The Public Doesn't Like Secrecy, Not at UVA, Not in the Town of Podunk
There was nothing special about Teresa Sullivan’s firing.
Well, sure, we’re talking about the president of the state’s flagship university, and she was one of the state’s highest paid employees, and she held one of the most coveted jobs in American academia.
But for all that, in the eyes of the Freedom of Information Act’s meeting provisions, President Sullivan was no different from Zoe the city parking attendant.
And the Board of Visitors at Mr. Jefferson’s University was no different from the Town of Podunk or any other local government, regional authority, state board, etc.
Like all public bodies, the BOV is required to give three working-days notice of regularly scheduled meetings. Like all public bodies, the BOV is required to give “notice reasonable under the circumstances” when calling a “special or emergency meeting,” and that notice must be given to the members of the board and the public at the same time.
Like all public bodies, the BOV may go into closed session to talk about one of the topics enumerated in section 2.2-3711 of Virginia’s FOIA. The BOV must first convene in an open public meeting before it votes by motion to go into closed session.
There are three exemptions that apply only to the BOV and a few select entities, and not to the rabble of ordinary public bodies. But mostly, the BOV has the same exemptions at its disposal as a small town council. And one of those exemptions is the so-called personnel exemption. This is where boards can talk about the “assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of” public employees.
If it’s not THE most common exemption invoked by public bodies of all shapes and sizes, it has to be in the top three (attorney-client and student discussion being the others).
What has been going on in Charlottesville for the past week and a half is really not so different from what we see all over the state: public bodies orchestrating the removal of a well known employee. It may be the town manager, the city attorney, the school superintendent or the university president.
And just like we've seen all over the state, we've seen that this change in leadership was orchestrated by just a few members of a larger board who used the gaps and spaces in FOIA to follow the letter of the law but to nonetheless undermine public confidence in the decision.
Anyone remember Gloucester County circa 2007? After the November elections that year, but before newly elected members had been sworn in, three sitting members and two elected members met and talked two-by-two, as is allowed by FOIA to plan the removal of both the county administrator and the county attorney. And that’s what they did at their first official meeting, literally at the midnight hour, after a long closed session. The other members of the board, not to mention the administrator, attorney and public were stunned.
A failed court action confirmed that what they’d done was within the technical boundaries of FOIA, and the supervisors were very public in proclaiming their vindication. They insisted the blowback from the community was all political. Some of it could have been, no doubt, but the supervisors never seemed to get that the public was angry over the secrecy and manipulation.
And where are those supervisors now? The leader was trounced in her reelection bid, and the remaining four did not seek reelection when their terms expired.
I’m not saying the BOV Rector, Helen Dragas, should or should not step down or that Gov. Bob McDonnell should or should not reappoint her. Or anyone else, for that matter.
What I am saying is that all those associated with this decision should not underestimate the public’s frustration. They should not dismiss it as being political or pro-Sullivan or anti-top-down or whatever. It may and it may not be any of those things, at least in part.
What it REALLY is is the public’s anger over feeling like they’ve been hoodwinked, and are now being treated like bratty toddlers who keep asking, “Why?”
So, whether it’s the Town of Podunk, Gloucester County or the UVa Board of Visitors, they all have a duty to their constituencies, to the public at large, to be forthright.
Go beyond and keep the people informed. Remember that compliance with the letter of the law is not something to aspire to, it is something to exceed.
Fizban
8:04 am on Friday, June 22, 2012
Right on I love it.
kiki789
10:21 pm on Sunday, July 1, 2012
Life is so lonely .I am a older and single man at present .I need a woman who can love me back .I also uploaded my hot photos on..... oldermendate _℃0㎡...... under the name of DM1129..It’s the largest and best club for seeking CEOs, seniors, successful people, users over 50.. Please Check it out!I’m serious.
Mark Blacknell
9:03 am on Friday, June 22, 2012
Amen.
Catherine S. Read
9:36 am on Friday, June 22, 2012
Well said!
Jsmith
9:48 am on Friday, June 22, 2012
Thanks. I've been trying to follow this story and couldn't make sense of it. I appreciate the clarity with which you have explained it.
