Loading...
Letter from the Editor Dear Reader, The default setting for public documents held by public bodies funded with public money should be “OPEN.”
An ongoing struggle by journalists with Western Michigan University for details of an evaluation for its president, Edward Montgomery, demonstrates it is often the opposite.
In December, the university’s Board of Trustees voted Montgomery a $75,000 bonus and a pay increase, based on the outcome of a job evaluation. In January, reporters for MLive/The Kalamazoo Gazette and for The Herald, the student paper at WMU, filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the evaluation.
The university denied the request for the evaluation in January. In between the filing and the denying, the faculty at Western passed a vote of no confidence on Montgomery, citing a variety of factors, including falling enrollment and low staff morale. Nearly 60 percent of faculty voted in that referendum, and of those, 78 percent cited “no confidence.”
I should note that the university says that part of Montgomery’s evaluation, which formed the basis for his substantial pay increase, was based on feedback from university officials and staff.
So many questions: Why the big disconnect between the faculty and the people interviewed for Montgomery’s evaluation? Were faculty included in the evaluation process? What factors were used in the evaluation to determine the raise? What were cited as Montgomery’s strengths and weaknesses?
And one really pressing question:
The first two reasons the university gave – that it has authority under the Michigan Constitution to make “financial decisions,” and that somehow an evaluation of performance is a financial decision because it affects Montgomery’s pay – are points that can be argued in a court of law.
Its third argument – that revealing names of staff who contributed comments about the president for the evaluation would have a “chilling effect” for future evaluations – is illogical and baseless.
Illogical, because if those people are named in the evaluation, the board and president already know who they are. If they’re anonymous in the evaluation, the public release of the document has no effect on them.
And baseless because if those quoted ARE named, the university has the ability to redact names upon release of the evaluation rather than reject the FOIA request outright.
Whenever I encounter something illogical and baseless, it makes me go, “Hmmm. There has to be more here.”
The issue here is bigger than what is written in the evaluation. Journalists wouldn’t assume it’s damning, and neither should the public. What’s in the evaluation can be assessed and debated by reasonable people.
The issue is a stance by the board that students, faculty and the greater community don’t deserve to know what it thinks of the president and won’t disclose what process and factors it used to give him a $75,000+ “vote of confidence.”
MLive is appealing the denial. How it works in Michigan is, the appeal goes back through the institution holding the document.
In our appeal, which you can read here, there is a second kind of appeal – to the consciences of the trustees who lead this large public institution: Do the right thing, for the right reasons, for the people who are paying your bills.
Editor's note: I value your feedback to my columns, story tips and your suggestions on how to improve our coverage. Let me know how MLive helps you, and how we can do better. Please feel free to reach out by emailing me at editor@mlive.com.
John Hiner Executive Editor Vice President of Content Mlive Media Group
Download our Apps:
Having trouble viewing this email? View in your browser.
To ensure receipt of our emails, please add newsletters@update.mlive.com to your address book or safe sender list. You received this email because you are a subscriber to MLive.com newsletters. Privacy Policy 169 Monroe Ave NW #100 |
Loading...
Loading...