Truthseeker68 | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Member since Feb 28, 2014

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »


Recent Comments

Re: “Pulaski Tech board restates support for Ellibee

Franklyspeaking, you seem very familiar with the tactics of PTC human resources. I notice that your quote of Mr. Roe's comments ranges from 8:20-8:40 on the recording, so there were obviously at least eight minutes of discussion prior to the quoted comments (which are misquoted by the way. Recheck the recordings) and there were two more minutes of recording after your quoted comments.

Why don't you include what Mr. Roe said after your quote at 8:40? And why not include a comment concerning the context of the question that was established in the prior eight minutes of discussion?

The most troublesome thing about your analysis of the quoted recordings is you don't seem to understand what the word "theoretically" means. Which by the way, Mr. Roe actually says twice in the recording, not once as you quote it. It appears when Mr. Roe states that his question is theoretical he means that it was not a question concerning the student's personal experiences, but instead an attempt to get the student to apply the question to the child rape example that was being discussed prior to your quoted comments.

If you are familiar with the actual termination documents and student complaint (and you seem to be), then you know that the PTC administration lists a number of quoted statements from the student beyond just the "anal sex" question that were given as grounds for termination. Mr. Roe was terminated for (and I quote from the termination document) "using degrading and demeaning terms to describe women and their body parts" and that is not demonstrated by your your quotes from the recording.

If Mr. Roe were fired for simply the "anal sex" question, then his termination document does not reflect that. I think that this is the essence of the issue. If PTC administration were to actually take the time to listen to the additional recordings of Mr. Roe's lecture, they would find that the only claims in the termination document that survive scrutiny are the "anal sex" claim (which are arguably taken out of context) and a few profane words.

You also claim that "The fact remains that, by his own admission, Roe made inappropriate sexual remarks to a student in 2012. The student filed a complaint and roe was counseled for the transgression." What you leave out in that discussion is that the document that describes the aforementioned counseling session was not provided to Mr. Roe until he received it via an FOI request one year after the purported "counseling session" occurred and after he was fired.

In other words, Mr. Roe never new that the meeting that HE called, of his own accord, with the administration to talk about academic freedom in his class was considered a "counseling session" and had been documented and placed in his human resources file. It is apparently the practice of PTC human resources to put counseling documents in employee files and not notify employees. This explains why Mr. Roe's signature is not on the document. Under this practice any casual conversation with an administrator could be considered a "counseling session."

Additionally, the document that you are calling Mr. Roe's first warning shows that the VP for Learning contacted multiple students, by telephone, from the class where the complaint occurred and asked them about Mr. Roe's comments. All of the students contacted indicated that Mr. Roe had not done what the student claimed and the nothing inappropriate had occurred in the class.

If the PTC administration wants to be honest and listen to the additional recordings, and rewrite the termination document to reflect what actually happened, then they would be left with the rhetorical "anal sex" question in the context of a child rape discussion pertaining to the philosophical problem of evil and a few profane words. But, of course, that would make their case for termination much less compelling. Which would explain the reluctance of PTC's administration to listen to the additional recordings.

It is difficult come into the light, when one has spent a lifetime in the dark.

6 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by Truthseeker68 on 03/01/2014 at 2:23 PM

Re: “Pulaski Tech board restates support for Ellibee

Anyone who is interested the Mr. Roe's case should send an FOIA request to Pulaski Technical College requesting his performance evaluations for the last 8 years. The college and his dean (Joseph Cole) were required by state law to perform these evaluations each year of his full-time employment.

The college filed their present performance evaluation plan with the Arkansas Department of Higher Education in 2008, so at the very least, the college "should" have his performance evaluations dating back to this date.

You can request Mr. Roe's performance evaluations by e-mailing Tim Jones at or Mickey Quattlebaum at and simply stating that you are requesting that Mr. Roe's performance evaluations for the last 8 years be provided to you pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.

I think that if one does this, they might find they will get a very interesting response from the college.

6 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Truthseeker68 on 03/01/2014 at 11:51 AM

Re: “Pulaski Tech board restates support for Ellibee

Thanks for the comment Franklyspeaking. Mr. Roe never filed for workman's comp. He filed for unemployment benefits which were afforded to him for four months because for some strange reason (perhaps fear of litigation, or maybe just incompetency) the college never responded to workforce services inquiries.

The college did not contest Mr. Roe's unemployment benefits until the end of the appeal window. As for the comments and decision of the unemployment tribunal, tribunal judges are not lawyers. They are administrative law judges. They do not have the training or expertise to make decisions concerning free-speech issues, and much of what has occurred with Mr. Roe hinges on the question of free speech. Tribunal processes are not governed by the same legal constraints as the court system.

Additionally, if you look at the state of Arkansas statistics concerning unemployment appeal tribunal decisions (which can be found on the internet) the vast majority of decisions are in favor of the employer. Such a statistical imbalance calls into question the tribunal process. Also, Arkansas law limits the fee that lawyers my charge to defend clients in tribunal hearings to $500, so it is difficult to find an attorney to help with these hearings, and even more difficult to get these attorneys to commit significant time to your case.

