The Ultimate Machiavelli

Technical Communication - Documents

Précis of Documents sent to the Chair and Hearing Committee Members

James D Nason suppressed from evidence the correspondence which contained these excerpts. All committee members received copies prior to, and following, the flawed hearing.

ML-97-0414-0000

I write to make sure there are no misunderstandings. Let me make some points unambiguously clear on behalf of the University of Washington:

1. The only grievance pending which will be heard by the Graduate School and the University of Washington is the matter of your alleged failure to make adequate progress and your pending termination from the Master's degree program in Technical Communication.

2. You have had access to all relevant materials in this matter.

3. Your educational records are available to you for inspection following normal University student records procedures.

Your e-mails suggest that you do not intend to participate in the grievance hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 29, 1997. **Please confirm by Friday, April 18, 1997,** whether you intend to participate in this hearing, which will be solely dedicated to the question of your alleged failure to make academic progress toward a Master's in Technical Communication.

PT-97-0421-2304

The Institution (University of Washington, also by extension, agents of the Graduate School and the Department of Technical Communication defined under RCW 34.05.010) has, without negotiating a mutually agreed time and place, scheduled a grievance hearing for Tuesday, April 29, 1997, and named you [James D Nason] as presiding officer. As presiding officer you may grant a continuance on your own motion on timely request by any party to the hearing. If the parties do not agree to a continuance then you must promptly schedule a prehearing conference to receive argument and to rule on the request pursuant to WAC 10-08-090.

I formally request that you, as presiding officer, consider a motion for continuance of these proceedings because the Institution has frivolously changed the language of the grievance to represent something different from the original intent. If all parties do not agree to a continuance then I request that you schedule a prehearing conference to receive argument and to rule on the request pursuant to WAC 10-08-130. The Institution has seized the language prerogative that rightfully belongs to the Complainant (Paul Trummel) and has changed the wording of the complaint beyond all recognition and inserted their own statement (Landolt 04.14.97 copy appended) that changes meaning and denies due process.

In addition, the Institution has adopted a rule of procedure different from the model rules without stating the reasons for the variance contrary to RCW 34.05.250. Moreover, the Institution has failed to provide formally requested documents that relate to the bona fide grievance and has continued to cover up the falsification of documents that materially affect this hearing. Without corrected documents a fair hearing cannot take place.

I will appreciate your immediate response on the proposed continuance due to the short time that remains before the scheduled hearing. In addition, the Institution has not convened hearings on associated issues that take precedence over this hearing. In any event, please send me the title and edition of the procedural rules of order that you intend to use at any future hearing. Thank you.

PT-97-0429-0929

I acknowledge receipt of your [Marsha L Landolt] certified letter (04.14,97) and your letter (04.22.97). I have also appended copies of those letters to this message.

Definitions

The term "Institution" means the University of Washington (UW). It includes by extension, but not exclusively, agents of the Office of the President, the Office of the Provost, the Graduate School (GS), the College of Engineering (CEng), and the College of Education (CEd) pursuant to RCW 34.05.010.

The term "Complainant" means Paul Trummel formerly an administrator at the University of Massachusetts, a professor at several Massachusetts institutions of higher learning, a lecturer at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), and an associate professor of communication and rhetoric at San Jose State University, California. Now, an elected fellow of two international communication institutes, an internationally accredited journalist, and a doctoral student at the University of Washington (subject to these complaints).

Abridged Chronology

1986. The Complainant met with Mark P. Haselkorn, Chair, Department of Technical Communication (TC), University of Washington, in Charlotte, North Carolina. Haselkorn discussed, in company with others, the Complainants previous career as a communicator, journalist, university administrator, and professor. Haselkorn also asked about the Complainant's doctoral progress at RPI and learned that the Complainant had completed most of the course work for a PhD at that university.

1989. The Complainant had completed all of the course work for the PhD at RPI and had obtained a tenure-track position, as associate professor at San Jose State University, pending completion of his PhD and a promised promotion to a full professor with tenure. Haselkorn, during a telephone conversation, invited the Complainant to apply for a faculty position in TC and, simultaneously, complete his PhD in the CEd/UW. Haselkorn, during a later telephone conversation, informed the Complainant that the proposed faculty position had changed to an administrative position. However, he suggested that the Complainant continue to pursue the doctoral option.

