Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has told a judge that his request for documents related to the work of former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann should be granted because neither academic freedom nor the First Amendment “immunizes” a person from a fraud investigation.
The university has petitioned a judge to set aside Cuccinelli’s “civil investigative demand,” essentially a subpoena, in which he sought seeking emails sent to and from Mann before he left the university in 2005, as well as information about five public grants Mann received while at the school.Cuccinelli made a lengthy response to the university’s petition in an Albemarle Circuit Court on Tuesday. In his answer, a top staff attorney for Cuccinelli rejects several arguments that had been made by the university’s lawyers–hired specially to handle the case, which has received national attention.
Cuccinelli notes some documents he has sought are public records that could ordinarily be released through a Freedom of Information request. He also uses Mann’s own resume to indicate the grants he has asked about were awarded through the university, even though some involved federal money.
But the core of Cuccinelli’s initial response is a rejection of the university’s position that turning over Mann’s documents would violate his academic freedom. The university had been under significant pressure from academics who believed Cuccinelli’s attempt to get the documents was part of a politcally-motivated crusade scientists who have researched global warming. “Academic freedom is neither implicated nor threatened by the CIDs” Cuccinelli’s lawyer wrote, arguing that academics have no shield against allegations that they have committed fraud.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As a Virginia taxpayer I am grateful to Mr. Cuccinelli for pursuing this case. He is doing what a huge majority of the voters elected him to do. As a retired academic (30+ years in college and university teaching and administration), I have had experience with the academic mindset, including matters of funding and grantsmanship. I witnessed many ways of gaming the system, of making sure that a grant could be renewed or extended by failing to complete within the time limit, of overstating the problem in order to interest people in government and industry. Oh, yes, university people cozy up to industry as well as government when grant money is involved. Often a position may depend upon government or industry funding, and a university teacher is just as fond of job income as anyone else. The idea that a university teacher is somehow pure, disinterested, objective, truly scientific, without bias or conflict of interest, is false. The university is as pure, and as corrupt, as the rest of humanity, and most of it is subject to the same laws. Mr. Cuccinelli is not only well within his rights (and job description) to press his investigation; he is also obligated by his position as an officer of the law to probe where he sees a reason to do so. That judgment is his to make, and he has made it.
Of course there should be proper scrutiny of the use of public funds, and as a layman I don’t see anything wrong with the granting of funds for scientific research being routinely “audited”, but that is not what is happening here – it is an investigation into a potential criminal offence. And for such a thing to take place surely there should actually be some evidence of an actual offence having been committed, otherwise it is, as mentioned above, just a fishing expedition.
How many people here would be happy for their local DA’s office to subpoena their tax returns, just in case they have commited tax fraud.
They basically argued that the state can’t investigate the use of grant money at the university, despite the UK ICO finding prima facia evidence of a crime in the climategate emails
Firstly, the ICO has made no statement to this effect. Secondly U-Va is not subject to UK FoI laws.
The University is saying that “Cuccinelli’s attempt to get the documents was part of a politcally-motivated crusade [against] scientists who have researched global warming.”
Global warming is where the prestige, power, and money is right now for this and other Universities. How can they petition the court that investigations are somehow off-limits when it concerns climate research? It is shameful that an institution for higher learning would attempt to make such a deeply flawed argument.
Dr. Raymond Stantz:
Personally, I liked the University; they gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything. You’ve never been out of college. You don’t know what it’s like out there. I’ve worked in the private sector–they expect results.
jcrabb says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:23 am
This is just a Political witch hunt, as the “hockey stick’ has been replicated by numerous other studies.
************
As a hockey fan I can tell that latest hockey sticks are made of some kind “s**t
material. At least few of them are broken on every game. LOL
It is astonishing that Penn State, a tax payer supported institution, would take the side of a faculty member who is essentially being accused of defrauding taxpayers.
Unfortunately, that is probably what would happen at the majority of our educational institutions.
What is astonishing is that UVA, a taxpayer supported institution, would take the side of a former faculty member who is essentially being accused of defrauding the taxpayers.
Unfortunately, that attitude is prevelant in far too many of our educational institutions.
