District Judge Timothy Kelley ruled in favor of the Board of Supervisors in Daily Reveille Editor in Chief Andrea Gallo’s public records lawsuit against the University on Tuesday, creating a split decision between his and District Judge Janice Clark’s ruling last Thursday that the Board must “immediately produce” the names of presidential candidates.
Both lawsuits brought forth similar allegations that the Board of Supervisors’ presidential search committee broke public records laws by failing to produce the names of the “35 or so” active candidates considered for the new LSU president position. The two separate trials called into question the word “applicant” and its different interpretations. In his ruling, Kelley said he did not believe there were any actual applicants for the position aside from newly appointed LSU President F. King Alexander and 10 others who wrote to the search firm R. William Funk and Associates but did not make it to the final round of potential picks. 
Clark presided over The Advocate’s and NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune’s lawsuit regarding the same issue last week, and she did not issue an explanation alongside her ruling that ordered LSU to release the names. 
Despite Kelley’s ruling and Board of Supervisors Chairman Hank Danos’ plans to appeal Clark’s ruling, Gallo’s attorney Scott Sternberg said after Tuesday’s trial he still felt confident the records would ultimately be released.
Gallo said she and Sternberg should make a decision by today about whether they will appeal their ruling from Kelley. 
“I’m disappointed with Judge Kelley’s ruling, especially since it contradicts Judge Clark’s ruling from last week,” Gallo said. “But I’m glad that I got my day in court and I’m still hopeful that the records will eventually become public based on Judge Clark’s ruling and my interpretation of public records law.”
Kelley’s decision came immediately after the conclusion of oral arguments at 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, hours after the hearing began at 9:30 a.m. In his explanation, Kelley acknowledged his break from Clark’s ruling, saying “clearly, [the lawsuit] is not going to stop here.”
Kelley said the hearing’s hours of oral arguments left him with two main ideas to consider: what the definition of an applicant is and who had control of the documents in question.
He said the legislature was deliberate in its use of the word “applicant” when writing the law pertaining to public records although they could have used “any other language,” he said. He also ruled “neither the Board nor the search committee has control over the documents in question,” as LSU’s attorney Jimmy Faircloth argued throughout the trial that the documents belonged to R. William Funk and Associates, the private search firm conducting the search. 
Faircloth said he was pleased with the decision and said the difference in the results from the two lawsuits was due to a judge who “saw the law very differently” and the presence of witnesses who did not attend The Advocate and NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune’s hearing. 
Faircloth brought two witnesses Tuesday, presidential search committee Chairman Blake Chatelain  and R. William Funk and Associates President and Founder Bill Funk.
Throughout his arguments, Faircloth maintained that the search had only one applicant, F. King Alexander, who the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted into the office of University president March 27.
Chatelain explained the search committee had begun with a list of about 100 prospective candidates, some of whom were nominated and some of whom applied. That group was then narrowed to a list of about 35 that the committee examined via an online portal set up by Funk.
The portal made the 35 candidates’ résumé and other materials available to the 12-member Presidential Search Committee.
Chatelain said he spoke with committee members to eliminate all but about five individuals, three of whom were ultimately interviewed for the position. However, Chatelain also maintained that Alexander was the only actual applicant.
Kelley said the only records that should be made public in addition to Alexander’s are the résumés and related materials from the 10 candidates who submitted their names voluntarily for consideration by the search committee.
The other 90 names are considered nominations, not necessarily applicants, Kelley said in his ruling.
Faircloth reiterated that the search’s secrecy was necessary because of privacy concerns held by many of the candidates.
“There was a search conducted that didn’t involve the submission of applications,” Faircloth said. “It was by design. I want to strip away the idea this was done for some sinister purpose. But it was done carefully, yes.”