UO General Counsel Kevin Reed redacts legal advice on splitting the North Campus CUP, public meeting tonight

9/12/2018: I can think of many reasons why UO, a public university, would want to redact the advice it received from one of its outside attorneys (and the response from the University Architect) on whether or not it would be a good idea to split the CUP request into two parts:

Not all of them are nefarious. However, UO’s case for using the attorney-client privilege exemption in Oregon’s public records law is weakened by our administration’s willingness to talk about that advice when it suits their purposes. A public agency can’t tell the public “our lawyers have advised us that we shouldn’t split the CUP” and then use the public records law to redact the actual advice they received. Or at least that’s what Oregon law says:

2017 ORS 40.280Rule 511. Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure

A person upon whom ORS 40.225 (Rule 503. Lawyer-client privilege) to 40.295 (Rule 514. Effect on existing privileges) confer a privilege against disclosure of the confidential matter or communication waives the privilege if the person or the person’s predecessor while holder of the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the matter or communication.  …

And yet here is the statement from UO President Schill to the UO Senate, in his May 11th response to the Senate’s North Campus resolution, disclosing a significant part of the very communication that GC Reed subsequently redacted:

(President Schill’s letter is on the UO Senate website here. Thanks to a helpful reader for the UO documents, which were redacted by UO GC Kevin Reed’s Public Records Office. Full pdf here. )

9/10/2018: North Campus public hearing 5:30 this Wed, 125 East 8th Ave

Last spring the UO Senate had a long and interesting debate about the proposal, then overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the university administration to divide the CUP application along the railroad tracks and go ahead with the part south of the tracks (needed for Knight Campus), while redoing the proposal for north of the tracks to make sure it would be preserved as an natural amenity and site for ecology fieldwork.

The administration went ahead with the application for both parcels anyway, and the city has scheduled the meeting for public input for Sept 12th, when many faculty and students are out of town. More documents here, including many public comments submitted in advance.

http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=CU-18-0001

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to UO General Counsel Kevin Reed redacts legal advice on splitting the North Campus CUP, public meeting tonight

  1. zach says:

    there seems to be a complete media blackout (almost) on this issue – typical….the weekly has a big story on how to save the sand dunes..duh

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
    • duxly duck says:

      I love a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but I’m straining to understand why anyone should care about this. The site has all the charm of a NJ landfill.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 9 votes)
  2. zach says:

    Perhaps because there is the potential for environmental remediation/restoration ? The smell of these proposed plastic fields in summer weather is like smelling a car with a engine fire…I suppose you would prefer that ? If UO has so much extra money to spend investing in basic safety features like fire sprinkler systems in the Walton and Hamilton dorm complexes should be a more pressing priority.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  3. Payroll Guy says:

    So by your rationale Duxly we should contaminate the river since this area is a dump. Might as well have contaminated rivers just like Jersey.

    Your comment is weak and I’m sure the wildlife that utilizes this area would agree.

    Pave America!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
    • Screen Name says:

      Oh, I thought he was talking about UO Matters when he said the site has all the charm of a NJ landfill.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
      • UO Matters says:

        This comment is defamation per se against the great state of New Jersey, which has relatively low toxicity and many calm and beautiful parts.

        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
  4. Deplorable Duck says:

    The obvious (if unwelcome) truth is that UO is land-locked and needs this land, either now or in the future. Given local politics and federal regulations, it’s sure to be developed in a way that doesn’t seriously harm the environment. But to imagine it as a perpetual wildlife reserve is unreasonable.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 5 votes)
  5. zach says:

    There actually is PLENTY of land South of the tracks now occupied by paved surface parking that UO could utilize for whatever it supposedly NEEDS. UO planners like to leapfrog over vast areas with surface parking and claim that the sea of surface parking is “fully developed”. I suspect one of these proposed plastic fields will later morph (if this overly vague CUP request gets approved) into the indoor track proposal Lannana and Nike have been trying to find a site for for years.

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.