Fwd: [Hector P Garcia Institute of Education, Integrity, Culture and Public Policy...

Brent,

On further thought, it is evident from the result that the negotiating skills of Mr Morales are not his forte. Furthermore, his negotiations with Telemundo resulted in only slight and usurpation of the AGIF Body, the resolution, and the National Civil Rights Director (Joe A Ortiz). Mr Ortiz is an expert negotiator and has produced many favorable outcomes for the causes of the Little People. It is out of personal benefit for Mr Morales to display such inept representation of the Hispanic Community, the American Warrior and the noble causes in which they defend. One suggestion would be to allow Mr Joe A Ortiz to act in the capacity for which he represents. Representation and respect, we expect it.

Dr Hector P Garcia,..... would he have accepted the slice of pie that Tony Morales brought home?
















Brent, In reponse to your reply below:

LULAC has in the past done the same thing on other issues like Telemundo and the Border Patrol GAG order, but it figures you would try to toot your horn.

On 8/30/07, Brent Wilkes < BWilkes@lulac.org> wrote:

Jaime,

Apparently you didn't read the entire email from Gayle or you would have noticed the paragraph that reads:

"Of the 14 HACR coalition members only LULAC has spoken out against the "secret agreement" made between Florentine Films, HACR and the AGIF by joining Defend the Honor in their latest news release. See "Defend the Honor news release 8-20-2007" at http://www.defendthehonor.org/ "

Congratulations Brent you get the first Cool Arrow Award.

While LULAC accepts corporate support, we would never sell out our community.

Brent A. Wilkes

National Executive Director

League of United Latin American Citizens

2000 L Street, NW, Suite 610

Washington , DC 20036

www.lulac.org

---

From: Jaime Kenedeno [mailto: kingalonzoalvarezdepinedaxiii@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:21 AM
To: ggarambula@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: HACR and the AGIF had a conflict of interests

Dear Little People and Vendidos,

We seem to have a problem with the integrity of our associations in Unity. I speak to the leaders of the AGIF, HACR and LULAC. We have encountered this problem when standing up to the Powers That Be. What problem, you might ask if you are one of the Leaders who are afraid to speak up to Corporations and Private entities who sponsor the AGIF, HACR and LULAC. Where are your cajones?

We the Little People see nothing of the Corporate high octane dollars but we see the result in the negotiations. To say anything else, will be insulting the intelligence of the group receiving this email. If the shoe fits. Shall we single you out? I mean the vendidos in receipt of this email, you know who you are. To the rest of us, lets keep on telling the emperor he is naked and lets do things right when we elect leaders next time.

Respectfully,

Kenedeno

From: Gayle Arambula

Subject: Fwd: HACR and the AGIF had a conflict of interests

FYI,

Comments for defend the Honor

29 August 2007

Hola mis amigos,

After a bit of online research I have come up with some data which brings into question whether HACR and the AGIF had a conflict of interests in negotiating with Ken Burns and Florentine Films. This info also suggests that perhaps our history has been "sold out" to corporate interests.

Let me lay the foundation by pointing out that Ken Burns' documentary "The War" has several types of sponsorships. The fist type is public funding which was provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities. The second type is private funding which was provided by Lilly Endowment, Inc. and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The third type is corporate sponsorship which was provided by GM General Motors, Budweiser Anheuser-Busch Companies, and Bank of America.

HACR - the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility lists among its "corporate members" GM General Motors, Anheuser-Busch Companies, and Bank of America on its website at http://www.hacr.org/alliance/pageID.58/default.asp

AGIF - the American GI Forum lists as its corporate sponsors GM General Motors and Anheuser-Busch Companies on its website at

http://www.americangiforum.org/

Additionally, HACR's current board of directors (aka coalition members) is comprised of 16 members represented by 14 different Hispanic organizations. Tony Morales, the National Commander is on the HACR Board as the representative of the AGIF. A list of HACR's current board membership can be found at http://www.hacr.org/alliance/ and links to all of its coalition members can be found at http://www.hacr.org/alliance/pageID.24/default.asp

Of the 14 Hispanic organizations represented by HACR, 6 of them list as corporate sponsors at least two of the 3 corporate sponsors of Ken Burns documentary "The War". They are:

(1) United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce - corporate sponsors GM General Motors, Budweiser Anheuser-Busch Companies, and Bank of America listed at http://www.ushcc.com/mem-partne.html

(2) MENTóR, The National Hispanic Employee Network - corporate sponsor GM General Motors listed at http://www.mentores.org/sponsors.html

(3) Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities - corporate sponsor GM General Motors listed at http://www.hacu.net/hacu/2007_Partners_EN.asp?SnID=1468511495

(4) Cuban American National Council - corporate sponsors GM General Motors, Budweiser Anheuser-Busch Companies, and Bank of America listed at http://www.cnc.org/about/sponsers.htm

(5) American GI Forum of the United States - corporate sponsors GM General Motors, and Budweiser Anheuser-Busch Companies, listed at http://www.americangiforum.org/

(6) National Council of La Raza - corporate sponsors GM General Motors, and Bank of America, listed at http://www.nclr.org/section/corporate_partners/programmatic_supporters/

and at http://www.nclr.org/section/corporate_partners/institutional_corporate/

Additionally, on its website, Anheuser-Busch lists as its community partners HACR plus the following 7 HACR members: the American GI Forum, ASPIRA, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, the Cuban American National Council, LULAC, the National Association of Hispanic Publications, the National Puerto Rican Coalition. To get to this site you will have to go to

http://www.latinobud.com/scripts/index.asp and enter your birth date, after that follow the links to "Community Partners". GM General Motors and Bank of America do not list any of the HACR coalition member on their webpage's.

Of the 14 HACR coalition members only LULAC has spoken out against the "secret agreement" made between Florentine Films, HACR and the AGIF by joining Defend the Honor in their latest news release. See "Defend the Honor news release 8-20-2007" at

http://www.defendthehonor.org/ Many other Hispanic organizations are listed on this news release as well.

