• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Thursday, 5/29/97 Trial date set for suit to dismiss regents' decision RULING: Judge's order allows lawyers to force some regents to testify

By Brooke Olson Daily Bruin Senior Staff The UC Board of Regents may come under intense questioning by attorneys challenging the board's decision to end affirmative action. A San Francisco Superior Court judge Tuesday set a Nov. 17 trial date for a lawsuit seeking dismissal of the regents' decision to ban affirmative action. Some of the state's most prominent civil rights attorneys, in representing UC Santa Barbara student reporter Tim Malloy, allege that Gov. Pete Wilson and the regents violated open meeting laws by privately securing regents' votes before a July 1995 public meeting. Specifically, the suit charged that the regents voted to end race- and gender-based criteria after Wilson called a number of regents on the telephone in attempts to line up a victory before the vote was called into session. Such behavior is contrary to the Bagley-Keene Act which maintains that the regents' votes must be conducted in an open meeting, Malloy charged in his suit. Filed in February 1996, the lawsuit has been continually stonewalled by various defendants' motions seeking to dismiss the suit. Tuesday's ruling, as well as a separate order made last week on the case, has finally cleared the way for lawyers to depose several of the regents, including Ward Connerly and the Governor's Press Secretary Sean Walsh. The order to depose means that Walsh and some regents will have to testify under oath about their alleged secret lobbying. "I am very pleased ... with the ruling," Malloy said. "It vindicates the purpose of the Open Meeting Act. "If public officials can manipulate the vote behind closed doors, and then escape responsibility by hiding their wrongdoing, then they can effectively transform what should be a public meeting into a public show," he added. Malloy stressed that the lawsuit is challenging how the regents went about making their decision, not the decision itself. Regents, who are named as defendants in the case, have been advised by attorneys not to make any public comments about the lawsuit. Jeffrey Blair, an attorney for the regents, said he would appeal Judge David Garcia's ruling, noting that 14 of the 26 regents had not made up their minds before taking a public vote on affirmative action. In addition, Adam Gutride, an attorney for Wilson, maintains that the governor did not violate any laws. "Whether you agree with him or not, it was certainly within his rights and duties as governor to be expressing his opinion," he said. In Garcia's courtroom Tuesday, the two sides agreed to hold the depositions by the end of June. But, lawyers for Wilson and the regents still plan to take their case to the Court of Appeals. This would be the third attempt on behalf of the defendants to have the lawsuit dismissed. Garcia and another San Francisco court judge have already denied the two other dismissal motions. Garcia, in a decision made last week, noted that "the plaintiffs diligently pursued facts that would support the possible existence of pre-meeting contacts" and that to "accept defendants' argument would eviscerate the doctrine of equitable ruling in cases where the defendant fraudulently lulled the plaintiff into inaction." In addition to setting up votes prior to the meeting, the suit charged the regents with other violations. The suit contends that the regents conferred with Wilson in a series of "back-door" meetings that were closed to the public. Malloy is seeking an order to force Wilson to release his recorded phone conversations under the Freedom of Information Act. The board has come under heavy fire for their decision to repeal affirmative action by campus groups which claimed their opinions were not consulted. Faculty members were also angered that their long-standing tradition of shared governance with the regents was ignored. Previous Daily Bruin Stories: Professors, chancellor praise funding system , May 28, 1997 Related Links: Inside the Regents: Who are the UC Regents?