The hearing resumed.
Dr. Stacy Denton was sworn and Diana thanked her for waiting so long. "Would you please state your qualifications as an expert witness?"
"Yes, but first I must ask that you waive the privilege of confidentiality."
"Of course. I absolutely waive the privilege of confidentiality so that you may respond to my questions and those of the panel."
Stacy then delivered a long list of professional qualifications having to do both with mental health counseling and organizational consulting.
As she was giving the requested information, Jane wished the panel could hear of the immense prestige Dr. Stacy Denton had acquired throughout the university community over the years that she had been a part of the Counseling Department. Not only was she widely acclaimed, she was genuinely liked and successful as a person, in the department she directed. At the age of 42, she had shown abilities in her field that most did not acquire until their later years. This caused some annoyance for her since she was constantly besieged by other counseling agencies all over the country, to come to them.
Jane remembered that when she had felt the shackles of threat surround her, and realized that she really had no voice or will on the committee, she had called Stacy. Of course Stacy could not tell her that she had counseled Diana at the time she was first charged. She could only listen to Jane's anguish at her own impotence. It was only after Diana had called to ask Stacy if she would be willing to sign an affidavit for the federal court action, that Stacy could see a way to do something. She offered to also appear as a witness at this final Belmont hearing if it were felt she would be needed. Few people of her stature would have waited outside the hearing room as she did, knowing that the committee might not even hear her testimony.
She testified that she had seen Diana professionally several times and that in her years of experience and training she had learned techniques to determine behavior.
"I saw no evidence that Diana was lying, dissimulating or faking. I should say that in my position here, I see many people who are in trouble and there is a pattern to these reactions. She exhibited what we in the profession call the typical victim reaction.
"In subsequent visits, I did a more thorough mental status exam. I used all sorts of techniques that uncover whether a person may be unconsciously suppressing the fact that she wrote something, or did something.
"I believe that she could not have been lying." Stacy said succinctly. "She was too upset, too shocked, to really fake me out."
Henry carefully distorted her words in the recommendation the committee later signed and sent to The Pope to read, 'the psychologist found that Diana Trenchant had a genuine victim response and truly believes herself to be innocent.' A far, and exceedingly prejudiced, cry from the actual testimony of the psychologist. In fact, in the six page document, he devoted only ten lines to Diana and her witnesses testimony—one short paragraph!
Diana asked Stacy if she could, without violating confidentiality, tell of similar cases at Belmont where a faculty person had been accused of wrong doing.
"It happens quite frequently, perhaps as often as once amonth—certainly a regular event. And in none of these cases which might involve repeated incidents of drunkenness, sexual harassment, and, well, I can't go into details, but these are serious areas of misconduct that I'm referring to—not something as insignificant as seven SmurFFs! In none of these cases was the person ever told to resign or face a termination for cause hearing. The problem was handled by the proper department head. Either a warning was given or appropriate disciplinary action was taken."
When Diana asked if the committee had any questions, Jane, in an attempt to demonstrate the proficiency of this expert witness, once again bravely ventured forth asking Stacy to delineate some of the techniques used in this case and how she evaluated them.
The psychologist did this clearly and precisely, giving the methods used and how Diana reacted. It was very illuminating testimony and totally ignored, except by the women who had hoped that it might cause Henry to listen.
At one point, Anuse tried to twist Stacy's words around so it appeared that she was been saying that Diana had denied that there was any trouble with any person in the department.
Stacy Denton set him securely and competently back on his heels, leaving no doubt in anyone's mind that she was no person to try those tactics on.
When Stacy had been excused, the chair was ready to adjourn. On the advice of her attorney, Diana requested that it be on the record that, Anuse, one of the panel members had acted throughout the hearing in a manner prejudicial and threatening to Diana and to her witnesses.
Henry was livid with anger. "You are out of order. You are making statements about people on the committee that has nothing to do with this. Your comment will not be entered and the committee will disregard it."
