It seems that someone in the President’s office forgot to notify interested campus components – like the Senate Intercollegiate Athletics Committee – of the proposed UO rule change, as OAR requires:
571-001-0025Procedure for Providing Notice(1) The University News Bureau shall be responsible for providing notice to appropriate media. The Office of the President shall provide notice to internal components and personnel of the University and to all other persons requesting notice.
Nor does the notice that was sent out satisfy the requirements that
571-001-0005Contents of Notice When University Contemplates a Public HearingWhen the University holds or contemplates a public hearing, the notice shall contain:
(1) The written statements required by ORS 183.335(2) and OAR 571-001-000(3)(e).
(2) The time, place, and manner in which the proposed rule can be inspected.
(3) The time and place of the public hearing and the manner in which interested persons may present their views at the hearing.
(4) A designation of the person or entity who will preside at and conduct the hearing.
(5) The address of the University office or offices where public inspection during regular business hours may be made of the written statements required by ORS 183.335(2) and OAR 571-001-000(3)(e), and the documents cited therein.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, ORS 351 & ORS 352
Stats. Implemented: ORS 183.335(1)
Hist.: UOO 18(Temp), f. & ef. 2-5-76; UOO 19, f. & ef. 4-27-76; UOO 1-1978(Temp), f. & ef. 4-5-78; UOO 2-1978, f. 6-19-78, ef. 6-20-78; UOO 4-1981, f. & ef. 5-5-81; UOO 3-1982, f. & ef. 5-26-82
Presumably because of this screwup Randy Geller will now have to postpone the public meeting from August 23rd – maybe even to a date when the university is actually in session, to comply with the spirit of the principle that people ought to have input into the rules that govern them?
Thanks to an old man for the tip. The ODE has posted the notification of the new rules, here. The relevant part?
The opponents claim this violates Oregon constitutional protections. I’m no law professor – any informed comments? Why is this needed – the NCAA cartel already requires their so called “student-athletes” to sign an agreement allowing random testing. Maybe some of them are raising legal questions? 7/16/2012.