MEMORANDUM
 

TO: Mr. John Bonnell
FROM: Rose Bellanca, Provost
SUBJECT: Disciplinary Suspension
DATE: July 9, 1999

This memorandum is submitted as a statement of my findings regarding the
charges of insubordination, breach of confidentiality, retaliation, and disruption
of the educational process alleged in the notice of charges dated June 7, 1999.

Disruption of Educational Process

You contributed materially to the disruption of the educational process in class
sections 271 KC (26 out of 28 students did not attend), 122 LA (25 out 27
students did not attend), and 122 LC (all 28 students were absent) on February
1 and 2, 1999, by three or more of the following means in each section: a)
informing your students of the impending suspension on these dates; b) telling
them, in effect, it was their choice whether they should attend class during
your suspension; c) referring to Vice President William MacQueen's directive
to you of January 8, 1999, as a "gag order"; d) reminding students of your
policy of awarding credit for not attending class to students who sign an
"attendance sheet" when you are absent; and e) distributing a copy of * * * 's
complaint to Roger Weber of Channel 4 News and to The Macomb Daily.

Each of these means was improper, and collectively they formed a personal
encouragement to your students to disrupt the educational process in support
of your cause and in protest of your 3-day suspension. Their impropriety is
evident. You were directed on January 8, 1999, not to discuss your suspension
with your students, yet you admittedly informed your students in all three of
these sections that you were to be suspended on February 1 - 3. (See
statements of Jeanette Estridge and Kelly Pierce, students in 271 KC;
statement of Wayne Hukill, a student in 122 LA; statement of Sherry Davis, a
student in 122 LC; and your statement on May 25, page 6.) Rather than
encourage them to attend class in your absence -- or at least remain silent on
the question -- you told the students in at least two of the three sections (271
KC and

Page 2

122 LC) it was their choice whether they should attend class (see statements of
Patrick Akerley (a student in 271 KC) , Kelly Pierce, Denise Walsh (a student
in 271 KC), and Sherry Davis; and your statement on May 25, 1999, page 25).
In tandem, these statements are tantamount to saying to your students "I am to
be suspended, and because I am to be suspended you don't have to attend
class." They constitute a clear violation of the January 8 directive not to
discuss your discipline with your students.

In at least two of the three sections (122 LA and 122 LC), you reminded the
students of your policy of granting credit because of your absence, thereby
promising them a reward for their own non-attendance. (See statements of
Wayne Hukill, Nicole Richard [a student in 122 LA], and Sherry Davis; your
statement on May 25, 1999, pages 23-25; and the "attendance sheet signed in
full and total SUPPORT of Mr. Bonnell and in full and total PROTEST of Mr.
Bonnell's suspension"). This reminder was not an innocent, coincidental
restatement of pre-existing policy. To the contrary, your first-day handout for
English 122 states "Attendance... will be taken but no credit can be earned for
attendance, except on days when I am absent and such absence was not
announced in advance (emphasis supplied). Students in attendance at such
times should sign a sheet of paper, and the last one to sign should deposit the
list in my mail-slot in F-2 11." By its terms, your policy does not apply to an
absence announced in advance, as was the case here. Moreover, what was the
point of reminding students of your policy other than to induce them not to
attend class? Finally, awarding credit for a student's non-attendance when a
substitute teacher is provided makes no sense. Your reminder had only one
apparent purpose, and that was to encourage students to boycott classes in
your absence.

Two other actions contributed to the disruption of the educational process in
your classes:
informing your students that you could not discuss your impending suspension
because of the College's "gag order" (see statement of Denise Romanowski, a
student in 271 KC; this statement is itself a violation of Mr. MacQueen's
directive of January 8) and your distribution of Ms. * * *’s complaint to
Channel 4 and The Macomb Daily, which violated Mr. MacQueen's directive
as well as College policy, the collective bargaining agreement with MCCFO,
and Federal and State law.

Viewed together, your actions amount to an impermissible effort to enlist the
sympathy and material support of your students in your cause against your
employer and led to the disruption of the educational process in your classes
and other classes on campus on February 1 and 2. I must remind you that the
College is morally and legally obligated to provide an orderly and safe learning
environment, one that promotes student learning and is free from the threat of
violence. As you know, an altercation did erupt during the February 1, 1999
student demonstration on your behalf.
Page3

As a result of your disruption of the educational process, you are hereby
formally reprimanded and warned that any future actions which contribute to
the disruption of the educational processes at the College will subject you to
further discipline.

Insubordination

During the week of January 17 and/or 24, 1999, you committed multiple acts
of insubordination by discussing your impending discipline on February 1-3,
1999 with your students in clear violation of Mr. MacQueen's January 8, 1999
directive to you. On January 15, 1999, or thereabouts, and January 26, 1999,
or thereabouts, you committed multiple acts of insubordination in violation of
that same directive by distributing a copy of
* * *’s complaint to Roger Weber of Channel 4 News and to The Macomb
Daily.

