Return to Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Return
to Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
UI presidential search to start anew next week
Brian Morelli
Iowa City Press-Citizen
Monday, December 11, 2006
Press-Citizen Interviews by E-Mail with Regent Gartner
[Note: This material is copyright by the Press-Citizen, and is reproduced here as a matter of "fair use" for non-commercial, educational purposes only. Any other use may require the prior approval of the Iowa City Press-Citizen.]
The regents will meet at 5 p.m. Monday via conference call.
“I expect to discuss what the view of the majority of regents is as to how to proceed,” Gartner said.
He said he was not sure if the meeting would be open to the public, and that he would follow regent lawyers’ advice on that point.
“I suspect it will be more than just about process,” he said, adding that candidate names would not likely be discussed.
The search for a new UI president has been in flux since regents on Nov. 17 halted their first search, a controversial secretive affair that lasted seven months and cost $195,000. The board voted 6-2 to reject four finalists and disband the search committee that recommended them. On Dec. 4, a regent majority decided to reconsider that vote and extend a job offer to one of the candidates. That unidentified candidate turned down the job.
Gartner said UI, which funds the search, would not have to pay additional costs other than expense to the Atlanta-based search firm Heidrick & Struggles. That firm was retained in April as a search consultant. The contract states that there would be no additional retainer fee for up to nine months, at which point if there were no president the search would be reevaluated.
Gartner said it is his hope to have a president as soon as possible, though he would not specify when he hoped to have a new president named.
Gartner would not share thoughts on who would lead the search or the role of the regents as the process continues. The previous search received considerable campus criticism because the search committee was headed by a regent and included four regents in all. Regents haven’t been a part of previous search committees.
Read Press-Citizen interviews by e-mail with Regent Gartner
Brian Morelli
Iowa City Press-Citizen
December 11, 2006
Thursday -- Morelli asks several questions about search
Editor's note: Some e-mail addresses and phone numbers are edited out because of privacy concerns. Those are noted. Otherwise, the e-mails are unedited.
-----Original Message-----
From: Morelli, Brian <bmorelli@iowacity.gannett.com>
To: Gartner, Michael [Gartner's
e-mail removed]
Sent: Thu Dec 07 15:41:32
2006
Subject: search
Regent Gartner,
I hope the wind is whipping a little less on your end these days.
I have a couple of questions regarding the board's announcement to restart the search for a new president.
1) What did the preferred candidate say as his reason to reject the offer?
2) Was he reluctant to participate in an on-campus interview?
3) What is next for the president search?
4) Should it be regent-lead next time?
5) Do you think the search committee should be made up of a different cast next time?
6) Given there have been some things accomplished through the first search, do you anticipate the process to go more quickly next go round?
7) Will the strife surrounding this search make it more difficult to attract top-tier candidates?
8) Do you believe, as campus group suggest, the make up of the board needs to change in order to land a president? Why?
9) Does it hurt to have the UI without a permanent present for this long? How?
10) Will you be in Iowa City Monday for the BOR meeting?
Thank you for your time and consideration of these questions,
Brian Morelli
University Reporter
Iowa City Press-Citizen
(319) 337-3181 x. 632
(319) 339-7360 (night)
bmorelli@press-citizen.com
Visit a press-citizen Web site at:
www.press-citizen.com <http://www.press-citizen.com/>
www.hawkcentral.com <http://www.hawkcentral.com/>
www.goiowacity.com
Post your own news stories
at http://mypc.press-citizen.com
<http://mypc.press-citizen.com/>
Thursday -- Gartner responds
-----Original Message-----
From: Gartner, Michael [Gartner's
e-mail address removed]
Sent: Thursday, December
07, 2006 5:02 PM
To: Morelli, Brian
Cc: gwstein@iastate.edu
Subject: Re: search
1. I believe there were several. 2. No. 3. We will move ahead as soon as practicable. 4. I don't know. 5. Probably. 6. Yes. 7. No. 8. of course not. This board is committed to finding the very best man or woman to be president. 9. Fethke is doing a fine job but we do need to move ahead with all deliberate speed to find a permanent president. 10. I hope to be there.
