Anatomy of A Setup
Indiana University Fired Me: What, How and Why
Introduction
The description that follows is a simple chronology of events and is
a companion to the initial more abstract version provided in the last chapter
of my report, “Lux et Veritas.” Both versions are factual and truthful,
and essentially the same, but each provides a specific method for relaying
the information. I need to protect myself legally; subsequently,
I do not provide all of the available evidence and facts that I could and
need to be somewhat vague. Truthfully telling what happened in two
different ways gives me the opportunity to provide information in a straightforward
manner and also allows me to use metaphors to convey meaning in a different,
perhaps even more thorough, way. What you’re about to read is the
straightforward version.
WHAT: The Report
The report I refer to, “In The Shadow of Greatness,” is found here:
http://www.uedge.org/atissue.html. If you haven’t already:
check it out.
Briefly, the report documents with detailed evidence how and why Indiana
University (IU), specifically [non-academic] Administration (VPAD), the
Department of Environmental Health and Safety (DEHS), and other IU units
knowingly committed violations of federal laws for years. Perhaps
the worst offense is willfully exposing students in dorms to damaged, thus
harmful, asbestos since 1987. I worked at the DEHS for over six years;
I have 15 years related professional experience; and I have a masters in
public affairs from the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs:
I consider myself qualified to make the statements contained in my report.
I base the report on a book that I am writing. I wrote the report
to use as a tool to inform IU leadership of the problems that my research
uncovered. I believe that my pervious futile attempts, over years,
to address the issues with departmental leadership validated my decision
to interact directly with upper IU leadership. My purpose was to
work internally with IU leaders, help them solve their problems, and give
IU notice well in advance of me publishing my book.
I considered these objectives idealistic. I understood that the
issues that I intended to inform IU leadership about existed, for the most
part, with their full knowledge and for a reason. What’s important
to understand is that I became ultimately interested in why this condition
existed; moreover, I wanted to observe the course of action IU leadership
would take once they became aware that my research had unraveled the inner
workings of their malfeasance and that the information would soon become
publicly accessible. My hypothesis was that, based on earlier observations,
IU will do “the right thing” if their evaluation of the costs and benefits
of doing so indicates that it is the best choice; that is, if a specific
issue poses a strong legal consequence or threat to IU’s image--it is in
IU’s best interest to truly solve the issue. However, my intuition
told me that an entrenched powerful bureaucracy confronted with their most
vulnerable secrets would do almost anything to protect their stake in the
multi-billion dollar empire that IU represents. If self-preservation
is one’s only goal then what I was about to do was foolish. Yet,
what marks humans from other life forms is our willingness to put ourselves
in harm’s way for an ideal that we consider larger than ourselves.
In order to protect and validate myself I gained the support of these
three Indiana Legislators: Senator Vi Simpson and Representatives
Peggy Welch and Matt Pierce. The legislators made official contact
with IU on July 18. Shortly afterwards Terry Clapacs, Vice President
of Administration--Chief Administrative Officer (VPAD) received a copy
of my report; one of the legislators involved verified this via email to
me. Clapacs is my former director’s boss.
On August 30, 2005, two of the legislators, VP Clapacs, and Ted Alexander,
my former director, met to discuss my report. The legislators told
them that they believed that I wasn’t trying to be a public whistleblower
or hurt IU or any of its people. On September 12, 2005 IU fired me.
HOW: Two Accusations
My report’s initial last chapter, Lux et Veritas,” provides a more abstract
account of the issues surrounding my termination but also provides more
evidence than this simple version. I encourage you to examine both
versions to develop a more complete picture.
On September 12, 2005, Indiana University fired me for these two reasons:
sexual harassment and missing two days of work. I’ll use each accusation
as a heading and provide simple chronological information leading up to
each accusation.
1. SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Briefly, IU’s “Policy Against Sexual Harassment” states that any
statement or action that could have a sexual connotation is considered
sexual harassment if it imposes some sort of condition (such as academic
or professional advancement) or is intrusive and unwanted by the recipient.
http://www.indiana.edu/%7Euhrs/policies/uwide/sexual_harass.html
Note that in the report, Chapter 12, Animal Farm, I discuss sexual
harassment and mention some incidents of true sexual harassment committed
by Ted Alexander, my former director, who fired me, in part, for supposedly
committing sexual harassment. I omitted these incidents, compiled
by me and/or DEHS staff, because I considered it distasteful and not necessary
to continue with the associated IU policy implications that I detail.