Subsequently, he passed the Complainant's file containing a fifty-page curriculum vitae that spanned more than forty years to William D. Winn, College of Education (CEd), University of Washington. The Complainant discussed the CEd/PhD with Winn who obtained a tacit acceptance into that program from Professor Doi, then Dean CEd. The Complainant traveled to Seattle for an interview with Winn and then had a final interview with Stephen T. Kerr, an area chair (a department chair), who finally accepted the Complainant into the CEd program. The Complainant then moved to Seattle from San Jose, California.

The new associate dean CEd, Richard S Neel, arbitrarily "unaccepted" the Complainant's acceptance into the program that caused the Complainant eventually to file a complaint with the Ombudsman Lois Price-Spratlen. She abrogated confidentiality by immediately passing the file to Steven G Olswang who then blocked the complaint and denied due process. Olswang attempted to mitigate the circumstances by transferring the Complainant to the Special Independent PhD program. He arranged for the Complainant's acceptance and registration in TC as a precandidate, adjunct graduate (doctoral) student.

1991-97. The Candidate has completed all of the course work and written a dissertation for the PhD/CEd. He has also met all of the requirements for admission into the SIPhD program. However, officials of the Graduate School have consistently blocked the Complainant's progress. This has resulted in the Complainant filing a series of grievances that include a discrimination complaint under both federal and state laws. None of these grievances has received a hearing and Olswang has consistently blocked the discrimination complaint. The Institution has continually harassed the Complainant, has removed his computer access and expropriated all of his academic and journalism files probably to prevent him from writing about his experience.

Therefore, the Institution has deliberately prevented the Complainant (a technical communicator with fifty years standing and an accredited journalist with forty years standing) from completing either a PhD degree or continuing with his journalism and other books because it has denied him access to the expropriated files. For eight years the GS, CEng, and CEd have denied due process, falsified files to support their contentions, and covered up illegal activities by UW officials. They have effectively deprived the Complainant of his livelihood as both a journalist and a professor also his PhD.

1997. The GS has now begun an action to remove the Complainant's registration by making false claims of unsatisfactory progress toward a masters degree and manufacturing evidence to support that contention. The Complainant has never registered in a UW masters degree program nor needed a masters degree. The Complainant already holds both a MS in technical communication and a European equivalent MSc degree. The GS has continued to falsify the Complainant's academic record to preclude mention of either of these qualifications. The Institution has falsely represented the Complainant as a premasters graduate student instead of a precandidate graduate (doctoral) student despite repeated requests for correction of the misleading information.

To Landolt. Marsha L. Landolt, on April 1, 1997, I requested that you, as Dean of the Graduate School, record a formal complaint against Judith A. Ramey. The complaint alleged abrogation of a May 5, 1995, agreement and that Ramey had reverted to the departmental stance that existed before informal conciliation. I requested that you immediately convene formal hearings on the original grievance according to GSM 33. As the originator of the grievance I hold the prerogative for framing the language. You have now seized the language prerogative that rightfully belongs to me and have changed the wording of the grievance beyond all recognition. Thus, you have changed my complaint from:

Judith A. Ramey, now acting chair Department of Technical Communication, College of Engineering, University of Washington (TC), has abrogated an agreement (May 5, 1995 ratified May 31, 1995) that settled a grievance (May 1, 1995) through informal conciliation. That informal conciliation between Mark P. Haselkorn, then chair, TC, and Paul Trummel dealt with an alleged five-year rule for completion of a degree under Graduate School Memorandum #33 (Revised 1983).

and inserted your own language that completely changes meaning and denies me due process:

The only grievance pending which will be heard by the Graduate School and the University of Washington is the matter of your alleged failure to make adequate progress and your pending termination from the Master's degree program in Technical Communication.

This language does not remotely resemble the language that I used to describe the formal complaint that I filed under GSM 33 although it does implicitly acknowledge other pending grievances. I have never enrolled in the Master's degree program in Technical Communication as your statement suggests, therefore, any use of this argument against me remains moot. This also shows a total disregard for established procedures. My complaint deals solely with the abrogated agreement that relates to denial of due process.