How typical of that woman to state the obvious, he fumed inwardly. Always before, while ruling, he had kept his cool and at least glanced at the panel members for assent or dissent. This time he ably demonstrated that the show of democratic procedure was only that—a show. Damn her. She had unglued him that time.
In any event, Diana was refused permission to enter the evidence she had that would have shown that Anuse was biased.
Next, Diana reviewed the poor performance given by the document examiner. "He testified that he could not make a decision on the first set of exemplars sent him. Then when he was sent twenty years' worth of documents containing the handwriting of multiple individuals, he claimed that he disregarded most of it." She went over all of the individual letters in the 'suspect' evaluations that Avery had not been able to match with anything in the writing he used as standards. "This shows that there were as many non-matches as matches in his presentation."
The panel listened passively, then Henry asked if that was her final statement.
"No," she answered. "I shall read that now." She picked up the paper which had been written mostly by her attorney and edited by her. It was designed to get the legal points on the record so that they could be presented later in a court of law.
"We are at the end of another hearing and it is a grim page in the rights of faculty members of this university. I have been tried by a committee which is chaired by the prosecuting official. He has reopened proceedings, engaged in ex parte communications, received legal advice from the prosecution's lawyer and denied me the opportunity to even examine the evidence against me.
"A faculty member at any state college, and indeed, a mail room employee in the state Motor Vehicle Department would have more rights than you have given me."
Henry tuned her out. All this legal stuff, he thought, is just to give her attorney crap to fill a brief. Murrain had told him this would probably happen. Now, what's this? Alertly, Henry listened.
"There are strong reasons to believe this panel has operated in violation of my state and federal rights. If this committee does not end this unfortunate proceeding, the U.S. District Court will finally have to determine these issues.
"This committee, at the last hearing, made several promises to me and I was fool enough to believe them. It said that it would issue a decision within a few weeks; instead, it launched a new investigation of its own without my knowledge or participation which consumed over half a year. Second, this committee assured me that I would not be affected by these charges as I continued my teaching assignments in the department. 'Go back to work,' you all assured me at the last hearing. 'Everything is taken care of.' I went back and was ordered to move out of my office into a corner of the nutrition teaching lab. I was denied a telephone and given no help in moving my things. My name has been removed from the department mail boxes and department meetings are held when I am teaching classes. For these many months, while you reopened the investigation behind my back, I have been a non-person in my department."
Jane shifted in her chair uneasily. She recalled how all of these promises had been made when the panel had ended the first hearing. In fact, she had made some of them herself. It had seemed then, she reflected, that the evidence against Diana was inconclusive and that the majority of the panel felt this was so. She had expected that just a simple vote of the panel would send Diana back to her classroom where she belonged.
"I have served this university for nearly a quarter-century. Students have consistently reviewed my efforts favorably and that is a source of much consternation in my department. The entire central administration is prosecuting me, angered because I insisted on minimal rights. For example: I refused to have my job eliminated or my copyrighted manual used without my consent. They are determined to terminate me and have spared no resources in support of that goal. It would appear that some of these efforts violate my rights under state law, federal law, and the Constitution."
That's really what it's all about, decided Annette, as she kept her head lowered and her eyes fastened on the unseen files before her. Violation of her rights. Violation of my rights to freely consider the evidence both for and against her and render an impartial judgment.
"I believe this case represents what is in store for a person who does not remain in the favor of those who determine policy for this university.
"I have been accused of writing seven SmurFFs over a two year period. Only five of these seven were alleged to have been detrimental to two faculty men, Ian and Randy. This is five out of the six to eight hundred submitted for medical radiology during that time. At a minimum, even were these charges true, the misconduct of which I am accused would be dishonesty, but of a variety with no real import or effect."
Diana stopped and reached for the glass of water in front of her. I wish I could tell these people what it has been like working here in this university for the last twenty-five years. If they would only listen, I'd throw out this prepared statement in a flash and start with....her thoughts went back only a very few years, to before the affirmative action laws.