--------------------------
Michael Gartner
[Gartner's phone number
removed]
Friday -- Morelli asks another question
-----Original Message-----
From: Morelli, Brian <bmorelli@iowacity.gannett.com>
To: Gartner, Michael [Gartner's
e-mail address removed]
Sent: Fri Dec 08 12:49:52
2006
Subject: RE: search
Regent Gartner,
Did you support any of the four finalists upon reconsideration?
I understand the preferred candidate received majority, but not full support.
Thank you for considering this question,
Brian Morelli
University Reporter
Iowa City Press-Citizen
(319) 337-3181 x. 632
(319) 339-7360 (night)
bmorelli@press-citizen.com
Visit a press-citizen Web site at:
www.press-citizen.com <http://www.press-citizen.com/>
www.hawkcentral.com <http://www.hawkcentral.com/>
www.goiowacity.com
Post your own news stories
at http://mypc.press-citizen.com
<http://mypc.press-citizen.com/>
Friday -- Gartner responds
-----Original Message-----
From: Gartner, Michael [Gartner's
e-mail address removed]
Sent: Friday, December 08,
2006 1:27 PM
To: Morelli, Brian
Subject: Re: search
But I want to make clear there were no votes on any of these people.
--------------------------
Michael Gartner
[Gartner's phone number
removed]
Friday -- Morelli follows up
-----Original Message-----
From: Morelli, Brian <bmorelli@iowacity.gannett.com>
To: Gartner, Michael [Gartner's
e-mail address removed]
Sent: Fri Dec 08 13:30:45
2006
Subject: RE: search
Yes, I understand. Thank you. Did you support the preferred candidate?
Brian Morelli
University Reporter
Iowa City Press-Citizen
(319) 337-3181 x. 632
(319) 339-7360 (night)
bmorelli@press-citizen.com
Visit a press-citizen Web site at:
www.press-citizen.com <http://www.press-citizen.com/>
www.hawkcentral.com <http://www.hawkcentral.com/>
www.goiowacity.com
Post your own news stories
at http://mypc.press-citizen.com
<http://mypc.press-citizen.com/>
Friday -- Gartner responds to follow up
-----Original Message-----
From: Gartner, Michael [Gartner's
e-mail address removed]
Sent: Friday, December 08,
2006 1:34 PM
To: Morelli, Brian
Subject: Re: search
Yes. I said I could support him and one other.
--------------------------
Michael Gartner
[Gartner's phone number
removed]
Friday -- Morelli requests a taped interview
From: Morelli, Brian [mailto:bmorelli@iowacity.gannett.com]
Sent: Friday, December 08,
2006 3:57 PM
To: Gartner, Michael
Subject: RE: search
I interviewed Teresa Wahlert today. I recorded the conversation with her permission, and put it in full on our Web site. I was wondering if you would be willing to participate in a similar interview.
The topics I am interested
in are where the search for a new UI president
goes from here, the makeup
of the board of regents and the rolling meetings of Nov. 9 to Nov. 17.
Thank you for your consideration,
Brian Morelli
University Reporter
Iowa City Press-Citizen
(319) 337-3181 x. 632
(319) 339-7360 (night)
bmorelli@press-citizen.com
Visit a press-citizen Web site at:
www.press-citizen.com <http://www.press-citizen.com/>
www.hawkcentral.com <http://www.hawkcentral.com/>
www.goiowacity.com
Post your own news stories
at http://mypc.press-citizen.com
<http://mypc.press-citizen.com/>
Friday -- Gartner declines taped interview
-----Original Message-----
From: Gartner, Michael [Gartner's
e-mail address removed]
Sent: Friday, December 08,
2006 5:22 PM
To: Morelli, Brian
Subject: RE: search
No thanks, Brian. I prefer to look ahead, not back.
Michael Gartner
Friday -- Morelli asks about faculty accusations
From: Morelli, Brian [mailto:bmorelli@iowacity.gannett.com]
Sent: Friday, December 08,
2006 7:48 PM
To: Gartner, Michael
Subject: RE: search
Mr. Gartner,
I would like to offer the opportunity to respond to accusations against you. Katherine Tachau said that Gary Steinke did a Freedom of Information request to get information about Tachau, Abboud, and Kurtz.
