The Lincoln (Neb.) Journal-Star reports today that
[a] University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor says the NU Board of Regents violated open-meetings law last month when it discussed a proposed affirmative-action ban without specifically listing the topic on its printed agenda.
Chemistry Professor Gerard Harbison on Tuesday wrote Regents Chairman Chuck Hassebrook to request the board void its resolution opposing the ban, which passed unanimously at the regents’ Jan. 18 meeting….
“The (regents) vote had no democratic validity,” said Harbison, who is a supporter of Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, a group that’s targeting five states, Nebraska included, this year in its efforts to end affirmative action in hiring and admissions processes.
“They could have put it on the agenda, we could have presented our side. … Why didn’t they do that? Why are they afraid of even hearing the other side?”
Harbison cited Nebraska’s open-meetings law, which says the public should be given “reasonable notice” of meeting agenda items.
According to the Journal-Star,
Typically, Board of Regents meeting agendas are delivered to media and made available to the public about a week before the board meets. Members of the public are invited to speak before the board on any agenda item.
Near the top of each agenda are “Kudos and Resolutions,” often a time when regents publicly commend NU faculty, staff and students for outstanding work.
Kudos and resolution items are not required to be individually listed in the board’s pre-printed agendas. And they rarely are controversial.
Jan. 18 resolutions, for example, included praise for University of Nebraska Medical Center doctors for their lifesaving work after the Westroads Mall shootings in Omaha and thanks to a fellow regent for his work on strategic issues.
Sounds reasonable to me. “Nice work, Joe. Good work, doctors. Voters, please let us continue to discriminate by race, ethnicity, and sex.” These are all of a piece, right? No reason to notify the pesky public about these resolutions.
Supporters of racial preferences everywhere seem to be afraid of honest, open debate on the issue. (For the latest attempt to confuse voters and sabotage an anti-preference initiative, see this outrage in Colorado.)
“Supporters of racial preferences everywhere seem to be afraid of honest, open debate on the issue.”
I ASSUME that honest, open debate is moot for self evident issues. In a case like this, I prefer to consider it disingenuous justification, emotional endorsement, and camouflage.