She recalled vividly how she was treated, what women were subjected to—still subjected to, she amended, wryly. Lewd, suggestive poses of women in every lab and office. Huge posters on many doors facing the hallways. Projections via slides of scantily or unclothed women in provocative poses that were used to "illustrate" lecture material and treated with derision by the male lecturer. We couldn't complain because we were told that if we didn't like it we could leave. We were told that this activity was normal and healthy. We were told that if we found it offensive, we must be 'queer'.
And then that wonderful day when Sally, a woman graduate student, found and placed on her door, a large full length picture of an unclad male. He was young and pleasant looking—like the boy next door. No suggestiveness here. Just the human male form. His penis hung quietly from his pelvis, as unremarkable and vulnerable as the breast of an old woman. But what an uproar it caused. The men were furious. They clucked and cackled like a bunch of biddy hens which had been surprised by a predator's invasion of the hen house. Diana held the glass to her mouth for a few moments more even though she was not drinking to stifle the smile that was trying to force itself into being from the memory.
The offending poster was quickly torn down, torn up and still the cacophony continued unabated. That is, until Sally was called in to the NERD chairman's office. When she emerged, she packed up her belongings and left. Of course, we can't have that kind of sexual depravity continue. The men were certainly united in that decision. How quickly and easily they can fire women for whatever men define as impropriety.
She continued with her statement. "We have seen no evidence that any faculty were injured by those SmurFFs. The evaluations that had an impact were the hundreds of evaluations that we have not seen despite my efforts to have them made available for this hearing. If these faculty had problems, it was with their teaching.
"There is no evidence or any proof as to when, or even if, these seven SmurFFs were submitted.
"The administration has not shown any motive on my part to fabricate and submit them. What I am really accused of is manipulating student opinion to deny Ian and Randy tenure, when, in fact, neither have been denied tenure and I have not manipulated student opinion. If student evaluations improved the year that I did not teach in the course, it was in part because previous criticisms have been taken to heart and teaching improved in the course. And also because Ian specifically instructed the students to make only positive comments. You could verify this by talking to the medical students, but you are not allowed to."
Esther tried to follow Diana's words and rebut each point as she heard it but was overcome by the simple truth of what she was hearing. She, too, had been convinced that the handwriting evidence was not to be trusted. One of the people in her department had once worked at NERD. She had confirmed the status of Diana in the department and corroborated what she had told the panel. Esther shrugged. Too bad, can't be helped, she thought.
"Evidence was introduced at this hearing without being authenticated. Hundreds of SmurFFs were described but shown to no one. Professional witnesses were used against me yet I was not allowed to have an attorney cross-examine them. And the ultimate injustice is that the prosecution official is the chair of the hearing panel!
"I do not believe that I ever had a chance in these proceedings. If the administration's evidence is insufficient, you reopen the hearing and get more, using unauthenticated material. If I am effectively questioning a witness, interrupt me, as you did countless times. If there is evidence on my behalf, you deny it to me."
Frank Anuse was delightedly and avidly listening to Diana's closing statement. God, he thought. You can sure tell that it was written by a lawyer and he's pulled out all the stops. What a tear jerker, he judged, cynically. As if any of what she was saying mattered. The facts were that we decide what will be correct, not the stupid courts. Besides, she's getting what she deserves after what she put me through with that complaint to the Affirmative Action Office because I didn't interview male applicants for positions in my department. He raged inwardly as he remembered the time he had to spend to comply with the order to produce all of his records and defend all of his placements. Damned uppity bitch.
"This panel has simply followed the lead of the prosecutor, Henry Tarbuck, and allowed him to continue to dictate to you without question—without thought of equal treatment.
"I am aware, as you are, that a male faculty member was recently convicted of child molesting, given a leave of absence and then replaced in his position without loss of pay or tenure. Is what you accuse me of doing worse than child molestation?"
Diana let the question hang in the air for several moments while she looked at the panel. Only Henry and Anuse returned her gaze, the women kept their eyes steadfastly on their papers which they held like shields before them. Useless, she thought, then aloud said, "Thank you. I have concluded my statement."
