File: Add file here once an electronic copy is made (private information blacked out).
On July 18, 2017, I believe Robert Spinks, University Chief of Police, unlawfully issued a Bar Order to me, Kevin Day, on the false premise of pre-crime. I, having never gotten angry, never attacked anyone, never threatened anyone, never had bad conduct, have had consistent exceptional exceptional annual performance reviews, have had great working relationship with all employees, staff, and even students (with exception to Patrick Eustis, who had issues with me but not the other way around), have no history of aggression, and never have been arrested for any crime, am somehow considered (according to Robert Spinks) have a potential for committing some sort of crime.
The Unlawful Bar Order was issued to me at my home after I walked to my apartment next to campus, without causing any incidents. An officer, whose name is unknown to me, issued me the Unlawful Bar Order and when I asked what the reasons for he stated that “..this is not normal..” and he could not provide any reason for its issuance. This confused and scared me. Not only was I confused about my termination, I was now being treated as a criminal. But for what reasons? I had no idea and neither did the officer who delivered the Unlawful Bar Order. The Unlawful Bar Order is particularly confusing because it is improperly filled out and the fields for explaining the reason for the bar order where left empty.
Trying to find out why I was being issued a bar order, I contacted Charlene Abbott. She stated that she doesn't have anything to do with bar order issuance and could not help me. I then reviewed the university bar order policy and found that the bar order was issued in direct violation of their policies. This meant that the bar order was unlawful.
The university bar order policy states that I could make an appeal to the University Chief of Police and that I must do so in person. When I went in person, to at the very least learn the reasons for the Unlawful Bar Order, I was not allowed to see the Chief of Police and I had to show the officer there their own bar order policy for them to be accept that I have to make an appeal directly to the Chief of Police. He claimed (and the building is under video and audio surveillance), that Robert Spinks was not in his office and would not be available.
I had no idea why I was unlawfully issued a bar order and I needed to find out why. I sent an e-mail asking questions, by which he failed to properly explain why. He also stated that he was assuming that my e-mail was an appeal (which I did not claim as such and also had to be done in person according to the policy) he claimed that he had thoroughly reviewed the policy. For someone who was unavailable to meet in person, he was quite quick to respond (e-mail headers show he responded in about 1 hour) and even claimed to have reviewed the case (what case?). I was not aware of ever having received any complaints nor was I told of ever having done anything wrong.
After my most recent complaint about Patrick Eustis violating the university policies, ADA laws and regulations, security policies, and development policies (my whistleblowing), I started recording meetings I had with Stan Hippler. In one of the meetings, Stan Hippler started associating open-source development with chemical terrorism. I dismissed it at the time because of the absurdity of the situation, but now I could see reason to believe it and had strong reason to fear for my life under false (and baseless) allegations of “chemical terrorism”. After all, having never done anything wrong nor having ever received any complaints, I find it hard to believe that "I appreciate and respect the efforts you put into making sure your projects run as efficiently as possible." means that I deserve to have my position terminated. That only leaves the “chemical terrorism” aspect.
Because the Robert Spink's actions and Stan Hippler's words have given me reason to fear for my life and safety. I even had to (at a later time) have Charlene Abbott walk with me on campus so that I had a witness when I took care of necessary matters.
Given the absurdity of “open-source” eluding to “chemical terrosim”, that told me somebody was committing fraud and is defaming me (or perhaps what I later came to learn as “putting me under false light”) for having reported on Patrick Eustis' numerous violations. I suspected that the likely tricked the less-tech savy people into thinking that there something to fear from me, given my utter lack of history to the contrary. If you listen to the termination audio recording, you should be able to discover how (non-) aggressive I was.
Mr. Day -
Thank you for bringing your concern to my attention. I have had an opportunity to review the Bar Order and the background behind its issuance.
My e-mail was submitted to him on *Tue, 18 Jul 2017 15:58:13 -0500 (CDT)*. His response was submitted to me on *Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:47:37 -0500 (CDT)*.
A uniformed police officer did serve you with a Bar Order at your residence this afternoon, I'm not sure what you mean by an 'unknown person.' You are correct the order had the box checked for a student by mistake, so that your Banner ID Number was written there. But, that in no way impacts the substance of the Bar Order.
Upon being terminated from your employment today, the University exercised its right to bar you from the university properties and events. The reasons for the bar are outlined in the University Bar Policy which you referenced. It is not necessary to have committed a crime nor be involved in an act of violence or aggression, however you should review your conduct up to the point of your termination. For any more specific information about your termination and the issue(s) that precipitated the issuance of the Bar Order you should contact Human Resources.
The justification for the Bar Order falls within University Policy and your contact with Human Resources should clear that up for you. We try to be proactive in issues like this in order to provide safety to the university community and I'm sure that you will take this opportunity to use the buffer of the Bar Order to take time to refocus.
Should you have legitimate business on campus you will be required to check-in with the University Police Department - your point of contact is Lt. Martin Mapp. Should you fail to check-in with Lt Mapp and have a valid business breason to be on university property or at a university event you will be subject to immediate arrest for trespassing. I'm hoping that this does not occur.
You should recontact our office in six (6) months to see if the order has been lifted.
Since you listed in the title of your email that this was an appeal of your order, after thoughtful and in-depth review of your case I'm denying your appeal.
You offered no new or specific or mitigating information in your appeal that changes the validity of the Bar Order. I find that the order was issued in compliance with existing university policy. I concur with the termination and the reasons for this employment action could offer an opportunity of risk to the university community which this Bar Order is designed to provide a buffer or cooling off period.
After a review of information leading up to your termination today, I find that there is a potential for your actions, work conduct and inter-personal interactions while employed generated a concern by persons who reported a feeling that their safety and security as well as that of the larger university community was placed at risk by you either intentionally or not. It is also reasonable to presume that since you were employed in a high security and sensitive job position that a job termination could also be a trigger for a risk to the university community. While I hope that no negative interaction or actions are triggered, it is not unusual for employers to bar terminated employees from work premises.
It is also reasonable to presume that since you were employed in a high security and sensitive job position that a job termination could also be a trigger for a risk to the university community. While I hope that no negative interaction or actions are triggered, it is not unusual for employers to bar terminated employees from work premises.
You may appeal my denial to the University's Incident Management Team. This appeal would be viewed administratively without having the right to an in-person hearing. If you would like to pursue that appeal now or later in the future, please contact by email or mail the Chair-Person of the IMT Candace Townsend, Director of Public Relations & University Events. I would encourage you to provide specific justification in such an appeal so that the IMT understands the breadth and depth of your position.