BANNED FROM CAMPUS
The story of how the U-Michigan administration used campus police to abuse the trespass statute and silence dissent
INVESTIGATIVE EXPOSE WITH OPINION AND ANALYSIS
March 15, 2004
by Chetly Zarko
Last fall, as a freelance writer, I met Kathleen Sheridan. She told me a story of how the University of Michigan administration misused its police force to silence and intimidate her. She has since given me permission to relay it to my readers.
Ms. Sheridan was an accountant for the University Health Services (UHS) for a number of years. To set the scene with a bit of background, in 1997, when the FBI was investigating a variety of university medical departments across the nation for alleged over-billing of Medicare, Ms. Sheridan claims she reported to her supervisors a number of “irregularities” in the billing process. I recognized the name of the federal agent she mentioned from the news releases of the time; although I have no other corroboration about the nature of her conversation with the agent or the severity of the irregularities.
Ms. Sheridan says that it was after this investigation concluded that she noticed a distinctive chill in the way management treated her. In the meantime, she admits that she had taken to excessive drinking as a way of coping with her stresses. By 2002, her alcohol problem had consumed her enough that she had entered into treatment. UHS granted her an authorized leave and sick time to help her handle this problem. But in her view, her bosses were still looking for a way to be rid of her. Immediately after returning from medical leave for treatment in January, 2003, she was terminated for attendance problems related to the treatment. Although she contested this termination on the grounds that her time away was authorized and in accordance with University policies relating to treatment; she was unable to get her position back. The details of every alleged wrongful termination claim are always intricate and subject to a variety of interpretations, but this complicated part of the story isn’t what is most interesting. The University may or may not have been “justified” in its release of Ms. Sheridan.
Following her termination, Ms. Sheridan contacted several of the supervisors in her chain of command seeking additional information and lobbying to get some kind of concessions in her grievance procedure. She relayed the pain that she felt as someone who was retaliated against after seeking treatment for her problem; and that she was deeply troubled by how the inconsistent the University seemed on the issue of substance abuse treatment. As a result, on May 14th, 2003, she returned to UHS wearing a T-shirt with an “A” on the front and holding a sign saying “Alcoholic”. She stated that she did this to show her fellow former co-workers and staff the inconsistency in U policy on the issue; and that she entered the building for a few minutes, spoke to some former co-workers, and then stood on the curb in front of the UHS buildings for about 5 minutes with her sign and left.
Ms. Sheridan’s minor act of civil disobedience earned her this May 21st written response from Dr. Robert A. Winfield, Director of the University Health Service:
Dear Kitty,
I am writing to inform you that we will no longer provide health care for you at the University Health Service or the Periodic Health Appraisal Unit. Your recent visit to UHS on May 14, 2003, in which you protested your employment termination [sic] was found to be disturbing by several of our staff. As a result you will no longer be allowed on the UHS grounds.
Upon receipt of your written authorization, we will gladly provide a copy of your records to your health care provider. You may contact your primary care physician, your insurance company or the Washtenaw County Medical Society for their physician referral line.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Winfield, M.D.
Consider the ramifications of this letter. Someone has “protested” their termination, and a few people found the protest “to be disturbing,” so the director writes a letter ending her medical care and telling her not to enter UHS property again. UHS is a sub-division of the University of Michigan, a constitutionally created entity of the State of Michigan. As such, unlike a private counterpart, it is bound by the protections established in the Michigan and United States Constitutions; requiring due process of law and more importantly protecting “protesters” who may “disturb” someone if they are engaged lawful speech or petitioning their government for redress of their grievances. No matter how “wrong” Ms. Sheridan may have been about the (alleged) non-justification for her termination; or whether or not she actually “offended” or “disturbed” former co-workers; Dr. Winfield grossly overreacted and violated her civil rights when he banned her from UHS grounds. If Ms. Sheridan actually committed a “criminal act,” or violated some legitimate “rule of the university” in the “time, manner, or place” of her free expression; then she was entitled to due process and a hearing on the issue; in addition to a detailed explanation of where she overstepped her bounds. Dr. Winfield appears to have made no effort to file a criminal complaint for the events of May 14th, although it is clear from what will follow that he contacted U-M’s internal police department. No county or state prosecutor ever filed charges, so we must presume that no matter how “disturbing” her actions, Ms. Sheridan, given her Constitutional presumption of innocence, committed no crime. A remaining question however exists as to whether she violated a legitimate “rule of the university.” Yet, even at first glance here, she would be entitled to some minimal internal hearing giving her “due process” to challenge the health care access and movement restrictions. No such proceeding was granted to her, even after a May 23rd letter to Winfield in which see requested he reverse her decision and investigate the facts that he alleged in his letter. We must therefore again assume that she violated no legitimate rule, based on presumption of innocence and denial of due process. This letter and sequence of events stands a prima facie case of a serious violation of Ms. Sheridan’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Let us then proceed with the story.