Mr. MacQueen's directive of January 8 stated: "Because your posting,
distribution and discussion of student complaints of sex harassment or your use
of obscene or vulgar language conveys the message that complaining students
may expect to be ridiculed by you and ostracized by their classmates, and thus
may be deterred from complaining, you are hereby directed not to post,
distribute, or discuss verbally or in writing (inside or outside the classroom)
specific complaints filed by one or more of your students against you regarding
sex harassment or your use of obscene or vulgar language, or such complaints
against you generally, with any person enrolled in one or more of your classes
unless written permission has been granted for good cause by Dr. Rose
Bellanca upon application of your union or attorney. This prohibition extends
to discussion of any disciplinary action which has been or may be taken against
you.

Federal and State law impose a legal duty on the College to provide a learning
environment free from sex harassment and a breach of this duty exposes the
College to liability. College policy prohibits a teacher's use of obscene, profane
or vulgar language in the classroom which is not germane to course content as
measured by professional standards, and is specifically written to protect the
rights of individuals who may choose to complain. Because individuals who
feel aggrieved have the right to be heard, the College cannot and will not
tolerate an employee's efforts to discourage complaints and ridicule
complainants.

Page4

The directive of January 8, 1999 was issued to you in the wake of your
previous efforts to stifle such complaints and to publicly malign and intimidate
individuals who file a complaint. Consider the following:

• You posted on the departmental bulletin board (to which students have
access) the January 19, 1998 letter of a student's father complaining about
your classroom use of such words as 'fuck', 'cunt', and 'pussy.'
 

• You posted * * *’s November 6, 1998 complaint of sex harassment on the
same bulletin board.

• Two of the numerous student letters submitted on your behalf in November,
1998, quote directly from Ms. * * *’s complaint.

• You justified your use of obscene and vulgar language in * * *’s class by
telling the class "This is how I teach," and derisively related how you have
dismissed prior complaints from students. According to Ms. * * *, you
"laughed out loud and giggled like a little kid" in relating your handling of
complaints from two former students (a woman and a male member of the
clergy), attempting to make it clear to the class that complaining is futile.

• When Ms. * * * asked for an apology you responded by writing your eight
page document titled An Apology: Yes, Virginia, There is a Sanity Clause and
distributing it to all of the College's full-time faculty, Roger Weber of Channel
4 News, The Macomb Daily, and at least one male student whose name is
unknown to the College. Attached to your document was a copy of Ms. * *
*’s complaint requesting an apology.

My point in reciting these events is simply to demonstrate that the College had
a compelling reason for issuing the January 8 directive to you. By posting or
distributing student complaints, as well as discussing them in class, you have
attempted to make it perfectly clear to your students what they may expect if
they complain about you. Your repeated attempts to thwart the complaint
process can not be ignored by the College.

As a result, the College finds you were insubordinate under the January 8
directive, and in light of the previous three-day disciplinary suspension which
was issued to you, you are hereby suspended from your duties without pay for
a period of fourteen calendar days, commencing August 18, 1999, and ending
August 31, 1999. Your fringe benefits will remain in place during the period of
this suspension.

Page 5

Breach of Confidentiality and Retaliation

On December 21 and 22, 1998, or thereabouts, you violated a) Section 1. A.
and Section II of the College's Policy Prohibiting Sexual Harassment, b) Article
VIII.A.7. of the Master Agreement between Macomb Community College and
the Macomb Community College Faculty Organization, c) the Family
Educational and Privacy Rights Act, d) Title IX of the Educational
Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and e) the Elliott-Larsen Civil
Rights Act by distributing a copy of * * *’s complaint and your memorandum
titled An Apology: Yes Virginia, There is a Sanity Clause to all full-time
faculty members and a male student whose name is unknown to the College.

On January 15, 1999, or thereabouts, and January 26, 1999, or thereabouts,
you violated a) Section I.A. and Section II of the College's Policy Prohibiting
Sexual Harassment, b) Article VIII.A.7. of the Master Agreement between
Macomb Community College and the Macomb Community College Faculty
Organization, c) the Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act, d) Title IX of
the Educational Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and e) the Elliott-
Larsen Civil Rights Act by distributing a copy of * * *’s complaint and your
memorandum titled An Apology: Yes, Virginia, There is a Sanity Clause to
Roger Weber of Channel 4 News and to The Macomb Daily.

Unlike the charges of disruption of the educational process or insubordination
under the January 8 directive, which are offenses against a broad class of
students or the institution itself, breach of confidentiality and retaliation strike
specifically at an individual, and therefore are considered to be far more serious
offenses. It must be recognized at the outset that Ms. regarded her complaint
of November 6, 1998 as a complaint of sex harassment. Not only did she say
as much in the complaint itsel1, but she verbally related some of your
sexually-laden classroom commentary to the administration during the
investigation of her complaint. For example:

• After a student mentioned "urban legends," you informed the class that you
were trying to create urban legends yourself. You told the class that once you
tried masturbating by smearing Vaseline on the inside of a toilet paper roll,
inserting the roll over your penis, and then placing the toilet paper on or in a
washing machine; however, your "cock" (to use your word) lost interest.