As for your comments about the Student Government Association (SGA), the SGA voted 9-3 for no-confidence in the president, so there are at least 9 students that think something is wrong. We also should remember that the SGA officers are an elected, representative body that speaks for its constituents. This small group has been entrusted through democratic process to speak for the student body. It is interesting that the PTC administration did not have a problem with the credibility of the SGA until the SGA spoke out against the administration.

You are correct that every student complaint should be treated equally, but if the student makes claims that can be demonstrated to be false they should not be included in the termination process.

Sometimes the walk to the courthouse is a long and deliberative journey (and this applies to your comments, as well, Eminentlyreasonable). Remember, in Arkansas, the statute of limitations on a breach of contract lawsuit is five years and the statute of limitations on a free-speech claim is three years.

8 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by Truthseeker68 on 03/01/2014 at 10:56 AM

Re: “Pulaski Tech board restates support for Ellibee

I think you are somewhat confused, Eminentlyreasonable. The complete recorded lectures of Mr. Roe's class were voluntarily provided to Mr. Roe by a student in his class after the last step of the formal grievance process with the president of the college. Mr. Roe did not know such recordings existed until the appeal process was complete, and during the grievance process he was (and still is) prohibited from the PTC campus. He could not have asked the students for the additional evidence at that time because he had no way to contact the students in his class.

Mr. Roe did present key examples from the recordings correlated with the false statements from the PTC administration and the student to the Board of Trustees at their January meeting. The trustees chose not to listen to the recordings.

The real question is why didn't the PTC administration in their investigation of Mr. Roe ask the students in his class if they had any additional recordings of his lectures? After all, the PTC president's office was only about 100 yards from Mr. Roe's classroom. The president could have, at anytime in the investigation, simply walked the short walk to his classroom and asked the students for additional recordings.

The question then arises as to whether the PTC administration exercised due diligence and engaged in a good-faith effort to collect the evidence in Mr. Roe's case? Or was the PTC administration only looking for negative evidence? A fair investigation would include all of the evidence.

As for the legal question, the lawyer that attended the grievance hearings with Mr. Roe, Jeff Rosenzweig, did so voluntarily with no request for compensation. He was simply interested in the case because of it's free speech implications. Mr. Roe has consulted with several attorneys since his termination that have agreed to take his case, but each has advised that successful lawsuits against state agencies are very uncommon regardless of the evidence.

One of the primary legal obstacles is that it's state law that you cannot sue state institutions or individual state employees for damages. They have what lawyers call "sovereign immunity." Mr. Roe could perhaps sue the college for breach of contract, but the most that could be recovered would be around $50,000, best case scenario. In other words, Mr. Roe could only sue for lost wages due to his termination.

Even if Mr. Roe sued for breach of contract and won, the state would appeal the decision meaning that Mr. Roe would likely not recover any money from the case for at least two years. In any case, whatever Mr. Roe recovered, the attorney would receive the customary 50%, and Mr. Roe would still have to pay legal fees and costs, which may or may not be recoverable in the lawsuit.

Mr. Roe could, of course, sue for reinstatement, but PTC instructors are on nine-month contracts, so even if Mr. Roe won the lawsuit, and was reinstated, the college could simply not renew his contract (which they have the legal right to do without cause), and after all the legal headache, Mr. Roe would still be unemployed.

So, as you see eminentlyreasonable, things are never as simple as they seem at first glance.

9 likes, 15 dislikes
Posted by Truthseeker68 on 03/01/2014 at 8:40 AM

Re: “Pulaski Tech board restates support for Ellibee

In all of this, one must keep in mind that documents that are received via FOIA request from Pulaski Technical College (PTC) concerning Mr. Roe's termination are documents that were written solely by PTC administration or the student that complained.

Even the documents that quote Mr. Roe as admitting to making specific comments were written solely by the PTC administration or the student that complained. If you review the documents carefully, Mr. Roe never signed any of the documents, including his termination statement. Under these circumstances, PTC administrators could have written anything they wanted to, truthful or not.

As for the audio recording submitted by the student, it is approximately 10 minutes long, and the statements from it in the termination document consist of a couple of sentences extracted from a very long and complicated conversation. On the recording, when Mr. Roe asks the student "Have you ever had anal sex with a man?" he immediately follows that question with "say theoretically, say theoretically" indicating that the question was rhetorical and illustrative, and that he had no interest in the personal sex life of the student.

In addition to the 10 minute recording submitted by the student, there is an additional 10 hours of recordings (all of Mr. Roe's lectures up until termination) from the same class that demonstrate the preponderance of statements by the PTC administration and the student to be patently false. Anyone interested in hearing these recordings and comparing them with the statements made by PTC administration and the student can simply contact Mr. Roe. Many PTC faculty and students have already heard them. The PTC Trustees and Administration have refused to listen to the additional recordings.

12 likes, 19 dislikes
Posted by Truthseeker68 on 02/28/2014 at 11:44 PM


© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation