. On March 12, 2003, the president of Del Mar at the time, Gustavo Valadez-Ortiz, directed that all materials relating to the grievance be forwarded to the Committee for review. Matula withheld some of the documents, including the statements provided by Mr. Benitez and another faculty member. Those statements supported some of Ms. Lopez’s complaints about Huegler and contained positive statements about Ms. Lopez.
17. The case came before the Committee on April 21, 2003. In an effort to justify the concealment of the statements, Matula asked Mr. Benitez to change the date of his statement. By changing the date, Matula wanted to make it appear that the statement was generated after the denial of the grievance. Thus, the statement would not be part of the record for the appeal. Benitez refused to forge the date on the statement. 18. At the hearing, Matula insisted under oath that she had received the statements long after the matter was out of her hands. The Committee found that Matula had given false testimony, that Matula had concealed documents, and that Ms. Lopez’s grievance was meritorious.
19. As provided by the rules of Del Mar, the Committee made a recommendation for remedial action to Vice President Jose Rivera. Rivera rejected the recommendation and findings of the Committee. In fact, Rivera attempted to whitewash the entire matter by dismissing the grievance on the ground that it was too vague, even though the rules of Del Mar do not authorize the dismissal of a grievance on that ground. Ms. Lopez appealed to then-President Jose Alaniz, who upheld Rivera’s decision.
20. Ms. Lopez then appealed the decision to the Board of Regents. Under the rules of Del Mar, the Board of Regents was obligated to make a written finding within forty-five days. The Board of Regents has a practice of delaying action on grievances of this sort, in the hope that the matter will become moot due to the graduation of the student. It has been over two years since Ms. Lopez appealed, and the Board of Regents has wholly failed to act, in violation of its own rules and in deliberate indifference to the existence of violations of the official policies of Del Mar and violations of the civil rights of members of the Del Mar community.
21. Despite the seriousness of these violations of due process, this was only the beginning. In fact, the most shocking conduct was yet to come. Dean Matula Begins a Campaign of Stalking and Harassment
22. Around the time of the Committee hearing, Matula began a series of remarkable actions in retaliation for (a) the assertion of constitutional rights by Ms. Lopez, (b) the truthful testimony and refusal to participate in a cover-up by Mr. Benitez, and (c) Mr. Benitez’s opposition to Matula’s candidacy for the position as president of Del Mar, which was soon to become open. Matula sought to embarrass and discredit Ms. Lopez and Mr. Benitez, to have Mr. Benitez fired, and to obtain revenge against Mr. Benitez and Ms. Lopez.
16. Ms. Lopez appealed Matula’s decision to the Student Grievance Review Committee. On March 12, 2003, the president of Del Mar at the time, Gustavo Valadez-Ortiz, directed that all materials relating to the grievance be forwarded to the Committee for review. Matula withheld some of the documents, including the statements provided by Mr. Benitez and another faculty member. Those statements supported some of Ms. Lopez’s complaints about Huegler and contained positive statements about Ms. Lopez.
17. The case came before the Committee on April 21, 2003. In an effort to justify the concealment of the statements, Matula asked Mr. Benitez to change the date of his statement. By changing the date, Matula wanted to make it appear that the statement was generated after the denial of the grievance. Thus, the statement would not be part of the record for the appeal. Benitez refused to forge the date on the statement. 18. At the hearing, Matula insisted under oath that she had received the statements long after the matter was out of her hands. The Committee found that Matula had given false testimony, that Matula had concealed documents, and that Ms. Lopez’s grievance was meritorious.
19. As provided by the rules of Del Mar, the Committee made a recommendation for remedial action to Vice President Jose Rivera. Rivera rejected the recommendation and findings of the Committee. In fact, Rivera attempted to whitewash the entire matter by dismissing the grievance on the ground that it was too vague, even though the rules of Del Mar do not authorize the dismissal of a grievance on that ground. Ms. Lopez appealed to then-President Jose Alaniz, who upheld Rivera’s decision.
20. Ms. Lopez then appealed the decision to the Board of Regents. Under the rules of Del Mar, the Board of Regents was obligated to make a written finding within forty-five days. The Board of Regents has a practice of delaying action on grievances of this sort, in the hope that the matter will become moot due to the graduation of the student. It has been over two years since Ms. Lopez appealed, and the Board of Regents has wholly failed to act, in violation of its own rules and in deliberate indifference to the existence of violations of the official policies of Del Mar and violations of the civil rights of members of the Del Mar community.
