{
  "id": 516037,
  "name": "Sandra Stacy, Claimant, v. The Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stacy v. Board of Governors",
  "decision_date": "1995-09-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 91-CC-0088",
  "first_page": "269",
  "last_page": "296",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 269"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        2723217
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/31/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 Ill. App. 3d 752",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3101628
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "758"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/99/0752-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 3d 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2815883
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/44/0148-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Ill. App. 3d 569",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3358949
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/59/0569-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 3d 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2577220
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/204/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        2722882
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/31/0126-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 1463,
    "char_count": 53507,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.809,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.01835995071527336
    },
    "sha256": "cbc039f7b11e1ad93da1d93e5a984bcb76a3249c274f45c7d5a5cef5c5cfef88",
    "simhash": "1:7eeb2986696e3a2b",
    "word_count": 8441
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:49.278659+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sandra Stacy, Claimant, v. The Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nFrederick, J.\nClaimant, Sandra Stacy, filed her complaint in the Court of Claims seeking fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for loss of income she claims is due her for wrongful termination from Governors State University. Claimant alleges that she was employed by Governors State University from January 2, 1986, until August 14, 1987, as Director of Career Planning and Placement. Claimant further alleges that she was wrongfully terminated without cause, in violation of regulations and the administrative and professional personnel handbook. The Respondent, in its answer, averred that the Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities was the only entity with statutory power to make rules, regulations and bylaws for the government and management of the five universities which the board operates. The answer further admitted that at the time of the decision not to retain her, Claimant was an administrative employee of the board of Governors State University known as a category A, level IV administrative employee. The Respondent avers that Claimant served at the pleasure of the GSU President and, unless terminated for cause, was entitled only to the notice prescribed in paragraph 5d(l), (2) and (3) of the Board of Governors Regulations. The board admits Claimant was not terminated for cause.\nThe cause was tried before the Commissioner on a joint stipulation of facts. Those facts are set forth herein as follows:\nOn October 31, 1983, Ms. Sandra Stacy (\u201cStacy\u201d), was offered a temporary, appointment at Governors State University (\u201cGSU\u201d) as a counselor/coordinator of counseling and guidance (\u201ccounselor/coordinator\u201d) in the GSU Office of Student Development. Her contract was for a term beginning November 1, 1983, and ending October 31, 1984, at a salary of $21,000. Stacy accepted that position on November 1, 1983.\nStacy\u2019s immediate supervisor was Mr. Burton Collins (\u201cCollins\u201d). Collins was Associate Dean for Student Development at GSU. Stacy had daily contact with Collins. As counselor/coordinator, Stacy was responsible for meeting with students individually and in groups to help them decide what their career plans would be after GSU. She also acted as the \u201coutreach person\u201d for faculty and other staff for the same issues.\nBefore or at about the time that Stacy signed her first contract, she read a document entitled Governors State University Administrative and Professional Personnel Handbook (October, 1980), (the \u201chandbook\u201d). The handbook provides, among other things, that it was developed to define the relationship of administrative and professional personnel to the university. It also provides that:\n\u201cIn all cases, Board of Governors Governing Policies and Regulations shall prevail in the event of any contradiction or inconsistency between University policies and procedures and Board Governing Policies and Regulations.\u201d\nThe handbook has never been approved or adopted by the board. Part VI of the handbook also provides an employee evaluation process.\nPart VI, paragraph D of GSU\u2019s handbook provides for employees to prepare a self-evaluation by February 1st of each year. Stacy\u2019s first self-evaluation (for the period November 1, 1983, to February 20, 1984) is dated March 5, 1984. She typed that self-evaluation and delivered it to Collins. Collins signed Stacy\u2019s self-evaluation and provided her with a positive evaluation as her supervisor. Up to that point, Stacy thought that she and Collins enjoyed a good, healthy working relationship.\nOn March 8, 1984, Collins recommended that Stacy be retained in her counselor/coordinator position and Stacy acknowledged that recommendation the same day. The handbook provided that \u201c[b]y March 31, the President will notify Administrative and Professional employees of retention and non-retention decisions.\u201d However, GSU\u2019s president did not approve Stacy\u2019s retention until April 20, 1984. Stacy realized that such decisions were normally late. Stacy has testified under oath, \u201cWithin my five-year history at the university, typically that is how things were done. We were rarely on time with things such as evaluations in my five-year history with the university.\u201d Nothing remarkable happened during the balance of Stacy\u2019s year of temporary employment.\nOn November 1, 1984, Stacy accepted a probationary appointment as a student development counselor and university professor of counseling in the Office of Student Development at GSU. This contract was for a term beginning November 1, 1984, and ending August 31, 1985. In signing that contract, Stacy understood diat she was then a tenure track employee. Stacy\u2019s duties remained the same, but she understood that her evaluation would then be made pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities and the University Professionals of Illinois. As a bargaining unit employee, Stacy was required to prepare a retention folder and she was provided written guidelines about what material had to be accumulated for her to be evaluated.