|
My Response to the Opinion Letter Concerning Proposed Termination of
Dr.
Robert Beeson, Lee Campus Vice President of Instruction and
District
Dean of Arts and Sciences
November
25, 2011
My name is Robert John Beeson. The following
constitutes my response to the legal opinion that I received from the college’s attorney this morning.
At 7:30 a.m. on Friday, November 25,
2011, I received an overnight delivery of a letter from General Counsel for Edison State College, Mark E. Lupe, dated November
23, 2011, and stating:
Dear Dr. Beeson
Enclosed with this letter is a November 22, 2011, opinion of counsel
letter from the law firm of Alan
(sic), Norton & Blue. As you will note in the opinion letter, an additional basis for your termination was discovered
after your disciplinary conference on October 25, 2011. You may provide any response to the Vice President of Human Resources
before the close of business on Monday.
I wanted to make you aware of this development.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Lupe
General Counsel
I shall begin my response with a few
general observations before addressing some of the points in the letter from Allen, Norton & Blue.
In the letter that Dr. Walker presented
me at 1:30 p.m. on October 25, 2011, indicating his intent to recommend my termination to the Board of Trustees at their 4:00
p.m. meeting that same day, the grounds for dismissal were limited to my alleged role in the course substitution and waiver
issue and my failure, as her temporary supervisor, to discipline Associate Dean Dennette Foy for her role in this matter.
In the complaint that I filed with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on November 9, 2011, I provided my response to this single allegation of misconduct,
and detailed how I believe that Dr. Walker’s attempt to terminate me from my job, using this trumped up charge, is his
latest attempt to retaliate against me for having reported my suspicions of racial discrimination in the College’s hiring
practices to the Office of Human Resources on February 21, 2011. I believe the chronology of events contained in my complaint
speak for themselves, and demonstrate how the allegations concerning my supervision of Ms. Foy constitute a “straw man”
argument for the true reasons Dr. Walker is recommending my termination.
If there is any remaining doubt
as to what those true reasons are, the legal opinion of Mr. Mattimore, the same attorney who has represented Dr. Walker’s interests
in his contract negotiations with the College over many years, should serve to dispel it. Having read my complaint to the
federal government, and having realized that his allegation concerning my supervision of Ms. Foy is, at best, weak and flawed
both by the contradictory statements of various administrators at the college and by his inconsistent treatment of those involved
in any way in the matter of course substitutions and waivers, Dr. Walker seeks to expand the argument against me by adding
new charges against my job performance and, now, my integrity. I interpret the attempt
to assassinate my character as Dr. Walker’s latest attempt
to retaliate against me for having reported my suspicions of racial discrimination to Human Resources on February 21, 2011.
The “factual” background
provided in Mr. Mattimore’s opinion letter is a composite of false statements, exaggerations, logical fallacies, non sequiturs, and half-truths. To wit:
The introductory paragraph makes reference
to a “pattern of malfeasance, dishonest conduct, and failure to perform his
duties or responsibilities … particularly relating to the College’s accreditation processes.” This alleged
pattern is belied by my spotless record as an administrator, as evidenced by my consistently pristine performance evaluations,
the latest discharged by Dr. Edith Pendleton on April 11, 2011. Mattimore’s phrase that there exists a “pattern
of malfeasance, dishonest conduct, and failure to perform (my) duties … particularly relating to the College’s
processes” infers that there are other factors at work in this judgment about my performance and my character, yet these
are never revealed in his “opinion” letter. This prejudicial use of language constitutes a rather sophomoric ad hominem attack.
