***** Vol.3 Chap.31 The preliminary hearing *****
As he walked into the room at the appointed time of the preliminary hearing, he scanned the room. He recognized some of the committee members and it is easy to pick out the rest of the committee members even though he had never met some of them. At one corner, JB was chatting intensely with a stranger whom he surmised must be her lawyer.
“Ah, Dr. Abdulcizi, we have a chair for you here,” Dr. Summer greeted him.
“Thank you.”
Frank took the hot seat.
“Now that everyone is here, shall we begin?” Dr. Summer stood up.
She turned on the tape recorder. The air in the room suddenly stiffened.
“Today’s meeting is a preliminary hearing about a complaint from Dr. Smith, the complainant, against Dr. Abdulcizi, the defendant.”
The words ‘complainant’ and ‘defendant’ sounded so foreign to Frank.
“Before we begin, let me go over the established procedures for this meeting. The written complaint from the complainant had been forwarded to the defendant in a timely manner. The defendant had also responded to the complaint in a timely fashion. I want to thank both parties for their diligence. Both the complaint and the response had been given to each of the committee members.”
A slight pause.
“I like to remind everyone that this is only a preliminary hearing. The intent is for the committee to decide if there is sufficient ground for a formal hearing. Since this is not the actual hearing, there will be no cross examination between the complainant and the defendant. Also, the complainant’s lawyer may not speak.”
As a pro who had conducted these meeting many times, she continued her instructions.
“I encourage all the committee members to ask either the complainant or the defendant questions to clarify the complaint and the response. After the question-and-answer period, the complainant and the defendant are free to go so that the committee can deliberate the case in closed doors.”
“After deliberation, the committee could either dismiss the case at that point due to a lack of evidence or recommend a formal hearing. In either case, I will notify the complainant and the defendant of the committee’s decisions immediately after the deliberation.”
She paused for a minute.
“Are there any questions regarding the procedure of this preliminary hearing?”
“Is there a limitation on what we asked?” A junior faculty member raised the question. It was obvious that this was his first time.
“No, but keep your questions pertinent to the case, if possible.”
“This is all new to me. May my lawyer speak for me?” JB asked.
“This is highly irregular. We would prefer that you respond to the committee’s questions personally and directly, since this is only a preliminary hearing and not a formal hearing, Dr. Smith.”
JB nodded his head.
“If there are no more questions on the procedure, then let me ask the committee members to begin the questioning.”
Dr. Summer sat down.
An old bespectacled faculty sitting next to Dr. Summer started the questioning.
“I have read both the complaint and the response and the evidence supported by both. The evidence are pages from a logbook of research meeting discussion. They neither support nor deny the allegations. Dr. Smith, just because an idea is written in your logbook about a research meeting, how does that support the idea that they are your ideas? And Dr. Abdulcizi, just because it is written in your logbook, how does that prove that it is not Dr. Smith’s idea to start with?”
JB chatted intensely with his lawyer for a few minutes, then responded heatedly. “I only wrote down my ideas in my logbook. I have brought the log book here with me and the committee can examine my logbook.”
Dr. Summer jumped into the conversation to keep order. “It is not the intent of this meeting to examine the validity of the evidence. The purpose of this meeting is to determine if there are sufficient grounds to warrant a formal hearing where all evidence will be examined in detail with cross examination. For this meeting, we assume all evidence presented by both parties is genuine.”
The author's tale has been misappropriated; report any instances of this story on Amazon.
“That is the whole point.” Frank seized the moment. “These were all ideas discussed in a research meeting where everyone contributed to the directions of the research. It would be preposterous to claim that all ideas in a group meeting belong to one person.”
“I did not claim all the ideas.” JB retorted.
“Or any.” Frank responded.
“I only claimed those ideas that were mine.”
“Again, I have to ask you gentlemen to stop and restrict your speaking by answering the committee’s questions.”
Dr. Summer stepped in again.
“My apology.” Frank apologized quietly.
“I have a question for Dr. Smith. You claim that these were your ideas, yet the evidence seemed to show that you got the idea from the research meeting. Is that correct?”
A serious-looking committee member asked while flipping over the pages of the package in front of her.
“During the research meeting, not from the research meeting. During the research meeting, I suggested these ideas. Some were adopted and others were not. All those that were published were my ideas proposed during the research meeting.”
A shameless claim.