It has nothing to do with the issues that you now raise. Again, I state quite emphatically, that I rank as a precandidate graduate (doctoral) student and not as a premasters graduate student as you claim (GSM 10). I have never registered in the Master of Science degree in Technical Communication Program as the Institution now claims. Instead, on the recommendation of Vice Provost Steven G. Olswang, I registered as an adjunct precandidate student in the Department of Technical Communication to qualify for the Special Independent PhD Program. The university rules allow me ten years to complete this degree pursuant to UWGC 92-94/43.7. Moreover, the ten years commences after hearing my grievance about illegal blocking of progress toward an advanced degree by UW officials.

Neither Ramey nor Spyridakis [Jan H Spyridakis, Professor, Technical Communication] have jurisdiction over my academic progress or possess authority to make representations about my work to the Graduate School. That prerogative remains with my SIPhD committee. The only way these neophytes could decide about my academic work would result from peer reviewing it: something that they have not done and to which I would not agree. I consider them less than my academic peers. I have not met with Spyridakis or Ramey since fall 1992 in Santa Fe, neither have they at any time asked me for information about my work.

What right do they now have to conclude that I have made unsatisfactory progress toward an advanced degree? How can they now make recommendations about progress toward completion of an advanced degree without falsifying evidence? They both have very little experience in the technical communication discipline and their publications show mediocre academic performance fabricated to meet departmental retention, tenure, and promotion agendas. Their meager published work shows that they lack competence to undertake any type of review of advanced work in the technical communication field. Apparently, they have no experience whatever in the sphere in which I enjoy an international reputation. Consequently, I would not recommend either of them to students as a graduate advisor let alone allow them to review my work. Moreover, their recent farcical administrative performance demonstrates ineptitude based on political expedience and incompetence.

Landolt, you have no authority to change the language of the grievance that I submitted to you on April 1, 1997. I filed a complaint based on existing circumstances and used precise language that described those circumstances.

As a Complainant I assume a role similar to that of a plaintiff in a civil law suit. I have filed a complaint against Ramey. I have alleged that she has vitiated my rights and, consequently, her actions have become the object of my complaint. Moreover, I have used university procedures very similar to those used when bringing allegations against a defendant in a civil law suit. Consequently, Ramey must respond to the complaint or accept responsibility for her actions. If she accepts responsibility, then she must make reparation in a similar way to that a civil court would order a defendant to make an amends.

Apparently, both you and Ramey think that you can "put me on trial." By this latest ploy, you have jointly removed yourselves from the defendant role in the pseudo-civil action. Then you have initiated and insinuated yourselves into the role of joint prosecutors in a pseudo-criminal prosecution. Historically, despots have employed these tactics when they have convened "kangaroo courts": totalitarian courts characterized by dishonesty or incompetence that violate established legal procedures. Kangaroo courts became particularly evident in German universities in the 1920s and 1930s. Apparently, history continues to repeat itself at the University of Washington.

If either you or Ramey wants to file a complaint against me using the language that you now suggest, then you must first comply with all of the GSM 16 provisions. If the outcome of those deliberations does not satisfy me then you must grant me due process by convening grievance hearings if I request them. Any such hearings can only take place after the hearing of all other outstanding grievances, then my present grievance. Meanwhile, you must not prejudice me further in any way and must mitigate the damage to me caused through the neglect of Feetham and others on your staff. Part of that mitigation should insure correction of my falsified student records and provision of corrected, notarized copies to me. I have noted that you have cunningly changed the referenced quarter in your latest letter (MLL/04.22.97): a retroaction that tries to cover up Ramey's illegal contention (JAR/02.26.97).

You must not instruct Mary A. Fitch, Supervisor, Graduations and Academic Records, to enter a final probation finding on my records as you have suggested in your latest letter (MLL/04.22.97). Accordingly, I warn Fitch, by copy of this letter, that if she knowingly makes any more pejorative entries on my records before adjudicative hearings, or compounds the existing falsification of those records, then that could construe as gross misconduct. Also, she could suffer severe penalties under law. I also inform her that pending hearings contain allegations of record falsification; therefore, any new entries on my records by her could, in the future, construe as forgery and falsification of evidence.

