A Real Home Field Advantage: Access to Public University Foundation Records

Journal of Law and Education, Jul 2005 by Reinardy, Scott, Davis, Charles N

4. California State University, Fresno Association v. McClatchy Co.

Even when constrained by statutory definitions narrowly defining public agencies for purposes of public records laws, state courts have found that the public interest in disclosure of university foundation records outweighs the interest in privacy. A California appellate court in California State University, Fresno Association v. McClatchy Co.(TM) found itself in that situation.

Eight days after making its request for records concerning the identity of the individuals and/or companies that purchased luxury suites at the $103 million Save Mart Center, the Fresno Bee was informed by the California State University, Fresno, that ". . .the benefit to the public from non-disclosure outweighs the benefit to the public in disclosing" the documents.60 "Donors expect that the University will keep their donations private. If the University were to be required to disclose this information, there is a very real possibility that it would lose the benefit of many donations. Loss of donations would work a great harm to the University and to the State, which supports it, and is therefore against the public interest," university officials wrote.61

According to the University, the Save Mart Center - located in the heart of the Fresno community, partially financed by public funds, built to serve the public during sporting events and concerts, and granted approximately $8 million for road improvements and access to the site by the State of California-was not operated by a public body, nor was the discussion of its affairs in the public interest. The University argued that the Save Mart Center was primarily funded by private donations and operated by a university-affiliated, non-profit auxiliary corporation, the California State University, Fresno Association. Also, in exchange for a generous gift to the CSU Fresno Foundation, another university-affiliated, auxiliary corporation, donors could purchase luxury suites in the arena for five-, seven- or ten-year terms at a cost of $45,000 to $63,000.62

Days after the university provided its reply, denying the Fresno Bee its request for documents identifying luxury suite licensee, the McClatchy Company, representing the Fresno Bee, filed a writ of mandate pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA) against the University, the Association and the Foundation to compel disclosure of the requested documents.63

Clearly displeased with the legislature's narrow definition of public agencies in the CPRA, the court determined that the association was not a public body because it did not suit the CPRA guidelines of a "state agency" that includes "every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board and commission or other state body or agency . . .""4 The court wrote:

"There is some ambiguity in the phrase Other state body or agency.' However, in resolving this ambiguity, we are bound to apply the plain meaning rule and determine what these words mean based on their ordinary usage. In doing so, we conclude a non-governmental auxiliary organization is not a 'state agency' for purposes of the CPRA. The words 'state body' and 'state agency' simply do not include a non-governmental organization."65