Is that true? Tachau said you used that information to disparage her to student government members. Is that true? This request has been called in appropriate and an attempt to intimidate by Tachau, Kurtz and Bob Downer. Do you think so? Why? Do you have a different recount of these events? If so, what?
Thank you,
Brian Morelli
University Reporter
Iowa City Press-Citizen
(319) 337-3181 x. 632
(319) 339-7360 (night)
bmorelli@press-citizen.com
Visit a press-citizen Web site at:
www.press-citizen.com <http://www.press-citizen.com/>
www.hawkcentral.com <http://www.hawkcentral.com/>
www.goiowacity.com
Post your own news stories
at http://mypc.press-citizen.com
<http://mypc.press-citizen.com/>
Friday -- Gartner responds to faculty accusations
-----Original Message-----
From: Gartner, Michael [mailto:[Gartner's
e-mail address removed]
Sent: Fri 12/8/2006 8:44
PM
To: Morelli, Brian
Cc: [Regent Downer's e-mail
address removed]; Steinke, Gary W [GOV R]
Subject: RE: search
Hi Brian -
Well, it's my understanding
that Gary asked for some salaries in response to a legislative request.
I was not a party to that. (Legislators periodically make requests to the
Regents office. Several months ago, for instance, two legislators asked
for a bunch of hospital data on charity care.) As it happens, though, months
ago Katherine told me she was teaching just one course this semester, and
someone
else told me what her salary
was. (It's in the state database.) So, if repeating those facts - that
Prof. Tachau was teaching one course and that she was making $80,000 or
$90,000 a year, or whatever, is disparagement, then I guess I don't know
what disparagement is. As a matter of fact, I do know what disparagement
is: it's the kinds of things that Profs. Tachau and Kurtz and Ms. Greer
have been saying about me, in print and in person.
Their comments are fact-free.
I probably also repeated another thing Katherine told me - that she uses
only Citgo oil in her car, because she believes that that helps the poor
people of Venezuela. I found that interesting. I am also surprised people
think that using public information - salaries, rank, etc. - is inappropriate
or an attempt to intimidate. I have spent the better part of the past month,
for
instance, going through
my e-mails in response to all kinds of
freedom of information requests
from you and others. I do not view those requests as inappropriate or attempts
to intimidate, but rather just as routine responses to requests for public
information. Bob Downer is a former president of the state bar association,
and frankly I doubt that he thinks that anyone who seeks public information
is doing something that is inappropriate or an attempt to intimidate. I
would also be surprised if Prof. Kurtz - who teaches in the law school
- would
hold that view. But, then,
Prof. Kurtz often surprises me with his views.
At any rate, I do not believe that a legislative request for a professor's salary - a request that I understand was made clearly and openly to the Provost's office - is either inappropriate or an attempt to intimidate. Nor do I believe that repeating that information is inappropriate. If it is, your newspaper and virtually every other newspaper is guilty of that whenever they print a salary or job duties of any public official. And I doubt you believe that.
Michael Gartner
Friday -- Morelli responds
-----Original Message-----
From: Morelli, Brian [mailto:bmorelli@iowacity.gannett.com]
Sent: Friday, December 08,
2006 11:52 PM
To: Gartner, Michael
Subject: RE: search
Regent Gartner,
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful response. I apologize, but I received this message (by only a couple of minutes it looks like) too late to include in Saturday's copy. I expect I would insert these views as this story line continues.
Enjoy your weekend,
Brian Morelli
Saturday -- Gartner follows up
-----Original Message-----
From: Gartner, Michael [Gartner's
e-mail address removed]
Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:04
AM
To: Morelli, Brian; [Downer's
e-mail address removed]; Steinke, Gary W [GOV R]
Cc: Amir Arbisser; [Downer's
e-mail address removed]; Jenny Rokes; Mary Ellen Becker; [Regent Vasquez's
e-mail address removed]; Ruth Harkin; Teresa Wahlert; [Regent Bedell's
e-mail address removed]
Subject: RE: search
Well, Brian, that seems terribly unfair to me. You sent me the e-mail at 7:48 p.m. and I replied at 8:45 p.m. - within an hour. I have tried to respond to every e-mail you have sent me recently, fairly and thoroughly. It looks to me as if you waited until just before deadline to ask the question so you wouldn't have to put in a response.