The second paragraph asserts that my
conduct “threatened the accreditation of Edison’s
nursing program under the NLNAC and the entire College’s accreditation under SACS.” It charges that I failed
to take timely and appropriate action when informed of the lack of NLNAC accreditation for the four year nursing degree …”
At no time was I ever contractually, or otherwise directly responsible for the four-year
nursing degree program. A cursory glance at any one of the several organizational charts that have been generated by the
College over the past twelve months will indicate that the program was under the direction of the District Dean of Baccalaureate
Studies, Kristen Zimmerman, and that Dr. Mary Lewis, Associate Dean of Health Professions,
was serving as acting Dean of the School of Nursing until the time of her retirement last summer. I have enclosed a copy of
Dean Zimmerman’s job description which clearly indicates that she is responsible for all aspects of the baccalaureate
degree programs, from planning and development to assessment, which includes accreditation. I have also included a copy of
an email from Zimmerman to the Dean of Edison-on-Line, Mary Myers that clearly indicates Zimmerman saw herself as chiefly
responsible for NLNAC accreditation of the BSN degree. Zimmerman reported directly to the office of the District Executive
Vice President, Noreen Thomas until Thomas’ departure from the College last October. Thereafter, she reported directly
to the office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Steve Atkins. My job title as Lee Campus Vice President of Instruction
is limited to campus-specific programs; the baccalaureate degree programs are District programs. My title of District Dean
of Arts and Sciences is limited to academic programs related to General Education and university transfer, i.e. the Arts and
Sciences curriculum. In no way does this title carry any authority over a fellow Dean supervising another District program.
The interesting thing here is that Dean
Zimmerman remains employed by the College, despite her responsibility for the development and oversight of the baccalaureate
studies programs, having received no reprimands, and no letter of intent to terminate from Dr. Walker. The NLNAC accreditation problem was due to Dean Zimmerman’s lack of administrative oversight. I shall return
to this point below.
- Dr. Beeson’s Improprieties Regarding Core Substitutions Affected
SACS Accreditation
Mr. Mattimore states that the December
3, 2010 internal investigation into the practice for course substitutions and waivers, initiated by Dr. Steve Atkins, involved
me as one of four employee members of the investigatory committee. The others were Dr. Atkins; Academic Manager, Pamela Mangene;
and Vice President of Human Resources, Pamela Fairfax. Two of those people remain employed by the College, and two of them
have either been fired or recommended for termination by Dr. Walker – the same two who complained to Human Resources
about possible racial discrimination in hiring.
The investigatory committee’s findings
were formalized by Dr. Atkins and presented to Dr. Browder, Senior Vice President for Operations, with Atkins’ recommendation
that both Associate Dean Foy and her supervisor, Dean Roshon, be disciplined for their actions relative to course substitutions
and waivers. Browder was dismissive of the recommendation, despite what Atkins was reporting, instead electing only to discipline
Roshon by demoting him. Foy remained in her position with the full support of both Dr. Browder and Dr. Walker. Atkins was
told by Browder that he could not discipline Foy for her behavior. This fact clearly
signaled to everyone at the College that Foy was “untouchable,” immune to any disciplinary action. It is a
well-known fact that Dr. Browder has a long-standing personal relationship with Ms. Foy and, according to Dr. Atkins, spoke
often of promoting her to Roshon’s position. After Dr. Browder left the College on April 5, 2011, Dr. Walker continued
to refuse Dr. Atkins’ repeated requests to have Foy fired. In fact, the College
never severed its relationship with Foy until November 9, 2011 despite growing evidence against her, indicating that either:
(a.) the College did not believe her behavior to truly be “egregious”
in nature, as Mr. Lupe would infer to the State Senate Subcommittee on Education on October 20, 2011, by testifying under
oath that the College had not yet concluded its investigation of Foy, and had yet found no evidence of intentional wrongdoing
to warrant her termination, or (b.) the College believed Foy to truly be culpable
for the substitution/waiver issue and chose instead to deny it, or cover it up, as indicated by Dr. Edith Pendleton’s
statement to the Board of Trustees on April 26, 2011, reporting that her own investigation into the matter, covering five
years of practice, had produced “only convincing evidence of academic integrity with regard to substitutions approved,”
despite showing several administrators a pile of approved substitutions and waivers that she described as “indefensible.”
