Printer-Friendly Version

College Cover-up or Innocent Oversight?
By Jeni Horn, Ohio State Editor
August, 2004

On July 9th, 2004, in the midst of the hazy, lazy crazy days of summer, the trustees of the Ohio State University, without public notice, made an abrupt decision to extend marriage like benefits to unmarried homosexual and heterosexual partners (with a special subsidy for those choosing the same-sex variety). In a front page story the Columbus Dispatch reported as follows,

"Twelve days ago, Ohio State University officials said the school had no plans for "any specific action" concerning health benefits for domestic partners. Yesterday, without public discussion and without public knowledge beforehand, the Board of Trustees approved the most specific act possible on the issue when it extended full benefits to same-sex domestic partners of faculty and staff members, as well as their children.

The long-debated issue wasn't on the board's revised agenda yesterday. It was added at the last minute just before the July meeting. Board members did not see the proposal until seconds before they voted on the nearly $1 million annual expense, and those in the audience did not see it until the end of the meeting."

It was a sad spectacle of a great university being reduced to misleading statements and secretive maneuvering. What would cause such seeming secrecy? What unrevealed agenda might account for an institution that presumably takes pride in ideas such as open inquiry and honest debate to act in what would appear to be hypocritical manner? Tragically, such shenanigans seem to often accompany actions taken by public bodies where the purpose or effect is promoting or legitimizing sexual relationships outside of marriage. Indeed it seems that those who wish to give the benefits and recognition of marriage to those who are not married just can't resist the temptation to keep a disapproving public in the dark with unannounced votes and missing agenda items. They seem to have lost sight of a basic rule of public accountability: "Honesty is the best policy."

An independent observer might have thought that after a number of newspapers in Ohio completed a joint project which documented how poorly many state entities observe Ohio's open records and meetings rules, known as the "Sunshine Laws," that the scholars and administrators at OSU would have understood the importance of public notice and open debate. Certainly each trustee should know the law. If guidance is needed, the attorney general's office provides training seminars throughout the state and has the Sunshine Law rules posted on their website. OSU officials meekly responded that there has been discussion around the campus a number of years about the idea of extending what one columnist once called a "shacking up" subsidy. But it seems like when it comes to publicly airing sensitive plans that would be known to provoke controversy the university hasn't learned very much. Or perhaps, they think they have learned a lot.

Whatever OSU's degree of culpability, the public intuitively knows that something is terribly wrong when the university keeps controversial agenda items under an effective cloak of darkness in order to stage a surprise vote on something in which the public and press have an undeniable interest. The missing July 9th agenda items give new meaning to the phrase "stealth technology."

Furthermore the university's furtive actions may cause taxpayers to be suspicious that they will ultimately be the source of the "nearly $1 million annual expense" that the university has by its own admission has "not [yet] determined how it will pay for," but that it assures us that "no state money will be used for." Hidden actions by a public body do not give rise to confidence. And the fact that nearly a million dollars of expense is added without the knowledge of where it's coming from strains credulity. In an age of corporate indictments, misleading statements and debates over the meaning of "is," credibility is a very fragile commodity. If press reports are of any indication, that credibility has been seriously damaged. A sampling of editorial comment from around the state showed comments like,

"The board also 'is there to support our president and administration," said board Chairwoman Tami Longaberger. It could be called the Ohio State University/Enron Board of Trustees. ... Longaberger could not recall a dissenting vote in her eight years on the board. It could be called the Ohio State University Politburo." --Lancaster Gazette

There's been an interesting, yet disturbing, saga playing out this week between the trustees of Ohio State University and other universities regarding Ohio's open meetings law. Amazingly, those who decide how to spend millions of dollars on higher education can't quite comprehend the meaning of a quorum and why trustees must throw the doors open to the public. ...[The universities'] comments should anger every taxpayer. --Newark Advocate

Experts on the Sunshine Law and the Ohio Attorney General all strongly questioned the university's actions.

"No decisions can ever be entertained or made in private -- whatsoever, under any circumstances," said Tim Smith, a Kent State University journalism professor specializing in open records and media law. "So what you've got is blather and bull from the attorney. "If they asked questions of the president, that was a discussion. This was a violation of the Sunshine Law."

Thomas Hodson, a former lawyer and judge who is director of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University. noted, "The burden is really upon the government to show that they complied [with the Sunshine Law]. --"Was this (closed meeting) prearranged? Yes. Did they discuss business? Yes. If then they took action, then that action could be void. It certainly would open it to possible litigation."

The Sunshine Law creates a bare minimum level of openness that is legally required of the Trustees. It does not set a standard they should work hard not to exceed. Rather, they should aspire to disclose more than what is legally required to those they serve - the taxpaying public. Trust and openness go hand in hand. Should we not expect, and demand, a higher standard than what unfolded at Ohio's leading institution of higher learning on July 9th?

Of course it is no longer surprising that officials might wish to keep such actions free from public knowledge or scrutiny. Indeed that is the recent history in central Ohio of attempts to extend the recognition or benefits associated with marriage to unmarried sexual partners. As has been consistently reported in Columbus, when government entities seek to give benefits specifically to cohabiting partners, they try to keep it "hush-hush." But their secretive plans, if found out and publicized in time, have been foiled over and over again.

Such was the case in 1998 when Columbus City Council created a domestic partners insurance benefit with "two hours' public notice" before repealing its decision in the face of a citizen revolt. Since that experience of being left in the dark by Columbus officials, the Columbus Dispatch has attempted to keep track of the latest move in this apparent cat and mouse game. The Dispatch most recently reported on June 30th ("Insurer lets city workers buy policy"), that even a Columbus City councilman who favors domestic partners acknowledged that the plan to offer, with no city money involved, supplemental, voluntary insurance made available to unmarried cohabiting partners of city employees "should have been shared with the public."

You would think that OSU would strive toward a higher standard. Some bewildered taxpayer might well say, "Isn't that why they call it higher education?"

Indeed, regardless of whether one supports or opposes domestic partner benefits, all can agree that state or local governments should be debating its merit in public, not in secret.

With these domestic partner plans one wonders what is there to hide?

Some testimony from the Columbus City Council hearings on the subject shed some light on a possible answer. When the endorsement of such cohabiting relationships was being pushed by Columbus City Council again in 2002, it was an African-American grandmother who reminded officials,

"I am sure that most of you have seen, heard of, or even experienced the effects of domestic partnership. The babies and young children in our city who have been battered, sexually abused and even killed by their mother's live-in boyfriend -- her domestic partner." Others have pointed to the significant social science evidence associating marriage with positive physical, emotional and social outcomes.

Thankfully, however, Ohio citizens do not have to resign themselves to OSU's poor judgment or inappropriate actions. In contrast to the universities closed briefings, there is an open public effort to let the citizens of Ohio have their say on preserving the definition of marriage and protecting it from those who wish to chip away at its unique place of honor and recognition. As you read this, Ohioans are collecting signatures which will "let the people of Ohio vote" on the definition and protection of marriage. If successful in their effort, which has a deadline of August 4th, all Ohio citizens will have the chance to vote in November on this important public policy question. Such a vote will allow for notice, debate and accountability.

Readers who are interested in countering the trustees' covert actions may wish to visit www.ohiomarriage.com and join the bipartisan, multi-cultural effort of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage by circulating petitions.

The OSU trustees' secretive actions are an unfortunate reminder that a free and aggressive press and an involved citizenry are necessary to keep our public officials accountable for their actions. Supporting a public vote to protect Ohio's definition of marriage is one positive way to turn the trustees' lemon into lemonade.