"I just cannot continue to support an organization which apparently has become morally bankrupt."
1. Thomas Adamek M.D. Resigns (in protest over) Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady of the Lake ... "I cannot continue to support an organization which has become morally bankrupt." Best Quote of 2021! Calls Largest Louisiana Catholic Sisters Healthcare '[S]piteful, wasteful, morally indefensible ... lost their way' re. Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Contract Duplicity
TheOLOL Foundation "worked tirelessly" to garner funding to build a new Children's Hospital but the board member questioned how necessary it was for a new free-standing cancer center.
-
Staff writer Oct 6, 2021 - 4:05 pm Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center is set to begin construction next year on a $100 million stand alone cancer center it was announced Monday Oct.
- Baton Rouge, La.
- Our Lady of the Lake Cancer Institute will span 80,000 square feet and connect to the existing hospital.
- OLOL, part of the Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System, is finalizing the process to select a national architecture business with experience in building cancer centers.
- The new building is slated to be built adjacent to the medical center's Essen Lane campus.
- The organization has narrowed the search down to three undisclosed sites nearby.
Mary Bird Perkins and Our Lady of the Lake were negotiating earlier this year about their agreement to provide cancer care, but talks fell apart.
Mary Bird Perkins has since decided to affiliate with OneOncology and Baton Rouge General in the coming year.
During negotiations Adamek said what Mary Bird Perkins requested from OLOL was "fair and appropriate and would have ensured great care in the future for thousands of cancer patients and incidentally would have made OLOL a lot of money."
The revenue generated by the cancer center was split between Mary Bird Perkins and OLOL.
Adamek said
OLOL handed Mary Bird Perkins a term sheet where the cancer center
would be acquired by the hospital system in April.
The board member was upset that OLOL had been working on plans for a new cancer center for about a year during its strategic plan, calling the negotiations a farce.
This week OLOL terminated its professional services agreement with Louisiana Hematology Oncology Associates for several physicians who provide care to hundreds of cancer patients at the LSU Health Clinic in North Baton Rouge.
"These
actions will severely compromise access to care for the hundreds of
cancer patients cared for by LHOA physicians," he said.
"I just cannot
continue to support an organization which apparently has become morally
bankrupt."
Our Lady of the Lake refuted the claims made by Adamek and suggested that some allegations were false and a misrepresentation of events."
Our Lady of the Lake was not planning to end our affiliation and provide independent cancer care. We made that pivot after Mary Bird Perkins ended our partnership," said Scott Wester, CEO of OLOL.
"Our Lady of the Lake was committed to our partnership and had engaged in months long strategic planning to expand services for our community.
The termination of agreement with Louisiana Hematology stemmed
from the physicians refusing to "meet with us to discuss a smooth
transition of patient care," he said.
Our Lady of the Lake will continue to provide cancer services and infusions at our North Baton Rouge location.
The Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System is a leading health care innovator in Louisiana and Mississippi.
Memorandum of Internal Investigation (via e-mail only) To: William Tate IV, President From: Chad Brackin, Chief Auditor
Re: Investigation of Alleged Conflicts of Interest, Favoritism, Nepotism, and Retaliation by LSUHSC-NO Administration
Thomas Adamek, who claimed that he was deeply involved in negotiations between the two organizations, penned a letter of resignation to Ann Marie Marmande, president of the foundation, and called OLOL's behavior, "spiteful, wasteful, and morally indefensible," adding, "OLOL and FMOLHS have lost their way." Adamek was chair of the Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center Board of Directors.
The leader of a Baton Rouge-based investment business resigned from his post with Our Lady of the Lake Foundation, citing concerns about the way the hospital system handled its split with Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, according to a letter sent on Wednesday.
Thomas Adamek, deeply involved in negotiations between the two organizations
FMOLHS OLOL
&
Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center
penned a letter of resignation to Ann Marie Marmande, president of the foundation, calling OLOL,
"spiteful, wasteful and morally indefensible."
"OLOL and FMOLHS have lost their way," said Adamek, chair of the Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center Board of Directors.
Citing OLOL's 'wasteful' plans for $100M cancer center, foundation board member resigns
READ GREATEST RESIGNATION LETTER HERE TO OUTLIARS AT Our Lady of the Lake
After a long partnership with Our Lady of the Lake (OLOL), Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Foundation and OneOncology Central, LLC scheduled a partnership for access to a national network of physicians, information technology assets and national buying power, according to a news release.