So you end up with yet another one-sided story with baseless allegations but no response, adding fuel to the Iowa City fire. Your story says "Gartner did not respond to an e-mail request." In fact, as your note to me says, I provided a "thorough and thoughtful response." You could have added "timely" as well. But your readers will never know this -- unless you continue this baseless and damaging "story line" (your words). I think you have been irresponsible, at the very least.
Michael Gartner
Saturday -- Morelli responds
-----Original Message-----
From: Morelli, Brian [mailto:bmorelli@iowacity.gannett.com]
Sent: Saturday, December
09, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Morelli, Brian; [Downer's
e-mail address removed]; Steinke, Gary W [GOV R]
Cc: Amir Arbisser; [Downer's
e-mail address removed]; Jenny Rokes; Mary Ellen Becker; [Regent Vasquez's
e-mail address removed]; Ruth Harkin; Teresa Wahlert; [Regent Bedell's
e-mail address removed]
Subject: RE: search
Mr. Gartner,
You have a valid point in that I did not give you fair turn around time to respond to today's article. I have appreciated your quick, if not at times excruciatingly brief, responses to my recent questions via e-mail.
For example, your Dec. 7 reply "1. I believe there were several. 2. No. 3. We will move ahead as soon as practicable. 4. I don't know. 5. Probably. 6. Yes. 7. No. 8. of course not. This board is committed to finding the very best man or woman to be president. 9. Fethke is doing a fine job but we do need to move ahead with all deliberate speed to find a permanent president. 10. I hope to be there."
I did not plan to use your name in the today's story until I spoke with Prof. Tachau who made an accusation against you that spoke to how the data collected was used. Due to references, I believed the account of what you said was accurate and I used it. It was her opinion that it was disparaging, which she is entitled to express. I spoke with Prof. Tachau minutes before I e-mailed you, which has been the only way to reach you recently as phone calls go unreturned. I did not, as you suggest, wait until the last minute to seek a response in order not to include your response.
This response time I provided was unfair, and I should have waited longer. This was my fourth story I wrote Friday; I was gassed and departed immediatly after it was edited. I can understand your frustrastion. For this scenario I apologize.
I did ask you earlier in the day for an interview, for which I provided the topics. I said I would play the interview with your full responses on the P-C Web site. It was my hopes this would be an opportunity to create less of a one-sided atmosphere and would not have any gray areas as to what was said due to editing. (In my recollection, for most stories I have written recently I have contact you and Regent Wahlert only to not get responses or get one word or very short answers to my questions... your Dec. 8 response being an exception.)
I again extend the request to have an interview with you on the topics of the future of the president search, the rolling meetings from Nov. 9 to Nov. 17 and the current makeup of the board of regents (specifically in light of votes of no confidence).
It is my intent to cover the news fairly. I know what my editorial board has written, and that does not reflect my views.
If you would like to speak about this further I am in Ankeny today and can visit personally, or can be reached at [Morelli's phone number removed].
Sincerely,
Brian Morelli
Saturday -- Gartner responds
-----Original Message-----
From: Gartner, Michael [Gartner's
e-mail address removed]
Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 10:10
AM
To: Morelli, Brian
Cc: Amir Arbisser; [Downer's
e-mail address removed]; Jenny Rokes; Mary Ellen Becker; [Regent Vasquez's
e-mail address removed]; Ruth Harkin; Teresa Wahlert; [Regent Bedell's
e-mail address removed]
Subject: RE: search
Brian --
I'm sorry you're overworked, but that seems to be between you and the Press-Citizen and doesn't involve me. I'm sorry you find my answers too short, but the short answers did answer your questions. If you don't want a yes/no answer, you shouldn't ask a yes/no question, I guess. I'm sorry you have been unable to get hold of me by phone, but (1) I am reasonably busy these days and (2) I have found that answering questions by e-mail is the best way to ensure that I am not misquoted.
