(05-23-2019 01:46 AM)Stammers Wrote: Disgusting to release that letter.
They had no choice.
Actually the university did have a choice. FOIA is not a magic wand that immediately gets information released no matter how specific the request. If an investigation is in process, there is ample legal reason not to comply. And the university has to be careful releasing unfounded accusations to avoid liability to Bowen. Liability is always a two way street until matters are settled.
(05-23-2019 01:46 AM)Stammers Wrote: Disgusting to release that letter.
They had no choice.
Actually the university did have a choice. FOIA is not a magic wand that immediately gets information released no matter how specific the request. If an investigation is in process, there is ample legal reason not to comply. And the university has to be careful releasing unfounded accusations to avoid liability to Bowen. Liability is always a two way street until matters are settled.
How do you know the matter isn't settled?
Again, IF (all caps) this involves another UofM employee, HR is not required to release any info involving that person under the Bowen FOIA, so it would be possible that the letter is released, but the actual further investigation could not be.
The lag time between his resignation & the public announcement would make me think that HR was indeed digging deeper during that time.
(05-23-2019 01:46 AM)Stammers Wrote: Disgusting to release that letter.
They had no choice.
Actually the university did have a choice. FOIA is not a magic wand that immediately gets information released no matter how specific the request. If an investigation is in process, there is ample legal reason not to comply. And the university has to be careful releasing unfounded accusations to avoid liability to Bowen. Liability is always a two way street until matters are settled.
How do you know the matter isn't settled?
Again, IF (all caps) this involves another UofM employee, HR is not required to release any info involving that person under the Bowen FOIA, so it would be possible that the letter is released, but the actual further investigation could not be.
The lag time between his resignation & the public announcement would make me think that HR was indeed digging deeper during that time.
No way an investigation has been completed & documented. If HR is involved & investigating, the university has months before they would need to release the letter or anything pertaining to it. And further releasing early invites scrutiny & potentially, liability toward any of the parties involved. Just speculation in the letter, in the article & in the comments here so there has to be an investigation.
(05-23-2019 01:46 AM)Stammers Wrote: Disgusting to release that letter.
They had no choice.
Actually the university did have a choice. FOIA is not a magic wand that immediately gets information released no matter how specific the request. If an investigation is in process, there is ample legal reason not to comply. And the university has to be careful releasing unfounded accusations to avoid liability to Bowen. Liability is always a two way street until matters are settled.
How do you know the matter isn't settled?
Again, IF (all caps) this involves another UofM employee, HR is not required to release any info involving that person under the Bowen FOIA, so it would be possible that the letter is released, but the actual further investigation could not be.
The lag time between his resignation & the public announcement would make me think that HR was indeed digging deeper during that time.
No way an investigation has been completed & documented. If HR is involved & investigating, the university has months before they would need to release the letter or anything pertaining to it. And further releasing early invites scrutiny & potentially, liability toward any of the parties involved. Just speculation in the letter, in the article & in the comments here so there has to be an investigation.
How is there no way? It's been a little more than a month.
For a high-profile employee & situation like this (particularly one Rudd wants an answer to) that supposedly involves internal staff, it could be handled quickly.
Again, I'm not saying it HAS been completed, but it is entirely possible that HR's investigation was completed in 3-4 weeks.
(05-23-2019 01:46 AM)Stammers Wrote: Disgusting to release that letter.
They had no choice.
Actually the university did have a choice. FOIA is not a magic wand that immediately gets information released no matter how specific the request. If an investigation is in process, there is ample legal reason not to comply. And the university has to be careful releasing unfounded accusations to avoid liability to Bowen. Liability is always a two way street until matters are settled.
How do you know the matter isn't settled?
Again, IF (all caps) this involves another UofM employee, HR is not required to release any info involving that person under the Bowen FOIA, so it would be possible that the letter is released, but the actual further investigation could not be.
The lag time between his resignation & the public announcement would make me think that HR was indeed digging deeper during that time.
No way an investigation has been completed & documented. If HR is involved & investigating, the university has months before they would need to release the letter or anything pertaining to it. And further releasing early invites scrutiny & potentially, liability toward any of the parties involved. Just speculation in the letter, in the article & in the comments here so there has to be an investigation.
There are a handful of exceptions to the Tennessee Open Records Act that apply to post secondary institutions. Most concern not releasing student records and personal info, like SS numbers. As far as I could tell, none seem to involve avoiding embarrassment. Which of the exceptions do you think Memphis could have used, or do you just think they should have simply dragged their feet on releasing the letter?
(05-23-2019 02:06 AM)memtigbb Wrote: They had no choice.
