![\"panel-wole\"](\"http:\/\/www.khpi.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/panel-wole.jpg\")
<\/a>If you are reading this, the chances are that the fact that the University of Louisville Board of Trustees discussed a vote of no confidence in the presidency of Dr. James Ramsey two days ago will not be news.\u00a0 That something dramatic might happen was no surprise to the army of media people who came prepared to cover anything.\u00a0 I was there too.\u00a0 Although longstanding allies of President Ramsey used procedural means to block an actual hands-up vote, those Trustees seeking a more open and shared governance role for the Board succeeded for the first time in presenting their arguments directly to the public, and by their accounts, to the Board itself!\u00a0\u00a0 A majority of the Board, including its Chairman and Treasurer, were prepared to vote in favor of such a measure.\u00a0 At this juncture a vote would have been superfluous, but one is scheduled for the next meeting on April 20.\u00a0 \u00a0A lot can happen before then.\u00a0 I do not see how Dr. Ramsey\u2019s presidency can survive, with or without an actual vote.<\/p>\nExcellent accounts of the meeting have been reported by Andrew Wolfson of the Courier-Journal<\/a>, Chris Otts of WDRB<\/a>, Joe Sonka of Insider Louisville<\/a>, Baylee Pulliam of Business First<\/a>, and a team of reporters from the Louisville Cardinal.<\/a>\u00a0 Because a number of post-meeting interviews were going on simultaneously, each of the above had a little something extra to add.\u00a0 I will not try to compete with their good work.\u00a0 I have however been following this emerging story for some time, have a long and intimate association with the University, and wish to lend a few additional insights into what is happening. \u00a0At the end of this article, I placed an audio recording of the Trustee meeting beginning a few seconds after they returned from executive session. I plan add as much of the interviews that followed the formal\u00a0meeting\u00a0as I was able to capture. \u00a0I also\u00a0post materials that were handed out by the University and a Trustee. \u00a0These materials may allow individuals who were not present to make their own judgments about who conducted themselves in a respectful and professional way, and who did not.<\/p>\n As expected, immediately after convening, the Board went into executive session to discuss pending litigation, including the whistleblower suit<\/a> brought the day before by a senior University compliance and conflict-of-interest officer which, among other things, accuses President Ramsey of official misconduct in the first degree.\u00a0 Other litigation was discussed including the lawsuit brought last summer by the Justice Resource Center over the racial minority makeup<\/a> of the Board itself which is said to be nearing a settlement. [More on that in another article. See most recent offering<\/a>.] President Ramsey was conspicuously absent for the first hour and 20 minutes of this closed session, perhaps because he was individually the central focus he newest lawsuit.\u00a0 We subsequently learned from trustee Robert Hughes that while they were in executive session, the Board also discussed “division amongst the trustees.”\u00a0 I believe that all concerned, including President Ramsey, knew that something other than the usual tightly orchestrated and predictable Board meeting was about to happen \u2013 and it certainly did!<\/p>\n It started gently enough.<\/strong> Although it may not have appeared so at first blush, I believe that the concerned Trustees made their case to their most important audience \u2013 the public.\u00a0 It was mission \u201cmostly accomplished.\u201d\u00a0 In my opinion the Trustees seeking the vote proved their case and the Ramsey loyalists actually helped them!<\/p>\n Downhill from there.<\/strong> Ironically, the Board brought the matter of limiting its ability to discuss or act on important or timely matters upon itself.\u00a0 Over the past year, the Board decided to reduce\u00a0its regular schedule of monthly\u00a0meetings to\u00a0\u00a0quarterly and to have special meetings in-between as needed. [Whose idea was that?\u00a0 What a great way to sideline a Board! Somebody obviously knew what the consequences of that change would be.]\u00a0 Thus, for the majority of their meetings, the Board hamstrung itself.\u00a0 Surely there is enough work to do, enough oversight needed, enough shared governance to require meeting more often than every three months.\u00a0 I will leave it to others to review what transpired in past \u201cspecial\u201d meetings to see if items were discussed or acted upon that were not in the published agenda.\u00a0 If so, how much might need to be redone in a more \u201clawful\u201d manner? \u00a0\u00a0I\u2019ll make my standard Martini bet that no one brought up the issue up before until today! Any takers?<\/p>\n Respected figures quite concerned.<\/strong> Is the pot calling the kettle black?