The below documents go together with Installment Two -- Spielberg (Narrative). This Installment tells the story of how CSULB President Alexander and Provost Para co-opted money donated by Steven Spielberg, violated his pledge agreement, and then threw away the chance for a further multi-million dollar donation. Nice work, guys!
(And, if you haven't read Installment One, go back to that at some point. But THUG is designed so you can read the Installments in any order you want.)
(And, if you haven't read Installment One, go back to that at some point. But THUG is designed so you can read the Installments in any order you want.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As referenced in the Preface to Installment Two -- Spielberg (Narrative), the Film and Electronic Arts Department (FEA) was suddenly notified (in May 2010) that 21 international students had been mistakenly admitted to the Film Program without any file review by FEA. Quoting Dave Dowell (the Vice Provost in charge of budgets), the notification tried to sugar coat the problem by pretending that this would have no impact on resident admissions and budget, but that was a flat-out lie. FEA is an impacted program with only a finite number of slots and just barely enough course sections to cover the cohort. Even worse, these accidental students were admitted to the Production Option which the University had capped at 50 students that year, all of whom had already been admitted. Adding 21 more would be a more than 40% increase in enrollment to an option where the courses are limited to no more than 15 students each. That meant adding at least one new course section per production course and upping course caps all around in order to accommodate the mistake. And this mistake occurred during the time when the University had made massive cuts of courses and course sections, and professors were on a forced 10% "furlough" paycut which required course date cancellations. Bottom line: this was no mistake. The University wanted the high tuition from international students who typically come and stay for more years than low-tuition resident students.
So, Lane used this "mistake" as an opening to try to get Para to cease whistle blower retaliations against him and Pounds and FEA, and work together to get the University back on track during those troubled financial times.
Para's response was to continue the retaliations and to screw the California students.
Here is that dialogue:
From: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Organization: CSULBReply-To: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.eduDate: Mon, 10 May 2010 16:34:23 -0700To: MichealPounds michealpounds@roadrunner.com, Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net, DonnaThomas dethomas@csulb.edu, Jay Kvapil kvapil@csulb.eduSubject: Fw: International Student Admission for Fall 2010Please see the note below. I can't believe the university allowed this to happen.
Take Care,
Craig
Professor C.R.Smith, Director
Center for First Amendment Studies
www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html
http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html
Craig
Professor C.R.Smith, Director
Center for First Amendment Studies
www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html
http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html
------ Forwarded Message
From: Nathan Jensen mailto:njensen@csulb.edu
To: Craig Smith mailto:crsmith@csulb.edu
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:30 PM
Subject: International Student Admission for Fall 2010
Hello Craig,
I wanted to let you know that due to a miss-communication between Enrollment Services and the Center for International Education we have admitted 21 international students into the FEA BA without first sending them to your department for review. These students have already been informed that they are admitted. How would you like us to handle them? David Dowell wanted me to inform you that the international students do not compete with resident students for admission and that both are treated equally for college and department funding from academic affairs. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Nathan Jensen
Senior Director
Center for International Education
California State University, Long Beach
(562)985-8437
To: Craig Smith mailto:crsmith@csulb.edu
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:30 PM
Subject: International Student Admission for Fall 2010
Hello Craig,
I wanted to let you know that due to a miss-communication between Enrollment Services and the Center for International Education we have admitted 21 international students into the FEA BA without first sending them to your department for review. These students have already been informed that they are admitted. How would you like us to handle them? David Dowell wanted me to inform you that the international students do not compete with resident students for admission and that both are treated equally for college and department funding from academic affairs. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Nathan Jensen
Senior Director
Center for International Education
California State University, Long Beach
(562)985-8437
From: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 04:09:54 -0700
To: Don Para para@csulb.edu
Conversation: International Student Admission for Fall 2010
Subject: FW: International Student Admission for Fall 2010
DP —
This situation suddenly presents you and me with a unique opportunity. Let us consider it a gift.
It lays out as two alternative choices:
1. Shall we use this as the basis of a new beginning of collegiality and cooperation, working together to find a resolution in order to help the administration overcome a massive mistake? I mean, everyone makes mistakes, right?
2.) OR shall we use this to show up an overpaid administration’s incompetence and inability to follow its own policies and procedures, leading to deserving California students being deprived of their dreams of matriculation even as a substantial cluster of non-resident students get a free pass?
Not a day goes by that I don’t get a call from a sad California student whose application — excellent on all accounts — was cut off from acceptance due to the University’s new caps and FEA’s impaction and course cutbacks. One can only imagine what those students will do when they become aware of the "accidental" students admitted without any file review whatsoever and with course sections added specifically to accommodate them.
But, like I said, DP, we suddenly have an opportunity to show that we can and must move forward together to do right by all these students.
And it’s your choice which path we take.
Please let me know. My leadership in FEA admissions and involvement in course scheduling means that I am right in the middle of this (which is why Craig forwarded it to me along with the others), although the FEA buck will indeed stop at the desk of our much respected Chair, Dr. Micheal Pounds. I should like very much to be able to tell him today that you are going to work with us to resolve things in a way that proves to be a win-win for everyone.
Best -- BL
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 04:09:54 -0700
To: Don Para para@csulb.edu
Conversation: International Student Admission for Fall 2010
Subject: FW: International Student Admission for Fall 2010
DP —
This situation suddenly presents you and me with a unique opportunity. Let us consider it a gift.
It lays out as two alternative choices:
1. Shall we use this as the basis of a new beginning of collegiality and cooperation, working together to find a resolution in order to help the administration overcome a massive mistake? I mean, everyone makes mistakes, right?
2.) OR shall we use this to show up an overpaid administration’s incompetence and inability to follow its own policies and procedures, leading to deserving California students being deprived of their dreams of matriculation even as a substantial cluster of non-resident students get a free pass?
Not a day goes by that I don’t get a call from a sad California student whose application — excellent on all accounts — was cut off from acceptance due to the University’s new caps and FEA’s impaction and course cutbacks. One can only imagine what those students will do when they become aware of the "accidental" students admitted without any file review whatsoever and with course sections added specifically to accommodate them.
But, like I said, DP, we suddenly have an opportunity to show that we can and must move forward together to do right by all these students.
And it’s your choice which path we take.
Please let me know. My leadership in FEA admissions and involvement in course scheduling means that I am right in the middle of this (which is why Craig forwarded it to me along with the others), although the FEA buck will indeed stop at the desk of our much respected Chair, Dr. Micheal Pounds. I should like very much to be able to tell him today that you are going to work with us to resolve things in a way that proves to be a win-win for everyone.
Best -- BL
In the midst of conjuring new retaliations against Lane at the time, Para never responded to the above. For Fall 2010, nine of the "accidental" international students enrolled at CSULB, and FEA was forced to make space for them, taking resources away from students admitted on merit. The other twelve "accidental" admittees chose to go to schools that were higher rated, like the University of Southern California.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lane's professional and personal path criss-crossed Spielberg's many times until they finally met face-to-face on a project in the early 1990's. One of the earliest near misses was when Lane's thesis script "The Caterer" was championed by fabled film director/commentator Francois Truffaut in 1975. Lane wanted Spielberg to direct it, but Truffaut pushed for others with a more "European sensibility", asserting that Spielberg was "not yet comfortable in the dark". Here is an early communication between Lane and Truffaut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in Time:
In 2003, Lane ran Blumenthal's feature film "Take Two" for his writing class. She had described it as a "dark comedy", and, in fairness to Blumenthal, Lane used her press materials to give the students advance expectation of what they were about to see. The inquiry in Lane's classes is always to ask what's on the screen? and is this what the writer/filmmaker intended? That is, is there a gap between intention and execution? While Lane knew the film was not commercial, he wanted to open the students' eyes (and goals) to making films that were personal and experimental and art or at least artful. He was, quite frankly, fed up with all the students trying to mimic Tarantino. Finally, he was bristling at Blumenthal's endless attacks on the CSULB FEA students as being stupid and intransigent and in need of remedial education.
From: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 02:36:09 -0700
To: Don Para para@csulb.edu
Conversation: last night's... film?
Subject: FW: last night's... film?
Enjoy the film review below. It proves two things: (1) On their own, the students are able to discern the truth about the competence and quality of their teachers' artistic works, and (2) The students have tremendous critical acuity and are hardly in need of the remedial curriculum proposed by certain teachers. These students are good and smart, and they learn fast. When they don't know something, it is because their teachers have failed them. I will let you guess whose film was reviewed.
------ Forwarded Message
From: Brian Alan Lane CSULB brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 15:44:11 -0700
To: 304 Class
Subject: FW: last night's... film?
Gang -- Below is Erin's extraordinarily astute take on last night's screening. My note on his note is: The first key to creative/artistic accomplishment is to ask yourself whether you accomplished what you intended. The fact that you are ultimately producing in a collaborative medium likely creates compromises, so, as Erin indicates, the one place and moment where you can be sure you are true to your art is the script. There is a draft of every script that is you and you alone, without compromise. This is where we begin our critical analysis. And we will discuss more next week. Love -- B
------ Forwarded Message
From: erinerinerin@csulb.edu
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
To: Brian Alan Lane CSULB brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Subject: last night's... film?
In 2003, Lane ran Blumenthal's feature film "Take Two" for his writing class. She had described it as a "dark comedy", and, in fairness to Blumenthal, Lane used her press materials to give the students advance expectation of what they were about to see. The inquiry in Lane's classes is always to ask what's on the screen? and is this what the writer/filmmaker intended? That is, is there a gap between intention and execution? While Lane knew the film was not commercial, he wanted to open the students' eyes (and goals) to making films that were personal and experimental and art or at least artful. He was, quite frankly, fed up with all the students trying to mimic Tarantino. Finally, he was bristling at Blumenthal's endless attacks on the CSULB FEA students as being stupid and intransigent and in need of remedial education.
From: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 02:36:09 -0700
To: Don Para para@csulb.edu
Conversation: last night's... film?
Subject: FW: last night's... film?
Enjoy the film review below. It proves two things: (1) On their own, the students are able to discern the truth about the competence and quality of their teachers' artistic works, and (2) The students have tremendous critical acuity and are hardly in need of the remedial curriculum proposed by certain teachers. These students are good and smart, and they learn fast. When they don't know something, it is because their teachers have failed them. I will let you guess whose film was reviewed.
------ Forwarded Message
From: Brian Alan Lane CSULB brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 15:44:11 -0700
To: 304 Class
Subject: FW: last night's... film?
Gang -- Below is Erin's extraordinarily astute take on last night's screening. My note on his note is: The first key to creative/artistic accomplishment is to ask yourself whether you accomplished what you intended. The fact that you are ultimately producing in a collaborative medium likely creates compromises, so, as Erin indicates, the one place and moment where you can be sure you are true to your art is the script. There is a draft of every script that is you and you alone, without compromise. This is where we begin our critical analysis. And we will discuss more next week. Love -- B
------ Forwarded Message
From: erinerinerin@csulb.edu
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
To: Brian Alan Lane CSULB brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Subject: last night's... film?
Brian,
I thought I'd send you my thoughts on the in class screening we had.
Script and production values aside, I ALMOST feel bad making fun of this film because it is obviously very personal to the film maker. But, didn't anyone along the way say "this doesn't work" or "perhaps we should reshoot this scene"? It scares me deeply that this film was completed by a group of people who must have collectively applied the blinders. If this film is possible, where then is the safety net for our own pieces? Who will guide us when we stray?
Also I found the story disturbing. Not because of content, but rather the motivations of the main character. She was completely self absorbed. She spent her life searching for love and validation, and every time she found it, she abandoned it, and we are supposed to pity her for it.
The feelings of those she has abandoned never come in the story. Her son is this picture perfect boy who never stops fucking smiling. It's not about how he feels that his mother said "see you later, I'll always love you but couldn't give a fuck about your life." It's just about her.
