FOIA lawsuit: Judge likely to give Mel Tucker’s contract details to Freep in 4 to 6 weeks

This is a long comment due to the apparent confusion over the Freep FOIA lawsuit against MSU.

From the linked Axios story [and reports in the Freep itself], the disputed contracts ARE NOT Mel's contract(s) with MSU.  The dispute centers on the separate donors' contracts with MSU governing their donations to fund Mel's contract.  

The Michigan Freedom of Information Act's Section 13 contains numerous exemptions to the general requirement that all public records [i.e., public contracts] must be disclosed upon request. Based upon the Axios story, it appears MSU is most likely claiming that the following exemption applies:

•   (a) Information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy.

It's also possible they are arguing that the following vaguely and broadly worded exemption applies:

•  (f) Trade secrets or commercial or financial information voluntarily provided to an agency for use in developing governmental policy if:

    (i) The information is submitted upon a promise of confidentiality by the public body.

    (ii) The promise of confidentiality is authorized by the chief administrative officer of the public body or by an elected official at the time the promise is made.

    (iii) A description of the information is recorded by the public body within a reasonable time after it has been submitted, maintained in a central place within the public body, and made available to a person upon request. This subdivision does not apply to information submitted as required by law or as a condition of receiving a governmental contract, license, or other benefit.

It is interesting to note that the Freep has reported that the two identified donors involved submitted affidavits in support of MSU's position, claiming that future donations would be imperiled by an order requiring disclosure.  As a former attorney whose job involved responding to public records requests to a California mega university, that is a very stupid argument to make.  

It smacks of coercion or even extortion. [If recipient public entities don't hide the terms of gifts by wealthy donors, they won't get any future large donations.]  Plus, anyone can make an anonymous donation of funds with no strings [or contracts] attached.  However, for these kinds of donors, the point is that they only want to make tax deductible donations with strings attached which serve their personal interests.