\nDuring her first year of employment as a tenure track employee, Stacy kept the same duties she had as counselor/coordinator. For the period November, 1983, to November, 1984, Stacy\u2019s title remained counselor/coordinator. For the period November, 1984, until at least August, 1985, her title was outreach counselor/professor. The only practical difference was that when Stacy became a tenure track employee, she was given a professorship title. Throughout her temporary employment and her first year on tenure track, Stacy had no problems or disputes with Collins. Stacy\u2019s relationship with Collins was very good.\nIn 1985, Stacy learned that GSU was going to conduct a regional search for a person to fill the job of Director of Career Planning and Placement. In Stacy\u2019s view, this position was an attempt to create a new administrative division at GSU. Because the directorship was an administrative position, the person who filled the job would no longer be a union unit member. Thereafter Stacy participated in a so-called \u201csearch and screen\u201d process and on October 15, 1985, Collins and GSU\u2019s Dean of Student Affairs recommended Stacy for the new directorship. Up through that time, Stacy\u2019s relationship with Collins remained very good.\nOn October 31, 1985, GSU\u2019s president, Leon Goodman-Malamuth, appointed Stacy Director of Career Planning and Placement at GSU beginning January 1, 1986. Stacy continued as a union unit member until January 1, 1986, but, thereafter, she was no longer subject to the collective bargaining agreement. Stacy understood that during her first year of employment, her evaluations were made subject to the handbook. During the second year, her evaluations were subject to the collective bargaining agreement. After January 1, 1986, Stacy was again to be evaluated subject to the handbook.\nAfter becoming Director of Career Planning and Placement, Collins remained Stacy\u2019s supervisor. According to Stacy, in the middle of January, 1986, shortly after she started her new position as director, her relationship with Collins changed. About that time, Stacy submitted a 34-page document to Collins outlining the work she had set up over the Christmas 1985-1986 holiday. This document included what Stacy thought Collins should be aware of in terms of progress in the area of career planning and placement. Collins had not requested this document but Stacy drought Collins should be kept abreast of what she was doing. When she delivered the document to Collins, Stacy felt that his behavior was \u201cuncooperative.\u201d\nOn or about February 10, 1986, Collins wrote to Stacy asking her to meet with him to discuss her work plan agreement. The work plan agreement is described generally in the GSU handbook. The next day, Stacy sent Collins a memorandum with a draft work plan agreement. Stacy did not meet with Collins as requested before submitting her first work plan agreement.\nIn February, 1986, the union wrote to the board concerning the new directorship which was then held by Stacy. Prior to that letter, the union verbally advised the board that the new directorship should be a bargaining unit position. The unions letter merely confirmed earlier oral discussions. Stacy was not originally aware of the unions position.\nOn February 24, 1986, Stacy submitted another copy of her draft work plan agreement. This was the same work plan agreement that Stacy had submitted to Collins on February 11, 1986.\nAccording to Stacy, from the middle of January, 1986, until February 24, 1986, she had no disagreements or confrontations with Collins, but she felt that Collins was acting \u201cmysterious.\u201d Because she felt Collins had \u201cpulled back on his support,\u201d Stacy made sure that she put everything in writing. She doesn\u2019t recall discussing these circumstances directly with Collins but Stacy did have several informal discussions with fellow employees and they decided \u201cjust to make sure that we cover our butts. Make sure that we put everything in writing #\nOn March 12, 1986, Stacy met with Collins. After that meeting, she sent another memorandum to Collins concerning their March 12th meeting. Stacy appended a third copy of her work plan agreement and copied Collins\u2019 supervisor, Dean Catherine Taylor, on her cover memorandum. Stacy intended to send a message by copying Dean Taylor. This act was a reflection of Stacy\u2019s deteriorating relationship with Collins.\nSometime about March 26, 1987, Stacy met with GSU\u2019s provost, David Curtis, Dean Taylor and Collins to discuss her position as director. The meeting lasted about an hour. This meeting was intended to help prepare the provost to discuss whether Stacy's position would fall under the UPI or under administrative guidelines. Stacy did not care one way or another about this subject. After this meeting, Stacy prepared a job description and submitted it to Dean Taylor. On April 1, 1986, Stacy sent another memorandum to Dean Taylor concerning her administrative duties.\nAfter the March 26, 1986, meeting, a second meeting was held at Dean Taylors office. Taylor, Collins, Stacy and the union\u2019s representative were all present at this April 3, 1986, meeting. Stacy was present as an \u201cobserver.\u201d Taylor, Collins and Stacy all assured the union\u2019s representative that two separate work plan agreements would be prepared relating to Stacy\u2019s job as director.\nOn April 8, 1986, Stacy sent yet another memorandum to Colhns with her attached work plan agreement. Even though Stacy had been present during two meetings about her duties as director, there was no difference between Stacy\u2019s fourth work plan submission and the first three. By that time, Stacy felt that the time period for approval of her work plan agreement had passed and that GSU\u2019s handbook had been violated. However, she did not file any sort of grievance or complaint because she did not want to \u201crock the boat.\u201d\nOn or about April 29, 1986, Stacy received a memorandum from Collins with a redrafted work plan agreement. In his memorandum, Collins explained that his redrafted plan corresponded to the \u201careas of responsibility which we negotiated with Dr. Charles Olson (i.e., the union\u2019s representative) regarding the conflict\u201d between Stacy\u2019s new position as director and her previous position as a career counselor. Colhns stated that Stacy\u2019s previous drafts could not be used and asked Stacy to contact him if she had any questions. By that time, Stacy understood that GSU had been engaged in negotiations with the union to define just what her job as director could and could not properly include. However, her view remained unchanged. She thought that a work plan agreement should have already been in place as provided in the GSU handbook.\nAlmost one month after the April 3, 1986, meeting, on May 2, 1986, Stacy delivered a memorandum to Collins with two attached work plans. One of the attached work plans was effective through June 30, 1986, and eliminated career counseling as agreed on April 3, 1986. The second attached work plan was effective after July 1,1986, and included career counseling. Ten days later, Stacy sent yet another memorandum to Collins together with the same material previously forwarded to him on May 12, 1986. In addition, Stacy forwarded all the foregoing memoranda directly to Collins\u2019 supervisor, Dean Taylor.