In the August and September of 2003, Ms. Sheridan made several phone calls to an intermediate supervisor; perhaps as many as a dozen over the course of a few days. She states she was seeking information about how her complaint about the May events was being handled, and information about her employment termination. Each time she reached an answering machine, and each time she left a message. No doubt, someone on the receiving end of this level of persistence might be “disturbed,” yet again. Despite this, Ms. Sheridan clearly had a grievance and was “petitioning her government for redress,” in addition to engaging in routine speech. She did not receive a response to her repeated inquiries until over a month later, when U-M police officer Joseph E. Anderson left campus and arrived at her home in Ann Arbor proper. He left a business card saying “Please call me when you get in” on her door. A few days later, on Oct. 6, 2003, Lt. Crystal James arrived at Ms. Sheridan’s home, when she was available, and served upon her the “University of Michigan Trespass Warning.” The form cites the relevant passage of MCL 750.552, which requires prior warning of trespass before arrest can be made. The form commands, “under authority granted to me by the Regents of the University of Michigan, [that] you to immediately leave campus.” The underlined is a blank filled in by the officer.
A number of questions now open up. How can one be warned of trespass while they are not on campus and in their own home? How can the officer truthfully “direct” someone to “leave campus” when the person was actually not on campus at the time of the warning? Do U-M police have jurisdiction in Ann Arbor when not on campus; or should they have involved other local law enforcement or a county prosecutor before proceeding? These are just the minor questions though.
It is clear that a person’s repeated phone calls to a former boss could possibly constitute “harassment,” but Ms. Sheridan was never formally or informally charged with such. She left a sequence of many phone messages – all recorded – all of which the U-M Department of Public Safety could have retained and sent to the County Prosecutor. Although I can not access records of such an investigation; and DPS won’t answer specific questions about this case for the logical and legitimate privacy and law enforcement reasons; it should be apparent that if DPS or a county prosecutor hasn’t filed charges after six months that there is no legitimate evidence that Ms. Sheridan violated any laws.
In a conversation I had with Officer Piersanti in October, I asked some general questions about trespass enforcement. University officers are empowered to direct individuals off-campus if they are engaged in a violation of university rules; or they are empowered to arrest individuals and issue the semi-permanent “ban” from campus form if a person violates the law. If a person who violates a university rule, is directed to leave, and refuses to comply; then they could then be arrested for violation of trespass. Once a trespass warning is issued, it remains in effect in perpetuity unless the person seeks a reversal through DPS director Bill Bess. The “ban” is all inclusive from any and all University property; which is a quite expansive chunk of Ann Arbor and would include areas that some people wouldn’t necessarily recognize as U-M property. Officer Bess is the final authority on the matter, with no further recourse or formal mechanism for appeal.
This all makes sense, if the University rules being applied are applied consistently (14th Amendment equality clause), individuals are given a fair hearing afterwards and an opportunity to have the trespass warning reversed in a hearing with a fair and impartial authority (due process) through a well-laid out process, and as long as the rules themselves don’t violate other rights of the individual.
So Ms. Sheridan followed up on October 30, 2003, with a letter to Bess officially “appealing the decision of Lt. Crystal James to issue” the trespass warning. She noted, “in an effort to formulate my appeal, I require and am entitled to all files DPS has maintained in its investigation about me. … and to an explanation and answers to the following questions:
1) Why was the Trespass Ordinance read to me on October 6, 2003?
2) What Policy or Procedure of the University, or application of the law, did I violate …
3) How long does this prohibition last?”
She concludes by stating “once you have answered these questions and review this information, it should be apparent to you that the Trespass Warning was issued in error” and then asks for a reversal. Of course, any reasonable “due process” would include a right to examine the evidence against oneself and an exposition of the charges against oneself. Ms. Sheridan’s appeal letter asks all the right questions.