Or when she reflects on her friend's suicide. Again, we only see how the suicide fucked her up. No mention of why, what her friend was going through, how her friend might have felt towards the main character.
With everything that happens to her she plays the victim. How she got screwed over by the world and now she wants to pick up the pieces. The only action of her own that she regrets is not picking up the phone while she was on a shoot. Well I'm sorry, but if it had come down to that moment, then there were serious issues that were not being addressed. The fact that the suicide came as such a shock to her tells me that she had no idea what the woman was going through.
So, the logline for the film: This is a tale of a self absorbed woman who alienates everyone she loves, and asks for our pity because she has no friends.
I can't tell whether I should be pissed off, or saddened by this. I feel guilty for laughing at it last night. I also feel like sending her cards that say "mommy why did you leave me?", with the hope of triggering some deeply buried, vestigial sense of empathy for the needs of others.
`erin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Spielberg received his BA from CSULB'S Film and Electronic Arts Department (FEA) on May 31, 2002, coming back to finish his studies more than 30 years after he had dropped out. FEA Chair Sharyn Blumenthal received special kudos for helping to arrange all this. Meanwhile, 60,000 other students had dropped out between Spielberg's leaving and Spielberg's return. He hoped his graduation would establish a pattern and process for all drop-outs to be able to graduate. It didn't.
From: "Jose Sanchez-H." sanchezh@csulb.edu
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 18:42:13 -0700
To: "Viera Dave" filmguy@csulb.edu, "Pounds Micheal" mpounds@csulb.edu, "Lane Brian" brilane@earthlink.net, "Kelly Rory M." roryk@ucla.edu, "Hubbert Steve" shubbert@csulb.edu, "Hart Chris" sirchtrah@juno.com, "Finney Bob" bobfin@csulb.edu, "De la Rocha Isaac" delrocha@csulb.edu, "Burman Karen" burman@csulb.edu, "Berlin Mike" ConeyIslend@aol.com
Subject: Camaraderie
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 18:42:13 -0700
To: "Viera Dave" filmguy@csulb.edu, "Pounds Micheal" mpounds@csulb.edu, "Lane Brian" brilane@earthlink.net, "Kelly Rory M." roryk@ucla.edu, "Hubbert Steve" shubbert@csulb.edu, "Hart Chris" sirchtrah@juno.com, "Finney Bob" bobfin@csulb.edu, "De la Rocha Isaac" delrocha@csulb.edu, "Burman Karen" burman@csulb.edu, "Berlin Mike" ConeyIslend@aol.com
Subject: Camaraderie
Hope you all survived this semester. At the last Academic Senate meeting, President Maxson commended Sharyn C. Blumenthal for her work on the graduation of Spielberg. He also sent her beautiful flowers for this. In the spirit of camaraderie and recognition of good work among colleagues, I took the initiative to send her some exotic flowers on behalf of faculty and staff.
If you would like to contribute to cover the expenses of the flowers, please leave $5 in my mail box.
Saludos,
JS-H
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like to contribute to cover the expenses of the flowers, please leave $5 in my mail box.
Saludos,
JS-H
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ink on Spielberg's diploma was not even dry before FEA Chair Blumenthal and College of The Arts (COTA) Dean Don Para were vying to find ways to get their new celebrity graduate to make vast donations Throughout Fall 2002, the two combatants jockeyed for position. As Spring 2003 dawned, Para decisively pulled the "Spielberg Donation Proposal" into his auspices. The references to Marv Levy and Andy Spahn are references to Spielberg's "people" who oversee his charitable contributions.
From: Don Para
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:23:35 -0800
To: Michael Berlin , Rory Kelly , Sharyn Blumenthal , Micheal Pounds , Steve Hubbert , Isaac de la Rocha , , Jose Sanchez-H , , Bethany Price , Susan Lauer
Subject: Meeting on Wednesday, March 5 re Spielberg Proposals
FEA Faculty and Staff,
An update on the next meeting. We will meet this Wednesday, March 5 at 5:00 in our conference room.
We want to move - as quickly as is practical - to a unified proposal that can be delivered to Marv Levy. As you will recall, he suggests that we offer a list of possible proposals to be reviewed by Marv and Andy Spahn - and probably others. They will evaluate each proposal and suggest if each should be sent forward, expanded, or discarded. The list of possible proposals that you received at our last meeting were items Marv thought would be of interest to Spielberg. We now have the expanded proposal developed by Sharyn to add to the discussion. (Sharyn delivered an expanded version of her proposal to me on Wednesday late. She said she would send a copy to everyone yesterday so I presume you all have a copy for review by now.)
Please review these proposals and be ready to make suggestions and recommendations. We'll throw out the bad ones, revise/expand the good ones, and add new ones. Please bring new ideas if you have them. Please bring ideas about ways to approach Spielberg if you have them.
If you wish to share any ideas before the meeting about any of these things - great! I'd love to hear. We want to maximize our opportunity for success and for establishing a long-term relationship with Spielberg.
Questions? Ideas? Thoughts?
As soon as we all agree on which proposals to share with Marv Levy we will take them to President Maxson and VP Bersi. After they review the proposals, the next meeting with Marv will be set.
Thanks, I look forward to Wednesday.
Don Para
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal made a final move to keep Para away from anything to do with Spielberg. She leaned on her faculty to protest Para's inter-disciplinary proposals which she rightly perceived as Para's inroad into Spielberg money. However, the alternative was to support her own proposal of having Spielberg create an Institute which she would conceive and run. Professor Lane had long advised everyone to leave Spielberg alone to enjoy the accomplishment of his newly minted degree. Lane was certain that Spielberg would never consider any sort of donation so close to graduation because it would look like he'd bought rather than earned his degree, and the press was always looking for a way to say something negative about a celebrity. But no one at CSULB would listen to Lane. They had bright stars and dollar signs in their eyes. When Blumenthal tried to leverage Lane's personnel performance evaluation (RTP) into getting him to support her against Para in this growing Spielberg mess, Lane went to Para and dug in to prove he could neither be bought nor threatened.
From: Sharyn Blumenthal sblumen1@csulb.edu
Organization: csulb
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:06:49 -0800
To: Brian Alan Lane brilane@earthlink.net
Subject: RTP
Organization: csulb
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:06:49 -0800
To: Brian Alan Lane brilane@earthlink.net
Subject: RTP
We need your syllabi, any other teaching materials, like a "reader," and a few scripts produced in your classes to review.
Rory said it's okay to take a look at his last mini-evaluation to get an idea for formatting. Three areas to consider:
1. teaching MFA document (for example)
2. Professional Growth (your own scripts, (works in progress) plays, TV programs even if it was a show that's been re-run during this year period.
3. Community Service Committee Work.
The first review is pretty light weight, however, it sets a pattern for subsequent reviews. I will zerox Rory's materials and place them in your mailboxes at work.
Any other questions do not hesitate.
Rory said it's okay to take a look at his last mini-evaluation to get an idea for formatting. Three areas to consider:
1. teaching MFA document (for example)
2. Professional Growth (your own scripts, (works in progress) plays, TV programs even if it was a show that's been re-run during this year period.
3. Community Service Committee Work.
The first review is pretty light weight, however, it sets a pattern for subsequent reviews. I will zerox Rory's materials and place them in your mailboxes at work.
Any other questions do not hesitate.
I would very much like to respond to the Dean by a letter stating what our objections are to his inter-disciplinary proposal. Therefore it would not be necessary to attend another meeting where more arguments ensue. Do you agree?
I'll be looking forward to your response?
Sharyn
I'll be looking forward to your response?
Sharyn
From: Don Para para@csulb.edu
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:28:22 -0800
To: Brian Alan Lane brilane@earthlink.net
Subject: RTP, etc.
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:28:22 -0800
To: Brian Alan Lane brilane@earthlink.net
Subject: RTP, etc.
Brian - Thanks so much for the forwarded email that outlines your concerns for the fairness and inconsistency in the process and appropriateness of unrelated items being attached to RTP directives. I will consult with appropriate university personnel and provide some direction ASAP - not later than Wednesday evening.
Thanks, and sorry that this is such a mess.
DP
Thanks, and sorry that this is such a mess.
DP
From: Don Para para@csulb.edu
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:54:54 -0800
To: Brian Alan Lane brilane@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: FW:
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:54:54 -0800
To: Brian Alan Lane brilane@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: FW:
Brian - This stuff just keeps on spinnin'! I had a talk with Gary Reichard and Kathy Cohn. There is a plan and will be quite quick in coming. I'll call you at home tomorrow. I'm gone until late again tonight.
Hang in there.
DP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang in there.
DP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Para had been long compiling reasons and complaints from many sources in order to relieve Blumenthal of her Chairship. Lane's information was the final piece of the puzzle that Para needed to receive permission from Academic Affairs to give Blumenthal the opportunity to resign or be fired.
From: Don Para para@csulb.edu;
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:44:20 -0800
To: Michael Berlin coneyislend@aol.com, Rory Kelly roryk@ucla.edu, Mike Pounds mpounds@csulb.edu, Steve Hubbert shubbert@csulb.edu, Isaac de la Rocha delrocha@csulb.edu, Brian Alan Lane brilane@earthlink.net, Jose Sanchez-H sanchezh@csulb.edu, bobfin@csulb.edu
Subject: Chair in FEA
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:44:20 -0800
To: Michael Berlin coneyislend@aol.com, Rory Kelly roryk@ucla.edu, Mike Pounds mpounds@csulb.edu, Steve Hubbert shubbert@csulb.edu, Isaac de la Rocha delrocha@csulb.edu, Brian Alan Lane brilane@earthlink.net, Jose Sanchez-H sanchezh@csulb.edu, bobfin@csulb.edu
Subject: Chair in FEA
FEA Faculty and Staff,
For a variety of reasons, Sharyn Blumenthal has decided to resign as Chair of FEA, effective immediately. I have accepted her resignation.
I hope to meet with you this week, Wednesday, at 5:00 to discuss future leadership of the program and other urgent issues.
In the brief interim before an acting chair is named, please direct any questions to Holly Harbinger, Associate Dean, or me in the college office.
Please join me in thanking Sharyn for her service to FEA, the COTA, and the university.
Donald Para
Dean
For a variety of reasons, Sharyn Blumenthal has decided to resign as Chair of FEA, effective immediately. I have accepted her resignation.
I hope to meet with you this week, Wednesday, at 5:00 to discuss future leadership of the program and other urgent issues.
In the brief interim before an acting chair is named, please direct any questions to Holly Harbinger, Associate Dean, or me in the college office.
Please join me in thanking Sharyn for her service to FEA, the COTA, and the university.
Donald Para
Dean
COTA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal resigned, then changed her mind a few days later and announced that she'd been fired. It was all legal strategy to make a claim for continued extra pay she would have earned as Chair (about 10%/year more than her professor's pay). In the end, Para reported that Blumenthal negotiated with the school and continued to receive her Chair's pay for a time, even though she was no longer Chair. In addition, she continued to make the school worry that she had "an open line" to Spielberg, so, while Para oversaw the "Spielberg Proposal", he nonetheless half-heartedly indulged Blumenthal's input. All this allowed Lane to be able to say "enough is enough" and opt out of anything to do with any solicitation of Spielberg by the school at that time. Behind the scenes, Lane used personal industry contacts and other industry donors he was soliciting to try to ask Spielberg to remain patiently sympathetic to FEA's great students, even if the administrators were unworthy.
From: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 01:46:02 -0700
To: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu, Don Para para@csulb.edu
Conversation: SPIELBERG PROPOSAL
Subject: SPIELBERG PROPOSAL
Guys --
Now that I have had a chance to review the Spielberg proposal as it has been reconstituted, I must insist that my name and any reference to me be deleted. ... Professionally, I have worked with Spielberg and Amblin’, and I may well have the opportunity to do so again -- my credibility is hard earned precisely because I have certain standards of originality and honor -- please delete me from this proposal.