<\/strong> Although the meeting was officially over, discussion by both sides took What if the vote had been taken?<\/strong> Aside from the three Trustees who represent faculty, staff, and students who have expressed no opinion publically of which I am aware, and for Trustee Rounsavall who resigned just after the meeting so that the Governor can replace him, I count 9 Trustees who would probably have voted<\/a> for the motion and only 6 who have spoken against.\u00a0 I cannot believe that all three of the representative Trustees would have voted in favor of President Ramsey, but after all, they have to work or graduate in an intimidating place.\u00a0 I trust they will vote their conscience and represent their constituencies fairly. As a current member of the Executive Faculty, I know how I want my faculty representative<\/a> to vote!\u00a0 \u00a0Of course It is possible that by April 20, there may be two brand new or perhaps reappointed<\/a> former trustees.\u00a0 If they cast votes on this matter without having served over the past year or so, I might suspect a political motivation!\u00a0 The time for a dignified transition may have been squandered. The need for a change remains even more apparent.<\/p>\n Peter Hasselbacher, MD Here is the packet of materials handed out<\/a> at the Board meeting.\u00a0 Only the agenda page was put on-line for the public.\u00a0 In the past, it seems to me that all the supporting materials were placed there also. I note as I write this that the published agenda allowed for \u201cAppropriate action\u201d following the Executive session.\u00a0 If indeed the lawsuit against President Ramsey, or \u201cdivisiveness within the Board were discussed during the Executive Session, that the proposal of a vote of no confidence may have been quite appropriate indeed! \u00a0There is some other very interesting stuff in this packet.<\/p>\n I also present here, materials handed out by Trustee Campbell<\/a>\u00a0that should be of interest to the community.\u00a0 They suggest that all is not as rosy academically or financially<\/a> as is claimed by the Office of the President.\u00a0 I suggest again that it is time that a full independent and external financial audit of the UofL Foundation was conducted! I do not believe the planned structural audit is sufficient given the financial issues of the last few years which seem to be ongoing.<\/p>\n I have not placed audio media on this site before. \u00a0It appears that it will stream. \u00a0Let me know how this works. \u00a0I can also\u00a0try to embed the audio along with images\u00a0via\u00a0YouTube. In that way I can try to identify the speakers for you. \u00a0I begin this recording a few seconds\u00a0into\u00a0the statement by Trustee Prather. [I was not quick enough!]: As always, let me know if any of the links go bad, or if I have made any substantive errors of attribution or fact.<\/p>\n
\nImmediately upon coming out of executive session, Trustee Jody Prather announced that in good conscience, he could no longer support the leadership of President Ramsey and he moved for a general vote of no-confidence which was seconded.\u00a0 The words were barely out of his mouth when a tag-team of trustees led by long-time Ramsey allies Marie Abrams, Robert Benson and others who moved just as quickly to declare the motion out of order because it was not listed on the published agenda.\u00a0 Those moving to quash the vote found support in University Counsel Leslie Strohm who is being described by others as President Ramsey’s attorney.\u00a0 It was claimed that if the session had been a regular meeting of the Board, that the motion would have been permissible.\u00a0 However, because Tuesday\u2019s meeting was a \u201cspecial\u201d meeting of the Board, it was claimed that only items that had been advertised beforehand on a formal agenda could be be discussed or acted upon.\u00a0 I believe that if those wishing to prevent a vote had stuck solely to their own motion, they might have succeeded in shutting down the meeting out of hand.\u00a0 However, the opposing Trustees Benson, Hughes, and others began to expand the discussion by criticizing the motives of those Trustees seeking to fulfill their statutory responsibilities, accusing them of using \u201cgotcha\u201d maneuvers to \u201cattack\u201d President Ramsey, categorizing the Board as \u201cfractured,\u201d stating an intention to ask Governor Bevin to request the resignation of the entire Board, and so forth.\u00a0 With the cat of general discussion already out of the bag, further arguments from those in favor of a vote of no confidence were allowed to speak, and for the next 20 minutes they did just that.<\/p>\n
