Sanction underway
President Walker targeted
In a surprising move, members of the Los Medanos College Associated Students attempted to sanction AS President Gary Walker during the Feb. 23 board meeting.
“I was totally caught off-guard, bamboozled you might say,” said Walker in response to the motion.
Walker received the official notification of intent to sanction from AS Senator Sable Horton via email Sunday, Feb. 22 after first being notified the previous Thursday of an impending “senator sanction” agenda request.
“There was no description to what the agenda item was going to be, so I asked in email form the description and I didn’t get one,” said Walker, who as president, prepares the agenda for each meeting.
He later spoke to AS Officer Diona Shelbourne, and said she told him that an officer was to be sanctioned.
“I thought, there’s only three of us, so it’s me,” said Walker.
The letter was signed by AS Vice President Candice Tidwell, Sen. Taima Miller, Shelbourne and Horton.
In the letter, Walker is accused of violating two AS bylaws:
Section XII A 3. Misconduct/unprofessionalism at any meeting or event sponsored by the LMCAS.
Section XII A 4. Misrepresentation of the LMCAS or the individual role within the LMCAS.
A packed-house of more than 30 people attended, many at the last-minute request of Walker to show support for his defense.
After a motion to move the sanction up to the beginning of the meeting by Horton failed to garner the required two-thirds majority vote, a member of the public requested that the board suspend the motion indefinitely.
Keith Montes, Diablo Valley College AS board member, was in attendance to support Walker. “He stood up a lot,” said student Yetunde Oguleye, adding, “He would remind [the board] of a law they were ignoring.”
Instead, Shelbourne rescheduled the action for the March 9 AS agenda.
“Officer Shelbourne motioned for it to be suspended until March 9 because I’m at March in March,” said Walker.
Shelbourne asked that the motion to sanction be rescheduled for the March 2 meeting in his absence, but was advised against such action by Dave Belman, dean of student success.
The four members of the senate cited in the sanction letter that “tone of voice, facial expressions given, or even rolling of the eyes have been noticed.”
Despite declining to comment on the current sanction actions, AS faculty Adviser Demetria Lawrence said that “professionalism in meetings has been an issue since the fall.”
According to meeting minutes posted online, the issue of “professionalism and conduct” appeared once during the fall semester, at the Oct. 20, 2014 meeting. The attempted sanctioning at the Feb. 23 board meeting was the second time this issue was officially addressed.
“I was informed that a sanction was coming forth to the senate and was asked about the sanction process,” said Lawrence, who prefers not to discuss the action at this time, but rather let the process run its course.
“I am refraining from giving my opinion as to remain neutral,” she said.
In the sanction letter the four members of the senate also claimed that a problem resulting from Walker’s alleged misdeeds is that “members of our board are reluctant to even speak out about your conduct because they are uncomfortable.”
“This becomes an issue since their voice not being heard would also mean the students aren’t being heard,” they continued.
The letter, however, contains no specific examples of unprofessional behavior regarding vocal tonality, facial expressions, eye-rolling or anything else.
“Should the senate have [provided detailed proof], and I was clearly out of line, I perhaps would have handed in my resignation,” said Walker.
Walker plans to use these proceedings as a learning experience. He said he would like to be involved with public service in the future, and learning from experience now may prove useful in his future career.
Horton, and Miller who was just appointed as a senator Feb 16, both refused to comment when approached by reporters in numerous attempts to clarify the allegations against Walker, while Shelbourne said that they were going to take the discussion to the senate.
Contrary to the contents of the sanction letter, members of LMC’s administration said Walker has been an asset to the college.
“I’ve always had a positive personal and business relationship with Gary,” said LMC President Bob Kratochvil, adding, “He has been a good campus representative.”
Kiran Kamath, senior dean of planning and institutional effectiveness, has worked with Walker on various projects, including accreditation.
She said that she has always “found him to be polite” and was impressed on how well he ran the meetings that she attended.
“He’s been very supportive of the college,” said Kamath.
Letters defending Walker have begun to pile up in response to the pending sanction motion. As of press time, Walker said he had received 14 letters of support from various sources including LMC students, AS members from other colleges (Santa Rosa Junior College and Norco Community College), board members from the Student Senate of California Community Colleges and even the March in March Taskforce.
Part of Walker’s duties as AS president includes building relationships and working with external organizations and student bodies.
Following are selected excerpts from a few letters of support:
“I do question the true purpose of the ‘unprofessionalism’ charge. Where do we draw the line at what constitutes as unprofessional? Sneezing without saying ‘excuse me’? Yelling or berating an individual? Or worse? This is a decision for your board, personally for my senate, I wouldn’t be using time for a sanction on tones of voice, facial expressions, or eye-rolling,” said Joshua Pinaula, Santa Rosa Junior College AS president.
“In all of my dealings with Mr. Walker, he has displayed the utmost respect and professionalism. Even under states of pressure, Mr. Walker has performed with dignity and diplomacy. Never have I witnessed any type of behavior which was hurtful to others. On the contrary, Mr. Walker has been a voice of reason and logic while remaining sensitive to the diverse demographics we have [to] encounter with the California Community College shared governance processes,” said Keith Montes, Diablo Valley College AS board member and former president.
