Foundation for a House

The Times (“Foundation to Build a Home for CSUN President,” Times Valley Edition, July 25) claims that CSUN President James W. Cleary conducted a CSUN Foundation Board meeting in closed session without sufficient legal basis to do so in an effort to hide something.

You failed to report that in Cleary’s capacity as chairman of the Foundation Board, he acted on written legal advice from the foundation’s attorney, John Francis. Not only does Francis represent many state university auxiliaries, such as the foundation, but he is also a recognized authority in this field of law. Francis’ legal opinion was read by Cleary in the presence of your reporter just prior to the board voting on a motion made by a board member to go into closed session, which resulted in the reporter leaving the meeting under protest.

The pertinent part of the legal opinion that was read states:

“A board or sub-board, upon a favorable majority vote of its members, may also hold a closed session to discuss investments where a public discussion could have a negative impact on the auxiliary organization’s financial situation. In this case, a final decision shall only be made during public sessions.”

In my view, the foundation’s involvement with a presidential house is an investment matter “where a public discussion could have a negative impact” on the foundation’s “financial situation.” It may then be discussed in a closed session.

Contrary to what The Times reported in the article, the board did not vote to borrow money to build a house on the CSUN campus or provide on-campus housing for the incoming president. In fact, the construction of a presidential home on the CSUN campus, while planned, cannot be accomplished in less than two to three years. In addition, the expectation of a presidential home on campus was made public at a CSU Board of Trustees meeting and reported in the newspapers.

With regard to the reference in the article that Cleary ordered the board members “to keep secret the results of a vote they took,” Cleary merely read the following section from Francis’ legal opinion:

The reference to “a final decision shall only be made during public sessions” I would interpret to mean that such a public disclosure is appropriate, but only after whatever decision is made has been fully implemented and awareness of it by anyone other than members of the Board of Trustees could no longer disadvantage the foundation in its dealings with other parties relating to the matter.

There is an unwarranted, if not defamatory, innuendo in the article that Cleary attempted to keep the board members from talking about the meeting for reasons that were unrelated to the best interests of the foundation.

The CSUN Foundation Board and President Cleary acted with professionalism and in good faith on sound legal advice. They did not deserve the negative implications and misinformation based on wrong assumptions contained in this factually inaccurate article.

ELLIOT MININBERG. Mininberg wrote as vice president for administration and university advancement of California State University Northridge.