In view of the forgoing I believe that the hearing that you have convened on a false premise cannot provide a fair hearing as constituted. Therefore, I have formally requested James D. Nason, the presiding officer, to consider a motion for continuance of the proceedings. I have shown that the Institution has frivolously changed the language of the grievance to represent something differently from the original intent.

If all parties do not agree to a continuance then I have requested that he schedule a prehearing conference to receive argument and to rule on the request pursuant to WAC 10-08-30. The Institution has seized the language prerogative that rightfully belongs to me and has changed the wording of the grievance beyond all recognition. In addition, Ramey has neglected to send the documents that relate to her consultations (JAR/04.07.97/14:47) with both Spyridakis and Winn. I requested copies of these documents (recommendations of unsatisfactory progress) in my letter to her (PT/04.21.97). I also explained to her that recommendations from two members of the faculty do not comprise most of the graduate faculty members or supervisory committees involved.

Now, I need copies of the Spyridakis, Winn, and graduate faculty recommendations that she cites. I formerly request that you order Ramey to provide them to me immediately. By documents I mean those written and notarized by faculty members before you took the first action. I do not mean documents that she may now try to persuade unsuspecting faculty members to write retroactively to support her claims: all this pursuant to GSM 16.

The President, Graduate and Professional Student Senate (GPSS) has also formally notified you of the findings of the GPSS Executive Committee. After due inquiry into my circumstances and a personal examination, they have informed you "that any and all outstanding appeals that can be documented by either yourself [the Complainant] or the University of Washington [the Institution] be handled in the order they were filed." You have not responded to this demand and have continued to promote the present jurisprudential farce.

Finally, on a more personal note, your recent convoluted correspondence has forced me involuntarily to provide free tutoring in procedures to you and your group of amateur bureaucrats. Unfortunately, my "pupils" have failed to make adequate progress toward anything except cover up, self-aggrandizement, and personal gain. This shows a need to place them on final probation because they have not learned the rudiments of how public servants should serve the public with humility.

Moreover, your ineptitude particularly rankles when one discovers that you as their leader earn $97,980/pa. Evidently, this has resulted from an obscene increase in salary of $24,495/pa (33%) last year: presumably a reward for attaining the highest level of incompetence and malfeasance. Your salary contrasts the average $65,675/pa truly earned by most full professors in the state of Washington. They received a salary increase of less than 2% for competently serving their students and conducting research. To a person who has paid taxes for more than fifty years, and full tuition to the University of Washington for eight years, something appears radically wrong with this scenario.

PT-97-0429-1021

James D. Nason wrote:

Your physician may call me at 543-9680 this morning with respect to your health and likely ability to attend a meeting today or on some other date. I will, if you prefer, call your physician myself for that discussion - if so, provide the name and phone number."

[An attached file contained a medical certificate and the physician’s contact information]

You have my permission to call the physician for verification.

PT-97-0429-1553

You [James D Nason] have not replied within the stipulated five days to my message (04.21.97/14:41). That message requested a continuance, pursuant to WAC 10-08-090, of the spurious grievance hearing initiated by Marsha L. Landolt and Judith A. Ramey. Without a response from you I have concluded that you took the initiative and granted a continuance on your own motion. Please let me know whether you intend to hold prehearing conferences to amend the language of the grievance to its correct form.

If you intend to hold prehearing conferences, pursuant to WAC 10-08-130, then please let me know the suggested time and venue. If you do not intend to hold prehearing conferences then confirm that you have changed the language that describes the grievance to its original form. Then, let me know the suggested time and venue for a hearing.

In any event, bona fide hearings cannot take place until both Ramey and Landolt have furnished the documents necessary to either a prehearing conference or a hearing. Please issue instructions for them to comply with my repeated requests to furnish documents immediately so that I may complete my discovery process. Meanwhile, please advise me of the title and edition of the procedural rules of order that you intend to use when you schedule the continued hearing.

On the advice of my doctor, and due to the recurrence of my recent bout with pneumonia, I cannot attend any meetings for at least the next few days. Please consider this when planning meeting schedules.

