University of Michigan professor: Grad student's firing wasn't retaliatory
Retaliation had nothing to do with the firing of a University of Michigan graduate student who reported safety violations in a lab, according to testimony from the student's former supervising professor.
The student, Robert McGee, is suing the University of Michigan Board of Regents for damages under the state's Whistleblower Protection Act. The jury trial is ongoing in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court.
Michael Hartman, an assistant professor with the U-M College of
Engineering, said his student repeatedly missed deadlines on a lab
project and was unresponsive to e-mails and phone calls that attempted
to set goals and standards toward its completion. The troubling pattern
of behavior was the primary reason the student was relieved of his
duties as a graduate student research assistant early, he said.
Hartman teaches nuclear engineering and radiological science. McGee was a graduate student and pre-candidate for a PhD in the program who holds U-M bachelor's and master's degrees in aerospace engineering earned in the 80s.
Hartman had supervised McGee since 2007, though McGee had been with the program since 2004.
"The same behavioral pattern was repeating itself," Hartman testified. "I was very concerned work was not being completed in the timeline as promised."Four days after McGee reported Hartman for two suspected violations to two regulatory agencies, Hartman e-mailed McGee Feb. 20, 2008 to say his services were no longer needed in the neutron lab he had worked in for four years. Hartman said McGee would, however, be paid through the April 30 end of his semester-long appointment, with salary, tuition reimbursement and health benefits.
McGee testified earlier in the week that his plans to continue PhD research on the neutron generator he had built in that lab "went up in smoke," and that other professors refused to work with him after Hartman terminated his assistantship.
But plans to end McGee's assistantship were in motion before the safety violations were alleged, according to testimony from Hartman Friday. Besides missed deadlines and a lack of response to e-mails and phone calls seeking more accountability on the project, funding for the position was running out, Hartman said. Conversations with department chair Bill Martin about ending McGee's assistantship occurred in Dec. 2007, before the safety violations were made, Hartman testified, though the student was re-appointed for another term after those conversations.
Contrary to McGee's testimony, Hartman denied he had spoken to his student about seeking a grant to fund the position further.
With e-mails and recollections of conversations, U-M's attorney David Masson sought to discredit not only the whistleblower allegations, but the alleged safety violations.
The alleged safety violations include that Hartman asked McGee to enter another professor's lab without her permission and without knowing whether or not a radioactive substance was active, and that Hartman poured suspected chemicals down a sink McGee feared was connected to a storm drain.
In testimony earlier this week, McGee said he feared for his safety when he entered this lab with Hartman, and that he left immediately when Hartman said he didn't know whether or not a highly radioactive Cesium 137 source was on.
Both testified that they entered the lab without a key by retrieving one from a cinder block where it was hidden, and that they were there to replace a door identified as a problem by a previous fire safety inspection.
Hartman admitted the other professor was not aware he and his student would be in her lab that day, but denied that the lab was unsafe. He said he had entered the lab alone the night prior with a safety meter to test for radiation and levels were safe. Both the other professor and regulatory group Radiation Safety Services were generally aware he needed to fix a door in the other lab, he said.
McGee reported Hartman to Radiation Safety Services for entering the lab.
McGee also reported Hartman to Occupational Safety and Environmental Health after he thought he saw his professor dumping chemicals down a sink. Hartman testified today that chemicals he worked with in the lab were always dealt with safely and under strict guidelines. He knew the recently installed sink was not connected to a storm drain, and that it was installed as part of a side project that would also include an eye-washing station and fume hood for working with chemicals.
McGee claimed that Hartman actively sought to find out who made the safety violations before firing him. But Hartman testified he was unaware that a report about his entering another lab was made until after McGee was let go. Regarding the report about dumping chemicals down the sink, Hartman admitted he asked an OSEH representative via e-mail why she was looking into the sink, but downplayed the question as simple curiosity.
Juliana Keeping covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at julianakeeping@annarbor.com or 734-623-2528. Follow Juliana Keeping on Twitter
Comments
crintigger
Mon, Nov 16, 2009 : 1:27 p.m.
Before I write another comment, I want to say that I do not know Robert McGee or Michael Hartman or their social networks. I am a scientist who has watched UM disintegrate in terms of integrity for 20 years. I think one of the most fascinating admissions on the witness stand by Hartman was that he entered Professor Kearfott's lab with the radioactive materials, without on her knowledge, on 2 occasions, Feb 15 and 16. Hartman claimed he took a meter with him on the night of the 15th. But then he also stated that on the 16th, when he entered without a meter, he approached the radioactive source "out of curiosity." One would have thought he would have satisfied his curiosity and done that potentially dangerous act WITH the meter in hand the night before. It seems implausible that he waited until he was unprotected by the meter detecting radioactivity and also no longer alone to approach the radioactive source. McGee also testified that Hartman asked McGee if McGee knew whether the Cesium source was on or off. Clearly, if Hartman was relying on his meter testing of the night before, Hartman would have already established that the source was off. I hope the jury is smart enough to pick up these implausible claims and inherent contradictions.
pu2um
Mon, Nov 16, 2009 : 1:23 p.m.