If the first case (a.) holds, then I cannot legitimately be held solely accountable for Foy’s guilt, since
no one other than Atkins – who turned out to be right – believed she had acted in a truly malicious manner, preferring
instead to believe that she had been careless and too trusting of what others told her. I have attached a complete summary
of my notes from the internal investigation which indicates what constitutes my own conclusions. I submitted these notes,
distilled from my hand-written notes, to Dr. Atkins in advance of his final report of the internal investigation, and to the
external auditor from AACRAO, Michele Sandlin, when I was interviewed by her on August 4, 2011. No where in these notes is
it indicated that I believed Foy to be guilty of intentional wrongdoing. It was not until much later that Foy’s pattern
of deception became evident to me, long after I had prepared her annual evaluation document on March 25, 2011.
If the second case (b.) holds, then it is clear that the College is looking for a scapegoat, having found itself
under increased scrutiny from SACS, the NLNAC, the State Senate, the State Department of Education, the Auditor General’s
office, and from the public perception that some sort of cover-up may well have occurred at the College’s highest level.
Again, I interpret Dr. Walker’s singling me out to take the sole blame for what was clearly his own lack of oversight
and his unwillingness to implicate Vice Presidents Browder, Pendleton, and Fairfax, the District Registrar, the Associate
Registrar, or the former Dean of Student Services, as further evidence of his blatant retaliation against me for having reported fears of racial discrimination at the
College.
In paragraph 5, of Mr. Mattimore’s
opinion letter, he references the annual evaluation of Ms. Foy that I conducted as her temporary supervisor. He notes that
“[d]espite the severity of the violations and the egregious nature of her conduct,
Dr. Beeson recommended that Foy’s contract be renewed for an additional year. This malfeasance, along with other enumerated
actions below, jeopardized the College’s accreditation.” First, as noted above, if Foy’s actions, characterized
by Atkins in his report to Browder and senior administration were, indeed, as clearly severe and egregious so as to jeopardize
the College’s accreditation, why would her termination await her annual evaluation? Instead, Browder elected to take
no action against her, preferring instead to demote her supervisor, and then signaled that she was not to be disciplined when
Atkins recommended that she be. This seal of inculpability signaled that either Foy’s actions were not seen as serious
by the College, or that she enjoyed a privileged and protected status in spite of any actual wrongdoing.
After a lengthy conversation with
Foy, I elected to give her the benefit of any doubt concerning the question of ill-intent, accepting her persistently voiced
opinion that she had not acted in any malicious manner, had only been doing as she had been trained many years before, was
following what she believed to be College procedures and the will of the faculty in her area, and was only trying to help
students. I also accepted on good faith her pledge that the practice had ceased with the December investigation. I noted the
area of deficiency on her evaluation under the heading ‘Planning/Organizing’ and wrote in reference to ‘Decision-making’:
“This is an area of perceived need for growth. Evident is the waiver violation
problem that was uncovered in 12/10 where inappropriate course substitutions [and] waivers were granted over several years
for core requirements. Waivers and substitutions were granted without full disclosure to Dean and VPAA (Vice President of
Academic Affairs) jeopardizing the College on many levels.” Her average score of 2.15 (on a scale of 1.0 to 3.0)
falls in the lower range of ‘Meets Standards’ (a mere .16 of a point over ‘Below Standards’)because
her performance was judged to be average or above in other areas of performance evaluation. However, in no way does this assessment constitute Mr. Lupe’s caricature of Foy’s
evaluation to the Board of Trustees on October 25th as “glowing,” and failing to make any mention of
substitution/waiver problem.
Mr. Mattimore’s assertion
is that my evaluation of Foy, while “making mention of the course substitution
issue, was void of any substantial concern regarding the ‘blatant and egregious’ nature of the course substitutions
and fails to contain any reference to ‘clear violations of SACS/COC and Florida statutes, as well as ESC policies and
procedures for awarding degrees which had been described in the December 2, 2010 letter from former VP Atkins to James Browder.”
