Rosebowl just tweeted

[Johnson85]

The documents he received did not include the LoI or the LoA. As some suggested previously, they are claiming that the NoA was delivered to outside counsel and is not on campus.

That is a hyper-literal reading of "possessed" to claim that documents in the possession of their agents are not in their possession. It makes as much sense as saying the University doesn't possess the document, it's Chancellor does and it's in his off campus residence. I wonder if that's ever been litigated before? Hard to believe it would be successful to claim hey, the public body doesn't possess the document, somebody hired by the public body possesses it.

Seems pretty clear the NOA is a document being used in the performance of any business of a public body even if they could skate by on the hyper technical definition of "possess".

(b) "Public records" shall mean all books, records, papers, accounts, letters, maps, photographs, films, cards, tapes, recordings or reproductions thereof, and any other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been used, being in use, or prepared, possessed or retained for use in the conduct, transaction or performance of any business, transaction, work, duty or function of any public body, or required to be maintained by any public body.

[ScoobaDawg]

The other thing could be Steve said he requested the LOI received in 2016.

What if it was received on Dec 31, 2015....

[Johnson85]

Not releasing it is just going to make it worse for OM, the cover up is often worse than the crime although the crimes are probably worse in this case but OM is so screwed at this point they have no choice.

And there's already an article opining the recruits should get released from their signatures based on the lies they were told just before signing day about the NOA not affecting the 2016 class.

And I'll add this: when your in state media is complicit in the cover up it emboldens the accused to try and get away with lying to people and opens them up to even more criticism.

So by failing to be a watchdog media they will have ultimately harmed OM.

Not really. Pretty sure the penalty for violating the Public Records Act is minor. Like $100 per violation plus the attorney's fees of the requestor. Not sure what they gain by delaying it at this point, but their exposure is pretty low. Less than the fines for having a goal post torn down.

[Brahmabull]

This is really not surprising. I think we did the same with the letter we received on Redmond. Not defending them, just saying it isn't that unusual. Obviously, they have already been caught in muktiple lies.

[yjnkdawg]

This is circumventing the State of MS Laws. It is a MS public record no matter where it is. The LOA is in reference to allegations against OM, and not some law firm in Birmingham. If they didn't have a copy of the record on campus (which is a joke in itself), then they are supposed to procure it. So they delayed all this time for this, basically saying they did not have it. This would be a good one to contact the MS Ethic's Commission. You can do so within 14 days, if information is not received as requested.

[Schultzy]

Not really. Pretty sure the penalty for violating the Public Records Act is minor. Like $100 per violation plus the attorney's fees of the requestor. Not sure what they gain by delaying it at this point, but their exposure is pretty low. Less than the fines for having a goal post torn down.

Yeah, I meant in the court of public opinion, denying taxpayers documents from a public entity when requested as required by law. There are probably even some OM people disappointed to see them break the law on this.

Of course they don't care about a $100 fine, I get that.

[blacklistedbully]

That is a hyper-literal reading of "possessed" to claim that documents in the possession of their agents are not in their possession. It makes as much sense as saying the University doesn't possess the document, it's Chancellor does and it's in his off campus residence. I wonder if that's ever been litigated before? Hard to believe it would be successful to claim hey, the public body doesn't possess the document, somebody hired by the public body possesses it.

Seems pretty clear the NOA is a document being used in the performance of any business of a public body even if they could skate by on the hyper technical definition of "possess".

(b) "Public records" shall mean all books, records, papers, accounts, letters, maps, photographs, films, cards, tapes, recordings or reproductions thereof, and any other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been used, being in use, or prepared, possessed or retained for use in the conduct, transaction or performance of any business, transaction, work, duty or function of any public body, or required to be maintained by any public body.

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word, "is" is."

[spbdawg]

#

[yjnkdawg]

The other thing could be Steve said he requested the LOI received in 2016.

What if it was received on Dec 31, 2015....

Good point, ScoobaDawg, as you have to be very specific in a request especially if the one you are dealing with either wants to hide some documents or not turn over any relavent information to you.

[gravedigger]

Not really. Pretty sure the penalty for violating the Public Records Act is minor. Like $100 per violation plus the attorney's fees of the requestor. Not sure what they gain by delaying it at this point, but their exposure is pretty low. Less than the fines for having a goal post torn down.

You are thinking too literally. It's not minor. This isn't about dollar value. This is about the cost of lost sales.

[Homedawg]

So the bear lawyers delayed to then tell Steve to 17 off. Is anybody really surprised? They cheat and bend the rules on everything. Hope this really pisses him off and he shows no mercy. He played nice and they 17ed him. Time for him to say it's his turn to do some pounding.

As I said before, this is a normal course of action. We would do the same. Don't know why yall are suprised.

[spbdawg]

#

[yjnkdawg]

If they don't have or never had this record, they would have replied on the 14 business day....last Friday. They waited an additional three business days for a reason

Actually under the MS Public Records Act, they were required to tell him this within 7 business days from the date that he filed his request.

[NYDawg]

NYDawg or anyone else.....how might you rewrite this definition to avoid this abuse?

As I've said before, I don't believe this "outside counsel" approach is colorable under the current language. I suppose you could insert "wherever located and by whomever held" between "and any other documentary materials" and "regardless of physical form or characteristics" to drive the point home, but someone will manufacture a justification for circumventing the statute when they want to do so.

This isn't about compliance with the law; it's about buying enough time to control the message. Challenging superficial interpretations of the law in court or other procedures moves too slowly to prevent that from happening in this type of situation.