Appendix — Perry v. Sindermann

Supreme Court brief1972

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

eo,..

eee ie» de ee

~<« : as toh

: 5 os : bis

‘Supreme Court of the United States :

NO. 952 joxde

2 ee a) Soe

. Ba

_ CHARLES R. PERRY, et al

“PETITIONERS,

\ ‘ ce

ROBERT Pp. SINDERMANN, Etc.

belie af ve SSS

\ ON WRIT. OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

’ ‘COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT .

\ 8 r ‘

_. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED NOVEMBEA 9, 1970 °

‘CERTIORARI GRANTED JUNE * 1971 | } .

, a

4 TRANSOM OF RECORD.

oe {VOLT Pye

_ SUPREME COURT OF T , UNITED STATES .

» OCTOBER ° , 1970 ae :

| NO. 952 |

| CHARLES R, PERRY, et al. oe

ee a Petitioners Appel. Co ae

LoS oe os “ 7

ROBERT P. - SINDERMANN, for hinds

ay and all others —— situated, we

ae ae : ee

‘ 7

s ae

“Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the .. |

"United States Court of Appeals for the ae

_ Fifth cosa :

Docket Entries __ ; | |

| _ Complaint om Sideaeee Weer nent Clyne ae one ae

_. Appendix we Be Ae ee a 4a

i We ne

ee Appendix , a gi seein RUMOR ORES,

| 49

a 52

Apyenitix “Fp” Rice tue ed de oS

- Appendix 5. ea ea. ieee ee Lezclells 111 ie. :

” Appendix “I” ‘ Pies ‘179

Motion for More Definite’ Statement coed

Motion to Strike. BS Bas eden pei ae ge."

oy) INDEX + (Contin)

. Docket ‘Entries Ce ce, ey Page

Original Answer of the Board of Regist pe Ce

of Odessa Junior College os ie ates peck 57

d Original ver of the Defendant,

Dr:: Jack’ Rodgers mete A a nl oe

= ‘Original / ‘Agswer of the Defendants,

Charles | R. Perry; William L. Pettit,

> Guy Elliott, faites F. Ocker, G. Kirk Be

* Garding, RC. Mason, Otto Pavlicek : se

and be GC Patt. G :

ve Affidavit i in- Support of'a Motion for el See

an Injunction Aone ee i OR

- ‘Order Denyi ition: for ‘Temporary ~ oe

Res training ‘Order ak CCT RA ee eee be

- Motion to ‘Dismiss of the Defendant: Board . fa G

~ of Regents of Odessa Junior College AEE a

Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of the .

Defendants, Charles R. Perry, William = *

L. Pettit; ‘Guy Elliott, Jameg F. Ocker, ~

. G. Kirk. Harding, R. C.. Mason, Otto’ *

_. Pavlicek and Joe C. Zant, Individually,

_ and Dr. Jack Rodgers, Individually scoot

.” . ‘as-President of Odessa Junior College =. 78

oe Affidavit i in Support of.a’ Motion ~ '

_ , Opposing Summary Judgment |. ig = 85

Motion Opposing: Defendant Board of fines oe.

. of Odessa Junior College’s Motion | to;

‘ Dismiss and Brief in overs of — KX :

..* Plaintiff*s Motion . Se eaciei a

. Noté as'to Omission i in Recogd Sie Neer itn, «i

. Motion for Leave to Amend’ Pleadings. orem - be

= Note a as to Omission i in | Record oie. tpl. lie.

ea _

Se eke INDEX (Contned) eee

: Docket Entries Pon err et Ribs: ae Page ze :

"Order Granting Plaintiff Leaveto

“Ainend Compllanit (060 Se ee Le

Plaintiff's First Original Amended Complaint 39

- Affidavit in Support of ae eS

A, B, C; D, E, F, meee 5 ee é

h foti of Opposing Defendant Board of Regents;

‘Both Individually and Officjally, and | ei tiedes

_Dr. Jack Rodgers’, Both Individually and | : rot

in His Official Capacity, Motion for...

Siananaey Judgment and: Brief 1 in — eas

OF Plaintiff's Motion? songe pie peeiere |: oe 2

: Note as to: Omission i in Reco id ees as eee 106.

Order ‘Denying Defendants’ otion to — :

_. Dismiss and Order Gra ting. Defendants’

Motion for Summa udgment J nes 106 .

- Notice of Appeal . rae ET a ape ameter ta eee 108: .

POU ON 108. "|

“Note as to 0 Omission i in Record pair ere aa 109

Clerk’ S Certificate Pee ecsba dA oe es 110

Argument and- Submission _ Sie es ae 184 6

7 Opinion: of the Fifth Circuit eae are mai eay ee :

“Court. of ‘Appeals 0-0. SSeS 185

ay "Judgment of the Fifth Gircuit 3 i | a

5 CAE OE Appeels Oe AST

Order Overruling’ Petition yee ae ts ee

_ for Rehearing -.-__. i TCG ene ERIS a gee

~ Clerk’s Certificate 3° ene: APT on 198. . .

2 .

we ; '

. Tag 3

[oS re

meee

A: PROGEEDINGSIN tpine COURT |

‘ ‘ity 223 1969

es ents 93, 1969

June. 4, 1969

se 1969"

2s.

June 11, 1969:

_ June 11, 1969

.. July 14, 1969.

_« July ¥5, 1969

- July 18, 1969- -

“=F iled Complaint : |

* Tssued. ‘Summonsées and“ copies .

* June 11, “1969 |

Jane ii, 1969 .

to U: 'S. Marshal, Pecos. ng S

2 —F iled canes for all 10 'De- :

- fendants, all executed 5- 26-69. A

sede iled 1 Motion for’More Definite ‘s

Statement.

< F iled Motion td Strike:

.F iled Original Answer of the ;

_ Board of ‘Regents of Odessa *

_ Junior College. eres

a iled’ Original Answer ¢ of Dr. A

‘ Jack Rodgers. | Be gece =

ie! iled. Original’ ‘Asli of De- :

fendants Perry, Pettit,. Elliott, .

.: Ocker, Kirk, Harding, —

' Paviicek and Zant. pou

—Filéd »Affidavit iti siignvoct of

| Motion for an Injunction. Se

—F iled Order Denying Petition

' for Temporary, one arate ds Or- ee

der: > &

-- Parties notified by copies.

‘nak iled Motion to Dismiss by De-

fendant Board. of. Regents: of

Odessa sunk — hy

Jilly 18, 1969

te 98. 1969 .

‘a

July 24, 1969.

~ uly 31491969 -

‘July 31, 1969

July 31,1969

“July 31, 1969 -

-‘July 31, 1969 :

July 31, 1969

"August 1.1969

August ie | : “F iled Plaintiff's Motion oppos- ie

_ —Filed Appendix “G”

: oe: ed,

rh =" iled Motion for. Suinifary’

' Charles, R.. Perry et- al.

Filed . Plaititif s Affidavit in

support of Motion ‘apoenk”

Summary Judgment. a

5 —F iled Plaintiff's Motion Oppo:

ae ing] ‘Defendants’ Motion te Dis-.

miss, with brief.

Filed Plaintiff's ‘Motion. for .

Leave to Amend Pleadings. ”

_ tiffs Motion above. .

” Filed Order Granting Plaintiff

Leave to Amend Complaint. -

Parties: notified by letter,

“Amended Complaint.

Filed Plaintiff's 1st E

-plaint above." ee

HE iled Affidavit. in. support of

-. Appendices A, B, C,. D, E, F

_& G to Amended Complaint.

—Filed Defendants’ ‘Brief in sup-.

/, port of their Motion for.Sum- _

mary Judgment.

ing - Defendants’ Motion for:

- Summary Semen with Brief ©

in — cee

o Com-

fa oA

Fd Briefin siipport of Plain. a

= ° bd “a Hy :

‘ tg f- . v .

is’ Te m : ‘

-™ , . Eee : : :

~ - ? ° e : a . an i

. * a > ;

. : ® : a. «

= = @ :

: ey

| 2 August 4, 1969 Filed Order Dénving Defens): it

bop aug Rey ‘dants’ -Motion to Dismiss and

Order. Granting Defendants’

“ Motion for canes Judg- :

« .sMent. : :

fae Parties notified by- copies.

BD . Atgust'18, 1969 —Filed Plaintiff's Notice. of Ap-

oe Mr atk peal. © | Pay ee

* Kagiist'15, 1969 © > Filed Cost Bond chs Appeal:

"August 15, 1969 —Filed Plaintiff-Appellant’s De-

gis te - Signation of Contents of Record

on n Appeal. . ae |

| ee -B: PROCEEDINGS IN UNITED STATES |

J - + COURT OF APPEALS ~ |

q a. 10, 1970. — Opinion of United States Court:

ee ee eee: Appeals for Fifth Circuit.

| Septembes 9, 1970-<Petitioneh’s Motion’ for Re--

ae = ' hearing overruled | _by United

2 _.. States Court . of “Appeals for

ee. Fifth’ eames

Pig

‘ rs mee

' F. OCKER, BETTY

. IN N THE UNI ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

‘FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS —

3 MIDLAND- ODESSA. DIVISION |

ROBERT'P. ai eee |

ae SINDERMANN, : SS Fh &

for himself and for all others‘) at

similiarly situated, gts ed

WP laintiff, | ; ‘

eS V8...

CHARLES R. PERRY,”

- WILLIAM E. PETTIT. -

_ GUY ELLIOTT, JAMES

civ. ACTION ©

Filed: May. 22, 1969 .

NO. MO-69- CA-54

)

yon

DOOLEY, G. KIRK -~ )

HARDIN G, oo ee )

~ MASON, OTTO. sees tae

PAVLICEK, JOE C: +)

ZANT, all individually and )

as Members of the Board — 7

of Regents-of Odessa ° )

Junior College, and DR. _ )

- JACK RODGERS, ee

Individually,andas +

Presiden}, of Odessa Jepice )

College, =. }

Defendants, ) 3 | |

3: ~~.

ts COMPLAINT | 2 : “es

"NOW COMES the Plain, through his attor-

nats Warren Burnett and Richard J: Clarkson, and |

as ‘and for a cause: of action, on behalf of himself °°

and on behalf. of.all who are similarly situated, and_

against the Defendants, alleges the arses a

LY I bien. OE

;

_ » o. ,

es mii lai ER ealo i Bagi gi a ed)

x ®

That this Court has jurisdiction i in. shin cause over

j Sane parties under 42 U.S.C., Sec. 1983, and 28 U.S.C,

Sec. 12 a

rn od

ae ent =

That the Plaintiff, ROBERT P. SINDERMANN, .

: “ is a citizen of the United States. and a resident of |

; Odessa, Ector County, Texas.

2 .

sy : II. . es

‘That the Defendants, CHARLES R. PERRY, .

- .WILLIAM L. PETTIT; GUY ELLIOTT, JAMES ;

FF. OCKER, BETTY D@OLEY, G. KIRK HARD... >

ING; R. C. MASON, OTTO PAVLICEK, JOE

C. ZANT, are citizens of the United States and

alt residents of the City of Odessa, Ector County, Texas, .

. «and can be served with | proces: at' the following |

. addresses:

Charles R. Perry ;

Peters & Field Building

.800 Central Drive -

Odessa, Texas

_ , William L. Pettit

2326 Field .

Odessa, Texas"

Guy Elliott

+9500 E. 8th Street

- Odessa, Texas

. “James F. Ocker ©

2709 Fair Oaks

Odessa; Texas

Betty .Dooley Ee 3 a eae ae .

2926 Chisum - ~~ a ae

Odessa, Texas

|G. Kirk Harding © 0

5003 Kingston ” PPR Pa ak, Bh ae"

. Odessa, Texas 5 88 ‘on oo

R. C. Mason |

1415 Emerald

-- Odessa, Texas

Otto Pavlicek ©

_ 2318N. Grant

_ Odessa, Texas - *

Joe.C.Zant - =

J.C. Zant Engineering Co. |

_ Country Club Estates

Odessa, Texas _ ;

a oe ede y 48 ota... 2

That the.Defendant, Board of Regents of Odessa

Junior College, is a body corporate duly. organized —

- and existing under the general laws of the. State of

Texas, having the power to sue and tp be sued in its -

corporate capacity, Yernon’s Anriotated Civil Sta- |

tutes of Texas, Art: 2815h; Sec. 20, which governs

and manages the branch of higher education in‘the

* State of Texas known as Odessa Junior College, and

' may be served by serving Charles R. Perry, President -

of said Board of Regents, at Peters and Field Build-

ing, 800 Central Drive, Odessa, Texas. | °-

That the Defendant, Dr. Jack Rodgers, is Preési-

dent of Odessa Junior College, which college ‘is.

. .

e .

ee 5 ,

, .

els

. B= i

5 *

. 5 ee

‘

haa asada aoeceenees alae Lae

. - ‘

15. Sain Sei li ls san Manca 0

_ Such retention. -

;

cated in Odessa, Texas? pe that the said Dr. Jack

/ \oeated by and through the authority, delegated: to -

him by the Defendant Board of Regents, directs,

. governs and manages the said college. Said. Defend.

ant, Jack Rodgers, imay be served, both individually

_ and in his capacity as President of said college, by

_ process of service at his office at Odessa Junior

Conese:

, That the Plaintiff was retained by: the Defendants.

as a lecturer to teach Governnient in the Department _

_ ,of-Social Sciences at Qdessa Junior College for the |

“school year 1968-1969, and the Plaintiff performed

and continued to perform: thiose duties pursuant to.

-S That although Odessa Junior College has no tén-

ure system, the Administration of the College ac-

| knowledges the fact that faculty members have

“permanent tenure” .until the time that their con-

tracts are not renewed. (cf. Appendix “A”, page 3).

That on October 16,°1967, the Coordinating Board .

Texas College and University System adopted guid-

ing - principles designed to aid ‘Texas colleges and

universities in evaluatng the conditions of academic

_. freeddm, tenure, and responsiblity that prevail on —

-~ é€ach campus. The Plaintiff. has. tenure within. the

guiding principles established by the Coordinating

. Board, being a teacher in Texas’ higher education ©

' “institutions for ten (10) years, with four (4) of those

_ years being at Odessa Junior College. (Cf. ape

SB? page 1-2).

VII. -

_ That the Texas Coordinating Board’s statement.

. on academic freedom, tenure and responsibility was.

published in the bulletin. of the American Associa-

tion of University Professors with

| approbation. (Cf. Appendix “C”) ;

-. That there have been campaigns.in the Permian

‘Basin (Midland-Odessa and surrounding areas) by

the'local citizenry in support of bills before the Texas’

Legislature to either elevate Odessa Junior College

that organization’s — .

to.a_ four-year status, or else to build a separate ~

_ senior college in the Permian “Basin: The Plaintiff

_ has been vocal in his expréssions of opinion in support

.of the movement to elevate Odessa College to a four- ©

year status, and such expressions have been, in op-

° .

"position to the public position taken-by the Defe

+ (See Appendix A’). r . 3

. Board of Regents, and Defendant, Dr. Jack Rod ger — 4 7

ma A's, * fea

That in a press release issued by the office of De-

__fendant, Jack Rodgers, on May 13, 1969, it was

stated that one of the reasons for -not renewing the

_ contract of the Plaintiff was his association With the .

- “Committee to Elevate O egsa Junior College.” (Ste

. Appendix “A”). |

4 wig XI, ot

_ _ That the Plaintiff is State President-of the Texas

Junior Callége Teachers’ Association, and'-was in- -

vited to appear.in that capacity before the Texas

Senate’s State Affairs Committee by State Senator

a Dacax: Mauizy Pe Dallas, Texas, and the Ctiniiinsast P

++. of the State Affairs Committee, ‘William T.-.(Bill)

~ . Moore, on proposed academic freedom : ‘legislation.

_ ‘Appendix “D”).

XH.

That in a press release issued by the office of ‘De:

fendant, Dr. Jack Rodgers, on: May 13, 1969, that

one of thé reasons for the Plaintiff not beirig retained.

_. for the academic year 1969-1970 was his unauthor- .

|. ized trip to Austin, Texas, to testify,without receiving

the college Administration’ Ss ‘approval.’ (Cf. Appen-

dix = el | a. a. | s

<e M ~ '

PPR BE. LIE RR aie. fins

| XII. |

- ‘Phat those reasons for the Plaintiff’s contract not . |

"being renewed as found in paragraphs X-and’ XII

above: are the only: ascertainable reasons for. such

action by the Defendants, no formal charges having —

been sent to the Plaintiff by- said Defendants, are in

- nowise sufficient cause for’ the dismissal of a faculty

member with tenure as established by the Coordina-

ting Board Tex College and University System, in

its statement off ctober 16, 1967, namely: i

. ,

ih rib eA ivaile Dec cried Yok Wo DOIN natin acres wit lens Ne oli vaptalaa

| _ “Professional incompetence,- moral turpitude, OF

~ gross neglet of professional responsibilities.”

(Cf. Appendix “B”,. page 2).

XIV. |

@.. - That ten members of the faculty of thé Social |

— Science Department of Odessa Junior College signed

«+ -_ a statement attesting to’the fact that the Plaintiff is

a totally competent person professionally, and that

nothing he has said or done has,.in’ any ek dero-

ee: o o ‘ rts’ .

beh ENS SER AN aS alte Ny

ae A

_ gated from his competence in the.élassroom asa.

lecturer in Government at the college. This is all but —

a few’ members of his Department. (Cf. Appendix Pei

a eh a :

os : oe | : XV. ae 3 is, = oi ;

"That the Plaintiff was advised on May 19; 1969,

by the Defendant, Dr. Jack Rodgers, purporting te—

act under due authority, that his contraet-would not

be renewed for the year 1969-1970.. (Cf. Appendix

5 io eee rere an Sea ee

a 4 “XVI. cece

‘That the Defendants, or their agents, refused.to . °

er eae rd . re ° °°

"give any feasons to the Plaintiff for their decision to

_hot retain him-as a member of Odessa Junior College.

faculty for the school year 1969-1970, and also that~

the Defendants did not offer the Plaintiff an impar-

‘tial hearing into the merits of such decision..

XVID.

ie That the reason for such decision by the Defend- :

_ ants, or their agents, was to retaliate against the .

_ Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s expression of opinion. |

Pe yo . AVAL? e

__ Ehat the Defendant’s decision not to retain the

Plaintiff was not based upon good faith on their part.

= XIX

__ That the decision of the Defendants is a denial, a

violation, a restraint, and a deprivation of the Plain- -

tiff’s right to free speech under the United States.

Constitution: ae ae! a aye

Se a BON BGM sculihiialenebiaiaiiiniaemmterntiint ha F aiabues

‘ ; .

That the decision of the. Defendants was not made.

under ascertainable and definite staridards | governing :

the Defendants i in re this decision. Re

XXT

- That the pesiasan or their agents, have intimi- »

dated and = the Plaintiff and other Odessa ‘|

‘Junior ‘College faculty members ‘similarly. situated —

- because the Plaintiff and those so situated have exer-

cised their right. to free Speech in a way critical of |

‘the Defendants,

hog) KXIL: tam

| That eh? conduct of the Defendants as described -

4. above in this Complaint has made.the Plaintiff and

those Odessa. Junior College faculty members simi-

e farly situated reluctant and fearful to express their .

opinions.

«#4.

XXIII | _

That. such decision of the Defendants has caused,

and unless stich decision is restrained from enforce-

ment, will cause the Plaintiff damages to his pro- .

- fessional reputation and standing for ba there:i is |

no 0, adequate remedy at law..

XXIV.

‘That such decision Of the Defendants has already

caused the Plaintiff to suffer actual damges to his -

reputation, to. his ability to obtain similar employ-

ment in other colleges in the State of Texas, damages.

in the amount of Two Hundred RBeweney-¥ ive Thea

_and Dollars ($275, 000.00).

'. That such decision of the Defendants was retalia-

tory in nature and not: based upon good faith, and

_that they, therefore, ‘should-be liable for punitive ~__

‘damages in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand: - +

Dollars ($200,000.00) .)- re pers

That "because the actions of the Defendants negis-

sitated that the Plaintiff retain attorneys in order to

obtain his United States Constitutional rights, the .

