IU lawyers ask for early ruling

In a surprise move, lawyers for IU's board of trustees filed a motion for summary judgment just 15 days after a group of alumni and citizens filed suit against the trustees for allegedly violating Indiana's open meeting laws.\n"Normally that would be quick," said Owen County judge Frank Nardi, who chose not to preside over the case. "But that doesn't mean it's improper."\nA summary judgment is a motion made by one party asking a judge to rule in its favor because any reasonable jury would come to the same conclusion. \nGojko Kasich, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, was surprised that the University filed so quickly for summary judgment. He said summary judgment usually comes after a period of discovery, and the trustees might have filed quickly because they don't want him deposing IU President Myles Brand or any of the trustees.\n"They're trying to prevent us from putting Brand under oath and asking him questions," Kasich said. "They're petrified of us taking depositions, especially if we ask about the conversations. But why? What are they so afraid of?"\nAttempts to contact University outside counsel, Ellen Boshkoff and Scott Himsel of Baker and Daniels of Indianapolis, were unsuccessful. Boshkoff's husband said she is out of town and Himsel did not return numerous phone calls. \nIU's motion claims that the plaintiffs' complaint fails as a matter of law and asks for a judgment in favor of the trustees. But the case doesn't have a judge yet.\nGreene Superior Court Judge David Holt will appoint a special judge to hear the case because Monroe Circuit Court judge Elizabeth Mann recused herself after the case was filed Oct. 2. She gave a list of three judges to the parties, from which each side could remove one. Nardi was selected by process of elimination but chose to decline -- forcing Holt to appoint the judge.\n"I'd rather have a judge recuse themselves because they're uncomfortable, than have a judge up there who is uncomfortable," Kasich said.\nThe lawsuit claims that Brand and the board of trustees deliberately skirted open door laws Sept. 9 by meeting in two separate groups of four trustees before Brand fired then-basketball coach Bob Knight. It asks the court to void Brand's decision and to enjoin the trustees from future violations along with attorney fees, other costs and proper relief.\nThe motion centers on what the defendants believe to be two facts: Brand's decision to fire Knight was legal because the president acted on authority given to him by the trustees, and informal conversations between Brand and the trustees don't fall under the Open Door Laws because a majority of the board never met.\nThe minutes of a trustee meeting from Sept. 11, 1987 were submitted as evidence, because at the meeting the trustees delegated powers to the president -- Thomas Ehrlich at the time -- with the purpose of streamlining decision-making processes.\n Section 1.A.(5) paragraph 3 reads, "... the president is granted such authority by the board to develop documents, execute contracts and agreements on behalf of the University or authorize others to do so in his stead..."\nKasich said he is unsure as to whether this transfer of power is valid.\nKnight's contract was also entered as evidence for the University. Section 9 implicity states that the University can fire Knight at will. \nBut Kasich pointed out that the first line of the contract states that it is an agreement between the trustees and Knight.\n"By going in this direction they have given us the right to see what restrictions Brand works under," Kasich said. "But I don't think we want to get into this. We want whatever happened (Sept. 9) to be void. We want an agreement that it will never happen again, and reasonable fees."\nKasich and the plaintiffs have 30 days to reply to motion for summary judgment. But Kasich said he needs more time. \n"We're going to ask for an extension because we don't want to respond until after our discovery"