From: Garrett Epps gepps@law.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Peter's procedural suggestion
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:40:58 -0800

Just for the record, I want to say that I have no idea where the idea that the University President can never be involved with sealed subpoenas has come from. At one time, some members of the community wanted to require that the president be the person to determine compliance. As Melinda pointed out, there is no guarantee that any university employee will be able to consult anyone other than counsel. Somehow this has become transmuted into a spurious assumption that the university president will always be kept out of the loop--which is just as erroneous as the idea that he/she can always be in the loop. We are trying to draft a general policy statement that will leave the University administration the flexibility to deal with unforeseen emergencies. The statement that the president would try to be involved was put in to satisfy critics who pointed out President Frohnmayer's statement that he wanted to be involved. Now many of those same critics claim that the new language is "disingenuous" and want it out. Why? Let's try not to be simple-minded about this. I oppose this proposed change.