Pamela Gray says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:06 am
Re: research scientists who cry waaayy every time someone wants to monitor/review
use of public funds. I’m a special ed teacher. It happens to us every year at the state and federal level. Wanna complain ’bout it? Take a number and wait your turn.
And that’s exactly how it happens for research scientists, first you have to justify every expenditure to the research grants dept of the university or apply for a variance if necessary, the university then has to submit its accounts to the granting body. Subsequently universities in receipt of federal government funds are audited about every five years. On several occasions in those audits I have been asked to justify a purchase made a few years before, fortunately I kept impeccable records so it was never a problem. I’ve also had to give evidence in a government fraud investigation of a research contractor (non university). The idea that these routine processes don’t take place and are opposed by research scientists is ludicrous. What is opposed is a politician instituting a witch hunt with no justification or probable cause.
ssquared says:
June 20, 2010 at 5:09 pm
It is astonishing that Penn State, a tax payer supported institution, would take the side of a faculty member who is essentially being accused of defrauding taxpayers.
Well it’s the University of Virginia not Penn State but you miss the point, it’s they who are being accused of fraud, they were the recipients of the grants and approved the expenditures!
Felony missappropriation of funds. Docs can rip off insurance and Medicare and hide under HIPPAA. Health care privacy act has been tried. Docs get hammered and have to pay off. It looks like the first desparate attempt is to try to get the case tossed out. It won’t work.
The Founders committed themselves to the highest standard of action in establishing the USA by The Declaration of Independence:
With trillions of our taxpayer dollars at stake, let us renew that standard in Climate Science. Instead of complaining, let both the Universities and Climate scientists clearly publish their data and programs as well as showing how the funds met the grant application – to confirm that their science is impeccable – or else to expose it so that others can sweep away the cobwebs and establish solid models with clearly defendable data and methods.
A true scientist has nothing to fear from a grant audit. The University’s objections smell like smoke – that they are trying to hide something rather than clearly showing that all their work is sound and above board.
@ur momisugly Andrew Adams
“”They basically argued that the state can’t investigate the use of grant money at the university, despite the UK ICO finding prima facia evidence of a crime in the climategate emails””
“Firstly, the ICO has made no statement to this effect. Secondly U-Va is not subject to UK FoI laws.”
——–
The ICO wrote:
“The emails [the climategate emails] which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it
an offence [a crime] for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the
disclosure of requests for information.”
And further: ‘[t]he Prima Facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent Prima Facie evidence.”
The ICO was unable to prosecute under section 77 of the FOI Act because too much time had elapsed under UK law. However, they continue to pursue a case under section 50 of the Act. US law is different and these crimes can still be prosecuted in the US. The statutory authority in the UK found prima facie evidence of a crime and those same activities constitute a crime in the US. This alone is sufficient reason to undertake an investigation in the US.
If grant money was used to pay the salaries of the people who were engaged in committing these alleged crimes, then that could constitute fraud.
Alleging isn’t enough. You need evidence.
It’s quite clear he’s groping in the dark. In his response, he cites the CRU emails,
unaware, apparently, that Mann is talking about skeptics.
It’s a fishing expedition, an abuse of law. Stephen McIntyre and JeffID are on the money with this call, as was Tamino about Anthony Watts being hassled at his workplace. It’s a matter of principle.
mpaul,
I stand corrected over the opinion of the ICO, but the fact remains that if an offence was committed under the UK FOI act (and a prima facie case is not the same as hard evidence) it was commited by UEA, not U-Va or anyone employed by U-Va.
ZT says:
June 20, 2010 at 11:10 am
“Here’s a climategate thread showing Mann’s ethics in action:”
Yep ZT, every time someone defends Mann or Jones I direct them to the same emails. I have wondered since the release of the emails why no one has followed up on this. For sure, Jones should have had his credibility questioned in the UK Parliament enquiry, had anyone on the enquiry panel had the time or persistence to actually read the emails.
As a matter of interest, should Cuccinelli get the emails, has he said that he will release them to the general public or will FOI’s be required to get him to release them?