"I would like to clarify a few things," Henry began pontifically. "The record will show that the remarks you have made are your opinions. We will not respond to them. I want to make it clear, however, that I am a chairman of a committee of the faculty—not the prosecutor." There, he thought selfrighteously, that will show her that I can quote my lawyer too.
"Secondly, we do not decide anything. We will not recommend anything. We are merely the investigating committee which makes the report."
True to form, Henry adjourned the second hearing with lies—it didn't matter, he reflected, we have the power.
The hearing panel met the next day. Each person was given a copy of the report that Henry had prepared. "Read it and when you have finished, come over here and sign this original. I will require that you turn in your copies today. You are to keep this report in confidence."
"When is Diana to be notified?" Timidly, Esther asked the question, raising her eyes from the document she was reading.
"In good time. When it is deemed appropriate." Henry was terse in his reply, warning that no further questions from the other members of the committee would be tolerated.
Following this, Esther sent a letter to The Pope asking him not to terminate Diana. Later, she would show copies of this letter to the staff and faculty women who criticized her for signing such a malicious report. "We had to sign it. We had no choice, but see—I tried to help her!"
Henry sent a copy of the hearing panel's report to Diana late in March. It was in the form of a memorandum addressed to The Pope. Even though the report had been signed early in February, it was dated March 31st, as were all the signatures at the end.
The report of six pages had four parts: Factual history; Procedures followed; Findings on considerations; and Recommendations. Surprise, surprise—after maintaining in two separate hearings that the committee only gave a report and would not recommend any action.
Actually there was little in the report that came as any surprise. The so-called 'Factual history' was a composite of the testimony of Lyle, Ian and Randy. It was carefully written. It reported that, "Lyle had discovered several 'suspicious' student feedback forms...." when in fact he had said two.
The report was redolent with accusation. Phrases such as "....she forged...." and "....department could not tolerate forgery...." were found throughout and put in a context difficult to justify. One of these sentences read: "Given the opinion of the handwriting experts that she had 'forged student course evaluations in a manner designed to denigrate the performance of co-faculty members', the chairman of NERD decided to seek termination for cause." Thus the document examiners were not only given credit for identifying a person's handwriting, but Henry claimed they were able to read the intent of the person whom they said wrote the material examined. Nowhere in the hearing were their clairvoyant abilities established.
Indeed, the entire section contained nothing of the events as testified to by Diana and her witnesses.
The section on the 'Procedures followed' was again taken from what Henry had decided were the procedures followed and wickedly slanted against Diana. It did not mention that the reason thirty-two additional standards were sent to the second document examiner was because he could not make a decision on the basis of the standards sent to the first one. Instead, it claimed that the second document examiner confirmed the results of the first. It also omitted to add that the standards sent were abysmally poor copies from microfiche, covered a period of 25 years and included handwriting and printing of many different people.
Henry thought the section called 'Findings on considerations', was a gem. After he had finished writing it, he had leaned back in his chair and mentally patted himself on the back. Here was contained the only mention that there had been other testimony entered into the hearing. Here, in the entire six page report, only 10 lines were devoted to the witnesses for Diana. The testimony of Sarah, he tersely dismissed with: "One student witness identified one of the suspect critiques and claimed that she (the student) had written it, but the claim was not substantiated because the student would not have her handwriting examined."
Months later, the investigator for the Attorney General would note that incident in the transcript of the hearing and make the following comment in her report. "Did the committee really expect that the hired experts could, at a point when opinions had been stated under oath, seriously undertake a fresh analysis of the questioned document?"
Henry's report gave no indication that the standards were unauthenticated or why Diana was not asked to write for the document examiners to produce authenticated ones.
All of the testimony of Diana was totally ignored. It was as if she had never appeared at the hearing—a non-person status like that maintained against her by her department since the accusation was first made.
