Senate unanimously opposes ORI building, update below

11/10/2010: From Dan Corcoran of KEZI. The most purely rhetorical question I’ve heard in a while is from Paul Cziko of Connecting Eugene:

“Should the University follow the law and uphold its contracts? That’s the question. Do we do it all the time, or do we do it when it’s convenient?” 

UO’s position on the law under Frohnmayer and Grier was the latter. Lariviere talked about real reform, but we haven’t heard much on that lately – just the hiring of Grier’s deputy Randy Geller as UO’s new head lawyer. Meanwhile, someone with a lot of UO experience writes this:

The discovery of the 1986 agreement about the research park is important, and should not be dismissed.

This is a matter of the rule of law. The city and university should not just declare that there shall be a board, and then forget about it. I suspect that there was opposition to the research park back in 1986 also, and the board was a compromise they arrived at which satisfied the opponents. To ignore that now would be inappropriate, and illegal.

The real question is: did someone at the university or the city remember this agreement, and chose to keep it secret?

ORI can build its building….somewhere else.  I know of several available plots downtown.

So how did Connecting Eugene find out about this document? If someone at UO was sitting on it, big trouble. Any mention of the contracts in Geller’s resume? Just a line on the Riverfront Research cleanup. But we already know he omitted other stuff from his job application, so this isn’t worth much.

Update: “hitch” comments: The co-author of the intergovernmental agreement is the current Director of the Riverfront Research Park, Diane Wiley. Maybe she can tell you where her 1986 memo has been. 

As always, Google knows more than all us humans combined:,ar:1

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.