Actually the university did have a choice. FOIA is not a magic wand that immediately gets information released no matter how specific the request. If an investigation is in process, there is ample legal reason not to comply. And the university has to be careful releasing unfounded accusations to avoid liability to Bowen. Liability is always a two way street until matters are settled.
How do you know the matter isn't settled?
Again, IF (all caps) this involves another UofM employee, HR is not required to release any info involving that person under the Bowen FOIA, so it would be possible that the letter is released, but the actual further investigation could not be.
The lag time between his resignation & the public announcement would make me think that HR was indeed digging deeper during that time.
No way an investigation has been completed & documented. If HR is involved & investigating, the university has months before they would need to release the letter or anything pertaining to it. And further releasing early invites scrutiny & potentially, liability toward any of the parties involved. Just speculation in the letter, in the article & in the comments here so there has to be an investigation.
There are a handful of exceptions to the Tennessee Open Records Act that apply to post secondary institutions. Most concern not releasing student records and personal info, like SS numbers. As far as I could tell, none seem to involve avoiding embarrassment. Which of the exceptions do you think Memphis could have used, or do you just think they should have simply dragged their feet on releasing the letter?
Yes, time. The university had time. A gov agency generally has 20 business days (a month) to just acknowledge the request to say they will comply in the future. Then they have all sorts of reasons to take a substantial amount of time to actually provide data.
(05-23-2019 10:26 AM)Unionman76 Wrote: If you study Memphis business history
Divorcing wife and marrying an employee
Is very common
(Its always da blond)
So right. OR divorcing wife, marrying someone and making them an employee/partner/officer. I could tell stories, as could most Memphians. Extremely common here. Almost the rule rather than the exception.
But then, after 44 years of covering divorces in court, there are LOTS of things I could tell.
(05-22-2019 07:51 PM)k2tigers Wrote: I thought most states are hire / terminate at will.
Employers reneg offers a lot.
From the letter it appears she was his subordinate which is a big no no nowadays.
So why wouldn't she get his room key for him then? And sit with him at games? Like Brother Robert told me after I BS'd a paper in Honors English: "I'm not sure you read the material."
I still despise that man after 20 something years.
Most informative post on this entire thread. Shut it down!
(05-23-2019 10:35 AM)Atlanta Wrote: Actually the university did have a choice. FOIA is not a magic wand that immediately gets information released no matter how specific the request. If an investigation is in process, there is ample legal reason not to comply. And the university has to be careful releasing unfounded accusations to avoid liability to Bowen. Liability is always a two way street until matters are settled.
How do you know the matter isn't settled?
Again, IF (all caps) this involves another UofM employee, HR is not required to release any info involving that person under the Bowen FOIA, so it would be possible that the letter is released, but the actual further investigation could not be.
The lag time between his resignation & the public announcement would make me think that HR was indeed digging deeper during that time.
No way an investigation has been completed & documented. If HR is involved & investigating, the university has months before they would need to release the letter or anything pertaining to it. And further releasing early invites scrutiny & potentially, liability toward any of the parties involved. Just speculation in the letter, in the article & in the comments here so there has to be an investigation.
There are a handful of exceptions to the Tennessee Open Records Act that apply to post secondary institutions. Most concern not releasing student records and personal info, like SS numbers. As far as I could tell, none seem to involve avoiding embarrassment. Which of the exceptions do you think Memphis could have used, or do you just think they should have simply dragged their feet on releasing the letter?
Yes, time. The university had time. A gov agency generally has 20 business days (a month) to just acknowledge the request to say they will comply in the future. Then they have all sorts of reasons to take a substantial amount of time to actually provide data.
B) The custodian of a public record or the custodian’s designee shall promptly make available for inspection any public record not specifically exempt from disclosure. In the event it is not practicable for the record to be promptly available for inspection, the custodian shall, within seven (7) business days: (i) Make the information available to the requestor; (ii) Deny the request in writing or by completing a records request response form developed by the office of open records counsel. The response shall include the basis for the denial; or (iii) Furnish the requestor a completed records request response form developed by the office of open records counsel stating the time reasonably necessary to produce the record or information T.C.A. § 10-7-503(a)(2)(B)
There are financial penalties for not complying. Besides, just delaying it wouldn't prevent any liability issues you've suggested might occur.
(05-23-2019 10:31 AM)tigergreen Wrote: A lot of you don't seem to understand how FOIA works.
The Daily Memphian made the FOIA request to the UofM for all documents pertaining to Bowen's resignation.
The bolded is the important point. This was not Bowen's entire personnel file.
The UofM handed over the documents, including the letter accusing Bowen of inappropriate behavior. That means that this accusation is at least a part of the reason he's gone.
The fact that Bowen resigned only FOUR days after this letter was sent to UofM lends to this.
