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.

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.

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

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

Update:

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

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.