OPINION: To where are we headed on university (and IHL) personnel policies?

Last month it was brought to our attention the college board hired Mayo Mallette, LLC to review and revise the employee handbooks at Jackson State University (JSU) and to advise the counseling division on personnel matters and employment law. Questions immediately surfaced as to why this action was being taken and why at this time. Probable answers emerged as we talked with observers and interested parties.

In the minds of more than a few people were three fairly recent JSU-related employment decisions. 

One was the college board’s decision not to consider appointing as president JSU chief of staff Dr. Debra Mays-Jackson, helping train Attorney Michael Hudson and having served as Hinds Community College’s Vice President for the Utica Campus. 

The second was JSU President Marcus Thompson’s decision to place Dr. Dawn Bishop McLin on administrative leave with a recommendation for her termination. 

The third was the decision to passover long-time recruitment leader Linda Rush for an individual having considerably less experience and no training in the field. 

All three situations appear to be ones where an injustice was done.

Admittedly there are differences in the details. Dr. Mays-Jackson’s legal complaint is against the college board rather than JSU. Dr. Bishop-McLin is being terminated. Ms. Rush reportedly was being discriminated against in terms of employment opportunities and benefits. 

What they have in common is that they are all personnel matters, all involving employment within the same system, and all command the same type of legal expertise for the proper resolution and to avoid or at least minimize such future problems.

It is to deal with the latter commonality – proper resolution and minimizing future problems prompting the board’s turn to Mayo Mallette. They are worrisome cases for the college board since JSU is under the umbrella of the college board and it is the college board that must abandon or defend the decisions being made in the three cases. (Of course, the board itself is directly under pressure in the case of Dr. Mays-Jackson.)

The essence of the Mays-Jackson case is that she was passed over or not considered for the presidency, a position in which she was interested and for which she was apparently the better suited person. In this case, Mallette will need to look at whatever college board policy covers such appointments. Obviously, this takes one to the future consideration and appointment of presidents. College board policy and search processes will be scrutinized. Arguments may be presented for a court to decide. The outcome of this case, and maybe future presidential searches and appointments, may depend upon the skills of the lawyers involved. 

The essence of the Rush case is that, similar to Mays-Jackson, she was passed over by President Thompson for a position that was awarded to an individual of less training and less relevant experience. It differs from the Mays-Jackson case in that the offending party allegedly was JSU rather than the college board. Therefore, Mallette would focus on what is stated in JSU’s handbooks, if it differs from college board policies. It has major implications for relationships on the campus in terms of advancement and job security. The decision can and will likely affect employee morale, especially among veteran employees. 

The Bishop McLin case is a bit more complicated than the other two for several reasons. For one thing, the individual making the recommendation to terminate her is no longer in the position of president to pursue that course of action, raising questions as to whether the new president is free to follow-up on or abandon the recommendations. The second is the matter of free speech. The third is the nature of the complaint itself. Fourthly is the matter of due process as is spelled out in the handbook, as well as in the state and federal constitutions. 

If interim President Denise Gregory Jones decides not to stand behind Thompson’s recommendation, there is nothing left for Mallette to do regarding the case. They may still deal with the handbooks, however, in order to avoid future problems or to make it easier to terminate employees in the future. 

If the matter is carried forward, Mallette will have to decide how to overcome the free speech argument that is based upon the First Amendment and principles of shared governance. Mallette will also have to analyze Thompson’s complaints, especially since the university’s own faculty personnel committee found them either unverified, minor, or otherwise not worthy enough to warrant the recommended punishment. Mallette will need to see what the handbook says about due process and how that aligns with what was done. Also crucial, but neglected in Thompson’s calculus, is whether the complaints were lodged against her as a tenured professor or as faculty senate president.

The ball is in the college board’s court as well as in the court of public opinion to determine where we go in terms of personnel matters for JSU and the rest of the system of higher education.