How was her appeal handled? Lewis A. Morrissey, U-Michigan’s Chief Freedom of Information Officer, replied on November 11, 2003. He treated her letter as a FOIA request, not as an appeal. Officer and Director Bess issued no response - essentially ignoring his duty to hear and rule upon her appeal. On November 19th, Morrissey issue his final FOIA response to Ms. Sheridan, denying her access to everything on the grounds that it related to “an ongoing investigation” in a “law enforcement proceedings”. This is a legitimate “exemption” if not misused - but it raises the question of why a “final action” was taken against Ms. Sheridan if the “investigation was ongoing” - which would be yet another due process violation. Morrissey further refused to answer her questions, a distinct matter from the FOIA request, noting “the University is not required to prepare answers to questions.” Although true for a FOIA request, one could argue that U-M has an independent obligation to answer her questions, since they involve several rights (to have the charges explained, to have them defined, to know what rules were violated, etc.) and the more general right of due process. Once again, Ms. Sheridan responded on November 21, 2003, with a letter to Bill Bess again, notifying him that her original letter was not a FOIA request, but rather a “request for information I need in order to fully defend myself pursuant to due process and my civil rights to understand, and access, the evidence being used adversely against me.” She reiterates that she is “formally appealing” and asks for a hearing. To this date, she has not received such a hearing or been granted her due process rights.
One is lead to ask the question of whether anything Ms. Sheridan did was illegal or in violation of University rules. The University won’t even say what rules she violated. It had ample opportunity, through the use of taped answering machine messages, to file a criminal complaint or use that evidence as proof that she violated some sort of milder internal “rule” against harassment. No County prosecutor has concurred with the proposition that this was a violation of the law; and no internal hearing within the University has been afforded to Ms. Sheridan to hear her side of the story or even to allow her to understand what she allegedly did wrong.
An irony worth noting here is how this was a protest related to labor - yet there is no union or labor cause clamoring to defend Ms. Sheridan. Ms. Sheridan’s case is also about a denial of health services, without cause or due process, by a government institution. Finally, it is ironic that a University proclaiming its commitment to the noble cause of treating substance abuse has used that very treatment against someone it considers a political or legal threat - as a cause for the termination.
U-M has simply and blatantly used its power to silence and intimidate; and has refused to explain its arbitrary use of such power. As much as it can be seen as the petty machinations of Dr. Winfield or a few other individuals seeking to shield themselves from whatever “disturbs” them, Ms. Sheridan’s story is yet an other small part of the larger story of a university and government institution gone
INVESTIGATIVE EXPOSE WITH OPINION AND ANALYSIS
March 15, 2004
by Chetly Zarko
Last fall, as a freelance writer, I met Kathleen Sheridan. She told me a story of how the University of Michigan administration misused its police force to silence and intimidate her. She has since given me permission to relay it to my readers.
Ms. Sheridan was an accountant for the University Health Services (UHS) for a number of years. To set the scene with a bit of background, in 1997, when the FBI was investigating a variety of university medical departments across the nation for alleged over-billing of Medicare, Ms. Sheridan claims she reported to her supervisors a number of “irregularities” in the billing process. I recognized the name of the federal agent she mentioned from the news releases of the time; although I have no other corroboration about the nature of her conversation with the agent or the severity of the irregularities.
Ms. Sheridan says that it was after this investigation concluded that she noticed a distinctive chill in the way management treated her. In the meantime, she admits that she had taken to excessive drinking as a way of coping with her stresses. By 2002, her alcohol problem had consumed her enough that she had entered into treatment. UHS granted her an authorized leave and sick time to help her handle this problem. But in her view, her bosses were still looking for a way to be rid of her. Immediately after returning from medical leave for treatment in January, 2003, she was terminated for attendance problems related to the treatment. Although she contested this termination on the grounds that her time away was authorized and in accordance with University policies relating to treatment; she was unable to get her position back. The details of every alleged wrongful termination claim are always intricate and subject to a variety of interpretations, but this complicated part of the story isn’t what is most interesting. The University may or may not have been “justified” in its release of Ms. Sheridan.
Following her termination, Ms. Sheridan contacted several of the supervisors in her chain of command seeking additional information and lobbying to get some kind of concessions in her grievance procedure. She relayed the pain that she felt as someone who was retaliated against after seeking treatment for her problem; and that she was deeply troubled by how the inconsistent the University seemed on the issue of substance abuse treatment. As a result, on May 14th, 2003, she returned to UHS wearing a T-shirt with an “A” on the front and holding a sign saying “Alcoholic”. She stated that she did this to show her fellow former co-workers and staff the inconsistency in U policy on the issue; and that she entered the building for a few minutes, spoke to some former co-workers, and then stood on the curb in front of the UHS buildings for about 5 minutes with her sign and left.
