Former University of Minnesota

Med School Dean and Academic Health Center Vice President

Describes Sainfort-Jacko Sanctions

as:

"minor disciplinary action"

Apparently what is a minor disciplinary matter at the University of Minnesota can get you indicted in Georgia? 

"I think we need to put ourselves in the position of acting according to the highest ethical principles. I believe our people do that now and I believe our people will be doing that in the future as well." President Bruininks (Daily: 6-18-08)

Mr. President - you should be ashamed of yourself.



From Cerra's letter (December 10, 2010)

See link above for complete letter (pdf).

(emphasis mine)

This letter of reprimand is issued pursuant to section 10.22 of the Board of Regents Policy: Faculty Tenure, for a minor disciplinary action.

I conclude that the transition process between these two schools was not handled by you in the most professional manner we expect from a faculty member of this institution, and therefore a letter of reprimand is warranted and appropriate.

This reprimand arises out of the investigation concerning dual compensation by the University of Minnesota and Georgia Tech for full salary and benefits paid to both you and Professor Jacko from each institution from October 2007 until February 2008 as well as the payment by both institutions of certain expenses for your and Professor Jacko's travel while Minnesota was recruiting you. 

It was not clear to all concerned at this institution, at the time that you signed your contract with us, that you and Professor Jacko were continuing to work full-time as Georgia Tech professors from October through January.

 

Rather we understand that you were paid both salary and benefits at Georgia Tech. 

Second, I am disappointed in the double payment of expenses that occurred related to recruiting trips for you and/or professor Jacko to the University of Minnesota prior to your hire.

Third, I am particularly disheartened by the statement you made about your employment at the University of Minnesota to a Georgia Tech associate dean in February 2008. You represented that you were not working at the University of Minnesota, despite the fact that you were under contract with the University of Minnesota in fact in full-time residence here.

 

Professor Sainfort, you have been cooperative in our investigation of these issues and have expressed regret for this matter. You have assured us that you did not intend to wrongfully receive salaries and benefits from both institutions and that the expense double payment was an oversight, and have conveyed by accepting this reprimand you are not admitting to any intentional misconduct.

Given this, I believe the appropriate employment action is this written reprimand, together with the return to the University of Minnesota all non-salary fringe benefits paid to you and Professor Jacko (health insurance, life insurance, retirement contributions, etc.) for the months October 2007 through January 2008. The benefits amount pertaining to you totals $19,0240.

In addition the letter describes an arrangement whereby Sainfort/Jacko will pay the University $25K for part of the expenses involve in this investigation. The total cost of the investigation is not given.  They are also given an interest free loan by allowing the agreed upon sum to be paid over the next 78 pay periods.  

It does not appear that they are returning actual salary for double dipping during the period, just benefits.  

Note that this double dipping is alleged to be "theft by taking" in the Georgia indictment. 

+++