'Spiteful, wasteful, lost their way.'
Louisiana Hematology Oncology Associates (LHOA) ... '
severely compromised access for hundreds of underserved healthcare enrollees in North Baton Rouge, "morally indefensible," says Thomas Adamek MD.
Scott Wester Richard Vath and Jolee Bollinger OLOL Respond:
“Mary Bird Perkins - Our Lady of the Lake Cancer Center were sure our inference of continuing a relationship with us, not an out-of-stater was a deal.
We were stunned to learn you were texting out-of-state private equity groups.
scott
Scott
Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center were working to cure cancer, and now you're dismantling us like carpetbag tweakers do toasters.
This hurts feelings, since cancer needs a cure: And I thought one up. And it is strong. But health systems likes trust, not Sister Vows of Poverty, while raking in Billions, and handing it over for new construction malarkey behind our backs.
Oh, yeah. You think you're the only one who goes to Fleur de Lis Pizza bar. Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System takes a Vow of Poverty, but we don't.
TA
T Adamek,
John Paul Funes is mad. He has ideas for more fundraising giftcards with Walmart and Visa, where for $20,000 donors and patients can ask him a question about how he stole $1Million of LSU Foundation and Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System money, and gave it to two Louisiana State University Football Players, or used Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady University St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church Patient Jet to go to LSU away-games.
Heck. I wouldn't mind askin' one, would you?watch out FOR OUT-of-state investors.
OneOncology & MaryBirdPerkins understand choice ... and consequences.
Everyone trusted Our Lady of the Lake -- i guess they provide OK cancer care, alright.
But the A-team in COVID-19 surge PROFIT IS swift for out-staters (like ME. I'm from Cincinnati. Go Buckeyes Without Borders values).
IT compels you--and more.
#cancerwars #healthcare #stewardship #privateequity #directors #team #oncology #money #fundraising #fundraising
2.
Larry Hollier, chancellor of LSU Health Sciences Center who came under fire, resigns post
Larry Hollier is out as chancellor of the LSU Health Sciences Center in New Orleans, bringing an abrupt end to a 15-year tenure amid a raft of allegations that he pushed for improper pay bumps for his inner circle, underpaid women and violated the university’s policies while hiring and firing people.
An LSU announcement Thursday said Hollier would vacate his post immediately.
His contract was set to expire at the end of the year.
An interim chancellor, who has not yet been named, will take over while LSU searches for Hollier’s replacement.
The announcement said Hollier, a practicing vascular surgeon, plans to return to the faculty at the Health Sciences Center New Orleans.
Hollier did not return messages Thursday.
The announcement of his departure comes a month after the release of a scathing LSU audit that targeted several troubling practices at the Health Sciences Center, which Hollier has run since 2005.
"We want to avoid having to get any approval from BR so please let me know if this will do that," Hollier’s assistant wrote in an internal email.
Among the findings: Hollier tried to quietly pad the salary of his close colleague, Keith Schroth, the organization’s chief finance officer. Hollier also pushed for a raise for Schroth’s son and helped create a new publicly funded position for him.
Records show that some within the administration pushed back, and that they feared for their job for doing so. Auditors also concluded Hollier had recently fired three top employees without properly vetting complaints that were made against them.
Hollier initially defended his work as chancellor, denying the audit’s allegations of favoritism, nepotism and retaliation. But as other issues surfaced, he declined to respond to requests for interviews.
He did not respond to questions this week about when his contract was set to expire, or if he would ask LSU’s board to renew.
He also declined to comment on a report Thursday that LSU last year agreed to pay a consultant $28,000 to conduct a performance evaluation on Hollier just as ethical questions around his administration began to swirl.
The agreement allowed Hollier to help pick the employees interviewed and sign off on the final draft, The Times-Picayune | The Advocate reported. But the university declined to release the document, citing Hollier’s privacy.
Hollier did not respond to a reporter’s request that he waive his privacy and allow the release of the report.