This statement uses language that was employed by Dr. Atkins, not by me. On October 25th, when Dr. Walker showed
me a copy of Atkins’ letter to Browder, and asked me if I had seen it before, I did not recall having seen it, nor do
I today recall having seen it prior to my termination hearing. In any case, it reflects Atkins’ summary, not mine. I
merely provided my notes from the interviews that were conducted at the December interviews. Mr. Mattimore’s use of
Dr. Atkins’ language to make a case against me puts words - ‘blatant’ and ‘egregious’ - in my
mouth, another example of his penchant for the straw man fallacy.
For the record, I was thrust into the
role of interim District Dean for Professional and Technical Studies on January 3, 2011. I did not have much more than a basic
acquaintance with the degree programs in that Division, as they are quite different in regard to their graduation requirements,
General Education requirements, clinical training components, and internal processes than the much less complicated single
degree program in Arts and Sciences. I had no previous experience with workforce programs. At the time of my evaluation of
Ms. Foy, I had served as her temporary supervisor for a period of 81 days, or a little over 11 weeks. I was just beginning
to understand how her programs operated. In addition, I had to learn the internal mechanisms for 17 other A.S. degree programs,
13 certificate programs, and all of continuing education. There was much about this Division and its programs that I had not
fully begun to understand at the time of Foy’s annual evaluation.
The recommendation to renew Foy for another
annual contract was based on the knowledge, in accordance with Mr. Lupe’s October 20th testimony before the
Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education in Tallahassee and Ms. Fairfax’ statement to the District President’s
Executive Cabinet on August 4, 2011, that the College had found no evidence of unethical behavior by Foy. At that same meeting
Dr. Atkins reported Dr. Walker warning him that Foy had retained an attorney, and that Dr. Atkins needed to stop accusing
her of making inappropriate course substitutions because such statements might jeopardize the College. Fairfax’s statement was made despite her having taken part in the same investigation
that I had participated in on December 3, 2010. Lupe further testified under oath that the College’s investigation was
not complete as of the late October date, five days before I was recommended for termination by Dr. Walker. Yet the College
would continue to retain Foy until November 9, 2011, when she was forced to resign.
Mr. Mattimore’s statement also
references ESC policies and procedures for awarding degrees. Not until after the December, 2010 investigation did the College
have an operating procedure for substitutions and waivers beyond what was on the form in use at that time. That form, which
required only the signature of the Dean and Associate Dean, was radically revised by Dr. Atkins after the preliminary investigation
of the matter, so as to include signatures of the student, the department chair, and the Registrar, in addition to the VPAA.
Mr. Roshon had, by his own admission, granted Foy his signature authority on any and
all documents, including substitutions and waivers.
During the investigation in December
it was learned that the Registrar’s office had been for many years strictly directed by VP for Student Services Pendleton
never to question an academic dean’s signature. This issue is referred to on page 17 of the AACRAO report, which includes
documentation of the host of slipshod operating processes that created a favorable environment for the subsequent scandal.
Hence, the practices employed by Foy, in which she was able to unilaterally process substitutions and waivers, was as much
due to the lack of oversight from the District President and his laxity and detachment in regard to day to day College operations,
as it was anyone else. Only after the substitution/waiver problem was discovered
did he act to create a College Operating Procedure. At my termination hearing on October
25th, I pointedly asked Dr. Walker what his own measure of culpability was in the substitution/waiver issue and
received no response.
- Dr. Beeson’s Failure to Timely Seek Accreditation of the Nursing
Program.