21. Despite the seriousness of these violations of due process, this was only the beginning. In fact, the most shocking conduct was yet to come. Dean Matula Begins a Campaign of Stalking and Harassment
22. Around the time of the Committee hearing, Matula began a series of remarkable actions in retaliation for (a) the assertion of constitutional rights by Ms. Lopez, (b) the truthful testimony and refusal to participate in a cover-up by Mr. Benitez, and (c) Mr. Benitez’s opposition to Matula’s candidacy for the position as president of Del Mar, which was soon to become open. Matula sought to embarrass and discredit Ms. Lopez and Mr. Benitez, to have Mr. Benitez fired, and to obtain revenge against Mr. Benitez and Ms. Lopez.
Van Wie refused to acknowledge her presence, and instead simply ignored her.
10. As of early 2003, Mr. Benitez was an assistant professor in the Criminal Justice department at Del Mar. Mr. Benitez had received excellent evaluations and was on his way to receiving a tenured position. As a former Border Patrol agent, Mr. Benitez used his connections within the law enforcement community to enhance the instruction of students and the reputation of the department.
11. As of early 2003, Ms. Lopez was a student in good standing at Del Mar pursuing her associate degree in Criminal Justice.
12. Less than two years later, Mr. Benitez had been shot, slandered, harassed, and finally terminated in a proceeding that made no serious attempt to provide due process or even to follow the procedures set forth in Del Mar’s policy manual. Meanwhile, Ms. Lopez had been stalked, harassed, slandered by a member of the Board of Regents as a “little Mexican whore,” and finally expelled without a hearing to block the investigation of sexual harassment charges that she made against the President of Del Mar. Mr. Benitez and Ms. Lopez now seek redress for the defendants’ misconduct. The Genesis of the Dispute: Ms. Lopez’s Grievance 13. In early February 2003, Ms. Lopez and two other Hispanic students were seeking course information from Karen Huegler, who is the secretary of Stonewall Van Wie, the chairman of the Criminal Justice department. The secretary had a track record of hostility and contempt toward Hispanic students, and on this occasion she was openly rude to the students. This led to a loud confrontation between Huegler and the students. 14. Several members of the department witnessed the incident, including Van Wie and Mr. Benitez. One of the students asked Van Wie to intervene, but Van Wie refused to acknowledge her presence, and instead simply ignored her.
11. As of early 2003, Ms. Lopez was a student in good standing at Del Mar pursuing her associate degree in Criminal Justice.
12. Less than two years later, Mr. Benitez had been shot, slandered, harassed, and finally terminated in a proceeding that made no serious attempt to provide due process or even to follow the procedures set forth in Del Mar’s policy manual. Meanwhile, Ms. Lopez had been stalked, harassed, slandered by a member of the Board of Regents as a “little Mexican whore,” and finally expelled without a hearing to block the investigation of sexual harassment charges that she made against the President of Del Mar. Mr. Benitez and Ms. Lopez now seek redress for the defendants’ misconduct. The Genesis of the Dispute: Ms. Lopez’s Grievance 13. In early February 2003, Ms. Lopez and two other Hispanic students were seeking course information from Karen Huegler, who is the secretary of Stonewall Van Wie, the chairman of the Criminal Justice department. The secretary had a track record of hostility and contempt toward Hispanic students, and on this occasion she was openly rude to the students. This led to a loud confrontation between Huegler and the students. 14. Several members of the department witnessed the incident, including Van Wie and Mr. Benitez. One of the students asked Van Wie to intervene, but Van Wie refused to acknowledge her presence, and instead simply ignored her.
Del Mar Dreams of perjury, forgery, attempted capital murder, and gross violations of procedural due process
This is the beginning of an information sharing / public exposure endeavor.
Introduction 9.
This case began with an incident in the offices of the Criminal Justice department at Del Mar during which an employee of Del Mar verbally abused three Hispanic students. Over the following months, that relatively minor incident mushroomed into a web of perjury, forgery, attempted capital murder, and gross violations of procedural due process. In their efforts to cover up a single violation of the civil rights of three students, the defendants began a long series of illegal actions that have caused unconscionable harm to two individuals who did nothing to harm Del Mar and who merely exercised their constitutional rights.
