From The Chronicle of Higher Education today (subscriber site):
quote
—————————-
The Minnesota Supreme Court ordered the University of Minnesota last week to reveal the names of candidates in the university’s 2002 presidential search. The decision ended an 18-month legal battle between the institution and a half dozen news-media organizations over whether the names had to be made public under the state’s open-records and open-meetings laws.
The university, claiming a prerogative under the state Constitution, refused to disclose the names of candidates to replace Mark G. Yudof, who left to become chancellor of the University of Texas System in July 2002. Minnesota newspapers sued the university last year to force the release of the names. Robert H. Bruininks, the acting interim president after Mr. Yudof’s departure, became the university’s president in November 2002.
The court’s 4-to-2 decision upheld rulings by a state district court and the state Court of Appeals, which said that the public-information laws — commonly known as “sunshine laws” — did apply to the university’s search for a president. One justice, Alan C. Page, recused himself from the decision because he is a former member of the university’s Board of Regents.
The majority decision, written by Justice Russell A. Anderson, held that the university had failed to support its argument that following the public-information laws would interfere with its right under the state Constitution to govern itself largely free of legislative interference, except in matters of appropriations. The Legislature has not specifically exempted the university from the sunshine laws, he wrote, and as a public agency the university must make decisions in a way that is transparent to taxpayers.
The university’s contention that a public search might dissuade candidates from applying did not outweigh the public’s right to know, Justice Anderson continued, because other states successfully draw qualified candidates in open searches. In addition, he wrote, the university’s arguments to protect its autonomy in presidential searches were vague enough that they could be used to exempt the university from other laws. …
—————————-