\nWe have for many months been hearing claims that that prior attempts to discuss important matters before the Board or to ask questions have been systematically discouraged or frankly suppressed, including by the use of procedural maneuvers such as were on obvious display Tuesday.\u00a0 I urge you to listen to the session in its entirety and decide for yourself which side of the discussion was carried on in a reasoned and professional way, and which side \u2013 in my option and probably yours \u2013 got downright nasty.\u00a0 The claims of the concerned Trustees are on the face of them, self-proving and eminently believable. \u00a0Trustee Hughes accused Dr. Bingham of \u201cnot caring about UofL, a school that she did not attend, and to which she would not send her children.\u201d He and another Trustee accused Trustees Prather and Greenberg of wanting to force Ramsey out in order to put a relative in that position.\u00a0 Rude if not nasty personal attacks indeed.\u00a0 Listen to these and the professional responses yourself on the television news websites, or in the audio here. The Board Chair called them ridiculous claims. \u00a0Donald Trump<\/a> who was behaving that way across town at the same time might have been proud, but I was not.\u00a0 \u00a0I was both embarrassed and ashamed.\u00a0 Frankly Dr. Hughes, I respectfully believe it is you who should resign from your positions on both the UofL and UofL Foundation Boards.\u00a0 If President Ramsey is judged to have led the University down the wrong path, then in my opinion, you share the blame equally as his defender and strongest ally.\u00a0 The two of you have largely set the standard of administrative practice that guides the rest of the University by example and which in my opinion has led to so much damage to the school.<\/p>\n
\nSome additional information came out in the discussion detaining how President Ramsey notified the Board (and many others simultaneously) about his decision to withdraw our basketball team from tournament and post-season play.\u00a0 Trustee Hayes related that one and a half hour beforehand, he received an email telling him to \u201ccall this number.\u201d The decision was announced with no opportunity to ask questions.\u00a0 \u201cThis was \u201cnot shared governance at its best.\u201d Trustee Hayes stated his view (which was representative of the positions of others) that \u201cthis is not a coordinating Board \u2026 not an advisory Board \u2013 this is a governing Board<\/a>. Our sole purpose is not to hire a president.\u201d Our duty is to the institution. Continuing, \u201cI see people here who could bring expertise \u2026 but a lack of respect for our ability as a governing board. \u00a0\u00a0I do have a crisis of <\/a>confidence in the leadership of shared governance.\u201d Hayes regretted not having stepped forward earlier.\u00a0 The following his comments, most recent appointed Trustee, William Summers<\/a> continued: \u201cI have been here the least amount of time.\u00a0 Every time there is an attempt to discuss how the Board might feel about decisions being made, there is a total filibuster [and] that that discussion never takes place.\u201d\u00a0 Trustee Emily Bingham then read a prepared statement that has been published in full<\/a> in the Courier-Journal.<\/p>\n
\nTrustee Hughes continued with an exposition on the nature of power.\u00a0 He\u00a0 opined that when \u201csomeone mentions power \u2013 they are concerned about having some themselves \u2026. but when the get it \u2026 they don\u2019t know what to do with it.. don\u2019t know how to manage it except for personal gain.\u201d I personally felt that this was the low point of the session, and I again suggest that Trustee Hughes step down.\u00a0 I am embarrassed for him.\u00a0 I think you get the idea of how things went.\u00a0 To wrap things up, Attorney Strohm read from a non-identified Kentucky statute that I think related to open meetings that was specific about disallowing any discussion of action in special meetings that is not on a published agenda.\u00a0\u00a0 The Board meeting was adjourned.\u00a0 The motion for a vote of no confidence will be on the agenda for the next regular meeting on April 20<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/a>place in the same vein out in the Rotunda of Grawemeyer Hall for another 25 minutes or so. I will prepare the audio of what I heard.\u00a0 Let me say again that the claims that meaningful discussion of important matters has been routinely squelched at Board meetings, and that Board members have not been given sufficient, timely, or even the accurate information they need to fulfill their statutory responsibility are eminently believable to me.\u00a0 Examples were on full display that day..<\/p>\n
\nI do not believe Dr. Prather would have made his motion if he had not counted heads.\u00a0 Even the Board Chairperson said he would have voted for the motion himself, and thought the vote of no confidence would have passed. Because, \u201cfor me personally, I look at data points which are unemotional \u2026 events, culture, leadership, behavior.\u00a0 <\/a>I listen to reasonable people in the community \u2013 stakeholders with a strong interest in this University, and there appears to be an overruling outcry of need for change in leadership.\u201d Amen!<\/p>\n
\nEmeritus Professor of Medicine, UofL
\nMarch 3, 2016<\/p>\n
\nUofL Board of Trustees 3\/1\/16<\/a>, March 1, 2016.<\/p>\n