In addition, HACR, because of its mission, is inherently intertwined with Corporate America and works to "advance the inclusion of Hispanics in Corporate America at levels commensurate with our economic contributions". See HACR's history at http://www.hacr.org/about/ which goes on to state "As Corporate America sets out to create shareholder value, HACR will continue to be at the forefront in supporting corporations that make a commitment, do the work, and produce favorable results relative to total Hispanic inclusion". HACR goes on to state "For HACR and the Hispanic community, a company's reputation and goodwill is based on its ability to promote reciprocity in all areas of the company's business model. To ensure the continued support and patronage of the Hispanic community, a company should strive to employ Hispanics, contract with Hispanic-owned businesses, support Hispanic-serving organizations, and utilize Hispanic talent to lead its operations in roughly the same proportions that Hispanic consumers support the company."

So my questions are ... did HACR and the AGIF make a secret sweetheart deal with Florentine Films in an attempt to protect GM General Motors, Budweiser Anheuser-Busch Companies, and Bank of America's corporate interests and future corporate gifts to HACR coalition membership at the expense of our history? Have Hispanic contributions to America during WWII been trumped by Corporate America? Has our significance been sold out for token leadership, token contracts awarded to minority-owned businesses, and hush money in the guise of "corporate giving " for Hispanic-serving organizations? If you have never read Rodolfo "Corky" Gonzalez's epic poem "I am Joaquin" here is a link. It is as relevant today as it was in 1967. see http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/latinos/joaquin.htm

The next question is this .... were HACR and the AGIF the right groups to enter into "negotiations" in the first place? After reading the joint press release put out by HACR, the AGIF, Florentine Films and "The War" aka Ken Burns it is clear that all parties had agreed that individual stories about Hispanics could "be incorporated in a way consistent with the film's focus on individual experiences and in a way that means nothing in the film that already exists will be changed". So what was accomplished except to agree to place the Hispanic experience at the end and in-between as footnotes and endnotes to a story that is equally ours?

It is obvious that nothing will change at this point, but we can change and we can expect those who provide funding for projects to change. Is there Hispanic representation on the governing and decision-making bodies who provided funding for "The War"? That is National Endowment for the Humanities, Lilly Endowment, Inc., the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,. GM General Motors, Budweiser Anheuser-Busch Companies, and Bank of America? and let's not forget PBS board who has agreed to air "The War"? If there is they either weren't doing their jobs, or they weren't listened to. So in my own humble opinion, what we need to do is demand representation on these bodies. Had Hispanic interests been represented adequately on these bodies to begin with we would not have found ourselves in this ridiculous situation .

Gayle Arambula

San Antonio, Texas

ggarambula@yahoo.com

From: Jess Quintero

This is as good as it gets! Senator Larry Craig says he isn't gay, then his wife goes to a press conference with him, I wonder if she is a Transsexual!

In Katrina , we know that "Friends of Bush" are some of the companies that are benefiting from the contracts! We also know that some of the construction money designated for the low income is going to the higher income bracket people's homes. I wonder who's bed the Governor is sleeping and in which one of the government TRAILERS!

We also know that the DOD is still paying big $$$$ for toilet seats and other miniscule items even after investigations. I wonder whose friends those contractor's are and if Senator Larry Craig was sitting on one when he was playing footsie in the airport bathroom.

Now comes the exposure of the Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign people taking shady campaign money that includes the same financial people that Wild Bill had on his campaign. The worst part is the Chinese money ($250,000?) that is being laundered through an American who only makes $45,000 a year!

My point is that we can't trust our very own people, the white house and politicians!

Jess Quintero

HWVA President

--
Posted By The Advocate to Hector P Garcia Institute of Education, Integrity, Culture and Public Policy at 8/30/2007 05:36:00 PM

--
Kenedeno & Associates

Re: HACR and the AGIF had a conflict of interests

Dear Little People and Vendidos,

We seem to have a problem with the integrity of our associations in Unity. I speak to the leaders of the AGIF, HACR and LULAC. We have encountered this problem when standing up to the Powers That Be. What problem, you might ask if you are one of the Leaders who are afraid to speak up to Corporations and Private entities who sponsor the AGIF, HACR and LULAC. Where are your cajones?

We the Little People see nothing of the Corporate high octane dollars but we see the result in the negotiations. To say anything else, will be insulting the intelligence of the group receiving this email. If the shoe fits. Shall we single you out? I mean the vendidos in receipt of this email, you know who you are. To the rest of us, lets keep on telling the emperor he is naked and lets do things right when we elect leaders next time.

Respectfully,

Kenedeno
 

Subject: Fwd: HACR and the AGIF had a conflict of interests

FYI,

Comments for defend the Honor

 

29 August 2007

 

Hola mis amigos,

 

After a bit of online research I have come up with some data which brings into question whether HACR and the AGIF had a conflict of interests in negotiating with Ken Burns and Florentine Films. This info also suggests that perhaps our history has been "sold out" to corporate interests.

 

Let me lay the foundation by pointing out that Ken Burns' documentary "The War" has several types of sponsorships. The fist type is public funding which was provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities. The second type is private funding which was provided by Lilly Endowment, Inc. and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The third type is corporate sponsorship which was provided by GM General Motors, Budweiser Anheuser-Busch Companies, and Bank of America.

 

HACR - the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility lists among its "corporate members" GM General Motors, Anheuser-Busch Companies, and Bank of America on its website at http://www.hacr.org/alliance/pageID.58/default.asp

 

AGIF - the American GI Forum lists as its corporate sponsors GM General Motors and Anheuser-Busch Companies on its website at

http://www.americangiforum.org/

 

Additionally, HACR's current board of directors (aka coalition members) is comprised of 16 members represented by 14 different Hispanic organizations. Tony Morales, the National Commander is on the HACR Board as the representative of the AGIF. A list of HACR's current board membership can be found at http://www.hacr.org/alliance/  and links to all of its coalition members can be found at http://www.hacr.org/alliance/pageID.24/default.asp

 

Of the 14 Hispanic organizations represented by HACR, 6 of them list as corporate sponsors at least two of the 3 corporate sponsors of Ken Burns documentary "The War". They are:

 

(1) United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce - corporate sponsors GM General Motors, Budweiser Anheuser-Busch Companies, and Bank of America listed at http://www.ushcc.com/mem-partne.html

 

(2) MENTóR, The National Hispanic Employee Network - corporate sponsor GM General Motors listed at http://www.mentores.org/sponsors.html

 

(3) Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities - corporate sponsor GM General Motors listed at http://www.hacu.net/hacu/2007_Partners_EN.asp?SnID=1468511495

 

