Advertiser is going to find out the names from the Sugar Bowl trip

HA Note: “The Honolulu Advertiser intends to file suit in Circuit Court tomorrow to force the University of Hawai’i to disclose the list of its state-funded traveling party to the Jan. 1 Sugar Bowl in New Orleans.”

About how the Advertiser’s lawsuit will charge that by witholding the Sugar Bowl names UH is twice violating Hawaii’s open-records laws, Jeff Portnoy (HA’s attorney) said:
“First is the ongoing refusal to produce records which are clearly public and should have been produced at or about the time of the trip, but certainly no later than early March when The Advertiser first made a formal request.” (HA)

HA Note: “The second challenges UH’s ability to remove names of people in the travel party from the list if they have reimbursed the school for the trip.”

About UH trying to allow people to remove their names from the list, Portnoy said:
“This blatant and illegal attempt to modify public records is unacceptable and cannot go unchallenged.” (HA)

HA Note: “UH-Manoa spokesman Gregg Takayama, declined comment “at this time.” The Advertiser’s case was supported late today by state Office of Information Practices opinions affirming UH’s responsibility to disclose the records in a timely manner and inability to alter records.”

Portnoy said that OIP opinions are:
“highly persuasive when a court is asked to resolve the matter.” (HA)

HA Note: “Takayama declined comment on OIP’s stance.”

About how UH has been trying to keep the list of names secret, HA editor Mark Platte said:
“It’s bad enough that the University of Hawai’i has been stonewalling us for more than two months on a simple request about who traveled at taxpayer expense to the Sugar Bowl. But for university officials to now allow those same people to have their names removed from the list by reimbursing the expense is unethical and illegal.” (HA)

The OIP ruled today that UH’s response was “untimely” and that:
“UH’s failure to provide this record within the time period set by rule is effectively a denial of access.” (HA)

The OIP also ruled that UH’s:
“response must be based upon the list as it existed at the time of (the) request. We believe that the list of people who were on airplanes chartered by UH to New Orleans would meet (The Advertiser’s) request. Because an agency may not retroactively dispose of or alter requested records after receiving and prior to responding to a record request, persons on that list may not pay UH for the expense of their trip in order to have their names ‘removed’ from that list.” (HA)

HA Note: “Moreover, the OIP ruled that while UH had concerns about the “privacy of individuals who are on that list,” it noted “… it is unlikely that OIP would generally find that individuals who were on a chartered plane have a significant privacy interest in that fact that would justify UH’s withholding of their identities under (the state’s) privacy exemption.” “

HA Note: “UH officials have been in discussions about how to deal with The Advertiser’s request since March, according to people familiar with the situation. Tuesday, UH administrators told a group of 20 to 25 staff members and others they had the option to have their names removed from the travel list if they paid UH for their portions. Today a UH spokesman declined to say how many people have taken advantage of the opportunity to pay. One school official with knowledge of the situation who asked not to be named estimated the number at “maybe a dozen.” The staff members were told the list of the UH travel party would be made available “early next month.” In response, The Advertiser Wednesday morning asked for the OIP’s assistance in compelling UH to disclose the information immediately.”

HA Note: “The composition of the traveling party has been an item of controversy since the travel policy was drawn up by then-athletic director Herman Frazier in December in consultation with UH-Manoa administrators. Some staffers complained that people with little or no official duties were taken and, in some cases, spouses and family members also were extended spots, while others were not offered places in the group. Earlier this month, the University of Georgia detailed to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution its 745-member Sugar Bowl travel party and accounted for $2.2 million in expenses.”

UH Sugar Bowl travel party update, Athletic Department to lose money in 2009

HA Note: “The state’s Office of Information Practices said it has asked the University of Hawai’i to explain why the school has so far refused to release the list of people who made up the official traveling party to the Sugar Bowl. An OIP spokesman declined further comment. The question comes a day after UH held what a spokesman described as an “informational” meeting with staffers who attended the Jan. 1 game in New Orleans. At the meeting, 20 or more staffers were told they could have their names taken off the list prior to release if they reimbursed the school for the trip.

As many as 600, including players and band members, may have made up the UH traveling party, although the school has yet to announce a figure. Athletic department officials have estimated approximately $2 million was spent but have yet to provide an accounting despite requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act. The Advertiser has asked OIP to assist in expediting release of the list.”

HA Note: “Takayama said the university, which has so far maintained the list is “not finalized” according to the counsel’s office, would be releasing the list early next month. Staffers Tuesday were told, according to Takayama, that if they wanted their names removed from that list they should reimburse the school “ASAP” but “probably in the next week to 10 days they need to” make the payment. Takayama said “20 to 30″ people had family members attending the game as part of the UH travel party. He would not say what the costs were or how many had indicated they would reimburse the school.”

HA Note: “The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which filed similar requests regarding UH’s Sugar Bowl opponent Georgia, received information concerning a 745-member Bulldog traveling party and $2.2 million in expenses, all of which were detailed in a May 6 story.”

HA Note: “How UH was putting together its travel party was a big enough concern in December that the State Ethics Commission — which said it had fielded questions about the process — had a meeting with school officials in an effort to head off possible problems.”

About how the Athletic Department could face a $1.7 mil deficit in 2009, adding to their $4.5+ mil cumulative deficit, JD said:
“The budget in the near term is a challenge, and it’s a challenge we’re going to start to address.” (HSB)

HSB Note: “Donovan said the department, which has operated on a $26 million annual budget, would have encountered a similar deficit for the 2008 fiscal year if not for the payout from the Warrior football team’s appearance in the Sugar Bowl, about $2.3 million after expenses.”

About how they will figure out ways to deal with the deficit, JD said:
“I anticipate the (deficit) number to change as we do different things to address it. It really encompasses enhancing existing revenue streams and finding new revenue streams.” (HSB)

About how fans help the Athletic Department by buying tickets to the games, JD said:
“The easiest way (to help) is to buy season tickets or come out to a game.” (HSB)

HSB Note: “Donovan wouldn’t rule out the possibility of selling tickets for sports that don’t currently charge admission, such as softball, down the road. But added that such a move would be weighed against maintaining the current fan base for those teams.”