Charles Higley says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:01 am
…..Academic freedom does not mean that a tenured professor can do anything he/she jolly well pleases. There are still bounds. First, they are subject to all of our morals, ethics, and laws. They do have the freedom to study any area of knowledge they like or even change fields, as Albert Svent-Gyorgi did when he switched from biochemistry to crystallography. However, they do have to follow rational lines of thought and have to perform defendable work; otherwise, being unproductive, they can be stripped of their tenure. Yep, there are indeed limits.
And, if a paper was published, it only means that the rationale of the paper and its form was acceptable to that particular journal and its editor. It is the discussion and academic (lacking ad hominem attacks) arguments that follow that determines whether it is good science or not….
Time, adult discussion, and the utility of the published science determines, in a form of Darwinian selection, the fitness of the science.
_________________________________________________________________________
Unfortunately in Climate Science politics got in the way of the “Time, adult discussion, and the utility of the published science determines, in a form of Darwinian selection, the fitness of the science.” Actually according to testimony by Jones, it is “customary” to NOT provide the data and information to perform validation in “climate science” therefore “climate science” does not meet the definition of “science” at all. If “climate science” as practiced by Mann, Jones et al does not meet the accepted time honored definition of “peer reviewed science” as the Analysis of the key emails shows then every honest scientist should be 100% behind Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
The continued whitewashing and gnashing of teeth and wailing by the supposed scientists defending Mann, is giving science in general a very bad reputation. IF Cuccinelli does find major irregularities, then the other scientists who are so busy defending Mann may soon find themselves under scrutiny. I am sure that is what they are afraid of.
Given the idiotic studies we have looked at here on WUWT, I am glad Cuccinelli is pressing forward. Taxpayers do not need to fund idiotic studies and professors should not look at grants as their private treasure chests which open with the magic phrase “Global Warming.” Professors and universities also need to be reminded that the taxpayer is their boss and the state Attorney General is their representative.
artwest says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:32 am
BillD: “In general, the sucess of grants is judged by publications and weak performance (few or weak publications) reduces one’s chance with further grant proposals. ”
That anyone can put this idea forward with a straight face after the proof of “the team” at least attempting to pervert peer review is astonishing.
_____________________________________________________________________
Let’s assume BillD has only bothered to read what the peer review clique, “Realclimate” had to say about the emails, “nothing here move along”. BillD go read The Assassination of Science There is every reason to believe grant funds were misused, or rather used to generate political propaganda material and not to advance science.
jcrabb says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:23 am
This is just a Political witch hunt, as the “hockey stick’ has been replicated by numerous other studies.
____________________________________________________________________
Of course it has. Here is the “Call to Arms”
Mike Mann
email 1068652882
“Tim, Phil, Keith:
I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an uninformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by “for” and “against” global warming proponents. However, if an “independent group” such as you guys at the Climatic Research Unit could make a statement as to whether the McIntyre and McKitrick effort is truly an “audit”, and whether they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue…
If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys would help quash further arguments, although here, at least, it is already quite out of control… “
Here is some of the discussion on how to get rid of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.
Phil Jones:
“…Can we not address the misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period and redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and more on the paper, it should carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be being done over the next few years….”
Mike Mann:
“I think that trying to adopt a time frame of 2000 years, rather than the usual 1000 years, addresses a good earlier point that Jonathan Overpeck made … that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”, even if we don’t yet have data available that far back.”
Jonathan Overpeck:
“I’m sure you saw the recent (to be infamous) Wall Street Journal editorial—they showed what I think was a IPCC First Assessment Report curve—with the good old Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, etc. (Lamb view?—I don’t have the First Assessment Report with me). The way to handle the hockey stick might best be to put it in an historical perspective along with the older IPCC views. First, show your great figures, discuss them and what went into them, and then—after showing the state-of-the-art, discuss how much our understanding and view have changed. In this, simply compare each of the historical views (First Assessment v Report, Second Assessment Report, T/hird Assessment Report) to the current view, and while doing so, play down the controversy(s)—especially the hockey stick. The smart folks will realize that that the fluff in the news is just that, but those with a real stake in that debate will hopefully get the point that it doesn’t matter… “
Further explanation at The Assassination of Science
Surely, if Mr. Cuccinelli thinks that there is enough evidence in the climategate emails or other evidence in his possession to lead him to suspect that either a grant was obtained by fraud or that part or all of a grant had been used for purposes other than those stated in the grant application he has a duty to investigate.