Love -- B
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 01:46:02 -0700
To: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu, Don Para para@csulb.edu
Conversation: SPIELBERG PROPOSAL
Subject: SPIELBERG PROPOSAL
Guys --
Now that I have had a chance to review the Spielberg proposal as it has been reconstituted, I must insist that my name and any reference to me be deleted. ... Professionally, I have worked with Spielberg and Amblin’, and I may well have the opportunity to do so again -- my credibility is hard earned precisely because I have certain standards of originality and honor -- please delete me from this proposal.
Love -- B
From: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 04:01:16 -0700
To: Sharyn Blumenthal sblumen1@csulb.edu
Conversation: last call
Subject: FW: last call
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 04:01:16 -0700
To: Sharyn Blumenthal sblumen1@csulb.edu
Conversation: last call
Subject: FW: last call
S -- With respect to the Spielberg Proposal, please delete any reference to me personally or any project with which I am affiliated.
--B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through Fall 2003 and deep into Spring 2004, Spielberg's "people" held the CSULB fundraiser folks at bay. As Lane had predicted (and as Spielberg's friends and colleagues had advised him), Spielberg's ultimate interest in donating (if any) would be to strong, innovative, signature, and new academic programs within FEA, particularly if other industry donors were also involved. Accordingly, in talks with Spielberg's "people", Para and FEA Chair Craig Smith repeatedly heard that Spielberg was not interested in anything current they were pitching him, but might find the new MFA Dramatic Writing Program interesting, if only that program could get past the roadblock of academic politics and onto the books.
Then, in May 2004, Blumenthal learned that her Institute proposal had never gone to Spielberg's people, and she felt that Para had led her to believe otherwise. At that time, Lane had no idea that Blumenthal was right, that, at the highest levels of the University, administrators lied to faculty in order to keep them calm and quiet. The reason Lane had no idea was because his best friend in the world, Don Para, looked him in the eyes and lied to him too. Lane would not truly appreciate that until years later. Meanwhile, back in Spring 2004, Lane believed that Blumenthal's proposal was unacceptable, had been rejected in full by Spielberg's people, and that her overall approach to Spielberg was dishonorable and demeaning.
So Lane wanted to head off Blumenthal's latest effort to rally the FEA faculty to protest, before she offended Spielberg for all time and left FEA's needy students in the lurch. Lane wrote to CSULB President Robert Maxson, trying to get him involved to save the day. As you will see, Lane was out of patience for any more of CSULB's "Amateur Nite in Dixie".
From: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 00:52:07 -0700
To: Robert Maxson rmaxson@csulb.edu, acontrer@csulb.edu, Don Para para@csulb.edu, Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Conversation: URGENT! SPIELBERG DONATION!
Subject: URGENT! SPIELBERG DONATION!
To:
Robert Maxson
Armando Contreras
Don Para
Craig Smith
Gentlemen:
It is time for your direct and urgent involvement. The public reputation of President Maxson, the reputation of this University, and this University’s relationship with Steven Spielberg are all at stake.
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 00:52:07 -0700
To: Robert Maxson rmaxson@csulb.edu, acontrer@csulb.edu, Don Para para@csulb.edu, Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Conversation: URGENT! SPIELBERG DONATION!
Subject: URGENT! SPIELBERG DONATION!
To:
Robert Maxson
Armando Contreras
Don Para
Craig Smith
Gentlemen:
It is time for your direct and urgent involvement. The public reputation of President Maxson, the reputation of this University, and this University’s relationship with Steven Spielberg are all at stake.
Your presence is hereby requested at the meeting referred to below in Sharyn Blumenthal’s e-mail to FEA faculty. That meeting is now scheduled to take place on Wednesday May 19 at approximately four p.m.. It is possible that it could begin slightly later, but it is called for four. I will have a better sense of timing later today, but wanted to give you the heads-up right away.
This is a crucial meeting at which Sharyn will once again attempt to compromise this University’s relationship with Spielberg. She will be directly attacking Craig Smith, Don Para, President Maxson, and the integrity of this University’s administration.
If you care, then you should be at the meeting and should be ready to respond to Sharyn’s false claims. At the meeting, I will be prepared to confront Sharyn with a complete record of the truth, based on my personal knowledge and well-substantiated back-up. You all have these same facts at your fingertips.
To reiterate, in chronological order:
1. As of two years ago, when Spielberg was about to be awarded his degree, Sharyn was very public with the claim that she was responsible for arranging this. She claimed to have been “hands on” in running from professor to professor to establish Spielberg’s curriculum, define assignments and testing, and make sure that he received passing grades. She made this out to be more of a negotiation than an academic program. Worse, she claimed that there was a quid pro quo: that Spielberg would ultimately make a substantial donation to the University. Just after commencement, Sharyn excitedly announced to all FEA faculty that President Maxson had personally promised her that the expected donation would be earmarked for FEA. In recognition of Sharyn’s efforts on the Spielberg matter, FEA faculty bought her a big floral thank you and sent confirming e-mails.
Now, you may say Sharyn’s claims are all lies, and that may well be. But the relevant fact is that she told them and we all believed them, and that stuff is out there in the ether (and, in some cases, in writing), as a record that reporters can unearth. Worse, there are at least two professors who have complained that they were strong-armed by Sharyn into giving passing grades to Spielberg for classes in which he did insufficient work or showed insufficient knowledge of the subject matter. Those professors later dropped their complaints, but, again, the word is out there for reporters to inquire into.
2. Early in 2003, Sharyn began to claim that Don Para was going to “steal” the impending Spielberg donation, diverting it from FEA and allocating it to other departments. In response, Don subsequently attended regular FEA faculty meetings, as well as arranged and participated in FEA faculty meetings specially set to address the donation solicitation proposal being constructed by FEA and COTA for Spielberg. Don made it absolutely unequivocally clear that the donation would not be co-opted and was indeed earmarked for FEA. He also made it clear that Spielberg’s point person -- Marvin Levy -- wanted COTA to proffer a “cafeteria list” of ideas for projects and programs to which the donation could be tied. Spielberg was not going to just write out a check that could look like a deferred pay-off for his degree. Spielberg was only going to make a donation to a specific project or program that he felt was worthy of his academic and professional agenda.
3. As one item on the “cafeteria list”, Sharyn developed a personal project she called “The Institute for Creative Thinking”. The substance of this project -- an interactive curriculum in practical media aesthetics -- is directly derivative of the program at The Annenberg School at USC, except that Sharyn’s version was reduced to a kind of low-level primer, in keeping with Sharyn’s oft-stated belief that CSULB FEA students are stupid, disinterested in learning, incapable of comprehending media theory, and biased against professors who try to teach them anything other than production.
At Sharyn’s instance, Maija Beeton put together a big, bound volume which represented the proposal for “The Institute”. It was Sharyn’s intention to personally run “The Institute” should it be funded. Contained within the relevant proposal is Sharyn’s c.v.. This particular draft of her c.v. contains falsehoods from beginning to end. I am not referring to exaggerations, I am referring to actionable lies. In this c.v., Sharyn claims credit for awards actually received by others, claims credit for publications that do not actually exist, claims credit for productions that did not actually happen, claims credit for writing and directing and editing when she did not actually serve those roles, claims credit for sole writing and directing on projects where credit was actually shared, and on and on and on. This c.v. is a very public piece of fiction and fraud, and would be easily proven so were any reporter to inquire into it. Yet, Sharyn wanted (and still wants) that c.v. sent to Spielberg as part of the overall proposal.
4. At group meetings in Spring 2003, all the FEA faculty (including Sharyn) were informed by Don Para (and Holly Harbinger and Sue Lauer) that Sharyn’s proposal was being reduced to a paragraph for inclusion on the “cafeteria list” that would be presented to Marv Levy. At no time did Don ever promise or mislead Sharyn or any of us into believing that the proposal would go intact to Levy. Craig Smith also confirmed this at our faculty meetings.
5. As it turned out, once the “cafeteria list” was presented to Levy in Fall 2003, Levy apparently was not interested in Sharyn’s proposal for “The Institute”. As I had predicted, he preferred programs that dovetailed the practical with academic scholarship (such as the inter-disciplinary MFA in screenwriting/dramatic writing), or those that specifically aided the next generation of filmmakers to live their dreams (such as the “Spielberg’s Scholars” idea). I have worked professionally with Spielberg and am friends with his associates, and I can tell you that his interest is in proving that film school is not trade tech and that filmmaking requires scholarship and literacy. By the same token, he wants to be responsible for generating the next generation of filmmakers rather than academicians. And he wants to donate to something that stands for his signature vision, rather than something generic.
6. Recently, Sharyn began to claim that Don and Spielberg had stolen her “Institute” idea. Suddenly, in the last two days, she did a 180 on that allegation, phoned the FEA faculty and followed up with the below e-mail in which she now claims that her proposal was never sent to Spielberg despite her belief that Don and Craig (and Maxson) had promised to do so. She is back on her high horse claiming that these gentlemen are trying to steal the donation and that, if Maxson does not back her, then it means he lied when pledging that the money would be earmarked for FEA. I expect her to reiterate these claims at our meeting this Wednesday. Indeed, that is the point of her meeting. She wants her proposal sent to Spielberg -- the proposal with the fraudulent c.v. in it. And she wants the FEA faculty -- en masse -- to storm up to Maxson’s office and make this demand.
7. So that you know, Spielberg is completely OCD about his press coverage. He is legendary for it in press and public relations and legal circles. Spielberg does nothing unless he is absolutely assured of getting positive coverage. From the beginning, he has been worried that any donation to CSULB would look like payment for his degree. And, he is right to worry. That is the one and only angle that the entertainment press keeps investigating. And, by her actions, Sharyn is playing directly into that. She is single-handedly keeping alive the public notion that Spielberg bought his degree. The course/grade transcript record is irrelevant if reporters can find people to state that they were strong-armed into creating that record or if there are people who can quote Sharyn’s planning for the acceptance of this donation back when Spielberg was graduating. Sharyn’s current actions confirm all this. And, her false c.v. is a sufficient reason all its own to queer any donation. Spielberg is hardly going to give a donation to a University that allows its professors to maintain fraudulent credentials, hardly going to give a donation to be administered by Sharyn when the attention she would get would certainly lead to her false credits being discovered, to the embarrassment of one and all.
8. There is more than enough in these facts for you all to do something about this. See you at the meeting on Wednesday -- or perhaps you will intervene more decisively and quickly, obviating the need for the meeting. I can tell you that Spielberg’s “people” have floated the notion that he might donate to CSULB, and they are gauging the press response in advance before any donation will or will not be made. Reporters have been making active inquiries for several weeks now. The students of this University will lose much if such a donation does not happen. The preferred course would be for this matter to be handled at the highest levels of the University, rather than at the departmental level where there is no chance for finality and much chance for more rumors floating into the ether.
BAL
------ Forwarded Message
From: SharynBlum@aol.com
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 18:31:35 EDT
TO: brilane@earthlink.net, ConeyIsland@aol.com, crsmith@csulb.edu, michealpounds@sbcglobal.net, roryk@ucla.edu, sanchezh@csulb.edu, SharynBlum@aol.com, shubbert@csulb.edu
Subject: Spielberg Proposal
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 18:31:35 EDT
TO: brilane@earthlink.net, ConeyIsland@aol.com, crsmith@csulb.edu, michealpounds@sbcglobal.net, roryk@ucla.edu, sanchezh@csulb.edu, SharynBlum@aol.com, shubbert@csulb.edu
Subject: Spielberg Proposal
Dear Colleagues,
I just received, via V.P. Kathy Cohn, copies of "College of the Arts: Proposal for Steven Spielberg-Executive Summary." This executive summary was presented to Marvin Levy September 9, 2003.
