Mr. David Clark, Chair ie State University Board of Trustees 225 South 700 East St. George, UT 84778 March 13, 2017 Dear Chairman Clark, President Williams was good enough to let me know that you requested he meet with me regarding the matter of discipline that | have raised beyond the University campus. commend you for that and thank you. The meeting however, was perfunctory in the face of your request and I receive that message from the president's 3/8/'17 e-Mail (below). | could have only hoped that coupled with your recommendation President Williams could have entered a meeting with an open mind after having read the file | submitted. That was not the case as | read the follow up response. It is unfortunate that he did not take the opportunity to recognize the transparent facts in the written record. | believe that he lacks experience in reviewing policies, understanding management practices or the legal aspects of human resources as do the Provost, the department Deans or Chairs and most others in similar positions. Had the skill existed this matter would have been resolved in meetings leading to this one. | would recommend training in all of the above areas to include a supplement on ethics. Dr. Williams knows what he wants to do but he just does not know how to properly accomplish it. The action the General Counsel is taking, and his boss appears to be supporting would not meet legal muster, a mediator’s review or be consistent with a basic collective bargaining agreement. if it weren’t for poor management, there would be no need for unions was the admonishment a professorial mentor often communicated. Dr. Williams appears to know the art of duplicity. | can only wonder ifit Is in the interest of a flawed application of a policy or to protect the organizations staff conducting it. In our meeting | was told that the “warning” letter would be removed from my file. Upon follow up | am told it is not in my file. Somehow he was misinformed as | found the letter in my file on 3/2/'17 when visiting with our HR Director, Travis Rosenberg. Further, any letter of discipline (“warning”) must be place in an individual's personnel file, as a matter of law, as | have been advised, but, only after the proper procedure has been followed. The practices of ixie Policy 372 (Corrective and Disciplinary Action) cited in the General Counsel's letter of discipline has not been followed and has not been remediated by the president's review.In support of a flawed policy our President allows the General Counsel to write disciplinary letters directly to employees when policy (DSU372) specifically states that the employee's immediate supervisor will initiate and complete the provisions of the policy. Attorney Hicks does not supervise anyone unless he employs an administrative assistant/secretary. He functions as a staff member of the University without any chain of command relationship to the Faculty or any other employee group. When he writes directly to employees he is, in fact, acting as the President who, due to this action, is violating DSU policy. It would seem that such a concept is lost at this institut The President continues to uphold the flawed administrative practice and suggests that it is proper. Is this just in the protection of his staff or is it being done for some other nefarious reason? The faculty and staff can only expect that it will continue unless arrested by some other/outside authority. Faculty and perhaps others on this campus are being improperly (illegally?) disciplined under DSU policy 372 (Corrective and Disciplinary Action). When the powers to be are presented with a written record to the contrary. They simply ignore it and maintain their position as evidenced by the outcome of my meeting with the President on 3/8/'17. Excerpt from President Williams follow up e-Mail of 3/8/'17 | feel | need to correct your interpretation of our meeting this morning. Below you state: "..., removing the General Counse''s letter from my personnel file based on the incorrect application of DSU Policy 372 (Corrective & Disciplinary Action)". | want to clarify that | never said that | would remove the General Counsels letter based on the incorrect application of DSU Policy. | agreed to remove the letter from your file after | asked you what you hoped to have happen and you said that you did not plan on returning next spring and did not want a letter like that in your file after 12 years of service to DSU. | told you | would remove the letter from your file at the end of the semester. This was an act of good will With regards to the letter you received from general counsel, please note at the beginning of the meeting | made it very clear when | told you that the letter you received was not a disciplinary letter. | told you it was a letter of cease and desist. You strongly disagreed and you have every right to disagree. Your statement below makes it sound like | agreed with your accusation that policy was violated by Mr. Hicks. Thus | am correcting your interpretation of the meeting. | also told you | would re-review the case and verify any wrongdoing or violation of policy. | re-reviewed the case and it is my opinion that policy has not been violated. You received a cease and desist letter from general counsel. It was not a disciplinary letter but a warning letter. General Counsel can send letters of warning. You have not been disciplined but warned. Furthermore, | discovered that this letter has not been placed in your personnel final nor does the letter state that it would be placed in your file. The letter was simply a warning letter asking you to follow policy. | realize that this is not your interpretation of the letterbut that was the purpose of the letter, to ask you to cease and desist. I wish you all the best the rest of the semester. End of e-Mail - | will not try to correct the errors that I see but have emphasize, in bold, the misinformation regarding the filing of the letter. | do not know what a warning letter is if it is not disciplinary. It has no reason to be written under the policy cited if it were otherwise. Our top management should be better informed, Intelligent people change their minds when confronted with elucidating facts but | do not see that taking place as noted above. This followed my meeting confirmation (below) eMail confirmation from Al Keller to President Williams 3/8/17 Thank you for his acknowledgement President Williams. | commend David Clark for his contribution. | additionally wanted to thank you for your time and consideration in our meeting this morning. | am truly sorry that the matter was not resolved without taking an important portion of your schedule. Subsequent to our meeting | have thought and it might be better stated that it would be sufficient for me to have a letter of transmittal, removing the General Counse''s letter from my personnel file based on the incorrect application of DSU Policy 372 (Corrective & Disciplinary Action). Again, thank you. Itis always enjoyable to be with you. With best regards, End of e-Mail Were we in the same meeting? The meaning of removal in personnel administration is to expunge the letter from the record altogether and not to leave it in the General Counsel's file as a disciplinary action to hang like a sword of Damocles over the employees’ head. Simply taking a page from a file is meaningless and inconsistent with normal and traditional personnel practice.| would expect that if the Board of Trustees of an institution unknowingly left such misuse of a policy unchecked it would be shame on them. If they didn’t know but later found out, an obligation to affect an immediate solution would be incumbent upon them. The Board of Trustees as with any other body charged with a fiduciary responsibility needs ears within the organization in order to know of conditions that would or could not be revealed by their senior management. Faculty Senate President James Haendiges tells me that this type of communication is not brought to his attention. | have confirmed with another so warned that doing so would draw both undesirable attentions to the matter and may well jeopardize their present/future employment. Picking off employees one by one divides and conquers colleagues while at the same time creating a level of fear and anxiety. Employees who are dependent on their positions are compromised from objecting to such unwarranted treatment. Additionally, other colleagues invariably look the other way thinking those charged are guilty and/or they become fearful of similar treatment should they act or inquire in support. This is what | have seen since receiving such a letter. Why do it at all? | teach, in the Business 1010 curriculum, that whistleblowers are eliminated/stonewalled as | feel has happened in this instance. The misfortune is that there remains no safe and anonymous way to reveal such conditions. | conclude, from the immediate unwavering e-Mail affirmation, that the president's decision was made before the meeting took place and that Jim Haendiges the President of the Faculty Senate and | experienced a meeting of formality without the recognition of an employee's desire to seek an ordinary corrective action to a wrong. A General Counsel colleague tells me that they would not have written the letter Attorney Hicks id. Suggesting that the claim of insubordination requires a proof of intent which I contend is. absent (my written record) and has not been either identified or demonstrated in the letter. My hope is to defend my integrity from an unjust claim. That might have limited significance within the University. | now see myself presenting the case for the entire employee workgroup (faculty/classified/unclassified staff). The journey is telling me that it will take a few more Varlo Davenport suits (damages/punitive damages) for eyes/minds to be opened to what is being disclosed. This is probably the most important letter I could be writing on behalf of my faculty colleagues after the 12 years | have served as a business adjunct at Dixie State College/University. Think of it, if a member of the faculty were to treat a student in this fashion they would be summarily terminated. sued to date must be withdrawn. If in the scope of the existing DSU The sending of disciplinary letter must stop and those i the end disciplinary action is to be taken it should be taken wi policies relating to the various employee groups.This letter consists of my personal observations which | believe, from anecdotal evidence, are shared by a significant number of Dixie employees. {In the course of this matter gaining broader attention I can only expect that it will leak to the press at some point in time. | don’t see that as desirable. The challenge/protest to this a personnel action is made because | view it as an unethical practice. It cannot nor will it end when I leave this spring. An in lual’s personal integrity may even transcend the fabled intellectual property rights of the faculty. Please accept my comments as being constructive in the interest of a swift correction. Hopefully the particulars required to make the point have not been too confusing. tremain, best regards, Albert P. Keller, Business Adjunct College of Business Dixie State University cc: Members of the Board of Trustees - Dixie State University