“I have worked with Gary the past two semesters in Allies and I can full heartedly say he cares about the people around him and his only goal is to be the voice of the fellow students. He wants LMC to thrive and become a stronger community. His work ethic is admirable, he’s very disciplined, and he’s a hard worker. He always goes above and beyond and out of his way to help those around him and that is a characteristic we need in every community,” said LMC student and Allies Club President Claudia Vasquez.
While the letter notified Walker of the intent to call for him to be sanctioned, noticeably missing is the punishment sought.
Nowhere in the letter does it explain whether Walker is to simply be warned, removed from office, removed from the board or even suspended as the bylaws allow.
“If sanctions are imposed on a member of the LMCAS Senate, the implications of those sanctioned would be dependent on the specific sanctions that LMCAS decided upon,” said Belman.
The four will again attempt to sanction Walker March 9.
“Hopefully, dialogue will be positive,” said Kratochvil.
A selection of letters of support, the Oct. 20, 2014 minutes, along with the sanction letter and a copy of the AS bylaws can be accessed below.
AS BYLAWS:
SANCTION LETTER:
OCTOBER 20, 2014 MINUTES:
SELECTION OF SUPPORT LETTERS:
Hi! My name is Joseph Delano. I am 27-years-old, hailing all the way from Bethel Island. I have been at Los Medanos College for 8 years… for you math...
I started writing for this paper in 2013. Since then, I’ve held a variety of positions on this paper. My only goal is help my fellow writers as well...
I'm very excited to be working on the staff of the Experience. I continue to enjoy my position as a Sports Photographer and Staff Writer...
Aaron Taggert
Mar 5, 2015 at 9:11 am
Parliamentary Opinion
March 4th 2015
Background
Four Senators of Los Medanos College Associated Students (LMCAS) attempted to sanction President Gary Walker by writing a letter (hereinafter “The Letter”) addressed to the same.
I am Aaron Taggert, Executive Member of the California State Association of Parliamentarians, Executive Member of the California Southern Area Parliamentarians, and member of the National Association of Parliamentarians. However, this opinion should be viewed as my own opinion and not representative of any organization that I am a part of.
Deficiencies of the Letter Incorrect use of “boards’”
While trivial, the apostrophe should be between the ‘d’ and the ‘s’. The Bylaws don’t define the board so I’ll assume the twelve members of LMCAS. President Walker is a member of the ‘board’ so a Letter to him about what has come before the “board’s” attention is rather redundant.
Hypocracy of Professionalism
The Letter makes claims about President Walker’s professionalism. Merriam-Webster defines professionalism as “”the skill, good judgment, and polite behavior that is expected from a person who is trained to do a job well”. The Letter does not state the specific occasions of unprofessionalism but does generally refer to “[t]he tone of voice, facial expressions given, or even[missing comma] rolling of the eyes” as having ‘been noticed’. Since there is no evidence thereof these claims should be ignored as baseless.
The Letter is riddled with unprofessionalism. It contains grammar unfit for a student of college level never mind four students of college level. Spelling, structure, spacing, capitalization, etc, are all incorrectly used. The Letter contains nearly incomprehensible language, such as, “… the Board is asking that you be sanction….” [sic]. President Walker is never referred to properly by title in the body of the Letter but is referred to directly as “you”, “your”, and “yourself”.
Hypocracy of Misrepresentation
Experience article, ‘Sanction underway: President Walker Targeted’ states that President “Walker received the official notification of intent to sanction from AS Senator Sable Horton via email Sunday, Feb. 22 after first being notified the previous Thursday of an impending “senator sanction” agenda request.” – [emphasis added] https://lmcexperience.com/news/2015/02/26/sanction-under-way/#sthash.F0PgDRo0.dpuf
I shall assume the four ‘signatories’ of the Letter represented the above ‘official’ actions to the Experience. Only the President may represent LMCAS and its official actions. Bylaw VI E “1. The President shall be the Chief Executive Officer and the official representative of the LMCAS.” Furthermore official action of LMCAS is action authorized at a properly agendized meeting. Official action requires a main motion and a passing vote. President Walker is required “[t]o protect the assembly from obviously dilatory motions by refusing to recognize them (39)” and to “authenticate by his… signature… all acts, orders, and proceedings of…” LMCAS. – RONR pg 450.
The Letter, itself, misrepresents public members, students, the ‘Board’ and possibly the four signatories. No actions of any group are valid without authority, somewhere, granted by a majority vote. The actions of the signatories in the Letter should be considered null and void due to a lack of authority. The signatories should be advised against proceeding unofficially as doing so may violate the Brown Act, the penalty for which is a misdemeanor.