Defendants should be held liable for. reasonable at-"

totneys feet ess ae ie i at

That the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of _

himself, on behalf ,of' many of the Odessa Juriior _

- College faculty members too numerous to join here- Se

in, who have been intimidated and harassed by the

Defendants, or their agents, for expressing their -

opinions, and on behalf of many Odessa Junior Col-

lege faculty members foo numerous to join hereif,

who have become fearful and reluctant to express

their opinions because of the conduct of the Defend-

, ants as described herein. - Ee pee! .

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands the following

pelts eu,” i EDs

(1) - A judgment that the decision of the. Defend- -

ants that the plaintiff not be retained as a inember -

of the Odessa: Junior College faculty for the school

year 1969-1970, is in violation of the Plaintiff's

tights, and in violaton of the rights of those similarly

situated, under ‘the. First and Fourteenth Amend-

“ments to the United States Constitution. --

2 Va

we - ’ * ‘ nn alia Oat & AO

Men oT Riaatic Sa NARA CR i

Pad € .

6 . ,

i ; . :

. Pi

: ‘

RACES GAA TR RSE NRE Td ae GAS robin hy

: ©

(2). That the Defendants are to grant to the Plain- :

tiff a hearing’on the reasons for his dismissal in sub-

'.. stantial compliance -With the recommendations set :

‘out by the Coordinating Board, Texas College and |

University..System as contained in the attached Aj

pendix “B”, namely: The Defendants should give for-

_ mally written charges to. the Plaintiff. Presentation.”

of such charges should provide for (a) a written re-.

sponse to the chargés by the faculty member, if he

wishes a hearing; (b) opportunity ‘by the faculty

member to exercise his right to be represented. by

- counsel of his own choosing, to have a hearing before

a regularly elected faculty committee, to confront, .

and cross-examine witnesses, to know the name and -

statement of*a ‘witness who, for extraordinary rea- |

_:sons, does not appear at the hearing, to respond oral-

ly-to charges made against him, to have findings and -

recommendations made on each of the charges, and

- ‘to be given a complete‘transcript of the hearing, in-

: cluding the findings of the faculty committee; (cp a

‘review of the case, if essential, by an appropriate re-

viewing body — ‘the review to include the findings *

and a AP of the hearing committee, the ©

Opportunity of” the faculty member and University

. representative for oral argument, the réturn of the

proceeding to the hearing committee, if the original -

_ recommendations are not sustained, the study of the.

hearing committee’s reconsidered findings and re-.

* commendations, and a rendering of a final decision

_(which- should | be written in the rare casé in. which

the hearing | committee is overruled). : ee

(3) A judgment that ‘the failure of the Tcfendants

to prove.the Plaintiff with an impartial hearing : as

to the merits of their decision of May 6, 1969, was.

arbitrary, ' capricious, and contrary to the Plaintiff's

‘

a ae

“ee

rights, and: dhe’ ene 6 of ‘those simildely siegibed:

under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution.

ee A judgment that the fefusal of the Défendants

. to give reasons for their decision was. arbitrary, ca-

pricious, and. in Violation of the.rights of Plaintiffand ~. -

those: similarly situated, under the First, Fifth, and _-

Fourteenth Amendments’ to: the ‘United States Con- .

‘stitution. ‘| ee

AOA judgment th that the faihase of thé Deféiadants

-' to make such‘decision under ascertainable and finite ..

standards was arbitrary, capricious, and in violation .

of the rights of Plaintiff and thgse similarly situated, --~

_ ‘under the First, Fifth and F ourteenth Amendments me

- tothe United States Constitution. ~~

. (6) An order of the Court directing the Defendants. °

to retain the Plaintiff in his positiohas a member of

- the Odessa Junior College faculty for the year 1969-

1970, .at the same level of responsibility anid function: -

sas per the retention for the school year 1968-1969.

/ (7): That a date be set on the coutt’s docket for a: ee

trial oni the damages alleged i in this complaint, and

z a"

e (8) ‘for such other and further relief as may be,”

; aren | x 7 |

: LAW OFFICES OF WARREN BURNETT.

P.O. Box 3707 - Odessa, Texas.’ i

By; s/Richard J. Clarkson

ee to Richard J. Clarkson

| ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIF F

» PLAINTIF F DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY.

“ 7

yer

yf co Riad Riss aS acer x oe a NS GOOF ek

“ a

‘

a Le lik ble a ge te 80

¥ -

Pate

| Mr. Robert P. Sindermann became a member of

- the Odessa-College Faculty in September; 1965. He

previously. had taught at-San Antonio College, San

Antonio, Texas. Mr. Sindermann had completed ©

‘most of his coursé work for the Doctorate in Govern- ©

ment at the University of Texas. At the suggestion

_.of the President of the College, Mr: Sindermann was -

made “co-chairman” of the Social Science Depart-

ment, with a increase in pay of $300. 00 per year.

soon as ‘Mr. a becaryé co-chairinan. |

he immediately began. “circularizing” members of

his-department with lengthy letters. Unfortunately, --

none of these lengthy letters haveé been retained in

his personnel file. :

«Because of his “addiction” to letterwriting, and

| because of his apparent unwillingness to accomodate

_ himself. to. procedures of “lines of -authority” and |

“administrative authority,” he was dropped as CO-~

chairman of the Department i in the fall of 1968.

~*~” When Mr. an was made co-chairman his

salary was increased $300.00 per year. When this

title and authority were dropped, his salary was not

. reduced by this amount. |

At the Annual ‘Convention of the Texas Junior

College Teachers Association in’ February, 1969, in

Fort Worth, Mr. Sindermann was elected President

of this Association, ' after the nominee for President’

resigned. —

(See, letter of congratulations aid reply of, Feb-_

uaty 17) . |

aaa .

* ? .

Mr. Sindernianti accepted this office without con-

sultation with any administrative officer of Odessa

- College. This was within his rights to do‘so, but had

* he had the foresight to consult with the administra- -

_ tion of Odessa: College, many.of the subsequent prob-

lems which ° ‘could have been prevented. Two

distinction, and with’ cooperation from the adminis~

| tration in carrying out their duties.

_» Mr. Sindermann immediately, after his iets.

- requested student clerical help amounting toa full.” .

time secretary, as well as requesting thatgiis teaching -

load be reduced by one class. These requests we#e re-

fused. Previous Presidents of the Association had’

_-asked for a minimum of? clerical help; which had

' been approved at College experise. N either had asked i

_ gs: reduction of class load. eae

° =

Pecan: om memes nt a arg

7 ip : . ——

- . . . .

The members of the faculty, wie liad ened as

President in previous years, had used the summer

_ months for visiting the various Texas junior colleges. -

’ Mr. Sindermann asked for time off during the winter = F

months to accomplish this. His request was refused

and it was suggested to him that-he follow the pat-

tern set by his predecessors from Odessa College.

Pa Nd ee aR NI mS

Unfortunately, Odessa Collen has been the obj ject.

of “politics” in recent months through the efforts of —

_. variqus people to secure the elevation of Odessa Col-

‘lege to four year status. Because“(1) The Governor’s.

Committee ‘for the Study of Higher Education re-

commended that no other junior colleges be elevated :.

.- to senior college stattis, (2) The Coordinating Board |

for Higher Education. recommended the same, and _

’

& bn tae aid

‘ oe 2 Moanin bn

“nel AA Se Dabney Oa

14.

(3) In’ the Master Plan for Higher Education in

Texas, the Coordinating Board recommended the

establishment of an upper-level institution in the

Odessa-Midland area, the Board of Regents of Odes-

sa College saw fit to approve the guidelines of the

~ -Goordinating Board and approved the Annexation

'. of the Midland Independent School - District to the

Odessa Junior College District.

This action; opposed by one member of the College

_- Board of Regents, led to the establishment of a group"

~~ €alling itself ° ‘The Committee to Keep Odessa Col-.

- lege in Odessa;”” later known as “The Comniittee to

eievals Odessa College.”

¢’

Mr. Sindermann saw fit to align himself with this

group, in contradiction to .a policy statement of the

Board of Regents in the matter. He permitted him-

self to be called to testify before the Board of Regents |

~as an “expert” on Technical and Vocational’ Edu-

7 cation, and on February 28, addressed a letter to the

President of the College with regard to. the aan

of Odessa College.

(See letter of February 28.)

He later testified as an “expert” ‘at the hearihg of.

H.B:: 157, criticizing | decisions of the Coordinating

- Board, and “reading” into the record a statement of

a former Odessa: College. faculty member. This per-

son had attained a record: of failure 1 in administration.

In September of 1968, the Board of Regents adop-

teda statement on Academic Freedom (see attach- -

_ ment) in line with that suggested by the Coordinat- _

ing Board which had adopted its suggestion from

F 2 Ae. .

? ° _

. e

. Le

7 eae : mo . ‘ . .

be . F : 2 ? : : .

. s : . .

that proposed by the American Association of Uni-

versity Professors. The Board postponed until the

fall of 1969 .any consideration of a statement on

Tenure, relying on the statement used for rhany years

in the F aculty Guide, which reads as scald i

LL BEELER AU GENIN

MYND RD

“Teacher Tenure: Odessa College has no tenure |

system. The Administration of the College wishes |

the faculty member to feel that he has permanent § , |

tenure as long as his teaching services are satisfac- | :

tory and as long as he displays a cooperative atti-

- tude toward his co-workers and his superiors, and .

as long as he 3 is happy in his work.’ a

In the heat of the dissénsion on the: elevation of

Odessa College, as opposed to the recommendation . ~_

of the Coordinating Board for an upper-level college, © |

a rather disgusting ad was run, to which Mr. Sinder- -

mann’s name was attached, in the local newspaper.

This ad ridiculed. the position taken by the Board of

Regents of Odessa College, contrary to the provisions

cof the statement of Academic F reedom previously ©

‘adopted by the Board.

(Seé copy of ad. -)

While Mr. Sindermann submitted a letter of “dis.

claimer” to the. President of the Board of Regents,

his “‘guilt by assoeiation” cannot be refuted, because.

-he had acted with this group, opposed to a stated

position of the Board of Regents. .

In an undated letter from Dalion Goodin, Chair-

man of the Legislative Committee of the Texas Jun-

lor College Teachers’ Association, Mr, Sindermann

habit GRRL Rea RRS Ae

| was informed of a beara ‘on S.B.-512, a bill on

_ Academic Freedom and Tenure.

’ dent.”

(See attached letter. )

On April 9, Mr, Sindermaiiti* sent a letter to Mr.

Bernhard T- Sedate, Dean of the Evening College

and Chairman of:the Social Science Department, en-.

closing a copy of Mr. Goodin’s letter and requesting

permission to absent himself from the campus to ©

testify on SB 512. ,

The’ Faculty. Guide of Odessa College page 53, :

contains the following statement:

“ Arrangements for absences with full pay shall be —

made in advaiice by the employee. Approval for

absence because of personal or family illness shall

be granted by the departmental chairman and the

- Dean of the College. Approval of absence for other

causes shall be obtained from the Dean of the Col-

lege and subject to final approval by the Presi- |

The letter’ addressed ° to the ‘Chairman : as sab.

mitted to the Dean of the College. In line with the re- -

-gulation of absences contained in the Faculty Guide,

_... the letter was, in turn, submitted to the President of

the College. :

The request to be absent was denied by: the Presi- .

_ dent, based on the following reasoning:

(1). ‘Mr. Sindermann was employed asa full-time

faculty member to teach students. He.can make this

contribution to Odessa College only by being present —

to teach.

17 :

(2). The organization of which Mr. Sindermann

: is President,. the Texas Junior College Teachers’ As- _

sociation, has a Legislative Committee Ghairman,

Mr. Delton Goodin, and it is this person who should »

have represented the organization if it were to be.

represented. The’ President of an organization can —

- not perform all the duties of his officers; and he

-should not attempt todoso. .- . — —

* (3). The Junior College Teachers’ Association has ~

not endorsed S.B.512. | —-

(See copy of attached resolutions approved at the: :

February meeting. ) a

-adoption of statements.on Academic Freedom and |

Tenure by college boards of regents. Only a few jun-

jor colleges, of which Odessa College is one, have

(4). The Coordinating Board has suggested the.

adopted a statement on Academic Freedom. Asal-

ready mentioned, consideration of a statement on

~ Tenure has been postporied. This prior action of the

Board should indicate.an interest on the part of the

Board in faculty “rights.” | an

OA letter denying this ‘request was sent té Mr. Sin-.

dermann by Dean Chisum on April 10. ©

_ (See attached letter.) ae

Let it’be said at this time that Mr. Sindermann’s |

relationship’ to the Committee to Elevate Odessa

- College has: never ‘been called to his attention, His

- Violation of the statement on Academic Freedom,, .

_ wherein his name appeared on an ad which ridiculed

actions of the Board of Regents, has never been called.

_to his attention. This should indicate the “tolerance” —

ofthe admwistration and of the Board to Mr. Sinder- .~

mann’s actions in opposing a “policy” statement of

the Board, and of recoghitioh of * ‘rights” of a Faculty

Member.

a _ +. nn nae YD rd

o——* OO op 0 ee An Ne ape,

A letter’ to Mr. siudeaann, dated April 16, from

| Senator | Oscar H. Mauzy, acknowledged receipt of

Mr. Sindermann’s letter of April.9, and expressed.

hope that Mr. Sindermann could. be present for the |

hearing on S.B. 512 on Ces 23 before the State

Affairs Committee.

* (See letter .of April 16 from Senator Mauzy. Ys

Unfortunately, Mr. Sindermann has not supplied

a copy of his letter to Senator Mauzy.

A letter from Senator William A (Bill) ‘Moore, 7

dated April- 16, .also acknowledges receipt of Mr.

Sindermann’s lettet, and invites him to appear for

a hearing on S. B. Le.

~. Again, unfortunately, Mr. Sindermann has: not

- supplied a copy of his letter to Senator Moore.

On April 19, Mr. Siridermann wrote a 1 letter to

Dean Chisum asking for an opportunity to-discuss

the refusal contained in the letter of April 10. On

’ April 21, Mr. Sindermann called Dean Chisum’s

~ office and the Secretary referred him to the President

of the College.

On the afternoon of April. Ze, Mr. Siideruain

- came to the office of the President. After discussion

of the problem, the President enumerated items (1),

the President.

Ont the: same day, April 22, ently: after talk-

‘ing s with the Piésident, Mr. Sindermann wrote a let-

ter to Dean Chisum. indicating that he would be

-were taught. by substitutes. The hearing on S.B. o12,

. however, was not held on April 23.

(See letter of April 22. )

On Saturday, April 26, a four page fewer. dated |

April 25, to the “Chairman of the Social ‘Science

a Department” , Mr. -Sedate, was received from Mr.

Sindermann. The letter requested that substitutes

be secured for Mr. Sindermann “while I am.jnAustin

on official T.J.C.T.A. business;” to testify for S:B..

~ 512 and S.B. 531 {Snelson’s Upper Level College |

- Bill) (See letter of April 25.)

The above letter was referred to Dean Chisum and

the President of the College, who were in conference

at the time. Mr. Sedate was instructed to attempt to »

contact Mr. Sindermann and verbally refuse permis-.

sion for the absence. He was also asked to type.a

- letter denying permission - and deliver it to Mr. Sin-.

dermann. Mr. Sedate could make no personal con- -

tact with Mr. Sindermann but did deliver the letter

to Mr. Sindermann’ s home. |

A letter dated ‘April 27 from Mr. Sindermann to

(2), G " and (4) listed above as reasons for disap- -

‘ proval of the absence. and. pppeorai'™ was refused by-

. absent on April 23, which. he was, and his classes -

- all :

2 20 | — a,

-Mr.,Sedate indicated that Mr. Sindermann would be

- absent from classes on April 28 to testify on S.B. 512.

S.B. 512 was not heard on April 28 and Mr..Sinder- -

| - mann.appearéd on the hearing for S.B. 531.)

* ~_ . (See letter of April 27.) Ee ee an

PR ee ee LP

ee od

__- A mimeographed letter, dated May 6, published ~

__-by.Mr. Sindermann indicated that S.B. 512 had been

_*: “\put in deep freeze” by the Senate State Affairs Com-

“mittee and urged the Faculty of Odessa College to

write and wire Legislators to help “‘jar it out of

Committee.” . | re _

. ° On’ May 6, an Executive Session of the Board of

Regents of Odessa College was held to approve re- ©

newal of contracts. The case of Mr. Sindermann was —

discussed. The Board was given the information

above, as well as informed of the opinion of the Col-

' lege Attorney as to the law regarding contracts in

"juniors colleges (See attached .opinion dated April,

| 28). - 3 | a

. The resolution passed by the Board was as follows:

“Moved by Elliott, seconded by Harding, that the

Board accept the approved recommendations of

Dr. Rodgers for renewal of contracts.” |

While the Board expressed ‘disapproval of Mr.

Sindermann’s actions, the resolution does not specify

non-renewal of:a contract for Mr. ‘Sindermann.

On May 9, a telegram was received from Senator.

Oscar H. Mauzy by the President asking for Mr.

‘Gaon to teitityln on 1s. B. 513 at 2:00 P. M. a

“May 19. No reply was given to this. s telegram because

of the distant date of the heating. , |

- Also; on | May 9,a letter from Mr. Sindermann to:

the President, asking a “prompt” answer, inquired

about his contract, and asking for.a reply by 3:00

_ fp. M. The letter: enclosed a statement on “Standards |

for, Notice of Non-reappointment”-issued by the .

American Association of Qpiversity Professors. This, |

essentially, i is the statement of tenuré on which the

Board of Regents. has oe action until Sep- ‘

tember of 1969.

(See letter of ‘May 9.)

The @resident of the College jnade no reply to this _

_ letter because no contracts have been issued to any

- faculty member. It was not. considered necessary. to

~ reply to this letter bécause Mr. Sindermann i is one of

106 full-time faculty members and i is entitled to no

"more: ‘consideration than the other 105 members.

- On May 7; apparently ee receiving no reply

‘from his letter, Mr. Sindermann addressed the fol-

lowing letter to the President: |

“TI have to leave town now, .and will be staying at

_- row. If'I am having my contract renewed for next

‘the Adolphus Hotel, Dallas, cre and tormor- °

-year, you can-save all of us a gr at deal of trotible

by so notifying me, ie a

| “Also on are = Ae letter to Mr. Sedate requested

SS eran 5

- a a ee

Mer apteats

‘ > :

i Pores ARQ IRR I spn eee

. -.

ap a birch

" permission to be absent on May -19, was received —

from Mr. Sindermann. This letter was accompanied —

by a telegram from: Senator Mauzy to Mr..Sinder-.

mann requesting: his presence on May 19.°

(See letter and telegram ‘of May 19. x

Both Dean Chisum: and the President were. absent

from.Odessa in late afternoon of May 9. Mr. Sedate

_ replied negatively, in:the absence of the Dean and :

President, to the effect that, in view of precedent of .

~ two refusals in the past, he had no recourse except’ |

to disapprove the. req Vid ocd

> (See letter of May 9. aes Bren Aa

. *

es .

. On May 11, telnet asise from Mr. Sindermann were | ;

_ sent to the President, the Dean; Yand Mr, Sedate from

’ -Dallas, stating: é

; _ “Mistake i in earlics eidiwcati from Seistor Mauzy,

'. + §.B. 512 will actually be heard, Monday, May,12,

’-* in Austin at 2 P.M. Request permission to attend

hearing.Please reply my home address. Sunday.”

Mr. Sedate reported. to the President that, in his ab-

sence, he had told Mr. Sindertianh that his telegram

request had been denied. | :

To. this date, no official correction of the date of

fiparing on S.B. 512 has béen received by members...

“Of the administrative staff of Odessa College.

On Monday, May 12: the President of Odessa

College received information from a local newspaper

, r

e %

., , .