However, if Ted, or IU would like a copy of the incidents of sexual harassment
that Ted committed and that I omitted from my report they are certainly
welcome to ask me for them.
On July 19, 2005, the person (continuously referred to as “person”)
that would later accuse me of sexual harassment invited me to a bar.
We had a good time and as we left each other person initiated a hug and
we both kissed each other’s cheek.
Later in the IU workplace, we interacted comfortably. I sent person
an email stating that I liked person but only wanted to be friends and
mentioned some small gifts that I wanted to give person. The person
emailed back thanking me for previous emails (articles, travel tips, and
so on) and stated that person would love to be my friend, that person was
comfortable with dating me, and that person wanted my gifts. The
person also mentioned some personal photos [that person wanted to show
me] that were inappropriate for [others in] the office.
On August 18, during IU work time, I gave person the gifts and person
initiated a hug and told me I was kind. Shortly afterwards I gave
person a peck on the forehead and person smiled. The kiss was not
intrusive and was wanted. The hug and kiss both represent inappropriate
general workplace behavior but are not considered sexual harassment as
long they are consensual.
On August 19, during IU work time, person and I talked about relationships
for about 20 minutes and person gave me the personal photos to look at.
The person instructed me to look at them in a private setting so that no
one else could see them. During this general period of time, person
knew of my report and so did VP Clapacs and I presume my director.
After I looked at person’s personal photos I mentioned my report to person
and told person that I was going to take some time off because “the shit
was going to hit the fan.” I told person to call me if person wanted
to go out and person smiled and said OK. I left and that day person
reported to IU officials that I had committed sexual harassment.
Afterwards, IU rewarded the person with a better working environment
and [it’s my understanding from 3rd parties, both internal and external
to IU] the promise of a better job in the near future.
On August 23, my director and associate director, Ted Alexander and
Mike Jenson respectively, called me into a meeting to discuss the issue
about the person’s charges. I said person hugged me then shortly
afterwards I kissed person’s forehead. Ted and Mike both agreed that
person’s email to me, and person’s actions before, during, and after the
alleged sexual harassment strongly conflicted with person’s accusations
against me, but they did not treat this evidence with any regard and only
focused on the person’s accusations.
Accordingly, person stated to Ted and Mike that person had not ever
wanted anything to do with me and was in a near state of shock by my actions.
I protested against what I considered person’s false statements and the
apparent lack of interest from Ted and Mike concerning my evidence that
supported my side of events. I made repeated requests but I never
received a copy of person’s actual statements against me and/or the handwritten
notes taken by Ted and Mike during their conversation with person.
However, I had no problem agreeing to comply—100%--with the demand of
Ted and Mike: have no non-work related interaction with person. We
all left the meeting with what I presumed was our agreement: I wouldn’t
interact with person unless IU work required me to and I would receive
a written reprimand that I could sign or not—it was up to me.
Later, Ted would give me the written reprimand, dated August 23, 2005,
stating that I had admitted initiating unwanted physical contact.
My audio recording of this 8/23/05 meeting documents that this is not true:
I said person initiated physical contact after gladly taking gifts and
that my kiss to person’s forehead was well received.
In the same 8/23/05 meeting Ted and Mike began to grill me about my
report that documents that their office and VPAD had violated federal laws--the
most important I think is willfully exposing students to damaged, thus
harmful, asbestos in dorms since 1987. Both Ted and Mike were very
upset about my report. Ted told me that it was his understanding
that my report was about Administration (his superiors) and DEHS (his department)
not doing their jobs. Ted confronted me with this question:
“Are you trying to get me fired? If so tell me right now!”
Mike confronted me with this statement [paraphrased]: “We heard that
you are trying to slander us and give us a bad name.” I told them
that my intent, explicitly stated in my report, is to improve IU and not
to hurt IU or anyone of its people. Ted and Mike were still very
concerned about my report and upset with me.
