6/20/2014 update: Gottfredson’s efforts to cover up his handling of the rape allegations bring more trouble to UO. The full Oregonian and RG petition, which is considerably more comprehensive than the NYT’s, is here:
UO has pled for more time to respond, and the Times et al. have given them until the end of the month – which will means UO’s response will likely be the last official act of UO General Counsel Randy Geller, set to “retire” for undisclosed reasons on June 30. His predecessor, Melinda Grier, was fired, over issues related to her failure to respond to reporters’ public records requests about the Bellotti contract, but seems to now be back on the UO dole.
6/16/2014: New York Times appeals Gottfredson’s redactions of rape allegation emails
“Accordingly, The Times requests that the documents be provided in accordance with the law.”
Gottfredson’s efforts to cover up how his office responded to the rape allegations are going national. Full letter here. Timeline here, link to RG stories and Dave Hubin letters here, and info on former UO Journalism Dean Tim Gleason’s prior efforts to help UO hide public records from reporters here.
DA Gardner should recuse himself from this decision and forward the appeal directly to the OR Attorney General. He has an obvious conflict of interest since the emails could incriminate him for his participation in the coverup.
shit his pants.
Eat it, Gottfredson. Your “best” GC took the road you should be on.
What could be in these emails that could be worth spending all this time and money to hide? Would our prez and his lawyer really be so stupid as to propose a cover-up plan in emails, and then try and hide the emails so incompetently? Or is it just the usual “we need to protect the brand” instead of the survivor stuff?
Or maybe there’s nothing, it’s just that Gottfredson is so full of himself that he thinks his “executive privilege” trumps people’s right to know what is going on at a public university?
I expect if the emails show anything, they will show scrambling negligence and incompetence rather than thoughtful conspiracy. There is also probably callous talk about our image trumping concern of those involved.
So .. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you mistakenly deleted my comment, and I’ll repost the gist of it.
If “conspiracy” is defined as “an act of conspiring”, and if the NYT request reveals an attempt to cover up facts that are rightfully public information, wouldn’t this be a “conspiracy”? And who would want to shy away from naming it so?
The word “conspiracy” is a hot button PC word designed to intimidate, like the word “racist”.
I tend to agree with both of you. “Conspiracies” are generally just groups of individuals who are acting in their own self-interest.
If anything, there is a “guided free market system” of rewards, primarily through paychecks, that motivates people to do what they think to be protecting the University of Oregon (and Nike) athletics brand (they clearly have no interest in the academic brand).
When you set up the framing conditions this way, then add in the fact that the UO Admin have a Teflon/you can’t touch us attitude; Then, the end result, cover-ups, tampering with public records, and other nefarious deeds is simply inevitable. One need not invoke any “conspiracy” to explain their behavior.
Can’t wait to see the UO be nationally shamed for this mess. Related: 1) similar JSU scandal and 2) the Onion’s pertinent take
So the month is up. Has there been another extension on this?