Of course it follows that the 'Recommendation' section would state, true to the faculty handbook's rhetoric, that termination was recommended since Diana had demonstrated a lack of professional and moral fitness.
In the days following the hearing, the Belmont administration directed its attention to the complaint brought against it in the County Superior Court. On its behalf, attorney Simon Murrain began the usual returns from the baseline destined to increase costs, delay judgment and frustrate justice.
The analogy to tennis is not farfetched. One side, the plaintiff via her attorney, Al Garret, serves. A volley of paper ensues from both sides directed at each other, but under the supervision and rule of the official, a judge.
Where the analogy loses ground is that very little action occurs in the court. Sure, the plaintiff and respondent and the lawyers must show up for hearings, but most everything goes on in the judges' chambers.
Simon Murrain had a great deal of practice in delaying tactics. Over the last four years, seven people had brought suit against Belmont for sex discrimination. All seven had been forced to withdraw as their cases dragged on and on and their resources dwindled. Simon's initial move this time was to have the case go to a higher court, in this instance the United States District Court.
This move placed two additional burdens on the plaintiff and her attorney. First, the cost of the proceedings was greater than at the district level and second, the travel distance to attend hearings increased fifty-fold.
An advantage was also inadvertently given. The judge who was appointed to sit at this session was known for his fairness and knowledge of the law.
Al Garret immediately filed an amended complaint to the federal court which could rule on federal laws as well as state. In it, he listed six charges against Belmont University: 1. Violation of due process; 2. violation of constitutional law; 3. violation of the state administrative procedures act; 4. violation of the state open meeting law; 5. violation of the state access to public records and 6. violation of the fair employment practices act.
With the listing of these charges, he asked that the court issue a restraining order, an injunction that would order the respondent, Belmont University, to grant the plaintiff her right to a fair and impartial hearing by the university and access to the documents that had been withheld from her.
It was at this time, shortly after the final university hearing had ended, that Diana began getting threatening phone calls. She was told to drop the court proceedings if she didn't want something really bad to happen to her.
After the initial hearing on the complaint and before any decision was handed down by the judge, Murrain filed a motion for summary judgment on counts three, four, five and six—all of the counts related to state law. In effect, he was asking the judge to throw out the four charges for lack of validity.
His motion caused a veritable flurry of other motions from both sides and effectively delayed the process of law by dividing the charges. It also increased the cost to the plaintiff. It was a gamble for the university. If it paid off, it would cut the charges down to two—both federal, while disposing of all the others. If it didn't? No problem, there were always appeals to be made that could continue the process indefinitely.
At the hearing on these motions, Al Garret limited his argument to a synopsis of his brief. He carefully related the applicable laws and requested that the defendant, Belmont University, be ordered to grant a fair, open hearing to the plaintiff, Diana. Also, that the plaintiff be supplied with the student feedback evaluations she had requested and that had been denied to her.
Al was an intelligent work-horse of an attorney. At 57, he took his legal duties seriously. His heavy glasses with their thick rims gave him a scholastic air. All that was needed to complete the image of absent minded professor was a pipe. He had diligently searched the literature for precedents which he presented to the judge in a mild but measured tone. A reasonable man, he projected this image to the court and made a fine presentation. No sparkle, just facts and precedents clearly presented.
When the judge turned his attention to the respondent, Simon Murrain stood to address the court looking more like a walking advertisement for expensive men's wear than an attorney. Simon oozed charm with all the proficiency of a hangman leading the way to the gallows. Close to Al in age, Simon was of a different bent. His argument was presented with show and words—it worked well with juries who tended to watch him instead of what he said. Today, there was no jury present, but his modus operandi didn't change.
"Your honor," he commenced. "The plaintiff was given a fair hearing under the rules of Belmont University. She was given due process. Despite the fact that she forged many evaluation forms causing untold harm to two young faculty persons, the university made every effort to treat her with fairness and consideration." He continued for some time in the same vein, constantly and consistently referring to the plaintiff as a forger—a criminal.