7 seporter: that Mr. Sindernarin had wired ‘Senator ae

- Mauzy. the following information, if not in the exact *

‘language, since a copy of the telegram has not been

_ presented to the President of the College:

a | have been fired from Odessa’ College for at-

_ témpting to testify. on S.B? 512: All the more rea-

_ son for action on this bill. Advise elimination of

| Odessa College from a line item 5 cea in

the appropriation, bill. ” |

As of this date no contracts‘have been réniewed for

faculty imembers.. Mr, Sindermann hag not beeri no--.

- tified officially that his contract will not be renewed.

? wie

Sa eae et A ?

°y a

: .

SORTER TER

f :

we ot

. % 4

¥ = .> .

ote PA. . ;

~ COORDINATING BOARD — .

TEXAS COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 7”

/ :

}

24.

\ .

“NYexas Public ‘Colleges and 7

Univ ities ~ oo

' APPENDIX “B” »

¢ Academic Freedom,

¢ Tenure, and

e Responsibility |

ad .

‘

_ fer Faculty: Members. i in:

& a, : Pi :

Adopted: October 16, 1967 |

/@ Academic Freedom, |

¢ Responsibility.

F for Faculty Members in |

. 7 Texas Public. Colleges and :

_ Universities

Adopted: October 16, 1967 ©

46 i

‘ e

Sete greece TT DENN GEE ET OT RG NN AEE ER Oy on

ae : : ‘ : .

be . ° . .

. » . .

‘ ~ 7

| ACADEMIC FREEDOM, TENURE, AND °

__ RESPONSIBILITY FOR FACULTY MEMBERS IN

TEXAS PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

The statement which follows, issued in response to __

Section 14, Paragraph 2, of House Bill 1, 59th Texas

Legislature, provides guiding principles designed to ~

aid Texas colleges and universities in evaluating the

conditions of academic freedom, tenure, and respon-

sibility that prevail on each campus.

| I

Academic Freedom

., Institutions of higher education are conducted ‘for

the common good. The common good depends upon >

a free search for truth and its free expression. Hence,

it is essential that the faculty member be free to pur-.

sue scholarly inquiry without undue restriction, and ©

to voice and publish his conclusions concerning ‘the

significance of evidence that he considers relevant..

He must be free from the corrosive fear that others,

inside or ‘outside the university cornmunity, because

their vision may differ from his,own, may threaten

_ his professional career or the material benefits. accru-

ing from it. Pe a

Each faculty member i is entitled to full freedom in

the classroom in discussing the subject which he,

teaches. Each faculty member i is also a citizen of his

nation, state-and community; and when he speaks,

writes or acts as such, must be free from institutional

- censorship or discipline.

270

'. Academic Responsibility

The concept of academic freedom must be accom-

panied by an equally demanding concept of.respon-

sibility; shared by governing boards, administrators,

and faculty members. | |

The essential responsibilities of.governing: boards

and administrators are set forth in the Standards for

Colleges, adopted by the Southern Association of ©

Colleges and Schools, as updated and revised. ©

The fundamental résponsibilities of a faculty mem-

ber as-a teacher and scholar include a maintenance

of competence in his field of specialization and the

exhibition of such competence in Dee discussions

or an aoe :

Exercise of professional integrity by a faculty.

_ member includes recognition that the public will |

- judge his profession and his ‘institution by his state-

ments. Therefore, hé should strive to be accurate, to

exercise appropriate restraint, to show respect for the

, opinions of others, and to avoid creating the i impres-

sion that he speaks or acts for his college or univer-

sity when he. speaks or acts as a private person.

| A faculty: member shouid be judicious i in the use

. of controversial material in the classrooni and should: —

introduce such material only as it has clear relation-.

. ship to his subject field.

-A faculty member has the responsibility to provide

due notice of his intention to interrupt or terminate

institutional services.

| TT |

| Tenure Policy

A, Tenure an .

» Tenure means assurance to an experienced faculty

member that he may. expect to continue in his aca-

demic. position unless adequate cause for dismissal

‘is demonstrated in a fair hearing, following establish-

ed procedures of due process.

A spéific system of faculty tenure undergirds the

integrity of each academic institution. In the Texas

public colleges and uniyersities, this tenure system

‘should have these components: | |

(1) Beginning with appointment to the rank ‘of

: full-time instructor or a higher rank, the probation- .

ary period for a faculty member shall not excced

- seven years, including within this period appropriate

full-time service in all institutions of higher educa- .

tign. This. is subject to the- ‘provision that when, after

a term of probationary service of more than three

years in one Or more institutions, a faculty mémber

‘- ig employed by another institution, it may be agreed

in writing that his new appointment is for a proba-

tionary period of not more than four years, (even

| -though thereby the pérson’s total probationary .per-

iod in the academic profession is extended beyond

the normal maximum of seven years). ?

(2) Notice of nonreappointment,, or of intention

“not to’ reappoint a faculty mgember, should be given -

in writing in accord with x following standards: ©

(a) Not later than March 1 of the first-academic

“year of probationary service, if the appointment eX-

pires at the end of that year; or, if ‘a one-year ap-

‘pointment terminates during an academic year, at

least three months in adyance of its termination; (b)

_not later than December 15 of the second year of

probationary service, if the appointment expires at

the end of that year; or, if an initial two-year ap-

pointment terminates during an academic: year, at

least six months in advance of‘its termination; (c) |

~ at least twelve months before the expiration of a pro-

bationary’ appointment after two or more years in

the institution.

(3) “Adequate cause for disiiseal for a faculty

'. member with tenure may be. established by demon-

strating professional incompetence, moral turpitude;

_ or gross neglect of professional responsibilities.

Cases of bona fide finaricial emergency, or the

phasing out of institutional programs requiring re- :

duction of faculty, may permit exceptions of tenure.

regulations i in unusual circumstances.

B. Faculty Dismissals -

Proper dismissal procedures, established in antici-

pation of their being needed, are essential to an ef-

. fective tenure system. In the Texas public college and

university system, these procedures should have the

following components: . :

(1) These dismissal procedures pone to a faculty

member who has tenure, or whose term appointment

has not expired, or who alleges a prima. facie case of

a violation of academic freedom in the non-renewal

‘of his contract. If he has.tenure or an unexpired ap-

pointment extending beyond the period of the pro- —

posed dismissal, the burden of proof is upon the ad-.

ministration to ‘show adequate cause - why he should

: . : :

Pe anes Mess ent DN 7 ia OS gtinrt Fe tt MIE a ee i ean

. e . :

; » oe: 7

r e F; ; ° are

4 oe ‘

. bal e : ° .

: . a ie ‘ P . Py 5

. oe ° -

‘ ?

-be dismissed. If he does not have tenure, but contends ©

that the non-renewal of his’ contract constitutes:a_ |

violation of his academic freedom, the burden of

proof is upon the faculty mernber. If a faculty mem-

ber on probationary appointment alleges-that the

non-renewal of his contract constitutes a violation of |

- academic freedom, he may request that his allega-

tions be given preliminary consideration by a faculty

committee. The committee shall then recommend

whether a hearing i 1s warranted. |

(2) The- institution’ s procedure in dismissal cases

described in (1) above should include, first, a bona

fide effort to achieve a satisfactory resolution of -

difficulties through preliminary inquiry, discussion,

or confidential mediation. .

‘Should these efforts fail, presentation of reasonably

detailéd and formally written charges should be

made to the concerned faculty member. Presentation

of such charges shall provide for (a) a written re-

sponse to the charges by the faculty member, if he

wishes a hearing; (b) opportunity by the faculty

member to exercise his right to be represented by

counsel of his choosing, to have a hearing before a

regular elected faculty committee, to confront and

cross-examine witnesses, to know the name and state-

_ ment of a witness who for extraordinary reasons does —

not appear at the: hearing, to respond orally to.

charges made against him, to have findings and re-

commendations made on, each of the charges, and

to be given a complete: transcript of the. hearing, in-

cluding the findings of the faculty committee; (c) a

review of the case, if essential, by an appropriate re-

viewing body—the review to include the findings.

and recommendations of the hearing ‘committee, the °

5 5gasiarnsia ; one toe SS

ae eee.

opportunity “of the faculty member and university

representative for oral argument, the return of the

_ proceeding to the hearing committee if the original

recommendations are not sustained, the study of the

- hearing committee’s reconsidered findings am re-

commendations, and the rendering of a final decision

(which should be written in the rare case in which >

_ the hearing committee is overruled). .

(3) If the faculty appointment is to be terminated,

_the faculty member, except: in cases of moral turpi-

tude, will receive his salary at least for one year or .

- ‘for the period of notice to which he is entitled under

these regulations. He will be continued in his duties

for that périod unless at the discretion of the insti-

tution he. be granted a leave of.absence with pay.

Implementation .

Within one. year, and with appropriate faculty —

participation, each public institution in Texas is ex-

pected to draft its own written statement on aca--

demic freedom, tenure; and responsibilities. The

statement. should be based on the guiding principles"

_ described in the preceding paragraphs, and a copy

should be filed with the Coordinating Board, Texas ©

College. and University ‘System. Each statement

should detail a procedure to be followed in case of

dismissal of a tenured faculty member. ©

APPENDIX |

Written Terms of Employment

| The institution shall provide each faculty member

_ with a statement in writing of the terms of his em-

ployment, including special conditions, responsibili-

ties and any special a ica The document 7

NSN? 6

should cover such items 'as rank, salary, tenure pro- |

visions, whether the position is full-time. or part- -

time, and the inclusive dates of the term of service.

| a APPENDIX II

= 23 Tenure, Financial Exigency, and ©

Phasing. Out Of Programs’

Cases of bond fide financial exigency, or the phas-

~ ing out of institutional programs requiring reduction

of faculty, may permit exceptions to tenure regula- ;

tions in unusual circumstances. |

(1) Faculty menibers involved in such adjust-

ments in emergency situations should be given oppor-

"tunities for appointinent in related areas provided

{a) they are qualified professionally to teach in suck. ©

areas, and <b) ‘such positions. are available.

(2) Faculty members who can present ‘prima

facie evidence of discriminatory treatment or in-

fringement of academic freedom in such emergencies _

have thé’ right to a fair hearing before an elected .

faculty committee. ~ 3 SO

(3) ‘Any faculty mémber involved in such a re-

adjustment process has the right to .reappointment

to his previous position if it is re- -established within |

two calendar years. _

APPENDIX ltl

_ Due ‘Process Proceedings In Dismissal |

‘Cases and Cases Where Academic

Freedom | Infringement Is Alleged *

Due process as set forth in this statement embodies |

‘a course of professional proceedings in line with

stated rules and principles generally recognized in

i a

‘the academic community. Due process cafries with -

‘itthe right of a tenured faculty member or a teacher

with an unexpired term contract to a fair hearing

before an elected committee of his peers. The pro-

cedure which follows illustrates how the principle of

due process can be adapted to individual institutions.

a. Personal Conference. When reason arises to ques-

. tion the fitness of 'a faculty member, the appropriate

administrative officers should discuss the matter with

him in personal conference. The-matter may be ter-

-minated by mutual consent at this point; but if arr

_ adjustment does not result, the matter should be

taken up by an advisory committee.

b. Advisory Committee. The advisory committee

should be a standing committee elected by the facul+

ty or'an appropriate organized faculty organization,

appointed by the President of the Faculty. Senate or

_ other elected faculty representative body, or appoint-

ed by the chief executive officer of the institution

froma faculty. elected panel., The committee’s pro-

ceedings may be informal and flexible. It should_

make such inquiry as it deems necessary, offer con+

fidential' advice to the faculty member and ‘the ad-

ministration, and attempt. to effect an adjustment. 3

If none is. effected, the advisory committee 2 the |

chief executive officer may recommend a ring.

If a hearing is to be held, the chief executive officer

should formulate a statement of the grounds for dis-

missal, giving due regard to the advisory committée’s

report. ‘These grounds should be reasonably detailed. -

~ Hearing. Committee. The hearing committee ~

should be.an elected ‘standing €ommittee, or a stand-

-ing or ad hoc committee appointed as noted ‘in the -

' paragraph above, .not - overlapping in membership *

with the advisory committee. The hearing committee ihe

Bre cn tan

~ co Koa)

should. include only. teaching faculty members of

‘tenure status, and each member should be sa gered

to to. challenge for cause. : :

ffa hearing is ricoetueliied. the chief executive -

officer should send a letter to the faculty member in-

forming him of*the grounds for dismissal proceedings, —

: and informing him that, should he so request, a hear; «

ing to détermine whether he should be removed from —

his. faculty position will be conducted by the: heating

committee at a specified time and place. The chief

- executive officer’s letter should inform the faculty —

* member of the procedural rights which will-be-ac-

‘corded to him in the hearing. These should include

an advisor of his own choosing to aict as counsel; a

full stenographic record of the proceedings, a tran-

script of which is tobe made available to him arid

to the President; the right to question itnesses; the

_ opportunity to be confronted by all witnessés adverse

‘to him; and, if a witness cannot- appear, the- right to.

3 name and statement of the witness. LAs

if the faculty member desires a eee should .

write to the institution’s chief executive officer within ©

a reasonable period; in. response to the statements

_8iven as grounds | for. his dismissal. a

‘Suspension of the faculty inethber from his usual

duties during the proceedings involving him is Justi-

fied only if his Welfare or that of the institution or

its students is threatened by his continuance. Any

such suspension should be with pay and with appro-

priate provisions for, useful duties whenever possible.

i deliberating, the committee shinai: allow oral. .

arguments or written briefs by the chief executive

officer or his representative, and by the faculty méeni-

29"

wear

’ é : e F . . af id Py

° a a : ‘ 35

"ber or-his representative. The committee should make = -_—|

explicit findings with respect to each of the grounds ~—Ss

_ of removal presented and should recommend whether

‘there is adequate cause for dismissal. The commit- :

tee’s recommendation should be conveyed in writing - |

to the chief executive officer and to the faculty mem- ;

ber. :

Governing Board. If the faculty dapber Sappoint- =

mént is‘ proposed to be terminated, the chief execu- ~~.

tive’ officer should transmit the full report of the }

hearing committee to the institution’s. Governing ‘

__- Board. If the Goyerning Board chooses to review the j

case, its review should be based on the record of the

previous hearing, accompanied by opportunity for

argument by the principals or their representatives.

The decision of the hearing committee should either .

be sustained or the proceedings be returned :to.the-

chief .executive officer and to the committee with .

objections specified. In such ¢ase, the. committee’

- should reconsider, taking account of the stated ‘ob-

jections and receiving new evidence if necessary. It

. should frame its reconsidered recommendation and

. communicate it in the same manner as before. Only.

after study of the committee’s reconsideration should

the Governing Board render-a written decision over-

ruling the committee. ‘

Publicity. The proceedings of the hearing committee oe

_ should be confined to the principles; their advisers, —

- the witnesses called by the commit, and such ob-

> servers as the committee may Specifically invite. Ex-

. cept for such brief}announcements as may be re-

_- quired, covering the ‘time of the hearing and related ©

_Matters, public statements about the case‘by-either -

the faculty member or administrative officers should

~~ Qt hza

a. «

- moted to replace him.

no ee — os \ eee

. > z\ - Ne

? . /

, . * : ° ~

a , i . wo ‘ 7 a Se a af .

DN oe a ° \ : 7 .- o. ‘ /

‘ * > : > 5° ° .

Agee SAL, a

al See ee . A . ° .

be avo ded $0. _= as possible until: thie proceedings:

have been. completed, Announcement of a final de: °

cision. should include a statement of the hearing com;

— mitté s original action, if this has. not. previously

~. been wtnage ae

APPENDIX IV ee] |

oe Recruitment and Resignation OF

oN: ; Faculty Members .- -:

Sound. procedures regarding the recruitment and

” yesigtiation of faculty members are essential for the

proper: functioning. of colleges and universities. The

_following nationally recognized statement is recom-

_ mended for both administrations and faculty mem-

bers'i in Texas State colleges and universities.

* ay ad

~ Mobility of faculty members among colleges and

“universities is rightly récognized as desirable in Amer- |

ican higher education: Yet the departure of a faculty

~ member always requires: ‘changes within his institu:

tion, and may entail major adjustments on. the part

| of his colleagues, ‘the administration, and students

"in his field. Ordinarily a-temporary: or permanent -

a "successor must be‘fourid and appointed to either his

position or the position of a Colleague who is pro-

. ~

Ina period. of. expansion of higher education, such.

as that already ‘existing and, promising to be evén

‘more ititensified as a’ pattern for ‘the coming years,

ee are’ e: required more frequently as the

—_ ———rr

N .

ae PQS LE a GD aOR eA oe i eens hit

37.

number of positions and of transfers among institu-

_tions increases. ‘These become more difficult than at

. other times,. especially i in the higher academic ranks.

Clear. standards of practice in the recruitment and.

_in the resignations of member's of existing faculties

_ should. contribute to an orderly interchange of per--

= sonnel that will be in the interest of all.

The standards set forth below. are fectiamninded:: :

. to administrations and faculties, i in the belief that -

_ they are. sound and should be generally followed.

They are predicated on the assumption that proper

provision has been made by employing institutions

for timely notice to probationary faculty. ‘members *

--and those. on term appointments, with respect to

their subsequent status. In addition to observing ap-. -

plicable requirements for notice-of termination to -

probatonary faculty . members,’ institutions should

make provision for notice to all faculty members not

‘later than March 15 of each year of, their s status the . -

following fall, including rank and (unless unavoid- |

-able budget procedures beyond. the institution for-

ame prospective salary.

” Negotiations Soaking to/the ‘pbasible | appoint- :

~ ment for the following fall of persons who are already _ |

faculty members of other institutions, in active ser-’

- vice or on leave-of-absence and not on terminal. ap-

pointment, should be begun and completed as early

as possible i in the academic year. It is desirable that,

_ when feasiblé, the faculty member who has been ap-

-_ proached with regard to another position inform the —

appropriate officers of his institution when such ne-

gotiations are in progress. The conclusion of a bind-

ing agreentent for the faculty member to accept an

appointment elsewhere should always be followed by

Proms notice tohisinstitution.. — ¥

. A faculty member should not’ resign in order to..

| nei other employment as of .the end of the aca-

demic year, later than May 15 or 30 days-after re-

-¢eiving notification of the terms of his continued em-

ployment the following year, whichever date occurs

later. It is recognized, however, that this obligation

will be in effect only if institutions generally. observe

the time factor set forth.jn the following paragraph

_for new offers. It is also recognized that emergencies

will occur. In such an emergency the faculty mem-

ber may ask. the appropriate officials of his institu-

- tion to waive this requirement; but he should conform

to their decision. :

3. To permit a faculty member to give due con-

sideration and timely notice to his institution in the -

cireumstances defined in paragraph 1 of these stan-

dards, an offer of appointment for the following fall

at another institution.should not be made after May

L. The offer should ee a “firm” one, not subject: to

contingencies. = . >

4. Institutions deprived of services of faculty mem- | -

_ bers too late in the academic year to permit their

‘replacement by secyring the members of other facul- .

ties in conformity to these standards, and institutions |

| otherwise. prevented from taking timely action to —

- recruit from other faculties, should accept the neces-

sity of making temporary arrangéments or obtaining

personnel from other sources, including new entrants

to the academic profession and faculty personnel who

have retired. | & # |

5. Except by agreement’ with his institution, -a

faculty member should not leave or be solicited to.

leave his position during an academic ygar for which

he holds an appointment. | | |

1 The Statement on Recruitment and Resignation of Faculty

Members, reprinted here, was adopted by the Association of

' American Colleges in January, 1961, with the following reser-

vations as. set forth in a preamble prepared by that Association’s ~

Commission on Acddemic Freedom and Tenure:

(1) No set of ry adopted by. the Association can do more

. . than suggest and recommend a course of action. Conse-

“quently, the present statement in no way interferes with

institutional sovereignty. . . 4 ‘

_(2) ‘The Commission realizes that the diversity of practice and —

control that exists among institutions of, higher learning

precludes any set ef standards from being universSily-ap- _

plicable to every situation. a : i a ®

(3) The statement is concerned only with minimum standards ©

. and in no way seeks to create a norm for institutions at -

which “better” practices already are in force. a

(4) The Commission recognizes the fact that “emergency” sit-

uations will arise’ and will have to be dealt with. However,

it urges both administration and faculty to do so in ways

that will not go counter to the spirit of cooperation, good

faith and responsibility that the statement is seeking to

Promote.

