Appeals filed in Knight suit

Both plaintiffs and defendants in a lawsuit charging IU with violations of Indiana's Open Door Law are appealing a ruling by a Jeffersonville judge.\nLast month Special Judge Cecile Blau said IU President Myles Brand had the authority to fire former men's basketball coach Bob Knight. She also said the plaintiffs, a group of 46 fans, may pursue their claim in court.\nThe University appealed Blau's ruling Friday, claiming the issue should be settled without a trial. \nThe plaintiffs' motion, filed Saturday, states the Court erred in its ruling that Brand had the authority to terminate Coach Knight last September. The plaintiffs said the Court made its decision without hearing testimony from Brand or any members of IU's board of trustees.\nIU alumnus Robert Nemanich, an original plaintiff in the case, spoke on behalf of the fans, claiming IU never legally proved Brand had the authority to fire Knight. \nNemanich cited the appeal as a "legal tactical move, to protect ourselves for the future over remedies and not forcing the suit being considered a mute issue."\nIndiana Code 20-12-1 grants trustees the power to dismiss, suspend and punish any faculty member or University employee violating standards of conduct, "after determination of guilt by lawful proceedings."\nBut Knight was not found legally accountable before Brand's decision to fire him, according to the plaintiffs' claim, which Nemanich deemed "undisputed."\nThe plaintiffs also said nothing supports the trustees' claim that Brand acted within the scope of legal authority. Knight was not included in the discussions between Brand and the Board, and was not aware and could not consent to any authority to terminate his employment by the University.\nKnight designated authority to the University and its trustees to review his employment in a mutual Employment Agreement. The Board is a group of nine individuals which may vote on University matters formally only with a majority of members present.\nIn an e-mail to Nemanich, Brand maintained a vote by the board to fire Knight was not necessary during September's sessions, which he termed "informal discussions."\nBrand said many trustees had planned to be in Bloomington the Saturday of the meetings, which coincided with the season's first football game. He had been communicating with members of the Board during the previous week by telephone. \nBrand said the trustees' physical presence on campus that Saturday allowed them to meet in "small groups" to discuss Brand's decision-making process. Brand recognized state law requires a quorum of members present to conduct an executive session of the board of trustees on matters concerning personnel. But, because a quorum was not present at any of the weekend's meetings, Brand claimed public notice was not necessitated.\n"In my opinion, and that of our attorney, our actions did not violate the state's open meetings act," Brand wrote.\nThe law requires public governing bodies and boards to publicize meeting times and to take action only with the vote of a majority.\nThe plaintiffs maintained the majority should have been present to approve Knight's termination. Nemanich indicated the public should not be excluded from such "public" proceedings. \n"A trial is a process where it seeks the truth in a matter in dispute and the fairest place that even government officials can demonstrate that they followed the law," Nemanich said. \nThe September meetings raise the question of what constitutes a "gathering of a majority of a governing body," according to the defendants' Aug. 17 appeal. The motion also stated both parties agree the issue can be settled "without further discovery or trial." The case should be resolved in an interlocutory appeal, the defendants stated, to allow a "more orderly disposition" of the case.\nThe defendants also claimed a risk of "discovery abuse" surfaces in this particular case. A protective order exists limiting discovery about Brand's reasons for firing Knight. The plaintiffs stated in their motion that the lack of any written contract between Brand and the Trustees allows all oral contact to be fully investigated and discovered.\nA 1987 university resolution allowed then-president Thomas Ehrlich full authority to initiate or dismiss employment contracts within the University, as permitted by Indiana Code 20-12-1-4. But, the plaintiffs stated no agreement was made between the current Board of Trustees and Brand allowing Brand that same scope of authority.\nNo written contract exists between the Board of Trustees and Brand enumerating such powers, the plaintiffs stated. \n"A public university shouldn't skirt the law and brag about it," plaintiffs' attorney Roy Graham said. "They admitted they violated the spirit of the law but denied they violated the letter of the law, and that's the same thing in my opinion."\nGraham said he and co-counsel Gojko Kasich do not believe Brand has the authority he claims to reserve. \n"This is a public interest lawsuit, and they have to go by the Open Door Law, and they haven't," Graham said. "They should admit their fault, settle this case and move on."\nIU Spokeswoman Susan Dillman, speaking on behalf of University counsel, indicated the motion best expresses the official perspective of the University.