I just received, via V.P. Kathy Cohn, copies of "College of the Arts: Proposal for Steven Spielberg-Executive Summary." This executive summary was presented to Marvin Levy September 9, 2003.
I am placing in your mailboxes drafts of various kinds that were not sent or presented to Marvin Levy but were sent to Dean Donald Para from Chairperson Craig Smith.
The proposal The Institute For Creative Thinking was not sent to Marvin Levy's office according to the information I received Friday, May 14, 2004. This was the proposal that Maija and I were asked to complete and revise. Copies were passed around to all faculty and it was agreed at the end of the Spring semester 2003 that it would be sent to Levy's office.
Jose, Micheal and I are suggesting that we meet as a faculty to discuss these proposals and other matters. For Jose, Mike P. and I Tuesday at 5pm is a good time for this meeting. Please respond with your availability and such.
Sharyn
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lane continued to try to get Maxson involved, and everyone else uninvolved, in the pursuit of Steven Spielberg. Lane believed that Maxson should be dealing with Spielberg on a "President to President" basis. He also believed that if Maxson got into it, he would see that the MFA in Dramatic Writing Program would linchpin industry donations -- including Spielberg's, potentially -- and Maxson was definitely in a position to sweep away the academic politics that was holding that program in the starting gate.
From: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:24:20 -0700
To: Robert Maxson rmaxson@csulb.edu
Conversation: Spielberg Advice
Subject: FW: Spielberg Advice
Dear President Maxson --
Every once in a while I am going to forward you material that could be helpful to you in dealing with Spielberg. I promise not to CC you on everything. So, give the below a quick read. I do think we are all on a positive and productive track here, it’s a pleasure to work with Don and Craig, and thank you for being there when we need it.
Best -- B
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:24:20 -0700
To: Robert Maxson rmaxson@csulb.edu
Conversation: Spielberg Advice
Subject: FW: Spielberg Advice
Dear President Maxson --
Every once in a while I am going to forward you material that could be helpful to you in dealing with Spielberg. I promise not to CC you on everything. So, give the below a quick read. I do think we are all on a positive and productive track here, it’s a pleasure to work with Don and Craig, and thank you for being there when we need it.
Best -- B
From: "Craig Smith" crsmith@csulb.edu
Reply-To: "Craig Smith" crsmith@csulb.edu
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:03:08 -0700
To: "Brian Alan Lane CSULB" brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Spielberg Advice
Good advice.
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:03:08 -0700
To: "Brian Alan Lane CSULB" brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Spielberg Advice
Good advice.
Be Good,
Craig
Please see our web site at:
www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html
http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html
Craig
Please see our web site at:
www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html
http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html
------ Forwarded Message
From: Brian Alan Lane CSULB mailto:brianalanlane@earthlink.net
To: Don Para mailto:para@csulb.edu, Craig Smith mailto:crsmith@csulb.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:57 AM
Subject: Spielberg Advice
Guys --
I've been thinking about it, and I think it's important that Don add a few lines to the letter that's going to Levy/Spielberg, to the following effect:
1. FEA has not been resting on its laurels (which is to say, the department has not been in a holding pattern awaiting a Spielberg donation).
2. FEA has taken great and important strides in curriculum and reputation since Craig came aboard. You should mention Craig's organizational skills and drive, and, even more importantly, his brilliance and background in comm studies -- the way he brings classical theory to present practice in all narrative media.
3. The hiring of Davinia Thornley (presuming you make the deal) is a coup. She comes to us to continue her ground-breaking researches into the historico-critical impact of Hollywood film narrative on isolated indigenous cultures worldwide.
4. (You needn't mention me by name unless you want to, and, if you do, feel free to remind Spielberg of the project I had with him -- his adaptation of my novel-in-progress "The Lost Secret of London", a story about the adventure and investigation into the murder of Charles Dickens -- retitled "Literary License" at Amblin‚ -- which was to have been an ABC mini-series starring Fred Savage) -- because, on behalf of FEA, I have now taken over the publication of the lit journal Sweet Fancy Moses and am developing the website Tales Told in order to publish (i) the world's best fiction, (ii) screenplays written to be read, and (iii) real stories of ordinary people who have led extraordinary lives out of the public eye. (Feel free to mention that Nzingha Clarke is one of the editors -- and do mention her famous father, John Henrik Clarke -- creator of "African-American studies", has a library named after him at Cornell).
5. The creation of the professional writing and production course -- FEA 403 -- which is quickly generating festival-worthy films and plays and radio shows.
Spielberg will respond to the breadth and scope of freshness and importance of all these new approaches to our curriculum. You are essentially telling him that we are ratcheting up our undergrad curriculum to a graduate level, academically and practically.
To: Don Para mailto:para@csulb.edu, Craig Smith mailto:crsmith@csulb.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:57 AM
Subject: Spielberg Advice
Guys --
I've been thinking about it, and I think it's important that Don add a few lines to the letter that's going to Levy/Spielberg, to the following effect:
1. FEA has not been resting on its laurels (which is to say, the department has not been in a holding pattern awaiting a Spielberg donation).
2. FEA has taken great and important strides in curriculum and reputation since Craig came aboard. You should mention Craig's organizational skills and drive, and, even more importantly, his brilliance and background in comm studies -- the way he brings classical theory to present practice in all narrative media.
3. The hiring of Davinia Thornley (presuming you make the deal) is a coup. She comes to us to continue her ground-breaking researches into the historico-critical impact of Hollywood film narrative on isolated indigenous cultures worldwide.
4. (You needn't mention me by name unless you want to, and, if you do, feel free to remind Spielberg of the project I had with him -- his adaptation of my novel-in-progress "The Lost Secret of London", a story about the adventure and investigation into the murder of Charles Dickens -- retitled "Literary License" at Amblin‚ -- which was to have been an ABC mini-series starring Fred Savage) -- because, on behalf of FEA, I have now taken over the publication of the lit journal Sweet Fancy Moses and am developing the website Tales Told in order to publish (i) the world's best fiction, (ii) screenplays written to be read, and (iii) real stories of ordinary people who have led extraordinary lives out of the public eye. (Feel free to mention that Nzingha Clarke is one of the editors -- and do mention her famous father, John Henrik Clarke -- creator of "African-American studies", has a library named after him at Cornell).
5. The creation of the professional writing and production course -- FEA 403 -- which is quickly generating festival-worthy films and plays and radio shows.
Spielberg will respond to the breadth and scope of freshness and importance of all these new approaches to our curriculum. You are essentially telling him that we are ratcheting up our undergrad curriculum to a graduate level, academically and practically.
The SFM and TT stuff will appeal to his politics and his humanity -- they tie to his vision as evidenced by his Schindler archives and other important works. He can thereby have emotional ownership of what we are doing, and help guide us to the next level.
We don't just want his cash, we want his vision. I truly believe that he is looking for this hook, something to have a stake in, something that counts as legacy, particularly in light of his need to do something politically important in this crazy year of war, terror, and confusion. The guy is looking to take a stand that matters, and positive press to go with it. He wants to guide the next generation (our kids and his kids) into moral consciousness and responsibility for the future, not just make entertainment.
Ask yourself, if you are Steven Spielberg and you are giving a donation to CSULB, how do you explain your choice to do so? He needs to be able to explain it by resort to high principles and even higher, signature vision. He can't and won't just say he's helping us have better equipment and facilities so we can compete with USC and UCLA. He lives in a bigger world than that, and he's more important than that.
-- B
Ask yourself, if you are Steven Spielberg and you are giving a donation to CSULB, how do you explain your choice to do so? He needs to be able to explain it by resort to high principles and even higher, signature vision. He can't and won't just say he's helping us have better equipment and facilities so we can compete with USC and UCLA. He lives in a bigger world than that, and he's more important than that.
-- B
Guys -- read this (Nzingha just sent it to me): ZOETROPE: ALL STORY -- literary journal, recently transplanted from New York to San Francisco. New California issue of short stories...
And note that Spielberg intros a story!
I told you he’s all about trying to gain this mantle of literacy and literature.
Love -- B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early in Fall 2004, frustrated with the slow-go of Marv Levy (Spielberg's "people"), FEA Chair Craig Smith asked Lane to help try to secure a Spielberg donation. But Lane had been in continuous contact with Spielberg's colleagues and friends throughout, and he knew that the only way there would be a substantial donation would be if and when the MFA DW was implemented. In the meantime, Lane had been quite active in securing other donors and donating money himself for current needs.
From: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Reply-To: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:15:35 -0700
To: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Subject: VariousHi Brian,
Reply-To: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:15:35 -0700
To: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Subject: VariousHi Brian,
You had mentioned a while back that you have a source in the Spielberg operation that might be able to help us get things moving. Can you talk to me about that. We are at a delicate stage in talks, and I want to talk to you directly about where we are to see if you can help.
Be Good,
Craig
Please see our web site at:
www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html &
http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html
www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html &
http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By late Fall 2004, political impediments to Lane's proposed CSULB Masters in Fine Arts in Dramatic Writing Degree Program (MFA DW) had been bulldozed away by the forced retirement of Theatre Arts Chair Howard Burman and the consensus building of Smith. As a result, the Film Department, the Theatre Department, and the College of The Arts entered into a legally binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), by which the MFA DW would be created, implemented, and operated. (The Department of Communications and the Department of Comparative Literature were also involved, but not signatory to the MOU.) The MFA DW was the Program that Spielberg wanted to fund. But it would take another year and half before it would make its way through all the committee approvals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As 2004 led to 2005, FEA Chair Craig Smith was able to get $100,000 from George Lucas and $10,000 from Spielberg to cover immediate and urgent department needs for equipment, equipment repairs, and student film productions and awards.
In 2005, Spielberg moved his SHOAH Foundation to the University of Southern California (USC).
Also, in 2005, Smith and Lane continued to try to get the University to honor its moral pledge to Spielberg to help all drop-outs come back to finish their degrees, not just Spielberg. Lane was re-drafting FEA's homepage text when the following exchange occurred:
From: Brian Alan Lane CSULB mailto:brianalanlane@earthlink.net
To: Craig Smith mailto:crsmith@csulb.edu
To: Craig Smith mailto:crsmith@csulb.edu
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 3:10 AM
Subject: FEA HOMEPAGE DRAFT
Subject: FEA HOMEPAGE DRAFT
Try this on for size. This is the revised text for the departmental homepage (not the faculty homepage). First draft. B
From: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Organization: CSULB
Reply-To: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:07:27 -0800
To: Brian Alan Lane CSULB brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: FEA HOMEPAGE DRAFTHi Brian, I made some corrections in your draft. For example, we can't say "graduates" of the program since some of these people (Dykstra, Bee) never graduated. See attached.
Take care,
Craig
_____________________________
C. R. Smith, Member of the Board of Trustees, California State University System
Chair, Film and Electronic Arts; Director, Center for First Amendment Studies
Director, Center for First Amendment Studies
See our web site:
www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html <http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html
From: Brian Alan Lane CSULB mailto:brianalanlane@earthlink.net
To: Craig Smith mailto:crsmith@csulb.edu
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: FEA HOMEPAGE DRAFT
Ah ha! But graduates is such a better word! Can’t we give them all Spielberg degrees? Are we getting anywhere on that? I keep mentioning it to anyone who will listen, only no one does.
From: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Organization: CSULB
Reply-To: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:59:37 -0800
To: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: FEA HOMEPAGE DRAFT
We are still working on it, actually.
Organization: CSULB
Reply-To: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:59:37 -0800
To: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: FEA HOMEPAGE DRAFT
We are still working on it, actually.