(4) Cuban American National Council - corporate sponsors GM General Motors, Budweiser Anheuser-Busch Companies, and Bank of America listed at http://www.cnc.org/about/sponsers.htm

 

(5) American GI Forum of the United States - corporate sponsors GM General Motors, and Budweiser Anheuser-Busch Companies, listed at http://www.americangiforum.org/

 

(6) National Council of La Raza - corporate sponsors GM General Motors, and Bank of America, listed at http://www.nclr.org/section/corporate_partners/programmatic_supporters/

and at http://www.nclr.org/section/corporate_partners/institutional_corporate/

 

Additionally, on its website, Anheuser-Busch lists as its community partners HACR plus the following 7 HACR members: the American GI Forum, ASPIRA, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, the Cuban American National Council, LULAC, the National Association of Hispanic Publications, the National Puerto Rican Coalition. To get to this site you will have to go to

http://www.latinobud.com/scripts/index.asp  and enter your birth date, after that follow the links to "Community Partners". GM General Motors and Bank of America do not list any of the HACR coalition member on their webpage's.

 

Of the 14 HACR coalition members only LULAC has spoken out against the "secret agreement" made between Florentine Films, HACR and the AGIF by joining Defend the Honor in their latest news release. See "Defend the Honor news release 8-20-2007" at

http://www.defendthehonor.org/  Many other Hispanic organizations are listed on this news release as well.

 

In addition, HACR, because of its mission, is inherently intertwined with Corporate America and works to "advance the inclusion of Hispanics in Corporate America at levels commensurate with our economic contributions". See HACR's history at http://www.hacr.org/about/  which goes on to state "As Corporate America sets out to create shareholder value, HACR will continue to be at the forefront in supporting corporations that make a commitment, do the work, and produce favorable results relative to total Hispanic inclusion". HACR goes on to state "For HACR and the Hispanic community, a company's reputation and goodwill is based on its ability to promote reciprocity in all areas of the company's business model. To ensure the continued support and patronage of the Hispanic community, a company should strive to employ Hispanics, contract with Hispanic-owned businesses, support Hispanic-serving organizations, and utilize Hispanic talent to lead its operations in roughly the same proportions that Hispanic consumers support the company."

 

So my questions are ... did HACR and the AGIF make a secret sweetheart deal with Florentine Films in an attempt to protect GM General Motors, Budweiser Anheuser-Busch Companies, and Bank of America's corporate interests and future corporate gifts to HACR coalition membership at the expense of our history? Have Hispanic contributions to America during WWII been trumped by Corporate America? Has our significance been sold out for token leadership, token contracts awarded to minority-owned businesses, and hush money in the guise of "corporate giving " for Hispanic-serving organizations? If you have never read Rodolfo "Corky" Gonzalez's epic poem "I am Joaquin" here is a link. It is as relevant today as it was in 1967. see http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/latinos/joaquin.htm  

The next question is this .... were HACR and the AGIF the right groups to enter into "negotiations" in the first place? After reading the joint press release put out by HACR, the AGIF, Florentine Films and "The War" aka Ken Burns it is clear that all parties had agreed that individual stories about Hispanics could "be incorporated in a way consistent with the film's focus on individual experiences and in a way that means nothing in the film that already exists will be changed". So what was accomplished except to agree to place the Hispanic experience at the end and in-between as footnotes and endnotes to a story that is equally ours?

 

It is obvious that nothing will change at this point, but we can change and we can expect those who provide funding for projects to change. Is there Hispanic representation on the governing and decision-making bodies who provided funding for "The War"? That is National Endowment for the Humanities, Lilly Endowment, Inc., the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,. GM General Motors, Budweiser Anheuser-Busch Companies, and Bank of America? and let's not forget PBS board who has agreed to air "The War"? If there is they either weren't doing their jobs, or they weren't listened to. So in my own humble opinion, what we need to do is demand representation on these bodies. Had Hispanic interests been represented adequately on these bodies to begin with we would not have found ourselves in this ridiculous situation .

 

Gayle Arambula

San Antonio, Texas

ggarambula@yahoo.com

---

Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!

--
Kenedeno & Associates

Re: FOIA request

On 8/28/07, Alberto Benitez <abenitez_64@yahoo.com> wrote:

alberto benitez

159 e cr 2130

Kingsville,Texas

78363

Date: August 28,2007

Texas A&M Kingsville University

Kingsville, Texas, 78363

Dear Officer for Public Records/Sgt. Garcia

        This request is made under the Texas Public Information Act, Chapter 552, Texas Government Code, which guarantees the public's access to information in the custody of governmental agencies.  I respectfully request copies, internal administrative documents relative to the alleged Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards  investigation which was stated by Chief Sandra Jefferson on or about January 2007 this was stated to Sgt. Garcia and Officer Ryan Hale. The information was forwarded to this officer. :Statements were made by Chief Jefferson on or about January 2007 concerning an on-going investigation by her Chief Ricardo Torres KPD, and others. It is imperative that FOIA request all the alleged parties involved in this TCLEOSE investigation which the Texas commission has NO RECORD of?

        All documents, call logs via TAMUK phones, and/or official cell phones relative to this "so-called" TCLEOSE investigation concerning this officer alberto benitez. All  documents, letters, memorandum, reports etc. Meeting schedules, itinerary for these alleged meetings with TCLEOSE investigators and/or any other "so-called" investigator(s) pertaining to the allegations by Chief Sandra Jefferson.

 It should be noted that a FOIA request has already been received from TCLEOSE concerning this particular event.

         In the interest of expediency, and to minimize the research and/or duplication burden on your staff, I would be pleased to personally examine the relevant records if you would grant me immediate access to the requested material.   Additionally, and since time is a factor, please communicate with me by United States Mail so that we may be in compliance with mail and wire fraud statutes.

  Disclosure of this information is in the public interest because providing a copy of the information primarily benefits the general public.  I therefore request a waiver of all fees and charges pursuant to Section 552.267 of the act.

