E-mail
Print
Philip Harter, the subject of the Feb. 11 Missourian story, Ethics investigator quits in protest, sent this letter to the editor.
The story in the Sunday Missourian concerning my resignation as chair of the Research Responsibility Committee is not entirely clear as to my reasons for doing so. Since the very nature of the committee’s activities is highly sensitive, it is critically important that there be no confusion over the basis for my actions.
As the story accurately reports, the administration notified professor Michael Roberts almost a month ago that it was “dismissing the allegations of research misconduct as to you and ... terminating the inquiry/investigation as to you.” Because this is a final decision of the university concerning its earlier well-publicized charges, I felt strongly that a public announcement to that effect needed to be made.
The Sunshine Law never prohibits an agency — here the university — from releasing information, and under the law the public has the right to know the official conclusion of a formal proceeding. Moreover, the pressing of charges was widely publicized last fall so that the continued silence necessarily implied the accusations were still pending. As a result people were being hurt unfairly.
As one who is passionate about how government functions (I have taught administrative law for 35 years), I have dedicated my professional life to balancing open government with the appropriate use of confidentiality. The administration was only looking at half that equation.
What I need to emphasize and make very clear is that my resignation was entirely over the refusal to make the final decision public and did not in any way reflect a disagreement or dissatisfaction with respect to the inquiry/investigation itself. I did not concur with the administration with respect to confidentiality and thought it would be difficult to continue in my role as chair.
This issue is far more complex than a typical personnel matter in which a superior’s evaluations are in an employee’s file. Rather, the Sunshine Law generally provides for confidentiality until a final decision is made (including “disciplining ... or of particular employees by a public governmental body”) but that once made, the conclusion is a public document. And, indeed, the Research Misconduct Rules also call for confidentiality “until the proceedings have been completed.” They were completed as to Roberts in January.
I hope this removes any lingering doubt as to why I felt it was necessary to resign as chair.
Comments