Gleefully, Murrain reflected, in court, we attorneys can say anything, or most anything, we want to. We do not have to operate under the constraints imposed on the rest of the populace and preface a charge with the word alleged. Truth is not required of us either, although most judges attempt to keep the elocution within the bounds of propriety.
Another check in the system is the presence of the opposing attorney who is supposed to function to limit any freewheeling antics of his colleague by appealing to the judge.
But Al did not object to Simon's presentation. He felt confident that the judge would rule on the law, not on the performance. Besides, he rather enjoyed watching and listening to Simon's kind of theater.
Following the hearing, the wait began. How would the judge decide? When would the judge decide?
Even though the hearing committee at Belmont had made its report and recommendation to terminate, the actual termination letter had not yet been sent. From the time she was accused, Diana had found life at work to be difficult. As a plaintiff, in a lawsuit against Belmont, it was nearly impossible.
Nearly, that is, because her students never wavered in their efforts to encourage and help her. It was during this wait that factual information was obtained concerning a dean at Belmont who had falsified a faculty promotion sheet. The occurrence had been rumored, but now the players were known. Al Garret had talked to the principals of the event and obtained two affidavits attesting to the misconduct and subsequent lack of punishment awarded the dean who was still employed at the university. The man had suffered no loss of rank or pay for his transgression. These affidavits were added to the pile of papers already on file with the judge.
Early in June, the Opinion and Order of the judge arrived. Al Garret's third charge had been thrown out by the judge who wrote that the law cited did not apply to Belmont University. The other three charges were sustained.
On charge number four, relating to the open meeting law, the judge wrote in part: "To permit this hearing panel to operate outside the Open Meeting Law would be to enable the university to take round-about steps to avoid its public duty."
He continued by describing the hearing panel as resembling, "....the type of secret activities the Open Meeting Law seeks to prevent...." and suggested that if the panel had considered any area to be extremely sensitive, it could have gone into executive session. Even this he qualified—asserting that it was subject to the plaintiff's right to a public hearing.
As to the public record law, charge number five, he ruled that the plaintiff should have access to the evaluations requested. "The Court finds," he wrote, "that Belmont must comply with the Public Records Law."
Finally, on charge number six, relating to the fair employment law, the judge found the evidence submitted to be sufficient to indicate retaliatory, sexual discrimination.
A few days later, with this Opinion and Order from the court in hand, John T. Pope, president of Belmont University, terminated the plaintiff, effective immediately.
The Pope's action was expected by everyone except Al Garret, Diana's attorney—he still thought he'd won the case. Belmont had been thumbing its nose at the judicial system as long as anyone could remember.
Diana Trenchant packed up the teaching and research accumulations of nearly twenty-five years and left for home.
Neither the president nor any of the Vees could be reached for comment. However, Bob Alastar, the PR for Belmont, called in the press. "We have no comment," he asserted. "It is the university's policy not to discuss personnel decisions with the press."
Now there was a new angle in the threatening phone calls to the plaintiff. The caller would start out in a friendly fashion. In a conversational tone, he would advise Diana to, "go down to the courthouse and examine the court records for the past ten years. Just check the directory for all the cases that Belmont has been involved in and read the outcome. The court clerk will help you." Then the voice would become threatening. "You will see that no one has ever won a case against Belmont. It owns the courts and it owns the lawyers. You'll lose all your money and you'll be hurt in other ways. It can and will make appeal after appeal. It can and will tie this case up for years. Give it up before you get hurt."
The investigation by the Attorney General continued. When she tried to interview potential witnesses at Belmont, she was prevented by the administration. "Do not even talk with her," was the gag order that went out from the central administration of Belmont to every chair and director. These lesser administrators were told to alert their departments or units and advise all faculty, staff and students not to cooperate in her investigation.
For a while, the investigation lagged. It was hoped that as tempers cooled and reason reasserted itself, the university would be more receptive to the questions posed by the A.G. It was, after all, to their benefit to answer the questions. It was an opportunity to get their position known because the report, when completed, would be sent to the EEOC. It would have considerable influence on research grants applied for by Belmont faculty.