Named chancellor less than three months after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Hollier, a Crowley native, has received some credit for pushing lawmakers to maintain funding levels for medical research and faculty. In the decade after the storm, the Legislature ordered tens of millions of dollars in cuts affecting the New Orleans medical campus.
Hollier also helped usher through plans to close Charity Hospital after Katrina and to build the new University Medical Center, which serves uninsured as well as private-pay patients.
Last year, LSU Health also broke ground a 579-bed apartment complex in Mid-City, the first new LSU student housing in more than 50 years.
But more recently, as current and former employees began to raise concerns in court and with university auditors, a less flattering picture of Hollier’s tenure emerged.
Some of his subordinates feared working for him, auditors found.
He told employees of the importance of keeping “spies” in the workplace. And he was publicly accused of presiding over “good-ol’ boys clubs” that trampled on the rights of women and those with a less prominent place in Hollier’s network.
After many of those concerns were published in last month’s 67-page audit, Hollier initially penned a fiery defense.
Ina draft of his response to the audit, a copy of which was obtained by The Times-Picayune | The Advocate
Hollier accused auditors of purposefully omitting information and violating university policy by not notifying Hollier of their investigation sooner.
The report was “replete with errors, incomplete quotes, misinformation, unsupported argument, and a disregard for actual facts,” Hollier wrote in a 22-page missive addressed to Chad Brackin, LSU’s chief auditor.
“This audit report is the most untrustworthy and misleading report that I have seen from any Office of Internal Audit during my entire 40+ year career in medicine and as an administrator,” Hollier wrote.
The seven-page response that Hollier ultimately sent to Brackin was more muted. Hollier briefly denied the report’s main findings, and concluded by writing, “Your report gave me a reason to pause, reflect and find room for improvement.”
Questions around Hollier’s leadership began to spill into public view in 2019, when a pair of LSU Health’s top lawyers filed a federal lawsuit against him and LSU.
The plaintiffs included Meredith Cunningham, a former staff attorney, and Katherine Muslow, the institution’s former general counsel.
They alleged Hollier oversaw a years-long practice of underpaying women that had led, in one instance, to a male employee making $61,200 more than Muslow, even though he had a position two grades below hers.
The lawsuit cited a 2017 pay study that showed, among other findings, that by one measure the median salary for top male administrators exceeded that for their female counterparts by almost $70,000, according to the lawsuit.
Just as Muslow and Cunningham pursued legal action on the grounds of discrimination, Hollier fired them, they alleged.
In court papers, LSU denied wrongdoing on Hollier’s part.
Auditors also flagged Hollier’s salary practices. They found that he helped arrange for Schroth to receive tens of thousands of dollars in pay on top of his base salary of more than $400,000.
The additional pay skirted university policy without approval from the LSU president. And while arranging the pay bump, Hollier sought to keep the university administration out of the matter, auditors found.
Hollier also pushed for Schroth’s son Jeremy to receive a 20% raise, even as the human resources director opposed the request and called it “ridiculous.” In drafting a memo justifying the raise, Hollier falsely labeled Jeremy Schroth’s immediate supervisor, Chris Winters, as the author and sender of the memo, while addressing the document to himself, auditors found.
Hollier has stood behind Keith Schroth even as other questions about Schroth have come to light.
That included the recent revelation that Keith Schroth had an LSU Health Foundation credit card revoked in 2009 after the nonprofit’s president flagged thousands of dollars in “abusive” expenses, including regular alcohol purchases.
Hollier told a reporter he saw no issue with Keith Schroth’s spending.
A foundation executive brought up the earlier concerns about Keith Schroth in December 2020, a month after Schroth became vice chancellor for administration and finance for the Health Sciences Center.
Frank Wasser, a compliance officer, also questioned Hollier in person about the raise proposal for Jeremy Schroth, according to a five-page memo Wasser wrote. The Times-Picayune | New Orleans Advocate obtained the document through a public records request.
Moments after that confrontation, in a meeting with Wasser and two other top officials, Hollier defended Keith Schroth and spoke of the importance of having “spies” around to “keep abreast of what’s happening throughout an institution,” Wasser wrote in his memo.
Hollier then quoted Winston Churchill, stating, “Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." Wasser determined the comment could be taken as a threat, so he reported it to auditors.
