Purdue search panel violates state notice law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The search committee for Purdue University's new president had private meetings this week that a state official said were held without sufficient public notice under Indiana law.

The 14-person search committee, which includes four Purdue Board of Trustees members, met Monday evening at a downtown Indianapolis restaurant and Tuesday at a nearby hotel. The Journal & Courier reported Wednesday that the trustees announced the meetings Monday morning, seven hours before the first session started.

State public access counselor Joseph Hoage said Purdue should have notified the public and media of the meetings by 5 p.m. last Thursday to meet legal requirements.

"If they don't comply, they are not providing proper notice," Hoage said. "If someone filed a formal complaint with the office, we could issue an opinion statement that they are violating an open-door law. Then, they could redo the meeting or respond another way."

Search committee chairman Mike Berghoff, a Purdue trustee from Indianapolis, said details of the meetings were finalized last week but the notice was not posted at that time by the trustees office. Berghoff said he decided to post the notice late and hold the meeting.

"I wanted to understand what options we had. One of them, we could have canceled the meeting," he said. "There was quite a bit of travel involved and plans made. There were no votes or conclusions made at the meeting, but it was a mistake."

The panel is looking to replace President France Cordova, who is stepping down this summer after five years leading the school. The university has about 75,000 students at its West Lafayette and regional campuses.

Cordova, who turns 65 in August, announced her retirement last July. The search committee is expected to develop a list of finalists to replace her this spring.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.