"Once again, for those new to this blog site, at present there are 51 posts on the blog and each has its own set of comments. To read the comments you have to hit the word "Comments" at the beginning or end of the post. Somewhat confusing is that when you bring up the comments for a specific post it eliminates the other posts from the screen. To bring the other posts back up simply go back to the top of the page and click on Blog. Feel free to comment should you wish. No email address is required to make a comment so anonymity is strong. Due to some previous abuse of this right to anonymously comment, I have had to include an approval option, but I try to approve constructive comments within 24 hours. One last point of note, to read the earliest posts you have to click on the word "<<Previous" at the very bottom of the posts available. Finally, for those just looking for a good summary of the Dr. Kearney case, simply scroll down to the previous 12/10/2016 post. For social media developments on the Dr. Kearney situation I would encourage you to visit the excellent "Save Dr. Kearney Facebook Page":
https://www.facebook.com/Save-Dr-Kearney-1039697039481791/
An update on the Dr. Kearney case. Dr. Kearney's attorney Mr. Pafunda and the University's hired attorney Mr. Beauman went before Judge Scorsone yesterday for a status conference.
The hearing for the University motion for summary judgement (third time) will be heard on Friday, June 15th.
On the good side, the UK hired lawyers requested a special time for an extended argument. Judge Scorsone denied that request. To paraphrase Judge Scorsone, 'I have the briefs. I have read them. You get 20 minutes to make your argument'.
While we wait out Judge Scorsone’s review of the University’s third attempt at dismissal of the Dr. Kearney case, a commenter on the previous post pointed out Ms. Blackford’s May 17, 2018 Herald Leader article entitled: “UK moves to fire professor, says book sales 'stole from students.' He vows to fight”, that I thought might be worth venturing into. The university professor in question here is Mr. Buck Ryan who had an earlier run-in with the University that we discussed in the Due Process posts of 12/23/2016 and 1/17/2017. If you will remember, this was a case that received local and national attention because Mr. Ryan was administratively punished for “sexual misconduct” for singing a modified version of the Beach Boy’s song “California Girls” at a conference he attended.
The relationship to the Dr. Kearney case and the concern most had was the fact that Mr. Ryan was denied “Due Process”, not permitted to access his confidential personnel file nor see the evidence against him and therefore unable to respond to the allegations made. Interestingly the University lawyers and administration did provide a very questionable letter from Mr. Ryan’s confidential personnel file to a national newspaper, “The College Fix”. This letter contained few facts in it but plenty of innuendos supporting the contention that this was, as our current US president likes to call it, “a real witch hunt”. It kind of looks like, unfortunately for the “witches” in this case, the authorities could not come up with enough support for their innuendos to fire Mr. Ryan so they were relegated to disciplining him and waiting or searching for another opportunity.
That opportunity may be this new set of charges. The University lawyers are contending in these new proceedings against Mr. Ryan that "without direct permission of the Dean" he used a book he wrote as a teaching tool in the class he taught, and that he failed to give the proceeds from this book ($6000.00) to some approved charity. Mr. Ryan’s contentions are that:
"Never did I hear during 10 merit reviews by two journalism directors and two deans, from 2007-08 to 2016-17, that 'Writing Baby' was not suitable for my classes or that my approach of allocating profits was inappropriate," he wrote. "At no time did a director or a dean hand me what the auditor's report calls 'strict guidelines regarding self-authored material sales to students.' "
I think most can see where this is going. Very much like the Dr. Kearney case, these charges and actions being taken to drive a tenured faculty member out of the University are unprecedented and smell a bit like the strong-arm vendetta approach the University lawyers are currently using against Dr. Kearney. To begin with I would be willing to bet that although these actions against Mr. Ryan are unprecedented, faculty members using text books or research publications they have authored as teaching aids without express permission by some UK administrator is a highly precedented activity. Furthermore, the amount of money we are talking about here ($6000.00) would appear to be trivial and very disproportionate with respect to the punishment imposed. One would think this could easily be relegated to a fine of some sort. I would speculate $6000.00 to be probably 1/100th the annual salary of the administrators and lawyers involved in these actions being taken against Mr. Ryan, and definitely much less than Keeneland box seats or Iroquois Hunt Club party tickets.
The bottom line being, the University administration and their lawyers, with their lack of negotiating skills and their arrogant strong-arm approach towards dealing with these matters have once again managed to relegate the use of student tuition to the legal office rather than where it needs to be, that being the education of the youth of Kentucky.
https://www.facebook.com/Save-Dr-Kearney-1039697039481791/
An update on the Dr. Kearney case. Dr. Kearney's attorney Mr. Pafunda and the University's hired attorney Mr. Beauman went before Judge Scorsone yesterday for a status conference.
The hearing for the University motion for summary judgement (third time) will be heard on Friday, June 15th.
On the good side, the UK hired lawyers requested a special time for an extended argument. Judge Scorsone denied that request. To paraphrase Judge Scorsone, 'I have the briefs. I have read them. You get 20 minutes to make your argument'.
While we wait out Judge Scorsone’s review of the University’s third attempt at dismissal of the Dr. Kearney case, a commenter on the previous post pointed out Ms. Blackford’s May 17, 2018 Herald Leader article entitled: “UK moves to fire professor, says book sales 'stole from students.' He vows to fight”, that I thought might be worth venturing into. The university professor in question here is Mr. Buck Ryan who had an earlier run-in with the University that we discussed in the Due Process posts of 12/23/2016 and 1/17/2017. If you will remember, this was a case that received local and national attention because Mr. Ryan was administratively punished for “sexual misconduct” for singing a modified version of the Beach Boy’s song “California Girls” at a conference he attended.
The relationship to the Dr. Kearney case and the concern most had was the fact that Mr. Ryan was denied “Due Process”, not permitted to access his confidential personnel file nor see the evidence against him and therefore unable to respond to the allegations made. Interestingly the University lawyers and administration did provide a very questionable letter from Mr. Ryan’s confidential personnel file to a national newspaper, “The College Fix”. This letter contained few facts in it but plenty of innuendos supporting the contention that this was, as our current US president likes to call it, “a real witch hunt”. It kind of looks like, unfortunately for the “witches” in this case, the authorities could not come up with enough support for their innuendos to fire Mr. Ryan so they were relegated to disciplining him and waiting or searching for another opportunity.
That opportunity may be this new set of charges. The University lawyers are contending in these new proceedings against Mr. Ryan that "without direct permission of the Dean" he used a book he wrote as a teaching tool in the class he taught, and that he failed to give the proceeds from this book ($6000.00) to some approved charity. Mr. Ryan’s contentions are that:
"Never did I hear during 10 merit reviews by two journalism directors and two deans, from 2007-08 to 2016-17, that 'Writing Baby' was not suitable for my classes or that my approach of allocating profits was inappropriate," he wrote. "At no time did a director or a dean hand me what the auditor's report calls 'strict guidelines regarding self-authored material sales to students.' "
I think most can see where this is going. Very much like the Dr. Kearney case, these charges and actions being taken to drive a tenured faculty member out of the University are unprecedented and smell a bit like the strong-arm vendetta approach the University lawyers are currently using against Dr. Kearney. To begin with I would be willing to bet that although these actions against Mr. Ryan are unprecedented, faculty members using text books or research publications they have authored as teaching aids without express permission by some UK administrator is a highly precedented activity. Furthermore, the amount of money we are talking about here ($6000.00) would appear to be trivial and very disproportionate with respect to the punishment imposed. One would think this could easily be relegated to a fine of some sort. I would speculate $6000.00 to be probably 1/100th the annual salary of the administrators and lawyers involved in these actions being taken against Mr. Ryan, and definitely much less than Keeneland box seats or Iroquois Hunt Club party tickets.
The bottom line being, the University administration and their lawyers, with their lack of negotiating skills and their arrogant strong-arm approach towards dealing with these matters have once again managed to relegate the use of student tuition to the legal office rather than where it needs to be, that being the education of the youth of Kentucky.