\nOn May 22, 1986, Collins forwarded a marked-up version of Stacy\u2019s work plan agreement to Dean Taylor. In his memorandum he said, \u201cIt is my opinion that these methods are steps necessary to reorganize the office * * Stacy was not aware of the changes to her work plan proposed by Collins. However, on June 9, 1986, Collins wrote to Stacy advising her that the proposed work plan agreement scheduled to begin after July 1, 1986, had not been signed. Collins advised Stacy that \u201c[i]t is the rationale of the Dean that it [i.e., the final work plan] should be delayed until September, 1986, when all other WPAs will be developed and problem solving or innovative goals\u2019 can be more effectively identified and developed.\u201d\nStacy was not satisfied with Collins\u2019 June 9, 1986, memorandum. She wrote directly to GSU\u2019s provost via a June 12, 1986, memorandum. She wrote to the provost because she was startled to see that consideration of her work plan agreement would be delayed until September, 1986, and she felt the provost \u201ccould straighten it out # # * \u201d Although Collins had asked Stacy to contact him if she had questions about his June 9, 1986, memorandum, she did not contact Collins before writing to the provost. Stacy felt that it was \u201cimpossible\u201d to talk to Collins.\nAfter her June 12th memorandum, Stacy was called to a meeting with the dean and Collins. This meeting took place at the deans office from 3:15 p.m. until 5:07 p.m. Stacy says that the dean proceeded \u201cjust to scream at me about don\u2019t I have anything else better to do with my time other than write memos.\u201d According to Stacy, this meeting was an \u201cexcruciating painful experience.\u201d Stacy recalls the dean telling her that Collins was doing his best and that the message conveyed was \u201cdon\u2019t write any other memos.\u201d Stacy felt that Collins misrepresented what was really happening. She felt that she had memos to prove she had done what Collins had asked. Stacy says that she just sat back and listened and then went out to dinner.\nAbout June 20, 1986, Stacy received a memorandum from Dean Taylor approving her work plan. Dean Taylor advised Stacy that a work plan for the academic year 1986-1987 would be developed in conjunction with the process for all administrative and professional staff after July 1, 1986. Stacy remained concerned that approval of her work plan was several months late and this made her \u201cfearful\u201d of how she would be evaluated.\nWhen the 1986-1987 academic year began, Collins wrote to Stacy, David Sparks and Pam Zener concerning their work plan agreements. Sparks and Zener were counselors in the GSU learning assistance center. Collins asked that draft work plans be submitted by September 19, 1986. Stacy noted that Collins\u2019 memorandum was in direct agreement with Dean Taylor\u2019s June 20th memorandum. She concluded that Dean Taylor and Collins had decided to override the handbook.\nStacy decided not to file a grievance about this issue and complied with Collins\u2019 request. However, when Stacy submitted her work plan, it was initially not delivered to Collins. By September 25, 1986, the lost work plan was found and memoranda exchanged.\nCollins reviewed Stacy\u2019s proposed work plan and sent her a memorandum suggesting changes. Collins also scheduled a meeting with Stacy for October 10, 1986. Stacy considered Collins\u2019 memorandum as \u201cpicking.\u201d She also felt that development of a work plan was \u201cout of sync again.\u201d\nOn October 10, 1986, Stacy wrote yet another memorandum to Collins advising him that she was \u201cconfused\u201d and found his \u201cwords difficult to decipher.\u201d Stacy never went to talk to Collins as he had scheduled. She just wanted to make sure she had \u201cdocumentation\u201d in writing.\nOn October 23,1986, Collins provided Stacy with an example of a work plan that met his standards. Stacy marked up Collins\u2019 draft and she admits that her comments were \u201cpicking.\u201d\nOn October 31, 1986, Stacy sent Collins her revised work plan with a cover memorandum.\nA review of Stacy\u2019s work plan demonstrates that it does not follow the format provided by Collins. Therefore, on November 12,1986, Collins wrote to Stacy stating:\n\u201cOver the past two months, you have been provided information to assist you in the development of your 1986-1987 Work Plan Agreement. I have sent information to you that included a description of the acceptable format, a descriptive explanation for each section of the format, and an example of a completed Work Plan Agreement. I have received two drafts of a Work Plan Agreement from you. Neither of them are acceptable since they do not set forth goal statements establishing what you expect to accomplish, and there is no indication of what is to be evaluated. Given these facts, it is apparent to me that a continuation of this interaction will not result in a Work Plan Agreement that is acceptable.\nAs the Associate Dean for Student Development, I am ultimately responsible for the achievements of the functional areas of the unit. Therefore, I am assigning the attached work plan to you. (See the attached Work Plan Agreement).\nIf you have any further questions regarding this matter, please arrange an appointment with my secretary.\u201d\nAfter this memorandum, Stacy was not satisfied. According to her, she had \u201cwanted to work cooperatively\u201d on a work plan. Stacy also thought that she had to agree to a work plan. She felt that the activities from September, 1986, through November 12, 1986, did not amount to \u201cconsultation\u201d as provided for in the GSU handbook.\nOn Tuesday, January 27, 1987, Collins reminded Stacy that self-evaluations were called for by the handbook by February 1st. Stacy had already started working on her self-evaluation because it was a pretty lengthy document. She didn\u2019t deliver her self-evaluation until after February 1st because that day fell on a Sunday and she felt it was acceptable to wait until Monday. Stacy\u2019s self-evaluation was delivered with a short cover memorandum.\nEarly in February, 1987, Collins asked Stacy for a list of individuals whom she felt could best evaluate her performance. Stacy forwarded her list on February 10, 1987, as requested. Collins decided to add some names to Stacy\u2019s list and so advised her the next day. Stacy felt the addition of new names by Collins was appropriate and some of the people listed were her \u201cpretty close friends.\u201d According to Stacy, in her division it was more or less general knowledge that she was not getting along with Collins.