Other employees later told auditors they feared retaliation. Some asked auditors to email them at their personal addresses, fearing their accounts were being monitored. Or, they insisted on being interviewed at home, where no one could eavesdrop.
Cori Higginson, the former human resources director, told auditors her suspension last year was a direct result of taking a side against some of the proposed raises, including for Jeremy Schroth.
At the time of that request, she said she was concerned Hollier was going to OK the raise over her objections. “I still want to be on record … for having said this should not be approved,” she wrote last September.
When she was suspended in February, an internal memo contended she had improperly shared interview questions with internal job candidates. Two months later, she was out of the job.
Citing OLOL's 'wasteful' plans for $100M cancer center, foundation board member resigns
BY KRISTEN MOSBRUCKER | Staff writer
Initiation of the Investigation
The LSU Office of Internal Audit received multiple anonymous and named reports through the LSU Ethics, Integrity and Misconduct Helpline alleging that numerous incidents of conflict of interest, favoritism, nepotism, and retaliation were present in the searches for LSU Health Sciences Center in New Orleans (LSUHSC-NO)positions of Chief of Staff, Vice Chancellor for Administration Finance, Director of Human Resources Management, Dean of Dentistry, and Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Reports also alleged that the LSUHSC-NO Chancellor preselected individuals for each position.
A preliminary review was conducted, after which, it was determined that further investigation was warranted. During the investigation, multiple related reports, including several compensation-related complaints were received, and those were incorporated into our review.
The LSU Health Sciences Center in New Orleans (LSUHSC-NO), like all LSU institutions, operates within a governance framework based on authority granted by the LSU Board of Supervisors (Board).
For those actions that the Board does not reserve approval authority, it delegates authority to the LSU President (President) through its Bylaws and Regulations.
The President delegates authority for specific actions to chancellors and other institution heads and establishes policy in the form of Permanent Memoranda (PM).
Permanent Memoranda generally set forth broad policy guidelines to achieve strategic institutional goals, including compliance with significant federal and state laws and regulations.
Chancellors and other institution heads are expected to establish operating policies and procedures to ensure compliance with PMs as well as to ensure that other institution-specific requirements are met.
- Relevant Policy
- For matters related to the subject of this investigation, the following Bylaws/Regulations, PMs, and LSUHSC-NO policies are relevant:
- Board Bylaws, Article VII, Section 1, Paragraph – Matters Related to Personnel
- 2. Board Regulations, Article II, Section 2 – Personnel Actions
- Board Regulations, Article II, Section 5 – Personnel Actions Requiring Board Approval
Louisiana State University | 3810 West Lakeshore Drive | Baton Rouge, LA 70808 | 225-578-5475
4. Permanent Memorandum 69 – Delegation of Authority to Execute Personnel Actions
5. Permanent Memorandum 55 – Equal Opportunity Policy
6. LSUHSC-NO Chancellor’s Memorandum 10 – Equal Employment Opportunity Policy
Statement
LSUHSC-NO Leadership
Chancellor Larry Hollier leads LSUHSC-NO.
- Dr. Hollier has held the position of Chancellor since 2005, prior to which he served as the Dean of the School of Medicine. Chancellor Hollier’s
executive leadership team includes the following individuals (see Appendix A for the current LSUHSC-NO organization chart):• Dr. Joseph Moerschbaecher, III – served as Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs from
May 1983 – June 2021. Dr. Demetrius Porche has since been appointed to serve in an
interim capacity.
• Mr. Keith Schroth – newly appointed as the Vice Chancellor for Administration and
Finance after serving in that position in an interim capacity. Mr. Schroth previously
served in multiple roles in the School of Medicine.
• Dr. . Chris Winters – currently serves as the Vice Chancellor for Clinical Affairs.
• Mr. Edwin Murray – currently serves as the Vice Chancellor for Community Affairs.
• Dr. Timothy Fair – newly appointed as the Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion.
Dr. Fair served at another institution before joining LSUHSC-NO.
• Mr. Louis Colletta – newly appointed as the Chief of Staff.
Mr. Colletta previously served as an attorney with the LSU Office of General Counsel assigned to LSUHSC-NO.• Schools within LSUHSC-NO are led by deans, including Dr. Robert Laughlin, who is newly appointed as Dean for the School of Dentistry after serving in an interim capacity.
