New College Independent Alumni/ae Association

As a connoisseur of social conflict, one of the patterns I’ve repeatedly observed is the expectation by aggrieved parties to put their faith in public authorities to look out for the interests of the innocent. Unfortunately, benevolent law enforcement only happens on TV.

Trusting people often find themselves taken advantage of because they are, well, trusting. They fall for the lofty rhetoric of con men like Peter Gabel because they want to believe. Only after they’ve been betrayed many times do they realize they’ve been conned.

Sadly, after realizing they were gullible, the innocent frequently transfer this unwarranted trust in con men toward what they believe will be the arduous pursuit of justice by government agents on their behalf. This, however, never happens.

What does sometimes happen, is that when the aggrieved parties document their grievances and the misfeasance of perpetrators — and organize themselves to bring their case before authorities and media effectively — some degree of justice often results. Government bureaucrats, on the other hand, almost never move a muscle beforehand.

All this is to say that what my mother told me as a child about the lord helping those who help themselves was probably good advice. I only wish she’d used a more terrestrial application of the concept.

As recent faculty correspondence from the Labor Department wage claims hearings shows, New College trustees continue to bargain in bad faith, blaming everyone but themselves, and pursuing vengeance against those whom they have harmed most. While it appears that the culprits of this tragedy are now making their getaway with the school’s assets while leaving creditors in the lurch, it’s still possible that the trustee looting and asset conversions may yet be undone by the feds.

In the absence of a class action suit, wage claimants might want to individually file liens on the remaining real properties of the school, as well as on the real properties of the trustees themselves. Eventually, this mess is going to end up in a court of law; when that happens it will be advantageous to have the now-verified claims on file at the courthouse.

Judges and lawyers can sort out the rest.

Today’s the last day of the wage claim hearings. Trustee Colleen O’Neal and former business manager Carol Small, representing New College, are asking claimants to waive the penalties at $145 a day for each day they don’t pay back wages. People who want their severances are not being granted settlements as the Labor Department’s jurisdiction only extends to back wages.

From what I was told, that doesn’t preclude anyone from filing a separate claim. There are about 200 claimants all told. Settlements are to be paid by August 22nd in full.

The clincher is this, Trustee O’Neal already told claimants New College does not intend to make that payment deadline, and when asked where the money will come from to pay the claims, she said, “From collectibles.” (Outstanding student loans and continued pressure on the US Department of Education for release of funds.) There was also a response from O’Neal handed to each claimant chronicling the administration’s struggle with DOE. It said a small group was working to try to release those funds.

I’m told the Casa Loma and Creamery have been sold. Peter Gabel and Rod Holt, together, have a million dollar lien on the Casa Loma, and Peter has another half a million on the Creamery, along with others.

As our shop steward, Kush has been leading the charge for severance and grievances, so they’ve been after him. So far, not yet a peep from union attorneys. I’m hopeful that a thorough criminal investigation will yield financial malfeasance.

–faculty correspondent

Dear colleagues,

I know that many of you have wage claims against New College pending before the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement. I know that many of you may have already had your claims heard, but for those of you who haven’t, I thought I would share my experience today.

New College is not disputing the wage claims themselves (though in a written statement Colleen O’Neal said that there are some cases where they are disputing amounts). They are, however, disputing the 30-day penalties incurred under the relevant labor law for failure to meet payroll. The basis for this argument is that failure to pay was not “willful”; i.e., they wanted to pay, but couldn’t. This argument has no legal basis because New College admits to owing wages (to see the legal definition of “willful”, click on http://www.dir.ca.gov/t8/13520.html).

The DLSE representative explained that each claim would be considered individually, and that we had the option of expediting our claims by asking only for salary owed instead of salary plus penalty. The initial hearings would happen quickly if there was no dispute, but if there was disagreement about the amount owed or if the employee asked for the penalty, the employee would have to wait for a hearing later that day. There was no pressure to settle for less than what was owed except for the exigencies of waiting several hours for a hearing.

There is concern among faculty and staff that New College doesn’t have the necessary assets to pay everyone what is owed, and many people believe that if they don’t settle for less money, they will have to settle for none. Therefore many faculty have chosen to ask only for salary owed. This is a personal choice, and I understand and support everyone in their individual decision-making calculus. However, I wanted to let folks know that as an adjunct teaching independent study (claiming $548 in back pay plus the 30-day penalty) the representatives from New College at first tried to refuse to pay the penalty, and then offered to pay half. When I asked for the full amount, the DLSE rep told them that if it came to a hearing, they would have to pay the full penalty. Due to the small nature of my claim and therefore the small penalty, the reps from New College then decided to pay me the full amount owed including the penalty without making me wait for a hearing.

