Skip to comments.Counterterrorism experts can't appeal LSU firing, school says (Hatfill Blacklisting Claimed Legal)
Posted on 09/06/2002 6:52:51 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Two officials fired from leadership posts in a counterterrorism program at Louisiana State University, one of whom is a figure in the federal anthrax investigation, have no appeal rights under university policies, said school officials, who refused to elaborate on what prompted the terminations.
Stephen Guillot, director of LSU's National Center for Biomedical Research, and Steven J. Hatfill, hired in July as associate director for the program while he was a subject of FBI scrutiny, were unclassified workers who served at Chancellor Mark Emmert's pleasure under powers granted by the LSU Board of Supervisors, officials said.
Working in a continuing-education program, neither had due-process rights associated with classified government workers or tenured faculty, Gregory Vincent, vice provost for academic affairs, said Thursday.
Vincent said Doreen Maxcy, assistant dean of the Division of Continuing Education, has been named acting director of the National Center for Biomedical Research, which trains emergency workers to respond to a terrorist attack. He said no other major staff changes are pending. Supported by U.S. Justice Department grants, the LSU center has a staff of about 18, he said.
Emmert has asked Vincent to conduct a sweeping review of the Division of Continuing Education, with a total staff of about 150, and the administrative task may be complete by the end of the fall semester.
Because they are personnel matters, LSU officials refused to discuss why Hatfill and Guillot were fired. But Hatfill's presence placed the Baton Rouge campus in an uncomfortable national spotlight, even though he hasn't been named a suspect by the FBI. And top LSU administrators may have been riled that they didn't learn until Tuesday that Guillot had received an e-mail directive from a Justice Department official Aug. 1 demanding that Hatfill play no role in any program financed by the federal agency. Guillot hasn't responded to requests for comment.
Justice Department officials declined to say why the Office for Domestic Preparedness, which administers grants, sent the directive to Guillot, a move called a "blacklisting" tactic by a Hatfill spokesman.
On Thursday, Assistant Attorney General Deborah Daniels, representing the Justice Department, said the Office for Domestic Preparedness was acting within its responsibility in sending the directive.
"It is a specific condition of our grant to LSU that we maintain management oversight and control," Daniels said.
The federal agency "has not been involved in any decisions made by LSU" regarding Hatfill's employment, Daniels said.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yeah, threatening to cut off all its grant money isn't being involved in decisions by LSU regarding Hatfill's employment? Maybe Mr. Daniels should be fired for coming up with such an incredibly dopey response.
LSU is a state university. Its hiring and firing is subject to the state and US Constitutions and the Bill of Rights. You do support those, don't you?
Even when blackmailed into doing so? That was the case here: Fire Hatfill or you lose your federal grant money.
So do I, but I don't support the right of the government to actively harrass a man who hasn't even been charged with a crime.
***Sigh***...the cease and desist order stated that Hatfill was not to be working on any research funded by the DOJ. It is a clear conflict of interest case, Hatfill cannot be paid with DOJ funds if he is being investigated by the DOJ. The DOJ did NOT say to fire Hatfill and the DOJ did NOT threaten to withold the grant money from the University, it plainly stated Hatfill was not allowed to work on DOJ projects. I wish people would quit reading things into this that simply are NOT there. Every article I have read clearly states that the DOJ cease and desist order was NOT the reason for termination, it did not surface until well AFTER Hatfill was placed on 30 days paid Admin Leave on Aug 02. Hatfill was terminated because LSU did not want the publicity (and some questions about whether his credentials are authentic) and his supervisor was terminated for not bringing the DOJ order to their attention sooner.
What part of the constitution says employees are anything more than at-will?
First amendment, extended by the fourteenth, says that a State cannot abridge free speech, religion, etc. . You can't fire a state employee, therefore, for something he/she says away from the workplace, or for his/her religion. A private employer, constitutionally, could fire someone for saying something the employer didn't like, or for his religion. 14th amendement says the state must give citizens equal protection of the law; again, this prevents 'at will' firing. The Bill of Rights also requires due process (which goes back to the Magna Carta: see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/11.html)
Perhaps you fail to understand the market participant doctrine, that says a state is not bound by those same constrains when it is operating in the marketplace. In this case, in the eyes of the law and that doctrine, it is operating as an 'employer' not a 'state'.
Wrong. God, you people here are so ignorant. Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you think they have to have a due process hearing when a cabinet secretary or thousands of staffers lose their job at the change of administration? Or all those democrat congressional employees that lost their jobs when the GOP took over?
Damn Rosenberg and Nass for their lies, but not the DOJ. It is Rosenberg and her activists at fault.
I notice now she is being much more careful. Seems their own carefully constructed resumes and record of 'expertise' are looking remarkably deceptive- Rosenberg appears to be getting nervous about possible blowback.
Any relationship to the Originals???
Those are political appointments. They have different employment conditions than regular government employees.
(OK, it's the ACLU, but nobody generaly accuses them of not knowing the law.)
Q: Does the employment-at-will doctrine apply to all employees?
A: No. There are three broad categories of employees who are not governed by employment-at-will:
* Government employees: Federal, state and local government workers are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the government from depriving any person of "life, liberty or property" without due process of law. These employees are considered to have a property interest in their jobs, and the right to due process places significant restrictions on arbitrary dismissals unrelated to job performance. Some additional protection is provided by federal, state and local civil service laws.
A word of advice; it's a mistake to personally attack someone for ignorance, unless your own credentials are impeccable. I doubt you have a law degree, and it's not clear you're any better informed than those you're attacking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.