Take care,
Craig
_____________________________
C. R. Smith, Member of the Board of Trustees, California State University System
Chair, Film and Electronic Arts; Director, Center for First Amendment Studies
Director, Center for First Amendment Studies
See our web site:
www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html
Nothing would come of Smith's and Lane's efforts to aid drop-outs other than Spielberg. There had been more than 60,000 drop-outs in the time between Spielberg leaving the University and his return for degree completion more than 30 years later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Spring 2005, Spielberg's "people" made it clear that a donation would be possible once the MFA DW came into being. Lane was fundraising elsewhere, but delighted to know that Spielberg's "people" had now told Smith and Para what Lane had long known from his own Spielberg pipeline.
In Spring 2005, Spielberg's "people" made it clear that a donation would be possible once the MFA DW came into being. Lane was fundraising elsewhere, but delighted to know that Spielberg's "people" had now told Smith and Para what Lane had long known from his own Spielberg pipeline.
From: Brian Alan Lane CSULB <mailto:brianalanlane@earthlink.net>
To: Craig Smith <mailto:crsmith@csulb.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 11:51 AM
Subject: $$
C -- What is the cost of grad assistantships we need for the MFA? I’m in money-raising mode. B
From: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Organization: CSULB
Reply-To: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 15:47:02 -0700
To: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: $$
A full teaching assistant or graduate assistant is figured at 20 hours a week. The cost for a TA to teach one class is $3600 a semester; so a half GA for the semester would be $3600 also; or $7,200 a year. When we met with Spielberg's people we rounded up and asked for $10,000 a year for each participant in the MFA for them to do work in Theatre Arts or else where.
Organization: CSULB
Reply-To: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 15:47:02 -0700
To: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: $$
A full teaching assistant or graduate assistant is figured at 20 hours a week. The cost for a TA to teach one class is $3600 a semester; so a half GA for the semester would be $3600 also; or $7,200 a year. When we met with Spielberg's people we rounded up and asked for $10,000 a year for each participant in the MFA for them to do work in Theatre Arts or else where.
Take Care,
Craig
See our website at: www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html <http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through Fall 2003 and deep into Spring 2004, Spielberg's "people" held the CSULB fundraiser folks at bay. As Lane had predicted (and as Spielberg's friends and colleagues had advised him), Spielberg's ultimate interest in donating (if any) would be to strong, innovative, signature, and new academic programs within FEA, particularly if other industry donors were also involved. Accordingly, in talks with Spielberg's "people", Para and FEA Chair Craig Smith repeatedly heard that Spielberg was not interested in anything current they were pitching him, but might find the new MFA Dramatic Writing Program interesting, if only that program could get past the roadblock of academic politics and onto the books.
Then, in May 2004, Blumenthal learned that her Institute proposal had never gone to Spielberg's people, and she felt that Para had led her to believe otherwise. At that time, Lane had no idea that Blumenthal was right, that, at the highest levels of the University, administrators lied to faculty in order to keep them calm and quiet. The reason Lane had no idea was because his best friend in the world, Don Para, looked him in the eyes and lied to him too. Lane would not truly appreciate that until years later. Meanwhile, back in Spring 2004, Lane believed that Blumenthal's proposal was unacceptable, had been rejected in full by Spielberg's people, and that her overall approach to Spielberg was dishonorable and demeaning.
So Lane wanted to head off Blumenthal's latest effort to rally the FEA faculty to protest, before she offended Spielberg for all time and left FEA's needy students in the lurch. Lane wrote to CSULB President Robert Maxson, trying to get him involved to save the day. As you will see, Lane was out of patience for any more of CSULB's "Amateur Nite in Dixie".
From: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:45:19 -0700
To: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Subject: MY MFA BABY IS BORN!
Everyone --
Finally! After a too-long gestation, the MFA Degree Program that I’ve been developing here at CSULB is for real and will begin this Fall!
The program itself is multi-disciplinary and cutting edge — it’s gamely called “Dramatic Writing”, but it covers ALL genres and all media, including emerging media.
The program is offered by the Department of Theatre Arts, in conjunction with the Department Film and Electronic Arts, the Department of Comparative World Literature and Classics, and the Department of Communication Studies. SONY and other corporate tie-ins will allow students to produce/stage their works during the curriculum. The goal of the program is to graduate professional writers and university/college teachers of writing. The program will ultimately be defined by the success of our graduates.
The program is pretty exclusive in that it will admit only 6 new students per year. But I will make additional room in my core writing sequence of courses for a few students who want a long-term master course without the full-time commitment to a degree program. In all events, consider this program AND spread the word! We need the greatest writing talent in the world!
Details attached, and more to follow.
Love -- B
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:45:19 -0700
To: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Subject: MY MFA BABY IS BORN!
Everyone --
Finally! After a too-long gestation, the MFA Degree Program that I’ve been developing here at CSULB is for real and will begin this Fall!
The program itself is multi-disciplinary and cutting edge — it’s gamely called “Dramatic Writing”, but it covers ALL genres and all media, including emerging media.
The program is offered by the Department of Theatre Arts, in conjunction with the Department Film and Electronic Arts, the Department of Comparative World Literature and Classics, and the Department of Communication Studies. SONY and other corporate tie-ins will allow students to produce/stage their works during the curriculum. The goal of the program is to graduate professional writers and university/college teachers of writing. The program will ultimately be defined by the success of our graduates.
The program is pretty exclusive in that it will admit only 6 new students per year. But I will make additional room in my core writing sequence of courses for a few students who want a long-term master course without the full-time commitment to a degree program. In all events, consider this program AND spread the word! We need the greatest writing talent in the world!
Details attached, and more to follow.
Love -- B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Spring 2007, Spielberg agreed to donate $1,378,000 over three years to support the MFA DW, featuring subsidies to its students and relevant improvements to FEA production facilities and equipment. Spielberg intended his name not to be used and for the donation to be "anonymous", but the cat was already out of the bag since everyone at CSULB had been talking and writing about "the Spielberg donation" since 2002.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eventually, in 2008, Spielberg agreed to allow his name to be signposted as the "Steven Spielberg Sound Stage and Editing Studio" just after Lane got the University to honor famed writer/producer William Link by re-naming the University Theatre after him. Link had professional and personal ties to Spielberg that went back nearly 40 years. Now the two men would be the first Hollywood icons to have their names over doors at CSULB. It was a grand time.
From: Jennifer Gonring mailto:gonring@andyspahn.com
To: Craig Smith mailto:crsmith@csulb.edu
Cc: Levy, Marvin - DreamWorks mailto:Marvin_Levy@dreamworkstudios.com
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 4:58 PM
Subject: RE: Good NewsHere is the name:
Steven Spielberg Sound Stage and Editing Studio
Please refer to all the associated contractual language for the naming.
Many congratulations on all the good things happening your way.
To: Craig Smith mailto:crsmith@csulb.edu
Cc: Levy, Marvin - DreamWorks mailto:Marvin_Levy@dreamworkstudios.com
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 4:58 PM
Subject: RE: Good NewsHere is the name:
Steven Spielberg Sound Stage and Editing Studio
Please refer to all the associated contractual language for the naming.
Many congratulations on all the good things happening your way.
All best,
Jennifer
Jennifer Gonring ׀ Vice President ׀ Andy Spahn & Associates, Inc. ׀ 100 Universal Plaza Building 5121 ׀ Universal City, California 91608 USA ׀ tele: +1-818-733-7388 ׀ fax: +1-818-733-7329 ׀ www.andyspahn.com http://www.andyspahn.com
Jennifer
Jennifer Gonring ׀ Vice President ׀ Andy Spahn & Associates, Inc. ׀ 100 Universal Plaza Building 5121 ׀ Universal City, California 91608 USA ׀ tele: +1-818-733-7388 ׀ fax: +1-818-733-7329 ׀ www.andyspahn.com http://www.andyspahn.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2008-2009 academic year, the last year of the three year donation from Spielberg, Spielberg's "people" Andy Spahn and Jennifer Gonring came to CSULB and FEA to see how Spielberg's money had been spent. They reviewed the MFA DW Program, as well as the "Spielberg Sound Stage and Editing Studios", and pronounced themselves very very pleased. They were particularly complimentary about the MFA DW, which was about to graduate its first students. Spahn and Gonring advised the school that they intended the donation to be re-upped for another three years.
Then, on the first Saturday of Spring Break 2009, the below e-mail surprise arrived to the inboxes of the four members of the MFA DW Implementation Committee which was legally empowered to operate the Program. The e-mail was additionally copied to COTA Associate Dean James "Jay" Kvapil, and appointments secretaries Laura "Katy" Kroll and Jamie Wentz.
From: Don Para para@csulb.edu
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:28:01 -0700
To: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu, Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net, Maria Viera mviera@csulb.edu, Joanne Gordon jgordon@csulb.edu, kvapil@csulb.edu
Cc: Laura Kroll lkroll@csulb.edu, Jamie Wentz jwentz@csulb.edu
Subject: Urgent Meeting
Craig, Joanne, Brian, Maria, and Jay,
I am calling an urgent meeting of the Implementation Committee (MFA in DW) for Monday, April 6 at 1:00 in the COTA Conference Room. If you cannot attend the meeting in person, please let me know.
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:28:01 -0700
To: Craig Smith crsmith@csulb.edu, Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net, Maria Viera mviera@csulb.edu, Joanne Gordon jgordon@csulb.edu, kvapil@csulb.edu
Cc: Laura Kroll lkroll@csulb.edu, Jamie Wentz jwentz@csulb.edu
Subject: Urgent Meeting
Craig, Joanne, Brian, Maria, and Jay,
I am calling an urgent meeting of the Implementation Committee (MFA in DW) for Monday, April 6 at 1:00 in the COTA Conference Room. If you cannot attend the meeting in person, please let me know.
Don Para
At the meeting called by the above e-mail, Alexander and Para retaliated for Lane's public whistleblowing as to imposter professors by abruptly suspending Fall 2009 admissions to the MFA DW, citing an ever-changing series of false justifications over the course of several meetings and confrontations. They also ran to the COTA Curriculum Committee and attempted to delete all of Lane's courses from the MFA DW Program. Smith's intervened but was able to save only one of Lane's five courses. Alexander's and Para's retaliatory intent against Lane was crystal clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the midst of all the chaos as Alexander and Para were attempting to kill the MFA DW, the California budget crisis led to a 10% "furlough" paycut for all employees paid by state (taxpayer) money. This paycut was for the 2009-2010 academic year. FEA Professor J. Todd Baker was to be paid in full by Spielberg donor money. Nonetheless, Alexander and Para took 10% of his money -- that is, they took 10% of Spielberg's money intended for Baker, shifting it over to pay costs unrelated to Spielberg's contracted intentions and without telling Spielberg. Baker soon filed a legal grievance.
From: "Micheal Pounds, Ph.D." <michealpounds@roadrunner.com>
Reply-To: <michealpounds@roadrunner.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:25:35 -0700
To: 'Teri Yamada' <yamadaty@csulb.edu>, 'Elizabeth Hoffman'
<ehoffman@csulb.edu>
Subject: Adjunct Pay Issue
First some background, then a request.
As you know, FEA is fortunate to have a celebrated alumnus who annually gives a sum of money to the department. A portion of that gift is used to pay in full for an adjunct to teach in the department.
It has come to my attention that this adjunct — J. Todd Baker -- is now being told that his income from this private, non-CSU source will be subject to the same 10% reduction that regular, state employees are being forced to endure.
This is absurd and a scandal.
Reply-To: <michealpounds@roadrunner.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:25:35 -0700
To: 'Teri Yamada' <yamadaty@csulb.edu>, 'Elizabeth Hoffman'
<ehoffman@csulb.edu>
Subject: Adjunct Pay Issue
First some background, then a request.