_ (5) The Commission believes that the Spirit embodied in the

proposed statement is its most important aspect. +

ne ceric 0 BE EEL IMIS A 1B ELIOT ARE ac hI OPT RnR, ELAN Mie se — seopennina

DECEMBER 1967 | a A A UP

WINTER ISSUE

bulletin |

| APPENDIX “c

~ Statements on Rights and Freedoms of Students

Program for Faculty Responsibility and Authority |

The Case for a Doctor of Arts Degree: A View from

Junior College Faculty . |

. Academic Freedom and Tenure:

Texas A & M University

Arkansas A & M College

_Geyney State College

State-Wide Coordination and. College and

_ _ University Faculties | :

Academic Freedom 9 Church-Related |

-, Colleges and Universities a

Texas Coordinating Board Statement on Academic

Freedom, — dnd Responsibility

——

7 publication of the American. Association of University Professors »

VOLUME 53... @ = .NUMBER4 |

; . . . a

7 SS MON aR ONT (on Pee 2 NA

. : . rm e

- ONS

4] oo

TEXAS COORDINATING BOARD STATEMENT ON

: ACADEMIC FREEDOM, TENURE, :

‘AND RESPONSIBILITY > -.

The following ‘statement was adopted unanimously

the Texas College and University System. Drafted

in the first instance by an Advisory Committee com-

posed of faculty members and administrative officials

from Texas colleges and universities, the statement as

adopted has been brought to the attention of each

‘freedom and responsibility have been recommended

for prompt implementation. as institutional policy;

the portion related to tenure is being presented to a

special legislative study committee in the hope that

it will be incorporated into a bill for action by the

Texas Legislature. “te os

The Association’s Committee A on Academic Free-

_ dom and Tenure’ discussed the statement and re-

- commended that it be published in the AAUP Bulle-

tin so that it can come'to‘the attention of the academ-

ic profession. The Committee hopes that the Texas

_ statement will be of particular interest to persons and -

_ groups in. other states which may. be considering |

statewide policy in these important areas.~

_ Statement on Academic Freedom, Tenure and

Responsibility for Faculty Members in ©

Texas Public Colleges and Universities |

The statement which follows, issued -in response “

to Section 14,. Paragraph 2, of House Bill 1, 59th

‘Texas Legislature, provides guiding principles de-

* signed to aid Texas colleges and universities in evalu-

on October 16, 1967, by the Coordinating Board of —

_jJunior and senior college and university in Texas. °_

Those portions of the statement related to academic ’ ©

eee.

SET es Sais as SLA SUUO MES: AES SRO EN LEAT NG ais SORE ERS AE EDIE MN PAC BA SE SERIE os om

ating ihe conditions of academic freedom, tenure, 7

and responsibility that ‘prevail on each campus. |

| I

Acsdemic Freedom

Institutions of higher education are conducted for

the common good: The common good depends upon

a free search for truth and its free expression. Hence,

it is essential that the faculty member be free to pur-

" .sue scholarly. 1 inquiry without undue restriction, and

to voice and publish his conclusions concerrting the —

significance of evidence that He considers relevant.

He must be free from the corrosive fear that others,

inside or outside the university°community, because

their vision may differ from his own, may threaten

~ his professional career or the material benefits accru- -

ing from. it.

Each faculty member is aniided to full freedom in -

. the classroom in discussing the subject. which he

teaches. Each faculty member is also’a citizen of his °

Nation, state, and community; and when he speaks,

writes, er acts as such, must be free from institutional |

‘censorship or discipline. ry 3 Re tes

ae on eo

Academic Responsibility

The concept of academic freedom must be accom-

panied by an equally: demanding concept of respon-

sibility, shared by governing stiaphics administrators,

and faculty members. :

jLhe essential responsibilities of governing boards

.and administrators are set forth in the Standards for -

Colleges, adopted by the Southern Assocation of

' ours and Schools, as updated ang revised.

+ . ; - . nes ie ™ per

The fundamental responsibilities of a faculty mem-

ber as a teacher and scholar include'a maintenance -

of competence in his field of specialization and the

exhibition of such competence in lectures, discussions, .

or publications. * .

* Exercise’ of professional integrity by a: faculty

member includes recognition that the public will '

judge his profession and his institution by his state-

‘ments. Therefore, he should strive to be accurate, to

“exercise ‘appropriaté restraint, to show respect for

the opinions of others, and to avoid creating the im-

pression that he speaks or acts for his college or uni-

versity when he speaks or acts ‘as a private person. —

A faculty member should be judicious in the use of .

| ‘controversial ‘material in the classroom and should —

_introduce such material only as it has clear relation-

ship to his subject field.

A faculty member has the responsibility to provide |

due ‘notice of his intention to interrupt or terminate

institutional services. : Be

BF |

Tenure Policies

A. Tenure:

- Tenure means assurance to an experienced faculty

.. member that he may expect to continue in his aca-

demic positions unless adequate cause for dismissal _

is demonstrated in a fair hearing, following establish-

ed procedures of due process. 7 :

A specific system of faculty tenure wndereints the.

integrity of each academic institution. In the Texas —

public colleges and universities, this tenure > system ;

should have these components:

, a

- full-time instructor or a higher rank, the probation- —

(1) Beginning with appointment to the rank. of

ary period for a faculty member shall exceed

seven years, including within this period appropriate

full-time service in all institutions of higher educa-

-tion., This is subject to the provisions that when,

“after a term of probationary service of more than |

three years in one or more institutions, a faculty

member is employ. ed by another institution, it may be

agreed in wfiting that his new appointment is for a °

‘probationary period of not more than four years

(even though thereby the person’s total probationary

period in the academic profession i is extended beyond

_. the normal maximum of seven years). —

(2) Notice of nonreappointment, or of intention

not to reappoint a faculty member, should be given

in writing in accord with the follow ring standards:,

_ (a) Not later than March’! of the first academic

“year of probationary service, if the appointment ex-

ires at the end. of that year; or, if a one-year ap- .

pointment terminates during an. academic year, at.

~_ least three So termination. .(b) °.. ’

Not later than December 15 6f the second year of

probationary service, if the appointment expires at —

the end of that year; or, if an initial two-year ap-

| pointment terminates during an academic year, at

- least’ six months ‘in advance of its termination. (c)

At least twelve months: before. the expiration of a °

probationary appointment after two or more years

in the institution.

3) Adequate cause: for ‘dismissal for a faculty .

member with tenure may be established by demon-

strating professional incompetence, moral turpitude,

or STOSS neglect of provera responsibilities.

-, iad

: : oi. y . A ’ .

° P : ; ‘ * :

. . * 2 ,

: ; .

. . - ‘

Ur scare anms z “ .

ee : ; ir °

: 5 . .

f ‘ : F :

, $ =

_ :Cases of bona fide Galicia emergency, or the °

" phasing out of institutional programs requiring re-

duction of faculty,. may permit exceptions of tenure

regulatons in unusual circumstances. .

B. Faculty Dismissals — 7

Proper dismissal procedures, established’ in ‘an- _

ticipation of their being needed, are essential to an

_ effective tenure system. In the Texas public college.

_and university system,-these procedures should have

the following components: Od

(1) These dismissal procedures apply to a faculty 7

_ member who has tenure, or whose term appointment

has not expired, or who alleges a prima facie case

of a violation of academic freedom in the nonrenewal

_ of his contract. If he has ténure or an unexpired ap-

‘pointment extending beyond the’ period of the pro-

posed dismissal, the burden of proof is upon the ad-

ministration to show adequate cause why he should’.

‘be dismissed. If he does not have tenure, but con- :F

tends that the nonrenewal of his contraét.constitutes.

a viplation of his academic freedom, thé burden of _ ,

proof is upon the faculty member. If a faculty mem-

ber on probationary’ appointment alleges that the

‘nonrenewal:of his contract constitutés a violation of

academic freedom, he.may request that ‘his allega-

- tions be given preliminary consideration by a faculty

commiittee. The committee shall. then recomm end |

' whether ieee: is warranted.

(2) The institution’s procedure i in dismissal « cases

described i in (1) above should include, first, a bona -

' fide effort to achieve a satisfactory resolution of ©

difficulties through preliminary i inquiry, discussion,

OF confidential mediation. 7

——————— “ PRES SE OO EE DEAL EOLA DSO lllgld. AY RR Map eig E « Pn

. ; 1

ee . 4

« : “e of

; « Ki

46 is

. oP

Should these efforts fail, presentation of reasonably

detailed and formally written charges should be\,

"made to the concerned faculty member. Presentation ;

of such charges shall provide for (a) a written re-:

‘sponse to the charges by. the faculty member, if he °

wishes a hearing; (b) opportunity by the faculty

member to a right to be reprefJnted by

counsel of -his chooSing, to"have a hearing before a

regularly elected faculty committee, to confront and

cross-examine witnesses, to know thé name and state-

“ment of a witness who for extraordinary reasons -

- does not appear at the hearing, to respond’ orally to

_ charges made against him, to have findings and re-

‘commendations made on ‘each of the charges, and to

be given a copy of a complete transcript of the hear-

ing, including the findings | of the.faculty committee; |

priate reviewing bodythe review: to include the -

_ findings and recommendations of the hearing com-

mittee, the opportunity of ‘the faculty :member and

university representative for oral argument, the re-

turn of the proceeding to.the hearing Committee if

_ the original recommendations are not sustained, the .

| study of the hearing committee’s reconsidered find-

ings and-recommendations, aid the tendering of a.

' final decision (which should be wfitten in. the rare

- casein which the hearing committee is overruled).

(3) Ifthe faculty appointment is to be terminated,

~ the faculty member, except-in cases of moral turpi-

tude, will receive his salary at least-for one year or

_ for the period of notice to which he is entitled under.

these regulations.. He will be continued in“his duties,

for that period unless at the discretion of the institu-

_ tion he be: granted a leave of absence with‘ pay.

, 47 “

‘Implementation. , ce

Within one’ year, and with appropriate faculty

- participation, each public institution ift Texas is ex-

\ pected to draft its own written statement on aca-

‘demic freedom, . tenure; and responsibilities. The _

: -statement should be based on the guiding principles -

described in the preceding paragraphs, and a copy

should be filed with the Coordinating Board, Texas’

College and University System. Each statement -

_ should detail a procedure. to be followed in case of,

- dismissal of 3 peony member.

THE STANDARDS FOR orice me:

_OF ‘NONREAPPOINTMENT

: (Endorsed by The Fiftieth Annual Meeting)

Because a probationary appointment, even though.”

for‘a fixed or stated term, carries .an expectation of”

"renewal, the faculty tnember should be explicitly in-

- formed of a decision not to renew his appointment, ’

in order that he may seek a position at another col- ©

lege ‘or university. Such notice should be given at an

early date, since a failure to secure another position

for the ensuing academic year will deny the faculty }

‘member the: ‘opportunity to practice his profession. —

The purpose of this-Statement is to set forth in detail,

- for the use of the academic profession, these stan-

dards for notice of nonreappointment which the As- ,"

_ sociation over a period of yeaf's has actively support-

__ ed and-which are expressed as a general principle in

- the sand T Statement of Principles on Academic F ree-

~dom Tenure. a

PMR alii agin eZ eet

sl aes ik Di oR ge

should be given in

“following standards:-— ~ —~

oo The Seabank for Notice

ce - nonreappointment, or of j intention not to _

tment ta the governing board,-

iting in accordance- with the

ty Not later than March 1 of. the tens ponies.

(2)

year of service, if the appointment eXpires at

the end of that year; or, if a one-year appoint-

ment terminates during.an academic year, at’

least three months i in advance: ‘of ts termina- :

tion.

N ot later than a ee 15 of shi aceeiid

.. year of service, if the appointment expires at -

the end of that year; or, if an initial two-year :

a appointment terminates during an academic _

year, at slid SIX, ‘months i in advance. of its

“.. terminat %

(3) At least twelve month before the expiration |

of an appointment after two or more > years

_,. in the: institution. . Se ee Stine

- sina wor

( : ao at oat x ae

\ , rae, ge

es ;

e .

. a

- 7 :

{ oy)

10444 CDT MAY 9 69 NSAO56.

“

: "APPENDIX “D”.

w a Telogrem

ONS NS PPAO03 PM PD VT

a oa 1040A st at

ee 1969 MAY 9 ‘AM 10.55 = :

DR ‘JACK ROGERS, PRESIDENT, DLY 2.

ODESSA‘ COLLEGE ODESSA TEX.

~_DEAR DR ROGERS: SENATE BILL $12 PER.

TAINING TO ACADEMIC. TENURE WILL BE

.HEARD IN THE SENATE CGMMITTEE ON .

STATE AF FAIRS ON MONDAY MAY 19° 1969

AT «2: 00 PM I WOULD APPRECIATE THE -

- PRESENCE OF DR SINDERMANN.OF. YOUR .

_ FACULTY IN ORDER THAT HE CAN TES-_

TIE ¥ ON THISBILL

- OSCAR H MAUZY SENATOR

8F-1201 (R5-69)

. i)

: ‘ . ¢ “i 6

- - om a ——

| : 3 ee

: ‘° rae Geli ae es ‘ ee

P ° ae. : , : . Sid a :

” ~t 2g “ . u Sate * . Me

aa ae Gam a as ta rete

: f aia . - wot * r a te eS a ee Ww " ve

. - ' \ paige ° . < 3

e. . ; ,

.« ; P

. . e ‘

g SLL MES MOMMA LLIN IIT POMS IMGT OAR SRI ye me le nist MOC ORME PRY tape RyGnennoMacanes

; ‘ ’ A ea

wniioda 4 T. “BILL MOORE

rs = a **

i a ee ia tal anis

2 set Gt ARR, ; :

. 4

. *. “s sf .

; eee

¢ e%

ie js “<< rd til -e

The Somatic: we:

The State as ‘Texas co

ae » notin s oe ae

DISTRICT 5 - ra ee :

BRYAN

“April 16, 1969.

: Mr. Robert "haa vege

P. O.Box 3752 :

‘Odessa, Texas 79760 oe pe : ; Rae

. Dear Mr. Sindermann: 2 ma ete : -

: *Thank you for your letter concerning shea two bills.

invelving junior colleges in your area. Since you_.

~ - have expressed interest in’ these’bills, I would like to

invite you. to testify on both when hearings are held.

Seriate Bill 512 will be heard Wednesday, April 23 -

* at 2:00 P.M. in the Senate Chamber. Although this

~~ pill is first on the calendar, we have had no hearings

_” this current week, and it is possible that. the nineteen -

-- bills scheduled for hearing may interfere. with the

position of S.B. 512. 7 this is true, I wi will attempt to.

, motify you. -

; Senate Bill 531, onde Peonian State tice &

scheduled for: hearing on Monday, April 28. By this .

' date I do hope that we .will have had no more fili-

. busters, as this week, and that we will be on schedule

as much as possible. Tf there i is any. —— ci I:

. will notify you..

We_have attempted this year to provide both pro-

ponents and opponents of a bill a full, nd com-

plete hearing. If you haye any other questions please —

do-write to me.

Sincerely: Yours -

_ William T. (Bill) Moore - ae

WTM/bb nee

pe in your question.

The oan 5: gem s

“FEDERAL PROGRAMS -

‘Te * AND?RELAHIONS ~ |

| The State g exas. VICE-CHAIRMAN;

- ; » Absetin: : y ae =

OSCAR A. MAUZY: . pd oot . CLAIMS

_ DISTRICT 23, i _ >.» (CONSTITUTIONAL

... SOUTHWEST er ‘COUNTY - "AMENDMENTS.

; ! RANCE _

INTERSTATE

COOPERATION

8 S : wen )

pe 16, JIGO 7. “pistRicis.

ie Fane Ce th. Bie Rac _s .* PRIVILEGES AND.

; ce “ee le i

Ps _ + ° STATE DEPARTMENTS

i es) es “AND INSTITUTIONS

ans gee ge YOUTH AFFAIRS:

‘Dr. Robert Sindermann. = ps ae

State President — at Se Pra regaes

Texas Junior College Teachers:

Association | . Sis

ae Odessa Colleg e

PR O. Box. 3789

i Odessa, Texas 719760

Dear Doctor ‘Sindérmann:

Thank you § for your letter of April 9, 1969. }

ae hope you can be with: us at the hearing’

on Senate Bill 512 on April 23, 1969,

_ before the State cae a Committee.

Twill be pleased to discuss with you, © 7 ae

~~ and the: other members of your-group who

will be here that ‘day, the matters raised

Sincerely, 4 ae ee

Oscar H. Mauzy

addwee

ele

ry .

ee Geeetaree ae

DD assis panniers eiwmncctiws

<. oe a - ee ’ - May 15, i969

| : TO ) WHOM IT MAY CONCERN;

: ee a Truett L. Hilliard |

coher es ssa ei ketaninete Shakin sod iin lens ahindcetsalitpattSie t

_ APPENDIX * 2 ae os =

- a

We, the dersigned, are ‘thembers e the. taculth

of the Socia Science pe TE of Odessa: Junior

mann is a pag competent person n professionally

and that we feel that nothing that he has said or -

done has, in any ways deroegated from his cannsaesce \

‘ ' Gn the classroom as-a lectufer ‘in Government at

eg Odessa, Junior College, Le EN dee

x ; *. pe

» .

David Yeilding - a :

| : Tom J. Heiting co eae ee

ee Dick K. Kennedy. ? |

, Darius J. Conger 3 -

» Ina Mae McCollom_ Pele y .

ee Robert B. Porter. Le : aa

ee bee OES Reinhart; PD

- MarySJanie Gentry ee S

— Ralph R. Swafford’ Aa ae

$ -

ad : ®

ky ya ~

ie —

. * 6 * ., x sy é / '

la ° : . J ; . : 2: 3 ho

SNe ‘ Snes ‘ " _ ; . :

. . 3 a. oo & . ’ + 2

Founded “In 1946 APs tale Naa ane

ae eaceee : Sar et er _ Odessa, Texas -'79760

my 19, 1969 ee

th. Robert P. ‘Sindermann ee oe ;

‘ Social Science Department ee [5 Se REY .

Odessa College Bere a ea

(Odessa, Texas 79760 ere : :

a Mr. Sindermann: Aes pe ee ee ms :

oa goes oe eet |

‘The Board of Regents: on Mays, 1969, per to- ap 3

prove my recomniendation not to renew your con-

tract for 1969-70. You have ‘been supplied with. a

statement, with attachments,’ indicating: the hsroexd -

for this recommendatiort. ee ii

= ?°

: ee : S

ie Rodgers :

’ President

ee “MOTION, FOR MORE.

DEFINITE ‘STATEMENT | ce eon

~ gig and Title Omitted. Filed: 5 at 11, 1969)

“TO THE HONORABLE : JUDGE « OF SAID

_ COURT: | Ge. |

= ae

—-

Ss NOW COME the: Board of £ Rebenits of Odessa 7

: o Soni “College. iri. their official Capea and file. -

= es i, and .

“7 as That i in paragraphs numbered XI; XXI1, ain’ a

“XXVII reference ‘is: -made to, other members of the.

. faculty of Odessa Junior College but such faculty =

| im embers aré not named and are not made’ parties’

* to the'suit. These defendants are entitled to know. the —

’ ‘names. of such alleged. faculty members, if any there

“are, and on whose behalf said suit Is | purportedly i

: big 5 er ue

3 - WHEREF¢ SRE, premises. considered, ‘these’ de:

: fendants pray that this motion. be set’'down. for hear-

' ing and that’ upon hearing hereof the Court order

that’ the names _of the alleged. faculty members be |

oe disclosed and included. in the pleadi ysif in fact .

ase

they are to: be parties to the suit or in no way iy involved —

_ therein. eo ee

2 = +

get GMAT es SEEN

ve?

