The parties also agreed that the evidentiary hearing in this case would be conducted and heard by a hearing officer from the Office of the Attorney General, Administrative Hearings Branch, sitting alone, and that the hearing officer would make a recommendation to the KSU Board of Regents by issuing a recommended order that conforms to KRS 13B.110.

The law concerning the termination of a faculty member of a university is set forth in KRS 164.360(3), which states, “no . . . faculty member shall be removed except for incompetency, neglect of or refusal to perform his duty, or for immoral conduct.”

Besides denying the factual allegations underlying all the charges themselves, Dr. Stokes specifically argues concerning Charge 1 that she cannot be required to “change her curriculum to accommodate a student with a disability.”

Concerning the termination of her contract, Dr. Stokes makes three arguments: first, that KSU should have followed a policy of “progressive discipline”; second, that she was denied due process because “the hearing was substantially delayed and the Hearing Officer interjected his personal bias into the proceedings”; and third, even if her contract is ultimately terminated, that KSU should pay her salary through the date the Board issues its final order.

The statutory basis for the university's termination of Dr. Stokes will be dealt with first, and then the remaining issues will be addressed individually in order.

Requirements of KRS 164.360(3) Were Satisfied

KSU contends that each of the four charges set forth in the Notification of Charges constitute “neglect or refusal to perform her duties.” See HE 1.