College President refuses contract saying he can be "fired without cause" as atypical. Is he right?

[astro]

Local drama story here. Wondering if any dopers with academic experience can give insight as to who has the most correct perspective.

Why Ray Hoy stayed at Wor-Wic
Very well respected and successful local Eastern Shore Community College President applies for bigger multi institution across the border in Delaware. He is chosen over the existing vice-President of the Delaware institution who has strong political allies. Both he and larger Delaware institution announce he is taking the job.

As next few weeks pass contract language from the Board of the Delaware Institution is detailed below. Is Hoy correct that this "termination for convenience” language is not acceptable when competitively hiring college Presidents or is Stellini’s position that this language is normal and should not be a problem correct?

I’m kind of siding with Hoy’s perspective here but I have no knowledge how things usually go at these hiring levels.

An at-will employee

While not a formal offer, the letter he received said the board wanted to offer Hoy a three-year contract with a “termination for convenience” clause.

In addition, the terms of the contract would pay him less in total compensation than he receives as the president at Wor-Wic.

He essentially saw the terms as a vote of no confidence, bringing back his concerns regarding Kubala’s experience in the 1990s and raising questions in his mind about how DelTech treated out-of-state presidential candidates. He was worried he would be scrutinized under a sharper lens than an in-state president.

“If you only have a contract that is at-will, you may not have the time to do it because, in some cases, it may take longer than others, and I wanted an assurance that I had enough time to win them over because I don’t know them yet,” Hoy said. “I understand cause. If I do something really stupid and deserve to be fired, I deserve to be fired. But convenience is tough because that’s, ‘I didn’t like the way you parted your hair this morning.’ You’re under the magnifying glass.”

Stellini said the clause is standard in presidential contracts with the college. The same terms were included in the initial contract offer with Brainard, he said, adding, “I don’t see why that would be a problem.”

But Hoy was dissatisfied with the language, saying, “I know a number of my colleagues that would balk at such an offer.”

[Habeed]

It’s true that employees in most states in the USA may be terminated for any arbitrary reason, including no reason. Worse, this makes it trivial to hide illegal firings - how can you prove your boss fired you because you were the wrong gender/race/age if he just claims he had “no reason” to fire you?

But the people who meet the pedigree requirements for a “college president” are a rare breed. It sounds to me like you aren’t a good candidate for college president if you haven’t already been president of a college. Also I’m sure your background has to be Yankee White with not one bad mark on you.

So they have leverage for negotiation.

[Kent_Clark]

Around here, rural school district superintendants have better protections in their contracts than “termination for convenience.”

And they want him to take a pay cut, as well?

And he’d be working with a politically connected subordinate who also wanted the job?

Bwa-hahahahaha!!!

[astro]

Thanks for input.

[DrDeth]

Yes, while “at will” hiring is common it’s unusual for that clause to be in executive level contracts.

[BigT]

@kunilou

Around here, rural school district superintendants have better protections in their contracts than “termination for convenience.”

Right now, a local superintendent has such a high salary that the school is in a hiring freeze, despite a bunch of teachers leaving this last year. The apparently only way to do anything about this is to not vote for a tax that would fix up a run-down school, which would mean she’d have to be fired and her money taken in order to get it up to snuff.

It’s the first time I’ve ever championed for not supporting the school. Lady makes 3 time what the assistant superintendent did. I say did, because he was able to move on, and the hiring freeze means no replacement.

I’d definitely say she can’t be terminated without cause.

[actualliberalnotoneofthose]

Interesting story. I don’t really have anything to add, but I know about a dozen people who went to both those schools, and I took a couple classes at Wor Wic to save money while I was at Salisbury. Surprised none of them mentioned this, but most of are probably busy working double-shifts this time of year.