ACCESS
Courts Affirm V 's Right to Withold Info. D ecisions Deny Access to Admin . Salaries, Fund-raising Repo� ts , PENNSYLVANIA A Pennsylvania courthas upheld Penn State University's refusal to make public the salaries of certain administrative officials at the -
university.
. The three-judge court ruled in Roy v. PennsylvOniaSlate University. 568 A.2d 751 (pa. Cornmw. Ct. 1990). in January
-that Penn State could keep the salaries " "confidential because the u niversity is a "state--re1ated institution," not a stale agency.
Three Penn State s\lldents had sought release of the salary" information in the case. An appeal of the commonwealth court decision has not been made yet The students sought the salary infor mation :mder Pennsylvania's Right to Know Act, which provides that every record of a state agency shall be open for examination by any citizen of that State. The Penn State students argued that the university was a state agency be- cause it was created by the common wealth, received funding from the com monwealth and has been held to be a state actor by the federal courts. The commonwealth coun relied on thePennsylvania Supreme Court's 1 972 decision in MooneJ Y. Temple Univtr-
sity Board of Trusues
to
"upb Id the
university's efforts to keep the information c nfid"emial. In Mooney,- the SUll
salary
supreme court
ruled that lhe fact ihat Temple Univer sity received [mandaI assistan f-rom
the commonwealth did nOt, by ilS I f, transform the university into a state
agency.
" [The srudenlS] emphasize lh:ll Penn State s receipt of fInancial support is clear! y indicati ve ofagency"sta tuS," wrote the commonwealth court in Roy. : ''The Mooney court rejected a similar argu '
ment concluding that just as the receipt.
of federaL funds does not makc Tcmplea
federal agency, neither does the rccdpl
of state funds n\akc it a SLalC agency." In Mooney, the state supreme COUIt ruled that the state Icgi lature," by in creasing fmandaI sapport for Temple University, did not alter the I.JIli versity· s status as a nonprofit corporation ,and
transform the university into
a stale
agency. The court said Penn S tate's struc ture was essentially the same as thatoITemple University, which was held a state-re
l ated institution in Mooney.•
AlLburn D o e s n ' t Appe al Open Records Judgment ALABAMA
After Lee County Cir cuit Judge James Gullage granted the student newspaper at Auburn Univer sity, the Auburn Plainsman, access to alumni association records in March, then-Sllldent editor Page Oliver was sure the university would appeal. To her surprise, they did not 'They wasted a lot of money on tak ing the matter to coun,'" said Oliver. The alumni records allegedly con tained information abo ut the misuse of college funds by the director of Auburn
Foil 1990
-
University 's alumni association. Oliver, who graduated in June, does
not foresee any problems between the Plainsman and the administration next year in light of the court's decision. "The problem with [the Plainsman] is that we are the only aggressive newspa per in the city, and it's up to us to cover the big stories. Along with that, we're only a weekly," said Oliver. University administrators were un available for comment..
/
WEST VIRGlNIA -A"West Virginia. University fund-r.llsin g foundation ma.y refuse to release documents under the state 's freedom of information act (FOIA)be:l:ause the organization is nota
public body.
The state supreme court of appeals ruled in 4-H Road Community Associa tion Y. West Virginia University Foun dation, 388 S.E.2d 308 (W.Va. 1989), that the foundation was neither creat«l ' nor primarily funded by stale authority. The case began in 1977 when the 4·H Road Community Association sought i nfonn a tion pertaining to coal leases from the West Virginia University FonDdation under the FOIA. The foundation owned the coal teases. A trial court ruled that the foundation was not a public body under state taw and th us was not subject to FOIA. In uphOlding the lower court, the suprem e court of appeals stressed that the foundation was formed by private citizens pursuant to the general corpo rate laws of the state. "No legislative mandate for such an enti ty predated its incorporation, " stated the court. "It is not located on st$e property; does not utilize state employ ees; and selection of its Board of Direc· -
r
tors, and their duties. are governed the corporation's by-laws."
by
The coWl said lhat although the uni
versity referred to th e foundation as its "primary gift solicitation agency," that statement was "not tantamount to state authorization for !he creation of the entity .n
In addition, the court stated that no public money. property Or employees
were used in the operation of the founda�
tion.
Because the decision is based on West
Virginia law. it has no precedential au thority in other states. But the court's
reasoning could affect the application.of other states' freedom ofinfonnation laws
to Wliversi ly fund-raising foundations .•
SPlC
Report 13