Details of Fred Williams’ downfall from the Kansas University Alumni Association – including a workplace investigation, hunt for whistleblowers and a toy animal named “Elmer Fudd” to mock the chancellor – are revealed in new district court documents.

Williams, the association’s leader since 1983, was fired in 2004. He later sued the association for more than $2 million alleging breach of contract and defamation.

When the matter moved to arbitration, Williams lost. But he now has filed suit, asking Douglas County District Court to withdraw the arbitration judgment.

“We don’t believe that an appeal is merited or warranted,” said Larry Ward of Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, the Kansas City, Mo., law firm that represents the Alumni Association. “We are prepared to defend it.”

Joseph Kronawitter of Horn, Aylward & Bandy, the Kansas City, Mo., the firm representing Williams, declined to comment.

KU’s Alumni Association, which aims to strengthen KU students’ and graduates’ ties to the university, has more than 40,000 paying members.

‘Romantic liaison’

Arbitration documents filed in district court indicate the problems that led to Williams’ ouster began in 2003, though some concerns sprouted earlier.

In fall 2003, rumors circulated within the association’s staff about a “romantic liaison” between a married staff member and a female subordinate.

Williams responded to potential problems by placing the woman under his supervision and changing her title. He forbade the couple from traveling alone together to out-of-town events.

Some staffers grumbled that Williams appeared to condone the affair and even rewarded the woman, who at one point Williams named to a special committee.

Relations among some staffers soured and the problem grew worse, according to court papers. Some believed the couple was traveling on business together.

Jennifer Sanner, whose current title is senior vice president for communications, tried unsuccessfully to warn Williams about the situation, according to court papers.

Poor morale

Sanner later took her case – including concerns about low staff morale and the couple’s continuing liaison – to Linda Warren, former national chair of the association.

Sanner declined to comment Monday.

Warren and others on the board hired Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy to conduct an internal investigation. Lawyers with the firm conducted private interviews with association staffers.

In delving into the matter, the interviewers also found issues regarding Williams’ performance and concerns that Williams was trying to retaliate against those staffers who he thought spurred the investigation.

Internal investigation

According to court documents, those reviewing the case for the American Arbitration Assn. found evidence that Williams “made efforts to determine which members of his staff were the ‘whistleblowers,’ to promote those he thought were loyal to him in connection with the internal investigation, and to retaliate against those whom he believed were responsible for the investigation or were criticizing his management of KUAA.”

Williams apparently asked a staff member to get the telephone records for Sanner, who he believed was a whistleblower. But when questioned about it, he changed his mind and called for the records of all senior staff.

He considered promoting a staffer to supervise Sanner – a plan that never materialized.

Elmer Fudd

The board also was concerned about Williams’ apparent antipathy for KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway.

In an e-mail, according to court records, Williams referred to the chancellor as “one of those control freaks.” He had a toy animal that he called “Elmer Fudd,” a slam at the chancellor. And Williams called the chancellor “Elmer” behind his back.

Williams also sent a memo to the association’s executive committee in 2003, saying the chancellor “is often dictatorial and manipulative in his approach to matters and has surrounded himself with what a growing number of us in the University community consider to be a below-average set of administrators.”

After hashing over the issue, the association’s board of directors voted to let Williams go in May 2004. The vote was not unanimous.

Williams’ suit eventually went into arbitration, despite Williams’ protestations. Williams had argued, among other points, that the alumni association could not claim that his contract was unenforceable while also arguing that the contract requires arbitration.

The three-member group of arbitrators unanimously sided with the alumni association on all of Williams’ claims, and the alumni association was directed to pay for arbitration costs.

But Williams now claims that the arbitrators’ decision should be withdrawn because there “was no valid arbitration agreement,” and the matter should not have been referred to arbitration in the first place.

KU Law Professor Stephen Ware said, generally, cases that return to a judge aren’t withdrawn, or “vacated,” unless there was something improper about the arbitration process, such as the bribing of an arbitrator.

Alumni Association President Kevin Corbett declined to comment. Williams could not be reached for comment.