The cooling off period solved nothing. Belmont administration was adamant. They had done the right thing. There was nothing to investigate. The incident had ended. The Pope had spoken.
Actually, The Pope was doing more than speaking—he was engaged in composing excuses and explanations. Supporters of Diana had sent the Judge's Order, or excerpts from it, to state legislators, faculty, staff, students, alumni, trustees and any other person that had expressed interest in the lawsuit. This had resulted in hundreds of letters and phone calls to The Pope and members of his administration as well as to the Board of Trustees.
"What is going on?" One of the first callers demanded, having insisted, and gotten The Pope on the line. "You fired a good teacher after a judge ruled that she had not received a fair hearing?"
"Our hearing panel gave her a fair hearing, sir. The newspapers have just blown this up to sell papers," The Pope replied, holding back his anger with difficulty and making his voice sound terribly knowledgeable.
"The judge said you didn't. I saw his order. Was the hearing open? Did you give her all the documents she requested, or not?" The caller was insistent.
"Well, sir, it's not that simple. Our policy is to protect the employee so we always have closed hearings. There was no need to produce the documents in question. The hearing panel was confident that they were not needed."
"I don't care about how your hearing panel or how your policy goes. I'm asking about an excellent teacher who has served our university for nearly a quarter of a century. If she did what you have accused her of .... good God, man! Five out of thousands—what difference could that make? You've made yourself look silly."
The Pope took no more calls after that except from the trustees. He could not escape their critical views but with the help of his handpicked chairman of the board, he managed to placate most of them.
One secretary was placed full-time answering letters and the Vees were called on to answer the phone calls and talk to any one who came to the offices. Consumption of antacid increased astronomically in "Vice Alley"—lair of the Vees.
PR man, Alastar and all the Vees were carefully coached to suggest to the callers that Diana Trenchant had really done something unspeakable and that the charge that was aired was "only the tip of the iceberg." They also were told to hint concerning her motives. She was "thought to have so desired the chairmanship of the department...." or "she was delusional in her assertion that she had written any course material, etc...." or "she was not really the type of woman that normal women, those with husbands or boyfriends, wanted to associate with...." or....
Meanwhile, back at the court, legal papers piled up anew. Diana felt helpless, drawn along in a maelstrom of chaos. A veritable barrage of verbiage flew to the court, like guided missiles, from both attorneys. They were couched in legal parlance and cushioned on expensive, patterned vellum. For every submission, there was a filing fee, hours of research and multiple law-firm billings. For each batch of documents sent to the court, copies were made to send to the opposing attorney, the file and sometimes, even the plaintiff.
Occasionally, a hearing on one or another of the various motions was called. When this happened, the lawyers and the plaintiff were joined by the judge, his clerk and the court stenographer.
Each attorney blew smoke—substantial as ghost poop. The judge sat in the air high above the arena and pondered. At times, he would interrupt and admonish. Periodically he would ask a question and these were the interesting moments as each attorney had a different answer.
The lawyer for the defense only knew what he had been told by Henry Tarbuck and Henry only knew what he had been told by Lyle.
Diana's attorney knew only what she had told him and it was obvious there was a lot that he hadn't remembered. How little the truth counted in these proceedings, Diana thought as she listened to the screw up. Neither of these men, who are being questioned and are the only ones allowed to speak, were at Belmont when these events were occurring. Most of the time they are way out in left field with their answers. And here I sit, mute because the system demands it, unable to clear up the confusion. All this money spent and the judge still doesn't understand what the SmurFFs are. He asked for clarification and got gibberish.
There's the gavel. One more useless hearing is over with.
Then, just as winter was getting a firm grip on the land, the Attorney General released her report. Diana and her supporters were jubilant. The local paper printed and the TV and radio blared: "A strongly worded report from the A.G.'s office to President Pope maintains that professor was fired unjustly."
