Seattle Times gets semifavorable ruling in open meetings case p. 31

By: M.L. Stein

Court says University of Washington Board
of Regents can sometimes meet in closed
session, but not in all instances sp.

A JUDGE HAS denied a Seattle Times request for an open meeting on the examination of candidates for the presidency of the University of Washington (UW).
A Times lawsuit accused the university's Board of Regents of holding illegal secret meetings in selecting a successor for retiring president William Gerberding. The newspaper contended that interviews of candidates in executive session violated the state's open meetings and open records laws.
King County Superior Court Judge Robert Lasnik ruled that the regents committed no intentional or major violations of state law in its interviewing procedures. Lasnik also allowed regents to meet in closed session to rank their candidates in order of preference and possible salary levels.
The judge did permit the paper to instruct the regents to hold public sessions when discussing the selection process, including setting up a timetable for interviews and campus visits of candidates.
He rejected the regents' contention that they were entitled to meet secretly on virtually all aspects of the selection process. Lasnik said it would "defy all logic" to imagine that none of the procedural aspects of candidate selection came up in the secret meetings.
But the judge said he was confident the regents had acted in good faith on the advice of counsel. He also refused a Times request that future meetings on selection be tape-recorded.
Times attorney Mike Killeen expressed disappointment at the ruling but said the regents should view it as a "warning ticket" to adhere to the law. The regents have contended that opening meetings on the subject would scare off strong candidates.
In a column preceding the court's decision, Times executive editor Michael Fancher wrote: "No public institution is more resistant to the state's open meetings and open records act than the University of Washington."
Fancher noted that the newspaper did not ask the regents to reveal the names of candidates. "We are asking that meaningful portions of the selection process beyond specific candidates be conducted in public," he said.
UW faculty members also have protested being shut out of the review process, even though six members are on the search committee.
The matter, according to the Times, came up during a Faculty Senate executive committee meeting, in which professor Vivian Wolf-Wilets said, "We see this as a very important decision . . . in which we would like to see some of the semifinalist candidates get some exposure to the university and have some opportunity for us to hear from them."
"The last chapter has not been written on this issue," Fancher told E&P. "We will be watching them [the regents] very closely."