The Free Press is at it again.
I am not going to say that the Freep is out of bounds here but I will point out that they aren't suing anyone else. From the article,
"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."
As far as Wayne State goes, it's pretty common for public meetings laws to have an exemption for discussing personnel issues, so long as the vote is public.
so why file a lawsuit if their intentions were not to hurt the school? what loss was incurred to the free press by the University?
do you not think that simply reporting on this would be enough? isn't that what they are supposed to be in the business of? how many more sentences can i end in a question?
Okay, so you hold the popular and ethical high ground, own the fricking pulpit, and your best strategy is to sue? This is like pulling the goalie when you are ahead.
I guess I'd be interested to know what the Freep's main motivation is. Are they trying to affect change for the good of mankind, or write another controversial UM article to generate web clicks to drive ad revenue because their paper truly sucks.
Why attack U of M? I assume all colleges - anywhere in the country - have regents who meet and discuss things in private. Some would even point out that Supreme Court justices operate in the same way. The meetings behind closed doors are where everything is hashed out with the open door meeting being a formal vote only. I guess, to me, I'd rather have that than a body of people who can't agree and spend hours of meetings openly arguing issues. Ask the Detroit City Council how well that method has worked?!
Sounds like governing bodies, in general, have issues with transparency to the public.
Governing bodies have been doing this forever. They are made up and ran by lawyers who interpet the written law to their own benefit for the most past. In the past they have been held accountable a little better. Now its "Katey bar the door" from the library board on up.
Nothing new here.
Exactly . . . Which is why I don't understand the lawsuit. There are so many other avenues for a lawsuit like this. Why not other colleges? Why not board of directors for a publicly traded company? Why not state legislature? If the idea is that somehow, by suing U of M, there will be some driving force for change then I fail to see how that is possible. I think the Free Press should leave lawsuits like this to the public - either interest groups, concerned citizens, etc. An organization like the Free Press filing it just wreaks of having some alterior motive.
The For-profit Press is essentially a patent troll
I think that if the U is breaking the law, it should be held to account. However, as others have pointed out, from a legal perspective, they probably aren't in this case.
My concern is that it the U goes "undefeated" in the courts on this and other issues, it may lull them into a sense of invincibility (with the consequences that would likely result) rather than cause them to be more mindful of their responsibilities within the law.
"Following University President-elect Mark Schlissel’s selection in January, concerns were also raised on secrecy specifically in the presidential search process. All Michigan public universities have been allowed to conduct presidential searches in private as of a 1999 Michigan Supreme Court decision."
Why the passive voice? Who raised the concerns? It's too bad the Daily doesn't have an ace journalism school like MSU's at its disposal.
For good or bad, this paragraph is a far cry from the "Duderstadt is Illegal!" protests in 1988 that the Daily promoted with front page exhortations to the student body.
FWIW I am amused by people who get shirty about job searches that are conducted out of the public eye. That's how recruitment works for nearly everybody except pro athletes.
blinders of the past treading on the issue. First of all, if the Michigan Daily had sued the school to halt the board of regents from reviewing issues in private and then deciding them routinely in public, would you feel the same way?
The irony is this, the university spokesman Rick Fitzgerald, is a former city editor at the Ann Arbor News, and his former paper would have filed suit just like the Freep to force the board to respect the Open Meetings Law and transparent review of university decisions. This isn't the same as investigating the school for alleged NCAA violations, which, by the way, the newspaper discovered and then based their reporting on from leaked board material and inside sourcing from the school itself. There is no question about that
The newspaper did conduct a witchhunt in the previous case, and the paper went for headlines and inappropriately detailed without specific understanding of NCAA rules what the protocol of practice and preseason training was like under the previous football regime.
It's one thing to brush the Freep with the broad stroke of guilt for its work on stretchgate, this is a different story with a greater public interest and I can't imagine anyone who would support any governing body with the regents authority conducting business at their own whim and then making their decisions known so as to prevent a full understanding of board thinking and individual response.
It'a just bad practice to carry on business in this way and it only leads to more scrutiny and, yes, more invasive investigative reporting. Hello. One always begets the other.
Beceuse if the board is doing this, it must have something to hide, right? That's what newspapers do when they think that government is stonewalling without good reason. And the board, in this case, has no valid reason for operating in this fashion except that nobody has challenged its meeting habits before. Not saying what it's doing behind closed doors is necessarily illegal, it's just not a good idea because of this very discussion and suspicion created.
Why would you support a governing body violating the law and trying to hide its elected or appointed members opinions about specific issues in order to promote the idea of harmony in decision-making? If you believe in open government, and you don't have someone or institution watchig out for your interests, then you get what you get from government, and you are at fault, whether you accept the blame or not.
Because my forehead is getting sore, and the desk is starting to crack:
YOU DON'T GET TO SUE SOMEONE FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT IS WITHIN THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS BUT IS "BAD PRACTICE" OR IS "NOT A GOOD IDEA." THE THING THE REGENTS ARE DOING IS LEGAL. THE STATE SUPREME COURT SAYS SO. THE STATE CONSTITUTION SAYS SO. I SAY SO. THE FREE PRESS CAN WRITE A THOUSAND OP-EDS BEMOANING THE SECRECY AND LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, AND THAT'S FINE AND WELL AND PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA. BUT YOU CAN. NOT. SUE. THEM. FOR. THIS.