New College has 30 days to pay claims in full. If they fail to do so, DLSE will contact the plaintiff with information on how to proceed with the claim.

Since, as adjuncts, many of you are likely to be making small claims, I wanted to share information that might help you make your decision. Please pass this along to anyone you know — faculty, staff, or students owed work study wages — who has a claim pending later this week.

I wish all of you the best of luck.

–faculty correspondent

As our consumer culture unravels, we will need places to converge in meeting our social responsibilities. Our alma mater once played host to such convergent responders, but with its passing a void exists, despite the changes in mainstream academia to accommodate alternative views. It will be interesting to see what if anything transpires to fill that cultural void; maybe some of us will be involved.

Center for the American University notes the passing of New College. I respond.

Career San Francisco housing activist Randy Shaw offers up the latest lame apology in defense of the indefensible Peter Gabel. Maybe Shaw should read the documents here before perpetuating the bogus myths generated by Gabel’s cult. Even if Shaw was half as savvy and ethical as he promotes himself to be, as a crusading alternative media editor you wouldn’t think he’d rush to the defense of a criminal cabal with a long track record of preying on innocent, idealistic youth.

Update:

Shaw has posted my response in the letters to the editor, and assures me he will look into the matter further.

Next week marks the one year anniversary of breaking the silence about New College and the mobilization of alumni to end the corruption plaguing the school. With that mostly behind us, we hope that those of you who were involved in bringing public accountability to our alma mater are doing well. If you feel so inclined, we’d welcome your thoughts and reflections.

With For Sale signs going up on New College buildings while payroll debts and other creditors remain unpaid, some have asked why the trustees didn’t file for bankruptcy protection. The short answer is that the school’s real assets would then have come under the control of a United States Bankruptcy Court trustee, thus foreclosing the ongoing looting of the school by Peter Gabel, Matthew Wilkes, et al.

Should the State of California or other aggrieved party choose to force the now paper entity into bankruptcy proceedings, the asset conversions can still be undone retroactively. This would in turn perhaps free up funds from property sales to remedy some of the harms to school employees and students in the form of medical bills and consumer debt incurred as a result of the trustees’ negligence.

At this point in time, it doesn’t appear anyone is pursuing this avenue to restitution.

Even law enforcement can sometimes use help with the guiding narrative. New College trustees may have been grossly incompetent college administrators, but they were perfectly competent con men. After all, half of them were lawyers.

Closed down for defrauding the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and the US Department of Education, one of the perpetrators of the fraud at New College of California is now attempting to convert assets of the school through a specious claim in San Francisco Superior Court.

Although the California Department of Justice has opened a file on New College and its parent corporation the Arlene Francis Foundation, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for them or the San Francisco District Attorney to pursue a case against the trustees or their accomplices. For one thing, the San Francisco DA is an elected position in a Democratic Party stronghold, and New College trustee Agar Jaicks (Peter Gabel’s father-in-law) was Democratic National Committeeman.

This doesn’t mean the DA or AG would participate in a cover-up, but they might decide not to investigate or prosecute crimes of highly-connected politicos. It’s been known to happen. Nancy Pelosi’s half million dollar pork shoveled New College’s way a few years back is an indication of Jaicks’ clout.

Well, it doesn’t get any better than this. Matthew Wilkes, board member of Peter Gabel’s private Arlene Francis Foundation (New College’s landlord) and master mind of the 3-year WASC con job that landed New College in hot water with both WASC and the US Department of Education, filed suit on May 9, 2008 against New College for breach of contract. The referenced contract for consulting services in dealing with WASC between August 2007 and May 2008 was signed by acting New College president Luis Molina on March 12, 2008. Wilkes claims he had an oral contract covering the previous seven months.

Wilkes claim, at the rate of $500/day plus expenses, amounts to $71,817. Wilkes’ expenses include lodging, food, and monthly travel to Brooklyn, New York.

The California Superior Court case management conference is set for October 10, 2008 at 9am, Department 212, 400 McAllister St., San Francisco.