Graphic by Chris Miles

A lawsuit against Clark College is on its way to the Division II Court of Appeals, to decide if the plaintiffs, Marcus Griffith and Jasmine Bhullar, have a right to a trial by jury. The lawsuit is over a seemingly trivial set of meeting minutes that the college claims do not fall under the Open Public Meetings Act because the meeting in question was semi-judicial. The decision to have or not to have a trial by jury in these matters is significant for two reasons: It would be the first time in the State of Washington that a question of the Open Public Meetings Act is decided on by a jury. And it will open up the hearing to testimonies about the many intricacies and subplots to the lawsuit, which could prove that the allegations against Clark — discrimination, retaliation and voter fraud, to name a few — are far from trivial.

A student claiming discrimination against an institution of higher education is nothing new. But, when that student is a white male, it makes the case more interesting.

The following report was compiled by The Voice through meeting minutes attained by records requests, from Griffith’s testimony and pile of reports. The Voice also spoke with other students and staff off-the-record.

In February of 2008, Marcus Griffith, 28, was told upon inquiry that only students of the Clark College Nursing Program could be a member of the Student Nurses Association of Clark College (SNACC), a chartered club of the Associated Students of Clark College (ASCC). Griffith was interested in being a member. At a similar time, he was involved in starting a Vets Club and was told, as the Student Life Web site states, “Chartered student clubs must be open and available to any Clark student regardless of race, creed, religion, color, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, or status as a disabled or Vietnam era veteran.” On Oct. 3, 2009, Griffith expressed his concerns to the Club Committee when SNACC was up for charter of the new school year. As a result, SNACC’s charter was not approved for about a month.

In Feb. 2009, Griffith was joined by other students concerned about SNACC’s membership rules. He was “appointed” to do the fact finding and submitted a public records request for the emails dealing with club service funding and how the SNACC issue was resolved:

“I wasn’t going to base anything on rumors; I wanted to see the documents,” he said.

Griffith says false and slanderous statements about harassing behavior were being spread about him by ASCC Club Coordinator, Cindy Lou Kunkel, who worked with Griffith on the SNACC meeting. Clark upheld the allegation against Kunkel for her comments about Griffith and took sanctions. During this time, Griffith sent emails to SNACC asking for clarification on the openness of students. From the records attained, Griffith learned SNACC had received club service funding in Oct. 2009, before it was approved as a chartered club — a violation of the ASCC Bylaws.

“It became apparent through the emails that there was no clarification that would resolve SNACC’s wrongdoing, that, in truth, SNACC was still not open to all students; that SNACC was still not fulfilling charter requirements, and there was a prolonged history of the standard,” Griffith said.

Griffith says his concern at this point was that SNACC was being given preferential treatment by ASCC staff because it is a predominately female club. He also speculated sexual-orientation bias and preferential treatment for the student group Queer Penguins & Allies.

Two days after Griffith expressed his intent to formally present biased matters for SNACC, three conduct charges were filed against Griffith within a 24-hour period by Kunkel, Barbara Neely, a nursing instructor, and Diane Sievers, Nursing Club president. The three claimed Griffith lied in emails regarding SNACC issues, among other things. In the college’s official notes in the investigations against Griffith done by Tim Cook, a Clark councilor, the final conclusion stated “no evidence that he [Griffith] broke the code of conduct.”

In Cook’s formal response, he said he did not “find sufficient evidence warranting a student code of conduct sanction in this case.” He followed that sentence with a page of text assailing Griffith for a “combative” and “harassing communication style.” Griffith asked for a rewrite of that letter with all the acrimonious wording removed. Cook responded in an email stating that he felt the “sanction letter will stand as written.” A “sanction letter” is an official punishment for violating the Code of Conduct. Cook encouraged Griffith to drop the issues regarding SNACC along the conduct charges and to move forward with his education.
Griffith appealed the letter to Ted Broussard, Interim Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, who responded that the letter would remain in his disciplinary file. Griffith would later find out that his disciplinary file was 175 pages of emails, etc.
Jasmine Bhullar, 20, filed a discrimination complaint against the college on Jan. 14 regarding her dismissle from an ASCC position. Bhullar did not return calls or e-mails to The Voice.

