Fri 13 Nov 2009
Moore Locked Out Of Office; Still Paid
Posted by David under Bernard Moore at 3:58 pm
According to a reliable source, the College changed the locks on Moore’s faculty office and removed his nameplate from the door on Room 227 Schapiro Hall on November 11. Alas, the source did not send pictures! Assignment to our on-campus staff photographers.
It may be much harder fire Moore than I initially suspected. Consider the Faculty Handbook:
Termination of an appointment with continuous tenure, or of a non-tenured appointment before the end of the specified term, may be effected by the College upon due notice but only for adequate cause. The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with the College and shall be satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole.
Might want to rephrase that someday! For now, Williams is stuck with the process that it has.
Should the cause alleged be that of serious shortcomings on the part of a faculty member in the discharge of his or her professional duties (termination thus constituting dismissal), the dismissal must be preceded by the following procedures: (1) discussions between the faculty member and the President of the College with the aim of arriving at a mutual settlement; (2) an informal inquiry by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, which may, failing to effect an adjustment, determine whether in its opinion formal dismissal proceedings should be undertaken, without its opinion being binding upon the President; (3) a statement of charges, framed with reasonable particularity by the President.
Has the “statement of charge” been written yet? Send EphBlog a copy!
A dismissal (as defined above) will be preceded by a statement of reasons, and the faculty member concerned will have the right to be heard initially by a hearing committee that will consist of three members drawn from the Faculty Steering Committee and, if fewer than three members of that Committee are eligible, from the Faculty Review Panel. Any member of the Faculty Steering Committee or the Faculty Review Panel potentially affected by bias or interest may be deemed ineligible at the member’s own initiative. Either of the two parties to the case may also request that a proposed member of the hearing committee be deemed ineligible because of potential bias or interest.2 In addition, each party may without stated cause exclude a maximum of one person otherwise eligible for the hearing committee. Should these or other constraints make it impossible to convene a full hearing committee, the Faculty Steering Committee may draw hearing committee members from previous Steering Committees or Faculty Review Panels.
This could take forever! Endless further details here. Best part:
Pending a final decision by the hearing committee, the faculty member will be suspended, or assigned to other duties in lieu of suspension, only if immediate harm to the faculty member or others is threatened by continuance. Before suspending the faculty member, the President will consult with the Committee on Appointments and Promotions concerning the propriety, length, and other conditions of the suspension. Salary will continue during the period of suspension.
Emphasis added. Your alumni donations at work.
UPDATE: See the comments for informed thoughts and better links.
Print • Email| « Holder Praised Moore? | Ethics Questions » |
17 Responses to “Moore Locked Out Of Office; Still Paid”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
rory says:
looks perfectly fine to me. It should take a lot of effort for the college to break a contract.
David says:
Rory: Do you have a problem with Williams locking Moore out of his office?
Neal says:
the cause alleged would not be for the discharge of his or her professional duties, would it?
ephling says:
“Termination of an appointment with continuous tenure, or of a non-tenured appointment before the end of the specified term, may be effected by the College upon due notice but only for adequate cause. The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with the College and shall be satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole.”
This should be the only language that matters, he will be terminated for lying on his application by not disclosing prior convictions, and some form of language that must be in the actual contract regarding moral turpitude crimes. If those are not in the contract then the school should pay him under the stupid clause. The other language regarding termination for shortcomings should not be necessary.
3-3) “The President must present a written statement of specific charges at least twenty days prior to the hearing. The faculty member may waive a hearing or may respond to the charges in writing at any time before the hearing. If the faculty member waives a hearing, but continues to deny the charges or to assert that the charges do not support a finding of adequate cause for dismissal, the hearing committee will nonetheless evaluate all available evidence and rest its recommendation upon the evidence in the record.”
One would think the whole thing should take about a month. The faculty member’s only right of appeal is to the board and it is beyond comprehension that they would overturn the finding of the committee.
David says:
Again, this is not my area of expertise, so I look forward to comments from Eph lawyers and academics. Note:
And, to the extent that Moore wants to delay, just coordinating lawyer schedules could push this to June 30, presumably the end of his contract.
