The controversy began in February 1996, when a carload of University basketball players were involved in an automobile accident, sparking an investigation of the entire basketball program. Flint disc jockey Dave Barber also filed a suit against the University for failing to supply records of vehicles driven by basketball and football scholarship athletes. In Barber's case, the University has hidden the documents behind the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which protects academic records.
Investigating how the University dealt with the conduct of its athletes, the News requested all written communications - including all memos and documents - pertaining to the University's internal investigation of its men's basketball program since the crash. It also asked for a copy of a reprimand given to basketball coach Steve Fisher for not immediately notifying the University Athletic Director Joe Robertson of two other incidents that threatened to become NCAA rules violations. The University refused to supply the reprimand, claiming it was a personnel matter. The University is a public institution funded by taxpayers' dollars - while it should protect employee records, a reprimand resulting from an active investigation does not fall under that guise. The University's basketball team is in the public eye and the press has a right to report on its performance - both on and off the court.
But the University insists on fighting the suit, no matter how ludicrous its defense may be. For instance, one of the University's objections to the News' demands was that the FOIA request was too broad and releasing all documents related to the investigation would require a search of all University departments. Judge Swartz was correct in throwing this claim out - the University could narrow its own search to the more obvious departments.
The case of Fisher's reprimand is more complicated because Fisher's privacy is at stake. Taking this into consideration, Swartz decided to review the reprimand first in chambers and then make a ruling on its release. The reprimand could provide significant insight into how the University handled the investigation. Swartz must decide whether Fisher's reprimand falls under the guise of personnel matters. He should ensure that the University does not restrict important documents from the public eye by claiming that they are personnel records.The public has a right to know how its tax dollars are being spent at the University - Swartz should release the information.
Swartz did the right thing. His decision shows respect for the law as well as respect for personal privacy. The ruling sets a good precedent to prevent the University from obstructing public access to important documents in the future.