\nIn late Februaiy, 1987, Stacy met with Collins in his office to discuss her evaluation. Their meeting lasted about five minutes. Collins informed Stacy that he had decided not to retain her. Stacy asked why Collins was recommending her nonretention and he said it was in writing and was being typed by his secretary. He said, \u201cI\u2019ve just decided I\u2019m not going to recommend you for retention.\u201d Given what had happened with the memos and the screaming, Stacy was not surprised.\nOn March 2, 1987, Collins advised Stacy in writing that her evaluation was ready for review at his office. But Stacy would not go to Collins\u2019 office because she found that to be \u201chighly irregular.\u201d By \u201chighly irregular\u201d she meant that she would have felt very uncomfortable under those circumstances. At Stacy\u2019s request, she was allowed to pick up the evaluation and take it out of Collins\u2019 office.\nStacy received her written evaluation on Monday, March 2, 1987. Stacy refused to sign the evaluation because the handbook provided that supervisor evaluations were to be submitted by March 1st. March 1st was a Sunday in 1987. Stacy acknowledges that her self-evaluation was not provided until Monday, February 2, 1987. However, she would not sign off on Collins\u2019 evaluation because she considered his evaluation late. Therefore, technical parts of the original evaluation prepared by Collins had to be modified in order to satisfy Stacy.\nThe complete evaluation prepared by Collins is ten single-spaced pages in length. The first four pages of the Collins document analyze Stacy\u2019s self-evaluation. That analysis concludes:\n\u201cIn conclusion, when the self-evaluation and the analyzed data are compared to the goals of the two work plan agreements, they are found to be related in part. Many of the stated goals and methods of achievement in both work plan agreements are not addressed in the self-evaluation. Regardless, the self-evaluation does provide information regarding many of the primary functional areas of the GSU Career Planning and Placement Office. This information reflects a low volume activity in the number of on-campus interview, appointments with employers, students, and faculty, and the number of workshops offered. Furthermore, little or no information is provided to help determine the effectiveness of efforts to develop new job listings, participation in the job fair and the alumni outreach program, the credential forwarding service, and the number of publications developed for students. That information provided does reflect a limited number of job listings in the area of Business and Public Administration and Arts and Sciences. The majority of the listings reported correspond to areas in Education, or areas where no degree is required or no specific major is required. What is more, the Director reports she had 53 appointments with potential employers over the course of twelve months of 1.2 appointments per week, or 4.4 appointments per month. Information is not provided to indicate the level of participation of GSU students in the job fair. It is reported that 247 students from four schools did attend the fair and 25 employers were available. We do not know how many of these students were from GSU, how much the program cost, and even more important, how many students were hired by the participating companies. Consequently, the absence of this and other information presents an informative and summary evaluation of this and similar job fair information regarding the effectiveness. Likewise, information regarding the effectiveness of the alumni outreach program is not provided. In fact, I have never been provided with information which describes the program procedures nor has information been made available to me regarding any job placements which have resulted from this activity. The total number of credentials forwarded is reported. I do not know, however, from the self-evaluation how many new credential files were established by students during this twelve month period, how many alumni remain active, or how many persons requested their credentials to be forwarded. This kind of empirical information is minimally necessaiy in order to evaluate program effectiveness and to help determine the future resource requirements of the unit. I currently do not have this information. More importantly, that information which is provided is quantitative and descriptive only. There has been no effort to provide any assessment/evaluation or inferred recommendations regarding the unit\u2019s programs and activities.\u201d\nThe next four pages of Collins\u2019 evaluation address Stacy\u2019s peer evaluations. That analysis provides, in part:\n\u201cEach of the three internal evaluators selected by the Director provided an overall evaluation of the Director\u2019s performance in the following order:\n1. Poor 2. Excellent 3. Fair\nA great deal of weight was given to the first internal evaluator because of the close working relationship on a frequent basis * * \u201c.\u201d\nand concludes:\n\u201cIn conclusion, a great deal of weight was given to the evaluation comments of the one internal evaluator selected by the Director, who indicated a close work relationship on a frequent basis. These comments were most relevant because these statements related to the goals of the work plan agreements and the responsibilities of the Director. Cited were statements related to the performance of on-campus interviews, workshops, and job development. While the evaluation statements of external persons, and those persons selected by me provided information, they were not accorded as much weight because of the occasional[ly] frequency of their work relationship with the Director.\u201d\nThe final two pages of Collins\u2019 evaluation consist of Collins\u2019 own evaluation. He observed that Stacy had engaged in \u201cconsistent behavioral incidents that were unprofessional, uncooperative, and unresponsive.\u201d Collins concluded:\n\u201cThe information reported in the self-evaluation confirmed what I had suspected regarding the performance of the Director. The self-evaluation reflects the low volume of activity in many of the functional areas of responsibility. A low degree of effort is reflected in the volume of appointments with students, employers, and faculty, and tire effectiveness of the effort is not addressed. This assessment is consistent with comments by an internal evaluator selected by the Director, who was the only member of the peer evaluation pool who indicated closely working with the Director, often. I am also concerned regarding the performance of responsibilities which violate an agreement with the UPI to refer students needing career counseling to the counseling area of Student Development. Meetings were held with a representative of the UPI to inform the Director of this agreement. A meeting was held with Dr. Diane Kjos, counseling staff, to develop a student referral process. Performance of these counseling duties was not done in a single incident, but rather occurred many times.