Kitzhaber to follow Frohnmayer’s path to the UO Presidency?

2/13/2015 update: Phil Knight gave Kitz a $250K campaign contribution last year, so he’s still got a bit of a debt to work off, and as UO President he’d have plenty of chances. Seems crazy, but remember UO was the state’s consolation prize to Frohnmayer, after his run for governor failed. On the other hand, Kitzhaber doesn’t seem to be good enough at hiding public records to survive long in Johnson Hall.

2/11/2015 update: His “assisted suicide” firing of Lariviere finally makes sense. Remember, you heard this absurd rumor here first!

2/11/2015: Kitzhaber resignation imminent, brought down after hiding public records.

That’s the implication from this RG story on Kate Brown’s emergency return to Oregon from a DC conference. She’s #1 in the succession line.

What brought Kitzhaber down? He hid public records, the reporters got suspicious, and suspicious reporters work very hard to get answers.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Kitzhaber to follow Frohnmayer’s path to the UO Presidency?

  1. Anonymous says:

    Any fedora sightings at O’Hare?

    • uomatters says:

      Like. I’m going to waive the “use a screen name” boilerplate this time.

  2. Trickortreat says:

    Based on the accusations leveled at Kitz it looks like he’d fit right in with the rest of the JH club.

  3. charlie says:

    Why the hell not? UOwe is becoming the citadel of failure…..

  4. notanicethingtosay says:

    So two years from now can we expect to see Kitz as the president, Knight as the BOT chair and Kilkenny back in as AD?

  5. Perpetual Malcontent says:

    I thought that “innocent until proven guilty” was a clique by now, but no, read Kitzhaber’s sign off. He was convicted by the media before any ethics commission or the Attorney General’s office could even look into all the charges. And his Democratic colleagues are equally culpable in this lynching.
    Shame on all of you, including UO Matters, who rush to judgment, based on innuendo, hearsay, and unscrutinized data. No wonder no one runs for public office, or is an administrator of any sort. The world is out to get you, even if you try to do your best, and yet occasionally stumble along the way.

    • awesome0 says:

      I think the problem is some public servants think the public can’t handle the truth. They hide and redact records. These leaves the media to play a game of madlibs with the records, but then they don’t like how the everyone fills in the blanks.

      Solution: don’t let them play madlibs. Be transparent and this does 2 things.

      1. It gives the public servants every incentive to avoid abusing their power
      2. It gives the public servant evidence to point to proving as much

      • mousey says:

        Good points. But in order to be more transparent and not play madlibs, one first has to be committed to integrity, and specifically, the truth. Solution: HONESTY.

        • awesome0 says:

          Certainly. But mandated and enforced transparency encourages honesty.

          • mousey says:

            Cart before the horse.
            Honesty should be expected. So called ‘transparency’ is a malleable tool, nothing more. Witness the current ‘victim’, Cowboy John, and how he currently feels maligned by those digging up truths for which his lawyers haven’t yet figured a series of talking points. He would have been ‘more transparent’, but we all know the media, and political foes, were after him. Right? Wink, wink.

            What needs “to be enforced” will always be highly questionable.

          • just different says:

            Mandated transparency is supposed have the effect of weeding out anyone who doesn’t already have a commitment to integrity. It’s not working that way right now because the consequences of not following such mandates are essentially nonexistent. People are always on better behavior when they know they’re being watched and even basically good people will push limits if they think they can get away with it.

          • mousey says:

            ” … and even basically good people will push limits if they think they can get away with it.”

            Good people? Good people aren’t necessarily honest people with ethically high standards. People with ethically high standards don’t need others to observe their behavior to do the “right thing”.

            “Mandated transparency” is just PC poli-speak and means virtually nothing.