JG says:
The cause of firing does not appear to have anything to do with the discharge of his duties (i.e. crappy teaching or some kind of misconduct) so that provision likely would not apply. From a quick scan I didn’t see a catch-all provision regarding certain types of criminal conduct, etc. but most large employers have them…it just may not be in the faculty handbook itself.
Invisible Mom says:
Well, if he’s still here in February, maybe suspension will be converted to sabbatical so he can go to DC for the sentencing hearing.
Neal says:
Agreed. David, you’re missing the important clause. It’s a termination for cause, and that cause is something other than failure as a professor in discharge of their academic duties.
“Termination of an appointment with continuous tenure, or of a non-tenured appointment before the end of the specified term, may be effected by the College upon due notice but only for adequate cause. The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with the College and shall be satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole.”
Aidan says:
Agreed with Nealus – it should be hard to fire a professor *for cause.* I’m sure criminality of many stripes (e.g. murder, assault, theft, etc.) would be grounds for immmediate termination.
JG says:
Found the blanket statement I was looking for.
In the Faculty Handbook, there is a link to the Code of Conduct. Within the Code, it states:
So obviously we have a violation of the law while he was employed at the College under a false name. Probably enough to fit within that. Just after that, the Code links to the College’s disciplinary procedures.
The Disciplinary Policy includes the following statement in the first paragraph:
They go one to detail intermediate steps short of firing, then firing. But they also have a lovely little catch-all that says:
Meaning that they don’t have to start with a written warning, etc. but can jump right to initiating a termination. That still has some process, but not the kind cited above.
Derek says:
Dave –
I can understand wishing that for this case the language would allow the college to be more expeditious, but that is precisely why language in these cases in not reactive. Such language is intended to protect all faculty. Firing someone ought to be very difficult to do in these circumstances. Rewriting the language for this case would ion the long run do more harm than good. Eventually he’ll be fired. But it is ok for there to be a strenuous process.
dcat
Andy says:
I agree with Derek. Firing someone should be difficult, and I’m sure that following the correct process does more good than harm. Our college’s reputation is at stake because of perceptions about our hiring processes — let’s not let people accuse us of sloppy firing processes.
ephling says:
No firing a twice convicted felon who lied about his past and falsified his credentials should be easy. It is hiring that person that should be difficult.
Derek says:
Ephling –
Superiority is easy. After all, it’s been all of . . . three whole days. And so of course those of us at Ephblog know every salient fact. And so the smart thing for the college to do is to rush to judgment. Don’t let the process play out. Fire him instantly. Surely there is no possibility that there could be consequences to that.
How’s about we try not to be a collection of blathering morons who believe that our own moral repulsion is somehow better than that of those running the college? This situation sucks. There is nothing good about it. Advising the college (I bet Williams has adequate legal counsel by the way — I mean, I realize anonymous internet commentary is flawless, but, you know, a little humility?) to rush to judgment is probably . . . ill advised? . . . unnecessary? . . . really fucking dumb?
Again — I know we are all experts now based on three days of writing about this issue here in the comments. But why not just get over ourselves and slow down and remember that moral outrage is rarely the most useful foundation from which to launch a response to a crisis. It seems clear that he deserves to be fired. And if that is the case he will be.
Oh — and can we also get over ourselves with the hiring situation? There is no profession anywhere in the world where mistakes are not made. The FBI and CIA probably have the most rigorous screening processes in the world. Anyone want to make the case that the FBI and CIA are paragons of hiring perfection? (Hint: Aldrich Ames says “hello.”)