High Employee Turnover: HRM and VCAF
Of 25 available positions, the Office of Human Resource Management is currently operating with a permanent staff of 18.
A recent attrition report (Appendix ) going back to May of 2011(10 years) indicated HRM had lost 31 employees.
Over half (17, 52%) of those employees were lost within the last three years, with the last two years experiencing the greatest of those losses (13, 42%).Additionally, within those ten years, the Office of Human Resource Management has seen seven (7) different Directors.
Higginson, appointed March 30, 2020, had been employed for less than one year before her suspension.
Similar turnover was also noted for the position of Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance (VCAF) for the same period, having now seen five different Vice Chancellors, with the recent appointment of Schroth
Statement on Professional Ethics
The statement that follows was originally adopted in 1966. Revisions were made and approved by the Association’s Council in 1987 and 2009.
From its inception, the American Association of University Professors has recognized that membership in the academic profession carries with it special responsibilities. The Association has consistently affirmed these responsibilities in major policy statements, providing guidance to professors in such matters as their utterances as citizens, the exercise of their responsibilities to students and colleagues, and their conduct when resigning from an institution or when undertaking sponsored research. The Statement on Professional Ethics that follows sets forth those general standards that serve as a reminder of the variety of responsibilities assumed by all members of the profession.
In the enforcement of ethical standards, the academic profession differs from those of law and medicine, whose associations act to ensure the integrity of members engaged in private practice. In the academic profession the individual institution of higher learning provides this assurance and so should normally handle questions concerning propriety of conduct within its own framework by reference to a faculty group.
The Association supports such local action and stands ready, through the general secretary and the Committee on Professional Ethics, to counsel with members of the academic community concerning questions of professional ethics and to inquire into complaints when local consideration is impossible or inappropriate.
The Statement
- Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although professors may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.
Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to ensure that their evaluations of students reflect each student’s true merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from them. They protect their academic freedom.
As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates, even when it leads to findings and conclusions that differ from their own. Professors acknowledge academic debt and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution.
As members of an academic institution, professors seek above all to be effective teachers and scholars. Although professors observe the stated regulations of the institution, provided the regulations do not contravene academic freedom, they maintain their right to criticize and seek revision. Professors give due regard to their paramount responsibilities within their institution in determining the amount and character of work done outside it. When considering the interruption or termination of their service, professors recognize the effect of their decision upon the program of the institution and give due notice of their intentions.
As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of other citizens. Professors measure the urgency of these obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their subject, to their students, to their profession, and to their institution. When they speak or act as private persons, they avoid creating the impression of speaking or acting for their college or university. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom.
Notes
1. AAUP, Policy Documents and Reports, 11th ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015), 91–93 The Commission on Academic Tenure observed in 1973 that it was manifestly insufficient to have a disciplinary system which assumes that only those offenses which warrant dismissal should be considered seriously. Faculty members are from time to time guilty of offenses of lesser gravity. There should be a way of recognizing these and imposing appropriate sanctions. And it is equally insufficient to make do only with disciplinary procedures designed for capital offenses. Simpler procedures-though assuring due process in the particular context-are obviously required for offenses for which sanctions short of dismissal are contemplated.
Faculty Tenure: Commission on Academic Tenure 256 (Keast, ed., 1973) ("Faculty Tenure") at 76. Accordingly, the commission recommended as follows:
[T]hat each institution develop and adopt an enumeration of sanctions short of dismissal that may be applied in cases of demonstrated irresponsibility or professional misconduct for which some penalty short of dismissal should be imposed. These sanctions and the due-process procedures for complaint, hearing, judgment, and appeal should be developed initially by joint faculty-administrative action.
(1) oral reprimand, (2) written reprimand, (3) a recorded reprimand, (4) restitution (for instance, payment for damage due to individuals or to the institution), (5) loss of prospective benefits for a stated period (for instance, suspension of "regular" or "merit" increase in salary or suspension of promotion eligibility), (6) a fine, (7) reduction in salary for a stated period, (8) suspension from service for a stated period, without other prejudice.
Faculty Tenure at 75-77.
Immediate Suspensions
AAUP's RIR 5 provides that an institution may suspend a professor when immediate harm to the individual or others is threatened pending an ultimate determination of the individual's status.
