Hearing Rigged – Response from Mr. Galvan
In April 3rd, 2014, a few days after Miguel Corzo and Galvan (Corzo’s lawyer) left a hearing that had apparently been rigged to benefit the District Administration, conceal evidence from ever being made public and keep witnesses, including Rufus Glasper, from testifying, Mr. Galvan sent this letter to MCCCD.
From: Richard Galvan <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 4:58 PM
Subject: MCCCD Hearing
To: Lee Combs <firstname.lastname@example.org>, James Tucker <James.Tucker@wilsonelser.com>
Response to your email dated April 1, 2014
It is Mr. Corzo’s position that these proceedings are fatally flawed and, consequently he refused to participate in the March 31st hearing. The bases and reasoning for his position include:
1. The District’s unlawful refusal to provide Mr. Corzo with the public records he requested nearly 3 months ago pursuant to the Arizona Public Records Law.
2. In violating the law, the District not only failed to produce the documents, but it failed to provide Mr. Corzo, in accordance with the Arizona Public Records Law, with an index of all the public records subject to his requests along with the individualized reason why the District denied production of each paticular document.
3. The District’s failure to provide Mr. Corzo with even one of the variously requested public records made it impossible to identify the best exhibits and witnesses with which and with whom to defend himself in the hearing.
4. Unwarrantedly, the District insisted that Mr. Corzo sign a confidentiality agreement which is overly broad, onerous, and unnecessary. In order to resolve this controversy, Mr. Corzo has advocated continuously that the parties stipulate to a 90 day continuance of the instant hearing to allow a competent court of law to interpret the requirements of the public records law which would necessarily resolve what is confidential and what is not. With the court’s interpretation the parties should be able to agree to a reasonable accommodation of the issue. However, the District refuses to agree to any continuance at all. Indeed, because of his refusal to sign the agreement, Mr. Corzo and his counsel were advised the week before the hearing that they would be excluded from the hearing whenever any “confidential” testimony and exhibits were discussed.
5. At or about the same time the parties were discussing the confidentiality agreement, the interim Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, Mr. Bowers, sent a demand letter to Mr. Corzo requiring him to provide all “confidential and proprietary” documents in his possession to Mr. Bowers. Ironically, this demand extended to documents Mr. Corzo had obtained through the use of public records requests he made before he became subject to this disciplinary proceeding. According to Mr. Bowers’ letter, Mr. Corzo’s failure to turn over all such documents would subject him to additional adverse action, including termination. Mr. Corzo was in an untenable position. If he gave Mr. Bowers all the desired documents, Mr. Corzo would then have virtually no documents for his exhibits. However, if he failed to do as Mr. Bowers demanded, then he would be disciplined even further. Because Mr. Bowers refused to narrow the scope of what he called “confidential and proprietary” documents, Mr. Corzo had no other choice but to refuse to comply. Mr. Corzo is now facing a second adverse action, again involving the definition of “confidential.”
6. In proceedings like this, MAT Policy provides that one of three member panel be selected by the employee. The Chancellor and the MAT president also have the right to select one panel member. When Mr. Corzo’s member refused to sign the aforementioned confidentiality agreement, he also resigned as panel member on March 26th. Without informing Mr. Corzo, the District appointed a substitute panel member who was also a key witness for Mr. Corzo. Mr. Corzo and counsel first learned of the substitution Monday morning at the hearing location.
Mr. Corzo’s exhibits:
Because of his decision to not participate in this hearing for the reasons stated above, Mr. Corzo believes the exhibits he provided for the hearing speak for themselves and what they say is that Mr. Corzo is improperly charged.
The charges against Mr. Corzo should be dropped.