Picking Nits
The Experience reads “I do question the true purpose of the ‘unprofessionalism’ charge. Where do we draw the line at what constitutes as unprofessional? Sneezing without saying ‘excuse me’? Yelling or berating an individual? Or worse? This is a decision for your board, personally for my senate, I wouldn’t be using time for a sanction on tones of voice, facial expressions, or eye-rolling,” said Joshua Pinaula, Santa Rosa Junior College AS president. – https://lmcexperience.com/news/2015/02/26/sanction-under-way/#sthash.F0PgDRo0.dpuf
If LMCAS is going to hold such high standards and split such small hairs the entire board should resign and allow me and a few of my friends to govern as we are likely the few who can accomplish anything under such nonsensical terms. Until then it is recommended that only substansial violations of RONR and the following be grounds for removal of the President:
“1. The President shall be the Chief Executive Officer and the official representative of the LMCAS. The President shall be an ex-officio member of all LMC and District-wide Committees that have student representation. The President will chair all Senate meetings. The President shall only vote in the case of a tie, unless the Senate has three or fewer members, then the President becomes a voting member of the Senate until there are more than three members. The President shall prepare all Agendas for the Senate meetings per Brown Act regulations. The President shall post both the agenda and minutes for the Senate meetings per Brown Act Regulations. The President shall be responsible for coordinating and tracking student representation on all LMC and District-wide committees and shall coordinate all research, evaluation, development, and application of student issues approved by the Senate. The President shall serve on the Shared Governance Committee as a voting member, and shall have other powers and perform such other duties as may be assigned by the Senate or these Bylaws. The President shall serve on the Student Trustee Advisory Council (STAC).The President or his/her designee shall also serve on the District Governance Council (DGC). The President at the end of his/her term shall comprise a oral or written report that details the work of the Senate during his term.”
Brown Act Violations
It is clear that members of the ‘Board’ are meeting outside of the public light. Serial meetings are clearly prohibited. The ‘Board’ is advised to seek training in the Brown Act and its application to LMCAS and members thereof.
Misunderstanding the Process
The relevant part of LMCAS Bylaws read:
“VII. SANCTIONS
Cause for Sanction
Violation of any of the mandates of these bylaws
Missing more Senate/Planning meetings or Office Hours than allowed in the Stipend Guidelines
Misconduct/unprofessionalism at any meeting or event sponsored by the
LMCAS
Misrepresentation of the LMCAS or the individual role within the LMCAS
Neglecting duties/responsibilities as outlined within these bylaws
Violation of any federal or state laws, or CCCCD/LMC Policy
Election fraud
Allowable Sanctions
For all sanction votes, a 2/3 majority is required to pass.
Warning with or without Probationary period. This requires a written notice of wrongdoing and can have a period of time attached in which further violations may escalate the process to a higher sanction.
Removal from office or removal of privileges. This involves the taking away of position on Senate or any privileges including vote
Committee removal
Suspension. Any sanction of suspension must include the length of time and the status of the member’s vote during suspension.
Appeal Process
Once notified by Letter, the said member has 2 weeks to notify the President of his/her appeal;
All privileges (i.e. voting) will be placed on hold until the result of the appeal if rendered;
If said Senate member does not agree with the verdict of the appeal, the member may write a Letter and appeal to the College President.
Senators will have one (1) opportunity to appeal any suspensions or decisions made regarding their membership during their entire term of office.
The Bylaws of LMCAS are very poorly written and should, perhaps, be sanctioned themselves. Section A of Bylaw VII lists causes for ‘Sanction’. While Section B of that same Bylaw provides for allowable sanctions. Nothing within the Bylaws specifies the process i.e. how sanctions are charged and tried.
Therefore we must turn to RONR Pages 643 et seq “If there is an article on discipline in the bylaws, it may specify a number of offenses outside meetings for which these penalties can be imposed on a member… Formal disciplinary procedures should generally be regarded as a drastic step reserved for serious situations or those potentially so… It is usually in the best interests of the organization first to make every effort to obtain a satisfactory solution of the matter quietly and informally.”
Since officers serve a specified term (i.e. one year) RONR Pages 654 et seq are the controlling authority: “an officer can be removed from office only for cause – that is, neglect of duty in office or misconduct – in accordance with the procedures described in 63; that is, an investigating committee must be appointed, charges must be preferred, and a formal trial must be held.
It is a testament to President Walker that any of these actions have been entertained at all. The actions of the four ‘signatories’ are clearly dilatory as they do not follow correct procedure.
It should be noted that RONR says that removal should be reserved for serious offenses. Even if the actions of President walker are true are they serious? And, if serious are not all the officers guilty as well? Could not the four ‘signatories’ have be charged with the same as they claim against President Walker as they have misrepresented LMCAS by purporting to have issued official notice and have acted unprofessionally?
Advice
All interested parties are referred to Chapter XX RONR to further understand Disciplinary Procedures. President Walker should rule as dilatory any incorrect attempt to remove officers.
Aaron Taggert
Joshua Pinaula
Feb 28, 2015 at 2:39 am
Great journalism, very thorough! I’m going to share this story w/ my college’s student newspaper! http://www.theoakleafnews.com/