I acknowledge receipt of your [Marsha D Landolt] certified letter of April 14, 1997 (received April 16, 1997). The final paragraph of your letter requests a response by Friday, April 18, 1997. The time that you have allowed neither permits a reasoned response nor conforms with the Procedural Rules for Formal Hearings (RCW 34.05). Therefore, I will take the time allowed by law to respond to your letter.

PT-97-0430-1957 [Composite]

I acknowledge and respond to your message (JDN/04.29.97), copy appended, that does not address the issues raised in my previous message (PT/04.21.97/14:05). Also, you did not respond within the time allowed under the rules.

JDN. Academic grievance hearings for graduate students are governed by the procedures set forth in the University Handbook (Vol. III, Chapter 1) and by the procedural policies of the Graduate School (Graduate School Memorandum #33).

PT. The student grievance procedure stands as a separate procedure governed by the University Handbook, also with graduate school students, Graduate School Memorandum #33. However, its promulgation under WAC 478-120-050 clearly makes it accountable to the law and one may reference both WAC and RCW for clarification. Referencing source documents has become especially necessary here because ambiguity exists in the first paragraph of GSM #33 that Landolt and Feetham have deftly manipulated.

JDN. The WAC has no bearing on these matters.

PT. I have become painfully aware that the Washington Administrative Code has no bearing on judicial matters in Gerberding's totalitarian state that McCormick has perpetuated with his laissez faire policies. However, their intellectual thugs have yet to overthrow the Washington Legislature. Consequently, both the Revised Code of Washington and the Washington Administrative Code still apply to the University of Washington. Historically, petty Führers have usually destroyed themselves. Resolute in this knowledge, I will continue to refer to, and abide by, the law. I will follow this policy until UW officials have assumed absolute power and succeeded in removing the few remaining constitutional rights that they have not already removed from me.

JDN. You filed a request for a grievance hearing.

PT. I filed a “specific”* request for a grievance hearing and asked you to: ". . . schedule a prehearing conference to receive argument and to rule on the request pursuant to WAC 10-08-130. The Institution has seized the language prerogative that rightfully belongs to the Complainant (Paul Trummel) and has changed the wording of the complaint beyond all recognition."

JDN. You were provided appropriate notification of the hearing meeting scheduled for today and provided with the opportunity to provide documents (which you apparently choose not to do).

PT. I cannot provide documents or argue my case because the Institution has falsified and withheld documents from me. Therefore, you must, at a prehearing conference, make a finding for the Institution to release documents to me before any hearings can take place. You must also schedule hearings for the outstanding grievances that take preference to this matter.

JDN. Your grievance solely and specifically concerns the termination of your status as a Master's program student in the Department of Technical Communications for lack of satisfactory progress and no other matter is or will be considered by the Hearing Committee.

PT. I have never enrolled as a Master's program student in the Department of Technical Communication as you claim. Moreover, Landolt has usurped my prerogative for describing the grievance and supplanted it with her own description. Consequently, you have no authority to hold a hearing based on a false premise and cannot hold any hearings until you promulgate the correct language at a prehearing conference.

JDN. I have not yet received any information that would warrant a change in the scheduled meeting.

PT. I gave reasons for you to convene prehearing conferences. Under law you must follow that procedure.

JDN. If you choose to not continue with the grievance hearing then the matter will be dropped and your termination will proceed.

PT. You have no authority to drop these hearings arbitrarily. If you do not wish to continue as presiding officer then you may recuse yourself.

JDN. Your physician may call me at 543-9680 this morning with respect to your health and likely ability to attend a meeting today or on some other date. I will, if you prefer, call your physician myself for that discussion - if so, provide the name and phone number.

PT. I sent to you a medical certificate (MS/04.28.97) and gave you permission to call the physician to verify it (PT/04.29.97/10:21). Other documentation of my medical condition during the past month also exists (04.01.97/13:22).

JDN. Otherwise, the hearing will be at 1:00 at which time you can make a brief (10-15 minute) statement as to your satisfactory progress towards completion of a Master's degree in the Department of Technical Communication.

PT. You cannot legally hold a hearing until you have held a prehearing conference. When the continued hearings take place a 10-15 minute statement by me will not allow me adequately to describe such a complex situation.

