13 meeting will, in fact, be a board meeting and “We anticipated voting on certain matters including the retention plan and having a discussion and possible vote on our go forward governance approach.” 5: Petersmeyer responds and indicates the Sept. Petersmeyer failed to respond for nearly a week.” Presumably concerned with the governance issues raised herein, Mr. 31: Oregon State general counsel Rebecca Gore writes to Kliavkoff and Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer “to confirm that the contemplated meeting would not be a meeting of the Pac-12 Board of Directors. The complaint states that WSU and OSU were “understandably concerned that the Commissioner’s August 29 communication proposing a ‘meeting of all Conference CEOs,’ and his assistant’s subsequent communication describing this meeting as a ‘Board Meeting,’ created the false impression that representatives of all twelve Conference members remain eligible to serve on the Pac-12 Board and to vote on Board matters.”Īug. 30: Kliavkoff’s assistant (unnamed) follows up to schedule a “Pac-12 Board Meeting” for the week of September 11. The complaint states that “by characterizing the meeting as a ‘meeting of all Conference CEOs’ rather than a Board Meeting, the Commissioner sought to circumvent the clear language of the Withdrawal provision and empower the departing members to decide matters that properly may be decided only by the Board.”Īug. Schulz declines, citing “the rapidly evolving situation concerning the departing members.”įollowing the call, Kliavkoff writes to the 12 presidents and chancellors and proposes a “meeting of all ‘Conference CEOs’ to discuss ‘complex issues facing the Conference.’”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |