A public records request is gold to a journalist. On Wednesday, we used that gold four different times as we requested records detailing finalists for the LSU System President and Chancellor position from current Interim System President and Chancellor William “Bill” Jenkins, LSU Board of Supervisors Chairman Hank Danos, the LSU Foundation and the search firm contracted to help find candidates R. William Funk and Associates.
We’re not quite sure what response to expect from LSU. The University rejected The Advocate’s request for these same records, the newspaper reported on Feb. 14, and said since the search was being conducted with private LSU Foundation money through a private search firm, public records law did not apply.
The University’s Faculty Senate President Kevin Cope also said he would formally request that the names be made public, but LSU has not given in.
Despite these two rejections, The Reveille believes it is important to go after these records ourselves, as public records law is clear and states that applicants vying for a public position be made available to the public. While LSU claims that releasing the names of the finalists will lead to less qualified candidates, the finalists’ names have been released in the past for higher administration searches.
In its story about LSU rejecting its public records request, The Advocate reported that the University of Louisiana System released names, resumes and other information for the 16 candidates in its president search.
The final decision in this battle could become quite interesting, depending on how long each party goes on. We, at The Reveille, plan to continue to pursue these records using every resource available to us, even if the University initially rejects our request.
A similar situation recently occurred at the University of Wyoming, which eventually released the records, according to the Student Press Law Center. SPLC reported that The Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, The Casper Star-Tribune and the Associated Press filed a lawsuit seeking the finalists’ names.
A district court then ruled that the university had to release the names, but the university asked the court to “alter or amend” the ruling in light of a new state law. The university then withdrew the motion, and the Board of Trustees agreed to release the names of the presidential finalists.
If LSU truly wants to turn over a new leaf with the reorganization of the System, it should make a commitment to transparency and release the names of the finalists for the presidential search. LSU, as a public research university, should allow the public access to and the ability to comment on the presidential finalists.
