THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, August 30, 1995 TAG: 9508300718
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: VIRGINIA BEACH LENGTH: Long : 119 lines
Three Regent University professors who claimed they had lifetime tenure learned Tuesday they were wrong.
A judge ruled that the school's old system of rolling employment contracts was not a tenure system, even though certain school officials touted it as such to outsiders.
That means the three professors, who sued Regent and refused to sign contracts under Regent's new tenure system, will be out of work in May, when the academic year ends.
``If you listen hard, you can hear the sound of resumes going out,'' said one of the professors, Clifford W. Kelly, in an interview after the ruling.
Circuit Judge Edward W. Hanson Jr. also ruled that Regent officials misled the American Bar Association about the school's tenure system in 1989, to win accreditation for Regent's law school.
Hanson ruled that the professors were not guaranteed lifetime employment under the old system. He said the professors had rolling three-year contracts that ensured they could not be ``put out in the cold'' for three years.
``This contract, however, was not tenure,'' Hanson said. ``Tenure was anathema to Regent University from its inception and until 1993.''
The ruling probably will not affect other professors, all of whom signed contracts last year under a new tenure system.
The three professors who sued Regent - Kelly, Jeffrey Tuomala and Elaine Waller - argued that the new system offers less security than the old one. They said the new system lets Regent fire them for almost any reason. The judge did not address that issue.
After the ruling, the three professors sat silently in the courtroom for a while, looking stunned. Two thumbed through a worn black Bible. Outside the courtroom, Kelly and Waller said they were shocked and disappointed but did not know whether they will appeal.
``We'll be serving out the final year of our contracts,'' Kelly said. ``We're going to pray and talk with our lawyers.''
Regent Provost George Selig said the three professors cannot return in fall 1996. ``They exercised the right to reject the (new) contract,'' Selig said. ``We hold no malice toward the plaintiffs at all. We wish them the best.''
Tuesday's ruling may hurt two former law professors, Roger Bern and Paul Morken, who are suing Regent, alleging breach of contract. They were fired last year. Hanson is scheduled to preside over their trials in February.
Regent's attorney, Thomas Lucas, said he will ask Hanson to dismiss their cases based on Tuesday's ruling.
The Regent controversy began in 1993 when trustees fired law dean Herbert Titus. That provoked widespread revolt among faculty and students. Titus claimed he had tenure, and professors feared that if Titus could be fired, so could they.
In response, school officials said Regent never had tenure.
But if that were true, the faculty asked, why did Regent tell the American Bar Association in 1989 - and continue to tell the ABA - that professors were protected by a tenure system, which is required for ABA accreditation of any law school?
Eventually, Regent changed its tenure system and fired three law professors who had supported Titus. That was in 1994.
In June, during the tenure trial, Regent officials blamed Titus and then-president Bob Slosser for intentionally misleading the ABA about tenure.
On Tuesday, the judge agreed.
``Mr. Titus and Mr. Slosser made representations to the ABA at variance with what the court found to be the policy of the university as represented by the board, and unbeknownst to the board,'' Hanson said.
The judge said this was mainly Titus' doing, for while Slosser was nominally Titus' boss, the law dean really ran things. ``The real power there was not Mr. Slosser,'' Hanson said.
The judge said he believed Regent founder Pat Robertson's testimony that school officials would rather close the university than grant professors lifetime tenure. Other trustees gave similar testimony.
The entire controversy stemmed from disagreements over Regent's unique Christian mission, the judge said.
``To the court, this was an ever-evolving and changing university,'' Hanson said. ``Its mission was clear in the beginning,'' but as the school struggled to survive in a secular world, its mission changed.
Earlier this year, the ABA found that Titus and the three law professors were fired because of their extreme religious views. The ABA still has not fully accredited the law school, citing religious freedom as one issue.
Despite Tuesday's ruling, Selig said the ABA is no longer concerned about being misled. ``I think,'' Selig said, ``the ABA is pleased we've resolved this in an appropriate way.''
The ABA does not publicly comment on individual accreditations. ILLUSTRATION: Color photos
Clifford W. Kelly
Elaine S. Waller
Jeffrey C. Tuomala
Graphic
OTHER LAWSUITS
Five more lawsuits are pending against Pat Robertson or Regent
University:
Broadcasting: Mark Barth, former president of Robertson's United
States Media Corp., is suing Robertson and the Christian
Broadcasting Network for his 1994 firing. He seeks $3.3 million.
Robertson, in turn, is suing Barth for $12 million. The trial is
scheduled for October.
Tenure: Roger Bern and Paul Morken, two former law professors,
are suing Regent over their 1994 firings. They seek $4 million each.
Their trial is scheduled for February.
Dean: Herbert Titus, the former Regent law dean, is suing
Robertson, Regent and 10 others over his 1993 firing. He seeks at
least $37 million. His trial is scheduled for May.
Defamation: Three law professors - Bern, Morken and Jeffrey
Tuomala - are suing Robertson and Regent for remarks that Robertson
made about them after they complained about Titus' firing. They seek
$10 million each. There is no trial date.
KEYWORDS: LAWSUITS REGENT UNIVERSITY by CNB