The following is an excerpt from Principal David Jimenez’s testimony at the 3020a of John Silvers.
Respondent’s lawyer: Mr Silvers continued to request that Mr. Albetta not observe him isn’t that correct.
Jimenez: yes he did continue
Respondent’s lawyer with regard to his request did He iindicate the reason Mr. Albetta not observe him.
Jimenez: Yes I remember very clearly the reason.
Respondent’slawyer Okay he indicated to you that he (Silvers) felt Mr. Albetta.
Jimenez No he said that he didn’t like Mr. Albetta because Albetta was not a man and he always reminded me of that he told me from the beginning of from the very beginning he always used that expression. ” I told you I didn’t like that guy. I did not like him he doesn’t man up. He false and I tried to get out of him a specfic reason and he wouldn’t tell me it was some type of mysterious he was just not a man and his issues with his relationship–Mr. Albetta’s relationship with Mr. Hernandez. Something bothered him about Mr. Alberta’s relationship with Mr. Hernandez their closeness. Complained about Mr. Alberta’s going drinking with Mr. Hernandez after work. Being so chummy chummy. That’s what I remember to me it was ridiculous that hr would ask such a thing.
Respondent’s lawyer Well he (Silvers) did indicate to you and I think you testified previously as well as just now that he had issues with Albetta’s truthfulness isn’t that correct?
Jimenez: That was much later that was after OEO.
Respondent’s lawyer Okay so in October 2010 Mr. Silvers did indicate to you that he had issues with Mr. Albetta’s truthfulness isn’t that correct?
Jimenez He was alluding to his sexuality
Respondent’s Lawyer: Well that was your interpretation
Jimenez It was pretty– yes it was my interpretation
Respondent’s Lawyer : Right because he ( Silvers) never said aanything about Alberta’s sexuality during that October 2010 meeting He just said he’s not a man he won’t man up. Right?
Jimenez To me that was about his( Albetta’s) sexuality.
RL: To you it was about his sexuality
RL You received the OEO report that was issued June of 2011 Is that correct
jimenez : Yes
Respondent’s’ lawyer : And you noted that OEO disagreed with you about what the phrase” man up, be a man, you’re not a man meant. They disagreed with you about what that meant isn’t that correct?
Jimenez That they disagreed I would have to look at the report.
Respondent’s lawyer Okay So you don’t recall whether or not OEO indicated that those phrases were not in and themselves indicative of any bias regarding sexuality.
Jimenez i was there and it was my opinion and that what I testified to OEO ,I’m testifying now that the I felt that it had something to do with sexuality with Mr. Albetta’s sexuality.
ARBITRATOR Lisa Brogan THAT’S NOT THE QUESTION.
Jimenez Oh Okay
ARBITRATOR Lisa Brogan: THE QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU’RE AWARE THAT OEO REACHED A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION?
Jimenez My understanding of my reading of the report was that OEO could not substantiate that that was about Albetta’s sexuality. But not that they disagreed with me that they I already thought it was wrong but they just couldn’t substantiate that. Basically I–
ARBITRATOR Lisa Brogan THAT’S ENOUGH