Serving the High Plains
Serving the High Plains
The law firm representing Mesalands Community College last week issued multiple denials to allegations from by the college’s former president in his whistleblower and retaliation lawsuit against the college, and it made new ones against him.
The Cuddy & McCarthy law firm, based in Santa Fe, filed a six-page response Wednesday in Tucumcari district court to John Groesbeck’s lawsuit. He sued the college after its board of trustees fired in him in April.
In his lawsuit, Groesbeck states he confronted the Mesalands Community College Foundation members, many whom also are on the board of trustees, at a meeting March 3 about allegations of improper distribution of federal grant funds, fraudulent property leases and improper appropriations of money to the Mesalands Dinosaur Museum.
Two weeks later, Groesbeck was placed on indefinite paid administrative leave after a closed executive session during a regular board of trustees meeting. The board of trustees fired him a month later.
Groesbeck noted in the suit the college and its foundation have overlapping personnel.
Mesalands stated its foundation directors and officers are selected via its bylaws.
Groesbeck stated he found “systemic abuses” of overload pay processes that led to faculty overpayment. He stated he objected to the practice and rewrote the personnel handbook to reflect appropriate compensation practices.
The college admitted Groesbeck objected to per-section pay for instructors and revised the personnel handbook but “affirmatively states that Plaintiff unilaterally engaged in the same without authorization.”
Groesbeck also stated he contacted the college’s auditors about the practice in December 2019.
“Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny whether Plaintiff communicated with Defendant’s auditors about this issue or any issue in December 2019 and, therefore, denies the same,” the response states.
The response also addresses Groesbeck’s suit that alleges the foundation is a component unit of the college.
Groesbeck said the college and its trustees asserted the foundation is a “non-component unit” of the college. Groesbeck said the foundation should have been subject to Government Accounting Standards Board regulations, and Internal Revenue Service rules should have required the foundation be a component unit of the college and require an annual audit.
Groesbeck stated he notified the college in February its foundation should be a component unit similar to other colleges and universities and that overlapping management between the boards created conflicts of interest.
Mesalands denied that, adding: “Defendant’s auditors, in their professional opinion, determined that the Foundation was not a component unit of Defendant.”
It also denied impropriety or wrongdoing on whether there were conflicts of interest between the college’s board and foundation board.
Groesbeck stated he learned the college was transferring $35,000 to the foundation for property leases. The lawsuit stated: “In reality, these lots sit idle — they are not used by the College, do not benefit the College, and are vacant or without power or water.” He also stated approval of the expenditures were not subject “to the usual process for such large amounts.”
The response acknowledged the foundation pays several property leases and “states that the leases at issue were approved during Plaintiff’s tenure.”
The college also denied Groesbeck’s allegations the dinosaur museum’s use of state higher education funds that included laboratories, classrooms, instruction, program recruitment and paying the salaries of the director and curator were misappropriated.
“Such use of the funds is proper,” the response stated.
The response stated the lawsuit should be dismissed on several grounds:
• Groesbeck’s complaint failed to state a claim on which relief would be granted;
• Groesbeck didn’t report, object or refuse to participate in an unlawful or improper act;
• It states the college’s actions were “reasonable, justified and conducted in good faith in the lawful performance” of its duties “for a legitimate business purpose” unrelated to conduct barred by the Whistleblower Protection Act, and that retaliation “was not a motivating factor”;
• If Groesbeck suffered damages or losses, they “were caused in while or in part by Plaintiff’s own conduct, acts or omissions”;
• Groesbeck’s claims are barred “by his failure to mitigate damages.”
Groesbeck initially filed the lawsuit in July in Santa Fe District Court, but a judge there dismissed it in November after ruling it was filed in the wrong venue.
Groesbeck refiled his complaint in Tucumcari on Dec. 1. Circuit Judge Albert Mitchell Jr. is assigned to the case.
Groesbeck states Mesalands’ firing caused him actual damages, lost wages, lost benefits, expenses related to finding new employment and severe emotional distress. He was paid $170,000 a year and collected his pay through June 30.
He hired the Kennedy, Hernandez & Associates law firm of Albuquerque to represent him.
Groesbeck could not be reached for comment.
Mesalands, through its director of public relations, has repeatedly declined to comment about the lawsuit.
Natalie Gillard, vice president of academic affairs, was appointed interim president. The college’s board of trustees formed a search committee to find a new president that is due to look over applications for the position in the coming weeks.