DECLARATION OF JANICE M. TAYLOR

I, Janice M. Taylor, declare that I am knowledgeable of the following facts and that I am competent to testify regarding them and if subpoenaed I would so testify as follows:

  1. From June 12, 2002 to September 11, 2003 I was employed by San Diego State University as an Equal Opportunity Specialist in the University's Office of Diversity and Equity.
  2. My job duties involved conducting the initial intake interviews of individuals complaining about violations of the University's Equal Employment Opportunity policies and/or California or Federal laws involving discrimination, harassment and retaliation or any other unfair treatment.
  3. I am knowledgeable about the laws and SDSU policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation because I received training in anti-discrimination laws and also obtained a Juris Doctorate Degree from Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, California in 1997.
  4. In my capacity as SDSU's Equal Opportunity Specialist I received complaints relating to discrimination in recruiting, selection and hiring faculty members.
  5. I have recently learned that San Diego State University, when asked for documents relating to this incident involving the Pine Chair Search by Dr. Singh and his attorney, SDSU-CSU responded that "However, when Ms. Taylor left her employmentat SDSU, she apparently took or disposed of all her case files, and left no documentation at SDSU. Thus, despite a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, CSU is unable to comply with this request, since the documents are no longer in CSU's possession, custody or control".
  6. This is not true. When I left my employment at SDSU, I did not take or dispose of any case files, resulting from my investigations as an Equal Opportunity Specialist nor was I so accused or ever contacted by SDSU regarding those files.
  7. When I resigned all my files were intact in the office. At no time did I ever remove or destroy any of my files or notes as I knew they would be important if there was ever a lawsuit filed in regards to the College of Engineering. All of my investigation notes, including those notes related to Dr. Singh's complaint and investigation, were left intact so there was a complete record of what my investigations found.
  8. I have always hoped that an audit would be done of SDSU's Office of Diversity and Equity. My case files contained some very damaging material with regard to College of Engineering Faculty Searches and Discrimination. It would be much better for SDSU if they were all destroyed.
  9. As soon as I discovered the serious problems that were taking place in the College of Engineering in relation to faculty searches I advised Ms. Fisher of my findings. Ms. Fisher advised me that she wanted to protect our office and requested that I take thorough notes and to make sure that I kept them in our files. If I was unable to personally meet with Ms. Fisher to discuss a situation relating to a complaint or search I would always email her my findings and concerns and ask for further instructions.
  10. After I left SDSU I received notification that Ms. Fisher had written an email, sometime in September 2003, accusing me of changing my computer password and deleting my emails from my PC prior to leaving my employment at SDSU in 2003. I personally called Ms. Sue Blair, the Director of Human Resources and complained about Ms. Fisher's allegations. No one ever accused me of taking or disposing of all my case files at that time or since then. I am finding out for the first time that SDSU is accusing me of taking or disposing of all my case files (case related paperwork and hard copies of e-mails) after seeing CSU's Response to Request for Documents dated February 2005.
  11. Prior to leaving SDSU, I took Ms. Cheryl Fisher, the director of Office of Diversity and Equity into my office and showed her all my case files neatly arranged for her to safe keep.
  12. At all times, I followed the direction of Cheryl Fisher as to how to handle the investigations.
  13. Every time I met with anyone from the College of Engineering I gave Cheryl Fisher a full report.
  14. After those reports Cheryl Fisher would tell me how she wanted me to proceed.
  15. I and Cheryl Fisher exchanged emails regarding faculty searches. It is my understanding that the President, Stephen Weber and Provost Marlin were advised on many or most of them.
  16. I was asked to meet with Provost Nancy Marlin in relation to my findings in regard to a problem with a faculty search.
  17. Cheryl Fisher regularly reported to President Stephen Weber and I understood Provost Nancy Marlin.
  18. I prepared a monthly investigation report for Ms. Fisher; Ms. Fisher advised me that this report was given by her to President Weber in her monthly meeting with him. This report contained the name of each and every person making a complaint, the basis of the complaint, each time I met with the person and the outcome of my investigation.This report was done on my PC and was emailed to Ms. Fisher for each monthly meeting.
  19. At the start of the faculty meeting on April 10, 2003 discussing the faculty position regarding the Pine Chair in computer engineering, I received a very unfriendly welcome with regards to my being present at that meeting. I felt negative vibes from a few professors, most notably Dr. Andrew Szeto.
  20. Dr. Rahul Singh after the April 10, 2003 meeting complained about discrimination against a highly qualified female applicant who was an excellent match to the advertised position for the Pine Chair. I recall Dr. Singh complainingthat she was not being invited for an interview because she was a female.
  21. Dr. Singh informed me that this female candidate had achieved a much higher status in the profession than any of the four candidates interviewed for the position, of which none was a female. Dr. Singh felt that one male candidate, Dr. XXXXX, a friend of Associate Dean Dr. Gordon Lee, was not even qualified for the Pine Chair in Computer Engineering. Dr. Singh also complained that a fourth and last male candidate Dr. "Jerry" was interviewedon April 8, 2003, almost a month after he pointed out the excellent female applicant to his department on March 12,2003. Dr. Singh told me that females were severely underrepresented in his department..
  22. I understood his complaint to be about gender discrimination.
  23. I informed Dr. Singh I would look into the matter and on April 17, 2003 I met with Dean David Hayhurst to specifically discuss this complaint possible gender discrimination regarding failing to interview the female candidate as well as one other issue relating to the Pine Chair search.
  24. Dean Hayhurst asked me who it was that complained about the failure to interview the female candidate and I informed him I needed to keep the complainant's name confidential.
  25. I believe Dean Hayhurst knew that Dr. Singh was the one who complained because after I told him it was confidential he asked, "Was it Singh?".
  26. Dr. Singh openly complained and the faculty was well aware of his identity as he did not take steps to remain anonymous.
  27. I forwarded to Cheryl Fisher, e-mails from Dr. Rahul Singh or regarding him and the Pine Chair Faculty Search, so that Cheryl Fisher could advise me as to how to proceed.
  28. Dr. Singh, emailed me the minutes of the April 10,2003 department meetings and its revisions.
  29. Cheryl Fisher never objected or corrected my being listed as "Sec. to Provost" on April 10, 2003 meeting minutes.
  30. On or about April 23, 2003, I met with Dean Hayhurst and Associate Vice president of Faculty Affairs, Dr. Dean O. Popp to discuss Dean Hayhurst's role in the faculty search for the Pine Chair and that he had re-ranked Dr. XXXXX, a male friend of Associate Dean Gordon Lee, so that XXXXX was poised to be the Pine Professor of Computer Engineering and that there were complaints about that as well as the failure to interview the female candidate which could be construed as gender discrimination.
  31. Even prior to receiving the complaint from Dr. Singh, I was investigating hiring practices within the College of Engineering. It became evident that the College of Engineering had many problems in regards to following the rules in relation to conducting faculty searches. After fmalizing a written report on another problem search I met with Provost Marlin, Dr. Popp, and Ms. Fisher sometime in 2003 and reportedmy findings of my investigation.

    I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this Eighteenth day of July, 2005 at Perth, Australia.

    Janice M. Taylor