More on drugs

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 183ORS 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.

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to More on drugs

  1. Anonymous says:

    Oregon Court of Appeals upholds random drug testing of high school athletes. Note concurring opinion.

    http://courts.oregon.gov/Publications/A114141.htm

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Anonymous says:

      In the concurring opinion we read: “”1. Provide for the student athletes’ health and safety by preventing the use of alcohol and drugs; 2. Undermine the effects of peer pressure; and 3. Encourage participation in treatment programs for student athletes with substance abuse problems.”
      Why is it hat only the athletes get tis kind of loving attention? Is this another example of special favors for athletes at the expense of the rest of the community? If not that, is it an example of “profiling”? Either way, iy looks like a bummer to me.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Zach says:

      Per the case above, it looks like the proposed rule as written may violate the Oregon Constitution. I have not exercised any diligence in researching this issue, so take this with a grain of salt, but my gut tells me that it’s pretty unlikely that the condition below has been modified in any substantive way.

      The case states:

      “A second condition of reasonableness of an administrative search is that it be designed and systematically administered so that it involves no exercise of discretion by the law enforcement person directing the search. The purpose of that requirement is to protect against arbitrariness and to ensure that individuals or particular items of property are not improperly singled out for special attention.

      In this case, no one suggests that the district’s drug testing policy does not eliminate the discretion of those who implement it. Students are selected randomly; the school has no discretion in selecting the particular students who will be required to submit samples for analysis.” Weber v. Oakridge School District 76, 184 Or. App. 415 (2002), (citations and internal quotes omitted)

      The University’s proposed rule does not eliminate discretion. It encourages it. In addition to creating a procedure for random tests, it gives coaches and athletic administrators the ability to order tests if they have “reasonable suspicion” that an athlete is using drugs. This only means that a order to test cannot be arbitrary and must be based on specific facts. It otherwise leaves the athletic department with complete discretion about who to test. The rule actually specifies that “reasonable conclusions about observed or reliably described human people upon which practical people ordinarily rely” is sufficient. If that’s not discretion, I don’t know what is. The reasonable suspicion standard simply does not comport with the requirements of the condition in Weber.

      A rule that does not violate the condition would include random testing, and could possibly include things like tests based on arrests, medical diagnoses, and reliable first-hand accounts of actual drug use.

      The proposed rule seems to comply with the rest of the court’s analysis – it puts forth an unassailable rationale for the testing and it will ultimately be promulgated according to law.

      Again, though – please take this with a grain of salt. It’s not the product of careful research, just the analysis of a single case that could well have been overturned.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. Anonymous says:

    If this is blowback from the Cliff Harris days– when the State Police pulled him over for speeding, smelled pot & asked if they had anymore… Harris said nope, we smoked it all.
    His teammates in the car said “they was asleep and don’t know nothin'”
    Chip Kelly does not decide this would be an appropriate cue to take some hair samples & test for drug use & enforce basic rules.
    Let’s be honest, the athletics dept needs to clean up their act- because how Chip got away with letting that very public debacle slide… maybe even Uncle Phil will be disgusted & throw in the towel on the shoddy, sloppy “ethics” of the football team was/is (mis)managed.
    Harris drove 118 mph on the freeway & got a slap on the hand.
    What will it take, I asked in a letter, to both the U of O President & Chipper & the head of the athletics department..
    Does Cliff Harris need hit a busload of U of O Athletes at 118 mph before the university admits there is a problem & responds accordingly?
    Even the article about his reckless driving, posted some of his awesome football stats.
    I don;t care if he can win games, if he driving like a maniac in a reckless way that was not even respectful of his own life, let alone driving with a suspended license.
    The athletic department has pretended like there is no such thing as a Student Conduct Code.
    Chip Kelly should have gotten the boot along w the players who clearly failed in the playing field of life.
    Do they not even Vet the players–Harris arrived $6000 in debt from speeding & driving w a suspended license fines & fees.
    What great PR for the game if Police hauled Harris’s arse off the field mid game for being in arrears of fines owed.

    One editorial said they used to read the sports page for U of O sports updates, now they have to read the criminal rap sheet.

    Yes, the U of O Athletic dept needs to get their act together.
    Until now they have all but wiped the fannies of the players, because winning the game is all that mattered.
    These pampered players get free ride scholarships, special tutoring, just about anything goes behavior.
    Chip Kelly is the ringleader of that Circus.
    It took a degrding ESPN story for him to wake up. Now that he is awake, lets hope he actually does something proactive.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. Anonymous says:

    The only role for a student conduct code relates solely to actions as students in academic matters or actions on campus UO activists have trampled on individual student rights in more than one high profile case in the past

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.