The A.G.'s thirty page comprehensive Letter of Determination (LOD), made it clear right at the beginning that the Belmont administration had refused to cooperate in the investigation. It emphasized that, "The University declined to make available people and information." At the end of the LOD, it reiterated Belmont's non-cooperation.
The LOD went on to state that the University had held Termination for Cause Hearings. Sworn testimony was taken which had been completely transcribed by a court reporter. This transcript and the court records relating to the illegal termination suit were used in this investigation since the Belmont administration refused to cooperate with the Attorney General.
It took the form of a letter to The Pope. In stark contrast to Henry's report, the LOD reviewed the history of the allegations against Diana, giving the charges and the response to these charges, equal weight and importance. This information was from the transcript which contained the sworn statements of all the university personnel involved in the hearing—those people who were prevented by the administration from talking to the A.G. investigator. It also reviewed the testimony of Diana and her witnesses. Reference was made to the testimony of the three document examiners—two presented by Belmont, the affidavit of the one submitted by Diana at the second hearing.
The point was made early on that the specific charge which resulted in termination was that Diana had written seven evaluations out of some one thousand submitted. Five of these were alleged to have injured two faculty members. It emphasized that testimony indicated that there were no performance problems with Diana. "....testimony from both sides established that she was highly regarded by her students, was very dependable and a hard worker."
It noted that while expert witnesses, the document examiners and the university attorney, were used to testify against Diana, she was not allowed an attorney to conduct a competent cross examination. Stating that even though supportive documents were not presented at the hearing, "the committee accepted testimonial evidence on the contents of them," it concluded that "....this represented the most serious deprivation of fundamental fairness that occurred. Any concept of a fair administrative hearing, even one conducted without regard to strict rules of evidence, could not include the admission of testimonial evidence of the contents of documents which were available only to the party presenting the evidence."
Commenting on the dissatisfaction of the committee with the testimony of the first document examiner, the LOD stated that, "Rather than reject the testimony and find Trenchant innocent, the committee continued the hearing and hired another document examiner. This one disputed the findings of the first and required more standards. The documents provided by Belmont were exceedingly poor copies of file contents, much of which was over twenty years old. Most of these so-called standards contained the handwriting of more than one person. At no time was any evidence presented that showed the standards sent by the administration to the handwriting analysts to be the writing of Diana."
Remarking on the fact that the committee was chaired by Henry Tarbuck who had already decided that Diana was guilty, the A. G. wrote, "The committee applied different rules of evidence to her and her witnesses, it badgered them and cautioned them against giving hearsay testimony.
"The committee rejected direct evidence by one student who testified under oath that she had written one of the 'suspect' documents. It ignored the testimony of Diana as well as that of her witnesses."
Then the LOD turned to the report from the hearing committee that Henry had authored. One paragraph stated: "The effect of the suspect critiques on the two people who were said to have been hurt by them had not been assessed, but did affect the individuals involved." To this, the A.G. declared, "One questions the committee's findings as an accurate reflection of the evidence. No underlying facts were stated by the committee that explain its findings that 'individuals were affected,' nor does the committee state how it could make that finding while stating that it had not examined the effect."
As precedents or comparison, the LOD reported that no penalties were imposed on two male Belmont faculty members, one who had altered promotion papers, the other convicted of child molestation. It quoted the testimony of Stacy Denton, the university psychologist. She had declared she knew of many instances of faculty misconduct more serious than what was alleged in this case. Those people had not been terminated.
Concluding that the university's stated explanation for terminating Diana was not worthy of credence, the report found there existed probable cause for sex and age discrimination and disparate discipline by Belmont against Diana.
The LOD was sent to the regional EEOC office which accepted it and confirmed the acceptance with the A.G. by phone. The newspapers and television reporters had a field day with it. Diana and her supporters felt vindicated beyond measure. Almost everyone believed that it was all over—that Diana had won. Congratulatory letters and phone calls flowed to Diana and Belmont University administration was given a verbal drubbing.