Morgan judge anticipates appeal

As officials at The Indianapolis Star formulate a response to Monday's court ruling that IU does not have to release documents related to the firing of former basketball coach Bob Knight, the judge who ruled in favor of the University expects an appeal. \nMorgan County Special Judge Jane Spencer Craney would not comment on her written opinion Wednesday because of the likelihood of its review.\nStar Executive Editor Terry Eberle is consulting with the paper's lawyer, Kevin Betz, as to its next move.\n"We are carefully looking at what the judge said in her ruling, but we have not as of yet made a decision on our next course of action," Eberle said.\nThe Star has petitioned IU since May 2000 for public disclosure of records relating to the investigation surrounding Knight's termination. In Craney's decision granting IU summary judgment, she asserted that while state code requires results of a "final personnel disciplinary action" to be publicly announced, the investigation process is not legally bound for disclosure.\nCraney's ruling Monday contradicts an April 1994 decision by Clay Circuit Court Judge Ernest Yelton in which Yelton, a special judge, forced the Vigo County School Corporation to release all the personnel files of a reassigned employee.\nThe issue, Yelton said, stemmed from Linda Lidster's reassignment within Honey Creek Junior High School, Terre Haute, Ind. Lidster was removed as principal after an investigation into various allegations received by Superintendent Charles Clark in December of 1992. She was reassigned as a school counselor in April 1993 after negotiations.\nCitizens later sued the school corporation saying the reassignment was the result of a disciplinary action, and therefore public record. \nYelton agreed.\n"… If the files contain information concerning disciplinary actions in which final action has been taken and resulted in the employee being disciplined," Yelton wrote in his opinion, "then, release is mandatory upon request."\nBecause of the nature of Lidster's reassignment, all public records surrounding the situation, including the investigation, should be publicized, Yelton said.\n"My ruling was, as the law existed then, that once a government entity actually disciplines an individual, the records surrounding the disciplinary action were public records," Yelton said. "I had ruled that Miss Lidster was disciplined and therefore her records should be public."\nYelton said he knew of the case involving The Indianapolis Star but would not comment on it. \nBecause Yelton's opinion is unofficial, it did not bind Craney's decision Monday, Craney said. \n"Unless it comes from the Indiana Court of Appeals or the Indiana State Supreme Court, it is not an official opinion of the court," Craney said.\nCraney would not speak about the case because she expects the decision to be appealed.\nIU trustees John Walda and Fred Eichhorn conducted the May 2000 investigation and released their findings in summary form, but the University has refused access to notes pertaining to the investigation.\nThe Star sought public disclosure of two categories of records: the first concerning the "Reed Investigatory Documents" stemming from allegations made by former men's basketball player Neil Reed and the other created in response to an IU Police Department investigation into "alleged criminal conduct" by Knight in September 2000. The first formal request was filed in May 2000.\nAccording to Craney's decision, over the course of the following year The Star made "multiple requests" for documents regarding the former coach. The University responded by releasing more than 40 such materials. Yet actual materials concerning the investigation were still kept under wraps, according to The Star's lawsuit.\nIndiana's Access to Public Records Act favors disclosure of public records upon request and should be "liberally construed in favor of disclosure," per state law.\nThe Star's original complaint claimed "IU waived its APRA exemptions when it publicly disclosed significant portions of the 'investigatory findings' through its dissemination of IU's 'Summary Report of the Trustee Review Regarding Neil Reed Allegations Concerning The Conduct of Coach Bob Knight' and made subsequent public statements about these 'investigatory proceedings.'"\nTo waive ARPA exemptions, Craney held, IU must have either selectively disclosed certain parts of the investigation or disclosed parts of the proceedings to selected parties. Craney's formal opinion asserts that IU was guilty of neither and thus never waived its exemption rights. \nRather, because the Reed Investigatory Documents contain expressions of opinion and have some "speculative materials," they are not subject to public disclosure to protect confidentiality of all parties involved. Citing state law, Craney further asserted IU was allowed "the discretion to disclose or not to disclose" the IU Police Department documents.\nStephen Key, counsel for governmental affairs for the Hoosier State Press Association, said the "logical" way to interpret the statute would be to make all personnel files open to the public. Because Knight's termination constitutes a disciplinary action, Key believes the records surrounding the investigation into his conduct should be kept open.\nUniversity counsel Dorothy Frapwell indicated the University would not respond to a potential appeal until formal motions are filed by the plaintiffs. \nCampus Editor Aaron Sharockman contributed to this story.