Will the public have any input? Perhaps not.
The deadline for responses to the University’s search for a new partner was Friday, March 23. It may not be knowable, now or ever, how many responses were received, or from whom. I called the University purchasing agent responsible for the process and learned that the deadline had indeed passed and that no further submissions would be accepted at this time. I did learn that at least one response had been received and that a meeting of the Review Committee would be held on Thursday to determine the next steps. I was told that state regulations surrounding the RFP process require that no information can be released until an agreement is signed. It was also pointed out to me that a Request for Proposal is different than a request for a Bid. The former implies more of a request for new ideas. This definition is certainly compatible with what we have seen so far.
I called the one institution other than Catholic Health Initiatives that I know made a serious effort to respond. I do not know if state regulations impose a reciprocal blackout on responders, but the institution preferred that the University speak for itself. I cannot fault them for this position.
The University of Louisville has chosen a path that it believes allows it to proceed in absolute secrecy until it has finalized its plans– a fait accompli. Why am I not surprised? Is it too much to expect that the officials of this public university might have learned some lessons about the value of accountability and transparency during last Fall’s iteration of this merger? Is the University being too clever for its own good? Or is the arrogance all mine?
The University of Louisville has courted and lost numerous partners before. Many bridges have been closed if not burned. I propose that some community buy-in at the altar will enhance the prospects of a long and fruitful marriage. Sadly, what I perceive instead is a falling away of trust and support.
Peter Hasselbacher, MD
March 27, 2012
After I entered the above, I learned more about the University’s proposed basis for confidentiality. I remain unconvinced that the reference KRS 45A.085 requires the total secrecy that we are seeing and will explore this further. I understand why any proposed responder might not want to disclose any information to me and I apologize for putting them on the spot.
You can review the regulation that I was referred to that guides this competitive negotiation. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/045a00/085.PDF