Once again, for those new to this blog site, at present there are 42 posts on the blog and each has its own set of comments. To read the comments you have to hit the word "Comments" at the beginning or end of the post. Somewhat confusing is that when you bring up the comments for a specific post it eliminates the other posts from the screen. To bring the other posts back up simply go back to the top of the page and click on Blog. Feel free to comment should you wish. No email address is required to make a comment so anonymity is strong. Due to some previous abuse of this right to anonymously comment, I have had to include an approval option, but I try to approve within 24 hours. To understand the development of the blog it is best to read it from the bottom post (Dr. Paul Kearney Case) up. One point of note here, to read the earliest posts you have to click on the word "<<Previous" at the very bottom of the posts available. Finally, for those just looking for a good summary of the Dr. Kearney case, simply scroll down four posts to the 12/10/2016 post. For social media developments on the Dr. Kearney situation I would encourage you to also visit the excellent "Save Dr. Kearney Facebook Page":
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=save%20dr%20kearney
Comments at the end of the last post centered on the 3 finalists in the EVPHA search, and the Herald Leader article authored by John Cheves entitled: “Judge says UK violated open records law, orders documents released” (http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article158843224.html?#1). In a way, both of these are directly related to the Dr. Kearney case. Although the university administration might wish to claim otherwise, it was the Dr. Kearney case and the administrative efforts to shut him up that in part initiated these open records investigative approaches into the financial management practices of UKHC and its leaders. Furthermore, and again although the university administration may wish to claim otherwise, it was the Dr. Kearney case that in part has led to the remodeling of the upper administration in the hospital and College of Medicine.
So that being the case, I thought this Herald Leader article merited a post. Some of the highlights of this article include a Fayette Circuit Judge deciding:
1. "The University of Kentucky violated the state’s Open Records Act by improperly withholding documents about a failed business deal between UK HealthCare and a Hazard cardiology firm from the Herald-Leader"
I think everyone remembers this attempted cover-up of mismanagement wherein we paid 1 million dollars to a DC lawyer to fix it, and it only cost the university another 4 million dollars to make the fix work.
2. "UK also violated the Open Meetings Act with an unannounced Power Point presentation about problems with the business deal to the UK Board of Trustees during what was supposed to be an informal dinner in May 2016. UK failed to keep minutes of that meeting and refused to provide a copy of the Power Point presentation afterward once the Herald-Leader requested it."
We discussed this one also and I believe the brilliant university attorneys, rather than simply being transparent about this open meeting, chose to flex their endless taxpayer subsidized university resources and muscle, and sue the Herald Leader for requesting this Open Meetings information.
3. “The court agrees that there appears to be some sort of intent on the part of the university to mislead the public about the nature of the May 2, 2016, ‘dinner’ meeting, implying that it was merely a social event”
This basically speaks for itself. Even the judge appears to be asking the question: “What are they trying to hide?” Sound familiar?
4. “When a public institution like UK spends public money, it must provide to the public detailed information about its use of that money.”
This too sounds like many of the comments made throughout the blog. The problem with the UK administration and its lawyers is, that they often come across like they feel the laws do not apply to them.
The judge went on to strike down UK’s contention that during this dinner and “open meeting” the meeting went into some form of “closed session” to discuss this presentation. To quote the judge:
“Either the dinner was a regular called open meeting, such that the board could have no legitimate expectation of confidentiality, or it was not.”
“If it was not, then the board was required to cite the provision of (the open meetings law) that would allow it to enter into closed session and adhere to the requirements for conducting a closed session. While the university dismisses those requirements as a ‘technicality,’ technical compliance with the Open Meetings Act is exactly what the law demands.”
Not too surprising, UK continues to try to hide behind the attorney-client privilege with UK spokesperson Jay Blanton stating:
“We are carefully reviewing — and considering appeal on — how other aspects of the court’s decision would impact the extent of protections offered by attorney-client privilege,”
But again, the judge shot this down with the statement:
The clinic audit, for example, is neither “communications within the meaning of attorney-client privilege” nor “confidential communications” made for the purposes of taking legal action, both of which are allowable exemptions under the open records law.”