1Ronald
3:19 pm on Friday, June 22, 2012
I'm not sure why it's considered secret. She was moving too slow and too cautiously, albeit making changes but not at the speed and not with the level of confidence that is required of university leadership. There seems to be disparagement of a business model but that's exactly what is needed in university administration. The number one issue is accountability because you are always dealing with someone else's money. That's why a CEO or one with solid business experience is the best to do the job. Educators educate, executives manage and lead. The Board deserves every bit of support in their quest to carry UVa to the next level and to emerge on solid ground. A leader is needed with well thought out plans, always a Plan B backup if, but rarely needed, and the confidence to step forward and to do it right the first time. This is no time for indecisiveness.
Sandra
11:38 pm on Friday, June 22, 2012
It's considered secret because instead of convening a full board meeting and including those she knew supported Sullivan, Dragas did an end run and met privately with individual board members, until she had garnered enough votes to perform a coup d'etat. I believe what many of us find objectionable is the manner in which this was done. Sullivan's supporters were not included in any of the discussions until after the fact. Had Dragas called for a full board meeting, and had the board members all been there to completely discuss Sullivan's performance, pros and cons, and the board voted to remove her, there might have been less of a stink about secrecy. In addition, from what I've heard, a lot of the complaints that Dragas had about Sullivan's performance were either orchestrated or were not true. This seems to be more about a personality conflict between two strong leaders, rather than a performance issue. In my opinion, back room deals do not belong in the management process, and Dragas should resign.
Jeff Carter
3:31 pm on Monday, June 25, 2012
The underhanded nature of Rector Dragas' attempts to circumvent the process has done more to set the University back than the steady approach by President Sullivan. Donations, which were recovering, will drop off. Top-notch faculty will be lured away, along with their research money. Students and parents who wish to avoid the drama associated with this episode will take their tuition elsewhere.
A university is not a business driven by profit, but an institution dedicated to furthering knowledge. "Other people's money" in the form of taxpayer dollars is only about 5.6% of the University's budget. The rest comes from tuition, donations, payment for other services (e.g. the hospital), and research grants. (http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=17691#). Rector Dragas has succeeded in upsetting some very large donors, driving that funding downward.
The threat to the University posed by online learning is negligible. Turning UVA into the University of Phoenix is not the answer. The example of an online offering with 160,000 enrolled is spurious, since that class (and most like it) are offered for free.
Having the Board made up of CEOs who want to make decisions uninformed by educational knowledge is as much a mistake as having no business experience on the Board. President Sullivan outlined what her plan was, negating most of what Rector Dragas stated. The Post deflated Rector Dragas' claims with some basic research. Sullivan should be reinstated.
Arnold Smithson
4:32 pm on Monday, June 25, 2012
There are a couple problems with this idea Ronald. First, education isn't like any other business. The goal of business is to make a profit, the goal of education (especially at a top-level institution like UVA) is to put out the highest quality product. You can maximize efficiency and cost-effectiveness while doing this, but that's not the same thing. If you want to run education like a business, we can just turn all of our public universities into the U. of Phoenix and similar online schools. Read any of the recent data to see how poorly those students do on the job market and how many of them default on their student loans. But hey, they make a profit so they must be successful.
Second, a CEO of a restaurant management group wouldn't necessarily be a good CEO of an electronics chain, a specialty retail establishment, or, to the point, a university. The skill sets are completely different and require a completely different knowledge base. The idea that any CEO can come in and run one of the nation's premiere institutions of higher education shows a lack of understanding of the business world.
But to the point of this column, the point of this isn't whether President Sullivan was the right person to run UVA. The point of this is that this is a government institution, funded by taxpayer dollars, and they fired her with as little transparency as possible. That's not how democracy is supposed to work, and it's shameful that it happened this way.
Dusty Smith
3:25 pm on Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Several comments have been deleted because they are appearing in another language.
Margie Remmers
11:21 am on Thursday, June 28, 2012
I find conversations about transparency interesting. It is entirely possible that this particular issue was, in fact, intentionally kept a secret–I am not denying that.
I do, however, believe that in this age of information overload it is too easy for public announcements to get lost. My district has community meetings every month. I never attend them. Perhaps I should, but I like to believe that my elected leaders are doing their best and that I do not need to micromanage them.
If, however, they made a decision I did not agree with, I cannot complain because I chose to tune out the fact that there was a community meeting, or I did not pay attention to what was on the agenda, or I did not research the issue enough to understand how it was going to impact me, or I had a better/different use for my time that day/evening.
All I am saying is that transparency for any organization–public or private–is a challenge when the public (myself included) has become so adept and tuning out.
Margie Remmers, www.10Hours10K.com