城西大学による9月8日の記者会見に対する、水田宗子代理人弁護士からのコメント

平成２９年９月８日

文部科学記者会幹事社毎日新聞

水田宗子代理人　

弁護士　大室俊三

　本日学校法人城西大学の理事会において，同学校法人の理事である当職依頼者水田宗子氏の解任案が緊急動議として提案され可決されたとされている。

　しかしながら，同学校法人の寄付行為は理事会の議題を緊急動議として提出することを認めていないだけでなく，本人に対する解任理由の告知とそれに対する反論・弁明の機会の付与がなされていない点で，この解任の議決の手続き違反は重大であり，無効と言わざるを得ない。

　また，解任理由は，同学校法人が設置したとする会計調査委員会の報告を基にしたものと思われるが，この報告書なるものについても重大な瑕疵があり，到底解任理由となるものではない。

　当職らは，もともと設置の経過等に照らして会計調査委員会なるものの公平性・独立性に疑義を有しており，その旨を会計調査委員会あてに上申して公平な調査を要請していた。しかしながら，今回の報告書は，大学の影響が及ばない関係者に対する事情聴取が極めて不十分であるなど事実調査の方法においても，証拠の評価においても到底公平なものとは認めることはできない。

　以下，要旨に記載された内部調査委員会報告書（第１回）が指摘した各点の問題点について，報告書の問題点等を簡単に指摘します。

　水田清子名誉理事長に対する退職金・功労金等に関しては，支出が不適切だと縷々述べている。しかしながら，これらの支出については，当時学校法人の経理監査を担当した公認会計士により適法であると認められていたのであり，また現在も理事である森本氏も平成２３年７月５日付「城西大学・城西短期大学教職員の皆さんへ」との書面において，適正に支払われたものであることを表明しているところである。この問題は，名誉理事長が理事長を退職するにあたりその処遇の基本を決めた理事会決議の趣旨をどう理解するかにかかるところ，会計調査委員会は，この理事会に出席した監事からの事情聴取すら実施せずまた支出の適正を認めた公認会計士からの事情聴取もせずに不適正と決めつけているのであって，調査は極めてずさんである。

　また，弔慰金の支出についても同様であって，調査委員会は，公認会計士からの事情聴取は行っていない。

　平成２８年８月のアメリカ出張に関して会計調査委員会は，本法人の業務とは認められないとした。しかしながら，水田氏がアメリカに赴き著名大学との提携を実現しこれの維持拡大に尽力してきたことは，まぎれのない事実であって大学関係者の等しく認識するところである。２８年８月の出張についても同様の業務を行っていたのである。しかるに会計調査委員会は，水田宗子氏が作成にかかわっていない書類が事実かどうかを確認することに終始し現実に何を行ったかの調査はしていない。

　会同・会食費用の支出について報告書は「本法人をして現金４６万８５９０円を支払わせた」と認定しているが，支払わせた主体については明記していない。おそらく水田宗子氏が行ったとする趣旨なのであろうが，水田氏は上記金員を支払わせたことも受領したこともない。証拠の裏付けがない推論と言わざるを得ない。

会計調査委員会が指摘する事項のうち最も金額の大きなものは，清子理事長に対する退職金・功労金である。この決定が常務会の議に基づきなされたことは会計調査委員会も認めるところと考えるが，これが理事会の議に基づかない不適切なものだというのであれば，この常務会にかかわった理事は，現在も城西大学の理事に在職しているのだから，その者らに対しても解任が問題になってしかるべきである。しかしそのような話はない。今回の議決が水田氏を狙い撃ちにしたものであることの証左というべきである。

　水田氏は，このような違法な議決を容認することはできず，断固とした対応を検討していることを付言する。

September 8, 2017

To: Mr. Takuya Izawa

The Mainichi Newspaper, Managing Newspaper of the

Ministry of Education and Science Press Corps

From: Shuzo Ohmuro,

Attorney for Dr. Noriko Mizuta

It was announced that at today’s Josai University Educational Corporation board of directors meeting, an emergency motion to dismiss my client, Dr. Noriko Mizuta, from the position of director was presented and passed.

However, the University’s Deed of Endowment does not allow the agenda of the board of directors meeting to be presented as an emergency motion. Moreover, in light of the fact that my client was not notified of the reason for dismissal, nor provided any opportunity to respond to or defend against it, we must make clear that this dismissal was in serious violation of due process and therefore invalid.

Furthermore, one may assume the reason for dismissal to have been based upon the report of the so-called “financial investigation committee” established by the University, but this report itself is seriously flawed and cannot in any way serve as a valid reason for dismissal.

We have already presented our concerns about the impartiality and independence of this committee, beginning with the process of its establishment, in the form of a written report to the committee itself, requesting assurances of an impartial investigation. Yet its report can in no measure be considered impartial in its evaluation of evidence or its method of investigation, which did not even extend to those beyond the influence of the university.

In what follows, I will briefly point out the problematic issues regarding each item presented by the First Summary Report of the Internal Investigation Committee.

The report proclaims at great length the inappropriateness of the payment of retirement pay and merit pay to the late Chancellor Emeritus Seiko Mizuta. However, these expenditures were approved as lawful by the certified public accountant in charge of account auditing at the time, as well as by current board member Mr. Morimoto, who publicly expressed, in a written statement addressed “To All the Faculty Members and Staff of Josai University and Josai Junior College” dated July 5th, 2011, that these expenditures were properly paid. This issue hinges on understanding the intention of the board of directors when it decided its fundamental treatment of the retirement of the Chancellor Emeritus, yet the investigating committee reached its conclusion without ever having interviewed the auditor who attended the board meeting, nor having any hearings with the certified public accountant who approved the expenditures as appropriate, and therefore this investigation can only be characterized as extremely deficient.

Moreover, the same can be said regarding the payment of condolence money, for the “investigating committee” has not conducted any hearing with the certified public accountant who approved them.

Regarding the August 2016 trip to the United States by my client, the investigating committee claims that it was not acceptable as an official trip of the University. However, it is an incontrovertible fact, recognized by all those connected to the University, that Dr. Mizuta has, through her trips to the US, established ties with prominent universities and worked continually to maintain and expand those ties. The same is true with regard to the August 2016 trip to the US. However, the committee’s investigation consisted solely of trying to confirm the veracity of a document that Dr. Mizuta had no role in creating, and utterly failed to investigate what she actually did on her trip.

As for the meeting and dining expenditures, the report finds that “the University was made to pay an amount of 468,590 yen in cash,” but the report does not specify who it was that made the University pay this amount. No doubt the intention was to suggest that it was Dr. Mizuta, but Dr. Mizuta has never made the University pay, nor has she received, the above-referenced amount. We have to say that this is mere inference without any evidence to support it.

Among the items pointed out by the investigating committee, the largest monetary amount was the retirement pay and merit pay paid to the late Chancellor Emeritus Seiko Mizuta. We assume that the investigating committee recognizes that this decision was made based on the meeting convened by the executive board of directors. If the claim is that this decision was inappropriate and was not based on the decision of the board of directors, then all of the directors who were involved with this executive board and who are still current members of the board of directors should also face dismissal. But this question was not even raised. This is clear evidence that the current resolution was aimed solely at destroying Dr. Mizuta.

Dr. Mizuta, therefore, can never accept such an unlawful decision and is currently preparing a strong response to it.