Hartman illegally entered Kearfott's lab twice, on February 15 and 16. When accompanied by McGee on the second occasion, Hartman claimed that he did not have to use a survey meter to detect radiation due to the fact he had done so on the previous night when he entered alone. However, during cross-examination Hartman downplayed his second unnecessary incursion into the area of the Cesium 137 source as simple curiosity. It's hard to believe his curiosity could not have been satisfied the first time. It's more likely that he misrepresented use of the survey meter as an excuse for not taking normal precautions. Also, on cross-examination Hartman admitted saying that he conducted his chemical research on weekends because OSEH wasn't around, but downplayed his remark as an old joke from his Navy days. Misuse of chemicals is not a laughing matter. To my mind, Hartman's conduct disqualifies him to head the Neutron Science Lab and mentor students. I am appalled that the university has chosen to defend this lawsuit rather than take responsibility for Hartmans wrong-doing.
spring
Mon, Nov 16, 2009 : 11:46 a.m.
I wonder who knows so many details about Bob McGees project besides Bob McGee, to defend him so passionately.
spring
Sun, Nov 15, 2009 : 11:25 p.m.
U of M is one thing, a professor in particular is another. Different things should not be treated as one.
spring
Sun, Nov 15, 2009 : 11:24 p.m.
Prof. Hartman is an excelent professor whose integrity does not seize to amaze me. I have repetedly heard the students he advises speak highly of him. Last year he was chosen Best Professor by the students of the department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences.
wizdum
Sun, Nov 15, 2009 : 8:07 p.m.
All that UM had to do is the right thing and no one would have been injured. They simply needed to step on the brake and instead they stepped on the accelerator and ran down the victim. SICK for a public institution to be so corrupt. Where is the public outcry? Expecting the same supine public that got robbed by Wall Street and forfeited their rights under the Patriot Act to rise up against allegations of academic theft is unfortunately expecting too much. They are too self absorbed to care, or benefiting in some way from the corrupt system. I'm surprised the students aren't up in arms. They have historically led protests demanding change in the face of injustice. The idea that such exploitation could be taking pace right here in our fair city is heartbreaking and unconscionable. In the name of all that's good, make it stop! What added insult to injury for Bob McGee are claims that the Dept. Chair apparently adopted a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil approach towards the firing. I'm aghast he didn't intervene by calling both Hartman and Bob McGee into his office to resolve the matter equitably. But I guess that's not how the "game" is played. Has Mary Sue Coleman issued a statement about this case or is she playing it safe by withholding comment? Perhaps she is also adopting a wait and see attitude, while maintaining the appearance of being "above it all".
crintigger
Sun, Nov 15, 2009 : 2:58 p.m.
5 million probably sounds too high, but the law firm takes 1/3 and there are taxes and debts accumulated from lack of employment and possibly student loans and it is never what it seems when the injured party finally is compensated for the loss of all the money they would have made in salary, benefits, consulting, book deals...you get the drift. For what? All that UM had to do is the right thing and no one would have been injured. They simply needed to step on the brake and instead they stepped on the accelerator and ran down the victim. SICK for a public institution to be so corrupt. Where is the public outcry?
crintigger
Sun, Nov 15, 2009 : 2:06 p.m.
Better yet, UM PAYS Bob McGee 2 million...no....actually that would not be enough for the pain and suffering and humiliation and loss of his PhD and career and all the perks and enjoyment thereof. I hope the verdict is 5 million. The only way to stop this corruption is by making them pay the true value of the damage they have done.
wizdum
Sun, Nov 15, 2009 : 12:38 p.m.