RIR 5 further provides that, before suspending a faculty member, the administration should consult with a faculty committee concerning the propriety, length, and other conditions of the suspension. The threat of physical harm can certainly warrant suspension, but so can harm to the educational process (e.g., a faculty member who refuses to evaluate the work of most of her students). Such suspensions should be with pay, and they can remain in effect during an investigation and disciplinary proceedings. In Gilbert . East Strousberg University
520 .S. 924 (1997), the .S. Supreme Court ruled that due process rights were not violated when an administration suspended a tenured public employee without pay and failed to provide a pre-suspension hearing. The Court's reasoning was based, in part, that drug-related felony charges were pending against the police officer. As commentators have noted, the Gilbert decision is not generally applicable to the due process protections afforded suspended faculty members,
"[u]nless a college could demonstrate that it needed to remove a tenured faculty member quickly because he or she was a potential threat to the health or safety of others, or because the faculty member had committed some act that rendered him or her unfit to continue teaching pending a disciplinary hearing."The Law of Higher Education 179-80 (Supp. 2000).
Policies on Academic Freedom, Dismissal for Cause, Financial Exigency, and Program Discontinuance
I. Introduction
A central goal of the AAUP is to protect academic freedom, tenure, and due process by assisting faculty governance bodies and AAUP chapters in their efforts to incorporate AAUP-recommended policies in faculty handbooks and collective bargaining agreements. The AAUP achieves this goal in various ways, from directly assisting chapters and other faculty bodies in developing contract and handbook language to providing guidance on interpreting these policies. The enforcement of Association-recommended policies through the mechanism of investigation and censure also plays a role in the adoption of such policies.1
This report provides a statistical analysis of the presence of AAUP-recommended policies on academic freedom, dismissal for cause, financial exigency, and program discontinuance in faculty handbooks and collective bargaining agreements. In the best of times, analysis of their prevalence could usefully inform the work of AAUP chapters, faculty governance bodies, and higher education unions, but given the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on campuses around the country, these data are now even more important to the advancement of the AAUP’s principles and policies. Statistical evidence of the widespread adoption of AAUP policy statements in faculty handbooks and contracts can reinforce the argument that institutional practices that depart from AAUP-supported standards are outside of the mainstream. Conversely, information about which institutional policies more frequently fall short of Association-recommended policies can be useful for faculty members engaged in reviewing regulations or contracts.
The derivative Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which contains formulations of the AAUP’s procedural standards in a form suitable for direct incorporation into faculty handbooks and collective bargaining agreements, provides the following language on grounds for dismissal: “Adequate cause for a dismissal will be related, directly and substantially, to the fitness of faculty members in their professional capacities as teachers or researchers. Dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights of American citizens.” Although not providing a definition, the above language places limitations on what institutions can employ as adequate grounds for dismissal, and some institutions quote this provision in their regulations even if they go on to define “adequate cause” in further detail.
One additional source of policy language on dismissal is the 1973 report of the joint Commission on Academic Tenure in Higher Education, which was sponsored by the AAUP and the Association of American Colleges and Universities.5 The commission recommended that grounds for dismissal be restricted to “(a) demonstrated incompetence or dishonesty in teaching or research, (b) substantial and manifest neglect of duty, and (c) personal conduct which substantially impairs the individual’s fulfillment of his [or her] institutional responsibilities.”
This study shows that both the Association’s position on grounds for dismissal and the recommendations of the commission are reflected in a large percentage of institutional regulations, some of which use the commission’s formulation verbatim, although never with attribution.
Of the four grounds for dismissal listed by the commission, incompetence, neglect of duty, and dishonesty (together with falsification and misrepresentation) are the first, second, and fourth most common across all institutions (see figure 5): 65 percent of institutional regulations list incompetence; 57 percent list neglect of duty; 34 percent list dishonesty, falsification, or misrepresentation; and 19 percent list personal conduct. References to personal conduct (or “personal misconduct”) in institutional regulations at times do not qualify conduct that “substantially impairs” the faculty member’s “fulfillment of his [or her] institutional responsibilities,” which the joint commission’s language included. With or without that qualification, grounds for dismissal related to alleged personal misconduct are the ninth most frequent across all institutions.