The allegation that I somehow failed
to seek accreditation of the BSN in a timely fashion is ancillary to the original charge that constituted the sole grounds
for Dr. Walker’s decision to recommend my termination to the Board of Trustees. As such, it is not a part of the original motion before the Board which was tabled by a vote of 5-3 at the October 25th
meeting. Nor was any of this “evidence” included in the packet of twenty-plus related pages that was submitted
to the Board an hour before the October meeting. The Board was presented with Mr. Mattimore’s “Opinion Letter”
on November 22, 2011. The same letter arrived at my home via FedEx delivery on the morning of November 25, 2011. Thus, I am
put in the position of having to respond to these additional charges - that, according to Mr. Lupe, must be received by the
District VP for Human Resources no later than the close of business on Monday, November 28th - during a holiday
weekend when my attorney’s offices are closed (as are most other attorneys’ offices), and will not be reopened
until Monday morning.
Furthermore, for the record, I
am being asked by Mr. Lupe to submit my response to the Vice President of Human Resources, the same person that I have alleged
in my E.E.O.C. complaint, failed to protect Dr. Atkins and me from Dr. Walker’s and Dr. Browder’s blatant retaliation
against us after having performed our lawful and moral duty in reporting our suspicions about racial discrimination at the
College. This is the same individual who, it is further alleged, in her role as the Equity Officer for the College, failed
to perform a formal, thorough, and legal investigation of the concerns about racial discrimination. To state that I am uneasy
about having to trust this person with the contents of my response to the new allegations hardly begins the cover the spectrum
of my feelings. My anxiety is exacerbated by the fact that the other person in whom I must place my trust in this matter is
Mr. Lupe, the man who made certain that I would not have the chance to respond to Mr. Mattimore’s document any earlier
than Friday morning after Thanksgiving, who misrepresented my evaluation of Foy to the Board on October 25th, and
whose own wife was involved in the BSN accreditation process for which I am have become the College’s scapegoat, as
you will see below.
As I stated above, I did not at any time
have oversight of the NLNAC accreditation process. As the enclosed email of November 20, 2008, from Dean of Baccalaureate
Studies Kristen Zimmerman to Dean of Edison-on-Line Mary Myers demonstrates, the responsibility for development of the BSN
degree and its accreditation rested primarily with Dean Zimmerman. The accompanying documents are related to curriculum development
for this program, NLNAC standards, and the NLNAC criteria for the distant education component of this degree. Since the degree
was designed in large part to be delivered on-line, Dean Myers was instrumentally involved in this aspect of the program’s
development. Dean Zimmerman was also assisted in this work by Dr. Mary Lewis, Professor Gail Tracey, and Mark Lupe’s
wife, Lori Lupe, who as an adjunct faculty member, was under a special contract for this purpose.
Under B.1, Mr. Mattimore states that on “November 1, 2010 Dr. Beeson received
a forwarded email from a concerned student in the nursing program. The student’s email expressed ‘frustration’
and ‘anger’ regarding the program’s accreditation status and asked for help clarifying the situation or
direction as to someone whom she could speak with.” The ‘program’ apparently refers to the B.S.N. for
which, again, I was never directly responsible.
On the basis of this email, Mr.
Mattimore alleges in B.2 that “Dr. Beeson failed to investigate or take any
appropriate productive action in responding to the student’s email. Rather, his only response was to forward the email
to Dr. Atkins along with a message simply stating ‘Heads up!’”
In the first instance (B.1), I am fairly certain that I personally responded to this student. If it wasn’t by return email, then
it was likely by telephone. However, since I was suspended on the afternoon of October 25, 2011, and given less than half
an hour to clear out my desk and personal effects (after which time my locks were changed), I did not have time to copy my
email file, and would not have been permitted access to my computer during the time I was vacating my office with Mr. Steve
Nice standing guard. Furthermore, my computer access was suspended within an hour of my departure, and my computer was reportedly
“examined” repeatedly and at great length by I.T. technicians, and eventually confiscated altogether. Thus I am
not in a position to pore over my paper or electronic files to locate evidence against this allegation. All I can say is that
I never recall a time when I did not respond to a student’s email request for information or other assistance, and an
investigation of my email files would produce hundreds of examples of my timely and thorough responses to students. In 16
years at Edison State College, I have never been cited for failure to be responsive to students’ needs. On the contrary;
I have been commended for doing so on dozens of occasions, and many times by Dr. Walker himself.
