The MSU Board of Trustees closeted itself inside Cowles House on Wednesday night for its traditional night-before-a-public-meeting dinner and talked over salmon, stroganoff and good drinks.
Board members have said they don't conduct official business during these dinners. But the question that has never been answered is what the board members feel at liberty to discuss. While most have gone on the record saying the event is only a social occasion, Trustee Dorothy Gonzales said last month the dinners actually are a lot of work.
"In all honesty, it's bullshit for them to say they don't do business," said Steve Corson, a 2004 graduate and former kitchen worker at Cowles House.
Due to The State News' continued coverage of the board's closed-meeting policy, members of the MSU community have come forward to shed some light on what they perceive are in fact work-related meetings.
In the three years Corson worked at the house, he said he saw the board conduct its business a number of times during dinner.
"Once they had to delay dinner because of a long presentation about the budget," Corson said. "They had a PowerPoint and everything. It's obvious what they were talking about."
Other people intimately involved with the dinners said the board not only works at the dinners, but plans the discussion. Two individuals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the trustees meet a day before their dinner to plan what they will discuss during the meeting at Cowles House. Then, during the dinners, board members consult a written list of discussion topics while sharing food and wine.
First Amendment lawyers have said the board is acting in violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act by holding closed work sessions and conducting business during dinner. Board members have maintained that a 1999 court case, which dealt with holding closed work sessions in the context of selecting a president, exempts them from this law.
A majority of the eight board members, or a quorum, attend the dinners each month, as well as key administrative officials. On Wednesday night, Provost Kim Wilcox, University General Counsel Bob Noto, board secretary Alison Barber and MSU President Lou Anna K. Simon also took part in the dinner.
Simon told The State News that during the last year, the board has added a number of special reports to the formal public meetings that increase the transparency of board operations.
"From my perspective, we are acting in accordance with applicable law and court cases," Simon said. "On the question of what should happen, the degree of openness is a matter of constant attention and rebalancing to assure effectiveness of operations and to maintain public trust. It's a matter I take seriously."
Still, much of the work being conducted by the board does not take place in the public eye. Today, the board will decide on a new policy to increase transparency in the awarding of campus construction projects. That policy was put together, however, behind closed doors.
"This got started when the University Village apartments came through," Trustee Melanie Foster said about a proposal that would require the university to get board approval for planning any project that would cost more than $1 million. Foster said she was "instrumental" in constructing the recommendation.
Foster, however, is not on the board's policy committee, which will recommend the change to the full board today.
"It was a project of the finance committee, not the board," Foster said. "It was brought about by the finance committee."
Fred Poston, the university's vice president for finance and operations, worked with Foster to put the proposal together.
"The policy committee got involved today," Poston said as he arrived for dinner at Cowles House on Wednesday evening. "Trustees (Donald) Nugent and Foster have been most involved in the process. We went back and forth in a couple of discussions."
None of these discussions took place during the board's public meetings, however. And Poston said policy committee Chairwoman Colleen McNamara was only involved on Wednesday with the policy she would be introducing today.
In the past, MSU community members have worried that because the board does so much of its business outside the public meetings, members might make some of their important decisions outside the meetings as well.
Since January 2005, the board has approved about 90 recommendations. Of those, only four have not been unanimous decisions. In its January 2006 meeting, the board approved more than $5 million in construction projects in about 24 minutes of discussion.
Grover Hudson, a linguistics professor and president of the MSU chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said the board's actions worry many faculty members.
"The AAUP doesn't like it and the faculty doesn't like it," Hudson said.
Hudson said the board could achieve better results if it held its meetings more publicly and allowed faculty voices to be heard. He said an example of miscommunication between the board and faculty was the decision to expand the College of Human Medicine to Grand Rapids.
"Subsequent events have shown that they had to rethink many of their early plans because faculty members pointed out you don't just drop a medical school on a community without support services in order," Hudson said. "The process had to be reworked very slowly and expensively. These details could have been addressed in the beginning if the board was more open."