I'm sure assistant Professor Hartman's "hart" [sic] didn't brim over with joy as he was being emasculated by Dr.Kearfott in her office for entering her lab without her express consent. Then, after leaving a two hundred pound door leaning against the wall of her lab near the "source", he wonders why she's miffed. HELLO! Get a clue, Dr. Hartman. Have you looked in the mirror lately and asked yourself if you are really living up to your name? "Hart" + "man" is something we should all aspire to. Ironically, in this situation at least, it is no longer in your hands but up to the jury to decide whether or not you lived up to your name in this circumstance. Bob McGee wasn't exactly in a position to beat it out of the lab so easily, particularly since it seems he felt pressured or even intimidated by the nature of the emails he was receiving from his superior. If I was Christine Green, I'd ask Dr. Hartman if there was perhaps another reason why he sent the emails to Bob McGee outlining what some learned people consider unreasonable deadlines to complete complicated tasks. Could Hartman have had another reason for sending the emails? Was there perhaps another agenda in the back of his mind known only to him? If I was a juror, that question would enter my mind. I read somewhere in the comments section that Dr. Hartman brought some members of his Oregon team to MI to work with him in the neutron lab. Could that have played a part in what some feel are the unreasonable deadlines for task completion he placed on Bob McGee? Bob McGee essentially built the neutron lab, and if he was not around, Dr. Hartman could potentially take all the props. Its an interesting theory, isn't it? So much cloak and dagger. Sharing success with others is much more gratifying. Hartman came off as hyper cerebral on the stand, but not very compassionate. That approach may win brownie points in the cut throat world of Academia, but I'm not sure how effective that will be with a jury of your "peers".
trespass
Sun, Nov 15, 2009 : 9:34 a.m.
Dr. Hartman insisted that he did not know that Robert McGee had made a complaint to radiation saftety after the February 16 incursion into Dr. Kearfott's lab, even after Dr. Kearfott had an angry meeting with Dr. Hartman on Monday morning. Dr. Hartman asked Dr. Kearfott if she had filed the report and she said no. Dr. Hartman testified that Robert had not said anything during the incursion into the lab and that he had even helped him reinstall the security gate and worked around the lab for a half hour before leaving, which Robert contradicted in his testimony. However, Dr. Hartman also testified that the reason for the entry into Dr. Kearfott's laboratory was to replace the security gate with a door and that is why he took Robert with him. If Robert did not indicate that anything was wrong by his words or his behavior, why did they not install the door? Robert was also the only one in the laboratory with Dr. Hartman that Saturday. Who else did he think would have made a report? Dr. Kearfott also testified that Dr. Hartman would not answer her question about whether or not he had been in the lab on Saturday when she met with him on Monday. The fact that Dr. Hartman is not being forthcoming with regard to knowing that Robert made the complaint, coupled with the timing where he found out about the complaint on Monday, he threatened Robert's employment by Wednesday and fired him on Thursday argues that his firing was related to his complaint.
wizdum
Sun, Nov 15, 2009 : 3:04 a.m.
"I am a nuclear engineering graduate student at the University of Michigan and I have also worked with Bob. While Bob is a very nice person, he is not necessarily a good student. Bob was not well on his way to finishing his PhD. He is knowledgeable, but he lacked serious work ethic. Bob worked on the neutron scattering lab for 3 years and set up the structure of the lab, but could not get the neutron generators running which were the crux of the laboratory. Within a year of Professor Hartman arriving, the neutron generators were functioning. Bob has shown serious problems with authority and consistently missed deadlines. Missing deadlines repeatedly is not an acceptable professional practice, and it is perfectly reasonable to be fired on those grounds." Are you kidding me? You cannot be serious! Four years is not an inordinate amount of time (considering McGee's appointment) to complete a neutron lab. If you think its so easy, why not try it yourself? McGee should have had more time and assistance to bring the neutron generator on line, but he was prevented from doing so which was unfair to say the least. The fact McGee didn't get the neutron generator running on his own should have no bearing on whether he was entitled to earn a PhD. McGee deserved the PhD for getting the project so far along - he EARNED it. Others students could have picked up where he left off, and McGee should have been allowed to complete his studies and earn his doctorate. I know a student who took 10 years to perfect an ion beam mass spectrometer and he still earned his PhD after all those years! Imagine that?! So your insinuation that Bob McGee somehow disqualified himself from earning a doctorate by failing to get the neutron generator running by a certain deadline is preposterous. Are GRLA's allowed to have lives outside the U or are they all slaves to tenure hungry assistant Professors? McGee would've gotten the neutron generator operational had he not been unceremoniously dumped. How cruel! E-Go, E-Go! I googled the Neutron lab McGee built and what he accomplished was amazing. Is the neutron generator operational yet or are they still diddling with it? The safety issues described at the neutron lab don't exactly inspire confidence among myself and perhaps other concerned members of the community. What happened to Bob McGee does not seem Kosher. Something's rotten in Denmark (or in this case Ann Arbor). Dr. Hartman has a lot of explaining to do and I'm glad he's in the hot seat in front of a jury getting called on the carpet. Hey doc - got tenure yet??? For a smart guy, you ain't so bright. Do you fear for your future if the regents lose this lawsuit? I sure hope so.
rrt911
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 11:43 p.m.
