Despite assurances they would "respond in full" to a state lawmaker’s inquiry into the resignation of University of Virginia President Jim Ryan, UVa attorneys now say ongoing discussions with the Trump administration Department of Justice prevent them from doing just that.
After DOJ pressure over diversity policies prompted Ryan’s departure this past July, questions regarding how much the school’s governing Board of Visitors knew and when have gone unanswered.
State Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Charlottesville, sent a charged, six-page, 46-question letter Aug. 1 demanding answers to UVa Rector Rachel Sheridan and Vice Rector Porter Wilkinson. In his letter he cited his authority as a member of the General Assembly, which has a constitutional and statutory interest in the operations of all public institutions in the commonwealth.
Deeds gave the university until Aug. 15 to respond.
But come Aug. 15, no answers had been prepared. Instead, UVa lawyers requested an additional two weeks to respond.
On Aug. 29, Deeds received a letter prepared by Washington-based law firm Debevoise & Plimpton on behalf of the board.
“The letter is just not responsive," Deeds told The Daily Progress. "It gave partial answers to just a few of the questions, but most of the big ones weren’t addressed. And I guess they’re going to use the argument that discussions with the Justice Department are confidential, but I just don’t accept that."
Deeds said he is worried that the lack of transparency regarding Ryan, his resignation and the reasons behind it isn’t helping.
Already, votes of no confidence in the board have been passed by the UVa Student Council and Faculty Senate as well as the university chapters of the United Campus Workers of Virginia and the American Association of University Professors.
“They’re fueling speculation because they won’t provide enough clarity at all," Deeds said. "They’re fueling speculation that they might claim is unjust, but if it’s unjust, deny it, tell us the truth. That’s all we’re asking for."
Deeds’ letter asks Sheridan and Wilkinson — who were not in their positions until July — what influence Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who appointed them, had on the Board of Visitor’s unanimous March 7 vote to dissolve the university’s diversity, equity and inclusion office.
His questions suggest Sheridan and Wilkinson had some knowledge or played some part in the Trump administration’s pressure campaign over Ryan’s handling of diversity policies that prompted his exit.
The Debevoise & Plimpton letter maintains that answering Deeds’ questions would interfere with the ongoing DOJ probes into the university and Ryan’s tenure.
“Although we would like to correct a number of inaccurate premises and assumptions in your letter, we are duty-bound to place the university’s interests above all else, and we must honor our fiduciary obligation to the university,” the letter reads.
The letter also asks that Deeds not speculate himself on the events that led to Ryan’s departure: “As we requested in our August 15 letter, we ask that you not draw conclusions or promote unfounded speculation when we are unable to share the facts."
The letter does lay out a timeline of events surrounding the resolution to dissolve the DEI office as well as the composition of a search committee to replace Ryan — a timeline already well known to those following the developments.
For example, the letter says that the resolution was given priority due to direction from Virginia Secretary of Education Aimee Guidera and that the resolution “was necessary to comply with federal and state law and fulfill the board’s fiduciary duties.”
The letter also says that the presidential search committee is “more inclusive and representative than any previous presidential search committee at the university” and that Sheridan “sought and received significant input from many in the university community and leadership.”
Undeterred, Deeds said he is working to set up a meeting between legislators, Sheridan and Wilkinson.
“We don’t have subpoena power, but we can ask the rector and vice rector to come to Richmond and answer questions. … They’ll have to decide whether they’ll do that or not. I’m trying to get that meeting set up right now, whether it happens or not, I don’t know," he said. "Beyond that, the General Assembly is kind of limited in what our control is. We can ask questions, we have responsibilities spelled out in the Code, we have responsibility to provide oversight, but we can only approve or disapprove members of the Board of Visitors and also our control is exercised through the budget.”
Source: www.dailyprogress.com
Be First to Comment