‘ _ . ‘

in - eee al

PO od Gr ae ROR CM et ea nan amr aras ny Sane

. ‘ Ps een

| RAYMOND D. WIER- aie

me 300 North Jackson Avenue

' Odessa, Texas 79760 ?

ag ° ‘

‘ .¥

. OF a as A oi

s SO et ae Cn

% a .

\ Poe ; . _ : .

ot f ;

. 5 .

. ‘ y 5 .

. . . - .

j 35 =

‘ ;

! SHAFER, GILLILAND, DAVIS, ‘BUNTON ;

& McCOLLUM

P.O. Box 1552, Odessa, Texas 79760-— ae

Zs iL.

: 2 By. 6 W. O: Shafer @

Sak he “Shafer— sees :

Bunton ~ > >.

, Lucins D. Bunton.» ae

: _ MOTION ce) STRIKE.

~ (Nu umber and- Title 7

SLE. JUDGE ve SAID _

a Junior College i in their official capacity and as de-

fendants‘in the above .case and move to strike cer- -

Pee tain - ortions: ihe Plaintiff's Original ipa

"These dticceinusts move to xtrike paragraph num-' . a

. ‘ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT THEBOARD.-~ |

OF REGENTS OF ODESSA JUNIOR COL EGE /.\}

itted: Filed: Jun 11, 1968)

S the. Board of Regents of Ota:

_-bered VII for thé ‘reason, that the samé. is. hearsay

: and. has n no probative value and is prejudicial.

I. | :

These defenddhis move to. strike paragraph num-

| _-bered VIII for. the reason’-that the same is hearsay

and has. ‘no probative. value and i is prejudicial. _

4 fh

rs >

These defendants move to strike siastaiceih nuin-

e. . " . bt ye

LUAU RAY Ho LNT REL Ried A Eh atae

. e

‘ .

‘ . Ay

sida ag) ane adle won Seside citeeat acl

° : bd ‘

Y - Sh ie io ; : . : . e £ 2

; ose ” ° . ‘ , . °

. . By 2 ees * ; eae, eee es E :

° $e s mae Sere .

os Dies A esi 2a

bicrial xX fox the ‘reasori that’ the: sine is hearsay and :

has no probative vglue and i is promneh

' These defendants move. to strike para graph num-*

- bered ‘XII for the reason that the same is pare of

and has 1 no probative value and 1 is prejydeaa Soa.

he.

"These defendants move to strike paragraph num-

bered xii for the. reason that the same’ is hearsay. 2

ain has. no probative value and is prejudicial.

. Vi :

These ‘delcadants move to strike paragraph num-

2. btred XIV for the reason that: the same is hearsay -°

+ and has no probative value and 1 iS prejudicial. :

‘WHEREFORE, ‘premises considered, these. de- |

. “fendants pray that this motion be’set:down for hear-s- =

"ing and that upon hearing hereof the above para-' .

sgraphs be stricken from Plaintiff's S Original: ¢ Com- 7

plaint. - : pie

Se RAYMOND D. WIER |

_ 300 North Jackson Avenue. _

_ Odessa, Texas 79760

_ SHAFER, GILLILAND: DAVIS,

. BUNTON & McCOLEUM "

~ P. O. Box 1552, Odessa, —. sb dpalt gre

By s/ W. O. Shafer . ps

“1 “WO. SHAFER.“

os By sf Lucius D. Bunton oa

: “LUGIUS D, )», BUNTON °

‘ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

. THE BOARD OF REGENTS.OF

-_.* ODESSA JUNIOR COLLEGE -

- ORIGINAL ANSWER OF THE BOARD -

OF REGENTS OF ODESSA JUNIOR COLLEGE *.

- (Number and’Title Omitted. Filed: Jun'11, 28)

TO ‘THE HONORABL “JUDGE OF SAD © ic

‘COURT: Carne es

NOW COME. the Board of. Regents of Te ag

- Junior. College iri their official capacity asmembers _

- of such Board andi file this, their original answer, |

subject to their other pleadings herein, and for such 22

would respectfully show t to ine Court the pollens Mi

. to-wit:

: _FIRST DEFENSE her. Sees

oe These défendants admit: the allegations apni: ee

tied in paragraph numbered 1 of hese ied fae, |

~ nal Complaint. _ . mae

2. These. defendants. adit the’ allegations | con-:

* tained ‘in paragraph numbered IT. of Plaintiff's Ori- ce

~ ginal Coniplaint, ae pe ee

3. These eR RS the allegations con-

tained “in paragraph numbered , ll. pt Plaintiff's

——_ Complaint. * :

4. These defendants ea che sicgueest contain- * ,

_ edin paragraph — IV. of Plaintiff's ee e

Coinplaint. : oo

~™ 5. These -dblertinis’ admit’ the’ “allegations” con-

- tained in paragraph | numpered: V. of Plaintiff's Ori-- >

: ginal Complaint. oe 2

-6.. These defendants sitnait’ ‘the ‘allegations con- _§

. tained .in* paragraph - numbered VI.-of na oe

Original Complaint. .. md

' 7. These defendants deny. the siiadbicode ‘contain- oe

ed in patdereph | numbered VII. of Plaintiff's Ori-’ ee ae

_ tinal Com ocstaul bee hee

ae 2 ee

‘a :

2 “ » >

fA EAI GA Mori Sire of Ss ies

e . Pr)

fee, eae

iia rah. ie . Ma pinak iB

ti iinet Mt Sia Lac acalahe Late: »o\ of ad ns

« *e . .

in ae : ee

. Original Complaint.’

fees

Fac eet Re ty ae aie

mS ‘These defendant$ are without sufficient infor-,

mation to’admit or deny the allegations contained in :

‘paragraph numbered V4II of Plaintiff's Original ~

Complaint, and. therefore deny the same. -

9. These defendants admit the allegations contain-.

“edi in paragraph numbered IX. of, Plaintiff’ S Seow

Complaint. «

10. ‘These, défendants deny. the ‘anegutidns con- .

tained. in. paragraph numbered X. of Plaintiff's Ori-.

' ginal'Complaint. . .,

-11. These defendants Peres hs aikigitions con: |

tained in : paragraph numbered. - XI. of Plaintiff's .

Original Complaint. |

12: These defendants admit the allegrtions con:

“tained in paragraph numbered XI of Plaintiff's

13.-These defendants: deny | the siietrascs con-

~ ‘tained, in. paragraph numbered XIII. of Plainttff’s

_ Original Complaint. »

14. These defendants deny ‘the ‘allegations ‘con-

“tained in. paragraph numbered XIV. of Plaintiff S

Original Complaint... ._ . |

' 15. These defendants‘admit the’ sie cue. con-

tained in paragraph: numbered XV. of Plaintiff s

“Original Complaint.

16. These defendants fen the allegations con- ,

tained in paragraph numbered - XVI. = Plaintiff’ S

. Original Complaint. -

17. These defendants deny the ieestiens con-: - :

‘tained in paragraph numbered XVII. ‘of —— S

Original. Complaint.

18. These. defendants. Gent the allegations con-

tained in paragraph numbered XNIII. ef. Plaintiff’ Ss

Original Complaint. .

— ‘These defendants deny: the nieces: con- ~

tained in paragraph numbered XIX.. of Plaintiff's

Original ‘Complaint. . : ;

20. These defendants deny the allegations ee

7 “tained in paragraph mamma XX. of Plaintiff's eS

: Oniging} Complaint.

: -"Fhese defendants. deny the. silecatiogs con- aoe

tained” in paragraph ommeesig XXI- of Plaintiff's ies

Original Complaint. - : ;

. 22. ‘These indice deny the fee con- ,-:

tained in paragraph nymbered XXII. of Plaintiff's |

Origa Complaint: _—- - °

.23. These defendants deny the Sicemtions con-

‘tained in paragraph numbered XXIII. of Piaintait's

Cugum’ Complaint.

. 24. These defendants deny the allegations con-

tained. in paragraph: mumbere® XXIV. of Plaintiff's we

Original Complaint. — -

25. ‘These defendants deny: the allegations con-. |

_ tained in paragraph numbered XXV. of Plaintiff's E

Original Complaint. — ° sti

26. ‘These defendants ey the allegations con-

tained in paragraph numbered XXVI- of Plaintiff's 2

Original Complaint. = |

27. These defendants deny the eget con- a

tained i in paragraph numbered AXVII. of Plaintiff's st

Oniginal nae, . | 3s. : :

SECOND DEFENSE > 7 woe |

| * Subject to the admissions’ heretofore made and .

"such admissions as may be’made on the trial hereof, - ‘

. these defendants deny the allegati ns contained in. |

» Plaintiff's Original Complaint ' and demand strict —

EAL ERIN TMNT OPN IOI RL NL” 8 OR SMe

or yy 4 * ee " oe bt

° 14 « Cd *.

e . *.

_ proof thereof,

THIRD DEFENSE. |

~ These .defendants. allege that the Odessa Junior

~ College ‘enterd into a contract with the plaintiff to :

_- perform services.as a teacher and instructor, which _

‘contract expired on May 31, 1969: The Odessa Jun- . -

ior College’ has done and performed each, and every

*" "thing it ‘was required to perform under said contract.

_and-has discharged its full and complete responsi- —

bilities therein. and has no further obligation or lia-

~ bility” to the plaintiff herein: It is alleged: by the-

Ne plaintiff and it is.a fact that Odessa Junior College

has‘no tenure system and none has been acquired by

. .. the plaintiff in and these’ alert g have na

_ legal. obligati on im connection. therewith. ;

= 3 OURTH. DEF ENSE

"These defendants further allege and show that the.

- President of Odessa Junior College-who is charged

by law with-the. duty of making, recommendations

to the Board did not recommend to the Board: that

the contract of the plaintiff be renewed and this

Board has no legal authority, under such circum-

‘stances, to renew said contract and therefore has no

_ Tiability of any kind to the plaintiff aoa

FIFTH DEFENSE _

These defendants. further show aiid allege that

each and every decision made by‘ them in connection

with the contract with the plaintiff was.made in the —

utmost good faith, under legal advice, and in com-

’ pliance wih and pursuant to the laws of the State of -

- “Texas with which = are bound and Pere to

“comply. - /

WHEREFORE, premises considered, ‘these de- |

6h:

pas pray “that the plaintiff take nothing by fits

suit® and these: defendants be rai iap with their

costs. =

RAYMOND D. WIER __

300 North Jackson Avenue »

Odessa, Texas 79760:

~ SHAFER, GILLILAND- DAVIS,

BUNTON: & McCOLLUM

a: O. Box 1552, Odessa, Texas 79760 /

; By / W. O: ‘Shafer |

i “W. O. SHAFER

By s/ Lucius D. Bunton —

» LUCIUS D. BUNTON ©

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF

ODESSA JUNTOR COLLEGE _ .

, - 0 ° ,

- ORIGINAL ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT,

: DR. JACK RODGERS

_ (Number anid Title Omitted. Filed: Jun 11, 1969) ia

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF. SAID |

COURT: . ;

“NOW COMES Di ‘Jack Rodgers, individually

_ and as President of Odessa Junior College’ and files -

_ this, his original answer in this cause and for such

would: respectively show to the Court the following,

to-wit: 2 . ; : 7 ~

Te Sg va eaten

. a. ‘

« ?

SARANGI TSI LAF I eR ROAR HRD ARIE itty

a i ae

WAI ea TREN BU SR 2 og awoke r ‘ Peay eet ee

Rises WS ee RAL te ile ORI A Be a EAI ©

. Complaint.

FIRST DEFENSE.

1. This defendant admits the allegations conitates:

ed in paragraph. numbered I. of cme s Original |

_Complaint., — nA _

2. This dcfendant admits the shicsatthns contain- |

~ ed in paragraph numbered II. of Plaintiff? s Original

' Complaint. -

3. This defendant. eAinten she silos contain-

- ‘ed in paragraph numbered iit. of Plaintiff's Original

Complaint. | ;

4. This. defendant ies the aise contain- .

ed in paragraph numbered IV. of Flamer S Original :

5. This defendant adit the per contain-

| _ ed in paragraph numbered V. of Plaintiff's Original |

-Complaint. ,

6. This defendant admits the dilegaanis contain- |

ed in paragrag +numbered VI. of Plaingtt S ae .

Complaint.

7. . This defendant acsiew the allegations contain- -

ed in paragraph numbered VII. of Plaintiff’s Orig-

: . iftal Complaint. .*

8.° This defendant is withibas aifticicat shanna.

tion ‘to admit or deny the’ allegations contained in, Tt

- paragraph numbered VIII. of Plaintiff’s Original

Complaint, and thereforé denies the sanie.

9. This defendant admits the allegations ‘contain-.. ~

ed in paragraph numbered IX. of Plaintitf’ S Original -

: Complaint.

10. This defendant denies the niece oN

ed in paragraph numbered x. of Plaintiff's Original -

Complaint.

11. This defendant admits the ees Gons contain:

A 4 63 |

éd in paragraph numbered Xr. of Plaintit' Original |

‘Complaint. | |

¥2.. This‘defendant admits the allegations Satan

ed in paragraph numbered XII. of: Plaintiff's Orig-

inal Complaint. — .

13. This defendant denies the ‘lle ciwitlais contain-

ed in paragraph numbered XIII. of Plaintiff's Orig-

_inal Complaint. —

14. This defendant denies the allegations:contain-

_ed in paragraph numbered XIV. of Plagatitf’s Orig-

inal Complaint. xe

15. This defendant walcnits the siiiaticiia contain- 7

ed in paragraph numbered XV...of Plaintiff's Orig- :

~ inal Complaint.

16. This defendant. decites the allegations contain-

ed in paragraph numbered XVI. of Plamntiff's Ons-

inal Complaint. )

17. This defendant denies the allépatioits contain-

ed in paragraph numbered X-VHI- of pacraicvec oF

‘inal Complaint. »

18. This defendant denies the aliepatane contain- .

ed in paragraph nunibered XVI. of Plaintiff's

Original Complaint. —

‘19. This defendant denies the etic contain-

ed in paragraph numbered XIX. of pia a oe “. |

inal Complaint. |

20.. This defendant dinies the aibratinns contain: *

ed in paragraph numbered XX. of Plaintiff's Orig-

inal Complaint. |

— 21. This d@fendant denies he allegations contain-

ed in paragraph numbered XXI. of Plaintiff's Orig- .

| inal Gomplaint: —

- 22. isa defendant denies the allegations contain-

;

. . d bs

Sabha hc le aes ina cnt ASR Piette

“Ts -

i gy te

: ~ . .

| 6.

- edin — trambered XXII. of Plaintiff’ Orig.

. inal. Complaint.

at’ Odessa Juni

' tions in connection therewith to the Board of Re-

23. This defendant iis the allegations contain-

ed in paragraph numbered XXIII’ of Plaintiff's

Original Complaint. 3

24. This defendant denies ie allegations contain-

ed in paragraph numbered AAIV: of Plaintiff's

-- Original'‘Complaint.

25. Whis defendait denies the iced contain-

‘ed in paragraph numbered XXV. of Plaintiff's oar

- inal Complaint. -

26. This defendant detites the ‘allegations contain- -

ed in paragraph’ numbered ARV of ‘Plamtiff's

Original. Complaint.

' 27. This defendant denies the +a tot contain- ’

“ed in paragraph. numbered ' AVI. of Plaintiff Ss

Original Complaint.

SECOND DEF ENSE-

Subject to such admissions: heretofore made and,

_* such admissions as may- -be made on the trial hereof,

this. defendant denies the ‘allegations contained in —

- Plaintiffs Ori inal Complaint | and demands Strict .

proof thereof |

| THIRD DEFENSE

- This defendant alleges that he is charged by in

with the duty of exercising his best judgment in ‘the -

matter of. the a faa of instructors or teachers

College. and to make reconimenda-

gents. He alleges and shows that in pursuance of the

exercise of his best judgment he did not recommend

that the plaintiff’s contract be renewed for epee

“reasons and sufficient cause. He alleges that in his -

3 best wisdom. aiid “judgment the skaeiegh of said con-

tract, would not be in the: best interests of’ Odessa’

_ Junior College, and following that exercise and: in.

pursuance of the exercise of such wisdom and. judg- :: is

ment, he did.not..recommend the renewal thereof. a

“ This defendant alleges.that his action in so domg was

in the utmost good faith and discharge of duties im-:

_ posed upon him by law and in the discharge of re- _—

sponsibilities placed upon him as Presse . © dessa

3 ay College. ee se ed |

| Ne em | OURTH DEF ENSE

% ‘This defendant further alleges and pews that bes |

. fore making or disclosing his decision he asked for —

* andr eived legal advice from the attorney regularly

retained by Odessa Junior College and was by such oe

_attorney advised that he‘had legal authority to reach

.a decision not to renew the contract of thg plaintiff,

if he chose to do so, and that he was under no legal ©

‘obligation that maridatorily requirgd him to renew

_ the same. This defendant further alleges that he be-~ 7

lieved: then and believes now that he acted entirely

- in accordance with the law and alleges that his ac-

tions were taken onjy under advice, of competent

| counsel.

F IFTH DEFENSE

*. This, defendant further alleges and shows that his,

actions were not made by way of retaliation or in bad

faith in any manner whatever but were based solely

and entirely upon the best interests of Odessa Junior

College and represented. his discharge of an adminis-

trative decision imposed upon him by law and in

which decision:he is necessarily required to exercise

his best judgment, which he did. ! :

—

66.

3 ‘SIXTH DEFENSE |

This defendant further shows and weal that-no -

- hearing was granted to.the plaintiff hereon and none

was requested by him until a letter was written by.

the plaintiff at or. simultaneously with the filing of

~ -this lawsuit and received by this defendant after he

~ had read ,of the lawsuit being filed in the news- |

; papers. Neither this defendant nor anyone else was \ -

ae given any opportunity to provide the plaintiff with |

any sort of hearing-until he had been sued in this

case and the matter i mets in the hands of this ©

ne Court.

; WHE] EF ORE, premisés ececidered this defend: ‘

, ant prays s‘that the plaintiff take nothing by his suit

and this defendant be discharged with his costs.

* RAYMOND D. WIER . Ps

300 North Jackson Avenite

Odessa, Texas 79760 oe

SHAFER, GILLILAND, DAVIS/*

BUNTON & McCOLLUM

| P.O. Box 1552, Odessa, Texas 79760.

“By s/ W. O. Shafer -

W.O. SHAFER -.

ee s/ Lucius D. Bunton es

LUCIUS. D. BUNTON |

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT’

DR: JACK RODGERS cote

Eee

“ORIGINAL ANSWER OF THE 8 DEFENDANTS,

.CHARLES R. PERRY, WILLIAM L. PETTIT, _

GUY ELLIOTT, JAMES F. OCKER, G. KIRK

HARDING, R. C. MASON, OTTO PAVLICEK,

ee AND JOE €. ZANT ....’:

(N humber and Title ‘Omitted. F iled: Jun 11, 1969)

.TO:THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID.

COURT: (jis neat pay

"NOW COMES Charles R: Perry, William L: Pet-

ait, Guy Elliott, James F. Ocker, G. Kirk Harding, re

-R. C.: Mason, Oito Pavlicek and Joe Zant, in their

~ individual capacities.and file this their original ans-

wer and for such would respectfully show to the

court the past to-wit: |

“FIRST DEFENSE :

1, These ‘defendants: admit the silgnitiinii cos

tained i in paragraph numbered I. of Paes Orig: ;

indl Complaint. 4 — .

2. These defendants admit the ‘illewesitcon. con:

tained in paragraph numbered II. of Famers ne: aes

_ inal Complaint.

3. These defendants adtinit de eetiets con-

tained in paragraph | numbered Til. of : Piamntitt's a

- Original Complaint. | 5

- 4. These defendants deny the allegaticais contain: ©

ed in paragraph numbered IV. of Plaintiff's ee !

