Now
Mostly Cloudy
70.0°
High
85°
Low
67°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

UNL prof says regents broke open-meeting law

Comments 20 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By MELISSA LEE / Lincoln Journal Star

Wednesday, Feb 13, 2008 - 12:08:33 am CST

A University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor says the NU Board of Regents violated open-meetings law last month when it discussed a proposed affirmative-action ban without specifically listing the topic on its printed agenda.

Chemistry Professor Gerard Harbison on Tuesday wrote Regents Chairman Chuck Hassebrook to request the board void its resolution opposing the ban, which passed unanimously at the regents’ Jan. 18 meeting.

Harbison also notified Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning of his complaint and requested Bruning get involved if the board refuses to act.

Story Photo
Gerard Harbison

If Bruning declines, Harbison said he’s prepared to go to court.

“The (regents) vote had no democratic validity,” said Harbison, who is a supporter of Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, a group that’s targeting five states, Nebraska included, this year in its efforts to end affirmative action in hiring and admissions processes.

“They could have put it on the agenda, we could have presented our side. ...  Why didn’t they do that? Why are they afraid of even hearing the other side?”

Harbison cited Nebraska’s open-meetings law, which says the public should be given “reasonable notice” of meeting agenda items.

NU lawyer Joel Pedersen said the regents followed their routine order of business last month.

And Hassebrook said the board violated no state laws and dismissed the idea regents would void the resolution.

“What (Harbison) really doesn’t like is the stand we took,” said Hassebrook, of Lyons.

Typically, Board of Regents meeting agendas are delivered to media and made available to the public about a week before the board meets. Members of the public are invited to speak before the board on any agenda item.

Near the top of each agenda are “Kudos and Resolutions,” often a time when regents publicly commend NU faculty, staff and students for outstanding work.

Kudos and resolution items are not required to be individually listed in the board’s pre-printed agendas. And they rarely are controversial.

Jan. 18 resolutions, for example, included praise for University of Nebraska Medical Center doctors for their lifesaving work after the Westroads Mall shootings in Omaha and thanks to a fellow regent for his work on strategic issues.

But the last resolution item that day was potentially controversial: Opposition to a proposed constitutional ban on racial and gender preferences in hiring and admissions decisions that, if Super Tuesday for Equal Rights supporters gather enough petition signatures, will appear before Nebraska voters in November.

Regents briefly discussed the topic before passing the resolution. An affirmative-action ban, they said, could hurt NU’s efforts to diversify its campuses through programs and scholarships geared toward women and minorities.

Harbison says the fact the affirmative-action ban wasn’t listed on the regents’ agenda effectively quashed debate on the issue.

Had the topic been listed, he said, he would have shown up to have his say.

“We’re delighted to debate this with the university and to present the other side,” he said. “But apparently they don’t want to do that. Apparently they want to control the flow of information.”

Marc Schniederjans, another UNL professor and treasurer of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, a local ally of Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, said he would also have tried to attend the regents meeting had he known the affirmative-action ban was to be discussed.

“It’s regrettable that the administration acts in a way that is close-minded,” Schniederjans said. “Nebraskans need to see and hear both sides.”

Harbison called the board’s actions “deplorable” in a letter to Hassebrook and Bruning.

Bruning could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Both Hassebrook and Regent Charles Wilson of Lincoln, past board chairman, said the board had no intention of letting the topic fly under the radar.

Harbison is welcome to address the issue at the board’s March 7 meeting, they said.

“We’ve got hundreds of resolutions, probably thousands of them,” Hassebrook said. “We’re not going to void them all because we didn’t list them to the public in detail before we considered them.”

But he added that in the spirit of open government, he’s considering detailing resolution items to the public in advance of board meetings.

Wilson backed that idea up.

And in this case, he said, such a move might have been wise.

“The critics make a point,” he said. “We should act accordingly.”

Reach Melissa Lee at 473-2682 or mlee@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Jared Solomon wrote on February 13, 2008 5:26 am:
" I'm not generally one who voices support for Professor Harbison. But, I'm in his camp on this one. The regents have done many things over the past 15 years that leave me scratching my head and wondering how they stay in office.

It's time they had more responsibility back to Nebraska.

