EDITORIAL: U-M Regents & Open Meetings Act Lawsuit
THE DETROIT FREE PRESS recently filed suit against the University of Michigan Board of Regents for allegedly violating the state’s Open Meetings Act statute. The allegations are based on analyses of over a year’s worth of votes taken by the Regents. Detroit Free Press staff believe the Regents are discussing items privately prior to voting in public.
Whether or not the suit is found to have merit, it presents the University of Michigan’s President and Trustees with the opportunity to craft policies which deal frankly with the Regents’ use of email and texts to discuss issues presented at open meetings. It also presents Dr. Mark Schlissel an opportunity to overhaul U-M’s office responsible for complying with Freedom of Information Act requests.
This newspaper used FOIA to obtain U-M’s log of FOIA requests over the course of the past year. The three-page, handwritten document returned was frankly shocking. In addition, U-M officials attempted to claim that some FOIA requests were protected as “advisory” in nature. Officials cited no case law to support their position. Finally, U-M’s FOIA officer purported to keep FOIA requests made only for a week or two after the requests were responded to by that office. FOIA logs are not optional.
The Michigan Daily has on more than one occasion documented efforts on the part of U-M officials to levy thousands of dollars in fees related to that newspaper’s FOIA requests. Such charges are neither in the spirit of transparency, nor are they in keeping with the simple fact that U-M is funded in large part by state and federal money and the public must have absolute certainty that money is being spent appropriately. News media are expected to provide those assurances using Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain public records.
U-M’s FOIA office habitually asks for extensions rather than comply to requests within the five day period the law requires. When the individuals responsible for responding to FOIA requests are routinely unable to do so in a timely manner, it presents an unacceptable roadblock to both the public and the media. When U-M officials assess outlandishly high fees, this presents another roadblock to the public and the media.
Among the eight U-M Regents are the following seven attorneys: Mark Bernstein, Julia Donovan Darlow, Laurence B. Deitch, Denise Ilitch, Andrea Fischer Newman, Andrew C. Richner and Katherine E. White. Should they be found to have repeatedly and flagrantly violated the state’s Open Meetings Act statute, the public should demand a full and complete accounting of who took part in the subterfuge. The public must know if Dr. Mary Sue Coleman participated. The public should also demand that U-M release those emails, texts or other communications which were sent by Regents in the effort to circumvent the Open Meetings Act.
All of these people have much at stake personally and professionally. Katherine White is a faculty member at the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY. Should she be judged to have behaved inappropriately and/or to have broken the law in the course of serving as a Regent, she stands to lose her teaching job and, perhaps, her commission as a Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves.
Like U-M football coach Rich Rodriguez, who brought shame on U-M by triggering Michigan’s first-ever NCAA sanctions, if any Regents are found by a judge to have circumvented the state’s Open Meetings Act law, they stand to bring shame on the University of Michigan’s standing and its reputation.
The public trust is sacred. U-M Regents oversee a multi-billion dollar budget each year. They must deliberate openly at public meetings. The Detroit Free Press deserves thanks for its watchdog journalism and its willingness to go to court to protect the interests of Michigan’s taxpayers.
