False Assertions▼

in the Termination Letter of November 30, 1995

The November 30, 1995, termination letter — presented as Exhibit 2 of the NLRB Charge and since rescinded by the settlement of the case — was ostensibly from B. Kimbro, the YCIAS business manager. It was approved and quite obviously — to anyone familiar with Kimbro’s impaired ability for written correspondence and coherent communication (written or verbal) — written by others, presumably Yale’s Labor Relations department. More significantly, the campaign to fire me was initiated and carried out by higher-ups, most directly and certainly Kimbro’s superiors, G. Smith and R. Ruther, as well as others. It is reasonable to assume that those at Labor Relations who oversaw execution of the labor contract, did so without accurate information, having only Kimbro and the YCIAS administrators as its source.

Despite her non-decision-making status, Kimbro carried out her orders as YCIAS hit-man with crude gusto and innate thuggishness. Yet, after the deed, Kimbro ran about the YCIAS explicity denying her role, claiming that she was “made” to do it by her superiors — a rare, though self-serving, bit of truth. Yet when asked directly about the firing by a concerned faculty member, G. Smith, in his familiar oblique way, denied responsibility by referring the questioner to Jackson, who, in turn, denied even knowledge of the deed.

One might almost have thought then that the the firing never happened. Indeed, if the dismissal letter had been required to have contained truths rather than falsehoods, it would not have and could not have occurred.

Five falsehoods are excerpted and explained below.

1. “… work … dating back to June 30, 1995.”

• There was no request from Kimbro or anyone else for information in June or July, nor did I expect one, since my responsibility for financial reporting had been conspicuously removed months earlier. The absence of such a request, however, was noticeable to me because for so many years I had had to prepare end-of-fiscal-year reports in June.
• First request by Kimbro for any information (copies of requisitions, invoices, bills, and other charges against the Kempf fund grants) was on August 11, and I provided the information requested.
• A second request for the same information, in mid-October, was puzzling; Kimbro continued to ignore my requests for a meeting among relevant parties to clear up the obvious misunderstandings about what was required.
• Absent any clarification, I gave Kimbro new, sorted copies of all the information I had about the accounts — once again — on November 8, and suggested — once again — that the relevant parties meet if I had misunderstood what was required; she continued to ignore requests for a meeting.
• Only on November 10 did Kimbro first demand an apparent typed list — which she referred to as a “report” — of still unspecified data from requisitions, invoices, bills, etc. She threatened me — without specifying the consequences — with a deadline of November 14th, just two working days (mornings) hence.
• Kimbro’s November 10th deadline was impossible to meet because it conflicted with the immediate priorities of my department, made explicit to me that same day by both the chairman and the acting chairman, to prepare a statement for a Mellon Foundation grant for Professor Pessar, a project director (and also the wife of the chairman) of one of the department’s international conferences that had been held earlier in the semester.
• On November 14, I was assured by Professor Pessar that she herself was working with Kimbro and that Kimbro would not suspend me for working on Pessar’s Mellon statement that morning.
• Pessar’s assurances notwithstanding, early the next morning (November 15), Kimbro issued a letter of suspension, in apparent defiance of the authority of my chairmen and supervisors, and without their knowledge.

2. “… work as directed by me [Kimbro] …”

• Kimbro had no supervisory authority over me or my chairman; she neither directed my work nor had knowledge of it.
• Only in my role as my department’s administrator did I have reporting responsibilities to other administrative units in the University (e.g., Accounting Department, Payroll Department, Graduate School, Yale College), including the YCIAS, and I fulfilled those responsibilities; if I had not, it was up to my department chairmen to deal with me for not adequately serving my department and its chairmen.

3. “… unwillingness to follow a clear directive …”

• There was nothing clear about Kimbro’s “directives”; they were incoherent, did not accord with the grants my department actually had, were inconsistent with past practices, contradicted earlier statements of Kimbro herself, violated current stated policies of the YCIAS (see G. Smith’s memorandum of November 7, 1994), and were delivered crudely and with apparent intent to humiliate and intimidate.
• There was a continued refusal by YCIAS hierarchy to discuss the lack of a common understanding about accounting responsibilities and procedures so that the matter might be resolved.

4. “… disregard for policies and procedures within the framework of the YCIAS.”

• Kimbro’s demands of me contradicted the YCIAS’s own stated policies (see G. Smith’s memorandum of November 7, 1994).
• Kimbro’s actions disregarded the structure and relationships of the YCIAS to the area councils as stated in the YCIAS “mission statement.”
• Kimbro’s belligerence toward me violated the written agreement of May 17, 1993, regarding my position.

5. “… neither the Kempf Fund nor Professor Jackson’s report were completed.”

• I had completed the Kempf Fund list and left it with Kimbro on November 23, the day before Thanksgiving recess, as agreed by my Union representative, Kimbro, and myself (in extremis) on November 21; any time after that Kimbro could have told me if she wanted an additional column of data on the list, but she only did so when she delivered the letter of discharge, which she had already prepared.
• I had prepared the financial information Professor Jackson wanted, according to the schedule to which we had agreed on November 21, and was prepared to explain it to him after a scheduled meeting with him (and others) on the morning I was terminated.
• There is no record of a 5:00 pm “deadline” for giving the information to Jackson, neither in my personal notes of the November 21st meeting nor in my official personnel file maintained by the University.

Last updated 11 March 2022 (Friday) at 15:44:05 PST ▲