Bhullar worked as ASCC Executive Assistant during the 07-08 school year. She ran for ASCC president against Ashley Schaffer during student elections in May 08. At some point, Bhullar spoke up about concerns circulation about the elections, including those of voter fraud. In an e-mail received by Griffith through a public records request, a student claimed to have a friend who drunkenly bragged about having a list of student names and I.D. numbers that she was able to enter as extra votes for Schahfer. The student’s name was redactedfrom the document given to Griffith. The email stated the following:

“I like Ashly [sic] and think she nice [sic] and should win ... I felt guitly [sic] this week but when I talked to my friends about it, they said that if I told anyone they would say it was my idea and that they would make sure I got into trouble for drinking last weekend. My parents are really strict and they would prolly [sic] kill me so I can’t tell anyone but I think it is wrong.”
Also up for vote during the election was a Tech Fee that would be added to the overall student fees. Griffith said he believes if voter fraud did occur, the Tech Fee may have been the initial reasoning behind it. These allegations, however, cannot be proven at the time being.

At the May 27 meeting, Bhullar’s performance was brought to question. Somebody accused her of non-fulfillment of duties for not getting a string of meeting agendas out 48 hours early. Recorded in minutes of that meeting, Bhullar states she believes these complaints were personally driven. On May 25, Bhullar was awarded for Excellent Performance in her position (award pictured on this page). Regardless, Bhullar was put on probation.

The ASCC Executive Council voted on Bhullar’s dismissal at the June 11 meeting. Council had two votes for dismissal, one against and one abstaining. ASCC Bylaws state it takes a something-thirds vote to dismiss an officer. Despite that, council informed Bhullar she had been dismissed. Bhullar was not present at the June 11 meeting. She appealed the decision on June 15, which went to a Judicial Review Committee (JRC), along with several election grievances filed by Griffith.

Broussard told Griffith he was advised by the college’s attorney that the JRC meetings did not fall under the Open Public Meetings Act because of its “quasi-judicial” matter. Griffith suggested in June he would consider filing a suit if the minutes were not released to the public. He acquired an attorney in August and a lawsuit was eventually filed in early September.

“I didn’t want to be frivolous, and I wanted to give the college every chance to discuss the concerns,” Griffith said. He filed the lawsuit after the college refused to even discuss the matters informally.

In an Aug. 13 email, Griffith stated the concern that there was sexual discrimination based on sexual orientation by Broussard and Director of Student Life, Carrie Weikel-Delaplane. Griffith contacted members of the Board of Trustees regarding his concerns. On Aug. 26. Griffith enrolled in a physical education class, thus under state law being a student again. A day later, an attorney representing Griffith called Broussard to discuss the election matter. Within hours, Griffith said he received a written order from Broussard banning him from college property until class began, and that he could only be on campus to and from class. In addition, he was banned from communication with the Board of Trustees and the student government, as well as all clubs and Student Life functions.

Meanwhile, Griffith claims to have late-enrolled in a Model United Nations (MUN) class. Because his name was not in official enrollment records for the class, the college deemed this a violation of the Aug. 27 order restricting him from all ASCC related programs – claiming the MUN class as a direct connection to the MUN student club.

On Oct. 9, Griffith filed a complaint to Clark President Robert Knight citing widespread discrimination in the Student Life Department, specifically by Weikel-Delaplane and Broussard — Griffith’s intentions were well known and reported in The Independent earlier in the week. Knight told Griffith to take it up with Broussard. That day, Griffith received a letter from Edie Blakley, student conduct officer, saying a disciplinary meeting was set up to hear the violation matter, as well has a handful of code of conduct grievence filed against Griffith, including: Assault, reckless endangerment, malicious harassment, intimidation, or interference; Disorderly, abusive or bothersome conduct; Failure to follow instructions; Illegal assembly, obstruction, or disruption; Sexual harassment; and, Sexual offenses.

Griffith said neither he nor his attorney were ever allowed access to any accusers or evidence against Griffith. The meeting was held on Oct. 28. Griffith was not allowed to present witnesses on his behalf, but the college allowed witnesses on its behalf.

“If I was such a heinous person, why was I not found guilty of conduct offense?” Griffith asked.

On Nov. 18, Griffith received a letter telling him he was expelled from Clark College. He appealed the expulsion, and was told in a Dec. 10 letter that an appeal hearing would occur sometime in mid-January. Griffith has yet to hear further from the school on the appeal.

What does Griffith’s case have to do with the lawsuit? Griffith points to a memo between Ted Broussard and Bob Williamson, Vice President of Administrative Services, listing grounds for Aug. 27 no contact order, Broussard mentioned, among other things, the lawsuit filed by Griffith.

Also, Griffith believes the college will attempt to use his expulsion as a strike against his credibility in the matters.

Because of the lawsuit, not one faculty of Clark or the ASCC would comment on the metters.