2. MISSING TWO DAYS OF WORK
Briefly, IU’s “Policy Against Harassment and Violence in The Workplace,”
protects employees like me from hostile environments that include intimidating,
hostile, threatening, or violent behavior. Intimidating or hostile
behavior includes language or action that disrupts the work environment,
causes undue emotional distress to another, or creates a reasonable fear
of injury to a person.
http://www.indiana.edu/%7Euhrs/policies/uwide/violence.html
At my request, Ted gave me permission to take off work August 24-26
so I could attend to my recently flooded condo.
On August 23 late and early August 24, I sent Ted and Mike several emails
using my personal, not IU, email account. The emails contained information
about the person that they both wanted. I used my personal email
because it is difficult to access my IU email account from any other computer
but the one in my office; it’s a layer of IT security. I never had
to; I don’t know how.
The big meeting with the legislators, VP Clapacs, and Ted was scheduled
for Tuesday, August 30. At least in part, the purpose of the meeting
was to discuss my report and me. This fact is very well documented.
[The legislators will tell them that they believed that I wasn't trying
to be a public whistleblower or hurt IU, and VP Clapacs will say--about
my book--that whatever I do on my own time is not IU’s concern]
Prior to this meeting, I emailed Ted on Saturday, August 27 to inform
him that I had evidence that the office had become a hostile environment
for me and that I wasn't coming in until the issue was resolved, which
I felt would be soon. In part, the evidence consisted of third parties
informing me that Ted and Mike were having closed-door meetings with their
superiors, and other colleagues, and that the third parties were able to
discern that the topic of the meetings was about me and my report; also,
I received accounts from several IU staff that Ted and Mike were grilling
colleagues that were my friends. Considering the level of anxiety
displayed by both Ted and Mike about my report during the August 23 meeting
I believe that it was reasonable on my part to state that my work environment
had become hostile towards me.
In my August 27 (personal account) email to Ted, I stated that I had
evidence that the office was a hostile environment for me and proposed
that we meet at a neutral location outside the office for coffee to talk.
The morning of Monday, August 29th Ted did not show up for coffee
but instead emailed me saying that he didn’t get my message in time because
he had computer problems at home. Also, he said that he needed to
see me to give me the follow-up documentation [about the person—my copy
of the final version of the written reprimand that I could sign or not—my
choice. The wording and tone of Ted’s statement was informal and
not urgent].
I replied on August 29th and restated my belief that the office represented
a hostile environment. I thanked Ted for putting together the follow-up
documentation. Also, I invited Ted out for coffee again on August
30th (the morning of the big meeting) and told him to call me if he liked.
Remember: all of our correspondence occurred via my personal, not
IU, email account. Ted did not contact me again either by email or
telephone.
On August 31st, I emailed VP Clapacs and stated that it was my understanding
that he attended a meeting that involved me and informed him of my confusion,
that Ted had stopped communicating with me and I didn’t know what to do
next; and I asked for his advise. VP Clapacs told me to contact Ted
or human resources; he also told me that the meeting was not about me:
but an email from one of the legislators that attended the meeting proves
otherwise.
On September 1, I emailed my report to IU President Herbert and Chancellor
Gros Louis and asked for their help. Also, on that day, I received
two directives from Ted, dated August 29th, demanding that I call him within
the hour and that I come to work on August 30th or that I would most likely
be terminated. I received these directives (after the fact) via U.S.
Post and my personal email address that Ted and I had used exclusively
to communicate with since August 23-24.
What I gleaned later, after the fact, was that since Ted correctly
assumed that I wasn’t accessing my IU email account he could send his directives
to me via my IU account and later claim that I ignored them. Ted,
and human resources, claimed that this represented a transgression of my
performance—yet all of my performance management reviews have been exceptional.
In fact, in my last performance management review, my direct supervisor
awarded me the non-existent designation of “excellent +” for time management!
On September 2, I attended what I thought would be a meeting between
Ted, Mike and someone from human resources to discuss the issues and my
future at IU. I arrived at Ted’s office on time and was immediately
surrounded by three IU policemen—two of them were bigger than me--and I’m
6’3” and 205 lbs. Also, Ted’s wife was present in Ted’s office and
consistently eating snacks and sneering at me. While I waited for
5-10 minutes for Ted to get off the phone I became apprehensive, intimidated,
and threatened by those present and just stood up and walked out.
