And it’s laugh out loud funny.
In Wells’ response, his lawyers wrote that Wells was acting “within the scope of his employment” when carrying out the acts described by the UW lawsuit, and that collaboration and cooperation with the UW-Foundation was undertaken “with actual authority derived from the board,” along with the authority of state law, administrative code and practices and procedures of the UW System.
None of his actions, the document states, “constitute intention or negligent conversion,” but if they are ultimately found by a court to have happened as a result of Wells’ discretion as chancellor, Wells should not be held personally liable for them. His acts “were not malicious, willful or done with the intent” to violate any law or policy, the response states, but “were done for the benefit of UW-Oshkosh” and its students, “and in fact did provide significant benefits to UW-Oshkosh.”
Wells’ response also states that the UW System did not have in place a clear and concise set of rules, best practices and guidelines for universities and affiliated foundations that were applicable to UW-Oshkosh or known to Wells.
So how can he argue both that he followed the “practices and procedures of the UW System” AND “UW System did not have in place a clear and concise set of rules, best practices and guidelines?”
This looks like a “kitchen sink” response from someone who is caught dead to rights.