Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. And even NPR is finally complaining about it:
Mr. Goodwin told a couple of reporters that Mr. Garrison would no longer be employed by WVU after Sept. 1st, but would continue to work as a consultant.
Fury over this proposed arrangement erupted. Three days later (Friday), WVU released a signed agreement between Mr. Garrison and the Board of Governors that did not include a consulting gig.
Mr. Garrison will serve as president until Aug. 1st, then he will work as an advisor to help Mr. Magrath transition into his new role as interim president.
New BOG chairwoman Carolyn Long acknowledged that this agreement was different than what was being talked about earlier in the week. She said that Mr. Garrison decided not to stay on as a consultant because it would not be good for WVU.
On Monday, I asked Ms. Long if I could have a copy of the first Garrison agreement approved at the July 8th BOG meeting. I was denied. Ms. Long said it was only a "contract in form" and it was a "fluid document."
This answer was not satisfactory. A document approved by a public body is supposed to be public information. So I asked for the document several more times. But Ms. Long wouldn't budge. She continued to re-explain that it was a fluid document and it had not been signed by either party. According to Ms. Long, it's not a public document since it was a "fluid" document.
That's not all. Ms. Long also said that it is legit for the board to approve an incomplete document. I asked Ms. Long if the BOG needs to meet again to approve the revised agreement. She said she doesn't believe so. Ms. Long said the motion passed July 8th makes clear it was an agreement in discussion and gave the board chair permission to make changes if necessary.
That's not true.
Read the rest. As always on back door WVU dealings, the link was found at Hippie Killer's comment section.
Oh, and looks like the PPG is still going on the phone records.
Posted by binky at July 17, 2008 08:41 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Hacktastic! | The Academy | West VirginiaUnder PA's Right to Know Act, I suspect that document would not be subject to public disclosure. In this category of documents, only ones that actually effectuate something that directly affects the treasury would be subject to production. As well, there's a deliberative privilege that, in effect, bars production of documents that are part of a decisionmaking pprocess. In any event, it sounds like the right result is finally in place.
Posted by: moon at July 17, 2008 09:10 AM | PERMALINKWouldn't a contract both directly affect the treasury and be the end result of a decision-making process?
Posted by: binky at July 17, 2008 09:43 AM | PERMALINKnot if it hasn't been executed and nothing is ever going to be do under it's terms, which is what the above sounds like to me.
Posted by: moon at July 17, 2008 10:24 AM | PERMALINKMoon, you are telling me that a public body can approve a document (contract, memorandum, policy, code, whatever), and then not make that document public? This wasn't a planning document, or part of decision-making: it was a new contract for our (soon to be ex-) University President. The only reason that contract wasn't executed was that public outcry forced them to change the terms (in other words, when they passed it, then intended it to be a legitimate and public contract; only after the fact did they change their minds). How can you argue this isn't public?
Posted by: baltar at July 17, 2008 11:28 AM | PERMALINKFirst, I'm speaking for PA RTKA law; I don't know a thing about WV law.
Second, the way you frame it varies at least slightly from how I was reading the above, and makes me less certain, even vis-a-vis PA.
But third, RTKA stuff, at the state level at any rate, focuses mostly on the purse. I'm only saying that you'd have a colorable argument, if you were seeking not to release that stuff, that the document at issue was tantamount to a bargaining or a strategic document, especially to the extent it did not contain clear terms regarding compensation, because, whatever the real-world circumstances were and whatever the practicalities, the document was a dead letter absent the inclusion of all determinative terms of the agreement and some unequivocal manifestation of the parties.
Put another way, if it doesn't bind the treasury in court, it's not a slam dunk RTKA public document.
And, of course, I could be wrong. :-)
Posted by: Moon at July 17, 2008 03:40 PM | PERMALINK