\nIn addition, I must also note consistent behavioral incidents that were unprofessional, uncooperative, and unresponsive. One example which supports the charge of unprofessional behavior is her failure to assist in the find preparation of her FY 87 unit budget. Mrs. Stacy submitted a proposed budget submission and it was found to be unacceptable. In an attempt to meet with her on the Friday of the designated week, I telephoned the Career Planning and Placement Office for the purpose of meeting with her and received the message that she had left for the day. Neither my secretary nor I received a message of the fact she would be leaving the University, and Mrs. Stacy had not completed an official vacation request for that day. Her absence made it necessary for me to develop the FY 87 Career Planning and Placement budget. The official Career Planning and Placement budget was allocated on July 1, 1986, as requested. However, it should be noted that Mrs. Stacy expended her total travel allocation, has spent the total contractual allocation of $2,000 and had a $312 deficit, and her commodities line had been expended from a level of $850 to $321. The majority of her allocated budget had been expended in the period of the first four months of the budget year. An incident which supports my charge of uncooperativeness was her refusal to provide me with detailed information regarding the alumni outreach program. On December 16, 1983,1 sent Mrs. Stacy a memo requesting detailed information regarding this program after reading an article in the Alumni News which announced the existence of the program. I had not been informed that such a program was being developed or initiated, and therefore, I requested further information regarding its operation. On January 9, 1987, Mrs. Stacy responded to my December 16, 1986, memo and stated, \u2018be advised that the Office of Career Planning and Placement neither wrote the article nor generated the headline. If you have a concern, I would suggest that you speak with the author of the article.\u2019 To date, I have not received any information from Mrs. Stacy regarding the operational details of this program; yet she cited it as an operational activity in her self-evaluation. In support of my charge of unresponsiveness, I cite the example of her failure to respond to my request to develop a written description of the programs and activities of the Career Planning and Placement unit. On June 13, 1986, another memo was sent to her requesting this information and again received no response. After not receiving a response to these two requests, I formally assigned this responsibility to her as a part of her work plan agreement for 1986-1987. Since formally assigning this responsibility as part of her work plan agreement, I have attempted to discuss the matter in our scheduled individual meetings, but received no information regarding the progress of this activity. Yet, in her self-evaluation, she states that this activity should be a goal for 1987-1988.\nBased on her failure to perform her assigned duties, which is manifested in the low volume of activity, low degree of performance efforts, the failure to assess the effectiveness of efforts, consistent incidents of unprofessional, uncooperative and unresponsive behavior that detracts from the performance of assigned duties and goals, I am making the following recommendation:\nRecommendation:\nI recommend that Mrs. Sandra Stacy not be retained in the position of Director of Career Planning and Placement at Governors State University.\u201d\nStacy acknowledged receipt of this document on March 4, 1987. Claimant indicated that she wanted to file a grievance of the non-retention recommendation. She didn\u2019t actually fill out a grievance because, according to the handbook, she was supposed to try to settle the situation without an official grievance per se. She expected the situation would follow the grievance procedure outlined in the GSU handbook.\n\u201cThe grievance procedure provides, in part:\nIn appeals of decisions to terminate an administrative employee, the obligation of the Administrative and Professional Grievance Committee is to limit itself to reviewing the process through which judgment and recommendations have been made to determine if they have been made fairly and in accordance with unit, University and Board policy and procedures. The Committee will not substitute its judgment for that of the appropriate administrator as to the quality of performance or any other substantive matters contained in the termination. Appeals of terminations for cause are handled under the provisions of BOG Regulations ll.B. A record of this appeal will be retained in the individuals personnel file.\"\nStacy understood that the handbook grievance procedures were not intended to deal with the \u201cfacts of the non-retention recommendation * * She realized that the grievance committee could not change the substantive recommendation. Stacy felt that the recommendation process had to stop at some point if she filed a grievance.\nAccording to Stacy, there were three failings in her 1987 evaluation/grievance process: (1) the dates set out in the handbook were not followed, (2) the tapes of her grievance hearing were not destroyed, and (3) she was treated like \u201can invisible person.\u201d\nOn March 12, 1987, GSU s provost wrote to the university president to point out certain internal conflicts in the GSU handbook. Stacy was advised about the conflict but she had been aware of it way back in February of 1986.\nOn March 13,1987, the president wrote to Stacy:\n\u201cI recognize a conflict of time schedules for the evaluation process and the grievance process. Therefore, in the event you initiate formal proceedings and in order to assure you of fair and equitable treatment within the parameters of the grievance procedures, I will suspend the March 31, deadline for my notification of a retention or non-retention decision until ten (10) days after receipt of the findings and recommendations of the Administrative and Professional Grievance Committee.\u201d\nStacy thought the presidents response was the best he could do at that time.\nAfter the presidents March 13, 1987, memorandum, Stacy proceeded with the grievance procedures outlined in the handbook.\nOn March 20, 1987, she wrote a memorandum to Dean Taylor asking for a meeting to discuss her grievance.\nOn March 20, 1987, Stacy met with Collins. That meeting with Collins lasted about five minutes and took place at Collins\u2019 office. Stacy recalls telling Collins that she wanted to discuss the possibility of working the situation out. She recalls that Collins told her that there was nothing to talk about and that he was not going to change his mind.\nDean Taylor was out of town when Stacy asked for her meeting. Ms. Suzanne Prescott was designated to serve as Dean Taylor\u2019s proxy in a meeting with Stacy. Stacy\u2019s meeting with Ms. Prescott was very short. During that meeting, Stacy introduced herself, told Prescott that she had already visited Collins with no success and that she was, therefore, meeting with the next highest administrator. Ms. Prescott told Stacy that she was not in a position to work things out and the process went forward from there. This meeting took place on Friday, March 27, 1987, at 9:00 a.m. and was later memorialized in a memorandum prepared by Ms. Prescott.