The logical explanation for the withholding of information is because it is a personnel matter and the fired employee's privacy is being respected. Revealing the cause could also open the university up to the potential for a lawsuit to be filed by Mr. Orsak. Unless this was due to criminal misconduct (which I don't think it was, based on comments posted on other articles), revelation of the reason for letting Mr. Orsak go could damage his chances of employment elsewhere.

They wouldn't have removed him without good cause. Perhaps it was a personal matter that neither party would like to bring out in public. Don't know for sure but can't imagine letting him go without good cause. TU is a great University and am sure it will remain so with or without any one individual.

Definitely a solid blow to the credibility of TU. 74 days? Really? Such a short time, either one hell of a scandal is being covered up, or the termination is ridiculous.

I attended the University of Tulsa in the early 1980's, when that fool and charlatan J. Paschal Twyman ran the place. I could tell that Twyman treated TU's academic functions almost as a nuisance, and I suspect little in TU's "culture" has changed in the past 30 years. Perhaps Orsak ran into opposition from the trustees who don't consider TU broken in the first place, and didn't like what he proposed as repairs. Or else he lost the job for the usual moral turpitude, but my search for plausible rumors hasn't turned up anything concrete yet.

This doesn't add up at all. If he was fired because he needed time to be with his ailing father that's beyond ridiculous. I have a feeling it was more than that but only way any of us will POSSIBLY get the real scoop is via rumors coming out of some of the offices at 11th and Harvard...

The biggest problem with the secrecy is it reflects a deeper issue: a problem with the board of trustees. Like CEO's who provide insincere apologies for actions "outside of their control" yet falling under their watch, the insincerity of the board's explanation, assertion of their so-called "collective experience," and assurance of their capability is anything but comforting. They hired this man, then they let him go. Failure to disclose why undermines their credibility and, more deeply, betrays the fact they really have any control or power whatsoever. When a CEO sincerely apologies for a grievous error (oil spill, bad employee, whatever), they are acknowledging to the populous the state of the matters, recognizing what went wrong, and then providing assurance such an issue will not happen again. When power holders hide such information, however, it reflects the fact they are trying to prevent something to spin out of control, trying to collect the shattered pieces, and implicitly hoping the problem will go away. Merely idling by is a poor excuse for true leadership, which reflects a good rationalized answer to the public with corresponding solutions. Such a statement let's us know you, the collective board of trustees, have control over this issue. A non-statement, however, only allows misinformation to spread unfettered. Isn't ironic we refer to you as a "trustee," implying we entrust the care of a major institution to your collective wisdom. What do we get in exchange? A collective shadow.