President Richard Lariviere: more evasive than a ninja
As the handsome Alex Tomchak Scott already mentioned, President Lariviere stood before Senate today and explained his veto on the Riverfront Resolution. Or rather, he offered as little substance as possible and said ‘Well that covers that, LOL’ (paraphrased).
Lariviere spent a fair bit of time talking up the University’s presence at the BCS game, calling the pep rally and general student involvement “astonishing”. After smiling and expressing how proud he was of the school, he delivered a curt performance on the subject of the Riverfront Resolution. Lariviere said there has been no change since he last discussed the topic, that the IGA was addressed thoroughly by both the city and UO, and ended by saying he was puzzled by this situation. Of the 12 questions he was presented with, albeit on rather short notice, he said he had no answers to any of them because that is not the sort of relationship he wants with the Senate. He hopes we can engage in a relationship that will “move [things] forward”. After spending three entire minutes on the controversial topic he went back to how much he enjoyed the enthusiasm showed during the football game, and quickly ended his speech with a jovial, “That’s the news from Lake Wobegon!”
Immediately members of the audience asked if he planned on actually explaining anything. Asked if there was going to be any openness, or transparency, Lariviere reiterated that “nothing has changed” since the official letter he wrote in December. “I’m a big fan of openness and transparency,” Lariviere explained, and promptly proved the fact by saying that he had an appointment shortly and did not have the time to answer all twelve questions, but even if he did, he would not answer them. A member of the audience asked if Lariviere would at least say something on the topic of the IGA [inter-governmental agreement] and how the University justified “short-circuiting” the process. Lariviere said that to the best of his knowledge the IGA was not in effect, nor has it been for some time, and that the University’s obligation is long since terminated.
“You don’t feel there should be a public hearing?” a voice in the audience called out, to which Lariviere pithily retorted, “How do you know there hasn’t been one?”
Following this suit, Lariviere’s answers became somewhat more short and blunt, replying to a few questions, “I don’t know that anything you said is the case,” and, “I don’t know that that’s the case.” As a few members in the audience became insistent that Lariviere answer their questions, he told the audience, “It’s not that I’m trying to evade this, I’m trying to explain what my responsibilities are,” and, “It’s not that I’m trying to evade your questions.” On the subject of the riverfront project in general, he announced that, “We are where we are,” and said that we should work on moving forward, on the heels of his previous plea to the Senate to forge a forward-moving relationship.
If only one bit of recap from Lariviere’s speech to the Senate sums the entire session up, let it be this: at the end of his speech Lariviere said “I really feel that these questions have been answered,” and went silent; this prompted one or two people in the audience to snicker, which incited a murmuring of extremely stifled chuckles, clearly upsetting Lariviere. I personally had to summon all of my willpower not to burst into laughter, if for no other reason than our University president spent almost half an hour defending his decisions (or avoiding the need to) and his final insistence on his convictions was met with laughter.
My personal favorite tidbits are that the IGA is not in effect, so the University has zero obligations on the matter, and, “How do you know there hasn’t been [a public hearing]?” I won’t put words in anybody’s mouth, but Lariviere seemed to imply that in the absence of the IGA plans on the riverfront would proceed at whatever pace, and if the public has a problem then they are free to hold a public hearing somewhere. Because Lariviere did not decisively comment on the occurrence of an official public hearing on the matter, I am going to make the gentle assumption there has been none. Lariviere’s how-do-you-don’t-know-there-wasn’t-one comeback (which did give me pleasant flashbacks to my days of middle school witticisms) does have some ground; technically there might have been a public hearing on the matter, but we can all be fairly sure there wasn’t a public hearing that meant a damn thing. But apparently the University’s and thereby Lariviere’s obligations are naught, so none of us can with any real weight demand anything, I guess.
So happy new office building on the riverfront, and a great ‘here’s a quarter, call someone who cares’ to us all.
