Reuben Anderson to preside over hearings!

Date: Apr 1, 2004

Reuben Anderson to preside over hearings!

Date: Apr 1, 2004

As I understand it, the hearing committee makes a recommendation to the Board...Thames still has the right to make a recommendation as well...in that sense, they're both advisory to the Board...I don't see it as what ever Anderson decides is what will be...Isn't he just there to preside and ensure the committee hearning is fair?

Date: Apr 1, 2004

Profile from Phelps Dunbar website at:

http://www.phelpsdunbar.com/pages/profile.asp?id=61

Attorney Directory | Find an Attorney

Reuben V. Anderson
111 East Capitol Street, Suite 600
Jackson, Mississippi 39201-2122
Direct: (601) 360-9339
Fax: (601) 360-9777
e-mail: andersor@phelps.com

Service Areas

Commercial Litigation
Gaming
Regulatory and Governmental Matters
Tort Litigation

Practice

Reuben, the first African-American Supreme Court Justice in Mississippi, is a partner in the general litigation group in the Jackson office. He practices in the areas of commercial litigation, regulatory and governmental matters and gaming. In addition to his work at the firm, Reuben has cultivated a professional resume spanning three decades of legal service. Key positions have included: Jamie L. Whitten Chair of Law and Government at the University of Mississippi, Fall of 1995; Mississippi Supreme Court Justice, 1985-90; Circuit Court Judge for the 7th Circuit Court District, 1982-85; County Court Judge for Hinds County, 1977-82; Municipal Judge for the City of Jackson, 1975-77; Partner, Anderson, Banks, Nichols & Stewart, 1968-77; Mississippi Associate Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 1967-75.

Education

University of Mississippi, J.D., 1967
Tougaloo College, B.A., 1964

Memberships/Affiliations

Director: Mississippi Chemical; Burlington Resources, Inc.; BellSouth, Atlanta, GA; The Kroger Company, Cincinnati, OH; Job Corp., Washington, D.C.; Minact Inc., Jackson, MS; Trustmark National Bank, Jackson, MS; International Visitors Center; Jackson Chamber of Commerce; Jackson Council on Alcoholism; Jackson Enterprise Center; Jackson Zoo, Inc.; Leadership Jackson (Past Chairman); Mississippi Food Network; United Way of Capitol Area, Inc.; Nature Conservancy; American Arbitration Association
President, Mississippi Economic Council (State Chamber)
Chairman, R.H. Green Foundation
Trustee: Ole Miss Alumni Association; Piney Woods Country Life School; Tougaloo College (past Chairman of the Board); Lauren Rogers Museum of Art; Rhodes Scholarship Selection Committee for Mississippi (past Chairman)
Member: The Mississippi Bar (President, 1997-1998); American Bar Association; Hinds County Bar Association; Magnolia Bar Association; National Bar Association; 100 Black Men of Jackson; U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Bar Association; U.S. Supreme Court Bar Association

Date: Apr 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Disgusted
"As I understand it, the hearing committee makes a recommendation to the Board...Thames still has the right to make a recommendation as well...in that sense, they're both advisory to the Board...I don't see it as what ever Anderson decides is what will be...Isn't he just there to preside and ensure the committee hearning is fair?"

From the CL article I posted in LBN:

"The College Board then went into executive session to discuss whether Anderson would have the authority to make a recommendation as to board concerning the suspensions. Also discussed was whether the proceedings should be open."

It appears to me that if the board gives Anderson the right to make a recommendation, in effect it is relieving Thames of that responsibility.

Date: Apr 1, 2004

or that his is just one recommendation as is Thame's...wish they had been more clear.

Date: Apr 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Disgusted
"or that his is just one recommendation as is Thame's...wish they had been more clear."

From the limited information that has been released, here is what I gather. Anderson will preside over a hearing separate from USM's advisory council. The board is in executive session right now to determine if he will be given the right to make the recommendation to them. In other words, after the hearing, will his recommendation be the authoritative one they will accept and on which they will base their decision.

USM advisory council will possibly use transcripts and video tapes from the hearing to make their own recommendation to the board.

Put it this way--Thames' lawyers don't like this. They said that the board will be biased by Anderson's opinion. (Oh the hypocrisy--but that's another thread.)

But Adelman, the profs' lawyer, wants this process and wants Anderson's recommendation to be the authoritative one. He said that if the board doesn't agree to this, he will begin the process again. I don't know exactly what that means, but the message is clear that Anderson's appointment is in the best interest of the profs.

More about this here:

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040401/NEWS01/40401007

Date: Apr 1, 2004

Thames' lawyers are objecting because it will be the first time Thames won't have control over the parties involved. Although I would certainly hope that the USM advisory committee would be impartial in its deliberation, ultimately all of them are employees of Thames. The Adams and Reese lawyers are both advocates for Thames. Mr. Anderson is not under the authority of Thames in any way (subject to someone digging up a relationship between Anderson and his firm Phelps Dunbar and Thames).

Up until now, Thames probably felt reasonably confident that he would be able to control these procedings in a way that he would be able to persuade the College Board that his actions were not arbitrary and allowed for due process, even if the College Board did not necessarily agree with what he did. Now, there is an independent decision maker who will look at the facts with a unbiased view and provide his own recommendation. It is hard to believe that Thames would have expected this.

If Thames and Hanbury really believe that they have indisputable "facts" and "evidence", then it really shouldn't matter who hears the proceeding and who provides the recommendation. Their new objection to Mr. Anderson appears to speak volumes about how strong they think their case really is.

