Kentucky State University continues down the path of self destruction, and a nationally recognized expert on press freedom weighs in.
The State Journal reports on a recent KSU Faculty Senate meeting at which faculty was admonished not "to speak in an open meeting about a potential personnel issue and possible litigation."
State Journal government reporter, Austin Horn,* writes:
"The shadow of Chandee Felder hung over the Kentucky State University Faculty Senate's meeting last Friday.
"Throughout the group's meeting, several members attempted to discuss the former faculty regent and administrative assistant's dismissal, which had taken place the day before.
"Felder was terminated due to an alleged violation of the school's HR policy and ethics code as well as 'gross misconduct,' just one day before a story detailing her criticisms of the board of regents on which she served.
"The vast majority of present members at the Faculty Senate meeting, with no expressed opposition, agreed to hold a full-faculty virtual meeting this week to discuss issues — seemingly those that stemmed from Felder's dismissal.
"Several times, Faculty Senate President Phillip Clay brought up potential reasons that the faculty senate shouldn't discuss Felder or issues related to her on Friday.
"At first, Clay said that the matter would be more appropriate for staff senate to discuss. Later, he said that since State Journal media was present, the faculty senate could not discuss such matters without a representative from KSU's media team — a directive he said came from the office of Acting President Clara Ross Stamps.
"No KSU media member ever appeared at the meeting, though General Counsel Lisa Lang did join the call to warn members against discussion of Felder.
"'It is not appropriate for us to speak in an open meeting about a potential personnel issue and possible litigation,' Lang said. 'And I think at this point, that's all that needs to be stated.'
Rejecting administration efforts to silence those in attendance at the public meeting by veiled threat and premature adjournment, the faculty's discussion continued:
"The discussion grew to include the university's treatment of 'whistleblowers,' in a reference to Felder, and what Helen Smith called a 'gag order' on the faculty senate discussing controversial matters in the presence of a reporter without a member of university media present.
"'What I think is the more important issue at this point is the fact that the administration is trying to prevent faculty senate from discussing in front of external press what our issues are,' Smith said.
"Lang disagreed with that characterization."
Although the KSU Faculty Senate is a public agency whose meetings are subject to Kentucky's open meetings laws — and university counsel's efforts to impede Senate discussion flies in the face of that law — these issues have repercussions beyond the open meetings laws.
http://web.as.uky.edu/biology/faculty/djones/PDF/5/5.ii/II.J.pdf
We forwarded The State Journal's article to Frank D. LoMonte for comment. LoMonte is a journalist, lawyer, professor, and director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications.
LoMonte responded:
"A state university has zero authority to tell faculty members that they're not allowed to talk without a public relations representative from the university present. Unfortunately, there is an obsession with image and public relations across the field of higher education that has fostered a belief that P.R. people somehow have the authority to control what everyone on campus is allowed to say. There is absolutely no legal support for that belief.
"The comments attributed to the university legal counsel are troubling but not at all surprising. Somehow it's become ingrained throughout our culture that legal issues and personnel issues are off-limits for public discussion, but there's no such requirement in the law. If faculty members want to convene a meeting to talk about their concerns about a personnel issue that might end up in court, they have an absolute right to do that. Even if those comments end up being strategically disadvantageous for the university -- too bad. There's not a 'legal strategy advantage' exception to the First Amendment. It might be a good idea for the top management of the university, which actually speaks on behalf of the institution, to be cautious about public comments on a case that's heading to court. But that doesn't mean everyone on campus is gagged from speaking.
"Personnel issues and legal issues are pretty foundational to the governance of any large government agency. If you forbid public discussion of anything involving personnel or anything that might result in a lawsuit, you're preventing the community from having meaningful input into most of what the institution does. It's ironic that this takes place in the context of a discussion about whether the university has a culture of silencing whistleblowers. I think we may have our answer."
In other words, KSU's attempt to silence stakeholders — who the university perceives as critics — speaks louder than words.
*Horn is also a director on the Kentucky Open Government Coalition's board.