On September 8, I attended a six-hour meeting with Ted and someone from
IU Human Resources (HR). Briefly, I provided clear, thorough, and
solid evidence while stating my case but it just didn’t seem to matter
to either of them. In my opinion, I received a gentler form of intimidation
than I received on September 2. I believed that my rights of due
process and opportunity to pursue counter claims were ignored and stated
as much. I also questioned the neutrality of the people involved
considering that Ted, and HR, were either directly, or indirectly, implicated
in my report for willingly committing federal violations, or professional
misconduct. It’s important to note that both Ted and the head of
HR directly report to VP Clapacs who is the one person ultimately responsible
for many of the issues documented in my report.
I’m a good worker and have always done my job—and then some. I
think that is the real problem. It’s important for U.S. taxpayers
and the IU community to understand that taxpayers were not paying me to
do my job--to protect the IU community’s environmental, health, and safety--I
was paid to just go along with what my superiors wanted—and that wasn’t
necessarily meeting the responsibilities prescribed by law, IU’s policy,
or the DEHS mission statement. I’m not a “loose canon.” At
great risk I tried to work internally to help solve the issues. Apparently,
IU was not interested and manufactured a final solution to their problem
by terminating me. On September 12, I was fired for sexual harassment
and missing work on August 29 and 30.
WHY: IU Thought It Was in Their Best Interest
Any personal assertion concerning why IU fired me is surely going to
be somewhat subjective. It seems logical to assume that IU thought
that it was in their best interest to fire me, which begs another “why.”
Like any college or university—public image is a priority: it
strongly dictates the quality of faculty that will choose their workplace;
a good public image draws better students and more donations; and all of
this supports an institution’s claim for more state and federal funding.
It’s a cyclic process and it’s hard to distinguish the head from the tail.
Image is money; money is image.
When examining my circumstances within a cost-benefit analysis it is
reasonable to propose that IU decided it would be easier, less damaging
to their public image, and more cost efficient to manufacture reasons to
fire me than it would be to acknowledge that severe problems exist and
then to fix them. Within this scenario the key for IU would be to
transfer as much negative public image to me as they could. Discredit
the messenger and you discredit the message.
IU’s strongest weapon is their ability to spend hundreds of thousands,
even millions, of dollars in a legal battle against me. The strategy
is to manufacture a reason for termination, terminate the messenger and
put them on the defensive, then pay large sums of money to lawyers over
an extended legal process in the event the unjustly terminated messenger
takes legal action. In time, the person’s financial resources will
diminish and their desire will dissolve. It’s a strategy of attrition
that has won many similar battles for IU in the past. However, such
an approach can backfire….
The strongest resource I have is the “Court of Public Opinion.”
Providing accurate and easily accessible information to the public is easy
and inexpensive thanks to the Internet. My purpose has always been
to improve Indiana University—not damage it or any of its people.
I find the negative reaction of IU leadership towards my efforts to work
with them internally as both sad and indicative of the root cause of the
institution’s major problem: an entrenched bureaucracy that personally
profits at the expense of the University’s broader community.
Indiana University’s Bloomington campus is the workplace of thousands
of employees and faculty and tens of thousands of students that consider
IU their second home. The health and safety of these people are important--as
is their trust in the University to protect them. My report documents
that IU has broken this trust.
It’s necessary that the University embodies the level of excellence
that they tout to their community. Keep in mind that every U.S. taxpayer
has a vested interest in improving IU. This interest multiplies for
Indiana taxpayers, students and parents who pay tuition, and generous donors
who contribute their hard earned money to the University. It’s important
that the people who pay or give money to the University can trust that
their money is well spent by IU leadership. My report illustrates
that this is not always the case.
Surely, everyone wants Indiana University to succeed and to succeed
IU leaders must have the courage to truly face the issues I raise in my
report, and not hide from them or spin stories that they hope will protect
their public image. The IU community—near and far—must hold IU leadership
accountable for their transgressions of public trust: not doing so
damages us all by allowing the selected—well-paid few—to continue to personally
benefit at the expense of us all.
| 
