Two Intrigues of the Utmost Importance to the UVA Community
A number of recent mysterious events have brought into the open serious concerns involving the issues of transparency and accountability—two topics that have been subjects of repeated controversy by various elements of the University community. As devotees of Conan Doyle and the sleuth of Baker Street, we have put on our deerstalkers and utilizing deductive reasoning combined with the testimony of credible sources have reached conclusions of the utmost importance to our University:
1. The Mystery of the Missing Meeting: Was there Governmental Interference in the Selection of our New Rector?
Anyone who regularly follows UVA Board of Visitor (BOV) meetings knows that the BOV meets
quarterly, with the meeting spanning two days, usually a Thursday and Friday. Last week, the
BOV held its first meeting of 2026, which was also the first meeting of the Board after Governor
Spanberger engineered her hostile takeover of the Board. What made this meeting unusual from the outset, is that it was the first time in the history of the Commonwealth that a newly elected governor had previously appointed a controlling number of Board members—in this case 10 of 17. However, this was not the only unusual aspect of this Board meeting.
As noted above, BOV meetings generally span two days and include reports from most of the standing committees of the Board including the Academic and Student Life, Buildings and Grounds, Advancement, Finance, College at Wise, and Audit, Compliance and Risk committees. Last week’s BOV met for only one day and heard reports from only one committee. To paraphrase a question asked each year at the Passover Seder—“Why was this Board meeting different than all other regularly scheduled Board Meetings?”
Deductive reasoning would say the answer to the above question is because the new Rector of the Board was not announced until late February and it is normally the Rector’s job to determine the agenda for the BOV meeting and also to appoint committee members. Apparently there was insufficient time for our new Rector to fulfill his duties in this regard which would allow two full days of meetings. Which raises the question—why was a new Rector not chosen until the end of February?
And as the Bard would say—“There’s the rub.”
We believe we have the answer to that question—one which should astound and disturb each and every member of the University community.
We have been informed by multiple reliable and credible sources that a decision as to who would be the Rector and Vice Rector had been determined by the newly constructed Board, but that subsequently certain members of the General Assembly and the executive branch intruded in the process. Apparently certain Board members were threatened that if they did not change their position, there would be unhappy consequences. If true– and we believe it to be true— it represents the unprecedented ultimate interference in the governance of UVA by outside political forces.
We have heard over and over again by faculty and student organizations that transparency and accountability are of the utmost importance. And we agree with that. So we now challenge the Faculty Senate, the Student Council, the Cavalier Daily, et al., to demand, as we do, that each member of the BOV be asked the following question—Have you been contacted by, or had communications with, any member of the General Assembly or Executive Branch of the Commonwealth in connection with who would be Rector of the University of Virginia?”
If the referenced UVA organizations fail to do so, it will only confirm that they are concerned with transparency and accountability only in certain partisan circumstances.
Part II: The Case of the Missing Report and the UVA Community’s Right to Know
Just recently we have witnessed another chapter in the ongoing saga revolving around the UVA Healthcare scandal— arguably the most consequential institutional crisis in the University's recent history, which took place under the leadership of President Jim Ryan and Rector Robert Hardie.
Departed, and in the words of the Daily Progress “disgraced,” former CEO of the Healthcare System Craig Kent has just recently launched a lawsuit against the law firm and lawyers that brought suit against him and others on behalf of a number of plaintiffs allegedly damaged by the defendants’ behavior. One of the now defendant law firms had issued to the UVA Board an investigative report as an alternative to the one supposedly being created by Williams & Connelly (W&C), the firm the Board itself hired to investigate the alleged wrongdoings. That alternative report has been made public through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.The official report commissioned by the BOV itself — produced by W&C at the University's direction and expense — has not. And UVA's explanations for why not have been a moving target.
This past January, in response to pending litigation, University spokesperson Bethany Glover told the Cavalier Daily flatly “that Williams & Connolly delivered an oral briefing on its findings to the Board in February, and that no written report was produced by the firm hired by the University to investigate the allegations.” In February 2026, “UVA confirmed with 29News that there is no written report of Williams & Connolly’s findings and did not respond when asked if the public will ever be able to see documentation of the oral briefing made to the Board.”
But that wasn't always UVA's position. As the Daily Progress reported on March 4th, 2026: "While UVa officials said on multiple occasions the lawyers had presented a report, they have since told The Daily Progress no physical report exists to publish."
Read that again: UVA officials repeatedly said a report existed — then changed their story. But there’s more.
Our own FOIA request on May 2025, merely three months after the W&C presentation to the Board, adds yet another layer. The University's response to the Jefferson Council acknowledged that one electronic file exists, but withheld it under discretionary exemptions. Not because disclosure is legally prohibited — but because UVA chose to withhold it.
So which is it? No written report? Only an oral report? One electronic file? A report that officials repeatedly confirmed existed before changing their answer?
The contradictions don't stop at paperwork. Multiple individuals present at the February 2025 meeting have informed us that W&C made a formal presentation to the Board, during which a written document corresponding to the presentation was distributed to BOV members — and that those written documents were collected back when the presentation concluded.
The questions are unavoidable: Where are the physical copies? Were the physical copies destroyed? Was it legal to do so? Is UVA obligated to keep at least one physical copy that was distributed along with an electronic copy? Why does UVA describe an oral report and reiterate no physical copy while simultaneously failing to state to anyone in the University community or to the news media that there was actually an electronic presentation accompanied by a physical document? And why has the University chosen — because it is a choice — to keep this report from the public?
The stakes here are not abstract. The University spent millions of dollars in public funds on this investigation. The findings were consequential enough that the highest-ranking executives of the health system resigned in its wake.The public — which funded both the system and the investigation — is entitled to know the facts and the truth.
Attorney-client privilege covers legal advice, not facts. We are not asking UVA to reveal W&C's legal strategy and advice. We are asking what the investigation actually found — the facts and the truth behind the resignations of the health system's most senior leadership.
And in addition, we would like to know why UVA officials have equivocated about the existence of a written document by W&C. Is it disingenuity, duplicity, or just plain old incompetence?
A Final Challenge
Both of these mysteries share a common thread: an apparent monumental lack of transparency and accountability. We call on the UVA community — its faculty, its students, its journalists — to demand answers. The deerstalkers are on. The “game” is afoot.