Ms. Sheridan’s minor act of civil disobedience earned her this May 21st written response from Dr. Robert A. Winfield, Director of the University Health Service:
Dear Kitty,
I am writing to inform you that we will no longer provide health care for you at the University Health Service or the Periodic Health Appraisal Unit. Your recent visit to UHS on May 14, 2003, in which you protested your employment termination [sic] was found to be disturbing by several of our staff. As a result you will no longer be allowed on the UHS grounds.
Upon receipt of your written authorization, we will gladly provide a copy of your records to your health care provider. You may contact your primary care physician, your insurance company or the Washtenaw County Medical Society for their physician referral line.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Winfield, M.D.
Consider the ramifications of this letter. Someone has “protested” their termination, and a few people found the protest “to be disturbing,” so the director writes a letter ending her medical care and telling her not to enter UHS property again. UHS is a sub-division of the University of Michigan, a constitutionally created entity of the State of Michigan. As such, unlike a private counterpart, it is bound by the protections established in the Michigan and United States Constitutions; requiring due process of law and more importantly protecting “protesters” who may “disturb” someone if they are engaged lawful speech or petitioning their government for redress of their grievances. No matter how “wrong” Ms. Sheridan may have been about the (alleged) non-justification for her termination; or whether or not she actually “offended” or “disturbed” former co-workers; Dr. Winfield grossly overreacted and violated her civil rights when he banned her from UHS grounds. If Ms. Sheridan actually committed a “criminal act,” or violated some legitimate “rule of the university” in the “time, manner, or place” of her free expression; then she was entitled to due process and a hearing on the issue; in addition to a detailed explanation of where she overstepped her bounds. Dr. Winfield appears to have made no effort to file a criminal complaint for the events of May 14th, although it is clear from what will follow that he contacted U-M’s internal police department. No county or state prosecutor ever filed charges, so we must presume that no matter how “disturbing” her actions, Ms. Sheridan, given her Constitutional presumption of innocence, committed no crime. A remaining question however exists as to whether she violated a legitimate “rule of the university.” Yet, even at first glance here, she would be entitled to some minimal internal hearing giving her “due process” to challenge the health care access and movement restrictions. No such proceeding was granted to her, even after a May 23rd letter to Winfield in which see requested he reverse her decision and investigate the facts that he alleged in his letter. We must therefore again assume that she violated no legitimate rule, based on presumption of innocence and denial of due process. This letter and sequence of events stands a prima facie case of a serious violation of Ms. Sheridan’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Let us then proceed with the story.
In the August and September of 2003, Ms. Sheridan made several phone calls to an intermediate supervisor; perhaps as many as a dozen over the course of a few days. She states she was seeking information about how her complaint about the May events was being handled, and information about her employment termination. Each time she reached an answering machine, and each time she left a message. No doubt, someone on the receiving end of this level of persistence might be “disturbed,” yet again. Despite this, Ms. Sheridan clearly had a grievance and was “petitioning her government for redress,” in addition to engaging in routine speech. She did not receive a response to her repeated inquiries until over a month later, when U-M police officer Joseph E. Anderson left campus and arrived at her home in Ann Arbor proper. He left a business card saying “Please call me when you get in” on her door. A few days later, on Oct. 6, 2003, Lt. Crystal James arrived at Ms. Sheridan’s home, when she was available, and served upon her the “University of Michigan Trespass Warning.” The form cites the relevant passage of MCL 750.552, which requires prior warning of trespass before arrest can be made. The form commands, “under authority granted to me by the Regents of the University of Michigan, [that] you to immediately leave campus.” The underlined is a blank filled in by the officer.
A number of questions now open up. How can one be warned of trespass while they are not on campus and in their own home? How can the officer truthfully “direct” someone to “leave campus” when the person was actually not on campus at the time of the warning? Do U-M police have jurisdiction in Ann Arbor when not on campus; or should they have involved other local law enforcement or a county prosecutor before proceeding? These are just the minor questions though.
It is clear that a person’s repeated phone calls to a former boss could possibly constitute “harassment,” but Ms. Sheridan was never formally or informally charged with such. She left a sequence of many phone messages – all recorded – all of which the U-M Department of Public Safety could have retained and sent to the County Prosecutor. Although I can not access records of such an investigation; and DPS won’t answer specific questions about this case for the logical and legitimate privacy and law enforcement reasons; it should be apparent that if DPS or a county prosecutor hasn’t filed charges after six months that there is no legitimate evidence that Ms. Sheridan violated any laws.