Faculty Termination & Disciplinary Issues
Presentation to 14th Annual Legal Issues in Higher Education Conference, University of Vermont
By Donna Euben, AAUP Counsel
October 24, 2004
I. The Status Of Faculty
There are three professions which are entitled to wear the gown: the judge, the priest, and the scholar. This garment stands for its bearer's maturity of mind, his independence of judgment, and his direct responsibility to his conscience and his god. It signifies the inner sovereignty of those three interrelated professions: they should be the very last to allow themselves to act under duress and yield to pressure . . . [T]he judges are the court, the ministers together with the faithful are the church, and the professors together with students are the university . . . they are those institutions themselves, and therefore have prerogative rights to and within their institution which ushers, sextons and beadles, and janitors do not have.
--E.K. Kantorowicz (quoted in Henry Rosovsky, The University: An Owner's Manual 164-65 (1990)).
A. What is "Just Cause"?
Adequate cause has been defined as:
a basis on which a faculty member, either with academic tenure or during a term appointment, may be dismissed. The term refers especially to demonstrated incompetence or dishonesty in teaching or research, to substantial and manifest neglect of duty, and to personal conduct which substantially impairs the individual's fulfillment of his institutional responsibilities.
Faculty Tenure: Commission on Academic Tenure 256 (Keast, ed., 1973) ("Faculty Tenure").
The concept of moral turpitude identifies the exceptional case in which the professor may be denied a year's teaching or pay in whole or in part. The statement applies to that kind of behavior which goes beyond simply warranting discharge and is so utterly blameworthy as to make it inappropriate to require the offering of a year's teaching or pay. The standard is not that the moral sensibilities of persons in the particular community have been affronted. The standard is behavior that would evoke condemnation by the academic community generally.
What conduct constitutes just cause should be sensitive to the nature of higher education. Professors Barbara Lee and William Kaplin suggest that "[i]nstitutions should not comfortably settle for the bald adequate-cause standard. Good policy and (especially for public institutions) good law should demand more." Accordingly, such definitions "should be sufficiently clear to guide the decision-makers who will apply them and to forewarn the faculty members who will be subject to them." Kaplin & Lee, The Law of Higher Education 277-78 (3rd ed. Jossey-Bass).
Sound institutional policies often incorporate AAUP recommended policies and procedural standards. One commentator has observed that "[p]ublic institutions have successfully overcome a vagueness challenge to 'adequate cause' standards by adopting the AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics and incorporating the statement in the faculty handbook." Dismissal for Cause at 15. In Korf . Ball State University, 726 .2d 1222 (7th Cir. 1984), for example, a federal appellate court rejected a professor's challenge to his dismissal, which was based on the sexual advances he made to male students. The administration claimed that the incorporation in the university's faculty handbook of the Statement on Professional Ethics, which prohibits exploitation of students and promotes the professor's proper role as counselor, properly provided a basis for the professor's dismissal. The court rejected the argument of the faculty member, finding that the grounds for dismissal were not unconstitutionally vague, and opining that the institution did not need to list every type of impermissible conduct, so long as the grounds for dismissal were consistent with reasonable professional standards that were understood by the faculty.
Failure to clearly define adequate cause may lead courts to invalidate particular actions or other severe sanctions. See, .g., Tuma . Board of Nursing, 593 .2d 711 (Idaho 1979) (invalidating suspension for "unprofessional conduct"); Davis . Williams, 598 .2d 916 (5th Cir. 1979) (invalidating regulation prohibiting "conduct prejudicial to good order"). But see Ohio Dominican College . Krone, 560 .E.2d 1340 (Ohio App. 1990) (state court declined to discuss whether the institution's standard of dismissal for "grave cause" was vague).
B. Substantive Grounds for Dismissal
Dismissal should, of course, be a "last resort." Brian Brooks, "Adequate Cause for Dismissal: The Missing Element in Academic Freedom," 22 J. Coll. & Univ. . 331, 353 (Fall 1995) ("Adequate Cause"). The substantive grounds for dismissal for cause generally include incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, and immoral or unethical conduct. Dismissal for Cause at 21; Adequate Cause at 331; Robert . Hendrickson, "Removing Tenured Faculty For Cause," 44 Educ. . Rptr. 483, 491 (1998); Timothy . Lovain, "Grounds for Dismissing Tenured Postsecondary Faculty For Cause," 10 J. of Coll. & Univ. . 419, 422 (Winter 1983).