        I shall look forward to hearing from you promptly, as specified in the law. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

Sincerely,

alberto benitez

§ 37.09. TAMPERING WITH OR FABRICATING PHYSICAL 
EVIDENCE.  (a) A person commits
 an offense if, knowing that an
 
investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he: 
  (1)  alters, destroys, or conceals any record, 
document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or 
availability as evidence in the investigation or official
 
proceeding;  or
  (2)  makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or  
thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the 
course or
 outcome of the investigation or official proceeding.
 (b)  This section shall not apply if the record, document, or 
thing concealed is privileged or is the work product of the parties  
to the investigation
 or official proceeding.
 (c)  An offense under Subsection (a) or Subsection (d)(1) is 
a felony of the third degree.  An
 offense under Subsection (d)(2) is 
a Class A misdemeanor. 
 (d)  A person commits an offense if the person:                                
  (1)  knowing that an offense
 has been committed, 
alters,
 destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with 
 intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as 
evidence in any subsequent investigation of or official proceeding 
related to the offense;  or
  
Acts 1973,
 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.   
Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 565, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 
1991;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;
  
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1284, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


  § 37.10. TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD.  (a) A 
person commits an offense if he:
  (1)  knowingly
 makes a false entry in, or false 
alteration of, a governmental record;
  (2)  makes, presents, or 
 uses any record, document, or 
thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken 
as a genuine governmental record;
  (3)  intentionally destroys, conceals,
 removes, or 
otherwise impairs the verity, 
 legibility, or availability of a 
governmental record;
  (4)  possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental 
record or a blank governmental record form with intent that it be 
used unlawfully;
  (5)  
 makes, presents, or uses a governmental record 
with knowledge of its falsity;  or
  (6)  possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental 
record or a blank governmental record form with knowledge that it  
was
 obtained unlawfully.
 (b)  It is an exception to the application of Subsection 
(a)(3) that the governmental record is destroyed pursuant to legal 
authorization or transferred under
 Section 441.204 , Government 
Code.  With regard to the destruction of a local government record,
 
legal authorization includes compliance with the provisions of 
Subtitle C, Title 6, Local Government Code. 
 (c)(1) Except as provided by Subdivisions (2) and (3) and by 
 
Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A
 
misdemeanor unless the actor's intent is to defraud or harm 
another, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.
  (2)  An offense under this section is a felony of the  
third degree if
 it is shown on the trial of the offense that the 
governmental record was a public school record, report, or 
assessment instrument required under Chapter 39, Education Code, or 
was a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, letter 
 of patent, 
or similar document issued by government, by another state, or by 
the United States, unless the actor's intent is to defraud or harm 
another, in which event the
 offense is a felony of the second  
degree.
  (3)  An offense under this section is a
 Class C 
misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the 
governmental record is a governmental record that is required for 
enrollment of a student in a school 
 district and was used by the 
actor to establish the residency of
 the student. 
 (d)  An offense under this section, if it is shown on the 
trial of the offense that the governmental record is described by  
Section 37.01(2)(D), is:
  (1)  a Class
 B misdemeanor if the offense is committed 
under Subsection (a)(2) or Subsection (a)(5) and the defendant is 
convicted of presenting or using the record;
  (2)  a felony of the third degree if the offense is  
committed under:        
   (A) 
 Subsection (a)(1), (3), (4), or (6);  or                                
   (B)  Subsection (a)(2) or (5) and the defendant is 
convicted of making the record;  and
  (3)  a 
 felony of the second degree, notwithstanding 
Subdivisions (1) and (2), if the
 actor's intent in committing the 
offense was to defraud or harm another.
 (e)  It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for  
possession under Subsection (a)(6) that the
 possession occurred in 
the actual discharge of official duties as a public
 servant.
 (f)  It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1), 
(a)(2), or (a)(5) that the false entry or false information could  
have no effect on the government's
 purpose for requiring the 
governmental record.
 (g)  A person is presumed to intend to defraud or harm 
another if the person acts with respect to two or more of the same  
type of governmental records or blank governmental record forms and 
if each governmental
 record or blank governmental record form is a 
license, certificate, permit, seal, title, or similar document 
issued by government. 
 (h)  If conduct that constitutes
 an offense under this 
section also constitutes an offense under
 Section 32.48 or 37.13, 
the actor may be prosecuted under any of those sections.
 (i)  With the consent of the appropriate local county or  
district attorney, the attorney general
 has concurrent 
jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to prosecute an
 
offense under this section that involves the state Medicaid 
program. 

---

Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.

--
Kenedeno & Associates

Fwd: [Hector P Garcia Institute of Education, Integrity, Culture and Public Policy...

In response to the press release below, I believe it is pertinent to divulge the rest of the story and a reason to continue to the demand for a full fledged VA Hospital. In the lower valley the facility on the table is a significant gesture ( that is all it is, is a gesture at this time) and a fully independent VA Hospital comparable with the one in SA must be placed in a more logistically strategic location so as to accommodate Veterans from below and above as well as laterally. Kingsville, Robstown, NASCC, NAS Ingleside, Driscoll or even Kenedy County. Located in a South most region all takers will either come from that region or from the North. That's just my opinion.

Thanks

Robert Seltzer: Vets say VA plan is only as real as the funding

Web Posted: 08/24/2007 04:14 PM CDT

San Antonio Express-News The veterans have seen the plan.

Now they want to see the money.

This is the plan: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs released the results of a comprehensive study that called for the expansion of the VA outpatient clinic in Harlingen.

And this is the money: Well, there is no money, not yet, and the lack of funding rankles the veterans.

The plan is ambitious — expanding the clinic into a health care center, a facility that would grow from 11,700 to 158,000 square feet by the end of 2010.

The funding for the center, to be located on the Harlingen campus of the UT Health Science Center, is equally ambitious — $110 million, to be allocated in three phases.

Unless Congress approves the money, however, the plan is just that, a plan, an architectural sketch without the bricks and mortar to turn the doodlings into reality.

The veterans have traveled this path before, following a trail of hope and optimism, only to wind up on a road that leads to the same dashed hopes.

So, yes, they have seen the plan, but the plan is not enough.

"Their attitude is 'Show me the money,'" Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said in a telephone interview. "I think that's the right response."

The senator requested the study, which was conducted by a Virginia company — Booz Allen Hamilton. The firm set out to determine if South Texas needs its own veterans hospital. Approximately 115,000 veterans live in the 60-county area south of San Antonio, and they did not need a study to come up with the answer: They need a hospital, period.

For most people, a visit to the doctor is a casual trip. Not for veterans in South Texas. The nearest veterans hospital is Audie Murphy in San Antonio — for many, a 600-mile round trip that turns what should be a short drive into a logistical nightmare.