Get 'em, G. "
Interesting wrote on February 13, 2008 5:59 am:
" While I do not usually agree with Gerard Harbison, I'm glad that he is taking a stand in regards to the open meetings law. He is very lucky that he has tenure. Most of us do not have job security and cannot challenge our employers without fear of termination. "
hey harby wrote on February 13, 2008 6:56 am:
" Why don't you just stick to what you're being paid to do: teach. Now that would be something. "
Um wrote on February 13, 2008 7:38 am:
" I'll give you that a more open and detailed agenda would be a good thing, but the idea that they did this because they were "afraid" of one side is ridiculous. First of all, if no one knew about it, that means neither the pro- nor con- side could come and present. Harbison and Schniederjans would have a much better argument if they had brought in someone against the affirmative action ban to speak and then not told them. As it is now, it might have beena dumb move on the part of the Regents, but it wasn't biased one way or the other. I would hope UNL professor would be able to make more logical arguments instead of relying on wild assumptions. "
SB wrote on February 13, 2008 7:58 am:
" The fact it was voted on unanimously with no debate does imply they meant for it to fly under the radar and it was a biased vote. PolySci-101. "
Brian wrote on February 13, 2008 8:05 am:
" So…Schniederjans thinks the University should hear both sides, and yet when the regents pass a resolution without hearing from either side, their side is the only victim? Hassebrook is completely right – they didn’t like the outcome and now they’re throwing temper tantrums like two year olds. Their argument makes no sense, seeing as how the other side also had no idea it would be voted on. How can you argue that they specifically kept you from presenting your side, when neither side was presented? Unless this isn’t really about more open meetings, and is more about getting more media attention. Sounds like the supporters of the affirmative action ban enjoy constantly playing the victim when they really aren’t. Although given their “cause,” I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. "
Dana wrote on February 13, 2008 8:07 am:
" Dr. Harbison makes a very good argument, and it is about time someone called the Board of Regents on this. My understanding is that the UNL faculty, shortly *after* the Regents' resolution, received a letter from the university attorney warning them not to use their univeristy resources to say anything about ballot initiatives. Well, what the heck did the Regents just do? The University seems to think it owns public opinion in this state, and that it owns the opinions of its employees. They need to be shown otherwise. Good for Dr. Harbison! "
JR wrote on February 13, 2008 8:56 am:
" I, too, rarely agree with Professor Harbison's positions, but this is an obvious case of "it's easier to apologize than to ask permission." The Regents had to have some inkling this was a potentially controversial issue, and what better way to avoid any hassle than to remain silent and sneak the resolution in. For them to sit back now after the fact -- and the resolution passed -- and in hindsight to claim ignorance and say maybe they should have handled it differently is completely ridiculous and hard for me to believe. If the current Regents are no smarter than this, it seems we may need new Regents. "
Lloyd Hansen wrote on February 13, 2008 9:29 am:
" Professor Harbison has a valid point. If a matter of this significance was not on the agenda, there is either something wrong with the way the agenda is publicized or the regents were trying to slide this issue by without input from the public. The only logical reason as to why they would be so opposed to letting voters determine whether they want race to be a factor in education is because they currently are or plan to discriminate on the basis of race. Let's get these racist regents off of the public's payroll. "
UNL Faculty Letters wrote on February 13, 2008 11:01 am:
" UNL faculty letters stated that faculty could not use UNL resources to try to persuade students to vote one way or another on the ballot initiative, but that they were free to state their own opinions about the initiatives. "
Nina wrote on February 13, 2008 11:57 am:
" The prof has a good point. An agenda and notice of meeting is indeed required to be given ahead of time for cities, villages, etc. board members' meetings, and I would think the Regents' meetings would be held to the same accountability to the public. "
bnahusker wrote on February 13, 2008 12:33 pm:
" How binding are the resolutions? From the outside looking in, this seems to be much ado over something that is not legally binding. "
SayWhat!?! wrote on February 13, 2008 1:36 pm:
" Although Professor Harbison makes a valid point with regards to the Regents' meeting, it doesn't help his or Super tuesday for equal right's campaign much. Here he is saying he wants the Regents to be open and completely forthcoming while at the same time He, and the group he endorses, are trying to collect signatures in one of the most unethical and "under the radar" ways I have ever seen. Oh, and as for using University resources, at first glance it seems that the letter he wrote the Regents is on university letterhead. Can he do that?? As a UNL student here from Texas, and having no vote in this state, I don't necessarily agree with the Regents' actions, but I definitely find the opposition's way of managing things highly deplorable and quite frankly despicable. "
Gerard Harbison wrote on February 13, 2008 5:09 pm:
" Can a faculty member at the University of Nebraska use university letterhead to contact the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska on a matter concerning the governance of the University of Nebraska? Yeah, I think so. LOL!