Courts tend to look favorably upon opportunities provided to faculty to "remediate" their perceived deficiencies before dismissal. As one commentator observes:
When a person who once proved himself to be competent is eventually judged to be incompetent, there is no winner. The university has lost a valuable asset in the form of an active, competent professor (remember, he was once judged competent) and the professor has lost his livelihood. Therefore, whenever possible, action should be taken to restore the faculty member to his former position of competence. Such action may take many forms. If the professor is simply not "participating," informing him of the eventual result of that course of action may remedy the problem. The teacher may suddenly teach and the scholar may suddenly publish. When the problem involves the quality of the teaching or scholarship, then the remedial actions will need to be more aggressive. Specific weaknesses and areas for improvement should be identified. The professor should be given a timetable for compliance. Assistance might also be provided in the form of leave, a sabbatical or a decreased class load so that the professor can devote his time to the recommended improvements. The essential point is that the focus should be on rehabilitation not on dismissal.
Adequate Cause at 353; see also Dismissal for Cause at 48 (observing that "a plan of remediation and a reasonable period of time to address deficiencies may be warranted" depending on the faculty conduct at issue).
1. Immoral Behavior
One commentator has observed that "[j]udicial decisions do not provide a precise definition of immorality in the context of higher education." Dismissal for Cause at 35. In the end, allegations of immoral behavior must be understood in the context of higher education. See, .g., Texton . Hancock, 359 So.2d 895 (Fla. App. 1978) (where professor was dismissed for immorality, and the charges included using profanity in the classroom and drinking heavily in a student's home, the court found insufficient grounds for dismissal because "Ms. Texton's conduct must be judged in the context of her more liberal, open, robust college surroundings"). Immoral behavior as grounds for dismissal of faculty members tends to cover sexual misconduct, harassment, and dishonesty. Plagiarism is a typical basis for academic dishonesty. See, .g., Agarwal . Regents of the University of Minnesota, 788 .2d 504 (8th Cir. 1986) (upholding university's dismissal of faculty member for the immoral conduct of plagiarizing a laboratory manual); Yu . Peterson, 13 .3d 1413 (10th Cir. 1993) (upholding termination of faculty member appointment at University of Utah because of plagiarism found by faculty committee, which determined that Dr. Yu "knowingly held out the disputed paper as his own work, with knowledge that it included extensive duplication or close paraphrasing of the co-authored report").
2. Neglect of Duty
Neglect of duty, which is sometimes alleged to constitute insubordination, involves the failure of faculty members to carry out their professional obligations. As numerous courts have noted, definitions of these terms in the higher education context are "rather meager."
The extent of legal due process required to faculty members tends to vary by jurisdiction, including the degree to which a formal pre-termination hearing is legally required. See generally The Law of Higher Education at 288-295. One federal appellate court set forth its views as to minimum legal procedural safeguards in the academy:
These safeguards may include (1) written notice of the grounds for termination; (2) disclosure of the evidence supporting termination; (3) the right to confront witnesses; (4) an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (6) a written statement by the fact finders as to the evidence relied upon.
The coat of arms has several symbols that point to the rich history found at Our Lady of the Lake Roman Catholic Church and School. Each of these attests to various elements of our liturgy, campus and church decor.
The capital “M” represents Mary, the mother of our Lord and Savior who is honored under the title of Our Lady of the Lake.
The letters “IHS” represent Christ's invaluable gift of the Holy Eucharist.
The book and the quill pen signify the school, which continues to be a major evangelistic tool for the parish church in spreading the gospel to God’s precious children.
The “wheat” bordering the coat of arms symbolizes the unleavened bread that becomes Jesus’ body during the celebration of the mass.
Three “fleurs-de-lis” adorn the crest representing three persons but one God, and the French influence on Louisiana history.
The central cross at the top of the crest represents the faith that was given by Christ and passed down through an unbroken succession of apostles.
Together, these symbols piece together a distinct personality, which is Our Lady of the Lake Roman Catholic Church and School.