In a conversation I had with Officer Piersanti in October, I asked some general questions about trespass enforcement. University officers are empowered to direct individuals off-campus if they are engaged in a violation of university rules; or they are empowered to arrest individuals and issue the semi-permanent “ban” from campus form if a person violates the law. If a person who violates a university rule, is directed to leave, and refuses to comply; then they could then be arrested for violation of trespass. Once a trespass warning is issued, it remains in effect in perpetuity unless the person seeks a reversal through DPS director Bill Bess. The “ban” is all inclusive from any and all University property; which is a quite expansive chunk of Ann Arbor and would include areas that some people wouldn’t necessarily recognize as U-M property. Officer Bess is the final authority on the matter, with no further recourse or formal mechanism for appeal.
This all makes sense, if the University rules being applied are applied consistently (14th Amendment equality clause), individuals are given a fair hearing afterwards and an opportunity to have the trespass warning reversed in a hearing with a fair and impartial authority (due process) through a well-laid out process, and as long as the rules themselves don’t violate other rights of the individual.
So Ms. Sheridan followed up on October 30, 2003, with a letter to Bess officially “appealing the decision of Lt. Crystal James to issue” the trespass warning. She noted, “in an effort to formulate my appeal, I require and am entitled to all files DPS has maintained in its investigation about me. … and to an explanation and answers to the following questions:
1) Why was the Trespass Ordinance read to me on October 6, 2003?
2) What Policy or Procedure of the University, or application of the law, did I violate …
3) How long does this prohibition last?”
She concludes by stating “once you have answered these questions and review this information, it should be apparent to you that the Trespass Warning was issued in error” and then asks for a reversal. Of course, any reasonable “due process” would include a right to examine the evidence against oneself and an exposition of the charges against oneself. Ms. Sheridan’s appeal letter asks all the right questions.
How was her appeal handled? Lewis A. Morrissey, U-Michigan’s Chief Freedom of Information Officer, replied on November 11, 2003. He treated her letter as a FOIA request, not as an appeal. Officer and Director Bess issued no response - essentially ignoring his duty to hear and rule upon her appeal. On November 19th, Morrissey issue his final FOIA response to Ms. Sheridan, denying her access to everything on the grounds that it related to “an ongoing investigation” in a “law enforcement proceedings”. This is a legitimate “exemption” if not misused - but it raises the question of why a “final action” was taken against Ms. Sheridan if the “investigation was ongoing” - which would be yet another due process violation. Morrissey further refused to answer her questions, a distinct matter from the FOIA request, noting “the University is not required to prepare answers to questions.” Although true for a FOIA request, one could argue that U-M has an independent obligation to answer her questions, since they involve several rights (to have the charges explained, to have them defined, to know what rules were violated, etc.) and the more general right of due process. Once again, Ms. Sheridan responded on November 21, 2003, with a letter to Bill Bess again, notifying him that her original letter was not a FOIA request, but rather a “request for information I need in order to fully defend myself pursuant to due process and my civil rights to understand, and access, the evidence being used adversely against me.” She reiterates that she is “formally appealing” and asks for a hearing. To this date, she has not received such a hearing or been granted her due process rights.
One is lead to ask the question of whether anything Ms. Sheridan did was illegal or in violation of University rules. The University won’t even say what rules she violated. It had ample opportunity, through the use of taped answering machine messages, to file a criminal complaint or use that evidence as proof that she violated some sort of milder internal “rule” against harassment. No County prosecutor has concurred with the proposition that this was a violation of the law; and no internal hearing within the University has been afforded to Ms. Sheridan to hear her side of the story or even to allow her to understand what she allegedly did wrong.
An irony worth noting here is how this was a protest related to labor - yet there is no union or labor cause clamoring to defend Ms. Sheridan. Ms. Sheridan’s case is also about a denial of health services, without cause or due process, by a government institution. Finally, it is ironic that a University proclaiming its commitment to the noble cause of treating substance abuse has used that very treatment against someone it considers a political or legal threat - as a cause for the termination.
U-M has simply and blatantly used its power to silence and intimidate; and has refused to explain its arbitrary use of such power. As much as it can be seen as the petty machinations of Dr. Winfield or a few other individuals seeking to shield themselves from whatever “disturbs” them, Ms. Sheridan’s story is yet an other small part of the larger story of a university and government institution gone