The veterans have to make the appointment weeks or months in advance, and because many are disabled, they make the journey in vans provided by veterans service groups. And, as they pass each mile marker, they confront a painful irony. The trips exacerbate the aches and pains the veterans are so desperate to relieve.

"We've had quite enough reports," Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, said in a statement. "Veterans in the South Texas area know what is needed; time for reports has ended and time for action is needed."

Salvador Salinas, director of the veterans office in Cameron County, agreed.

"The main issue is that the money hasn't been allocated yet," Salinas said. "Where will the money come from? Government officials say they'll get it. But you know how Congress is. If the money comes, it would be a miracle."

Hutchison said it would take no miracle, just a lot of political will from her colleagues in Congress.

"It's up to us to get the machinery going," Hutchison, the ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, said. "We'll stay vigilant and make sure there's follow-through."

Some veterans are upset because the study recommended a health care center, not a full-fledged hospital, to replace the outpatient clinic. But the center will provide services they cannot get at the clinic — cataract removals, diagnostic colonoscopies, prostate biopsies. And if the veterans need hospital care, the plan calls for a partnership with private hospitals in the area.

"If the veterans get the care they need, it doesn't matter if you call it a center or a hospital," Salinas said. "The main issue is that the Valley has been ignored for too long."

While the initial funding requires congressional approval, legislators said the state could be obliged to help fund the operation once the facility is constructed.

"This is a facility in Texas," state Rep. Aaron Peña, D-Edinburg, said. "And, ultimately, the state of Texas has to fund some of the growth."

If politicians fail to act, the veterans will see it as another slap in the face — and rightly so. Being without hope is bad enough. But having hope, only to see it crushed, may be worse.

"I think this proposal is just the seed," Peña said. "And it will not blossom unless we hold the feet of the federal government to the fire. And it will not blossom unless state leaders follow through."

The battle is not over, and if anyone realizes that, it is the men and women who have already fought for their country.

---

rseltzer@express-news.net

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jaime Kenedeno <kingalonzoalvarezdepinedaxiii@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 21, 2007 6:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Hector P Garcia Institute of Education, Integrity, Culture and Public Policy...
To: kenedenonews@gmail.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The Advocate < kingalonzoalvarezdepinedaXIII@gmail.com >
Date: Aug 21, 2007 6:11 PM
Subject: [Hector P Garcia Institute of Education, Integrity, Culture and Public Policy...
To: kingalonzoalvarezdepinedaxiii@gmail.com

AMERICAN GI FORUM OF THE UNITED STATES

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE to all media entities and politicos

JUST IN FROM THE AMERICAN GI FORUM NATIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS DIRECTOR (JOE A ORTIZ):

Good morning,

This is good news for all the veterans in south Texas, the clinic is being
expanded to offer more services.


***VA Announces Heath Care Center in Harlingen*

***95 Percent of Drives to San Antonio Eliminated *

WASHINGTON (August 20, 2007) – A new Health Care Center in Harlingen
announced today by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will vastly
improve care to Valley veterans in South Texas, eliminating the vast
majority of trips required by veterans to VA medical facilities in San
Antonio. The plans will provide a new VA health care center on the
campus
of the University of Texas in Harlingen.

The announcement, which came after an independent study on the future
needs of Valley veterans requested by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison,
included
plans to expand services by VA health care facilities in McAllen and
Corpus
Christi.

"Once completed, the new health care center in Harlingen will
eliminate about 95 percent of the trips our veterans currently have to
make
to San Antonio for medical services," said Bill Feeley, VA's Deputy Under
Secretary of Health for Operations and Management. "This plan will allow
us
to start providing specialty services to Valley area veterans this year,
with even more expansion of services next year."

*The plans call for increasing the current VA health facility space in
Harlingen from 11,700 square feet to nearly 160,000 square feet by 2010.
** The expansion will begin immediately, with space tripling VA's
current space in Harlingen from 11,700 square feet to nearly 35,000
square
feet by December 2007, and then to nearly 56,000 square feet by December
2008. *

When the facility is completed, it will provide a full range of
expanded services in collaboration with the University of Texas Regional
Academic Health Center, including: - Specialty and diagnostic services, such as pharmacy, digital x-rays, CT scans, MRIs and other services; and - Outpatient surgeries, such as cataract removals, diagnostic colonoscopies and prostate biopsies, supported by
outpatient operating rooms.


# # #


To obtain a copy of the independent study of the health care needs of Valley
veterans, please go to this Internet address: *
http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/docs/stvcbm.pdf

CONTACT:

Joe A. Ortiz

3718 Mendenhall

Corpus Christi, TX 78415

-------------------------------------

(361) 510-6406 (361) 855-1925

#####

*Press Release Courtesy of Kenedeno & Associates*

--
Posted By The Advocate to Hector P Garcia Institute of Education, Integrity, Culture and Public Policy at 8/21/2007 03:41:00 PM

--
Kenedeno & Associates

--
Kenedeno & Associates

Junior John is saying WATT ever it takes to get a vote. New comment on Hector P Garcia Institute of Education, Integrity,....

Please Forward to K C Rove

Attn AGIF members, LULAC members and the Great State of Texas,

Dont be fooled by Junior John's election year promises. He has done nothing for Hispanics, for Veterans or for Education. This letter is a spin off of other letters with absolutely nothing new. It is as he sees it, an easy way to poke your eyes. Dont be fooled by Junior John. Dont be fooled by Ken Burns token 45 minutes either! Tony Morales did a poor JOB of negotiating with PBS on this issue.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The Advocate <noreply-comment@blogger.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2007 1:12 AM
Subject: [South Texas Verdad] New comment on  Hector P Garcia Institute of Education, Integrity,....
To: kingalonzoalvarezdepinedaxiii@gmail.com

The Advocate has left a new comment on your post " Hector P Garcia Institute of Education, Integrity,...":

Response @ http://www.wilsoncountynews.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=354&twindow=Default&mad=Yes&sdetail=16211&wpage=&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1000&hn=wilsoncountynews&he=.com

Junior John has done nothing for Veterans and nothing for Hispanics. Junior John is saying WATT ever it takes to get a vote.