The fact that Allie Prescott was contacted regarding an interim position shortly after Bowen sent the resignation, but prior to the official announcement ties in with the timeline as well.
The redactions in the letter are likely in order to protect the identity of the accuser - especially if, as some have alluded to, it is another UofM employee. HR rules would demand that.
You can say that the accusation itself is fishy all you want, but the fact remains that it is at least a part of the reason he's gone.
I have no doubt that Bowen has been actively looking for other jobs, because he's done that since day one, pretty much. However, time will tell if he actually has secured another position.
this was the point I unsuccessfully tried to make.
Letter wrote - 4 days later seeyalataz....
Eloquently stated ma'am, thank you.
(05-23-2019 10:42 AM)tigergreen Wrote: How do you know the matter isn't settled?
Again, IF (all caps) this involves another UofM employee, HR is not required to release any info involving that person under the Bowen FOIA, so it would be possible that the letter is released, but the actual further investigation could not be.
The lag time between his resignation & the public announcement would make me think that HR was indeed digging deeper during that time.
No way an investigation has been completed & documented. If HR is involved & investigating, the university has months before they would need to release the letter or anything pertaining to it. And further releasing early invites scrutiny & potentially, liability toward any of the parties involved. Just speculation in the letter, in the article & in the comments here so there has to be an investigation.
There are a handful of exceptions to the Tennessee Open Records Act that apply to post secondary institutions. Most concern not releasing student records and personal info, like SS numbers. As far as I could tell, none seem to involve avoiding embarrassment. Which of the exceptions do you think Memphis could have used, or do you just think they should have simply dragged their feet on releasing the letter?
Yes, time. The university had time. A gov agency generally has 20 business days (a month) to just acknowledge the request to say they will comply in the future. Then they have all sorts of reasons to take a substantial amount of time to actually provide data.
B) The custodian of a public record or the custodian’s designee shall promptly make available for inspection any public record not specifically exempt from disclosure. In the event it is not practicable for the record to be promptly available for inspection, the custodian shall, within seven (7) business days: (i) Make the information available to the requestor; (ii) Deny the request in writing or by completing a records request response form developed by the office of open records counsel. The response shall include the basis for the denial; or (iii) Furnish the requestor a completed records request response form developed by the office of open records counsel stating the time reasonably necessary to produce the record or information T.C.A. § 10-7-503(a)(2)(B)
There are financial penalties for not complying. Besides, just delaying it wouldn't prevent any liability issues you've suggested might occur.
The discussion is a FOIA request governed under Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, which provides for a 20 day required response time. Are you saying the request was made under a TN state statute? If so it is not a FOIA request. Even under the TN statute it states "a public record". Is a personnel file a public record?
(This post was last modified: 05-23-2019 12:19 PM by Atlanta.)
(05-23-2019 11:18 AM)Atlanta Wrote: No way an investigation has been completed & documented. If HR is involved & investigating, the university has months before they would need to release the letter or anything pertaining to it. And further releasing early invites scrutiny & potentially, liability toward any of the parties involved. Just speculation in the letter, in the article & in the comments here so there has to be an investigation.
There are a handful of exceptions to the Tennessee Open Records Act that apply to post secondary institutions. Most concern not releasing student records and personal info, like SS numbers. As far as I could tell, none seem to involve avoiding embarrassment. Which of the exceptions do you think Memphis could have used, or do you just think they should have simply dragged their feet on releasing the letter?
Yes, time. The university had time. A gov agency generally has 20 business days (a month) to just acknowledge the request to say they will comply in the future. Then they have all sorts of reasons to take a substantial amount of time to actually provide data.
B) The custodian of a public record or the custodian’s designee shall promptly make available for inspection any public record not specifically exempt from disclosure. In the event it is not practicable for the record to be promptly available for inspection, the custodian shall, within seven (7) business days: (i) Make the information available to the requestor; (ii) Deny the request in writing or by completing a records request response form developed by the office of open records counsel. The response shall include the basis for the denial; or (iii) Furnish the requestor a completed records request response form developed by the office of open records counsel stating the time reasonably necessary to produce the record or information T.C.A. § 10-7-503(a)(2)(B)
There are financial penalties for not complying. Besides, just delaying it wouldn't prevent any liability issues you've suggested might occur.
The discussion is a FOIA request governed under Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, which provides for a 20 day required response time. Are you saying the request was made under a TN state statute? If so it is not a FOIA request. Even under the TN statute it states "a public record". Is a personnel file a public record?
We may be all (myself included) interchanging the wrong terms, here. "Open records request" could be TN.
"The heavily redacted April 16 letter was obtained by The Daily Memphian in an open records request seeking any documents pertaining to 'behavior or other circumstances that may have contributed to (Bowen’s) resignation.'”
