Appeals Court rules in favor of IU trustees in lingering Knight case

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday in favor of the IU board of trustees that Indiana's Open Door Law was not violated in the 2000 firing of former men's basketball coach Bob Knight. \nThe ruling, listing the trustees of IU as the defendants, upheld a May 2005 lower court decision that then-IU President Myles Brand's decision to meet with the trustees in two separate groups to discuss Knight's alleged insubordination and misconduct a day before he was fired was within the bounds of Indiana's laws. Brand met two groups of trustees, each with four members present. \nIndiana's Open Door Law states that "a gathering of a majority of the governing body of a public agency for the purpose of taking official action on public business" must be advertised 48 hours before it is held and is required to be open to the public. The court ruled that it was legal for Brand to meet separately with the two groups of the trustees in his home, while the others waited in a separate room -- as to avoid a quorum, which would have required the meeting to be open to the public. \nGojko Kasich and Roy Graham, who acted as attorneys for the plaintiffs -- a group of 46 fans who originally filed the suit in 2000 -- argued that the meetings still would qualify under the open door policy and therefore were illegal. \n"Mr. Kasich and I felt from beginning that IU's behavior of dividing the trustees into two groups of four and giving the same information to both groups in two rooms within 20 minutes of each other is a deliberate affront to the purpose of the law and to the citizens of the state of Indiana," Graham said. "IU is a public trust as well as hundreds of other groups and organizations that must comply with the open door law." \nGraham added that despite the court's ruling he plans to ask for a transfer, where the Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case or continue to let the appellate court's ruling stand. Graham said he is still confident the court will hear the appeal and will agree on the plaintiffs' behalf. \nAccording to court documents the ruling was strongly based on the fact that the state legislature has specifically defined a "meeting" as having a majority of the governing body present and thus without a clear majority present, "no meeting occurs for purposes of the Open Door Law". The court decision goes on to state that it upheld the case because the Indiana General Assembly has considered revising the definitions of a meeting to include a series of gatherings, but has consistently declined to amend the policy. \n"Our reaction is we are of course pleased, we now have state courts on two levels affirming our position," said Larry MacIntyre, director of IU media relations. "We believe and had confidence all along that the trustees were within the law." \nThe court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that under prior regulations, only former IU President Thomas Ehrlich personally could fire Knight and thus Brand had no legal authority to do so. Court documents stated the judges felt this argument was "unpersuasive" and that the "trustees clearly delegated their authority to the person holding the office of president of the university." \nOnly two current trustees were members of the board during Knight's firing -- trustee President Stephen Ferguson and trustee Cora Breckenridge. While calls to Ferguson went unreturned by press time, Breckenridge said she was not aware of the specifics of the suit, but after learning the court found in favor of the trustees, said "Bravo." \nGraham said he worries that court's ruling will have a greater impact beyond this individual case.\n"The problem with the court of appeals and the trial court's reasoning is that it sends a signal to other organizations that this kind of thing is okay," he said. "Common sense and decency tells you it's not right"