Please read and feel free to respond to the articles at the links below as well as Junior John's voting record which highly contradicts the BS above.

http://hectorpgarcia.blogspot.com/2007/07/junior-john-voted-against-plan-for.html

http://stxv.blogspot.com/



Posted by The Advocate to South Texas Verdad at 11:12 PM

--
Kenedeno & Associates

Re: eeoc FOIA

Dear State Representatives, Congress Persons & US Senators,

Please assist Mr Albert Benitez in his inquest under the Freedom Of Information Act or other remedies available under the United States Constitution. This inquest is in the interest of the Public and will be followed diligently for the duration. Your assistance in this matter is appreciated and will be noted.

Thank You,

Anton

On 8/25/07, Alberto Benitez <abenitez_64@yahoo.com> wrote:

August 25,2007


Ms. Elaine L. Chao
U.S. Secretary of Labor ,

I have attempted to conduct an inquest under the Freedom Of Information Act , unfortunately I have been unsuccessful. Please read this FOIA request, and if it is not possible for your agency to recognize this act then please advise so I may take other action.


Respectfully Submitted,

alberto benitez






Alberto Benitez < abenitez_64@yahoo.com> wrote:

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alberto Benitez < abenitez_64@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fwd: eeoc FOIA
To: michele.olivarez@eeoc.gov

March 15, 2006

 

 

Please pass this on to your public information officer.

 

Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor

EEOC 

 

To the Administrator:

        This is an appeal under the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. On July(22, 2006, I made an FOI Act request for concerning an EEOC administrative investigation on Del Mar College Corpus Christi, Texas, your agency denied my request because up to this date I have not received one shred of documentation even though I have utilized U>S. mail communiques, as your administration requested. EEOC has failed to respond within the legal time limits, so I will turn this matter over to the Secretary of Labor to conduct an inquiry  . Copies of this correspondence are enclosed.

Please be informed that I consider the requested information clearly releasable under the FOI Act and consider your agency's denial to be arbitrary and capricious.

I trust that upon reconsideration, you will reverse the decision denying me access to this material and grant my original request. However, if you deny this appeal, I intend to to initiate a lawsuit to compel disclosure.

As I have made this request in the capacity as a victim of civil rights violation and a researcher of bureaucratic paradigm, and this information is of timely value, I will appreciate your expediting the consideration of my appeal in every way possible. In any case, I will expect to receive your decision within 20 business days, as required by law. Thank you for your assistance.

 

Sincerely,

 

al bebitez

159 E. CR 2130

Kingsville, Texsas 78363

Alberto Benitez < abenitez_64@yahoo.com> wrote:

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alberto Benitez < abenitez_64@yahoo.com>
Subject: eeoc FOIA
To: michele.olivarez@eeoc.gov

al benitez 159 e cr 2130 Kingsville, Texas 78363 July 27,2006 EEOC United States Department Of Labor Dear Freedom of Information Officers:         This request is made under the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. Please send me copies of ..the entire investigation based on your administrative investigator involving alberto benitez 467392880 and Melody Lopez this case involved civil rights violations. Also include protocol for these type of investigations as well as standard operating procedures for these types of investigations. Please include the entire credentials of these expert administrative investigators as well as all field notes, inquiries, subtle inquests, but not to seclude all factorial data which is relative to this entire investigation. The Freedom of Information Act, as you are aware, provides that if portions of a document are exempt, the remainder must be segregated and released. Therefore, I would appreciate your sending me all non-exempt portions of those records I have requested. Should you elect to withhold or delete any information, please justify your decision by referencing specific exemptions under the act. Under provisions of the FOI Act, I reserve the right to appeal should you determine to withhold any information sought in my request. I agree to pay reasonable search and/or duplication fees connected with my request.      While I am prepared to pay such reasonable fees, the FOI Act provides for a waiver or reduction of fees if disclosure could be considered as "primarily benefiting the general public." I am a victim of civil rights abuses as well as a researcher for others who's civil rights have also been violated. We will utilize this information for the ACLU, inquests among congress, as well as the Rainbow coalition, and the NAACP and plan to use the requested information in a planned article, book, broadcast,qualitative and quantitative analysis as this information is directly relative to the civil rights of the United States it is imperative that all information be as accurate as possible. Under the freedom of information act it is your responsibility to review this case in Federal Court. Our interest is solely on How your investigator came to a conclusion without talking to the persons who's rights were violated? We are requesting that all congressmen audit the entire EEOC investigative processes. Therefore, I ask that you waive all search and/or duplication costs. Should you deny my request for a waiver of fees,, please notify me of the charges so that I may decide whether to pay the fees or appeal your denial of my request for a waiver. Since I am making this request in my capacity as a victim of civil rights violations as well as a researcher and because this information is of a timely nature, I would appreciate your communicating with me by telephone rather than by mail if you have any questions regarding the request. Thank you for your cooperation. I look forward to receiving your reply within 10 business days, as provided by law.   Sincerely, alberto benitez 467392880 159 e cr 2130 Kingsville,Texas 78363 al.doc | File type: application/msword

Appeal of Alberto Benitez to the Board of Regents at Del Mar College

Submitted via Overnight Delivery on February 8, 2005

c/o Mr. Gabe Rivas, P. O. Box 5065, Corpus Christi, Texas 78465

Points of Appeal

      Alberto Benitez timely files this appeal of the decision by the President of Del Mar College to uphold the recommendation of the Faculty Review Panel that he be "discharged" from his position as a tenure-track instructor at Del Mar College. Mr. Benitez received notice of this decision by the President on January 31, 2005. The appeal of Mr. Benitez is based on five grounds, only the first three of which are discussed in detail in this appellate brief; the fourth and fifth points of appeal are self-evident from the limited description given in this Points of Appeal section of the brief: 

      First, the proceedings were unlawful because they violated governing Board policy;

      Second, Mr. Benitez was terminated under provisions of the Board Policy that were never given to him as a basis for his dismissal, which deprived him of due process and the opportunity to defend himself against those "charges;" 

      Third, the actions taken were a breach of Mr. Benitez' contract with Del Mar College ;

      Fourth, the hearing was conducted without Del Mar College providing the technician(s) and the equipment so that a verbatim transcription of the hearing could be made. (B6.7.5.5.1). This failure by Vice President Garcia to meet her obligations resulted in a virtually useless transcript of the hearing. Many of the most critical questions and answers do not appear in the transcript at all, or they are so poorly transcribed that it renders them useless for purposes of the appeal. There are, therefore, very few references to the transcript in this appeal, and even where references are made, the transcription is so poor that the context and the meaning of the questions and answers are barely discernible in most instances. There is no way that a member of the Board of Regents who attempts to read the transcript will be able to discern what actually transpired at the hearing; and

      Fifth, and finally, Mr. Benitez appeals because he was given such a restricted period of time to present his defense that he was deprived of all due process. When a faculty member's career is on the line, and a "fair hearing" is mandated, it is a cruel joke to say that the faculty member has one hour to present a defense. This is particularly true when the faculty member has been the subject of retaliatory actions by powerful members of the administration over the course of a year, for the specific purpose of finding a way to terminate his relationship with Del Mar College.