JDN. Following a similar opportunity for the committee to hear from Professor Ramey and Professor Haselkorn, the committee may then choose to make further inquiries of you or them before ending the hearing to consider its decision.

PT. I reserve the right to cross-examine, at length, any of the witnesses that the Institution calls to refute the original, reinstated complaint.

LSH-97-0613-0000

Linda S. Hume, Chair, Faculty Appeal Board, University of Washington.
University of Washington, School of Law.

Please be advised that the Faculty Appeal Board does not have jurisdiction in your case. The Faculty Appeal Board handles appeals when sanctions have been applied through the University disciplinary process.

It is my understanding that your enrollment will be discontinued for academic reasons and that you have been advised of the appropriate way to appeal.

The Faculty Appeal Board will take no action on your request because it does not have jurisdiction.

To Hume. I acknowledge receipt of your letter (LSH/06.13.97, copy appended). Please furnish the names of the Members, Faculty Appeal Board whom you copied with your letter. As a lawyer you must realize that casual, anonymous observations can form no part of an appeal process. Therefore, please provide the name of the person (or persons) who informed you that my "enrollment will be discontinued for academic reasons" and state those reasons. Also, provide the name of the person who apparently "advised of the appropriate way to appeal," restate that advice, and cite the applicable regulation that governs it. Otherwise, I can neither clarify your understanding nor respond accurately to your denial of my appeal. Please let me have a reply by email today. Thank you. [No response]

PT-97-0614-0737

On April 29, 1997, you [all members of the hearing committee] evidently attended an illegal "kangaroo court," convened by Marsha L. Landolt, Dean, The Graduate School, University of Washington, to expel me from that university. You attended this "hearing" despite prior knowledge that I had:

1. Brought a motion for a continuance pursuant to WAC 10-08-130 (JDN/04.21.97).

2. Provided a medical certificate, signed by a doctor registered in the State of Washington, that I had contracted pneumonia (JDN/04.29.97).

3. Called for a prehearing conference to obtain documents necessary for a fair hearing (JDN/04.21.97).

Evidently, you participated in an illegal decision to cancel my grievance proceeding and to deny me due process that has resulted in Landolt expelling me from the university. Consequently, I hold you, jointly and severally, liable for knowingly attending an illegal hearing contrary to university adjudicative procedures, the Washington Administrative Code, and the Revised Code of Washington. I give you this opportunity to respond and account for your actions. If I do not receive an explanation of your behavior from you, or your legal representative, within ten days then I will proceed with a civil action for damages.

PT-97-0723-0720

I acknowledge your letter (MLL/07.14.907) to which I have previously responded in my letter to Ramey (PT/04.21.97, copy appended). You previously received a copy of that letter. The circumstances remain now as they did then. You obviously have trouble reading and interpreting university regulations. Neither you, Ramey, nor TC faculty members, have the authority to decide the issues contained in your letter. You must follow the procedures outlined in Graduate School Memoranda #10, #13, #16, and #33. Furthermore, you may not initiate these procedures until the university convenes adjudicative hearings of outstanding grievances on associated issues.

I will consider any more letters from you that repeat the same language as retaliatory harassment. I have raised legitimate concerns and demanded my right to due process pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code 478-120 and the Revised Code of Washington 34.05 and 28B.20.130. You have acted illegally, conspired with Ramey and others to cover up criminal activity, and perverted the course of justice. Your actions have severely damaged my reputation and precluded me from earning a livelihood. I will not rest until the university addresses all the issues pursuant to law. You must not make any decision regarding registration until all outstanding grievances have received an adjudicative hearing.

By copy of this letter, I again warn Mary Fitch, Supervisor, Graduations and Academic Records, that if she makes any changes to my records pending adjudicative hearings on the validity of those records, whether on your instructions or not, then I will take legal action against her personally.

From Landolt. In a letter dated 16 April 1997, the Department of Technical Communication informed you that you had not progressed satisfactorily toward a Master's Degree in Technical Communication and that you were being placed on final probation. You were informed of the steps required to become a student in good standing and to complete your degree. You failed to meet those requirements. In view of your failure to satisfy the requirements of your graduate program, you will no longer be allowed to register as a graduate student effective Summer Quarter 1997.