But....
1. I responded to your request in a timely way. Even as I write this, I note that that response has not been inserted into the Web version of your story, so it still says I didn't return your message, more than 12 hours after I returned it. 2. If someone says that I maligned her to the student government, shouldn't the story include what the alleged maligning was -- a teacher's salary and work load -- and then let the reader decide if that was maligning or stating the facts. I suspect there are people in this state who would think that $85,000 for nine months and the teaching of one course are simply interesting facts. And she says I maligned her to the "student government." I have never spoken to the "student government," though I meet every six weeks or so with student representatives of all three student governments. There usually are two representatives of the University of Iowa there. I could well have commented on her salary and teaching load, because I find that interesting. But, as I said, if passing along facts is maligning someone, then reporters do it every day in every story. (Although, as I said, I am amazed that you didn't print what the facts were so the reader could decide rather than take Katherine's word for what is "maligning" and what is factual.)
You say in your note that "due to references, I believed that the account of what you said was accurate, and I used it." But, Brian, you didn't use the information -- you just used the allegation.
And, as I have said, I believe that that is unfair and irresponsible.
Why don't you print this entire exchange -- beginning with your query to me of Thursday afternoon -- on your editorial page. Your readers might find it interesting.
Enjoy your weekend.
Michael Gartner
Saturday -- Morelli follows up
-----Original Message-----
From: Morelli, Brian
Sent: Saturday, December
09, 2006 5:39 PM
To: Gartner, Michael
Cc: Amir Arbisser; [Downer's
e-mail address removed]; Jenny Rokes; Mary Ellen Becker; [Regent Vasquez's
e-mail address removed]; Ruth Harkin; Teresa Wahlert; [Regent Bedell's
e-mail address removed]
Subject: RE: search
Mr. Gartner,
1) I am in the process of writing something up identifying your position, and that you did in fact respond. That should be posted online asap. On that note please respond to the following questions:
a) Who was the legislator?
Did they make this request in writing? Why was it needed in such an expedited
fashion?
b) Why information on these
specific people, (those who had been vocally critical of regents)? And,
why at that time? Regent Downer has called it inappropriate, and said it
appeared retaliatory. Do you find it curious the timing of the request?
Do you think it is fair to perceive it as retaliatory or intimidating?
c) Did you view the contents
that were collected? If so, when? And why?
d) Why did you feel it necessary
to comment on a teacher's salary? And why Prof. Tachau? Why not some other
faculty member? And, do you think it is in appropriate for a superior to
speak with a student about their superior (teacher)'s wages and workload?
Can't this be perceived as undermining.
2) To your suggestion of posting this exchange on the ed. page. That is fine by me, and I will forward this exchange to my editors. It is ultimately their call.
3) I understand your point of not wanting to be misquoted, and I am fine by the e-mail exchange format. I do not want to misquote you or anyone else, which to my knowledge has not been an issue... if you do, please provide examples. I do not stand to gain anything by misquoting someone, and for that matter I do not stand to gain anything by having "one-sided" (your words) stories. In fact, I think I have more to gain by having balanced stories, which is my goal and I have strived for.
4) I have asked you twice to participate in recorded interview with the understanding I would post it in full online, as I did with an recent interview with Regent Wahlert. If your worry is being misquoted this would appear to be an ideal format for you, yet you have declined.
5) I never said I was "over worked," those are your words. I was saying it was my last story of the day, and I wanted to leave. And, if you are "reasonably busy these days" I would expect you could understand other reasonably busy people may not wait around for responses, based on the whole of your track record, that may never come. And also, you do have my phone number.
6) You may find it interested that the board director has not returned a phone call of mine (and there have been many) since mid-October. You may find it interesting the regent media contact is not a spokesperson and can not be quoted. How am I supposed to include, and how can you criticize me for not including, the voice of the board or your words being "one-sided" if I am stonewalled by board leadership?
