I found this about Dr. Insane Frohnmayer, as a brand record for his sordid reputation!! uomatters/2012/06/ethics-complaint-filed-against.html#comment-14954 pages.uoregon.edu/assembly/dirSF/dirExtra/DOJ-OP-6735.pdf The problem for Dave’s defenders is the historically erratic behavior of their champion when it comes to matters of law, as illustrated by his difficulties in dealing with the role of the Faculty in University governance. 1. In 1995, Dave (and/or his General Counsel?) promoted the creation of a UO Senate to execute the governance role previously played by the Assembly. His argument was that the Oregon Public Meetings Law limited the Assembly to action only when at least half of its members were present, an alleged quorum requirement that was rarely met (This Law, passed in Salem in 1974, had not previously been understood to govern meetings dealing with internal UO governance.) 2. In response to this demand, the Faculty created the “Senate Charter”, which was endorsed by the Faculty in an Assembly attended by fewer than half of its members. 3. Despite the apparent illegality of a Charter created by such an allegedly illegal action, Dave ratified the Charter. Either Dave ratified a document that he knew to be illegal OR he knew that the Public Meetings Law did not apply to UO internal governance. Either interpretation looks bad for Dave. 4. During the next few years, Dave presided over Assembly meetings. During that periiod the Assembly took at least one official action in the obvious absence of a quorum. Makes one think that Dave either understood that no quorum was required OR that he didn’t give a hoot about the Law. 5. Dave unilaterally stopped the periodic Assembly meetings required by the Constitution that he had ratified. 6. When the 500 members of the Assembly convened in 2003 to consider a motion addressed to them by 550 petitioners, Dave refused to recognize the meeting on the grounds that it lacked a quorum, despite the fact that it was probably the best attended Assembly meeting in the University’s history. (In 2008, the Attorney General ruled that the Public Meetings Law did not apply to internal governance of the University.)
Posted on: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 08:57:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015