Henry Silverman, an MSU emeritus professor of history and vice president of the Michigan branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said aside from the legal question of the board's actions are the moral questions.
"It clearly violates the spirit of the (Michigan Open Meetings Act)," Silverman said. "They stretch the law."
Silverman said as a public institution, MSU should set an example and do its business in public.
"This particular board has a penchant for secrecy, and I think that is unfortunate," Silverman said.
Hudson said despite Simon's and some trustees' assurances that the dinner meetings are important to build trust among the board, the university as a whole would be better served if they were open.
"Their being friends with each other is not a criteria for a good board," he said.
Josh Jarman can be reached at jarmanjo@msu.edu.
Dee Cook, on March 27 "We talk very informally," Trustee Dee Cook said. "We get very few chances to sit down together." Cook maintains that although the trustees might talk about university-related topics, the meetings are not a continuation of the daylong work sessions. "We might ask why it is taking so long to move Alumni Association into their new offices or about the orchestra's trip to Austria, but that is not what I would call work," Cook said. "There is no agenda."
Joel Ferguson, on March 29
When asked if he felt the trustees were not acting transparently by keeping their work sessions closed, he responded, "Not particularly." "The Michigan Supreme Court gives us the power to do this," Ferguson said. Ferguson said the board is not subject to the state's Open Meetings Act because a 1999 Michigan Supreme Court decision exempted the board from complying with the act in some situations. "That was made very clear in the Supreme Court case," Ferguson said. "Clear as a bell."
Melanie Foster, on April 11
"They're not dinner meetings, they are dinners. Some work is discussed; we discuss lots of things. There is a lot of conversation. I would say it has more of a social aspect to it."
Dorothy Gonzales, on March 27
Trustee Dorothy Gonzales said the dinners allow the trustees to talk about policy decisions facing the university. "People have the misconception these are just dinners and eating, but it is also a chance to discuss the various issues we have before us," Gonzales said. "The types of discussions are very much needed to understand issues or find resolutions," Gonzales said. "Sometimes we don't leave until 9:30 or 10 (p.m.)."
Colleen McNamara, on Jan. 12
Trustee Colleen McNamara, who is chairwoman of the policy committee, said the Thursday meetings are closed because it would hinder the work of the board to have reporters present. "We're not trying to hide anything," McNamara said. "We find that this system brings out the best of the board." McNamara said the board could not be at its most creative if members had to worry that everything they said could be written down. The public is always welcome to call the trustees to find out what they are working on, she said.
Donald Nugent, on April 11
"The dinners are a time set for the trustees to get briefed on certain issues. The work sessions are just that, work sessions. The key is that we do not make decisions. A typical dinner looks at certain issues, like when we were working through the medical school issues we might get a briefing on Grand Rapids, or our relationship with East Lansing. It's just a chance for the trustees to bring it up around the dinner table. They are extremely valuable because the board gets to interact and get to know each other on an individual level. It is family time for the board."
Dave Porteous, on March 27
"It is an opportunity for board members to talk about what is happening in their individual lives," Board Chairman David Porteous said. "The conversation is certainly not all personal and not all about Michigan State. It's a nice blend of both." On Jan. 19 Porteous said the board needs to work harder to have more extensive presentations at its Friday meetings to help people understand the decisions it makes.
Scott Romney, on Jan. 19
Trustee Scott Romney maintains the work sessions are not open to the public because the groups' meetings do not have quorum — which is one more than half of the eight-member board. The work sessions are held by committee, both of which have four members each.
"The only public body is the full board — we're just a subset of the board," Romney said. "One member, with their own thoughts, are not subject to the OMA. Neither are two, or three or four."
President Lou Anna K. Simon, on April 5
"Over the course of the last year we added to our public board meetings a number of special reports that increase the transparency of board operations. From my perspective, we are acting in accordance with applicable law and court cases. On the question of what should happen, the degree of openness is a matter of constant attention and rebalancing to assure effectiveness of operations and to maintain public trust. It's a matter I take seriously."
