"Public information"

Rather than continuing to go back and forth with a university communications person, I thought I'd come here and solicit some advice. This board was always a good resource for me.
The basics: Women's track and field coach at an NCAA Division II (public) school is on leave. My question to the school was whether the leave was the coach's decision or whether it was prompted by the school. Off the record, the communications person (whom I know, and think highly of) told me there's an investigation. I'm pretty sure I know why. But at this point I'm merely interested in confirming who initiated the leave. Communications person wanted to check with legal to make sure she could give me that info, and, of course, that's another run-around. But, to me, that seems straightforward. That's public information, no? We're not asking for the allegations surrounding the investigation, but rather for confirmation that the school placed the coach on leave.
Am I wrong here? If it matters, I am in Minnesota.

 

In my experience, sometimes schools won't issue records that are considered part of a coach's personnel file. I've often thought schools have a very broad definition of what should be in a personnel file, but that's another story. That's probably why the SID wants to consult with legal.

 

Just put in an open records request and call it a day. You could request a copy of any files from an investigation. If it's denied, you know they exist at the very least.

 

If you write a story saying that the school placed the coach on leave, the immediate question is why. Put in the open records request. If your newspaper retains an attorney for public records assistance, or if your metro staff has a reporter who files a lot of records requests, one of those people can help you write the request in such a way as to get the best results (if you don't ask for something specific, you won't get it). And press the PR person to confirm the investigation on record or point you to someone who will, or better yet point you to the relevant documents. Ask the coach if he/she has retained an attorney and talk to the attorney. What do the team members tell you? You can't write a story saying "coach put on leave" without saying why if, as you say, you're pretty sure you know why.

 

^^^ in addition, if you get someone from the news side to initiate it, it keeps your PR person thinking someone else started the investigation while maintaining your good relationship with her. We typically had procedures in our shops to get news side involved when needed so the sports writer can work on just sports, until the time is right and then the sports writer uses his/her contacts to help dive even deeper.

 

Thanks, folks. I was trying to get around the open records request, at least for now, in order to get some kind of a story out there. In a roundabout way, it worked out and I was able to add some context. Hopefully, an open-records request will allow me to get more detail and flesh it out.

Also, why would I kick this to news? I disagree with that. I cover mostly preps, which is great, of course, but I don't often get a chance to dig into something with a little more teeth. The thought of punting never crossed my mind. A professional PR person isn't going to nix a perfectly good relationship simply because someone's doing his/her job. At least, they shouldn't.

 

Good for you for not punting on this. Don't know the story here, but as far as I'm concerned, there's no place for sports reporters in today's world that aren't willing and able to cover the hard news of sports that have nothing to do with wins and losses.

From what I can gather, Minnesota has a more strict definition of "personnel file" than what I usually deal with; however, this is specifically listed in state law as something that is NOT part of a personnel file:

(2) information relating to the investigation of a violation of a criminal or civil statute by an employee or an investigation of employee conduct for which the employer may be liable, unless and until:

(i) the investigation is completed and, in cases of an alleged criminal violation, the employer has received notice from the prosecutor that no action will be taken or all criminal proceedings and appeals have been exhausted; and

(ii) the employer takes adverse personnel action based on the information contained in the investigation records.

If there is an investigation, chances are, an open records request will be denied because the investigation is ongoing. Should that be the case, I suggest filing a request for "all documents that discuss, describe, or explain what precipitated the investigation of (PERSON)."

Good luck. Let us know how it goes.

 

Per open records, and FOIA:

1. Is there a reasonable timeframe for requests to be responded to?
2. How much info can be redacted?
3. How much material is required to be released?

 

I received FOIA records recently that were heavily redacted in the most bullshit of ways.

I've appealed certain redactions in one of the records though I don't expect the appeals decision to go my way.

 

Every state has its own laws regarding all of that, honestly. Minnesota is 10 days to respond, Colorado is three days, Georgia was trying to go to three months but I think it's still three days.

 

In this case, the investigation is ongoing, but the university spokesperson told me to submit the open records request regardless so at least it's on file. We'll see what comes of it and how much is redacted.
As I mentioned in my initial post, this spokesperson has been quite helpful, to the extent that she can be. But I also wonder if PR people are increasingly likely to yank reporters around and make them jump through more hoops today than before simply because they see our ever-declining resources/staffs and realize we often don't have the firepower to pursue some of this stuff as intensely as we once did. Fewer reporters makes it more difficult to take someone off a beat and let them focus on something different for a few days or weeks. I'd posit that the PR person knows this, and thus if they string us along just a little longer they're confident we'll eventually just go away.

 

With regard to redacted material:

Pray that what they send you is in a digital format, preferably PDFs. My experience has been that about 10-15 percent of PDFs that I've received with redacted material were not formatted correctly, allowing me to see details that I wasn't supposed to see. The bad news is that the info seldom pertained to what I was seeking.