As you know, FEA is fortunate to have a celebrated alumnus who annually gives a sum of money to the department. A portion of that gift is used to pay in full for an adjunct to teach in the department.
It has come to my attention that this adjunct — J. Todd Baker -- is now being told that his income from this private, non-CSU source will be subject to the same 10% reduction that regular, state employees are being forced to endure.
This is absurd and a scandal.
The furlough agreement states very clearly: "Faculty Unit employees whose salary is 100% funded from grants and contracts not funded from the state general fund, shall not be subject to this furlough agreement."
Professor Baker's salary comes from donor funds held by the CSULB Foundation. When payment is due, the University chooses to move those funds to FEA's general account for their momentary convenience, cutting the paycheck from there, since that's how they normally handle payroll.
The funds are not "funded from the state general fund" (ie, taxpayer money), and it has never been the donor's intent to commingle his money with stateside money. There is an elaborate and carefully negotiated pledge contract by which the donor specifies where his money is to go. He will be livid to learn that 10% of it has now been co-opted, for all intents and purposes stolen by the University to use any way they see fit. That was not the deal. As well, that was not the deal for Professor Baker. He is receiving 10% less than he bargained for.
The situation that Professor Baker faces is bad enough, but I am troubled that other people at CSULB on grants and donor funds may be getting the same treatment. Imagine, if there are $30 million dollars worth of grant funds, by forcing 10% reductions, $3 million dollars could be gathered in (others might call such a plan a money laundering and skimming scheme).
The situation that Professor Baker faces is bad enough, but I am troubled that other people at CSULB on grants and donor funds may be getting the same treatment. Imagine, if there are $30 million dollars worth of grant funds, by forcing 10% reductions, $3 million dollars could be gathered in (others might call such a plan a money laundering and skimming scheme).
I would like to refer my young colleague to you, so that you can learn directly the details of this situation.
I look forward to your reply.
Dr. Micheal Charles Pounds
I look forward to your reply.
Dr. Micheal Charles Pounds
Department of Film and Electronic Arts
California State University Long Beach
mpounds@csulb.edu
562-985-5404 Ofc
818-288-2797 mobile
California State University Long Beach
mpounds@csulb.edu
562-985-5404 Ofc
818-288-2797 mobile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early in Fall 2009, after Para moved up to Provost and promoted Kvapil to COTA Dean, the latter announced that MFA DW admissions for Fall 2010 were also being suspended.
The relevant regulation is that if a program has no admissions for three years, it may be discontinued without hearing or review. That left only one year to go before this automatic discontinuance.
Lane, Pounds, Viera, Smith, and others quickly intervened via every legal process to force Para and Alexander to admit that they were intending to discontinue the Program, thereby triggering committee reviews and a public record. Lane still believed that sanity could be restored, the retaliations stopped and undone, and the MFA DW put back in business. So, he wrote down some of the key retaliations, e-mailing to Alexander and the chief administrative team, with copies to Pounds and Academic Senate Chair Dr. Praveen Soni.
From: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:13:17 -0700
To: F Alexander fkalexander@csulb.edu, Don Para para@csulb.edu, Holly Harbinger harbinge@csulb.edu, Jay Kvapil kvapil@csulb.edu, Chris Miles cmiles@csulb.edu
Cc: Micheal Pounds michealpounds@roadrunner.com, Praveen Soni psoni@csulb.edu
Conversation: NOTIFICATION OF CAUSES OF ACTION AND REQUESTS FOR REMEDIES -- no negative pregnant (correction)
Subject: NOTIFICATION OF CAUSES OF ACTION AND REQUESTS FOR REMEDIES -- no negative pregnant (correction)
(Theatre Arts Dramatic Writing Advisor Dr. Maria Viera and other faculty in Theatre Arts have pointed out to me that they would also gladly attest to the high quality of the MFA DW students. Indeed, at TA Chair Joanne Gordon’s instance, those students wrote two plays which she successfully mounted and directed. No “negative pregnant” was intended by leaving this out in paragraph 10 below, I was in fact taking for granted that the TA faculty applauds these students. So, I have revised that par 10 accordingly.)
Dear President Alexander, Interim Provost Para, Senior Vice President Harbinger, Interim Dean Kvapil, Interim Associate Dean Miles,
Late Wednesday just past, Interim Dean Jay Kvapil ended a meeting of the MFA DW Implementation Committee by making a surprise oral announcement that admissions for Fall 2010 were being suspended by him in light of an ongoing and surreptitious “program review” being carried out by himself and the Interim Provost Don Para.
Interim Dean Kvapil called it a “program review” and specifically stated that he and the Interim Provost were conducting it.
I am using the word “surreptitious” because this oral notice of an ongoing review is the first given to the Implementation Committee and to the four departments involved in this degree program, and because, in his announcement, Interim Dean Kvapil was extremely vague as to the particulars of this review process or substance, advising us that we would hear more about it after he was “through gathering information about the program”, whatever that means.
He did, however, state that opening up applications for Fall 2010 admission would be “unfair to students” since the program might be ended.
Now, I’ve looked through relevant University and Senate policy, through the legally binding MOU as to creation and operation of the MFA DW, various legally binding written promises made to me and others by the University and then Dean Para, and the on-file Assessment Plan for this Degree Program created by then Associate Dean Harbinger, and I am of the conclusion that the surreptitious program review and the suspension of admissions are violations of policy and breaches of contract.
This conduct follows last Spring’s bizarre act by then Associate Dean Kvapil rushing into the COTA Curriculum Committee to change the curriculum of the MFA DW without any involvement of or notice to the Implementation Committee which has sole power to initiate such changes. It also follows the even more bizarre acts of then Associate Dean Kvapil and then Dean Para in hurriedly acting after “mis-reading” a NAST letter as requiring a response by “June 1, 2009” when in fact the less than one page letter very distinctly stated the response date was to be “February 1, 2010”.
By way of explaining this critical “mis-read”, then Dean Para stated in May 2009: “I have no explanation for it, I don’t know how it happened, it just happened”. The final result of this “mis-read” was the suspension of MFA DW admissions for Fall 2009, by order of then Dean Para, based on the Catch-22 of his “mis-read” now making it too late (in his determination) to re-set the curriculum and undo what then Associate Dean Kvapil had done.
However, during that Summer, the Chancellor’s Office did in fact undo the curriculum change by stopping it from moving on from COTA to Brotman, but no one at the Dean’s Office notified the Implementation Committee until after the Fall semester had begun, and so the year of admissions was lost (despite my request to admit at least those students who had already successfully cleared the admissions process prior to then Dean Para’s May moratorium). In fact, no one at the Dean’s Office notified us of anything until I demanded to meet about correcting the curriculum and was told to my shock and surprise by Associate Dean Chris Miles on 9.22.09 that there was nothing to correct. This came after an entire Summer’s worth of e-mail exchanges between me and Interim Dean Kvapil in planning to make corrections that, as I later learned, the Dean’s Office now contends did not need to be made.
Further, Interim Dean Kvapil continues to undermine the MFA DW Program by inserting himself into the NAST Accreditation situation, misstating the contents and history of the MFA DW Program, and by his own admission this past Wednesday, communicating this misinformation directly to NAST’s directors.
At the same time, Interim Dean Para is alone but on record as attacking the “quality” of the MFA DW students, even as Dr. Carl Fisher (Chair of Comp Lit), Dr. Craig Smith from Comm Studies, Dr. Micheal Pounds (Chair of FEA), and TA Dramatic Writing Core Faculty & Advisor Dr. Maria Viera -- representing all four of the departments which offer this degree program -- all attest to the very high quality of these students as people and the extraordinarily high caliber of their performance as writers and scholars and teachers. Indeed, Dr. Fisher has pledged to explore ways to use extant funding from Comp Lit in order to provide the MFA DW students with GAships over and above their Donor stipends from FEA.
Beyond the MFA DW broadsides from the Interim Dean and the Interim Provost, Interim Dean Kvapil has recently used his Dean’s discretion to wipe out FEA’s Lottery Funds for the current year — the only department in COTA to receive absolutely nothing, despite agreement by all the COTA Chairs and the Dean and Administration in late Spring that FEA would receive $15,000 for camera equipment.
Even worse, line items of the donation from FEA’s Anonymous Donor are being abrogated and re-directed in breach of that pledge agreement. Specifically, the monies set aside for MFA DW students cannot be used if we are prevented from admitting students, and the MFA DW is the tentpole and raison d’etre for the Donor’s sponsorship. Without the MFA DW, there would be no Anonymous Donor Agreement and FEA would be in dire straits.
Obviously the Donor has not yet been notified that his funds are not being used for the purposes intended. Also, the Donor allocated specific funds for a specific Instructor, and the University is now claiming that the Instructor is subject to furlough so 10% of the relevant Donor funds are either being taken by the University for their own purposes or else not spent as required by the Donor Agreement.
Meanwhile, the University (through then Dean Para citing then Provost Karen Gould) (i) refused to allow FEA to nominate or elect a Chair from its own faculty as “punishment” for the recriminations of imposter faculty who were ultimately fired and demoted by the University, (ii) then refused to allow FEA to conduct an outside search (causing the then Associate Dean to serve as Chair), and (iii) then finally relented and allowed FEA’s Dr. Micheal C. Pounds to be confirmed as elected Chair, but only if he would agree to a one year term rather than the usual three years.
As to me, the suspension of the MFA DW is a breach of obligations and a constructive termination respecting my job, job duties, job description, and prestige.
As to our students, FEA, Dr. Pounds, our Anonymous Donor, and me, the above conduct against us (and additional acts not delineated herein) has risen to the level of a clear and consistent pattern that goes beyond “mistakes” and “mis-reads” and “discretion”, and, instead, leads convincingly to inferred motives of retaliation (for whistle-blowing as to imposture and as to budget improprieties) and discrimination against protected classes.
There is still opportunity to rectify all the above by simply following your own rules and procedures.
As follows:
1. Re-open admissions to the MFA DW and cease the improper “program review”.
2. Re-instate the Lottery Award to FEA.
3. Add two years to Dr. Pounds’ Chair appointment.
4. Cease retaliatory acts.
5. Cease Interim Dean Kvapil’s contact with NAST and allow the Implementation Committee to do its job in this regard.
Please advise me exactly what you intend to do.
We are at a point where I am out of patience with this and mean to avail myself of all legal rights, remedies, and public discussion on behalf of myself, FEA, my colleagues and students. In the past that’s been the only way to prompt you to do the right thing. It would certainly be nice were you to follow your ministerial duties without outside prompting.
Best --
Brian Alan Lane
cc: interested parties:
Senate President Dr. Praveen Soni
FEA Chair and Implementation Committee Member Dr. Micheal Pounds
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:13:17 -0700
To: F Alexander fkalexander@csulb.edu, Don Para para@csulb.edu, Holly Harbinger harbinge@csulb.edu, Jay Kvapil kvapil@csulb.edu, Chris Miles cmiles@csulb.edu
Cc: Micheal Pounds michealpounds@roadrunner.com, Praveen Soni psoni@csulb.edu
Conversation: NOTIFICATION OF CAUSES OF ACTION AND REQUESTS FOR REMEDIES -- no negative pregnant (correction)
Subject: NOTIFICATION OF CAUSES OF ACTION AND REQUESTS FOR REMEDIES -- no negative pregnant (correction)
(Theatre Arts Dramatic Writing Advisor Dr. Maria Viera and other faculty in Theatre Arts have pointed out to me that they would also gladly attest to the high quality of the MFA DW students. Indeed, at TA Chair Joanne Gordon’s instance, those students wrote two plays which she successfully mounted and directed. No “negative pregnant” was intended by leaving this out in paragraph 10 below, I was in fact taking for granted that the TA faculty applauds these students. So, I have revised that par 10 accordingly.)