Personally I think it is a big waste of university time and money to fight this battle. Transparency should be a central component of a university, especially a state university. Transparency often keeps people honest, whether they want to be or not. Knowing that others might be able to monitor what you are doing with the finances you have access to, can often force someone down a path of legitimacy, whether they want to go or not. I harken back to Dr. Karpfs statement at the budget meeting wherein, with hands interlaced over his head he told us that: “You have to think of these as all one big pot of money”. Of course the “these” he was referring to were UKHC revenue, research revenue, state revenue and teaching revenue. I am not sure he would have viewed it that way if he knew that the intimate details of how he was planning to spend that “pot of money” would be open to the public.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=save%20dr%20kearney
Comments at the end of the last post centered on the 3 finalists in the EVPHA search, and the Herald Leader article authored by John Cheves entitled: “Judge says UK violated open records law, orders documents released” (http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article158843224.html?#1). In a way, both of these are directly related to the Dr. Kearney case. Although the university administration might wish to claim otherwise, it was the Dr. Kearney case and the administrative efforts to shut him up that in part initiated these open records investigative approaches into the financial management practices of UKHC and its leaders. Furthermore, and again although the university administration may wish to claim otherwise, it was the Dr. Kearney case that in part has led to the remodeling of the upper administration in the hospital and College of Medicine.
So that being the case, I thought this Herald Leader article merited a post. Some of the highlights of this article include a Fayette Circuit Judge deciding:
1. "The University of Kentucky violated the state’s Open Records Act by improperly withholding documents about a failed business deal between UK HealthCare and a Hazard cardiology firm from the Herald-Leader"
I think everyone remembers this attempted cover-up of mismanagement wherein we paid 1 million dollars to a DC lawyer to fix it, and it only cost the university another 4 million dollars to make the fix work.
2. "UK also violated the Open Meetings Act with an unannounced Power Point presentation about problems with the business deal to the UK Board of Trustees during what was supposed to be an informal dinner in May 2016. UK failed to keep minutes of that meeting and refused to provide a copy of the Power Point presentation afterward once the Herald-Leader requested it."
We discussed this one also and I believe the brilliant university attorneys, rather than simply being transparent about this open meeting, chose to flex their endless taxpayer subsidized university resources and muscle, and sue the Herald Leader for requesting this Open Meetings information.
3. “The court agrees that there appears to be some sort of intent on the part of the university to mislead the public about the nature of the May 2, 2016, ‘dinner’ meeting, implying that it was merely a social event”
This basically speaks for itself. Even the judge appears to be asking the question: “What are they trying to hide?” Sound familiar?
4. “When a public institution like UK spends public money, it must provide to the public detailed information about its use of that money.”
This too sounds like many of the comments made throughout the blog. The problem with the UK administration and its lawyers is, that they often come across like they feel the laws do not apply to them.
The judge went on to strike down UK’s contention that during this dinner and “open meeting” the meeting went into some form of “closed session” to discuss this presentation. To quote the judge:
“Either the dinner was a regular called open meeting, such that the board could have no legitimate expectation of confidentiality, or it was not.”
“If it was not, then the board was required to cite the provision of (the open meetings law) that would allow it to enter into closed session and adhere to the requirements for conducting a closed session. While the university dismisses those requirements as a ‘technicality,’ technical compliance with the Open Meetings Act is exactly what the law demands.”
Not too surprising, UK continues to try to hide behind the attorney-client privilege with UK spokesperson Jay Blanton stating:
“We are carefully reviewing — and considering appeal on — how other aspects of the court’s decision would impact the extent of protections offered by attorney-client privilege,”
But again, the judge shot this down with the statement:
The clinic audit, for example, is neither “communications within the meaning of attorney-client privilege” nor “confidential communications” made for the purposes of taking legal action, both of which are allowable exemptions under the open records law.”
Personally I think it is a big waste of university time and money to fight this battle. Transparency should be a central component of a university, especially a state university. Transparency often keeps people honest, whether they want to be or not. Knowing that others might be able to monitor what you are doing with the finances you have access to, can often force someone down a path of legitimacy, whether they want to go or not. I harken back to Dr. Karpfs statement at the budget meeting wherein, with hands interlaced over his head he told us that: “You have to think of these as all one big pot of money”. Of course the “these” he was referring to were UKHC revenue, research revenue, state revenue and teaching revenue. I am not sure he would have viewed it that way if he knew that the intimate details of how he was planning to spend that “pot of money” would be open to the public.