Barth alleges unfair treatment
Professor says
administration is obliged to protect employees
By Ken Fountain
Senior Staff Writer
When Stephen Barth felt he was being retaliated
against by Hilton College Dean Alan Stutts for reporting possible financial
improprieties at the college, he said he tried informally to seek the help
from the administration.
Barth, a hospitality industry lawyer and
associate professor at the Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant
Management, said he repeatedly asked Provost Edward Sheridan to "step in
and stop the retaliation from occurring."
"In my opinion, that is his clear obligation
under the Texas Whistleblower Act, and UH has that same obligation under
the Act -- to protect its employees from retaliation," he said.
The state Legislature enacted the Texas
Whistleblower Act to protect public employees who, in good faith, report
to authorities law violations by a state government institution or by another
public employee.
"(Sheridan) insisted that I utilize the
grievance procedure," Barth said. "I told him that, after I'd seen what
happened to other people who had grieved, that didn't seem to be a very
appropriate avenue for relief. But he continues to this day to insist that
that's the only available avenue of relief to a faculty member that is
complaining of whistleblower retaliation."
Barth filed a complaint in 1999 with the
UH Grievance Committee, alleging that Stutts had, among other things, given
him unfair treatment in the faculty merit rating system and denied him
funds for college-related travel.
The committee found that Barth was entitled
to be made "financially whole" on those counts. Late last year, he filed
a second grievance, based on the same points, for which he is still waiting
the results.
Stutts has denied both doing anything illegal
and retaliating against Barth.
"I feel like he and the entire administration
have been consciously indifferent toward retaliation, not only in my case
but at (the University in general)," Barth said. "And I think, because
of that conscious indifference, that shows an inherent bias against whistleblowers."
Barth said that when he first talked to
UH officials about the alleged improprieties involving a public relations
firm contract that was not vetted through state agencies -- as required
by law -- and the transfers of fund from a renovations account, he followed
the university's policy.
"There was a UH policy in place which stated
clearly that faculty and staff had an affirmative obligation to report
inappropriate activity, or they could be terminated," Barth said.
That policy, called "Reporting/Investigating
Fraudulent Acts," states that "when suspected fraudulent activities are
observed by an employee (including a student employee), the employee must
immediately make a report to the proper authority."
In Barth's case, the proper authority was
the director of Internal Auditing, Don Guyton. Barth spoke to Guyton in
early 1999, after first going to Vice Chancellor for Administration and
Finance Randy Harris.
Guyton initiated an audit at that time.
The final report is due at the end of April, nearly two years after the
audit began.
"So it really puts the faculty or staff
member in an awkward position of deciding whether to report, and get retaliated
against with no protection by the administration, or to not report, and
then be subject to termination proceeding because of your failure to follow
University rules and regulations," Barth said.
"Due process is only as good, and valid,
as the process is," he continued. "So if the process is biased or arbitrary
or capricious, then there is no due process."
Barth said he has also observed other interactions
between the administration and faculty and staff members who have complained
either of retaliation for reporting either possible illegal actions or
gender discrimination.
"In watching what I feel (to be) a pattern
of behavior, I've come to believe that at UH, at least this administration
tends to value blind loyalty over the truth," he said.
"I've come to believe that it's a very
specious pattern of inviting people with open arms to come forward and
share concerns. But as soon as those people do, they get systematically
ostracized and retaliated against," he said.
"And the upper administration, and the
Board of Regents, are consciously and recklessly indifferent to the damage
that that retaliation does to the individual person and their careers,"
he continued.
"So the real message is, if you do come
forward, this is what will happen to you," he said. "Consequently, you
end up running off people that really do have integrity, because they don't
want to work in an environment like this.
"It appears to me that there has been an
erosion of administrative accountability, by the changing of administrative
procedures and policies," he said. "So, ultimately what you end up with
is an environment that, on the surface, encourages free speech, but underneath,
punishes you for it, leading to an environment of fear and intimidation
-- just the opposite of what higher education is supposed to be about:
the challenging of ideas."