Date: Apr 1, 2004

This SOUNDS like very good news! Please keep your regional/national audience posted on further developments. (I know you will, FS, but if anyone else out there has thoughts and info, please share it.) Thanks!

Date: Apr 1, 2004

The American is now reporting that the College Board has accepted Hood's recommendation.

Let's hope this news turns out to be as good as it looks.

Date: Apr 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: aghast
"The American is now reporting that the College Board has accepted Hood's recommendation. Let's hope this news turns out to be as good as it looks. "

It's REALLY GOOD news. Tonight looks like an EXCELLENT night to celebrate!

Date: Apr 1, 2004

Look who else is associated with Phelps & Dunbar

Date: Apr 1, 2004

For those of us outside MS, please explain the implications of the Moore association. I know he had something to do with suing the tobacco companies, but is his connection with Anderson good or bad news? Thanks!

Date: Apr 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"For those of us outside MS, please explain the implications of the Moore association. I know he had something to do with suing the tobacco companies, but is his connection with Anderson good or bad news? Thanks!"

I think it is good. Shows Hood is seeking advice from his former employer.

Hood worked under Moore at AG office. Moore was a great AG and easily could have won if he would have run for governor.

Of couse, I don't want this discussion to degrade into a political war, and I respect the opinions of those who may not like Moore.

I think he will run for senator soon.

Date: Apr 1, 2004

CHALK ONE UP FOR THE PROFS!!!

Date: Apr 1, 2004

RE: Reuben Anderson to preside over hearings!

Date: Apr 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: DCeagle
"If Thames and Hanbury really believe that they have indisputable "facts" and "evidence", then it really shouldn't matter who hears the proceeding and who provides the recommendation. Their new objection to Mr. Anderson appears to speak volumes about how strong they think their case really is."

"Facts" & "evidence" may be irrelevant if Justice Anderson decides that due process was violated. Having an independent party evaluate the due process aspects of the case is probably what worries the lawyers representing Thames.

The fact that AG Hood advised the IHL board to come up with a policy to cover situations where the president initiates a firing suggests that there are going to be some hard questions asked about due process.

Date: Apr 1, 2004

Wasn't that other lawyer from that firm who is representing thames and usm in other litigation appointed to do exactly what justice anderson was just appointed to do? was there any discussion of why they decided to do this? is the first lawyer now representing thames/usm in the proceedings or is he out of the picture entirely now?

Date: Apr 1, 2004

I certainly support the professors so I don't want to make too much of a big deal about this, but I believe that the due process analysis is focused on how Thames followed the procedures guaranteed under the Faculty Handbook. Accordingly, I am not sure that the actions of Thames and Hanbury prior to informing the professors of his intent to fire them is relevant to the "due process" analysis because it seems like Thames has a right to initiate termination proceedings if he believes that he has a basis for doing so no matter what investigation or process his decision is based on. Once he initiates the contractually agreed upon procedings, then he must follow them and the conduct of this process is what is judged to make sure "due process" is followed. I think that the alleged "facts" and "evidence" are what are the most important because they serve as the basis for the board to decide whether the decision after the hearing is arbitrary and capricious. Here is the language from the IHL policy that describe the nature of the appeal:

Review of Appeal by the Board:

The Board, upon receipt of such an appeal, shall review

the records of the institutional committee's hearing

and all documentation relative to the personnel

decision. The Board reserves the right to correct an

omission or other inaccuracy in the record submitted

upon suggestion by either party or upon its own motion.

The Board shall then determine the following:

a. If the institutional due process procedures were

followed;

and/or

b. If the decision was arbitrary or capricious.

The Board, after reviewing the written argument and

documentary evidence, shall affirm the decision of the

Institutional Executive Officer or make another

decision which shall be final and binding.

Here is the link to the procedures that the College Board just announced:

http://www.ihl.state.ms.us/newsstory.asp?ID=262

Date: Apr 1, 2004

Due Process

Date: Apr 1, 2004

RE: Reuben Anderson to preside over hearings!

Date: Apr 1, 2004

The one thing I think we can be sure of at this point is that the primary motivation of the College Board has become protecting the state from a lawsuit.

Date: Apr 1, 2004

"At least 14 days prior to the hearing, the university is to provide Glamser and Stringer with a summary of the actual charges against them, a list of witnesses and a copy of documented evidence." from the Sun Herald today.

I think it is ridiculous that the professors still do not have the actual charges, and they were fired on March 5th. Didn't Shelby Thames have the itemized charges on March 5th when he fired them? Why did they only get vague/general charges at that time? Why can't he turn the specific ones over now? Is he trying to trump up a few more?

Date: Apr 1, 2004

This actually is just shoddy journalism on the part of the Sun Herald. The actual College Board press release says that it will be a "summary of the factual basis for the proposed terminations." See the press release here:

http://www.ihl.state.ms.us/newsstory.asp?ID=262

I don't believe that the professors have ever been given the underlying facts supporting the charges.

Date: Apr 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: DCeagle
"This actually is just shoddy journalism on the part of the Sun Herald. The actual College Board press release says that it will be a "summary of the factual basis for the proposed terminations." See the press release here: http://www.ihl.state.ms.us/newsstory.asp?ID=262 I don't believe that the professors have ever been given the underlying facts supporting the charges."

No, they haven't. Thanks for the link...am going to add it to the site.