Here’s the sleaziest allegation I’ve seen in a complaint lately. After a sequence of allegations of nasty conversations between the plaintiff, a department chair, and the dean of his school at the University of Mississippi, there’s this:
Instead of defending the integrity of excellence of scientific work at UM, all individual Defendants, as corrupt administrators, participated in jeoparding the reputation of the institution for personal gain and aggrandizement: something that the ALUMNI and the MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE may find of interest.
Who, exactly is the addressee of this remark? I’ll additionally note that nowhere in the complaint do I see allegations of how the administrators were to “personal[ly] gain.”
In any event, this is the sort of allegation that one could really regret should the allegations in the complaint not pan out and sanctions become an issue.
It’s in a lawsuit against the University of Mississippi alleging that the plaintiff had his career injured over his whistleblowing over grant handling in the pharmacy school. There has been some news coverage. The complaint– and here I’ll repeat the standard journalist bromide that it is but one side of a lawsuit, and for a variety of reasons I’d say that the take-it-with-a-grain-of-salt rule is really in order here (no answer is due before late January) can be read here.
Updated: Link corrected to the news story and text of the story is in comments for when the link goes dark (because the Eagle doesn’t do permalinks, I don’t think).
Update: More info about all this here.
Did they really write “jeoparding” on a legal document?
That link about news coverage leads to a story about someone’s outdoor Christmas decorations.
The complaint was almost interesting … I wondered what lawyer would draft, serve, and file that pleading. Then I got to the signature line. Well ….
good ol’ Oxford Eagle– it was the news story at noon. I’ll see what I can do.
Shoot, Cujo, that’s what happens with the Oxford Eagle’s non-permanent URLs — they’re only good for 24 hours (unless from Friday to Monday). We’ll have to ask lydialaw to get us the archived story (unless she’s already flown the coop for vacation, ack).
Here’s the full story from the Oxford Eagle by Alyssa Schnugg:
The former chairman of the University of Mississippi Department of Pharmacology has filed a lawsuit against the dean of the pharmacy school at along with several others in the pharmacy and research departments at UM.
Robert C. Speth, now a professor of pharmacology and research professor at the NM Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, filed the suit Dec. 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi in Oxford.
In the lawsuit, Speth claims the university and the individuals listed in the lawsuit made his life “miserable” after he alerted department heads of a possible misuse of grant funds.
“UM, through the individual defendants, reacted by denying any misuse of funds, by failing to stop the misuse, by covering up the misuse and by engaging in a series of retaliatory acts against (Speth), designed to humiliate him, to make life miserable for him, to punish him for his actions and to set him up for termination,” the lawsuit claims.
Speth claims that after he notified the defendants of these actions, he received negative employment reviews and was dismissed as the chairman of the pharmacology department.
In 2006, Speth helped to secure an $11 million grant from the Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence to be used for specific purposes authorized in the grant.
In 2007, Speth claims he discovered some of the grant funds were not being used for those authorized purposes and brought it to the university’s attention. Speth claims he discovered the grant funds were being used for research work unrelated to the authorized purpose and to pay individuals who were working on projects not authorized under the grant.
The other defendants listed in the lawsuit are: Robin C. Buchanon, assistance vice chancellor of research; Beverly M. Butts, senior business manager of the pharmacy school; Alice M. Clark, vice chancellor for research; Charles D. Hufford, assistant dean for research for the pharmacy school; Nina L. Jones, director of accounting; Thomas W. Lombardo, director of research, integrity and compliance; Anthony J. Verlangieri, interim chairman for the pharmacology department; and Barbara Wells, dean of the pharmacy school.
Speth is suing for loss of wages, to be reinstated as the chairman of the pharmacology department, to be re-appointed “principal investigator” for the grant and for a 5 percent raise.
The university’s attorney Lee Tyner, could not be reached for comment.
The university has 20 days to file a response to Speth’s complaint.
You know, NMC, I forgot to ask you for one favor while at your place: I meant to take a look at a printed Eagle.
“In any event, this is the sort of allegation that one could really regret should the allegations in the complaint not pan out and sanctions become an issue.”
This is also the sort of allegation that the defendant UM could really regret should the allegations in the complaint pan out. Institutes and foundations are really picky about how their grant money is used, so if this is true defendant UM might find itself in a bad light.
I do know, however, that the attitude of UM’s upper administration stated in the lawsuit about academics and money is correct. They really don’t “give a rat’s ass” about academics—except for the recognition that it brings to the university and it’s image; they just care about the money. Also, anyone who doesn’t play the good ole boy game there is treated exactly the way that was represented in the lawsuit. I do know that much is true.
As a receiver of serious grant funds at the University, I can say that the attitudes spoken of are not a surprise. Either you are in or you are out and no amount of success can make you be part of the inner circle. The behavior described in the complaint is totally believable by those of us who have had similar experiences. Just visit some of the major centers and talk to the researchers.
[I've rethought this comment.]
My post took no position about the allegations in the complaint, although part of my reaction is that there was essentially no substance there– there was a name-calling cant to it and it looked to be a case that was largely going to devolve into a contest over who the jury thought more obnoxious.