Complaint: |

5. ‘These defendants eae the allegations céntain- 3 :

ged in paragraph numbered V. of acesieget — oe

cca

\ A

“Ye?

ee sina deferidants - pene the. sticiations con-

tained in paragraph numbered VI- of, say pas

_ Original Complaint:

7. Thege defendants deny the allegations contain- x

ed i in paragraph numbered aoe of creat s ‘One: ss

Ris: Complaint. - fe

- 8. These defendants are. without sufficient Sifor:

- mation to admit*or deny the’ allegations contained in

paragraph numbered VIII of Piaintiff’s er 4

“, Comphunt,, and therefore deny the game. - :

9. These defendants admit: the allegations con-*

' tained in paragraph numbeted IX. of Plaintiff's

| Original Complaint. Age es

f tained i in paragraph numbered X. of Plaitiffys Orig-

"inal Complaint.

..10. These defendants deny the oon con-

-11.. These elaniis admit the allegations con- |

rained in’ paragraph BSCE: ‘XI. of Pia aintiff's

pel a Complaint. "

_. 12. These defendants addinit the allegations com

tained in para {raph nurhbered ae of Plaintiff's :

fe Original Complaint.”

_- 13. These: defenckanits: ay the Cicaisas ‘sae :

. tained in patagraph humbered XII of Plaintiffs :

- Original Complaint.

14, ‘These defendants deny the allegations con- 4

tained’ in paragraph numberéd XIV. “Of ‘Plaintiff’ s

Original Complaint. ’

Te These defendants admit the aiheiaieul con,

tained in paragraph | numbered “XV. of Plaintiff's

Original’ Complaint.

Sot These defendants deny t the allegations con-. |

“tw «4

, )

ind

1. ; : ; : E 3 epee, A; ; , 69

tained in- “pirical numbered XVI. of Blain’ :

__ Original Complaint. : a

das defendants -deny- the Sipe” con-

tained in paragraph numbéred VE. ‘of Plaintiff's

Original Complaint. — e

18. These defendants deny the afhegaieioais: ‘con-

- tained:in patagraph rts a XVIII. of Plaintiff's :

_ Original Complaint. , i

19. These: defendants ‘deny. the ani. con-

| ers paal Comp Ja numbered, XEX. of Plaintiff's :

a These AP ILGM dey the ailegativin. con-"

tained in paragraph numbered xX of Plaintiff's

ms ngiiat Complaint. :

you's e These defendants deny: the ‘aileguioes con-

+ tained in ragraph numbered, ! XXI. of Peaentiit's os

Original omplaint. ‘ pee .

ies These defendants deny the Ree con-

tained ‘in .paragraph nysabered, iy = PORE A

Original Complaint. ~~

A eS These Metcosanes eee the: allegations see

-. tained in paragraph numbered XXIIL. of Plaintiff's .

sii Complaint.’ rite wit in &

24. These defendartts pes the- allégations con- ae

“tained 3 in paragraph numbered: XXIV: of Plaintiff's

Original Complaint. =

- 95. These defendants deny- ithe allegations. con-

y tained in paragraph numbered XXV. * Plaintiff's

Original Corhplaint. .

26: These defendants deny the @ilegations con-

| tained in paragraph numbered XXVI. of Plaintiff's

4 eee Comer 3 rs

f P CM

— - . . — 7 7

Ww:

70.

| tajned in-paragraph numbered XXVIII. of Plaintiff's

97. Thesé defendants dexiy’ the ra ee |

Original Gomplaint..

- SECOND DEF QISE

Subject. to such adinission heretofore. made and

such admissions as may.be made on the trial hereof, _

these defendants deny the allegations contained i ay

~ Plaintiff's Original. Complaint’ and demand strict

proof thereof. -

_y THIRD DEFENSE

These defendants allege that: the Odessa - Junior

College entered into a contract with the plaintiff to -

" perform services as a teacher _and instructor, which

contract expired on May 31, 1969. The Odessa Jun-

. _ lor Collgge has-done and performed each and every

thing it was required to-perform under said contract

-and has discharged its :full and complete responsi-

‘bilities therein and has no further obligation or lia- _

_ bility to the .plaintiff herein. It is alleged by the,

plaintiff and it is a fact that Odessa Junior College

has no ténure system.and none has been acquired by . _

the plaintiff herein and these defendants. have no

» legal peer? in connection therewith. y

FOURTH DEFENSE

These defendants further allege and show that the

President of Odessa Junior College who is charged

_ by law with the duty of making recommendations to

the Board’ did not recommend to the Board that the -

contract of the plaintiff be renewed and this Board

has no legal authority, under such circumstances, to

renew said contract: and therefore has no liability .

- of any, kind to the 1 ca herein.

: _ ¢

? °

FIFTH-DEFENSE | |

These defendants further show and allege that E

each and every decision made by them i in connection | 7

with the contract with the plaintiff was ‘made in the

_-utmost.good faith, under legal advice, and in com-

pliance with and pursuant to the laws of the State -

of Texas with which ary. are bound and obligated os

to comply. -

WHEREFORE, premises soeiedered these de-

_fendants. pray that the plaintiff take nothing ‘by his

suit and these defendants be a with their |

costs.

RAYMOND D. WIER ~ 2

300 North JacksonAvenue | @ /—

Odessa, Texas 79760 *

SHAF ER, GILLILAN D, DAVIS,

BUNTON & McCOLLUM.

P. O."Box 1552, Odessa, Texas 79760 ©

- By s/ W. O. Shafer

W. O. SHAFER ©

By..s/- Lucius D. Bunton .

+ LUCIUS D. BUNTON

_ ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

CHARLES R. PERRY, WILLIAM L.-_-

PETTIT, GUY ELLIOTT, JAMES F.

OCKER, G. KIRK HARDING, R. C...

MASON, OTTO PAVLICEK AND »

‘JOE C. ZANT. | | Hl

—O—.

Sc vil ds Mais eae aaa Nea aoe

: press - release issued by the. Defendant, Dr. Jack

“ Rodgers.‘

- 16, 1969, not to renew his contract. _

= AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF:

A MOTION FOR AN IN JUNCTION

(Number and Title Omitted. Filed: Jul 14, 1969)

Robert Sindermann, being ; first duly sworn, ‘on

sath deposes and Presents: the following:

That he is the Plaintiff i in the Hera ove c style F

' Case.

That his contract with Odessa Junior College was ,

| not renewed. for the school year 1969-1970.

- That he -was given no written: charges as to the

reasons for his contract not being renewed.

7 4. 5

_ That.the only statements in regards to the reasons.

for his contract not being renewed was an 11 page ©

5. dl

‘That the only reasons gleaned from the above

mentioned press release as to the Plaintiff's contract

not being renewed were his participation in the pub-

lic controVersial issues.

That the Plaintiff was’given no hearing of any.

nature by any person or body connected with Odessa

Junior College before the decision was made on May

% :

| That this affidavit is made in the support of a.

motion for Injunction in which this court should |

order the Defendants to maintain the same contrac-

tual relationship with the Plaintiff that it had for. -

the school term 1968-1969: In that the Défendants

should be ordered to hold a hearing along the lines

established. by the Texas Coordinating Board.

s/ Robert P. Sindermann -

ROBERT P. SINDERMANN

- SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to ‘before nie this

27th ey of May, 1969.

s/ Chris’ Horn . :

| .° Chris Horn, A Notary Public in

(SEAL) and for Ector County, Texas.

"*. +. My commission expires June 1971.

; . | : 0 » .

ORDER DENYING PETITION |

F OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

( Number and Title Omitted. F iled: Jul 15, 1969)

Came on to be considered the Plaintiff’s Petition

for Temporary Restraining Order in the above cause,

and the Court, having considered the Petition, the

briefs filed herein and heard the oral argument of

counsel, is of the opinion that said Petition for Tem- .

porary Restraining Order should be, and prey) IS.

DENIED. °

ENTERED. THE 15th ies of jalys 1969.

-s/ Ernest Guinn | |

UN ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

—0— ‘

NCAP Bre 4 SO re

ones oe ‘

‘47. (1962) the Cour

municipal corporation and the governing board of

- such municipality. The Court dismissed the suit —

MOTION TO DISMISS OF THE DEFENDANT |

| BOARD OF REGENTS OF | |

ODESSA JUNIOR COLLEGE

(Number and Title Omitted. Filed: Jul. 18, 1969)

TO THE oar rarogins JUDGE OF SAID |

COURT:

NOW COMES the peleiant fie Board of Re-

gents of Odessa Junior College and moves ‘the Court ©

to dismiss this suit insofar as it telates to the Board

of Régents of Odessa Junior College as a party de: .

fendant, and as grounds for such motion. would re- °

spectfully show to the Court the following, to-wit:

1. ,

In Paragraph IV of the Plaintiff's Original Com: *

plaint, the Board of Regents of Odessa Junior Col-

lege, as a body, is made a party defendant in this —

case and it is alleged therein that such Board of

Regents is “a body~corporate duly organized and

existing under. the general laws of: the Staté of

-. Texas.”

Whether the Board as “such i isa “body corporate” -

" may be subject to question but whether it is or |

whether it is not, still yet it is not-a proper party. to

this suit. A “Board” as such i ig not a person within

the meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. $ 1983 under which

this lawsuit is brought. Neither is the “Board” a

proper party under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343.

In the case of Roketts v. Trapnell, 213 Fed. Sup.

ad before it a suit against a

which was brought’ under 42 U.S.C.A. §_1983 and

| stated its. reasons therefor as follows: 7

“( 1) Lower Merion Township, a municipal cor-

- poration, is a First Class Township and governed.

_ , by the ‘Pennsylvania First Class Township Code, |

53 P.S. § 55101 et seq. Under such Gede, the cor-

porate power .of a township of the first class is

vested in the Board of Township Commissioners. -

See 53 P.S. § 56502. The Board has the general _

power to prescribe the manner in which the powers —

of the Township are to be carried out and to re-°

'gulate the affairs of the Township. |

(2) The Civil | Rights Act under ‘which this :

action was brought does not include municipalities

within the definition of “persons” who may be sued” »

for violation of § 1983. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S.

167,187,191,81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed. 2d 492 (1961);

Egan Vv. ‘City of. Aurora, TIL, 365 U.S. 514, 81

S'Ct. 684, 5 L.Ed: 2d 741 (1961); Hewitt v. City |

~ of Jacksonville, 188 F.2d 423, 424, (Sth Cir.

1951), cert. den., 342 U.S. 835, 72 S.Ct. 58, 96 |

L.Ed. 631 - (1951); Charlton v. City of Hialeah,

188 F.2d 421, 423.(5th Cir. 1951).

(3) In this case, the Complaint against the .

“Commissioners of Lower Merion Township” will.

_ be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which

relief can be granted in this court arid for lack of

jurisdiction over the subject matter. The.“Com- ~

_ missioners of Lower Merion. ownship,” who com-

prise the Board possessing the corporate power

of the municipal corporation, were sued as a legal

* entity.’This Complaint cannot be sustained under

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Handy Cafe, Inc., v. Justices |

of the Superior Court, 248 F.2d 485 (1st Cir.

1957), cert. den: 356 U-S. 902, 78 S.Ct. 561, 2

L.Ed.2d 580 (1958). See Monroe v. Pape, supra,

Se eae

- ‘ . F | . t

re ! \ ‘

“ ” . n bY ' -

ell 2 Ai oR cra thi

‘ . ‘ ‘ ar |

. ,

and Egan v. City of Aurora, supra. There is no ,

diversity of citizenship.”

_— Again, in the case of Johnson Vv. Hackett, 284 Fed.

‘Sup 933 (968) the Court had before it another suit

. against a- municipal corporation andthe: governing

__body of such corporation. The Court again dismissed

the complaint ‘as against the township and as against,

_ the Board and disposed of the-matter summarily i in -

avery. braef statement as follows:.

a 1,2) Bristol Township, a municipal corpora- |

tion, is not a. “person” subject to suit under the:

Act, Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81. S.Ct. 473, |

5 L.Ed. 2d 492 (1961). Under Pennsylvania law,

the corporate power of. townships of the first class 7

"is vested in the Board of Commissiners. 53 P.S.§ |

56502. As a body politic, the Board is likewise not

"~ subject to suiteunder the Act. Roberts v. Trapnell,

213 F. Supp. ‘47 (E.D.Pa. 1962). No attempt has —

- been made to sue the Commissioners individually.

The complaint will be dismissed as ‘to Bristol.

Township and the Board of Commissioners.”

The Supreme Court of the United States in a‘un-

animous opinion insofar as this particular point was .

concerned, set this matter at rest long ago in the

‘ case of Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S: 167, 5 L.Ed.2d492,

81 S.Ct. 473, when Mr. Justice Douglas, delivering

_ the opinion for the entire Court, stated as follows:

“The response of the. Congress to the proposal -

‘to make municipalities liable for certain actions .

being brought within federal purview by the Act |

of April 20, 1871, was so antagonistic that we

cannot-believe that-the word “person” was used

’ in this particular Act to include them. Accordingly _

- we-hold that the motion to dismiss the complaint _

’~against the City of Chicago was properly granted.”

. The above language: -of Mr. Justice Douglas makes it

absolutely and totally clear that the word “person”

| ra used.in Section 1983, was not intended to include .

corporate entities or, for that matter, the Boards i in

whose hands the affairs. of the corporate ertity are Z

entrusted. ° |

WHEREF ORE, premisés igaeres: the defend-

ant The Board of Regents of Odessa Junior College,

as such, respectfully moves the Court to dismiss the — .

’ cause of action as to it and that all costs incurred in, -

_ that. connection be assessed against the. plaintiff.

| RAYMOND D-WIER_

~ 300 North Jackson Avenue ~

Odessa, Texas 79760

SHAFER, GILLILAND, DAVIS,

BUNTON & McCOLLUM.

P.O. ‘Box 1552, Odessa, Texas

By s/ W. O. Shafer -

- W. O: SHAFER |

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT |

THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF

ODESSA poMOn | COLLEGE : )

—0—

ae ha Sede Reka cle Te a BF Ser OL A REN Te TRG

° .

. bd a‘

. .

.. . Te .

’ sea LiSseaenbtileuaaneiis te Aas

sa eel Bah a ha a

- MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON —

BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS, CHARLES

_R. PERRY, WILLIAM L. PETTIT, GUY

ELLIOTT,. JAMES F.. OCKER, G. KIRK

HARDING, R. C.. MASON, OTTO-PAVLICEK:

AND JOE C. ZANT, INDIVIDU LX, AND DR. |

_ JACK RODGERS, INDI

__ PRESIDENT OF ODES: JUNIOR COLLEGE

_ (Number dnd Title Omitted. Filed: Jul 18, 1969)

‘TO THE HONORABLE. JUDGE OF SAID

_ COURT:

NOW COME Charles R. Perry, William L. i

‘tit, Guy Elliott, James F. Ocker, G. Kirk Harding,

~R. C. Mason, Oito Pavlicek and Joe C. Zant, indi-

vidually, and Dr. Jack Rodgers, individually and as

President of Odessa Junior College, defendants in ,*

_ the above entitled and numbered cause, and move’

the Court to grant ‘them a summary judgment in

this cause and as grounds therefor respectfully wai

to te Court the following:

| | | a

- The pleadings and affidavits on file conclusively

show that there is no justiciable issue of fact in this.

case aryl that these defendants are entitled to 0 judg-

ment ap matter of law. | hs

et i

The Plaintiff S ‘Original Cor Atal this case by 7

‘ which. he-is irrevocably bound(confesses and admits

that these defendants acted. not only | upon adequate

cause but upon severe provoca declining to

enter into a new contract of employment with: the

plaintiff i in the case.

eh Ree

The pleadings on file i in this case and particularly

= disputed the following facts:

‘the plaintiff, by letter, request

- (a) That the plaintiff was ‘ériiployed a: asa ne

- at.Qdessa Junior College for-the school, year 1968-.

- 1969, which ended May 31, 1969. (Plaintiff's One: oe

inal Coniplaint, Par. VI) so

‘(b) That Odessa Junior: College has no éennre :

system and this factgwas: not only known to the

plaintiff at the time he entered into his original con-.

_ - tract with the College but such fact was affirmatively

. stated in the Faculty Gude which was in use at the

time of the comméncement of his employment, as

well as at all times pertinent hereto. (Plaintiff's. _

eee Complaint, Par. NU; Plaintiff’ S atin ee

» page 3).

‘(c) That on the Sparen of April 22, 1969 the

plaintiff requested permission from the President. of

the College.to be absent from his classroom and his

‘teaching: duties for’ the purpose of appearing and tes-, - “[

tifying at Austin, Texas in support of certain legis-

lation. This permission was denied. and refused by

the President of the College, whose decision in such

' matters is final under the provisions of the Faculty

_ Guide. In spite ofthe refusal, the plaintiff was ab-

sent from his classes and went to Austin to testify in

connection with.the legislation involved,but no,hear-

_ ing was held. Again, under date of :April 25, 1969 |

oN permission from the met

. Chairman of his Department to be absent from his

classes on April-28, 1969 for the purpose again .of

going to Austin to testify in support of certain legis-

_ lation. The plaintiff was again denied ———— to.

2, de oe

be. absent from his’ lassie duties and this refusal oe

_ was delivered in writing to his home.on April 6:

1969. In ‘spite of .this refusal by his superiors, the

plaintiff by letter dated April 27, 1969 advised the ‘

Chairman of his Department that he would be absent .

anyway on April 28, 1969, and he was so absent _

g from his classes contrary to the instructions of -the ;.

': Administration." {Plaintiff’s Appendix _ “A”, Pages

7 and’8). Plaintiff affirmatively pleads in his, Com- _

‘plaint and it is his position that these absences were - .

“unauthorized” and /without “the College Adminis-. _

-» tration’s approval”. (Plaintiff's ee mn iaas, as

. Par. XII) ee:

| “(d) That as an integil part of his case o: pinicieePy a

‘position is that the undisputed, willfull and unauthor-

ized -absences from his classroom are not | “sufficient

' cause for the dismissal of a fagulty member” Seodessigs |

tiff’s Origirfal Complaint, Par, XIII):

ie ) That this is not a case in which the contract

. _ existing between the plaintiff and Odessa College:

; was terminated but it is a case in which the plaintiff

seeks to force: the College to rfiake a new coritract-

_. with him for'a new and different school year, to-wit:

1969-1970. -. (Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, Par.

XV) chee

(f) That the plaintiff had written notice of the

reason, for his contract hot being renewed at least on.

" suit, was filed because he was at that time in posses-

gion of Appendix “A” attached to his Complaint in.

which his denial of tituted authority and willful -

insubordination by tat written instructions was

clearly set out. . Satins

(g) 7 That in the Appendix attached to Plaintiff ...

“

. ° .

2 i Rebs EE Aap at Se EE ae HE DORON ED

- > . . i °

Aseisd so iek

| arenes Sims Soins R

. F ~

. ° +

ov Original Complaint it. is uffirrdatively’ shown that

__ his activities in connection with a Committee has

_never been called to his attention by any member of

* the Board of Regents or by any member of the Ad-

ministration. ‘The plaintiff. does not plead any facts:

in -his Original. Complaint in tontradiction, or in’ —

-derogation ‘of: this portion of the Appendix ,upon

which he relies and bases his case. Neither does he

plead at-any place in his Complaint where his con-

', stitutional or civil rights were denied him or. refused

him, but, on the contrary, his pleadirig.and his‘at- 4

| tachments affirmatively show that he at all times

fully exercised all such rights. His pleadings do show

ae that his actions in connection with the Committee

in, question were in clear violation of fhe statement

cadentic Freedom as adopted by Odessa Junior.