\nOn April 2, 1987, Provost Curtis wrote to the chairperson of GSU\u2019s Administrative and Professional Grievance Committee. He advised the chairperson that Stacy wanted to grieve a non-retention recommendation and explained how Stacy\u2019s supporting materials would be provided to the committee chairperson.\nA few days later, the committee chairperson, Thomas W. Call, wrote to Dean Taylor and Collins advising them that the Professional Grievance Committee had received a formal grievance from Stacy and asking them to prepare a written response to Stacy\u2019s grievance within five working days. On April 5, 1987, Dean Taylor and Collins responded in writing to Stacy\u2019s grievance. This written response includes a \u201cchronology of events\u201d relating to Stacy\u2019s 1987 performance evaluation.\nChairperson Call sent Stacy a copy of Dean Taylors and Collins\u2019 written response on April 17, 1987. In addition, Chairperson Call scheduled a hearing for May 4, 1987, at 10:00 a.m. in the GSU administrative conference room.\nThe grievance hearing was held as scheduled. Stacy admits that her peers who served on the hearing committee provided a full opportunity for her to talk, explain her view, and to cross-examine witnesses. She also admits that, after the grievance hearing, the committee decided that GSU\u2019s handbook had not been violated. A copy of the tape-recorded hearing is submitted. Stacy expressly objects to the relevancy of trial exhibit 52 and the Court sustains that objection.\nOn May 8, 1987, Chairperson Call wrote to President Goodman-M alamuth concerning the findings and recommendations of the grievance committee. The committee found:\n\u201cHaving reviewed the materials submitted by the grievant and the respondents Ms. Taylor and Mr. Collins, and having heard their testimony on May 4, 1987, it is tire opinion of the Committee that the evaluation process which led to the non-retention recommendations was fair and did not violate the spirit and intent of the University Administrative and Professional Personnel Policy.\u201d\nThe board has delegated to President GoodmanMalamuth non-retention decisions. The president is the final decision maker.\nOn May 15, 1987, President Goodman-Malamuth wrote to Stacy by certified mail, return receipt requested, advising her that he had reviewed the findings of the Administrative and Professional Grievance Committee and concurred with their recommendation that Stacy\u2019s grievance be denied. The president further provided Stacy with six additional months of employment with a termination date set for November 18, 1987. Stacy\u2019s husband signed for this letter on May 20, 1987. Shortly thereafter, she read the letter and understood the presidents decision.\nIn making his decision whether or not to terminate Stacy, President Goodman-Malamuth, allegedly using his academic judgment, relied on a number of factors including the recommendations of the unit head (Collins), the dean (Taylor), the provost (Curtis), Stacy\u2019s responses thereto, and the findings and recommendations of the Administrative and Professional Grievance Committee. The findings and recommendations of the Administrative and Professional Committee were done pursuant to its charge which states:\n\u201cIn appeals of decisions to terminate an administrative employee, the obligation of the Administrative and Professional Grievance Committee is to limit itself to reviewing the process through which judgments and recommendations have been made to determine if they have been made fairly and in accordance with unit, University and Board policy and procedures. The Committee will not substitute its judgment for that of the appropriate administrator as to the quality of performance or any other substantive matters contained in the termination.\u201d\nThe findings were:\n\u201cThe Administrative and Professional Personnel Grievance Committee has considered the grievance filed by Ms. Sandra Stacy contesting the non-retention recommendation issued with her annual performance evaluation. Having reviewed the materials submitted by the grievance and the respondents Ms. Taylor and Mr. Collins, and having heard their testimony on May 4,1987, it is the opinion of the Committee that the evaluation process which led to non-retention recommendation was fair and did not violate the spirit and intent of the University Administrative and Professional Personnel Policy.\nThe Committee finds that the processes related to the annual evaluation of performance, as defined in the Administrative and Professional Personnel Handbook (Section VI, Evaluation of Performance), did occur, although not in all cases in strict accordance with published time frames in development of work plan opinion of the Committee, these deviations had no impact upon the decisions made in the process and did not adversely affect the grievant.\nBased upon information submitted by both the grievant and respondents, the Committee concluded that measurable goals and objectives were established, and that these goals formed the basis for evaluating Ms. Stacy\u2019s developing the work plan and that due process was afforded her throughout this process.\u201d\nThe Recommendation was:\n\u201cThe Committee recommends that die grievance be denied.\u201d\nAccording to Stacy\u2019s evaluation by Collins and Taylor, the president found that Stacy \u201cwas not meeting the specifications of her job.\u201d Based only on these evaluations, the president \u201cdecided that her quality of performance was not up to what was required of her.\u201d\nBased on everything available to President Leo Goodman-Malamuth, the recommendations of Collins, Taylor, Curtis and the findings and recommendations of the Administrative and Professional Grievance Committee, it was his final decision to uphold the recommendations of non-retention.\nBased on the foregoing, President Goodman-Malamuth determined that the termination was not a for-cause termination.\nUnder the regulations of the Board of Governors, after her non-retention, Stacy was entitled to six additional months of employment as a category A, level IV administrative employee.\nGSU\u2019s president had previously advised Stacy that he would delay his decision until after the grievance process ended.\nAccording to board regulations, category A, level IV \u25a0administrative employees are appointed by the president after consultation with appropriate constituencies. All level IV administrative employees of the board are employed by, and serve \u201cat the pleasure of,\u201d their respective university presidents. Except for terminations for cause, such employees may be terminated upon written notice of the university president as follows:\n\u201c(2) In the second through fifth year of appointment, not later than six (6) months prior to the termination date specified in the notice.\"\nBy May, 1987, Stacy was in her second year of employment as a category A, level IV employee. She received the specified six-month notice for termination in cases not involving cause.\nStacy continued to serve the university after her notification from GSUs president. Her employment relationship, however, was not completely satisfactory. For example, Collins asked her to meet with him to discuss her duties and responsibilities. Stacy refused to meet with Collins except on five days notice and with her attorney present.\nFinally, on August 10, 1987, Stacy submitted her resignation effective Friday, August 14,1987. About ten days after her resignation, Stacy began working at a new job at a university located in Platteville, Wisconsin.\nAt no time during this entire process did Stacy assert that her termination was for \u201cadequate cause\u201d under the Board of Governors\u2019 regulations. At no time did Stacy request a termination hearing under the Board of Governors\u2019 regulations.\nThomas Layzell, chancellor of the Board of Governors, the chief executive officer of the system of five universities, has stated that the Board of Governors regulations, section 2, faculty administrative & civil service employees were in existence during Stacy\u2019s employment and apply to employees like Stacy.\nLayzell states that if Stacy was terminated for \u201ccause,\u201d Stacy \u201cwould have had to have been given a statement of what the reasons were for her dismissal\u201d and that these were not given to Stacy. The regulations of January 17, 1980 (\u201cConditions of Employment, Subsection [b]\u201d) would have had to have been followed for Stacy if she was terminated for cause.\nLeo Goodman-Malamuth, president of Governors State University, admits that if Stacy\u2019s termination had been for \u201ccause,\u201d a different process would have been required and that process was not given to Stacy.\nLeo Goodman-Malamuth states that his decision ends the matter, though the employment might continue for awhile.\nIf \u00e1n employee such as Stacy is terminated for \u201ccause,\u201d then such an employee is entitled by board regulations to the procedures set out in the board\u2019s applicable regulations. Those procedures include:\na. at least one meeting with the employee to discuss possible remedial action or settlement;\nb. a written statement of the purpose for such a meeting;\nc. a notice of intent to seek termination containing a statement of reasons;\nd. a right to a form hearing before a committee of five, two of which were selected by Stacy and two by the president with those four to select a fifth;\ne. the right to present witnesses and confront and cross-examine witnesses; and\nf. the burden of proof on the employer to establish the cause by clear and convincing evidence.\nThere is no rule, policy or regulation that (a) allows the board to all a \u201cfor cause\u201d termination a \u201cnot for cause termination\u201d or (b) describes how an agent of the board or GSU is to choose which of the two procedures to follow.\nThe Board of Governors wrote all the rules, policies and regulations that applied to Stacy and disseminated them to her.\nThe board avers that Stacy was terminated for reasons other than \u201ccause.\u201d [Note: See the boards answer, par. 12.]\nThe board\u2019s regulations define adequate cause as \u201cone or more acts or omissions which, singly or in the aggregate, have directly and substantially affected or impaired an employee\u2019s performance or fulfillment of his/ her duties.\u201d\nThe regulations apply to Stacy. Stacy read them and understood them.\nThe grievance process accorded Stacy by the board only reviews whether the appropriate procedures were followed from initial evaluation on up to the review period. The grievance process does not contemplate review of factual misstatements. The grievance panel cannot substitute its judgment for that of the appropriate administrator as to the quality or performance of substantive matters contained in the termination.\nAfter being terminated with six months\u2019 notice effective November 18, 1987, which would have been in the middle of a school year, Claimant found a job which started August 24, 1987, and resigned, effective August 14, 1987, due to her \u201cbeing fired * * * and my need to seek new employment\u201d so that she could move to Platte-ville, Wisconsin, site of her new job.\nBased on the evidence, we find that Claimant was not terminated for cause and Claimant did not receive the hearing required for a termination for cause. The Claimant would prevail unless there was another valid method to terminate Claimant\u2019s employment. When Claimant signed her contract, she received the Governors State University Administrative and Professional Personnel Handbook. The Respondent and Claimant both acted as though the handbook was a part of Claimants employment contract by participating in the evaluation procedures and grievance procedures.\nIt is also clear that the handbooks provisions on evaluation and termination are not contrary to, or inconsistent with, the governing policies and regulations but merely supplement the general policies and regulations. Claimant understood that after January 1, 1986, her employment evaluations were subject to the handbook. In February, 1987, Claimant prepared a self-evaluation pursuant to the handbook.\nWhen the non-retention recommendation was made by Mr. Collins, Claimant did not fill out a grievance because, according to the handbook, she was supposed to try to settle the situation without an official grievance. Claimant expected the situation would follow the grievance procedure outlined in the GSU handbook. Claimant proceeded with the grievance procedure outlined in the handbook after the presidents March 13, 1987, memorandum. Claimant filed a formal grievance in regard to the non-retention determination. Claimants peers who served on the hearing committee provided a full opportunity for Claimant to talk, explain her view, and to cross-examine witnesses. The board had delegated to the president non-retention decisions. On May 13, 1987, the president of the university wrote to Claimant and advised her that he had reviewed the findings of the Administrative and Professional Grievance Committee and agreed with their recommendation. The president also provided Claimant with six additional months of employment with a termination date of November 18, 1987.\nThe parties have stipulated that based on everything available to President Goodman-Malamuth, the recommendations of Collins, Taylor, Curtis, and the findings and recommendations of the Administrative and Professional Grievance Committee, it was the presidents decision to uphold the recommendation of non-retention. President Goodman-Malamuth determined that the termination was not a for cause termination. The parties have stipulated that Claimant was a category A, level IV administrative employee and that all such employees are appointed by the president after consultation with appropriate constituencies. All persons at that level are employed by, and serve at the pleasure of, their respective university presidents. Except for terminations for cause, such employees may be terminated upon written notice of the university president. Such persons as Claimant, in their second through fifth year of employment, receive six months notice of termination. Claimant received the specified six-month notice of non-retention. Claimant submitted her resignation on August 10,1987, and started a new job about ten days later.