Thank you and again feel free to call me if you like,
Brian Morelli
Saturday -- Gartner responds to follow up
-----Original Message-----
From: Morelli, Brian [mailto:bmorelli@iowacity.gannett.com]
Sent: Saturday, December
09, 2006 5:39 PM
To: Gartner, Michael
Cc: Amir Arbisser; [Downer's
e-mail address removed]; Jenny Rokes; Mary Ellen Becker; [Regent Vasquez's
e-mail address removed]; Ruth Harkin; Teresa Wahlert; [Regent Bedell's
e-mail address removed]
Subject: RE: search
Mr. Gartner,
1) I am in the process of
writing something up identifying your
position, and that you did
in fact respond. That should be posted online
asap. On that note please
respond to the following questions:
a) Who was the legislator?
Did they make this request in writing?
Why was it needed in such
an expedited fashion?
I WAS NOT A PARTY TO THIS SO I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
b) Why information on these
specific people, (those who had been
vocally critical of regents)?
And, why at that time? Regent Downer has
called it inappropriate,
and said it appeared retaliatory. Do you find
it curious the timing of
the request? Do you think it is fair to
perceive it as retaliatory
or intimidating?
AS I SAID, I WAS NOT A PARTY
TO THIS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY REQUEST
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION IS
EVER INAPPROPRIATE OR RETALIATORY, HOWEVER -- AND I SAY THAT AS A PERSON
WHO HAS SPENT HOUR AFTER HOUR IN RECENT WEEKS RESPONDING TO SUCH REQUESTS
FROM YOU AND OTHER REPORTERS. OBVIOUSLY, IF BOB HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW,THAT
SIMPLY MEANS THAT DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS. IF THAT'S THE
CASE, I HOPE THAT BOB ALSO FEELS THAT ALL THE FOI REQUESTS I HAVE BEEN
GETTING ARE ALSO INAPPROPRIATE. I'LL ASK HIM WHEN I SEE HIM MONDAY. AT
ANY RATE, THAT SEEMS TO BE BETWEEN HIM AND THE LEGISLATOR, WHOEVER HE OR
SHE IS.
c) Did you view the contents
that were collected? If so, when?
And why?
NO.
d) Why did you feel it necessary to comment on a teacher's salary? And why Prof. Tachau? Why not some other faculty member? And, do you think it is in appropriate for a superior to speak with a student about their superior (teacher)'s wages and workload? Can't this be perceived as undermining.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT I SUSPECT WE WERE SITTING AROUND TALKING ABOUT THE COMMITTEE, AND I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF I SAID THAT I'D LIKE A JOB LIKE THAT -- BIG PAY FOR TEACHING ONE COURSE. THAT IS MERELY MY AFTER-THE-FACT CONJECTURE, HOWEVER, FOR I DON'T REMEMBER THE CONVERSATION WITH PETER OR ANYONE ELSE. THE REASON I KNEW SHE TAUGHT ONLY ONE COURSE IS BECAUSE SHE TOLD ME.
2) To your suggestion of
posting this exchange on the ed. page. That is
fine by me, and I will forward
this exchange to my editors. It is
ultimately their call.
3) I understand your point
of not wanting to be misquoted, and I am fine
by the e-mail exchange format.
I do not want to misquote you or anyone
else, which to my knowledge
has not been an issue... if you do, please
provide examples. I do not
stand to gain anything by misquoting someone,
and for that matter I do
not stand to gain anything by having
"one-sided" (your words)
stories. In fact, I think I have more to gain
by having balanced stories,
which is my goal and I have strived for.
I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU HERE, AND I DIDN'T SAY THAT YOU IN PARTICULAR HAD MISQUOTED ME. IF I DID, I APOLOGIZE.
4) I have asked you twice
to participate in recorded interview with the
understanding I would post
it in full online, as I did with an recent
interview with Regent Wahlert.
If your worry is being misquoted this
would appear to be an ideal
format for you, yet you have declined.
THANKS, BUT I'LL TAKE A PASS ON THAT, AS I TOLD YOU EARLIER.