Alumnus, you bring some details we aren't hearing to light. I was a former ee of U of M and know of some of their practices. This certainly is no surprise to my ears.
trespass
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 4:52 p.m.
@NERSgradstudent. I would like to challenge you to compare whatever project you have been given as a PhD pre-candidate to the project that they assigned to Bob McGee. This supposedly below average student was recruited by the former Department Chair and asked to design, construct and get licensed the Neutron Beam Laboratory. Bob started with a bare 60 x 60 foot space. He had to design a layout, design sheilding, design safety systems, meet all NRC regulations, meet building codes, OSHA and Fire Dept requirements, paint, build walls, install electrical and plumbing systems, coordinate with the instrument vendor, radiation safety, enviornmental health, skilled trades, all on a 25% graduate student research assistant appointment (10 hours a week)and take classes. Don't you think that might interfere with your studying for classes? Please describe the project you have done as a pre-candidate and how it compares to Bob's. I bet your project had more to do with your thesis project than Bob's did. He was being exploited and it interfered with his studies.
crintigger
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 4:37 p.m.
NERSgradstudent you say that "Within a year of Professor Hartman arriving, the neutron generators were functioning." What you fail to mention is whether this was Bob McGee's work or that of Hartman or someone else. There are lots of students with lots of imperfections at any given university at any time. It is quite an amazing coincidence that only a few days after blowing the whistle, Bob's imperfections were suddenly worthy of termination. We'll see if the jury buys this story.
NERSgradstudent
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 3:36 p.m.
I am a nuclear engineering graduate student at the University of Michigan and I have also worked with Bob. While Bob is a very nice person, he is not necessarily a good student. Bob was not well on his way to finishing his PhD. He is knowledgeable, but he lacked serious work ethic. Bob worked on the neutron scattering lab for 3 years and set up the structure of the lab, but could not get the neutron generators running which were the crux of the laboratory. Within a year of Professor Hartman arriving, the neutron generators were functioning. Bob has shown serious problems with authority and consistently missed deadlines. Missing deadlines repeatedly is not an acceptable professional practice, and it is perfectly reasonable to be fired on those grounds.
crintigger
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 12:32 p.m.
McGee had amazing expertise and experience from his masters degree, years of working in this area in industry, and years as a safety expert, dealing with nuclear regulatory issues and the science and engineering involved. Clearly, UM was exploiting McGee in the first place by having McGee create this huge, complicated lab at the pennies paid to graduate students, when McGee already knew enough to be a PhD. In making McGee do all this work, UM was not only exploiting him, but negligent in helping him to advance to his PhD because they were actively giving him so much complex work that they were preventing him from progressing at a normal rate to his PhD. Who does this sort of project in the first years of graduate school? That's insane on the face of it. McGee was supposed to be a student, not a single person replacing an Electrical Engineering Firm. UM should be ashamed of themselves for once again destroying the young career of a brilliant scientist. How many dead bodies of young scientists and engineers (and other professions) are buried on that campus?
lancelot
Sat, Nov 14, 2009 : 8:18 a.m.
I worked on this lab with Bob and found him to be very conscientious, detailed and thorough. It seems that he just wasn't part of Prof. Hartman's new team and the change was very quick. Too bad we can't all get along
trespass
Fri, Nov 13, 2009 : 11:39 p.m.
I have attended every day of the trial so far and I don't think it is appreciated that no other graduate student would ever have been put in charge of designing, buiding and licensing such a large radiation lab as this. It is a technical and beauracratic nightmare. Bob was capable of doing this because of his experience building a $2 million lab at Ford. However, they were exploiting Bob to get this lab built cheaply at the expense of his studies and when Dr. Hartman came along after Bob was more than two years into the project he treated Bob like a derilect contractor that couldn't meet deadlines. Then with the job 99% complete they abandoned Bob with no advisor and no funding so he could not complete his PhD.
trespass
Fri, Nov 13, 2009 : 10:44 p.m.
Security measures are not only to protect people from exposure to radiation but they are to protect the public from radiologic terrorism such as "dirty bombs" or radiologic poisoning of the food supply (e.g. milk). Just find a dairy farm and put the cesium chloride into the milk tank, which goes to the dairy and poisons the milk supply. If the security gate was a joke then Dr. Hartman should have reported it himself, not made fun of it.
trespass
Fri, Nov 13, 2009 : 10:37 p.m.
They didn't enter the lab by finding a key but rather the security gate was attached to an unmortared cinder block wall so the bolt holding the gate could simply be pulled from the wall after moving a cinder block. Dr. Hartman called the security gate a joke.