In an earlier thread I posted some thoughts on the personal liability of deans and chairs implicit in the Hanbury e-mail to the deans as well as his later "clarification."  These administrators can be sued in the course of performing their official duties; whether they are defended by the university or have to seek personal counsel is at the whim of the president.  This exposure is just another factor that must be weighing on administrators, many of whom must be extremely uncomfortable with the integrity of the Thames administration.  Unfortunately, the departure of  these individuals would mean that a majority will be replaced with less qualified persons--who in their right mind would presently apply to be a dean or chair at USM?  

The following is similar to my earlier posting--remember that I am not an attorney so perhaps some of my points will stand correcting.

Hanbury's e-mail states, "Quite simply, regardless of what you or your misguided personal counsul think, the law means you take your orders from Dr. Thames and it is not up to you to decide to do otherwise."  (Obviously, the lessons of Enron, etc. are lost on Mr. Hanbury, et al.)  And continuing, "You are insulated from personal liability for doing so."  I believe that that this statement is disingenuous. 

Typically, a lawsuit names the university along with certain individuals, a dean and/or provost, for example.  In defending itself, the university usually elects to defend the named individuals as well.  However, if  the university determines that the individual were acting outside the scope of his duties or illegally, the individual probably would have to retain counsul at his own expense.  Even when it might appear that you were acting within the scope of your duties it would be foolish to assume that this university would defend you.  Would the decision hinge on the facts or whether your are in or out of favor with Thames and his entourage?  When making decisions that subject an administrator to legal exposure, it may therefore be prudent to seek advice from a personal attorney.  Such occurrences are among the costly consequences when the level of institutional trust is virtually non-existent as is now the case at USM.

In his clarification, Hanbury says "My concern was that disclosing this information could have exposed the university to liability and did [italics mine] expose the deans to personal liability.  The ominous part of this sentence is the "and did expose the deans to personal liability."  Isn't it clear that Hanbury is saying that if a dean were to be sued over this matter, he or she will not receive legal assistance from the university?  This warning is consistent with my previous paragraph.

If you are an administrator at USM and subject to lawsuits, the e-mail and clarification should make you very uncomfortable, particularly given the Stringer/Glamser episode.