Email 17 May 2009 from President Frohnmayer concerning Faculty Governance

Subject: RE: Request vs Direct, continued.
To: "Franklin Stahl" , "Peter Gilkey"
From: "Dave Frohnmayer"

Dear Frank and Colleagues: I post these thoughts with reluctance, since I do not much like broadcast messages over technical matters when I know end of term urgencies command our attention elsewhere. But Professor Stahl's memo of today is, regrettably, quite wrong. His analysis is directly contradicted by the discussion of footnote 1 of the Department of Justice Opinion No. 6735 (November 7, 2008). The opinion notes that the authority of the President as "executive and governing officer," [ with] "authority to control and give general directions to the practical affairs of the school" is in the original "Charter". It is in the statutory act of October 21, 1876. It is not a later presidentialy "biased" corporatist appendage; it was enacted at the very same time and in the same Charter the language that constitutes the President and Professors as the "faculty". What this means, as I understand Professor Gilkey's lucid analysis earlier this weekend, is that a confrontational model of governance is not embodied in some conceptual mismatch between the Charter and later-enacted statutes (as Professor Stahl appears to argue). Rather, there is a legal problem that is quite fundamental if the "faculty" (President and Professors) attempt to "direct" action that is entrusted from the beginning to the President's responsibility over the University's "practical affairs". In the 15 years of my presidency, I have not vetoed a single item, notwithstanding an occasional issue concerning the President's sphere of authority and accountability. I have believed that comity and good will should be our touchstones, and I am confident that this has been the sentiment of the faculty as well. Best regards, Dave

Permission granted. DF

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter B Gilkey
To: Dave Frohnmayer
Sent: Mon May 18 06:52:59 2009
Subject: RE: Request vs Direct, continued.

Dear Dave.

Franks original email, my lengthy response, and his rebuttal are on the web. Thus I solicit your permission to post your email on the web as well.