A previous comment, that the LJS in its wisdom decided not to post, rebutted the false assertion made in these comments that neither side had an opportunity to present their case. The University set this up; of course they presented their case -- Milliken, Withem and an associate general counsel all spoke, according to news reports.

As far 'under the radar' signature collection -- if you're a registered voter, you get to read the petition and then, hopefully, sign it. How would we do that surreptitiously?


"
Yeah.... wrote on February 14, 2008 7:38 am:
" There is a difference between the University administration and people who don't attend every Regents meeting who would be on the other side of the issue. Did the NAACP chapter of Nebraska have a chance to know about it? Did the Women's Center? I think not. The people who spoke would have been there whether the amendment would have been discussed or not. It's not the same. "
Under the Radar wrote on February 14, 2008 8:36 am:
" Let's see- how is the initiative under the radar? Here's an example of what would also be considred trying to get it in under the radar (albeit moreso): calling it the "Puppies are Cute and Snuggly Initiative." Above the radar would be calling it exactly what it is, "An Initiative to Ban Affirmative Action" so people being approached with the petition would know right off the bat its true purpose. It's the same thing as Karl Rove calling it "protecting traditional marriage" when it has nothing to do with protecting anyone's marriage, and everything to do with keeping two gay people in love from getting married and having the same rights as married heterosexuals.

And speaking of gay marriage - why isn't sexual orientation included on the initiative? When it comes to public policy, there's no more obvious example of preferential treatment (other than the poor plight of the white male in Nebraska) than the preferential treatment given to heterosexual couples. Clearly if we're interested in Civil Rights and Equal Treatment, we'd need to make sure homosexual couples had the same rights as heterosexuals including marriage and all of the benefits that come with it. Is it not included because you know it won't pass if it is, or because you think it's okay to discriminate against gay people? "
Gerard Harbison wrote on February 18, 2008 9:58 am:
" Here is the wording of LR233CA

The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

Gosh, I don't see anything about puppies in there. What part of 'shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to' don't you understand? What part is deceptive? It looks pretty plain and simple to me!

"
Keep telling yourself that wrote on February 18, 2008 2:46 pm:
" The only thing funnier than the mock-victimization the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative has managed to fabricate is the mock-confusion they seem to have that people would find their so-called “Civil Rights Initiative” name misleading, or that there are other aspects of their campaign that are misleading as well. I’m sure you’d be mock-surprised to learn of the many claims of having been misled about similar initiatives in other states - initiatives that the NCRI is closely modeled after. Also, why have none of the NCRI advocates answered the very valid point raised about sexual orientation? Is this mock-illiteracy designed to pretend your petition’s language itself isn’t discriminatory and leaving out a group that obviously has been the victim of preferential treatment being given to others? "
Gerard Harbison wrote on February 20, 2008 4:39 pm:
" The amendment addresses discrimination in "public employment, public education, or public contracting". Is there some evidence there is discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation in public employment, public education, or public contracting? I've seen several cases of UNL hiring people without a search because they were of a particular race; I've never seen or heard of us hiring or failing to hire someone because they were gay or straight. In fact, UNL doesn't even record the sexual orientation of applicants.

The amendment does not address all the ills in the world, merely one particular kind of ill. If you want to address the constitutional ban against gay marriage, write your own amendment. Of course, since Nebraska just voted almost 3:1 to institute that ban, it might be a waste of time.



"
Brian wrote on February 21, 2008 12:45 pm:
" You're right - the amendment/petition only addresses one ill in terms of discrimination. Of course, the NCRI's chief ally in the unicameral, Sen. Christensen, had the opportunity to make another small step towards ending discrimination last year, with LB475, which would have added sexual orientation to Nebraska's Fair Employment Practices Act. How did he vote on that one again? That's right - when it wasn't someone just like him being discriminated against, he's fine with it. It's just funny that a group that calls themselves the "Civil Rights Initiative" would ally themselves with someone so hypocritical when it comes to civil rights.

And yes, people in this state have been discriminated against in public employment, education, and contracts based on their sexual orientation. Just because you haven't seen it - doesn't mean it hasn't happened. "

Ads by Yahoo!