Look at it another way. Suppose there has actually been fraud, if it is inappropriate for the DA to investigate, who should be responsible for exposing that fraud and attempting to recover public funds?
outcome.
My description of my fantastic opportunity at the age of 21 to go study isolated Polynesian villages as a “scam” was related to how spectacular the opportunity was, not to the idea that I was somehow getting away with something.
It’s a wonderful feeling to get support for doing something that’s utterly enjoyable. Scam was an inept descriptor used during an informal talk.
Friends:
There are several errors of logic in the above comments, and I write to point out one of them because it is fundamental to several of the discussions in postings on this thread.
The error amounts to an assertion that proof of academic fraud by Dr Mann would not constitute financial fraud by the University. Perhaps this is best stated by Gary at
June 20, 2010 at 11:51 am where he writes:
“Unless funds were diverted for a purpose other than what was specified in the grant, then fraud was not committed. It’s been amply demonstrated that Dr. Mann’s research has flaws that he stubbornly will not acknowledge, that he has over-reached on his analysis and conclusions, that he fails to adhere to standard practices of science such as openly sharing data and methods, and that he’s a boor. However, none of these things, while rightly condemned, amount to fraud.”
However, it is not true that “Unless funds were diverted for a purpose other than what was specified in the grant, then fraud was not committed”.
It would also be true that fraud was committed if
(a) the results of past studies were cited by the University as evidence in support a claim to obtain grant monies for further research at the University,
and
(b) the University had reason to suppose the past studies were flawed
but
(c) the University did not reveal to the potential funding agency that the University had reason to suppose the past studies were flawed.
There now exists much reason to suppose that the work by Dr Mann was very flawed. Hence, the AG has good reason (some would say a duty) to determine
(i) if the University cited the work of Mann as supporting evidence in any claim(s) for grants,
and
(ii) if, at the time of those grant applications, the University had reason to suppose the cited work of Mann was flawed.
This goes to the heart of both the ‘science’ conducted by Dr Mann and the validity of a fraud investigation by the AG.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
June 21, 2010 at 5:06 am
Friends:
There are several errors of logic in the above comments, and I write to point out one of them because it is fundamental to several of the discussions in postings on this thread….
_____________________________________________________
Thank you for pointing this out. If any of Mann’s grants were based on work that had been invalidated by M & M, then after their peer reviewed study of his work was published, the University would be skating on thin ice.
“Scam was an inept descriptor” Andy Revkin
Good to hear A. Revkin clarify the matter. I’m sure his voice will go a long way to remind the serious way that grant and fellowship money should be regarded, especially during a time when we read a Time cover story on bankrupt states.
The ICO is investigating CRU for possible breaches of FOI. As the FOIs were not directed to Michael Mann, the ICO investigation is a red herring in the Cuccinelli case.
The U of A oversees grant applications and disburses funds after assessing proposals. If there is any fraud to be uncovered, the university will incur damages, not Michael Mann. If Mann himself committed fraud, that would be a matter between him and the university. Regarding federal funds, the buck stops with the university.
I think it will be impossible to prove fraud by Michael Mann. Re the hockey stick and M&M’s rebuttal, incompetence is the worst charge that could be declared, if that. MBH 98 was a pioneer study using new statistical techniques. If we start punishing scientists for attempting new methodologies that may or may not be valid, we neuter science, which proceeds by trial and error.
Stephen McIntyre, who wrote the key papers rebutting MBH 98 seven and five years ago, and has blogged about it ever since, agrees with this notion, and specifically rejects the charge of Mann fraudulence over the hockey stick.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/26/10477/
If only his champions in the skeptical blogworlds matched his integrity.
The University has motivation to push back if indeed they find that Mann kinda took his files and work papers with him and left nothing behind. I recall a lawsuit where an employee used racial slurs in personal e-mail and his employer had legal civil liability for this on company computers. Employees argue they have 100% privacy on their company e-mail messages. Not so if the company has liability for the content. If a company can be sued for dirt in e-mails, it is their duty to inspect and retain them.