To Ramey. I acknowledge receipt of your letter (04.16.97 copy appended). You have now belatedly requested the Graduate School to place me "on official Final Probation for lack of progress toward a master's degree in Technical Communication": a degree that you know I already hold from another institution. You also refer to a program in which I have not enrolled. Consequently, you have pejoratively, and contrary to law, initiated action against me with a scheduled adjudicative hearing on a related issue still pendent.

In fact, you have now, retroactively, taken the action that I considered a negligent omission on your part in my message (04.04.97/10.36). You have even cited the rules that I cited then. By your action, I believe that you have tried to subvert due process. My message (04.04.97/17:00) concluded that the specific documents that I requested did not exist and you have still not produced them. In particular, I requested the document that you transmitted to the Graduate Dean before issuing the order for prejudicial action. Under Graduate School rules these documents must contain all recommendations of unsatisfactory performance and progress. They must accompany a well-documented statement of the circumstances involved also evidence that most of the graduate faculty or supervisory committees involved support the action. (UW/GSM #16)

In your message (04.07.97/14:47) you state that you consulted with both Spyridakis and Winn. However, you have not sent me copies of their recommendations of unsatisfactory performance and progress pursuant to GSM #16. These two faculty members do not comprise most of the graduate faculty members or supervisory committees involved and you have not stated specifically that they support your actions. I need a copy of the Spyridakis and Winn reports immediately and documents from the remaining faculty members that have similarly contended. By this I mean documents written and notarized by faculty members prior to your taking the first action. I do not mean documents that you may now try to persuade unsuspecting faculty members to write retroactively to support your actions.

Your letter construes as a blatant attempt to manufacture evidence to support a false premise. Landolt has frivolously changed the language of the grievance to represent something different from the original intent and I believe that you have written this letter to support her. Worse, you have entered it into evidence. The language prerogative rightfully belongs to the Complainant. By your letter of April 16, 1997, you condone her action and have supported it by your retroaction.

Manufacturing evidence and submitting it to an adjudicative committee construes as malfeasance and can result in severe penalties under law. To mitigate the situation, I now give you twenty-four hours to withdraw your letter of April 16, 1997, from evidence. Otherwise, I will request the presiding officer to rule it inadmissible. I claim that it does not meet procedural requirements. It also retroactively, maliciously, and pejoratively misrepresents fact. I also contend that the content of this document construes as frivolous under RCW 4.84.185. Contrary to law, it initiates pejorative action with a scheduled adjudicative hearing on a related issue still pendent.

From Ramey. This letter is to inform you that we have asked The Graduate School to place you on official Final Probation for lack of progress toward a master's degree in Technical Communication. As stated in Graduate School Memorandum No. 16, there are three criteria for Unsatisfactory Progress, one of which is lack of progress in the fulfillment of degree program requirements.

You were accepted into the Department of Technical Communication master of science degree program in spring 1991. You have been a graduate student in TC for six years, and, although you have earned 245 credits and are currently enrolled for 18 credits, you have not completed any TC required courses, established a Supervisory Committee, or filed an official Course of Study. You have exhausted the six years allowed by the Graduate School for completing a master's degree (see page 43 of the University of Washington General Catalog, copy attached, Summary of Requirements, item #10).

You need to complete your studies (i.e., graduate) by the end of spring quarter 1997. To do so, you must choose a Supervisory Committee including a Supervisory Chair and a minimum of two Committee members. Then you must demonstrate to your Supervisory Committee that you have successfully completed courses equivalent to the TC required courses and file an official TC Course of Study approved by that Committee. You then would be able to apply for your degree under the TC 12-credit option. Page nine of the enclosed TC graduate program information describes the 12-Credit Linked Course Set. Whatever course of action you choose to take, after spring quarter, you will not be allowed to register as a graduate student in our department.

The Ultimate Machiavelli

[Introduction - Full Text]
[Kangaroo Court - Abstract]
[Kangaroo Court - Full Text]
[Technical Communication - Hearing - Abstract]
[Technical Communication - Hearing - Full Text]
[Technical Communication - Correspondence]

[Introduction - PDF]
[Kangaroo Court - PDF]
[Technical Communication - Hearing - PDF]
[Technical Communication - Correspondence - PDF]