Point One – The Proceedings Violated Board Policy and Were Therefore Unlawful

      1. On January 10, 2005, proceedings initiated by Vice President Rosie Garcia on October 5, 2004 to dismiss Alberto Benitez from his position as a tenure-track instructor at Del Mar College were held. The only provisions of Del Mar Board Policy that were referenced as a basis for initiating his dismissal proceedings in the Notice of Intent to Dismiss were B5.11 and B6.7.5.3. The proceedings were initiated and heard by a panel of faculty members who were selected in accordance with the procedures set forth in B6.7.5.3.3 and the sub-sections that follow. Prior to their selection, and again after they were seated as a panel, counsel for Mr. Benitez objected that the proceedings had been unlawfully initiated by Vice President Garcia, and that consequently Mr. Benitez was being deprived of his due process and contract rights as a tenure-track instructor at the college.

      2. Under governing provisions of Board Policy B6.7.5.5.3, only grounds and alleged actions specified in the "Notice of Intent to Dismiss" shall be considered at the dismissal review hearing. Despite this prohibition against initiating a "sneak attack" against a faculty member, Vice President Garcia and counsel for Del Mar College, with the assistance of the Faculty Review Panel, did just that in a blatant disregard for Board Policy. At the hearing Vice President Garcia and counsel for Del Mar College claimed to be proceeding under some mysterious "discharge" provision rather than under the "dismissal" provisions and procedures set forth in B6.7 et seq. Not once during the hearing did they present evidence of any kind regarding any lawful basis for trying to "discharge" Mr. Benitez. They did this in an obvious effort to deprive Mr. Benitez of his due process and contract rights by playing "hide the ball" and by skipping the mandatory mediation stage of the dismissal process (B6.7; B6.7.5; and B6.7.5.1). Under these mandatory provisions of Board Policy, the Vice President has no power to act until the mediation stage has been fully adhered to and exhausted and the case is referred to her by Mr. Benitez' supervisor. Any doubt about the intention of the administration to drive Mr. Benitez out of Del Mar College without regard to his due process rights, his contract rights, and the consequences of wrongful discharge, can be readily observed by listening to the venomous nature in which absolutely irrelevant questions were directed to Mr. Benitez at the hearing by counsel for Del Mar College in an effort to embarrass and belittle him.

      3. All proceedings in this matter were unlawful in that they were purportedly held pursuant to authority of Vice President Garcia to by-pass the explicit provisions of B6.7 and B6.7.5 et seq that establish a mandatory set of procedures to be followed any time dismissal of a faculty member is sought by the college. More specifically, Ms. Garcia knowingly and deliberately aborted the mandatory mediation stage that had been invoked by the first line supervisor of Mr. Benitez on October 5, 2004.  At the Faculty Review Panel hearing, after repeated attempts to get her to explain what specific portion of the Board Policy she was proceeding under to "discharge" rather than "dismiss" Mr. Benitez, Vice President Garcia refused to provide an explanation.  (Transcription dated 1/17/05 page 27) The Faculty Review Panel also asked for testimony to explain how the college was proceeding under some discharge theory rather than under the dismissal provisions of Board Policy. (Id.) Counsel for Del Mar College then said it was a "legal matter" that would be addressed in closing argument. (Id.) Absolutely nothing was ever presented in testimony, in any exhibit, or in closing argument by counsel for Del Mar College, to explain this mysterious authority to "discharge" Mr. Benitez. The Faculty Review Panel then went off on a lark of its own, somehow obtaining a copy of Board Policy (no such information was submitted to the Faculty Review Panel as part of the hearing) and purported to invent a way to "get it done for the administration" with no notice to Mr. Benitez and no opportunity to show why the provisions that were used to "discharge" Mr. Benitez don't apply to his situation at all. 

      4. Vice President Garcia has no authority to vary Board Policy, yet she admitted that she did that very thing. When asked who other than her was responsible for that decision, she indicated that she was solely responsible. (Transcription 1/17/05 page 20) We did, however, hear testimony that impeached Vice President Garcia because President Carlos Garcia actually ordered that dismissal proceedings be initiated against Mr. Benitez. (Transcription 1/17/05 page 79-80) According to witness testimony, Vice President Garcia and Stonewall Van Wie (Mr. Benitez' first line supervisor) were all very much aware of this order, yet they denied it under oath. Dean Teresa Cox, who was also present when President Garcia issued the order, impeached the witnesses who denied under oath knowing about the order from the President. (Transcription 1/17/05 pages 19-20, 59, and 79-80)

      5. We have learned since the hearing that counsel for Del Mar College visited with the Board of Regents about dismissal proceedings against Mr. Benitez prior to the hearing in order to convince them that dismissal proceedings were appropriate, thereby tainting the "fair hearing" mandate in B6.7.5 and the due process and appellate rights of Mr. Benitez. We have also learned that no variance to Board Policy was sought from the Board of Regents and no variance was given. Only the Board of Regents can authorize a variance from Board Policy, and the entire proceedings against Mr. Benitez were therefore unlawfully instituted, the Faculty Panel had no authority to act, and Mr. Benitez' due process rights and contract rights were completely and unlawfully ignored.

Point Two – The Basis Used for the Termination was not Disclosed to Mr. Benitez Prior to the Hearing, Which Deprived Him of Due Process and the Opportunity to Defend Himself

      6. The Faculty Review Panel could clearly see that Vice President Garcia had no authority to proceed under B6.7.5.3, but in their zealous effort to help her find a way to get rid of Mr. Benitez, they decided to say he was discharged pursuant to B5.11.4. The Faculty Review Panel should have kept reading Board Policy if it wanted to act as a vigilante force. If a faculty member is to be discharged, the provisions of B5.12 must first be invoked by the college. On its face, however, B5.12 doesn't even apply to discharge of a tenure-track faculty member – it only applies to discharge of tenured faculty, non-renewal of tenure-track faculty, and discharge of expiring-term and month-to-month employees. Regardless, Mr. Benitez never received a notice issued pursuant to B5.12 because no such notice was ever issued. 