/rant
on any topic outside those outlined in the law giving it that privilege. There are specific exceptions for meeting privately. If you act outside those constraints, you have violated the law. And the only way to challenge such practices, is by public scrutiny or lawsuit. So, if you believe a certain public body is regularly conducting business in a way that its actions can't be viewed, heard, or fully transcribed by some kind of independent record, the only way to challenge its meeting practices is by lawsuit. It matters not whether you think a violation has occurred, because the court has the authority to decide the allegation.
It matters not whether the board is doing so to give the appearance of unity in decision-making and that no vote ever registers a lick of debate or controversy, if you act as a group outside the boundary of the law, you have violated it. And I would bet any amount that the board has been doing this as a regular practice. It's just more efficient to work that way. So, that's what its been doing.
In the name of all that is holy, read this. The exemptions outlined in the law are irrelevant, because article 8, section 4 of the 1963 Constitution trumps it. They are CONSTITUTIONALLY permitted to regularly conduct business in informal meetings behind closed doors, so long as they properly hold any formal meetings. It is 100% within their power to go behind closed doors, decide how to vote, and then go into a formal meeting to vote. Don't like it? Blame the 1963 ConCon.
YOU DON'T GET TO SUE SOMEONE FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT IS WITHIN THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS BUT IS "BAD PRACTICE" OR IS "NOT A GOOD IDEA."
Sure you do.
You can sue anyone for basically anything you want. You may not win. You may be required to pay their legal fees. You may have no legal standing at all.
...but you get to sue anyone, for any reason you want.
Of one of my all-time favorite filings:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/judge_moore_and.html
of them. And the point of the legal action is to make the board of regents legally accountable for the actions it takes and the manner in which it conducts its meetings. Anyone could file such an action. This puts the board on notice and forces it to respond in court to the allegations raised by the Freep.
While a newspaper story alleging violations of the state Open Meetings Law would garner attention and prompt debate, there is no requirement for the board to officially respond unless it feels threatened by negative publicity and public reaction.
There are consequences for violating this law, and putting the board on notice of them and how it conducts business, keeps everyone honest.
The board is permitted to meet privately on certain subject matter such as hiring choices, salary setting and personnel issues related to university affairs. But just like any other public body supported by taxpayer funding, regents are accountable for their votes and the decisions they make invidually and collectively. And the public is entitled to know their positions and criteria for deciding issues that come before them. That is the point of the law. And the newspaper is simply playing its traditional public watchdog role in the process, which is why it filed suit.
they aren't just allowed to discuss some matters in informal sessions they are allowed to discuss all matters in informal sessions as long as they do the voting in formal sessions so they are not violating the law because they are not subject to that law because the state constitution says they aren't subject to that law and the michigan supreme court says they aren't subject to that law and you don't get to file a suit against someone who isn't violating the law you claim they are violating and oh god my brain just fell out and is running away and yep it just stole my car and now I am brainless and without a ride
from getting together over coffee at a diner or somebody's house and deciding an issue that is subject to a public vote at a certain advertised time and place. The point of the law is to prevent government from acting informally and then role playing decisions publicly.
Whether the Michigan Supreme Court and prior state constitutional court rulings have nullified the legitimacy of allegations the newspaper might raise against the board in a complaint and action over its meeting practices, would be subject to a court decision determining the vailidity of the case and whether it could or should be tried.
It doesn't prevent the paper from making the case or filing suit. The Freep like all major newspapers have constitutional attorneys whose sole job is to review, act and litigate on public records and open meetings law questions. And from time to time these attorneys file suit to force compliance when they think they have a case worth pursuing.
Is it cynical to believe that the Free Press is trying to capitalize on a proven formula that negative press against the state's most prestigious University garners clicks and sells newspapers? Sure, but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily untrue.
The only thing that I'll regret when that rag of a periodical dies is that there won't be a physical grave that I can visit to piss upon.
the Freep. This is what newspapers do. This is what the Daily would do if it felt like the university was acting inappropriately. This isn't a corporate decision, this is a decision any individual could make. You act like people or business shouldn't have the right to challenge decision-making by elected officials because some court has ruled on the decision.
There are always new court rulings and new laws which change public perspective. Don't think so; how about abortion law and rulings or voting law changes nationally, simply to benefit party politics. Please. Quit acting like court decisions are steeped in grand understanding. They aren't, They are just part of the public record and subject to change.
If you act as a public body to prevent public scrutiny over a complex or controversial issue Iin a manner that offends public opinion, you are subject to change. Those advocating change will find a way to make it happen or the case be heard. And that is why having the newspaper making the case is both rational and in the public interest regardless of those thinking otherwise.
I won't click on that link, nor have I clicked on such a link since the Fall of 2009. Despite the fact that I'm sure many fine people work there, I have a sincere wish for that paper to fail and go out of business forever. Thus, I do not support it in any way, even with pageviews. I'm not "over it" yet, and I doubt I ever will be.