At the peak of the âÄúTroubled WatersâÄù controversy, President Bob Bruininks issued a written statement through the UniversityâÄôs public relations arm admitting the decision about whether to air the documentary as scheduled, âÄúcould have been handled differently and communicated more clearly.âÄù
Throughout the semester, University officials have failed over and over to communicate plenty of issues with the clarity and transparency becoming of a public institution. âÄúTroubled WatersâÄù was only the start.
Consider this: Not long after âÄúTroubled Waters,âÄù the Board of Regents selects one person as a presidential finalist, thereby escaping sunshine laws. They subsequently award Eric Kaler a $610,000 salary with benefits. While administrative salaries increase, grim budget realities for students show no sign of abating.
Now consider this: Recently, media outlets reported the Board of Regents denied Matt McGeachy, a student representative to the board, the opportunity to present a report about student concerns on conflicts of interests at the University. The report cited the âÄúTroubled WatersâÄù episode and the suicide of Dan Markingson, who was enrolled in an ethically-blighted University clinical trial when he killed himself. An official apparently cited âÄústylistic concernsâÄù in the report. But University spokesman Dan Wolter told City Pages that student representatives are âÄúmeant to advocate for the student population âÄî not to push a single agenda.âÄù
WeâÄôre positive student representatives are just as competent in gauging the agenda of the students as the officials who denied one that chance. Yet weâÄôve been less than positive what exactly the UniversityâÄôs agenda has been. Without a doubt, transparency has been sorely missing from it.