5) I never said I was "over
worked," those are your words. I was saying
it was my last story of
the day, and I wanted to leave. And, if you are
"reasonably busy these days"
I would expect you could understand other
reasonably busy people may
not wait around for responses, based on the
whole of your track record,
that may never come. And also, you do have
my phone number.
YOU SAID YOU WERE "GASSED" AND THAT YOU HAD WRITTEN FOUR STORIES. WE ARE OF DIFFERENT GENERATIONS, SO PERHAPS "GASSED" MEANS SOMETHING DIFERENT TO YOU THAN TO ME. I TOOK THAT TO MEAN THAT YOU FELT YOU HAD DONE A WHOLE LOT AND WERE TIRED AND WEREN'T WAITING AROUND. INCIDENTALLY, WHAT WAS THE DEADLINE FOR THAT STORY?
6) You may find it interested
that the board director has not returned a
phone call of mine (and
there have been many) since mid-October. You may
find it interesting the
regent media contact is not a spokesperson and
can not be quoted. How am
I supposed to include, and how can you
criticize me for not including,
the voice of the board or your words
being "one-sided" if I am
stonewalled by board leadership?
I HAVE ANSWERED EVERY QUERY YOU HAVE SENT ME FOR THE PAST WEEK OR SO. I AM OFTEN DIFFICULT TO REACH BY PHONE; I TRY TO ANSWER ALL E-MAILS. AS FOR STEINKE, HE, LIKE YOU, WORKS HARD AND DOESN'T ALWAYS GET TO EVERYTHING IN A DAY. BUT I NOTE THAT TERESA WAHLERT HAS ANSWERED YOUR RECENT QUERIES, AS HAVE I.
Thank you and again feel free to call me if you like,
Brian Morelli
Saturday -- Morelli responds to Gartner's follow up
see No. 5
-----Original Message-----
From: Gartner, Michael [Gartner's
e-mail address removed]
Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 5:55
PM
To: Morelli, Brian
Cc: Amir Arbisser; [Downer's
e-mail address removed]; Jenny Rokes; Mary Ellen Becker; [Regent Vasquez's
e-mail address removed]; Ruth Harkin; Teresa Wahlert; [Regent Bedell's
e-mail address removed]
Subject: RE: search
-----Original Message-----
From: Morelli, Brian [mailto:bmorelli@iowacity.gannett.com]
Sent: Saturday, December
09, 2006 5:39 PM
To: Gartner, Michael
Cc: Amir Arbisser; [Downer's
e-mail address removed]; Jenny Rokes; Mary Ellen Becker; [Regent Vasquez's
e-mail address removed]; Ruth Harkin; Teresa Wahlert; [Regent Bedell's
e-mail address removed]
Subject: RE: search
Mr. Gartner,
1) I am in the process of writing something up identifying your position, and that you did in fact respond. That should be posted online asap. On that note please respond to the following questions:
a) Who was the legislator?
Did they make this request in writing?
Why was it needed in such
an expedited fashion?
I WAS NOT A PARTY TO THIS SO I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
b) Why information on these
specific people, (those who had been
vocally critical of regents)?
And, why at that time? Regent Downer has
called it inappropriate,
and said it appeared retaliatory. Do you find
it curious the timing of
the request? Do you think it is fair to
perceive it as retaliatory
or intimidating?
AS I SAID, I WAS NOT A PARTY
TO THIS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY REQUEST
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION IS
EVER INAPPROPRIATE OR RETALIATORY, HOWEVER -- AND I SAY THAT AS A PERSON
WHO HAS SPENT HOUR AFTER HOUR IN RECENT WEEKS RESPONDING TO SUCH REQUESTS
FROM YOU AND OTHER REPORTERS. OBVIOUSLY, IF BOB HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW,THAT
SIMPLY MEANS THAT DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS. IF THAT'S THE
CASE, I HOPE THAT BOB ALSO FEELS THAT ALL THE FOI REQUESTS I HAVE BEEN
GETTING ARE ALSO INAPPROPRIATE. I'LL ASK HIM WHEN I SEE HIM MONDAY. AT
ANY RATE, THAT SEEMS TO BE BETWEEN HIM AND THE LEGISLATOR, WHOEVER HE OR
SHE IS.
c) Did you view the contents
that were collected? If so, when?
