The Free Press is at it again.
have to click on the site.
The link in the OP is from the Michigan Daily.
I'm done with this shit paper.
I kept buying only on Sundays after a win because I've been saving the Michigan frontpage after wins since 2006 as one of my first little traditions. I was 11 when I started doing that.
I let the BS from 2009 slide. Now I'm done.
DetNews might not have a sexy frontpage, but they're better by default due to them not trying to hurt the University.
19 in two weeks.
The [Free Press] lawsuit relies primarily on a Free Press analysis of regents meetings ...
Nothing like unbiased evidence to base your lawsuit on.
As someone who has been deposed as an expert witness at a few major civil trials, I'll tell you that this is normal. If the data don't exist, or at least not in the way you need them, you collect your own, try to do it right, and fight to get it admitted. "Unbiased evidence" is not necessarily the norm in a civil suit.
Well, here's the thing about the Freep and Board of Regents: They're right. The BoR have been essentially doing everything behind closed doors, shutting down public comments and input at meetings, etc. for years. It's gotten especially bad over the last year, as BoR meetings have turned into really sanitized rubber-stamp events with no discussion of any kind, at which the Regents are almost completely shielded from any kind of direct public input or scrutiny. They've responded to a few tenacious critics by almost entirely going behind closed doors.
The University is more than its sports teams. This is actually a real and legitimate issue, and the Freep is correct to bring the Regents to task for this. The Ann Arbor News has actually been covering this pretty consistently, as has the Daily. The Regents elected officials who are bound to operate under the Open Meetings Act. They haven't always acted like this, and it's becoming a problem.
"Among other public colleges in Michigan, Wayne State University also held a private presidential search process this year and Michigan State University also has conducted sessions of their governing board in private, according to The Free Press."
Didn't the article state that a presidential search CAN be private? I am not sure why the Freep put this in their article since everything is peachy on that front, but... Also, I do not care about anyone else. I care about us. I care about us doing things the right way. We are a big fish, they should come to us
They are not suing UM for the private president search. BoR's are allowed to perform private searches. They are suing for the quorum hijinx.
A 2005 cout decision involving Oakland U clarified that the constitutional autonomy that allowed public universities to conduct searches in private applied to ALL university business. They are exempt from the OMA in that regard for all issues. http://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2005/20050830-c252391-43-252391-opn.html
I can't believe people want to automatically jump to the defense of ... not the University of Michigan, but the Regents. The Regents are a governing body, and like any governing body they should be monitored and called out when they get too comfortable with themselves and decide that a loophole in the open meetings law (meetings not meeting quorum) allows them to discuss and decide issues without public scrutiny, so they can just show up and vote. This isn't the "University" you love that that rag, the Freep, is suing, it's the elected club of entitled back-slappers who think they know what's best for your university without public comment. That's bullshit, and if a rag that I otherwise would hesitate to wipe my ass with decides to call them on it, good. But I'll still hestitate to wipe my ass with it.
Glad that makes you feel so good. I know I'm glad when elected officials use loopholes to skirt accountability. Something tells me whether the actions of the Regents are allowed due to said loophole, will be decided by a court.
Apparently the Regents are allowed to make most decisions in "informal" sessions and simply hold rubber stamp "formal" public meetings because of a past state supreme court ruling. The loophole, therefore, is not necessarily writtend directly into the law and could be closed with a new supreme court ruling, no? I'll grant your vastly superior legal knowledge to my own but I've personally been annoyed by the rubber stamp nature of the regent meetings and would love to see them made to change their actions.
Personally i've had a bug up my butt about this for a long time so maybe that's keeping me from having a ton of sympathy for the Regents. I mean just because they can operate with a total lack of transparency doesn't mean they should. If this gets more people aware of the issue and puts pressure on the legislature to change the law maybe its worth it.
Make sure to eat plenty of egg salad and kale first. Also, check the direction of the prevailing breeze and position yourself upwind.
The spirit and intent should matter, not just the specific verbiage.
But you don't get to sue for a violation of the SPIRIT of a law, especially when it is a law that the defendant is constitutionally exempted. That's all I'm saying. The lawsuit lacks in any merit, and will not survive a preliminary motion to dismiss.
I guess. You'd know better than I would.
The legislature can't even change this issue. This is one that is woven into the very fabric of the state constitution. Michigan public universities enjoy constitutional autonomy, which means that the legislature can't tell them shit. The OMA barely applies to UofM.
in the light of public day, Bisb. You can do better than to jump on board with the reactionary yahoos here when an idiot outfit like the Freep actually does something intelligent. "Doesn't have a praye" isn't really a good argument against an issuse like a free press and the right to information. Tell that to the likes of Clarence Darrow.
If there's one thing we SHOULD have learned here over the last 7-8 years it's that a knee-jerk defense of the U is nothing but poison.
I'm not saying this is a David vs. Goliath case where the little guy faces a great uphill struggle despite being buoyed by the forces of good. I'm saying this is the case where the plaintiff is just legally wrong. Really, really wrong. The State Constitution says so. They have NO case. None.
The power the regents have to do business in this manner is protected by a document that requires a statewide vote of the electorate to change. No lawsuit can change it unless the Supreme Court has changed its mind on a pretty easy question of interpretation in the last decade.
Taking on the issue is fine. But the suit is frivolous as hell.
While you may be technically correct here, you certainly aren't doing your profession any favors regarding their (perceived) collective lack of ethics.
You're a lawyer. Someone walks into your office and says "we want to sue some guys to make them stop doing something we think is bad. It isn't illegal, necessarily, but it's still bad. So we want to file a lawsuit claiming they are violating a law they aren't violating in the hopes that it will get them to change."
How are you, as an officer of the court, going to react? Are you going to say, "sure, the lawsuit has no merit, but we should file it anyway," or say, "gee, I agree that the thing is bad, but I am ethically bound to not file a claim I believe to be without merit"?
One caveat is that a party can make an argument only if it is a good faith interpretation of current law or a good faith argument for a change in the law. If the FREEP knows that the Supreme Court won't change its opinion, then you have a good point. If the FREEP is attacking the current law and has a good faith reason to think the law could change, then this seems in bounds to me. You say that the law has zero chance to change, and I take your word for that. I haven't read the precedent. It's important to remember, however, that one can sue to change the interpretation of the law, as has been done, e.g., with regard to civil rights claims. Without that ability, Jim Crow could not have been challenged.
But the decision was less than a decade ago, and this is basically the same question they just answered. And the state constitution is pretty darned clear on the issue: the universities and the legislature are basically co-equals. The legislature can't impose OMA restrictions on the way Universities operate.
That's all fine and dandy but why aren't they also fighting Wayne State and MSU. Is it because UM is viewed more prestigiously so they can make more noise digging up dirt against Michigan than the other two.
The article also indicated that there is legislation being proposed to force all Universities to comply.
Since the freep is involved in a lawsuit with the University of Michigan, they now have a conflict of interest and should not be allowed to write about them.
I believe if the actual lawsuit is them going after the University of Michigan, do they not have to have some monetary benefit coming from UM for it to be a conflict of interest? Someone help.
Also: Voltron is Handsome is at it again with negging a topic he's not interested in.
don't dis the man (lady?). He just does what he feels like doing.
I <3 you Voltron is Handsome.
What do you expect? The guy has a cartoon robot fetish - his interests are very different from yours and mine.
but that's what trolls do.
Fire the Freep.