• You related to the class that as a young man you experienced guilt as the
result of your masturbation, sought absolution from your priest, and threw
away your Playboy magazines; however, after some time passed your resolve
evaporated, and you resorted to the story of Lot in the Bible for masturbatory
stimulus.

Page 6

• You related to the class your dream about a naked red-haired girl in your bed,
saying it was one of the best dreams you have ever had.

• You related to the class your first sexual experience with a woman, saying
you couldn't get your "soldier to stand at attention."

• You related to the class that you and your first wife would fondle each other
and then go to church for absolution.

Of course, this commentary was in addition to the obscene and vulgar language
for which you were disciplined in February ('shit', 'damn', 'fuck', 'ass',
'butt-fucking', 'blow job', 'tits on a nun are useful as balls on a priest'). Clearly,
Ms. * * *’s complaint may be regarded as a colorable complaint of sex
harassment even though you were not charged. Consequently, Ms. * * * was
entitled to the full protection of the law and College policy providing for
confidentiality and prohibiting retaliation. Section III. D. of the College's Policy
Prohibiting Sex Harassment (which was distributed to all faculty) clearly states
that "Macomb Community College shall assure that no individual shall be
retaliated against for making a complaint of sexual harassment, opposing sexual
harassment, or participating in an investigation under this policy, regardless of
whether a policy violation is found (emphasis added).

Further, the law, College policy, and Article VIII.A.7. of the collective
bargaining agreement with MCCFO cannot be satisfied simply by redacting the
complainant's name from the complaint. "Confidential" means secret and the
requirement of confidentiality extends beyond the identity of the complainant
to the complaint itself. This guarantee of confidentiality was utterly and
repeatedly ignored by you.

By drawing the attention of the full-time faculty, other students, and the public
at large to her complaint, you caused Ms. * * * to suffer anguish, which may
be regarded as a form of retaliation. The distribution of your memorandum
titled An Apology: Yes, Virginia, There is a Sanity Clause was designed to
discredit her as an immature young woman in need of enlightenment, and thus
was designed to destroy her credibility as a complainant. Most significantly,
your memorandum is thoroughly insulting and demeaning to Ms. * * * as a
person in both its content and its tone. It is the very antithesis of how a teacher
should treat a student and how a complainant would expect to be treated given
the assurances of the law and College policy.

Page 7

As a teacher at Macomb Community College, you do not enjoy a privileged
status placing you outside the norms of the college community or society in
general. Without a high degree of mutual respect and trust between teachers
and learners, Macomb Community College cannot succeed as an academic
institution nor protect the academic environment. If an administrator or other
staff member at Macomb treated a teacher as contemptuously as you treated
Ms. * * *, there would be a hue and cry from the faculty for termination of the
offender's employment. If you truly desire to continue teaching at Macomb,
you must bring yourself to recognize and respect the limits of your position and
your responsibilities as a member of the teaching profession and our learning
community.

The College finds your actions to be serious and willful violations of
institutional policy, written directives from people in positions of proper
authority, and most importantly, to be serious and willful violations of the legal
and personal rights of a student who followed proper procedures in filing a
complaint against you. It is also clear that you were fully aware of the severity
of your actions since you were quoted repeatedly in the media, saying that you
would probably be fired for what you had done. But, despite your own
recognition of the severity of your actions and the formal written warning from
the administration to discontinue them, you persisted with the offending
behavior.

The College, therefore, finds you breached confidentiality and retaliated against
the complaining student. In determining the appropriate discipline to be
imposed for these offenses, the College has looked to the "Guidance" published
by the Office of Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of Education and to
case law. The OCR Guidance states that the school should tell the complainant
that Title IX prohibits retaliation and that, if she or he is afraid of reprisals from
the alleged harasser, the school will take steps to try to prevent retaliation and
will take strong responsive actions if retaliation occurs. The College tried to
prevent further retaliation by its directive to you of January 8, 1999, which you
ignored. The College now feels obliged to take strong responsive action. Case
law supports actions as severe as termination as being appropriate discipline for
breach of confidentiality.

The College gave serious consideration to terminating your employment
effective immediately. However, in deference to your length of service with the
institution, and in the belief that rehabilitation is still possible, the College has
decided upon a suspension instead. Therefore, you are hereby suspended from
your duties without pay for the four months of the Fall 1999 semester,
commencing August 18, 1999 and ending December 18, 1999. This suspension
will run concurrent with the fourteen day suspension issued for
insubordination. In anticipation of your return to work in the Spring semester,
your fringe benefits will remain in effect during the period of this suspension.

c: Albert Lorenzo, William MacQueen, Gus Demas, Ruth Reed, Marie
Baeckeroot, personnel file