\nClaimant argues that this was really a for cause termination, that Claimant did not receive the proper hearing for a for cause termination, and that Claimant should be reinstated and be awarded back pay. We disagree. Claimants administrative position as Director of Career Planning and Placement in the Office of Student Development at GSU was specifically subject to the governing policies and regulations of the Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities and Governors State University policies and procedures. Based on the stipulation and exhibits, we find that the ending of Claimants employment was a properly executed non-retention. Claimant served at the pleasure of the president of the university. After review of Claimants evaluations, the president chose not to retain Claimant in her administrative position. Claimant received the required six months\u2019 notice.\nThere is an obvious distinction between a for cause termination and non-retention. If the university had wanted to terminate Claimant immediately without further pay, they would have had to prove cause and give Claimant the required for cause termination hearing. This they did not do. Instead, pursuant to the terms of Claimant s employment, the university chose not to retain Claimant pursuant to the non-retention provisions and gave her six months\u2019 notice.\nThe non-retention provisions were part of Claimant\u2019s employment package which she knew about when she accepted the position. She knew she could be out of a job at any time with certain notice, depending on the pleasure of the president. This is the employment Claimant accepted. The Respondent and Claimant followed the procedures for a non-retention grievance and while the Claimant does not appreciate the result, we find the non-retention was proper. Claimant had no right to continued employment beyond the pleasure of the president of the university. Stone v. State (1975), 31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 126.\nClaimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she had contractual and/or due process rights which were different than those afforded to her by the Respondent prior to her resignation. The Claimant must also prove that such contractual or due process rights were violated by Respondent and that she suffered damages thereby. For the reason that Claimant did resign, a threshold question concerning the voluntariness of the resignation must be addressed prior to considering any other issue. If the Claimant\u2019s resignation was voluntary and not coerced, she cannot recover and we do not reach the issues as to contractual or procedural rights, a violation of those rights and damages.\nThere is no question from the evidence that Claimant resigned. If the resignation was voluntary by this public employee, then it was effective and binding for all time when received by Respondent. (Weber v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (1990), 204 Ill. App. 3d 358; Stearns v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (1978), 59 Ill. App. 3d 569.) \u201cWhen one voluntarily submits a resignation, he thereby divests himself of any legal interest in his former employment.\u201d Whitaker v. Pierce (1976), 44 Ill. App. 3d 148.\nWe recognize that a resignation can be involuntarily coerced and therefore legally equivalent to a discharge. When a person is severed from his employment by coercion, the severance is effected by the supervisor and not by the will of the employee. A person forced to resign is in reality discharged and not a person who exercises his own will to end his employment voluntarily. (Piper v. Board of Trustees (1981), 99 Ill. App. 3d 752.) The issue is whether Claimants judgment was merely influenced or whether her mind was so dominated by Respondent as to prevent the exercise of an independent judgment. (Piper, supra, at 758.) If an individual\u2019s will was overborne or if his resignation was not the product of a rational intellect and free will, then his resignation is a discharge. The question of whether a resignation is voluntary depends on the circumstances under which it is made.\nFrom a thorough review of the evidence in this case, we find that the Claimant has failed to prove that her resignation was involuntary, coerced or the product of duress.\nBecause the non-retention was valid under the procedures of the university, Claimant was not pressured or coerced into resigning. She could have worked the last six months and received a full six months of remuneration. From the record, it appears Claimant voluntarily accepted employment elsewhere before the end of the six-month period to further her career.\nClaimant also had the burden of proving a breach of contract. Based on the evidence, we find the non-retention was proper, Claimant was not wrongfully discharged, and her due process rights were not violated. Maher v. State (1976), 31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 137.\nThe Claimant accepted a position with a term at the pleasure of the president. That position required six months\u2019 notice of non-retention. Claimant received that notice as she was entitled. The Claimant argues the Court should find that Claimant\u2019s non-retention was in reality a faulty termination for cause. This we cannot and will not do because Claimant was offered the six months\u2019 notice of non-retention as required.\nFor the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that this claim be and hereby is dismissed.\nORDER\nFrederick, J.\nThis cause comes before the Court on Claimant\u2019s motion for rehearing, and the Court having reviewed the court file, all pleadings, testimony, the response to the petition, the reply to the response, and the Court\u2019s opinion, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, wherefore, the Court finds:\n1. That nothing presented by Claimant leads the Court to believe its opinion was erroneous in any way.\n2. That the Court\u2019s opinion of September 15, 1995, was the proper decision.\nTherefore, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing is denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frederick, J. Frederick, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lonny Ben Ogus, for Claimant.",
      "Dunn, Goebel, Ulbrich, Morel & Hundman (Mark T. Dunn, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 91-CC-0088\nSandra Stacy, Claimant, v. The Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, Respondent.\nOpinion filed September 15, 1995.\nOrder on petition for rehearing filed November 30, 1995.\nLonny Ben Ogus, for Claimant.\nDunn, Goebel, Ulbrich, Morel & Hundman (Mark T. Dunn, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0269-01",
  "first_page_order": 437,
  "last_page_order": 464
}