Introduction 9.
This case began with an incident in the offices of the Criminal Justice department at Del Mar during which an employee of Del Mar verbally abused three Hispanic students. Over the following months, that relatively minor incident mushroomed into a web of perjury, forgery, attempted capital murder, and gross violations of procedural due process. In their efforts to cover up a single violation of the civil rights of three students, the defendants began a long series of illegal actions that have caused unconscionable harm to two individuals who did nothing to harm Del Mar and who merely exercised their constitutional rights.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Does John Kelly Wanna be "IN THE KNOW"? "We Know, We're From Here"
Thursday, May 25, 2006
WATTA YALL EXTREME RIGHT WINGERS SKEERED OF....
Posted on May 26, 2006 at 01:53:41 AM
by Jaime Kenedeno
WATTA YALL SKEERED OF ERIC.....
5/26/2006 12:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We The People"?
or
"Moctemoc's Door"?
WELCOME!
"Engaging the average citizen in the formulation of Public Policy" is our mission @ Team Kenedeno.
"The Net is a powerful force for change -- and a dynamic tool for citizen education and action. Read the latest research on citizen participation online, the stories and experiences of coalitions, corporate clients, and others working in the cyber trenches, and discover the potential to become an active participant in online democracy."
Cant yall guys feel that rumble?
The City Council and Loyd Neal are fixin to take a tumble.
Is it true the company that hires city employees is insured by LLoyd?
Not of London either!
Remember Eric, my goal is to engage the average citizen in the formulation of public policy.
Are you against informing the Public in a balanced manner?
WATT Rule did I violate so as to be censored?
If you are against Freedom of Speech then erase ME.
We will take everything we brought to the morning and evening ratings.
Except Tuesday with "El Defenzor Live".
"We Know We're From Here"
WATTA YALL EXTREME RIGHT WINGERS SKEERED OF....
Posted on May 26, 2006 at 01:53:41 AM
by Jaime Kenedeno
WATTA YALL SKEERED OF ERIC.....
5/26/2006 12:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We The People"?
or
"Moctemoc's Door"?
WELCOME!
"Engaging the average citizen in the formulation of Public Policy" is our mission @ Team Kenedeno.
"The Net is a powerful force for change -- and a dynamic tool for citizen education and action. Read the latest research on citizen participation online, the stories and experiences of coalitions, corporate clients, and others working in the cyber trenches, and discover the potential to become an active participant in online democracy."
Cant yall guys feel that rumble?
The City Council and Loyd Neal are fixin to take a tumble.
Is it true the company that hires city employees is insured by LLoyd?
Not of London either!
Remember Eric, my goal is to engage the average citizen in the formulation of public policy.
Are you against informing the Public in a balanced manner?
WATT Rule did I violate so as to be censored?
If you are against Freedom of Speech then erase ME.
We will take everything we brought to the morning and evening ratings.
Except Tuesday with "El Defenzor Live".
"We Know We're From Here"
Walter Winchell (April 7, 1897 – February 20, 1972),He broke the journalistic taboo against exposing the private lives of public figures, permanently
Legacy
It would be difficult to overestimate the effects Walter Winchell continues to have on American politics and popular culture. It has become a commonplace to say that America has a "culture of celebrity." Anyone contemplating a career in either entertainment or politics must assume that their every secret will be revealed and will likely be portrayed in the worst possible light. They can also count on being the subject of false gossip from time to time.
It would be difficult to overestimate the effects Walter Winchell continues to have on American politics and popular culture. It has become a commonplace to say that America has a "culture of celebrity." Anyone contemplating a career in either entertainment or politics must assume that their every secret will be revealed and will likely be portrayed in the worst possible light. They can also count on being the subject of false gossip from time to time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
August 2, 2007
kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13 - you are a total hipocrit! You judge others so harshly while doing the very thing you claim you hate. Every morning your SPAM emails jam my computer up at work and I can't get my work done for about 5 - 10 minutes until your crap finishes downloading (kinda like you did with this opinion section). When asked to stop emailing the DMC campus you don't even reply or stop. You think you are so justified in raising a stink- but when others don't want to hear your opinion you cram it in their face anyway. YWith your approach - even if what you are saying is true- no one wants to hear it because it's SO obnoxiously done. You need to get the log out of your own eye.