And why?
NO.
d) Why did you feel it necessary
to comment on a teacher's
salary? And why Prof. Tachau?
Why not some other faculty member? And, do
you think it is in appropriate
for a superior to speak with a student
about their superior (teacher)'s
wages and workload? Can't this be
perceived as undermining.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT I SUSPECT WE WERE SITTING AROUND TALKING ABOUT THE COMMITTEE, AND I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF I SAID THAT I'D LIKE A JOB LIKE THAT -- BIG PAY FOR TEACHING ONE COURSE. THAT IS MERELY MY AFTER-THE-FACT CONJECTURE, HOWEVER, FOR I DON'T REMEMBER THE CONVERSATION WITH PETER OR ANYONE ELSE. THE REASON I KNEW SHE TAUGHT ONLY ONE COURSE IS BECAUSE SHE TOLD ME.
2) To your suggestion of
posting this exchange on the ed. page. That is
fine by me, and I will forward
this exchange to my editors. It is
ultimately their call.
3) I understand your point
of not wanting to be misquoted, and I am fine
by the e-mail exchange format.
I do not want to misquote you or anyone
else, which to my knowledge
has not been an issue... if you do, please
provide examples. I do not
stand to gain anything by misquoting someone,
and for that matter I do
not stand to gain anything by having
"one-sided" (your words)
stories. In fact, I think I have more to gain
by having balanced stories,
which is my goal and I have strived for.
I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU HERE, AND I DIDN'T SAY THAT YOU IN PARTICULAR HAD MISQUOTED ME. IF I DID, I APOLOGIZE.
4) I have asked you twice
to participate in recorded interview with the
understanding I would post
it in full online, as I did with an recent
interview with Regent Wahlert.
If your worry is being misquoted this
would appear to be an ideal
format for you, yet you have declined.
THANKS, BUT I'LL TAKE A PASS ON THAT, AS I TOLD YOU EARLIER.
5) I never said I was "over
worked," those are your words. I was saying
it was my last story of
the day, and I wanted to leave. And, if you are
"reasonably busy these days"
I would expect you could understand other
reasonably busy people may
not wait around for responses, based on the
whole of your track record,
that may never come. And also, you do have
my phone number.
YOU SAID YOU WERE "GASSED" AND THAT YOU HAD WRITTEN FOUR STORIES. WE ARE OF DIFFERENT GENERATIONS, SO PERHAPS "GASSED" MEANS SOMETHING DIFERENT TO YOU THAN TO ME. I TOOK THAT TO MEAN THAT YOU FELT YOU HAD DONE A WHOLE LOT AND WERE TIRED AND WEREN'T WAITING AROUND. INCIDENTALLY, WHAT WAS THE DEADLINE FOR THAT STORY?
My deadline was as soon as
I could get finished. As I left after the story was edited and drove that
night to Des Moines, I was unaware that you tried to respond until 11:30
p.m. or whenever it was I wrote you back. By that point the deadline had
officially passed as copy was being sent to or already on the printer.
6) You may find it interested
that the board director has not returned a
phone call of mine (and
there have been many) since mid-October. You may
find it interesting the
regent media contact is not a spokesperson and
can not be quoted. How am
I supposed to include, and how can you
criticize me for not including,
the voice of the board or your words
being "one-sided" if I am
stonewalled by board leadership?
I HAVE ANSWERED EVERY QUERY YOU HAVE SENT ME FOR THE PAST WEEK OR SO. I AM OFTEN DIFFICULT TO REACH BY PHONE; I TRY TO ANSWER ALL E-MAILS. AS FOR STEINKE, HE, LIKE YOU, WORKS HARD AND DOESN'T ALWAYS GET TO EVERYTHING IN A DAY. BUT I NOTE THAT TERESA WAHLERT HAS ANSWERED YOUR RECENT QUERIES, AS HAVE I.
Thank you and again feel free to call me if you like,
Brian Morelli