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?
3 comments:
i guess all is quiet on the "DMC" front!
nikkantvic said...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
8:18 PM
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???????
Post a Comment