Mr. Mattimore’s assumption is that
I did not follow-up with the student. However, to make such a claim, Mr. Mattimore would have had to fully investigate the
situation himself, to determine if I had placed a phone call, posted a letter, or otherwise communicated with the student
in question. A legitimate investigation would have involved Mr. Mattimore asking
me if I had any proof that I did follow up with the student. Because he did not do so, he is making a rash assumption and
making use of a logical fallacy known as Argumentum
ad Ignorantiam, the Appeal to Ignorance, i.e. asserting that a certain proposition is false, just because no one has
proven it to be true or true just because no one has proven it false. He argues that it is false that I followed up with the
student just because no one has yet demonstrated that I did. Because I am being denied the tools with which to defend myself,
we will likely never know the truth. Mr. Mattimore, however, has presented his conjecture as a material fact in this case.
HERE IS HOW THE REST OF THE COLLEGE RESPONDED TO THIS STUDENT: The email in question (included here) was originally
sent by the student to District Registrar, Billee Silva on Thursday, October 28, 2010
(an important detail omitted by Mr. Mattimore), who then earmarked it “Low Importance”
and forwarded it to Dean of Student Services, Patricia Newell and Associate Dean of Enrollment Management for Lee Campus,
Cindy Lewis, on Friday, October 29, 2010. Pat Newell, in turn, forwarded it to
Dean of Professional and Technical Studies, Bill Roshon and me on Monday, November
1, 2010, four (4) full days after Silva first received it, directing it to Bill’s attention. Please note that
I was not contacted by the student in question; I was merely one of four administrators to whom the student’s email
was forwarded, and nowhere is the concern addressed to me directly. Mr. Roshon did tell me that he would take care of
it. Mr. Roshon responded to this student, and every other student in the program,
by sending out his infamous letter to them on November 2, 2010, assuring them that everything was fine, the application had
been filed, the program would be accredited, and that they had nothing to fret about. This, of course, proved to be false.
A local news station picked up on the story of the deception, and the entire College was publicly embarrassed: (http://www.fox4now.com/news/local/128353058.html). On July 11, 2011, Dr. Walker was present
when Dr. Sharon Tanner called Dr. Atkins, Associate Director – A.S. to B.S.N., Dr. Denise McNulty; Acting Dean of Nursing,
Dr. Mary Lewis; and Charlotte Campus President, Dr. Pat Land, and angrily told them of the deceptions that had been perpetrated.
On August 29, 2011, Dr. Walker announced that he had appointed Mr. Roshon as the
Interim Dean of the Hendry/Glades, returning him from administrative leave, knowing he had lied to the students, to the Edison faculty, and to the faculty of other colleges, on behalf of the College.
In the second instance (B.2), my forwarding the email in question to Dr. Atkins would constitute an “appropriate and productive
action,” inasmuch as I was not directly responsible for the accreditation of the B.S.N. program, and forwarding email
of this sort to Dr. Atkins, the VPAA, would have constituted the correct course of action. Mattimore’s assertion to
the contrary is rather closer to a value judgment than a statement of indisputable fact. I was, like everyone else, Dr. Walker
included, under the impression that the NLNAC application had been filed in a timely fashion, per the letter sent to students
in that program in November 2, 2010, by Dean Bill Roshon, reassuring them that the process for accreditation was well underway
and would likely be received well in advance of their graduation dates. Not until much later was it finally discovered by
Dr. Atkins that Dr. Lewis had falsely represented the College’s B.S.N. degree program’s accreditation status to
students, and to faculty at other colleges, did nearly everyone at the College finally realize the unfortunate truth. The
delay in discovery was due in no small part to Dr. Lewis’ obfuscation and duplicity.