‘College. (Appendix “A’’, page 6) ( Academic ae. :

_ sponsibility’ Appendix “ei, ‘Page 2 and 3)

| (h)*That under date of May 19, 1969 the Presi- as

-. dent of Odessa: Junior College : furnished Mr. Sinder-

‘mann with a.statement indicating the basis: for his

contract’ not being renewed. (This letter is-an Ap-

pendix to Plaintiff's Original Complaint but i ismot

_ identifed by letter or number. dt ye

Each and all of the ‘above hnd fooeaokan faci are.

_.established without contradittion or dispute by the

_ plaintiff's own pleadings in this case and dre not only

' admitted by him but are relief Gpon by.him and con-— |

stitute judicial admissions. |

7 a dhes IV.

‘The thrust of the plaintiff’ $: pleading is to seck -

relief to which he is not entitled under his.own plead- —

ings. His pleadings show that the-contract under

ae he was employed has i oarehare He asks this

mer

m ~ *

* . .

: ae TET

. Pans "

a ;

pommmnensnennee oC SEE i eran samt uae ass a enna suenenunene ——

82 |

Court to Gake anew contract for him by forcing the

_ Board of Regents in a non-tenure college, in a non-

_ tenure state, to employ him for an additional period

of time and for a different school year than that for

which he was employed. |

The basis for his suit is without foundation in aw.

and seeks to unilaterally create a contract that does

“not exist by imposing terms upon the Regents which |

= did. not os, when the contract was made.

“ pie 2% eae VL :

His basic and fundamsatal premise is to superim-

he upon Odessa Junior: College the requirements

f aly college, which it's not,-and-by such super-

“imposition t ereby creating for himself an artificial

denial Of. constitutional rights and due process by

_ ignoring the fact that his dismissal’ was upon ade- °

quate cause under a tenure ar non-tenure policy. Even.

'.. if this premise, for the purpose of this motion only,

2 ‘is considered by tt 3 Court, still yet, the plaintiff's

. "+ * ¢ase must fall. His in retation of due process as

. pleaded by him is notice of hjs charges and-a hearing. .

It is undisputed and without stion that he ‘has .

. received: notice of the charges agaimst him and the. -

-. reasons for his dismissal. A hearing: wo be futile |

‘And superfluous. The only’ purpose that: cottld: be

served by.a hearing would be to determine, the suf-

ficiency of his derelictions. The reasons for-his dis-

-missal are established as a fact without dispute or

controversy. His own pleadings ‘affirmatively show

a complete violation. and ‘disregard of affirmative i in- -

structions from the Administration on two occasioris

within, a period of ten days. “The questicn involved. is

. . - a ; .

4 : : “ 7 : 4

: ". '

—

ur.

/ 83.

: one cof. discipline and ssehoney, It strikes t the very

-. by constituted authority. The ques@pn of whether his

deliberate and willful violation of the written orders. -

-of his superiors on two. occasions is. sufficient and

adequate grounds for his contract not being renewed —

_isa matter of law for the Court. There is no fact issue

. involved to be determined at any hearing whether

‘such hearing be before this Court or before a ‘faculty .

committee or before any other body. It is conclusively |

". and undeniably established by the record in this case

that the violations deliberately and willfully occur-

red. The only question remaining in the case is one ~

of law; to-wit: whether or not such violations are ade-

quate reasons for non-renewal of the contract.

Therefore, even if it be conceded, for the ar

of this motion only, that due process, i.e., notice and.

hearing, are involved in this case, then plaintiff has

_ established by his own pleadings that he has had

. ample notice and that no purpose could be served by

a hearing of any kind béfore any Court or any body

or any’ committee. .Not only has he flaunted. his in-

subordination before his superiors at the College, but

‘he now flaunts that same insubordination before

this Court by pleading affirmatively his willful dis-

. regard of-written instructions of his superiors. The

‘matter is.one solely and.entirely of discipline for in- -

subordination. As a matter of law, the insubordina-

‘tion is not only adequate. and ‘sufficient reason for.

‘the nonrenewal of this contract, but aré in fact com-.

pelling and imperative if. there is any hope for dis-

cipline to be maintained. in Odessa Junior College.

- The authorities cited by the plaintiff to this Court |

have no application whatever to.a.disciplinary pro-—

‘ ee

yee

a 2 * — Me

pers LOO LINE A AGB ST Ty

a7 °, .

: . ° :

WEporomcewcaneinse 6 UR es es sate. ‘ OTIS EO SOE A Bia RIE ls OREN hc

> .

-84 ©

blem such as here presented under the most favorable __

interpretation of the plaintiff's pleading in this case. .. |

Even the Supreme Court of the United States recog-

* ‘nizes this distinction and understands the problem ‘—

involved. In the case of Pickering v. Board of Edu-

‘cation, 391 U.S. 563, 20 L.Ed.2d 811, 88 S.Ct. 1731,

which case is the heart of plaintiff's authorities, re-

cognizes that discipline by immediate superiors is of

the highest priority in the operatiori of any school or _

| college. In reaching its decision in that Pickering

case, the Supreme Court of the United States said:

“Thus no question of maintaining either discipline

by immediate superiors or harmony among co-work-

ers is presented here.”* (Emphasis mine).

. It could not be:seriously contended by the plaintiff

that freedom of speech includes’ the right’ to make

trips to foreign cities over the objections and instruc-

tions of plaintiff's superiors, and absent himself from

his classroom and his duties. (If such were true, a:

private first’ class in the army at San Francisco,

would have the right to go to Washington to appear.

before the Congréss on defense spending—regardless

of the wishes of his commanding officer. ) :

Vil. °.

’ Under any theory or any interpretation of plain-

tiffs pleadings, there is no fact issue in this ease,

nothing reniains to be adjudicated, and the question

presented is one only of, law for determination by the |

Court.

WHEREFORE, premises. Considered these de- > |

fendants pray that judgment: be entered for each

_and all of them and costs be assessed against the - |

— 7

- RAYMOND D. WIER

300 North Jackson Avenue

_ Odessa, Texas 79760

: “SHAFER, GILLILAND, DAVIS,

BUNTON & McCOLLUM

P. O. Box 1552, Odessa, Texas

B s/ W.O.Shafer__.

_ W.O. SHAFER

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

-CHARLES R. PERRY, WILLIAM L.

PETTIT, GUY ELLIOTT: JAMES F.

_OCKER, G. KIRK HARDING, R. C.

MASON, OTTO PAVLICEK AND

JOE C. ZANT; INDIVIDUALLY, AND - :

DR. JACK RODGERS, INDIVIDUAL-

LY AND AS PRESIDENT OF ODESSA

| JUNIOR COLLEGE

“AFFIDAVIT IN. SUPPORT OF A

MOTION, OPPOSING.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Number and Title Omitted. Filed: Jul 28, 1969)

Robert. Sindermann, being first duly sworn, on

oath deposes and Pee the following: :

: ae A |

That ‘he is the Plaintiff in the hereinabove styled _

Case. — . .

That his contract with Odessa ‘Junior Gollege was

not renewed for the. school year 1969-1970.

’ That he was given no written charges as to the

_ reasons for his contract not being renewed.

. That the only statements in regards to the reasons~

_for-his contract not being renewed was an If page |

press release issued by the defendant, Dr. Jack Rod:

gers. =: ,

Ly ar |

That the only reasons gleaned from the above

mentioned press release as to the Plaintiff's contract

not being renewed were:

. (1) His participation in the movement to elevate.

Odessa Junior College to a four year status;

_ (2) His name being appended to an. ad which |

appeared in the local: newspaper;

~ (3) His unapproved absence from the school on

‘two occasions. | — f

Se 6:

_ That in leaving the’ school on’ the two gccasions

without. getting administrative approval, the plaintiff

felt he must testify before the Texas Senate’s State

_ Affairs Committee because the bill pending before

that committee was sponsored by, the. group which |

the Plaintiff is the head- of, Texas Junior College

Teachers Association, and%ecause he was invited to

do so by Senator Moore the head of that committee. .

™‘

After not being able to obtain: approval from the

school, the Plaintiff relied upon the following state-

ment in the Odessa ae Faculty Guide, found on

" page 93:

“Phe employee: shall have 1/180 of his annual -

salary. deducted for each day of such absences not

approved by the departmental chairman, the dean _

of the college, or the president.”

Plaintiff understood that this would be the ale con- -

tractual’ penalty. permissable to be imposed upon

him: for. such absences and would not be the basis.

for the non-renewal of his contract.

That the Plaintiff \ was given'no hearing of any.

_ nature by any person or body connected with Odessa

Junior College before the decision was made on May

16,1969, not to renew his contract. .

| 9. oe

opposing peter Judgment. . ;

J Robert P. Sindesmann

ROBERT r. SINDERMANN

‘S BSCRIBED and SWORN to before, me e this 25th

da of July, 1969.

s/ Sacah Lewallen, —

> Sarah. Lewallen, A Notary Public

(SEAL). ~——s jn and for Ector County, Texas |

: My commission expires June 1971.

é Ua Wes eRe ies

_. as follows: — ;

3 ° . ; ; ; . .

4 a ; as,

.. 88

MOTION: OPPOSING DEFENDANT BOARD

OF REGENTS OF ODESSA JUNIOR

COLLEGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND —

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OR

| PLAINTIFFS MOTION".

_ (Number and Title Omitted. Filed: Jul 24, 1969)

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID _

COURT: _ ef —

Plaintiff Robert P. Sindérmann as above captioned

- moves. the court to refuse Defendant Board of Re- -

_ gents of Odessa Junior College’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s cause against it and would show the Court

le.

_” Plaintiff sued the Defendant Board of Regents of

Odessa Junior College for their actions in depriving’

him, and for all others similarly situated of his con- |

. Stitutional rights. The Plaintiff- alleged that they

acted under the color of state law and such grounds

for this suit are to be found in the Plaintiff’s Original

Complaint and the case law in support of the Com-

_plaint is to be found in Plaintiff’s brief which was

submitted to the court in defense of said complaint: ~

~ WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs having pleaded their —

right to sue Defendant Board of Regents of Odessa

_ Junior College as aforesaid, they pray.the Court re- °

fuse the aforesaid Defendant’s ‘motion to dismiss.

~ LAW OFFICES OF BURNETT AND

-.,CHILDS._.. By Se,

Box 3707.

Odessa, Texas

by Richard J. Clarkson |

_ Richard J. Clarkson -

ATTORN EYS F OR THE PLAINTIFFS

+ NOTE: Portion of Record Omitted—F = in its ]

Original Form — :

_o-

- MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND >

“PLEADINGS - _ a

__ (Namber and Title Omitted. Filed: Jul 31, 1969) _

Plaintiff moves under Rule 15, Federal Rules of on 2

Civil Procedure, for leave of | Court to file First

Amended. Complaint.

This Motion is not for purposes of delay, | but that .

‘Justice may: be had by stating all elements.of com-

plaint that Plaintiff feels are basis for his request for -

permanent ‘reinstatement on ‘the faculty of Odessa

_* Junior College. |

AR prea

WS ESSN QT

Respectively submitted:

BURNETT & CHILDS.

P. O. Box 3707. ia

Odessa, Texas.

. By: sf Richard J. Glavison

| - Richard J. Clarkson . =

‘NOTE: Portion of Record Omitted—Filed in its er ie

Original Form. .

GHEE TETAS) Teoh iM ERLE BaNeD

RSE ve TN ease ying

90 re 3

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF

LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

(Number and Title Omitted. Filed: Jul. 31; 1969)

| Leave of Court is hereby granted Plaintiff to file

_° their First Amended Complaint.

SO ORDERED, this, the. 31st day, of ae 1969.

- = s/ Ernest Guinn .

> | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE |

| .-

‘PLAINTIFF S FIRST ORIGINAL

| _ . AMENDED COMPLAINT —

| (Number and Title Omitted. Filed: Jul 31, 1969)

a NOW COMES the Plaintiff, through his attor--

: neys, Warren. Burnett ‘and Richard J. Clarkson, and

as and for a cause of action, on behalf of himself

and on behalf of all who are similarly situated, and

against the Defendants, alleges the following:

_ That this Court has jurisdiction i in this cause over.

all parties under 42 U.S.C... Sec. 1983, and. 28. -

USC. Sec. 1343. *; |

Il.

That the Plaintiff, ROBERT P. SINDERMANN,

is’a citizen of the United States and a resident of

: Odessa, Ector ean Texas. ~. >

That the Defendants, CHARLES’ eg PERRY, .

WILLIAM L. PETTIT, GUY ELLIOTT, JAMES

F. OCKER, BETTY DOOLEY. G. KIRK HARD-

ING, R. €. MASON, OTTO PAVLICEK, ‘JOE

~C. ZAN T: are citizens of the United Stat

‘dents of the City of Odessa, Ector Co

“Charles R. Perry .

’ Peters & Fields Building 7.

800 Central: Drive. °

- Odessa, Texas a

William L. Pettit . - -

— 2326 Field |

Odessa, Texas.

Guy Elliott

2500 E. 8th Street

Odessa, Texas

James F. Ocker _

- 2709 Fair Oaks =:

Odessa, Texas -

Betty Dooley °

- 2926 Chisum

‘ Odessa, Téxa’

G. Kirk Harding — :

5003 Kingston

R. C. Mason. -

1415 Emerald

Odessa, Texas

Otto Pavlicek

~ 2318. N..Grant .

Odessa, Texas

Joe CG. Zant’ +

: J.C. Zant Engineering Co. |

_.Country Club Estates —

- Odéssa, Texas

and resi-

ty, Texas,

“and can be served with process at the following

addresses:

* : u rd

Wie tt ememaatmapnatnpren core WR TR tasetg Avtar sem, PS

. = : i ne am .

; . a e , . ;

arrests seems yon py new

PALER PET ETE PRS SEER se

c~ :

oo RRR ors

- &

a ; , 8

IV. :

| That the Defendant, Board of Regents of Odessa.

Junior Coilege-is.a body corporate duly organized,

and existing under the ‘general laws of the State of |

Texas, having the-power to sue and to be sued in its

' . corporate capacity, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Sta- |

tutes of Texas,-Art. 2815h, Sec: 20, which governs |

and manages the branch of. higher education iri the -

State of Texas known as Odessa Junior College, and

“may be served by serving Charles R. Perry, Presi-

, College.. Lee eee :

_ dent of said Board of Regents,.at Peters and Fields. -

| Building, 800 Central Drive, Odessa, : Texas. °

» WV :

_ That the Defendant, Dr. Jack\ Rodgers, is Presi-:

_ dent of Odessa Junior College, es :

cated in Odessa, Texas, and that the said Dr. Jack —

Rodgers, by and through the authority delegated to’