      7. If a notice had been issued, and assuming B5.12 was intended to apply to tenure-track faculty, Board Policy allows a faculty member who desires to contest such an action to proceed directly under the District's Procedure for Dismissal for Cause of Faculty Policy ( B6.7) (B5.12.1; B5.12.1.1; B5.12.1.2). This means that even in a discharge situation, the college must comply with B6.7 et seq when the faculty member invokes that procedure. Therefore, even if the notice issued by Vice President Garcia on October 5, 2004 could be construed as giving notice pursuant to B5.12.1, Mr. Benitez timely demanded on October 15, 2004 that a Dismissal Review Panel hearing be conducted pursuant to B6.7, which resulted in the scheduling of the hearing that was held on January 10, 2005. There is no back-door way of getting rid of Mr. Benitez just because powerful people in the administration don't like him and are retaliating against him for standing up for his rights and the rights of students at the college.

      8. The foregoing provisions of Board Policy are crystal clear but they were ignored by Vice President Garcia, by counsel for Del Mar College, and by members of the Faculty Review Panel. They have also been ignored by President Carlos Garcia, who on January 31, 2005 rubber-stamped the unlawful proceedings that were initiated and conducted by Vice President Garcia at the direction of President Carlos Garcia.

Point Three – When All Else Fails, Read the Contract

      9. Mr. Benitez tried for months to obtain a copy of his personnel file from Del Mar College so he could use it to help prepare for the Faculty Review Panel hearing. His file was not produced until it was requested by the Faculty Review Panel during the hearing on January 10, 2005, which deprived Mr. Benitez and his counsel of the opportunity to review his personnel file in preparation for the hearing. In his file there are two distinctly different kinds of "printed form contracts" used by Del Mar College. One is a Contract for Limited Period Employees which was in place only until January 31, 2001. (See Exhibit "A"). The other is a Renewing Term Contract for Probationary Teaching Faculty, which is the relationship that existed between Mr. Benitez and Del Mar College as of the date of the hearing. (See Exhibit "B") An examination of the two distinctly different types of contracts is quite illuminating, and it is immediately apparent that the purported "discharge" proceedings against Mr. Benitez were not only unlawful for all the reasons already given, but they were also a breach of his contract with Del Mar College.

      Contract for Limited Period Employees (Exhibit "C"), Paragraph 10: 

"Discharge: Employee may be discharged from the employ of the College during the term of this contract for the reasons and in the manner specified in those provisions of Board or Administrative Policy governing the discharge of employees of the College employed under an Expiring Term Contract." (Italics added for emphasis)

Renewing Term Contract for Probationary Teaching Faculty (Exhibit "D"), Paragraph 9:

"Dismissal: Faculty Member may be dismissed from the employ of the College during any year for good cause as defined in Board Policy and in the manner prescribed by Board Policy for the dismissal of faculty." (Italics added for emphasis)

Renewing Term Contract for Probationary Teaching Faculty (Exhibit "D"), Paragraph 2:

"Term: This contract shall be for a term of one contract year (hereafter called "year") commencing on August 20, 2001 and ending on August 19, 2002, and shall continue from year to year thereafter without the necessity of annual reappointment, until such time as Faculty Member is granted tenure, resigns, retires, or the employment relationship with the College is terminated either by dismissal or non-renewal in accord with Board Policy ." (Italics added for emphasis)

10. The terms of the Renewing Term Contract between Mr. Benitez and Del Mar

College were brought to the attention of the Faculty Review Panel, Vice President Garcia, and counsel for Del Mar College at the hearing. They were all told in no uncertain terms in closing argument that dismissal of Mr. Benitez without following the contractually required procedure would be a breach of contract and would therefore be a wrongful termination. At the urging of Vice President Garcia and counsel for Del Mar College, however, the Faculty Review Panel ignored the terms of the contract, just as they ignored the clear and explicit terms of Board Policy. President Carlos Garcia likewise ignored both the contract rights and the due process rights of Mr. Benitez under Board Policy. 

      11. Finally, although not at issue in the Faculty Review Panel hearing, the President of Del Mar College refused to follow either Board Policy or the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to accommodate the disability of Mr. Benitez. Those issues, along with all of the retaliatory acts against Mr. Benitez as well as his wrongful discharge, are now the subject of EEOC charges that will ultimately result in civil liability for Del Mar College. 

Conclusion

      No objective, educated person could read the provisions of Board Policy and the contract between Mr. Benitez and Del Mar College, and then look at what Del Mar College has done to Mr. Benitez, without concluding that the entire process has been a deprivation of his due process rights, a breach of his contract, an unlawfully convened and conducted hearing, and a wrongful termination. 

      Everything possible was done to ensure that Mr. Benitez would not receive a "fair hearing" as required by Board Policy (B6.7.5). The administration achieved what it set out to do in the friendly confines of its own facility with a faculty panel that was subject to being tainted by internal discussions and influence by members of the administration, and with a first-level appeal to the very person who ordered that the dirty deed be done.

      When all the evidence is presented in a forum where the witnesses will be forced to answer questions, where Del Mar College will not be allowed to withhold evidence, where witnesses will be held accountable for perjury, where the administration cannot rely on hearsay and unauthenticated documents, where there are rules and procedures that must be followed, where fair-minded people are listening to the evidence, and where Del Mar College is in the spotlight as the Defendant, a very different result can be expected.

      The Board of Regents has one last opportunity to right an egregious wrong. If it does not, an unbiased civil jury is not likely to be as kind as the Faculty Review Panel and President Garcia have been in furthering the goals of the administration without regard to what is right, what is fair, and what is lawful. The proceedings conducted against Mr. Benitez by Del Mar College raise disturbing issues about an administration that has no respect for the law, no respect for due process, no respect for the rights of students or faculty, no respect for Board Policy, and no respect for contract rights. The question now is whether the Board of Regents will condone the wrongful acts of the administration, or whether it will acknowledge and rectify the wrongs that have been done to Mr. Benitez.

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

---

Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

---

Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.

--
Kenedeno & Associates