Prior to this date, while serving as
her temporary supervisor, I had been engaged in the arduous process of documenting the long history of Dr. Lewis’ mismanagement
and incompetence. This was done in response to Dr. Browder’s insistence, that Lewis should be the new Dean of the School of Nursing, despite
a search committee’s unanimous recommendation, and a departmental faculty’s strong endorsement of Dr. Vivian Lilly
for the position. This is documented by my emails to Dr. Browder on October 28, 2010 and October 28, 2010, and February 17,
2011. In a memorandum to Browder dated February 22, 2011 signaled that my annual evaluation of Lewis would reflect this poor
history of management, which it ultimately did. Lewis’ evaluation was accompanied by a Performance Improvement Plan
(included here) that tasked her with, among other things, leading her department through the follow up report to the NLNAC
on the R.N. (A.S.) program, which had received a recommendation after a site visit the previous year. Neither the evaluation,
nor the Improvement Plan, made any reference to the B.S.N. program, as that was, once more, the responsibility of Dean Zimmerman;
Lewis only reported to me (just for fifteen weeks) as Associate Dean for the two-year degree programs. In the meantime, I
was under continuous verbal assault from Browder, having to explain myself in regard to the poor evaluation I was giving Lewis,
to the extent that I daily feared for my job. This is well-documented in notarized notes that I have for this period. Rather
than comply with the performance plan I set out for her, Dr. Lewis retired from the College during the summer.
In B.3,
Mr. Mattimore draws attention to another student’s email dated January 25,
2011, expressing concern over the status of the bachelor of nursing program. Again, he fails to indicate with whom it originated.
Mr. Mattimore says nothing of my response to this student, and does not, as he did in the first instance, quote from the email.
Thus it is impossible for me to identify the email, or its author, and I am left, like the members of the Board, to guess
at its authenticity or veracity. Once again, because I have no access to my email or paper files, I can only respond by stating
that I do not recall any occasion when I did not respond to a student’s emailed concern by return email or phone call
within twenty-four hours of receiving it. This practice often led to face-to-face meetings when the matter could not otherwise
be resolved to the student’s satisfaction. I strongly resent the false impression
resulting from Mr. Mattimore’s hasty generalization (otherwise known as
the logical fallacy of converse accident) that I have been unresponsive to students’
concerns about the BSN accreditation based on the emails of two unidentified students, one of which is not reproduced
in any identifying form. Since Mr. Mattimore has presented his document as a legal opinion, it would seem incumbent upon him
to produce clearer and more fulsome evidence for his conclusions than he has here, particularly when a career is at stake.
To reiterate, Mr. Mattimore would have had to launch a thorough investigation to ascertain if, and how, I might otherwise
have followed up with this student. If he did not do so, then he has repeated his Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
In B.4,
Mr. Mattimore notes that the application for the BSN accreditation from NLNAC was not submitted until April 12, 2011. I am
wearied by reiterating that the responsibility for submission of this document never rested with me. Instead, it was the primary
responsibility of the Dean of Baccalaureate Studies, Kristen Zimmerman, who was assisted in this project by Dr. Lewis, Dr.
Denise McNulty, other faculty and staff, and Mr. Lupe’s wife, Lori. Ultimately, Dr. Walker was responsible for the application
for this critically important certification. When he was recently questioned by a Fox-4 News reporter as to why he had not
submitted the application he responded by saying that he “forgot” to send it in.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Since I have been deprived of my own
legal counsel due to the very curious delay in my reception of Mr. Mattimore’s legal opinion, I am at a decided disadvantage
as I attempt to respond to the items under this heading. Had I received the document at the same time that it was made available
to the Board members, and been apprised that I would be (unlike the process in October), given a chance to respond, my attorney
would have been afforded the opportunity to examine, for the purpose of rebuttal, the legal precedents that Mattimore cites.
Thus my remarks are limited in scope to Mr. Mattimore’s version of the facts of the case as he presents them.