egents, dirccts,

him by, the Defendant Board of

governs and manages the said college, Said Defend-

ant, Jack Rodgers, may be served, both individually --- }

_. and in his capacity as President of said-college, by

process of service at his office.at Odessa Junior

~~~ .That\the Plaintiff was retained by the Defendants

._ asa lecturer to teach Government in the Department.

of Social"Seiences at Odessa Junior Collegé for the.

school year of 1968-1969, and the Plaintiff. perform-

_.ed and continued to perform those duties pursuant

to such. retention.

‘ eo NG EMAL a

_ That although Odessa’ Junior College has no ten-

ure system, ‘the Administration of the college ac- . }

ich college. is lo- .

wv -

‘knowledges, the fact thee faculty sansa have “ per-

_ manent tenure” until the time that their’ contracts:

- are not renewed. (cf. Appendix “A”, page 3). That

on October 16, 1967, the Coordinating Board of

_ Texas College and University System adopted guid- .

ing principles désigned to aid Texas colleges and °

' universities in evaluating the conditions of academic

freedom, tenure, and responsibility that prevail on

each campus. The Plaintiff has tenure within the .. -

iding principles established by the Coordinating -

cor being a teacher in Texas’ higher education

_ institutions for ten. (10) years, with four (4) of

those years being at Odessa Junior er (CE.

— “B", Page I- 2). Pa] Oe

| VIII:

~That' the Texas Coordinating Board’s statement .

on academic freedom, tenure and responsibility was -

published in the bulletin of the American Association

of University Professors with that’ organization’s ap-

probation. (Cf. 6, pasa a y-

es ee: te

That there have been campaigns in the Permian

- Basin (Midland-Odessa and surrounding areas) by .

the locak citizenry in support of bills before the Texas

Legislature to either élevate Odessa_Junior College

_ to a four-year status, or else to. build’a separate sen- __

been vocal in his expressions“6f opinion in support

“of the movement to elevate Odessa College to a four-

tor college in the epee op Plaintiff has

_ year status, and | ‘such expressions have been in op- ~

‘ position to the public. position. taken by the Defend-

ant Board. of Regents, and ctcadant, Dr. Jack:

Rodgers. (Bee Appendix oe |

7, 5 i + a ie 5 > XTH- i

"<2 :

| at ina press ‘release issued by the. office of De-

\ fendi nt, Jack Rodgers, on May 13, 1969, ‘it was

‘that one of.the reasons for not renewing the °

-€0 ract of the Plaintiff was his association with ‘the

| * (See.

a Sollege Teachers’ Association, ‘ahd was in:

* vited ta. appear, in that. capacity: before the Texas

Senate's State Affairs Cammittee_by-State Senator

+» Oscar Mauzy of Dallas, Texas, and the Chairman of

Ee Stat. “Affairs: Cominittee,. William T. (Bill)

Moore, on. proposed academic: freedom legislation.

AGt Appendix ie? a Oe rr ae | 7

Natt Cea. | Ae geen

Phat in a. press release issued. = the. office of De- |

‘ fendlane Dr. Jack Rodgérs,. on May 13, 1969, that:

~ one of the reasons for the Plaintiff not being retained:

‘ for the academic year 1969-1970 was his unauthoriz-

ed trip to Austin, Texas, to testify. without receiving

' the college. Administrations approval, (Cf. Appen-

dx vA"). aber ; . eh

Phat the Odessa x College F culty Guide states that

the. penalty to-be exacted for any unauthorized ab-

-sencés an the: part of faculty: members is: ““The em-

ployee shall‘have 1/180 of his Annual salary deduct-

-ed for. each: day of such-absence not approved by the

_departinental chairman, ‘the Dean of. the College;

= sf ‘or thé-President.”: This penalty was exacted for both

Bia: “absences. say ee hoe p.'93)..

‘ame

ee a es eee

_ That the criteria for retention of teaching person-

nel as found in the Odessa College Faculty Guide

are in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amend-

- ments to’ the Uriited States Constitution in that

- wi are — and overbroad. (Cf. Appendix “G",

XV.

‘That aa Plaintiff’ was required ™ ‘the Faculty os:

Guide of Odessa’ College to accept and observe cri- :

teria of public and private “conduct” acceptable ‘to.

the community and to the college was a requirement

_ of such vagueness and overbreadth as to deprive the ~

Plaintiff of-his First and Fourteenth Amendment

‘

i % a

> %

. rights under the United States cicada (Cf

a = p. ee

XVI.

That’ ve Plaintiff was required to support the .

* goals and objectives of the college once they had been

set by the majority of the faculty, administration,

‘and Board of Regents, and such requirement was in

violation of the -Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth. -

> Amendment rights .under the United States. Consti-

tution. Pike, Appendix “G7-p. 54).

XVII:

: being renewed as‘found in paragraphs X and: XII “

above are ‘the-only ascertainable reasons'for such ac- |

tion by the Defendants, no formal charges having

been sent to the Plaintiff by said: Defendants, are ‘in |

’ nowise sufficient cause for the dismissal of a faculty:

member with tenure as established by the Coordina-

, ,ting Board of. Texas College and University Sys- —

tem, in its statement r Detaber 16, 1967, namely:

“Professional incémpetence, moral turpitude, or

gross neglect of proféssional responsibilities. ” ACE.

Appendix “B”S page 2).

XVIII.’

That ten members of the faculty¥of the Soéial

7 Science Department of Odessa Junior College signed

a statement attesting to the fact that ‘the Plaintiff is

a totally competent person professionally, and that

nothing -he has said or done has, in any way, dero-

' gated from his competence in, the classroom as a

-lecturer in Government at the college. This-is all but

_.a, few members. of his Department. -(Cf. Appendix

“E™ ). | . .

“XIX.. ;

That the Plaintiff was advised on ig 19, 1969, .

by the Defendant, Dr. Jack Rodgers, purporting to.

act under due authority, that his contract would not

_ be renewed for the year 1969- pile (Cf. Appendix

BS ade ’).

- xX:. |

That the pain or. tite agents, rehised to

give any reasons to the Plaintiff for their decision to -

not retain him as a member of Odessa: Junior Col-

lege faculty for the school year 1969-1970, and_also °

‘.that the Defendants did not offer the Plaintiff an ~

impartial Hearing into the merits of such decisign.

| XL | ;

That the reason for such decision by the Defend-

ants, or their agents, was to retaliate against the

Plaintiff for the Plaintiff: S expressions of opinion.

_ 97

“XXII.

That the Defendants’ decision not to retain the

. Plaintiff was not based upon gdod faith on their part.

-XXHI.

That the decision of the Defendants ; is a denial,

-a violation, ‘a restraint, and a deprivation of the

Plaintiff's rights to free-speech under the United

States Constitution. » oe

XXIV.

That the decision of the Defendants was not made

under ascertainable and’ definite standards govern-

ing the. Defendants in making this decision. |

XXV. | = ran

That the Defendants, or their agents, have intimi-

dated and harassed the Plaintiff and other Odessa

Junior Gollege faculty members similarly situated

because the Plaintiff and those so situated have exer-

cised their right to free se ina | way ‘critical of .

the Defendants. |

-XXVI

That the conduct of the Defendants has: enue

. and unless such decision is restrained from enforce-

ment, will cause the Plaintiff.damages to his pro-"

fessional reputation and standing for which there is

‘no adequate remedy at law.

XXVII.

That such decision of the Defendants has already

_Teputation, to his ability to obtain similar employ-

ment ‘in other colleges in the State of Texas, damages

in the amount of Two Hundred Seventy-Five Thous-

and Dollars ($275, 000. po

_ as described heréin. |

8 = oe

| XXVIII.

That such decision of the Defendants was retalia- -

tory in nature and not based upon good faith, and

that they, therefore, should be liable for punitive

damages in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand

* Dollars ($200,000.00). . es oo

' sitated that the Plaintiff retain attorneys in order to

obtain his United’ States Constitutional rights, the .

Defendants should be held liable for reasonable at-

_ torneys’ fees. a an

en, RAR Ce, :

_ That the Plaintiff brings this.action on-behalf of

_ himself, on behalf of many of the Odessa Junior _

‘College faculty members too numerous to join here- |

_ in, who have been intimidated and harassed -by the

Defendants, or their agents, for expressing their opin-

ions, and on: behalf of many Odessa Junior College

faculty members too numerous to join-herein, who

have become fearful and reluctant to express their

opinions because of the conduct of the Defendants

ing reliéf: ae

(1) A judgment that the decision of the Defend-

ants that the Plaintiff not be retainéd as a member - ’

_ of the Odessa Junior College faculty for the school

~ year 1969-1970, is in violation of the Plaintiff's

rights, and in violation of the rights of those simi--

larly situated, under the First’ and Fourteenth |

Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands the follow-

(2) That the Defendants are to grant to the

Plaintiff a hearing on the reasons for his dismissal

in substantial compliance with the recommenda-

~. tions set out by the Coordinating Board, Texas

College and. University. System, as contained in

the attached Appendix “B”, namely: The Defend-

ants should give formally written charges to the

Plaintiff. Presentation of such charges should pro-

vide for (a) a written response ta the charges by |

the faculty member, if he wishes’a hearing; ({b) @

- Opportunity by the faculty. member to exercise.

‘his right.to be represented by counsel of his own’.

choosing, to have a hearing before a regularly

examine witnesses, to know the name and state-

‘does not appear at the hearing, to respond orally

to charges made against him, to have findings and

recommendations made on each of the charges,

and to be given a complete transcript of the hear- -

’ ing, including the findings of the faculty commit-

tee; (c) a- review of the case, if essential, by an

appropriate reviewing body—the -review to in- . -

clude the findings~ and’ recommendations of the

‘member and University representative for- oral —

_ argument, the return of the proceeding to the hear- |

ing committee, if the original recomimendations —

-are not sustained, the study of the hearing com- . °,

‘mittee’s reconsidered findings and recommenda-

tions, and a rendering of a final decision (which

| should - be written’in the rare case in whch the

hearing committee is overruled). _ 7 /

(3). A judgment that the failure of the Defend-

ants to provide the Plaintiff with an impartial

seed ene nies EERE MLA LDN NE AED LTA ENE REL T AEBE IE GRENIER Ae eM ine ae

GED crtmempe 0 Te aia

. = , . . ; ; ’

oa : ‘ . ‘ 7

100 .

hearing as to the merits. a ice decision of May

6, 1969, was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary

to the Plaintiff’s rights, and the rights of those

similarly situated, under the First, Fifth and Four- *

teenth Amendments to the. United States Con-

stitution.

(4): A judgment that ihe refissal of the Defend:

ants to: give reasons for their. decision was arbi-

trary, capricious, and in violation of the rights of |

Plaintiff and those similarly situated, under the

_ First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution. — |

(5) .A judgment that the failure of the Defend-

ants to make such decision under ascertainable

~ and finite standards was arbitrary, Capricious, and _ .

- similarly. situated, under the Firgf, Fifth and Four-

teenth Amendments to the Usited States Constiy

. ‘tution. |

( 6). ne order of the Court dintcting the Defend:

- ants to retain the Plaintiff in his position as a mem-

_ ber of the Odessa Junior College faculty for the’.

_ year 1969-1970, at the same level.of responsibility _

and function as per the retention’ ‘for the school

- year 1968-1969.

(7). That a date be set on the court’s docket for.

a trial on the. damages alleged in this complaint,

and 3 See

(8) fet ak other and. further relief as.may be

| equitable. :

in violation of the rights of fa and those

101

LAW OFFICES OF BURNETT & a

CHILDS . - |

~. P.O: Box 3707 |

ODESSA, WEXAS 2

@ By: s/ Richard J. Clarkson

RICHARD J. CLARKSON |

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF |

3 ee TRIAL BY JURY —

NOTE: APPENDIX A through F omitted;

are, ~\, eO

* P/ * * *

_ heretofore copied on pages 13 through ie |

—0—

AFF IDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPENDICES 2

_ A, BC, D, E,F, AND G OF

| PLAINTIFF'S F IRST AMENDED COMPLAIN : a

(Number and Title Omitted. Filed: Jul. 31, 1969) fe

' ROBERT P. SINDERMANN, being first duly

_ sworn, on —s deposes and presents the following: ae

case.

2. . .

That pause A of Plaintiff’s First omens

Complaint is a true and exact, copy of a press release

issued by the office of Defendant, Dr. — it

of May 13,1969:

That bei is. the Plaintiff i in the hereinabove styled |

| ae

Wppmewisncen cee TIE re Ranson tasers APPLE EINES EMR BOC AE I ta ar NEM

;. /

‘ @ bility. =. te

102

_That Appendix B of Plaintiff’s First Amended

’ Complaint is a true and exact copy of the Coordina:

. ting Board Texas College and University System’s |

‘line concerning academic freedom, tenure, and re-

-. sponsibility. - Mod TRESS Med ¢ me |

| i 4, we :

_. That Appéndix C of Plaintiff’s First Amended

- Original Complaint isa true and exact copy of the

- American Association of University Professors Re-

publication of the Texas Coordinating Board’s state- »

‘ That Appendix D of Plaintiff's First Amended

Original Complaint is a true and*exact copy of a

‘telegram sent to the Plaintiff by Texas Senator Oscar

2 Mouzy; and a letter sent to the Plaintiff by Texas ;

_ _,State Senator Bill Moore; and a letter sent.to Plain--

- Vi by Texas State Senator Oscar: Mouzy..

That Appendix E of Plaintiff’s First. Amended.

Original Complaint is a true and exact copy of an

attestation as to the professional competency of the

-Piaintiff signed ky ten members of the Social Science

_ Department of Odessa Junior College. ome

__ That Appendix F of Plaintiff's First Amended _

Original Complaint is a true and exact copy of the

letter sent to Plaintiff by Defendant Dr. Jack Rod-

gers, announcing thai the Plaintiff’s contract would

no be renewed with the college... -

en a Weep eu eS? 108

a ; . 8. a 7 wo,

Tkat Appendix G_ of :Plaintiff’s First Amended

Original Complaint is a true and exact pis of

Odessa ee sF aculty Guide. -

‘9.

That — Plaintiff knows of his own ‘personal know-

ledge that the above referred to ‘appendices are true

and exact copies of’ a they purport to be... _-:

10. ;

That this affidavit j is made i in sipport: of fe Ap=-" |

pendices A through G which are attached to the |

us First. Amended. Original Complaint. a

S/. Robert. P. Sinderman |

THE STATE OF TEXAS )

)

COUNTY OF ECTOR ar

| nets

| Sabscrted nade sworn to before me the’ under-

aged aud on the 28th day of July, 1969.

s/ Sarah Lewallen ;

_. Sarah Lewallen, Notary Public in

and for Ector County, Texas

My commission expires June, 1971.

NOTE: Portion of Record Omitted—

_ Filed in its OriginalForm

° ° : 3 ‘ ?

2 ° ! { ’ : °

. P an || 2 ‘

- 2 4 ” . >

: ° ; ay % e ° / @ .

: or 6 . s .

’ a ; ; “4 °

104 —

oie MOTION OPPOSING DEFENDANT BOARD

_ OF .REGENTS’, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND >

OFFICIALLY, AND DR. JACK RODGERS’, \_

BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS

| SUMMARY: JUDGMENT. AND BRJEF IN

SUPPORT @.PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

(Number and Title Omitted. Filed: Aug.'1, 1969) _

<-- TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID:

COURT:

- Plaintiff Robert’ P. icthicaden” as bec cap-

‘ tioned moves the Court to refuse the~Defendants’

motion for Summary Judgment and would show: the

Court as follows: “i Bice

Plaintiff. me the Defendants for their actions ‘in

depriving him, and for all others similarly situated, -

of his constitutichal rights. Plaintiff alleged that they

acted under the color of state law and.such grounds .

- for this suit are to be found in the Plaintiff’s First:

- Amended Complaint and the case. law in support’ »

me Complaint.

crous:

of the Complaint is.to be foun Plaintiff's brief

_ which was submitted to the Court ii defense of said

The pleadings miiel affidavit’ on file conclusively

show that there are justiciable ‘i issues of fact in this

case, ‘and that the Defendants -are es entitled to

: judgment asamatteroflaw. _ Sey er ae

The fact i issues that are belore this Court a are num-

| 105.

(1) Was | one of the reasons that the Plaintiff's

- contract. was hot renewed, his’ association

« ,. with the “Committee to Elevate Odessa Jun- |

/ — jor Collége”’ (Paragraph X of Plaintiff's F irst a

- Amended Complaint)? Pre ee ae

\.. (2) Have any-actions on the part of the Plaintiff ~

| interfered with’ his effectiveness ‘in the class- _ _ .

room (Paragraph XVIII of Plaintiff’s ead |

_ Amended Complaint) ? pe?

(3) Was the reason that the. Defendants did ‘not ee. oa

"renew the Plaintiff’s contract one motivated

‘by a desire to retaliate for the Plaintiffs ..*

| political activities (Paragraph XXI of Plain- _—

tiffs First Amendéd Complaint) ?: a

(4) Was the Defendants ales: to renew the

contract of the Plaintiff based.upon.a lack . ..-

of good faith on their part (Paragraph XXII fa

- Of “Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint) ? :

_ (5). Was ‘there any indication in the Faculty -

- . Guide or otherwise that would indicate 40.

the Plaintiff that his two unauthorized ab-

sences could be the basis of the nonrenewal _

of his contract (paragraphs XXIV and XIII

of Plaintiff's: First Amended Complaint) ?

(6). Have the Defendants or their agents so acted -

"as to intimidate the Plaintiff and other Odes-

‘sa Junior College faculty members’ similarly. “a

__ situated so as to deprive them of their consti- « — {

tutional rights to free speech (Paragraphs’ _

XXV and XXVI of Plaintiff’ S Fi irst Amend- a

ed Complaint) ? |

- WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs — pleaded aa |

| show fact issues of constitutional dimensions: which

. are to be in large part, determinative of Plaintiff's

’

’ . . > ede

ee t °

2 .

‘ e 3 ' é .

‘ “nae as

- “s . > -° m 4

i ° .

; Hiden ee =

. * Mg > z

- a . . *

. . ° ‘ .

‘ * 2

‘

—_

ae s ae ‘ — % : ae de ‘ ce, = see ' : i ; ‘ an ORS aie

Ree 106 a oe aS vir ae

oe right to reinstatement on the. favalty of | wishin Jun:

ee College;. they pray the Court refuse the aforesaid *

ou ants motion for Summary: Judgment. .

pectfully submitted, , :

OF BURN EIT &

_. LAW OFF

Ms ety | kr a

8, . PQ. Box 3707. PR as

Nae, Odessa, Texas 79760 | | ia id

" : - By: ‘s/ Richard J; ee - oe a,

“s. ae “oS RICHARD J. GLARKSON

? ATTORNEYS FOR. PLAINTIFES -

N OTE: Se of Record Gesnted-— ,

: A iled in its rene Form: -

_: ORDER. DENYING DEFENDANTS” MOTION |

. TO DISMISS AND ORDER: GRANTING _

i DEF ENDANT S’. MOTION: FOR

5 ee -SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Number and Title Omitted. Filed: Aug 4, 1969) =

~~. - Came.on to’ be ptesideved the Defendants’ Motion

~. to Dismiss the Defendant Board of ‘Regents of Odessa

‘Junior College, -and thé“Court having considered _

- same, is of the opinion that same shouldtbe DENIED,

:; and i it 1s SO ORDERED. be

Then came on to be ‘cpinsidened by: the Cisait the”

Motion for Summary Judgment, together with the

oh exhibits: -and —— filed herein by eos -Defend-

¢ .

oh ants, iad the. briefs ied@éreia bs all parties in sup:

port ofs and against said Mtion, and the Court>

E having cénsidered same is of the ‘opinion that'same

AS well taken for the following reasons, and so finds:

as 7 ¥

a 1969. : : ?

eee aes =

Odessa bunior Collége has no tenure system which ~

fact was knowR to the Plaintiff at the time he en-

Le. ©

, shar into. his” original contract: t-with the college. .

. I. of: :

_ After the termination. of his contract employ-". oe

t the Defendant college owed no obligation to.

thd aintiff. :

I conclude: oe Rae ret at

Pate = eer eee

: 2 : i : ans -® ween

re &

Plaintiff has no: cause. of action ‘against: the De- .

fendants. sirice his contract of employment terminat-

ed May 31, 1969, and Odessa. Junior College hist

7 adopted. the tenure aynean. te ae. ?

: , Bi a

| “Plaintiff has no. contract with the Defendant ‘col-

+i cael So Sia ee

Sar pe | San,

| ‘Plaintiff has no tight which eocik require De!- :

‘fendants to execute:a contract with Plaintiff, or to:

banal Plaintiff. ' |

IV.

i - Defendants bane not. violated any constitutional

orights ¢ of the sles cecae arenes ey tie ac aaee

Plaintiff S tenure of employment ended May 31, -

airs

ae ’

ee ‘

a .

|. [TIS, THEREFORE, ORDERED; ADJUDGED _

_. AND DECREED that Plaintiff take nothing by his

"+ suit and that the Defendants do recoyer their costs,

: for all of which. let: execution: issue.

ENTERED THIS 4th day’ of August, 1969.

- s/ Ernest Guinn ee

~UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

NOTICE OF APPEAL .. =

¢ Number and. Title Omitted. Filed: Aug 15, ee

TO THE gra strug JUDGE, OF SAID

| ‘COURT.

' Noticéis hescby given that Robert i ¢ ce

‘ Petitioner, above naméd, hereby. appeals to the Uni-

-~ go 2 ted Stites Court of ‘Appeals for the St

ircuit from

<——the order, granting Su ment’ entered ii in

__this ‘progrcdiing on-the 4th day of August; 1969.-

Ste

es = Rida Gh Clarkson

et a ico ca oe: CLARKSON "

APPEAL BOND. ? cea

! (Number and Title Omitted. Filed: Aug. 15, 1969)

We, Ke undersigned, jointly and severally acknow--

ledge that we and our personal representatives -are—

bound to pay to the Odessa ‘Junior College Board of

Regénts and: Dr. Jack Rodgers, President of Odessa .

_ . Junior —— Defendants herein, the sum 1 of a

HUNDRED J AND FIFTY DOLLARS Fas. 00),

7 conuitioned that, | 5

¢ WHE; EAS, te Plaintiff appealed to ie ‘Comer?’

ofA for the 5th Ciréuit of Appeals by Notice -

“of Appeal filed herein, from the Order.of this Court “

sustaining’ the Defendants’ “Motion -for Summary

- ‘Judgment entered -herein.-The Plaintiff shall pay all

--costs adjudged against him if the appeal is dismissed

or the Judgment affirmed, or such costs as the Afp- |

llate Court may award in the Judgment.is modi-

“fied, then this Bond is to be void, but if the Plaintiff. —

fails to perform this condition, payment “of / the oe

amount = this Bond shall: be’ se forthwith,

LAW OFFICES. BURNETT & :,

+. CHILDS a aoe : ¥

- P. O. Box 3707 caeoae .

Odessa, Texas 79760"

-By:. ‘s/ Richard J: Plettion; a.

: AC : RICHARD J. CLARKSON

‘ _ UNITED STATES FIRE INSURAN CE.

° - « :

‘~~ i . .* i. ° .

SAD eee : Wir ;

Raytown ister sgn: ‘

oO eee i aay Renee eee

y Pag : Wea. ope y. ae

: ~* igh, * iy ‘ i

STi sare lectern

rn ah aan Mey sense

‘COMPANY

By s/ T. B. Harris, Jr.

ered in Fact

si za

| “NOTE: P Portion of Record Omitted—

:, Filed’ in its Original. Form

oC.

TA ws sane Lapa as eC

preven: OE NRT IMIR ORIN Mae nee gna He

on Nps y | ae

| CLERK’ s CERTIFIGATE”

lees ,

- | & DAN W, BENEDICT, Clerk of: the United

‘| ‘States District Court.in ‘and for the Western District. ,

-. of Texas, do hereby certify that the foregoing num- -

teas -bered and listed pleadings, orders and._ instruments

>. + are all of the original papers, except for copies oe

/.: |. the Civil Docket Sheets, filed and entered in Civil

Action MO-69-GA-54, styled Robert P. Sindermann -

.. Charles R. Perry, et al, as’ the: same appear on

. | file and of record i in this office. eM ta

Seer of of Appellant’ s Designation ‘of Cofitents,.and being .

|. Affidavit in support. of appendices ““H” and “I”, |

_ Motion and Order Granting Leavé to Add Appen-~

_ dices “H” and “I” and Appendices “H” and “I” are

~ not of récord in this office and therefore. are not in-

| cluded 1 in this record. 7 _ f

4 a4 | ‘WITNESS my official ionaare wal eal of said :

ess: + District Court at the City of Pecos, Texas, this 26th

a day of August, 1969. oe ‘ =

: DAN, W. BENEDICT, Clerk of Court :

q : 7 . By s/ ‘James Siac: ¥ |

: oe : anegery Ci

t y

i : : ‘

4 eo eee

;

aie a “H” ce 2

: ae es gaa

“The Colle Delegate

es “Assembly

_ THE SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION °

De) eae ce OF COLLEGES -

ee SCHOOLS ~

| _ December, 4, 1968

A PUBLICATION OFTHE | a ne

OCIATION: OF. COLLEGES AND. -_

"SCHOOLS Z

«195, Peachtree Street, NEL a Atlanta, Georgia 30308 .

” For additional information wie the Central Office.

SESW ean Beer

A :

“Ss :

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.