“I see. Dr. Abdulcizi, your account of the research meetings was not as detailed as Dr. Smith’s. Is it correct that all those ideas came from Dr. Smith?”
“Frankly, I don’t recall from whom the ideas came from. To me, the ideas came from the entire group synergistically, and the ideas belonged to everyone in the group.”
“So, it was possible that all the ideas came from Dr. Smith.”
“It could be, but I doubted that all the ideas came from Dr. Smith.”
“Just the ones I claimed.” JB jumped in. His face was getting hot.
“So, you do not deny the possibility that the ideas were from Dr. Smith?”
“No, but in the same breath, I do not deny that the ideas also came from Mark and myself as well.”
“That is preposterous.” JB shouted heatedly.
“Please, gentlemen.”
Dr. Summer stepped in to calm the situation.
Frank sat there quietly.
“I like to continue this discussion a little further.” The next committee member spoke.
Frank recognized him as having served with him in other university functions before.
“Dr. Abdulcizi, you said that the ideas were from a research meeting?”
“Yes.”
“How often do you meet?”
“Once a week.”
“What typically happens in a research meeting?”
“Most of the time, we have reports from the team members and then we discuss the issues.”
“I see. When are these ideas generated during the meeting?”
“In a typical research meeting, Mark or Dr. Smith or other team members would be asked to highlight what they had done and to report any problems. After the report, we all put our brains together to suggest the next course of action. This was the time when ideas were thrown around. We all took part in critiquing one another’s ideas and usually, the best one or two ideas would be selected as the next course of action.”
“Thank you, Dr. Abdulcizi. was that the situation in the research meetings according to you, Dr. Smith?”
“Yes, but the ideas cited here were proposed by me first.”
“I see. Did you propose the ideas before the reporting or after the reporting?”
“What does it matter? They were my ideas.”
“May or may not. I am trying to establish whether you brought the ideas to the meetings or whether the ideas came to you in a group discussion. If you brought the ideas to the meetings, then the ideas belong to you rightfully. But if you all were in a brainstorming session, then the ideas should belong to the group.”
“They were my ideas.” JB responded adamantly.
“But did you get the ideas during the group discussion?”
“What did that matter? They were my ideas.” JB shouted loudly and angrily, waving her hands in the air.
The committee member sighed and leaned back.
“It seems to me that if the ideas were generated in a group, then everyone’s name should go on the paper.” It was the junior faculty’s turn.
“That is what I say.” JB jumped in, shouting in anger still.
“I do have many papers with many names included as authors. In fact, Dr. Smith’s name was on most of the papers with my name on it. The papers cited here were primarily based on Mark’s dissertation work and he needed to be established as the expert in his area.”
“Not at my expense.” JB rushed in and shouted with a sour face, though Frank did not respond.
“Would it not be better to include Dr. Smith’s name if he suggested those ideas?” The junior faculty continued.
“Perhaps, but making a suggestion was easy. It was Dr. Hymann who did the programming, the analysis, and the write-up. Dr. Hymann was the one doing all the work in those papers.”
“Maybe your name should be removed, then?” JB ranted angrily.
“I have no problem with that.” Frank replied calmly.
“I really don’t have questions at this point.” The last member of the committee commented.
Dr. Summer stood up.
“I would like to thank the committee for their conscientious questionings. They have done their homework. I also thank Dr. Smith and Dr. Abdulcizi for answering the questions in such a professional manner. Before the committee goes into deliberation, I would like to ask Dr. Smith and Dr. Abdulcizi to make a brief last comment. Let’s start with Dr. Smith.”
JB consulted with his lawyer for quite a while.
“Dr. Smith?” Dr. Summer repeated his name.
“I just wanted to say that I know what ideas were mine and I am sad to see that I was not given credit for my ideas. This kind of plagiarism had to stop and retributions made for those papers published without my credit.”
“Thank you, Dr. Smith. Now a last comment from you, Dr. Abdulcizi?”
“I would like to thank the committee for their time today. I only wanted to point out that Dr. Hymann’s dissertation topic was determined before Dr. Smith came to my research group and that there were at least three other papers that Dr. Smith had published based on parts of Dr. Hymann’s research that did not bear my name or Dr. Hymann’s name.”
“Thank you, Dr. Abdulcizi. At this time, I would like to ask that only the committee members remain for deliberation.”
JB left quickly with her lawyer before Frank had a chance to talk to her.