(05-23-2019 11:30 AM)roundhouse74 Wrote: There are a handful of exceptions to the Tennessee Open Records Act that apply to post secondary institutions. Most concern not releasing student records and personal info, like SS numbers. As far as I could tell, none seem to involve avoiding embarrassment. Which of the exceptions do you think Memphis could have used, or do you just think they should have simply dragged their feet on releasing the letter?
Yes, time. The university had time. A gov agency generally has 20 business days (a month) to just acknowledge the request to say they will comply in the future. Then they have all sorts of reasons to take a substantial amount of time to actually provide data.
B) The custodian of a public record or the custodian’s designee shall promptly make available for inspection any public record not specifically exempt from disclosure. In the event it is not practicable for the record to be promptly available for inspection, the custodian shall, within seven (7) business days: (i) Make the information available to the requestor; (ii) Deny the request in writing or by completing a records request response form developed by the office of open records counsel. The response shall include the basis for the denial; or (iii) Furnish the requestor a completed records request response form developed by the office of open records counsel stating the time reasonably necessary to produce the record or information T.C.A. § 10-7-503(a)(2)(B)
There are financial penalties for not complying. Besides, just delaying it wouldn't prevent any liability issues you've suggested might occur.
The discussion is a FOIA request governed under Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, which provides for a 20 day required response time. Are you saying the request was made under a TN state statute? If so it is not a FOIA request. Even under the TN statute it states "a public record". Is a personnel file a public record?
We may be all (myself included) interchanging the wrong terms, here. "Open records request" could be TN.
"The heavily redacted April 16 letter was obtained by The Daily Memphian in an open records request seeking any documents pertaining to 'behavior or other circumstances that may have contributed to (Bowen’s) resignation.'”
That gets me back to my point that someone wanted this information out - in terms of how the info was requested & how quickly it was provided. I would think just for the years here that Bowen would have earned enough respect that a letter like that with no collaborating evidence could have been buried in personnel file data that would not be made public had there not be a desire to make it public - especially since it will likely have an effect on his getting another job. Animosity seems to be running deep..........
(05-23-2019 11:38 AM)Atlanta Wrote: Yes, time. The university had time. A gov agency generally has 20 business days (a month) to just acknowledge the request to say they will comply in the future. Then they have all sorts of reasons to take a substantial amount of time to actually provide data.
B) The custodian of a public record or the custodian’s designee shall promptly make available for inspection any public record not specifically exempt from disclosure. In the event it is not practicable for the record to be promptly available for inspection, the custodian shall, within seven (7) business days: (i) Make the information available to the requestor; (ii) Deny the request in writing or by completing a records request response form developed by the office of open records counsel. The response shall include the basis for the denial; or (iii) Furnish the requestor a completed records request response form developed by the office of open records counsel stating the time reasonably necessary to produce the record or information T.C.A. § 10-7-503(a)(2)(B)
There are financial penalties for not complying. Besides, just delaying it wouldn't prevent any liability issues you've suggested might occur.
The discussion is a FOIA request governed under Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, which provides for a 20 day required response time. Are you saying the request was made under a TN state statute? If so it is not a FOIA request. Even under the TN statute it states "a public record". Is a personnel file a public record?
We may be all (myself included) interchanging the wrong terms, here. "Open records request" could be TN.
"The heavily redacted April 16 letter was obtained by The Daily Memphian in an open records request seeking any documents pertaining to 'behavior or other circumstances that may have contributed to (Bowen’s) resignation.'”
That gets me back to my point that someone wanted this information out - in terms of how the info was requested & how quickly it was provided. I would think just for the years here that Bowen would have earned enough respect that a letter like that with no collaborating evidence could have been buried in personnel file data that would not be made public had there not be a desire to make it public - especially since it will likely have an effect on his getting another job. Animosity seems to be running deep..........
I have the gut feeling someone told someone else they should request it.
(05-23-2019 10:26 AM)Unionman76 Wrote: If you study Memphis business history
Divorcing wife and marrying an employee
Is very common
(Its always da blond)
LOL, please. So this is a problem unique to Memphis? Give me a break.
If anything really happened at all. Not saying it did or didn't, but what they have is a letter from someone who thought it was odd behavior. There has got to be more to it than that.
Ugh, what a mess. From the latest Mark G. article:
Quote:I’m not here to tell you what to believe. Frankly, I don't know what to believe. It’s all a bit murky at this point. But believe this: None of this is particularly good for the University of Memphis. Bowen, for one, has hired a crisis communications expert to help navigate all this. If the release of this letter prevents him from being named the Southern Conference commissioner – a position for which he is believed to be a candidate – would a defamation lawsuit against the university follow?
/
Bowen caught messing around...