Dear President Alexander, Interim Provost Para, Senior Vice President Harbinger, Interim Dean Kvapil, Interim Associate Dean Miles,
Late Wednesday just past, Interim Dean Jay Kvapil ended a meeting of the MFA DW Implementation Committee by making a surprise oral announcement that admissions for Fall 2010 were being suspended by him in light of an ongoing and surreptitious “program review” being carried out by himself and the Interim Provost Don Para.
Interim Dean Kvapil called it a “program review” and specifically stated that he and the Interim Provost were conducting it.
I am using the word “surreptitious” because this oral notice of an ongoing review is the first given to the Implementation Committee and to the four departments involved in this degree program, and because, in his announcement, Interim Dean Kvapil was extremely vague as to the particulars of this review process or substance, advising us that we would hear more about it after he was “through gathering information about the program”, whatever that means.
He did, however, state that opening up applications for Fall 2010 admission would be “unfair to students” since the program might be ended.
Now, I’ve looked through relevant University and Senate policy, through the legally binding MOU as to creation and operation of the MFA DW, various legally binding written promises made to me and others by the University and then Dean Para, and the on-file Assessment Plan for this Degree Program created by then Associate Dean Harbinger, and I am of the conclusion that the surreptitious program review and the suspension of admissions are violations of policy and breaches of contract.
This conduct follows last Spring’s bizarre act by then Associate Dean Kvapil rushing into the COTA Curriculum Committee to change the curriculum of the MFA DW without any involvement of or notice to the Implementation Committee which has sole power to initiate such changes. It also follows the even more bizarre acts of then Associate Dean Kvapil and then Dean Para in hurriedly acting after “mis-reading” a NAST letter as requiring a response by “June 1, 2009” when in fact the less than one page letter very distinctly stated the response date was to be “February 1, 2010”.
By way of explaining this critical “mis-read”, then Dean Para stated in May 2009: “I have no explanation for it, I don’t know how it happened, it just happened”. The final result of this “mis-read” was the suspension of MFA DW admissions for Fall 2009, by order of then Dean Para, based on the Catch-22 of his “mis-read” now making it too late (in his determination) to re-set the curriculum and undo what then Associate Dean Kvapil had done.
However, during that Summer, the Chancellor’s Office did in fact undo the curriculum change by stopping it from moving on from COTA to Brotman, but no one at the Dean’s Office notified the Implementation Committee until after the Fall semester had begun, and so the year of admissions was lost (despite my request to admit at least those students who had already successfully cleared the admissions process prior to then Dean Para’s May moratorium). In fact, no one at the Dean’s Office notified us of anything until I demanded to meet about correcting the curriculum and was told to my shock and surprise by Associate Dean Chris Miles on 9.22.09 that there was nothing to correct. This came after an entire Summer’s worth of e-mail exchanges between me and Interim Dean Kvapil in planning to make corrections that, as I later learned, the Dean’s Office now contends did not need to be made.
Further, Interim Dean Kvapil continues to undermine the MFA DW Program by inserting himself into the NAST Accreditation situation, misstating the contents and history of the MFA DW Program, and by his own admission this past Wednesday, communicating this misinformation directly to NAST’s directors.
At the same time, Interim Dean Para is alone but on record as attacking the “quality” of the MFA DW students, even as Dr. Carl Fisher (Chair of Comp Lit), Dr. Craig Smith from Comm Studies, Dr. Micheal Pounds (Chair of FEA), and TA Dramatic Writing Core Faculty & Advisor Dr. Maria Viera -- representing all four of the departments which offer this degree program -- all attest to the very high quality of these students as people and the extraordinarily high caliber of their performance as writers and scholars and teachers. Indeed, Dr. Fisher has pledged to explore ways to use extant funding from Comp Lit in order to provide the MFA DW students with GAships over and above their Donor stipends from FEA.
Beyond the MFA DW broadsides from the Interim Dean and the Interim Provost, Interim Dean Kvapil has recently used his Dean’s discretion to wipe out FEA’s Lottery Funds for the current year — the only department in COTA to receive absolutely nothing, despite agreement by all the COTA Chairs and the Dean and Administration in late Spring that FEA would receive $15,000 for camera equipment.
Even worse, line items of the donation from FEA’s Anonymous Donor are being abrogated and re-directed in breach of that pledge agreement. Specifically, the monies set aside for MFA DW students cannot be used if we are prevented from admitting students, and the MFA DW is the tentpole and raison d’etre for the Donor’s sponsorship. Without the MFA DW, there would be no Anonymous Donor Agreement and FEA would be in dire straits.
Obviously the Donor has not yet been notified that his funds are not being used for the purposes intended. Also, the Donor allocated specific funds for a specific Instructor, and the University is now claiming that the Instructor is subject to furlough so 10% of the relevant Donor funds are either being taken by the University for their own purposes or else not spent as required by the Donor Agreement.
Meanwhile, the University (through then Dean Para citing then Provost Karen Gould) (i) refused to allow FEA to nominate or elect a Chair from its own faculty as “punishment” for the recriminations of imposter faculty who were ultimately fired and demoted by the University, (ii) then refused to allow FEA to conduct an outside search (causing the then Associate Dean to serve as Chair), and (iii) then finally relented and allowed FEA’s Dr. Micheal C. Pounds to be confirmed as elected Chair, but only if he would agree to a one year term rather than the usual three years.
As to me, the suspension of the MFA DW is a breach of obligations and a constructive termination respecting my job, job duties, job description, and prestige.
As to our students, FEA, Dr. Pounds, our Anonymous Donor, and me, the above conduct against us (and additional acts not delineated herein) has risen to the level of a clear and consistent pattern that goes beyond “mistakes” and “mis-reads” and “discretion”, and, instead, leads convincingly to inferred motives of retaliation (for whistle-blowing as to imposture and as to budget improprieties) and discrimination against protected classes.
There is still opportunity to rectify all the above by simply following your own rules and procedures.
As follows:
1. Re-open admissions to the MFA DW and cease the improper “program review”.
2. Re-instate the Lottery Award to FEA.
3. Add two years to Dr. Pounds’ Chair appointment.
4. Cease retaliatory acts.
5. Cease Interim Dean Kvapil’s contact with NAST and allow the Implementation Committee to do its job in this regard.
Please advise me exactly what you intend to do.
We are at a point where I am out of patience with this and mean to avail myself of all legal rights, remedies, and public discussion on behalf of myself, FEA, my colleagues and students. In the past that’s been the only way to prompt you to do the right thing. It would certainly be nice were you to follow your ministerial duties without outside prompting.
Best --
Brian Alan Lane
cc: interested parties:
Senate President Dr. Praveen Soni
FEA Chair and Implementation Committee Member Dr. Micheal Pounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After speaking with his friend who was Spielberg's friend, Lane let Alexander and Para know that the Spielberg donation would not be renewed if the MFA DW admissions were not re-opened. That would be a loss of at least 1.5 million dollars, much needed in this worst year of the recession, as the CSU had implemented pay cuts across the board and raised tuition by leaps and bounds.
Lane also made sure to let Alexander know that it was no secret that the University administration had stolen 10% of some of the current Spielberg donation, in open breach of the pledge terms which Alexander had signed. The theft had resulted in Professor J. Todd Baker filing a formal contractual grievance.
And, with MFA DW admissions ended, there was leftover Spielberg money which would need new disbursement instructions from Spielberg.
In all events, there was a legal obligation for the school to tell Spielberg what was up, but so far they'd told him nothing. So, Lane wrote to Alexander and walked him through the retaliations, and the consequences.
After speaking with his friend who was Spielberg's friend, Lane let Alexander and Para know that the Spielberg donation would not be renewed if the MFA DW admissions were not re-opened. That would be a loss of at least 1.5 million dollars, much needed in this worst year of the recession, as the CSU had implemented pay cuts across the board and raised tuition by leaps and bounds.
Lane also made sure to let Alexander know that it was no secret that the University administration had stolen 10% of some of the current Spielberg donation, in open breach of the pledge terms which Alexander had signed. The theft had resulted in Professor J. Todd Baker filing a formal contractual grievance.
And, with MFA DW admissions ended, there was leftover Spielberg money which would need new disbursement instructions from Spielberg.
In all events, there was a legal obligation for the school to tell Spielberg what was up, but so far they'd told him nothing. So, Lane wrote to Alexander and walked him through the retaliations, and the consequences.
From: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:44:50 -0700
To: F Alexander fkalexander@csulb.edu, Don Para para@csulb.edu
Cc: Micheal Pounds michealpounds@roadrunner.com
Conversation: Spielberg donation problem -- urgent
Subject: Spielberg donation problem -- urgent
Gentlemen:
President Alexander has asked me on prior occasions to alert him of problems before they become public. I am doing so by the herein. It is crucial that we keep this “in house”.
We need to face the Spielberg issue before we lose his multi-million dollar donation. This is urgent, this week, as explained below.
1. Spielberg graduated in 2002. He did not agree to make us a substantial donation until the MFA Dramatic Writing (Screenwriting) program came into being as of Fall 2006. The primary purpose of the donation (and the lion’s share of the money) is to subsidize the students in the MFA DW.
2. This past April, the COTA Deans “mis-read” a query letter from the accrediting association, NAST, with respect to the MFA DW. They “mis-read” both the substantive contents of the simple query, and the date due for response. And, accordingly, they acted in ways deleterious to the continuation of the program.
They then realized they had been “in error”.
Nonetheless, in late May, Don deemed that Deans’ “mistakes” made it “too late” to admit students for Fall 2009. This despite the fact that we had a full cohort (6) of excellent students who had been vetted, had made it through the multi-step interview process, and were waiting with bated breath for official admission.
(Before anyone tries to spin the above or claim a different recollection, please arrange to sit down with me and listen to the real-time audio recording of the public meeting in which the above admissions were made by the parties indicated.)
3. Several weeks ago, Jay announced that, per Don and Cecile Lindsay, MFA DW admissions for Fall 2010 were also being suspended. This despite the fact that we have more than 30 serious inquiries from incredible students, as well as 3 adjunct students already taking MFA DW classes through Open University in the hope that there will be admissions for next year.
4. As you know, we all now have a session with the Academic Senate Executive Committee this Tuesday in order to address this. My hope is that we can resolve it amongst ourselves ahead of time.
5. The Spielberg donation renewal request is being reviewed by him personally in January. I now have information that he is already discussing it with his friends. He is unaware of the admissions suspension. He is unaware that the University appears to be “taking” 10% of the money he designated for teachers (the University is claiming that his pay-outs to teachers are subject to the furlough provisions). He is unaware that the COTA Deans’ Office justifies the complete deletion of our FEA lottery funds this year by suggesting that FEA use the Spielberg donation in ways not designated by the donor agreement.
It does not take a brain surgeon to realize that the donation will not be renewed and the unspent monies from the previous donation will be open to litigation, if Spielberg finds out what is really going on here.
6. This entire matter is immediately resolved if admissions to the MFA DW (Screenwriting) are re-opened.
7. One of my good friends happens to be a friend and business associate with our “anonymous donor”. For years my friend has secretly subsidized the tuition and film productions of various FEA students. My friend has always wanted to donate more and more openly, but he has not been sanguine with our University’s internal politics — he has been worried that his money would somehow be co-opted from his intent to help students rather than administrators. (And you and I know that the Spielberg situation lives down to his worst fears.)
Recently I have been talking to my friend about having Spielberg match him or at least join him in a donation (much as Lucas did with Spielberg at USC).
My friend is now in a quandary about what to do. Thus far he is taking the position that he is moving slowly on new donations to any entity in light of his extraordinary donations to the Obama campaign (he was one of the heads of the entertainment industry fundraising coalition). But the truth is that he has just now asked me for clarification as to how honestly donations are being handled in light of the State budget crisis. My friend is a smart businessman. His businesses have a much bigger budget than this University. He knows how things work. He is wary, and wise. And his worries are fair.
What we do with the MFA DW (Screenwriting) and with Spielberg will determine whether my friend gets serious about donating to us or not.
8. Don and Jay have suggested that there is a NAST accreditation worry for the program. In fact, their worry is based on incomplete knowledge, their admitted “mis-read” of the NAST query, or some other motive.
I have been in constant contact with NAST over many many weeks of late. I have submitted the actual Degree Program Proposal which was passed by the Academic Senate, as well as the MOU which controls operation/implementation — these are the binding documents. (Previously, other people had sent NAST an odd paraphrasing of this material, in which the specifics of the program were misstated. This is what gave rise to NAST’s simple query.)
The NAST reviewers have now gone through our binding documents and are fine with our program as a Dramatic Writing (Screenwriting) program. We fit within all their criteria. NAST accredits screenwriting programs, and they accredit programs which involve multiple departments and have core courses in departments other than Theatre.
If anyone on our campus says otherwise, they are wrong, and arrogantly so. If anyone says that Theatre’s overall accreditation is jeopardized, they are wrong and arrogantly so.
NAST will officially take action on our case in March 2010 at their annual Commission meeting. Prior to that, if anything else is needed, they will let me know. The dialogue is open and their goal is to accredit us. We can admit students conditionally subject to accreditation. This would save the Spielberg donation.
(Here is what the reviewer at NAST wrote to me recently with respect to the query from last April: “I would like to reiterate that deferrals are not a negative action. Rather they are a means by which the Commission on Accreditation and the Institution can open a dialogue, allowing the Commission to gain more information prior to granting approval of an application.” NAST is not taking nor intending to take nor wanting to take any negative action toward us; they want to accredit this program and they will accredit this program unless people at this University kill this program.)
As I suggested above, please advise and let’s discuss. We ought to be able to resolve this immediately. Re-open MFA DW admissions conditionally and let me continue to handle NAST through to accreditation. If that means that, along the way, you have to tell certain individuals that their personal agendas of retaliation must cease, well, then do it — that’s why they pay you the big bucks (as we say in Hollywood).
Respectfully submitted --
Brian Alan Lane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:44:50 -0700
To: F Alexander fkalexander@csulb.edu, Don Para para@csulb.edu
Cc: Micheal Pounds michealpounds@roadrunner.com
Conversation: Spielberg donation problem -- urgent
Subject: Spielberg donation problem -- urgent
Gentlemen:
President Alexander has asked me on prior occasions to alert him of problems before they become public. I am doing so by the herein. It is crucial that we keep this “in house”.
We need to face the Spielberg issue before we lose his multi-million dollar donation. This is urgent, this week, as explained below.
1. Spielberg graduated in 2002. He did not agree to make us a substantial donation until the MFA Dramatic Writing (Screenwriting) program came into being as of Fall 2006. The primary purpose of the donation (and the lion’s share of the money) is to subsidize the students in the MFA DW.
2. This past April, the COTA Deans “mis-read” a query letter from the accrediting association, NAST, with respect to the MFA DW. They “mis-read” both the substantive contents of the simple query, and the date due for response. And, accordingly, they acted in ways deleterious to the continuation of the program.
They then realized they had been “in error”.
Nonetheless, in late May, Don deemed that Deans’ “mistakes” made it “too late” to admit students for Fall 2009. This despite the fact that we had a full cohort (6) of excellent students who had been vetted, had made it through the multi-step interview process, and were waiting with bated breath for official admission.
(Before anyone tries to spin the above or claim a different recollection, please arrange to sit down with me and listen to the real-time audio recording of the public meeting in which the above admissions were made by the parties indicated.)
3. Several weeks ago, Jay announced that, per Don and Cecile Lindsay, MFA DW admissions for Fall 2010 were also being suspended. This despite the fact that we have more than 30 serious inquiries from incredible students, as well as 3 adjunct students already taking MFA DW classes through Open University in the hope that there will be admissions for next year.
4. As you know, we all now have a session with the Academic Senate Executive Committee this Tuesday in order to address this. My hope is that we can resolve it amongst ourselves ahead of time.
5. The Spielberg donation renewal request is being reviewed by him personally in January. I now have information that he is already discussing it with his friends. He is unaware of the admissions suspension. He is unaware that the University appears to be “taking” 10% of the money he designated for teachers (the University is claiming that his pay-outs to teachers are subject to the furlough provisions). He is unaware that the COTA Deans’ Office justifies the complete deletion of our FEA lottery funds this year by suggesting that FEA use the Spielberg donation in ways not designated by the donor agreement.
It does not take a brain surgeon to realize that the donation will not be renewed and the unspent monies from the previous donation will be open to litigation, if Spielberg finds out what is really going on here.
6. This entire matter is immediately resolved if admissions to the MFA DW (Screenwriting) are re-opened.
7. One of my good friends happens to be a friend and business associate with our “anonymous donor”. For years my friend has secretly subsidized the tuition and film productions of various FEA students. My friend has always wanted to donate more and more openly, but he has not been sanguine with our University’s internal politics — he has been worried that his money would somehow be co-opted from his intent to help students rather than administrators. (And you and I know that the Spielberg situation lives down to his worst fears.)
Recently I have been talking to my friend about having Spielberg match him or at least join him in a donation (much as Lucas did with Spielberg at USC).
My friend is now in a quandary about what to do. Thus far he is taking the position that he is moving slowly on new donations to any entity in light of his extraordinary donations to the Obama campaign (he was one of the heads of the entertainment industry fundraising coalition). But the truth is that he has just now asked me for clarification as to how honestly donations are being handled in light of the State budget crisis. My friend is a smart businessman. His businesses have a much bigger budget than this University. He knows how things work. He is wary, and wise. And his worries are fair.
What we do with the MFA DW (Screenwriting) and with Spielberg will determine whether my friend gets serious about donating to us or not.
8. Don and Jay have suggested that there is a NAST accreditation worry for the program. In fact, their worry is based on incomplete knowledge, their admitted “mis-read” of the NAST query, or some other motive.
I have been in constant contact with NAST over many many weeks of late. I have submitted the actual Degree Program Proposal which was passed by the Academic Senate, as well as the MOU which controls operation/implementation — these are the binding documents. (Previously, other people had sent NAST an odd paraphrasing of this material, in which the specifics of the program were misstated. This is what gave rise to NAST’s simple query.)
The NAST reviewers have now gone through our binding documents and are fine with our program as a Dramatic Writing (Screenwriting) program. We fit within all their criteria. NAST accredits screenwriting programs, and they accredit programs which involve multiple departments and have core courses in departments other than Theatre.
If anyone on our campus says otherwise, they are wrong, and arrogantly so. If anyone says that Theatre’s overall accreditation is jeopardized, they are wrong and arrogantly so.
NAST will officially take action on our case in March 2010 at their annual Commission meeting. Prior to that, if anything else is needed, they will let me know. The dialogue is open and their goal is to accredit us. We can admit students conditionally subject to accreditation. This would save the Spielberg donation.
(Here is what the reviewer at NAST wrote to me recently with respect to the query from last April: “I would like to reiterate that deferrals are not a negative action. Rather they are a means by which the Commission on Accreditation and the Institution can open a dialogue, allowing the Commission to gain more information prior to granting approval of an application.” NAST is not taking nor intending to take nor wanting to take any negative action toward us; they want to accredit this program and they will accredit this program unless people at this University kill this program.)
As I suggested above, please advise and let’s discuss. We ought to be able to resolve this immediately. Re-open MFA DW admissions conditionally and let me continue to handle NAST through to accreditation. If that means that, along the way, you have to tell certain individuals that their personal agendas of retaliation must cease, well, then do it — that’s why they pay you the big bucks (as we say in Hollywood).
Respectfully submitted --
Brian Alan Lane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lane made one last attempt to get Alexander and Para to respond and face the consequences of their outrageous retaliations.
From: Brian Alan Lane brianalanlane@earthlink.net
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:02:17 -0700
To: F Alexander fkalexander@csulb.edu, Don Para para@csulb.edu
Cc: Micheal Pounds michealpounds@roadrunner.com
Conversation: further -- per Craig Smith
Subject: further -- per Craig Smith
Gentlemen:
Re the matter I e-mailed about earlier today — Craig Smith advises that the anonymous donor’s people receive a spending report from us quarterly, so the donor is about an inch away from learning (through that) that the University’s been co-opting his money and that the MFA enrollment is oddly truncated.
Like I said, I knew this was urgent. The donor will be formally reviewing both the new proposal and the past reports between now and the end of January. We need to put the problem in the past tense before he sees that there was one.
B
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:02:17 -0700
To: F Alexander fkalexander@csulb.edu, Don Para para@csulb.edu
Cc: Micheal Pounds michealpounds@roadrunner.com
Conversation: further -- per Craig Smith
Subject: further -- per Craig Smith
Gentlemen:
Re the matter I e-mailed about earlier today — Craig Smith advises that the anonymous donor’s people receive a spending report from us quarterly, so the donor is about an inch away from learning (through that) that the University’s been co-opting his money and that the MFA enrollment is oddly truncated.
Like I said, I knew this was urgent. The donor will be formally reviewing both the new proposal and the past reports between now and the end of January. We need to put the problem in the past tense before he sees that there was one.
B
Soon after the above e-mail, Spielberg and his people learned that the MFA DW was suspended, that the University had breached the terms of the current pledge, and that there were two in-house grievances litigating aspects of Alexander's and Para's conduct in the matter.
Accordingly, in Spring 2010, Smith had a phone call with Jennifer Gonring and she told him that Spielberg and his foundation were sorry but "the timing isn't right" for what had been the promised renewal of the 1.5 million dollar donation.
Spielberg has had no reported contact with CSULB since. Nonetheless, in 2010 and 2011, then COTA Dean Kvapil kept asking then FEA Chair Pounds when he expected more Spielberg money. "When you bring back the MFA DW," said Pounds, "And actually not even then. You've slaughtered the golden goose. Hope you enjoyed your dinner."
* * *
Author/editor's note re the preceding: documents have obviously been re-formatted to fit within this medium, and there are edits where necessary for relevancy and the privacy of third party individuals. All original documents have been maintained and are available by justified written request to: Michael J. Olecki, Esq. -- Grodsky and Olecki -- 2001 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 210, Santa Monica CA 90403
NOW JUMP TO THE NARRATIVE SECTION OF THIS INSTALLMENT TWO
THUG The Book Is designed so you can read the Installments in any order you want.
* * *
Installment Three of THUG "The Long Beach Studios Hoax" -- the tale of how Alexander and Para got CSULB schmeckled by two con men in The Long Beach Studios Hoax -- is now posted and available for your reading pleasure.
After that, Installment Four "High Crimes and Pissy Demeanors" begins to expose the family soap opera, bogus corporations, unfiled tax returns, unpaid taxes, and all the perks and stock and cash that Alexander receives from outsiders, over and above his salary and benefits from the CSU, all while failing to disclose it all on California's famous annual Form 700. (Yes, this is what got LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in hot water. And there's plenty more heat to go around.)
And then, Installment Five "The King's New Clothes" where Alexander lies like a rug in his C.V. in order to get his new job at LSU!
And Installment Six "The Odor of Mendacity" where Alexander and his family prove themselves worthy of America's Most Wanted or a guest episode of Shameless.
THUG! Stay tuned.
And Installment Six "The Odor of Mendacity" where Alexander and his family prove themselves worthy of America's Most Wanted or a guest episode of Shameless.
THUG The Book and all the foregoing is copyrighted for all purposes in all media
-- all rights reserved -- by Brian Alan Lane -- 2013
-- all rights reserved -- by Brian Alan Lane -- 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment