Tenured Western theater professor Perry Mills, who was suspended in 2004 for verbally abusive behavior, will get a new hearing, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday, May 26.

Mills has taught at Western for more than 20 years and has been a tenured professor in the drama department since the fall of 1994.

He served a five-year suspension that began in 2004 because of his alleged frequent verbal remarks but resumed teaching at Western in the fall of 2008, according to court documents.

In an appeal hearing, Mills contended four things: Western violated the Administrative Procedure Act and breached its employment contract with him, his right to free speech was violated, and the University’s Faculty Code of Ethics is unconstitutionally vague.

The Washington Court of Appeals ruled that by having Mills’ disciplinary hearing in secret, Western violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which warrants Mills a new hearing. However, the court rejected Mills’ other contentions. Mills was also awarded his attorney's fees, according to court documents.

Western is currently in consultation with Mills’ attorney and has several options, which include preparing for a new hearing this fall, seeking a reconsideration on that piece of the decision or appeal to the state Supreme Court, Western’s legal council Wendy Bohlke said.  

Mills said the issue was that he needed to have a public hearing to discuss his case and allow for testimony and the cross-examination of witnesses to prove that many of the allegations against him did not have any merit.

It all started back in October 2002 when Mills complained that the drama department chair at the time, Mark Kuntz, was misusing funds derived from his students’ lab fees, according to court documents.

Mills said he came into conflict with the procedures involved in administering the money he collected from his film study students for what they call a lab fee, which was a way of paying for the films he used in his classes.

“The funds we collected for the videos got administered to some other use,” Mills said. “The university didn’t think that was embezzlement; I thought it was. So, I blew the whistle on it and asked for an investigation.”

About a week later, Mills said he was thrown off campus.

“I was asked to leave because of this great big bunch of stuff that had been collected from students who don’t like me because I’m abrupt and dismissive of people who won’t do the work,” Mills said.

Paul de Armond, who used to work for Western’s Bureau of Faculty Research in the early 1990s, said he has known Mills for years and assisted in the development of the Administration Procedure Act. He said that these allegations are false.

“Students were being ripped off by a corrupted administrator, and Mills was just trying to protect students and their money,” de Armond said. “What we need is an investigation into this embezzlement claim.”

On Oct. 18, 2004, former Western Provost/Vice President of Academic Affairs Andrew Bodman said he told Mills in writing that Dean Carol Edwards had given him a memorandum recommending that Mills be put on suspension with pay, due to several complaints he had received from students, staff and other faculty members.

The complaints were mainly of a verbally abusive nature and directed toward students and faculty members. They also included incidents of Mills bringing a knife to class and around campus, according to court documents.

“I’m in theater, everybody carries a knife,” Mills said. “We have to constantly deal with sets and things like duct tape. Sometimes you have to cut something.”

Many of Mills’ students and co-workers frequently complained about his verbal remarks, stating that he was offensive, degrading and made them feel uncomfortable, according to a Washington Court of Appeals document.

On one occasion, a female student, who had recently undergone treatment for cancer, enrolled in Mills’ dramatic writing class. When the student was reluctant to share her piece with the class at the request of Mills, he responded, “If you can’t even put up your piece for the class, then you should have just died of cancer,” the document states.

“I lose my temper like everybody else,” Mills said. “I get in trouble because I have a big mouth, but my first and foremost concern is considering what is going to make my students stronger. I challenge my students.”

According to court documents, Bodman said, after reviewing the complaints, he advised Mills that he felt the complaints were serious and warranted further investigation.

Bodman proceeded to suspend Mills immediately, with pay, and informed him that, “During this period of suspension, you will be permitted access to campus only with the prior notification of your department chair, who will make appropriate arrangements for a University Police escort. Failure to comply with these arrangements may be considered a criminal violation and subject to further disciplinary action.”

Bodman claimed Mills violated three sections of the Faculty Code of Ethics by failing in his “obligation to exercise self-discipline and judgment in using, extending and transmitting knowledge,” and in the requirement that staff “encourage the free pursuit of learning by students.”

According to court documents, Mills was also accused of not “avoiding and condemning sexual harassment, intimidation and the exploitation of students,” and that he also failed in conducting himself in a manner expressing “respect for, and defense of, the free inquiry of associates and, in the exchange of criticism and ideas, the respect for the opinions of others.”

A Hearing Panel of five faculty members then convened in secret to discuss Mills’ suspension. Western's Board of Trustees implemented their recommendation of suspending Mills for two academic quarters, without pay, according to the document.

Western's Faculty Handbook states that in order to warrant a severe sanction, which includes suspending a faculty member, there must be misconduct that falls into one of the following categories: “a serious and persistent neglect of faculty duties, unlawful discrimination or sexual harassment, serious scientific or scholarly misconduct, conviction of a felony or intentional and malicious interference with the scientific, scholarly and academic activities of others.”

According to court documents, none of the misconduct Mills was accused of falls within any of these categories that would have warranted a suspension

The Faculty Handbook also states three conditions must be met in order for a suspension to be imposed: “the faculty member’s continued presence threatens to cause ‘immediate harm,’ formal disciplinary charges have been filed before the suspension is imposed, and the provost consults with the Executive Council of the Faculty Senate before imposing any suspension and within ten days of the filing of the formal statement of charges.”

According to court documents, none of these conditions were satisfied in this case and Bodman said he never claimed any of the threats Mills made were of “immediate harm.” The documents also state that the complaints against Mills that Bodman relied upon were made many years earlier and his contention was, therefore, untimely.

The provost said he did not file a formal Statement of Charges, nor did he consult with the Executive Council of the Faculty Senate regarding the conditions of the suspension, and the 2006 hearing which ruled that Mills would be suspended for two quarters without pay, was conducted in secret and was closed to the public and the press.

Agency decisions must be “open to public observation, except for the parts that the presiding officer states to be closed under a provision of law expressly authorizing closure or under a protective order entered by the presiding officer pursuant to applicable rules,” according to court documents. Western did not seek a protective order nor did it follow the correct procedures to obtain one, and therefore violated the open hearing provision of the Administrative Procedure Act, the document said.

“Nobody I talk to wants to come out on my side because they are afraid they will be under the microscope next,” Mills said. “In the five years I was suspended from campus, out of the 500 professors or whatever it is we have here, only one professor called me to say ‘keep up the fight.’”

Bohlke said she is satisfied with the court’s ruling.

“I think the decision affirms the university’s careful adherence to the faculty handbook,” Bohlke said in reference to the confusion about the actual handbook.

Mills said he thought the court’s ruling was marginal and was surprised to find some of what he thought would have been addressed by the court was not.

“I have won a lawsuit which indicated that the university had acted in a way that was illegal,” Mills said. “But what’s so funny about it is that they could have saved themselves millions of dollars worth of legal action and idiocy of the dean at the time had had the sense to get 12 people in a room together and ask what had happened.”

Mills said what he needed to have was a public hearing where students’ and faculty members’ claims could have been cross-examined, and people could have come forward to state that many of the allegations were untrue.

“The university is a huge insensitive corporation that just wants me to shut up and go away,” Mills said. “It doesn’t seem to want to make any sense out of the situation either.”
De Armond said the situation has been one-sided from the beginning and will persist until Western responds to the criticisms or Mills decides to countersue.

“This issue can not simply be smothered,” de Armond said. “The university will have to positively respond. Repeated denial is not going to work.”

Share this article:
                                   

Comments (1)

Only registered users can post comments.
Please login or register.