In brief:
On the First day of trial, after the 10 member Jury was selected, the University (Attorney David W. Tyra) insisted that the trial be delayed again for another mandatory settlement conference.
The Court granted an early recess (4:00 p.m.) and ordered the parties to return to the Magistrate Judge for just one hour so that a new offer from the University could be considered.
There was no new offer. There was a new argument based on new case law. Tyra insisted that even if she won, Cici would not be able to recover any money after the appeal, and that she should be forced to submit at the outset - without being heard. He offered a few pennies to cover a small fraction of her costs, and insisted again, that she quit or retire immediately.
Cici proceeded to testify and to submit to cross examination for another two days. She did not intend to quit her job. Observers took note of the University's vitriol.
At the end, Paul Mattiuzzi testified for a bit - the cross-examination was rather short, and much tamer than Tyra had seemed to promise in advance.
For three and a half years, the University had deprived Cici a fair and honest hearing - Alex Gonzalez seems to have made certain that his signature was not on a single document. The President even denied being responsible for hiring the Dean when he was sent a subpoena during Macari's libel action.
After she finally had her say, Cici decided not to bear the cost of another three days of trial - there was no point (other than to recover her costs and be given some useless sum of money to argue about for years).
Macari would not have explain why he was no longer the Dean. What might he possibly say? There was every reason to believe that the Judge might unseal Macari's deposition transcript from the libel action - the part where he explained his resume. Macari had to testify, and he would have been asked.
After the plaintiff rested, Tyra intended to press the University's only defense, a character assassination argument: Cici was "delusional." He mocked her on cross-examination and ostensibly had others lined up to testify in support of that proposition.
Cici had no reason to sit through that, and no reason to waste any more money just to give the University access to the public forum. After Cici had her say and rested her case, the University no longer had any leverage to demand her resignation as a settlement term.
After she rested her case, Cici forced the University to settle. All she had to do was to say she didn't want any of their money - she just wanted the retaliation to stop and not to be forced out.
It was an offer CSUS couldn't refuse - there was nothing left for the University to defend - she wasn't asking for anything. If CSUS wanted to continue, it would have had to explain itself in public, in front of a judge and jury.
This case was about a failed and dysfunctional leadership model that was Made at Sac State: MBIS - management by ignoring stuff. This case could have settled years ago on the exact same terms.
The only principal the University was seeking to vindicate was its demand that Cici submit to a forced resignation. They spent who knows how much money trying to force her out, and they failed.
CSUS wanted Cici to leave so that the institution could:
(1) continue to protest its innocence in all matters (as if there was never any reason for the President to pay any attention);
(2) seek to restore the reputations of all those who should have been disciplined instead (the University is still insisting that Markovic did nothing wrong and is acting like Macari managed effectively); and
(3) to persist in a pattern of both "conscious deception and unconscious denial."
After she rested her case, Cici was positioned to force a settlement with no conditions or confidentiality clauses - no submission to constructive termination and no stain on her record.
If she had continued and "lost," she would have been in exactly the same position - she would be back in time for Career Fair and working out her contract until June of 2015.
The persistent threat notwithstanding, CSUS would not have gotten any of its costs out of Cici - there is no possibility that Tyra could have proven she acted in "bad faith" - unless he could show she was actually delusional.
Cici did not attend Court on the Tuesday morning the jury was dismissed. I waited with David Tyra and his assistant for the jury to exit. No one else was in the long hallway. We did not speak. I never found him to be courteous.
When the jury exited, Tyra commandeered their attention for the ritual de-briefing and spin-doctoring that seems to accompany these affairs. Mr. Tyra took a vote and it was 5 to 5.
Five jurors believed Cici's testimony, and five wanted to hear the rest of the evidence. I spent more time with some jurors on the way down in the elevator and in the lobby.
Jurors were unsettled by what they heard and saw, and they were frustrated that they did not get to hear the University's defense. Alex Gonzalez will need to provide that explanation himself.
Contrary to the report in the
State Hornet, the jurors gave Mr. Tyra no reason to feel confident on behalf of the Trustees. If the trial had proceeded, they would have heard a lot more of the evidence Tyra needed excluded. It may have been of no never mind to him - if the evidence was either heard or admitted, he could continue for years with an appeal.
As to CSU's "complete victory" claim, you have to ask: What do they think they won?
Leadership begins here
Redefine the Possible
If you complain, you will be punished
