s
investigation since the Belmont administration refused to cooperate
with the Attorney General.

It took the form of a letter to The Pope. In stark contrast to Henry's
report, the LOD reviewed the history of the allegations against Diana,
giving the charges and the response to these charges, equal weight and
importance. This information was from the transcript which contained
the sworn statements of all the university personnel involved in the
hearing--those people who were prevented by the administration from
talking to the A.G. investigator. It also reviewed the testimony of
Diana and her witnesses. Reference was made to the testimony of the
three document examiners--two presented by Belmont, the affidavit of
the one submitted by Diana at the second hearing.

The point was made early on that the specific charge which resulted in
termination was that Diana had written seven evaluations out of some
one thousand submitted. Five of these were alleged to have injured two
faculty members. It emphasized that testimony indicated that there
were no performance problems with Diana. "....testimony from both
sides established that she was highly regarded by her students, was
very dependable and a hard worker."

It noted that while expert witnesses, the document examiners and the
university attorney, were used to testify against Diana, she was not
allowed an attorney to conduct a competent cross examination. Stating
that even though supportive documents were not presented at the
hearing, "the committee accepted testimonial evidence on the contents
of them," it concluded that "....this represented the most serious
deprivation of fundamental fairness that occurred. Any concept of a
fair administrative hearing, even one conducted without regard to
strict rules of evidence, could not include the admission of
testimonial evidence of the contents of documents which were available
only to the party presenting the evidence."

Commenting on the dissatisfaction of the committee with the testimony
of the first document examiner, the LOD stated that, "Rather than
reject the testimony and find Trenchant innocent, the committee
continued the hearing and hired another document examiner. This one
disputed the findings of the first and required more standards. The
documents provided by Belmont were exceedingly poor copies of file
contents, much of which was over twenty years old. Most of these
so-called standards contained the ha