B1G schools are going to have to show their cards
- Thread starter GBRforLife1
- Start date
EXCELLENT! As well they should declare. MILLIONS of $ at stake because a few libtard dorks knee jerk reacted to fake science. They need to be exposed
Good. I hope there are some extremely embarrassing things uncovered.
Expect to be disappointed. My guess is the correspondence will probably be somewhat limited and the relevant communications could be heavily redacted. The presidents would do themselves a favor by releasing a statement addressing their decision and the reasons supporting it. That doesn't appear to be in the cards.
Unfortunately you're probably right. The left never gets trashed or exposed for the utter garbage they are. Hissssssssss
Under what circumstances would anything be redacted? It's not we are talking national security here. There are only a few reasons for redacting and there is no ongoing law enforcement investigation.
The federal FOIA law contains eight or nine exemptions which permit withholding information if applicable. Most state FOIA laws are modeled after the federal statute but some states have modified certain provisions. It depends on the FOIA law in each state where the universities are located but the main provisions are pretty standard.
Without looking at each state FOIA law and their exemptions, I'm fairly certain that legal privilege is a common exemption. "Deliberative privilege" is a frequent ground cited by recipients faced with a FOIA demand where the information sought involves the executive decision making process. This would cover any communication while deliberating (often referred to as "predecisional" materials).
If you look at Tom Mars' tweet in the OP, he specifically mentions that he is seeking documents during the "deliberative process" time frame. Those materials seem tailor made for a claim of executive privilege if any president choses to assert it. On the federal level, courts have generally interpreted this privilege in favor of the government agency. However courts have also recognized a "good cause" exception to this privilege. Mars may believe he has a strong argument for release if the claim is asserted. I believe they are likely to make the claim but time will tell.
If this goes beyond the request and becomes a lawsuit, it will be hard to invoke deliberative privilege on something like this. We're talking about athletics here, not settling a sexual assault civil suit with NDAs. Besides that, any university that doesn't comply with the request is basically showing their hand anyway and there can be a subsequent request to the BOR or governor in each respective state, which they probably don't want to have happen.
Silence and Smoke,/ are a sign of deception and lies, on a battlefield See the dude that said Trump hates veterans, or the stuffed shirt Warwmonngur Generals , who refuse to put their Face out their on the latest Trump Allegations / Hoax. NO One is buying the Bull POO .The University Presidents., And Warren are Obviously playing Possum. Where’s Mee Musket? show your Selfz Varmints : Elmer Fudd; Surry fur offended any
Libby’s.,
The terminology probably varies among the state FOIA and open records laws. It can also get technical. The "deliberative process" privilege is common AFAIK. As pertains to presidential communications the assertion would be an executive deliberative process privilege or some other defined term.
Are you claiming that the university presidents do not have a right to assert a deliberative process privilege exemption to the information sought in the Tom Mars' FOIA request?
They can, but it will be challenged if they do and they will lose.
OK I agree that if asserted the matter would be litigated. The question was directed at a poster who seemed to take the position that the university presidents don't have that right. Not sure how the respective state courts will rule.
Other than characterizing it as "a right", I agree. I have a hard time trying to come up with an argument or a scenario where, if challenged, a judge would come to the conclusion that a decision made regarding athletics should be protected from public knowledge. Its why the conference was so heavily criticized when they said it would cause great harm to do so and didn't quantify it. Objectively speaking, it should be a pretty meaningless production so to refuse would, on its face, be pretty suspicious.
Here is an Ohio attorney discussing FOIA as applied to an Ohio university.
"Public records include, but are not limited to, personnel files; salary and compensation information; search records of personnel; meeting minutes; documents created and provided to parties outside the university, such as contracts and textbook lists for the upcoming quarter; and certain correspondence, in whatever medium or format including email, which documents University operations." https://www.uakron.edu/ogc/legal-po...-asked-questions-regarding-public-records.dot
I don't think Ohio's exemptions are that large and OSU's records should contain records from other B1G schools. I think a good amount of records will be released. How fast is a different story.
30 days is pretty customary. I would imagine there is a lot of pressure being applied by some universities on others to delay because each individual institution would have record of the others' actions. They will be able to redact anything regarding Northwestern, but that's pretty transparent to begin with since they are the only private school in the conference (football-wise).
Well yes athletic decisions aren't sacred. The university counsel's main objective here is to protect privacy, I think. Their argument is that the pre-decisional communications that presidents make need legal protection so to encourage the free and open exchange of ideas. The Court may support that notion but still decide that the public's need to know is more important. You might be right with regard to the value of what is produced also.
To me, the most ridiculous notion that the conference tried to put forth was the idea of precedent. Well, yeah this would be the basis of precedent because its never happened before, but a district Court doesn't create precedent. Produce the documents, then appeal the ruling that comes out of it if there are damages and make the case why this should not be done again. We are talking about a very narrow ruling either way that likely won't matter in the future so take your lumps unless you have plans of following this same path again.