As concerns the claim in the second paragraph
under ‘A’ on page 9 that “As
an administrator in the upper echelon of the College’s hierarchy, the College entrusts Dr. Beeson with the evaluation
of employees under his supervision. By not properly doing so, Dr. Beeson failed to provide leadership for his subordinates
…” I will submit that during the period January 3, 2011 until April 19, 2011 the College had bestowed upon
me three titles: (1) Lee Campus Vice President of Instruction, (2) District Dean of Arts and Sciences, and (3) Interim District
Dean of Professional & Technical Studies. Dr. Atkins strenuously argued with Dr. Browder for a reduction of my workload
based on the unrealistic expectation that I could effectively run two academic divisions (Arts and Sciences is the largest
unit in the College) that together constitute over 99% of the College’s total credit enrollment, plus perform the work
associated with my campus vice presidency, and the poor impression this would make on SACS. I was working, in effect, three
full-time jobs for the College, supervising the work of 8 associate deans and
their staffs, overseeing 20 degree programs, 13
certificate programs, all of continuing education, and the Bob Rauschenberg Gallery. That I was able to maintain this workload, and function properly, is evidenced by Dr. Pendleton’s exceptionally strong annual evaluation of my performance on
April 11th and Dr. Walker’s written expression of gratitude to me
in his public announcement that Dean Roshon was returning to his former role on April 19th.
As concerns the claim that I am guilty
of Undermining Support for the College’s Strategic Plan under heading ‘B’, I repeat that it was Dr. Atkins who initiated the investigation
of the course substitution/waiver issue, that he convened the investigative team, and that he wrote the summary report of
the investigation (my only input being submission of my notes that do not reflect the opinion that Foy’s acts were “blatant
and egregious”).
Having demonstrated that no one
at the College, myself included, voiced an official opinion, or initiated any action against Foy for misconduct – except
for Dr. Atkins – Mattimore’s statement that my “silence in failing
to address Foy’s considerable misconduct is tantamount to dishonesty” must extend to anyone associated with
the internal investigation, and after the AACRAO report was released, to everyone in the College’s administration, Dr.
Walker included. Yet the entire College remained officially silent on the matter.
Dr. Walker would not permit Dr. Atkins to initiate punitive measures against Foy, refusing to initiate her termination until
she was forced to resign on November 9, 2011, remaining officially and steadfastly silent on the matter. Dr. Walker has not held himself accountable in this matter, remaining
officially silent, refusing to answer my simple question regarding his own measure of culpability with anything more than
protracted silence. Nor has the Board of Trustees sought his termination with cause in this matter, as he has with me, holding
me solely accountable for Foy’s behavior.
Having demonstrated that no one at the
College, with the single exception of Dr. Atkins, publicly stated the belief that Foy was guilty of malfeasance, declaring
through its chief counsel, under oath, that the investigation of Foy was incomplete as of October 20, 2011, and that up to
that date no conclusion had been reached as to the question of her malfeasance, I submit that Mr. Mattimore’s comment
concerning my “misconduct … tantamount to dishonesty” is slanderous
and actionable. I will not hold Dr. Walker, or his personal attorney, guiltless for this non sequitur inference, and for this obvious and intentional attempt to smear
my reputation and destroy my career. Nor will I hold the College guiltless if the Board assents to the motion for my termination.
The statement in the second paragraph
under ‘C. Failure to Initiate and Maintain Accreditation Standards’
that “Dr. Beeson was one of only three people on a committee aware of Foy’s
participation in the substitution and waiver violations,” is factually false. Mr. Mattimore appears to have forgotten
in the span of a few pages that there were actually four (4) persons on the committee in question: Atkins, Mangene, Fairfax,
and Beeson. The interesting thing here is not, however, the arithmetic, but rather the obvious fact that the only two members
of that investigative committee who have either lost their job or been suspended pending a recommendation to terminate are
Atkins and Beeson, the two people who went to the Office of Human Resources on February 21, 2011 with concerns about possible
racial discrimination at the College. The common denominator is Dr. Kenneth Walker, District President, who unilaterally moved
to have both administrators fired.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert John Beeson, Ph.D.
|