dcat
ephling says:
I understand the rally around the flag mentality that someone in academia might be tempted towards in this situation. Someday, heaven forbid, you might find yourself in a battle with administration or the board, and you might be in the right on a meaningful issue like academic freedom, and you want to be able to rely on the process for a chance at fairness. The protection you seem to think is there is an illusion. If you had ever, and maybe you have, had a real contract you would know that this administrative process is stacked so heavily in the favor of the institution that you have no real protection at all. The faculty member has no option to seek another venue, has no appeal rights to any source other than to appeal the decision of the committee to the board, no rights to binding arbitration, if your witnesses can’t be there the committee will determine whether they would have been important, nothing. Good contracts include language like; it is a given that the institution has resources vastly superior to that of the individual and as such in the event of any dispute the institution will continue to pay the salary of and all expenses in the defense of the individual, it sets out venue and jurisdiction, avenues for appeal, it defines penalties in the event that the individual should prevail to discourage institutions from acting frivolously, and on and on. In this deal they start the clock, you get twenty days, and then at their sole discretion an essentially non appealable decision is rendered, and that is only if they follow that course of action as opposed to what someone suggested which is the instant heave ho for a code of ethics violation. In the end he will be fired either as a result of a long and laborious process or quickly, he is a two time loser felon for goodness sake. Either way he can still bring a legal action if he doesn’t like the outcome with little chance of success because he was stupid enough to take such a crappy contract in the first place and it is only crappy because the assumption at this level is that it will never need to be enforced. I guess your suggestion would be to retain him to the end of his contract and avoid any potential conflict. “Let’s not rush to judgment” seems I have heard that a lot lately. I was just watching the new Star Trek, good movie even for non trekkies. There is a scene in it where a young Spock is taunted in the hope of provoking an emotional outburst with sort of the terms you employ, “anonymous internet commentary is flawless” and really fucking dumb”. I will follow his lead and not respond in kind, you can picture me making the gesture with my fingers that he employs, oops wrong finger gesture. After all no one commenting on this blog other than faculty members have any impact whatsoever on the path the college will pursue, regardless of what name we use.
I went to a local pub filled with about a 100 Williams people of all shapes and sizes, no one talked about this at all. Tempest in a tea pot that will be soon and mercifully forgotten.
JG says:
@ephling:
First of all, there is a “real” contract involved here, it is simply different than the one(s) you’re used to. I wonder how many different types of workplaces you’ve been involved in if you think the language you cite is somehow required for a “real” contract. I’m still pretty young and have limited exposure, but in my 30 years I’ve seen about 6 or 7 different styles of employment contracts, one of which I helped write. They all have completely different rights and responsibilities – these include big companies, a small company, a city government, federal government non-union, federal government union, and nonprofits both unionized and not.
Additionally, the “right” to binding arbitration is something employers and large companies *love* and put in to LIMIT the rights of customers or employees to pursue action, it is not a benefit. It actually restricts one’s rights to pursue certain actions in court, rather than providing more protection as you state above. Binding arbitration means you cannot then go to court for a fresh attempt at those claims, while the Williams process that has been described here is 100% internal and does not restrict any future court claims. What the school does by following it is make it much more likely that they can get any eventual civil case dismissed on the first or second motion, this process doesn’t prevent anyone from going to Court.
Internal grievance or disciplinary procedures are ALWAYS stacked in favor of the company, regardless of the contract. They just have to make a reasonable showing of business judgment, and be sure to follow any internal procedures in presenting it to the employee. The levels of warnings, meetings, etc. (the procedures) ensure that some manager doesn’t just decide one day to fire somebody out of personal animus. It’s the process itself that provides the protections, but that process is unlikely to prevent someone from being fired if there is a valid reason, it just may take a few more weeks.
ephling says:
Jim Kolesar
Assistant to the President for Public Affairs
To the Williams Community,
I am following up on my earlier message to you regarding Visiting Assistant Professor Bernard Moore to report that his employment at Williams is ended as of today.
His Winter Study course may proceed under the instruction of the adjuncts who were planning to teach it with him. We will inform the students enrolled in that course of its status as soon as possible. The course that he was to teach this spring has been canceled. As previously announced, arrangements have been made to complete the course that he was teaching this semester.
We have found no evidence of serious misuse on his part of College resources.
I would add that this recent turn of events has been particularly hard, quite understandably, on those students who had worked most closely with Professor Moore, and I hope that you will join me in extending them our support.
With regards,
Bill Wagner
Interim President