Brand misrepresented

-- Editor's note: The IU administration wished to respond to accusations made by plaintiffs and their attorneys in the Open Door lawsuit filed against the University as well as the recent IDS editorial asking for Brand and the Trustees to be reprimanded. This is their response.\nIn the article and editorial regarding the deposition testimony of President Brand and others in the open meetings lawsuit (June 27, "IU Officials Avoid the Law," and "Brand Admits to Law Evasion"), the IDS relied almost exclusively on statements by the plaintiffs and their lawyer concerning what occurred in those depositions. In doing so, the IDS made many errors. I write to correct some of them and to reiterate salient points which, apparently, have been ignored.\nIDS Statement: "The open-door laws were designed to keep the public informed about what goes on during meetings unless the material is strictly confidential, which this matter (discussion of former Coach Knight's employment) clearly was not."\nFacts: Although the Open Door Law allows public access to many meetings, certain matters remain confidential, including "discussions of (an) individual's status of an employee." IC 5-14-1.5-6.1(b)(6). Any such discussions may be held in an executive session closed to the public. Even if the trustee gatherings on the morning of Sept. 9, 2000, were a meeting of the majority of the governing body (and they were not), those discussions would not have been open to the public. IU's only obligation under such circumstances would have been to post notice of an executive session.\nIDS statements: "Myles Brand admitted that he and IU trustees have held meetings in small groups to evade Indiana's open meetings laws" and "Myles Brand admitted in a deposition last week ... that he and the trustees broke (the public's) trust when they went behind the public's back and held secret meetings regarding former basketball coach Bobby Knight."\nFacts: President Brand made no such statements. To the contrary, President Brand testified that his purpose in having discussions with small groups of trustees was to comply with the law. By its terms, the Open Door Law applies only to "a gathering of a majority of the governing body." IC 5-14-1.5-2(c).\nPresident Brand testified that he was aware that the Indiana legislature has rejected various amendments that would extend the law to cover gatherings of less than a majority. Indeed, the legislature has defeated those efforts three times. As the IDS has previously reported, others concur with President Brand's assessment that non-quorum gatherings do not fall within the scope of the law. Quoting House Majority Leader Mark Kruzan, D-Bloomington, (October 18, 2000, "Citizens' Lawsuit Shapes Up") "The bill failed, and that's why IU will win this lawsuit."\nIDS statements: "In 2000, (the trustees) met in small 'non-majority' groups when they decided to impose zero tolerance upon Knight" and "This is twice that Brand and the trustees have violated the spirit of the law concerning this issue."\nFacts: President Brand did not testify that the trustees met in "non-majority groups" to discuss zero tolerance, nor have the plaintiffs in the open meetings lawsuit alleged that the trustees did so. The trustees did discuss personnel matters at two posted executive sessions during May 2000. The notices of executive session are available for inspection by the IDS or any other interested member of the public.\nIDS statement: "A recent budget decision requiring incoming freshman to pay a fee … was also a recent matter of concern for (plaintiffs' attorney) Kasich."\nFact: Although the statement by Mr. Kasich implies otherwise, there was no testimony in these depositions regarding the recent fee increase for incoming freshmen in the fall of 2003. \nIt is important to understand the law and the facts before reaching a conclusion and making criticisms. Unfortunately, the IDS did not check the law or appreciate all of the facts when it rushed to judgment and published its article and editorial. President Brand's testimony did not portray IU officials as being "deceitful," as the IDS asserted, but rather established that President Brand and the trustees fully complied with the law at each step of the decision-making process.