LJWorld.com weblogs Heard on the Hill
Posted
by Andy Hyland
June 1, 2009 at 2:43 p.m.
Ohio newspaper examines openness in college athletics; KU asks it to pay up for information
The Columbus Dispatch newspaper in Columbus, Ohio, published over the weekend the results of a six-month long investigation into the athletic departments of the 119 colleges and universities in the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A).
The newspaper sought the release of information on things such as who accompanied the team on flights, who received complimentary tickets and details surrounding NCAA violations. Sixty-nine of the schools provided the information, though many hid behind privacy laws.
Kansas University was one of 14 schools that the newspaper said was effectively able to close access to public information by making it unaffordable.
KU wanted a fee of $328 for the information that most of the universities provided for free or for a charge of $40 or less, the newspaper reported. KU's fee was the eighth-highest fee requested by any of the schools surveyed.
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- National group seeks repeal of 'Stand Your Ground' law in Kansas May 27, 2012 · 166 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012 · 277 comments
- U.S. military sees new appreciation May 28, 2012 · 47 comments
- Sound Off: How much does the city’s transit system collect in fares compared with how much it costs May 27, 2012 · 137 comments
- Tax gamble May 26, 2012 · 95 comments
- Brownback tells federal judicial panel to toss legislative redistricting maps May 29, 2012 · 7 comments
- Blog: Iranian Nuclear Energy: Will It Destroy Lives Or Save Them? May 29, 2012 · 6 comments
- God, marriage May 25, 2012 · 200 comments
- 100 years ago: First 'moving picture' to be made of Lawrence May 28, 2012 · 11 comments
- On the street: How did you spend your Memorial Day? May 28, 2012 · 37 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012
- Thread of pain ran through Jackson’s career June 28, 2009
- Hilltop executive director Pat Pisani stepping down May 28, 2012
- Friends mourn Lynn Bretz, former voice of KU May 28, 2012
- Town Talk: UPDATE: Frank Male files for county commission; keep an ear open for local sales tax talk; city hires new city engineer; wholesale water district buys land near Kaw; weekly land transfers May 29, 2012
- How to help: Guides needed for Lamplight Tour of Black Jack Battlefield and Nature Park May 27, 2012
- Library kicks off reading program May 27, 2012
- City, county mull upgrade to emergency radio system May 28, 2012
- Experts: Remedial college classes need fixing May 28, 2012
- Book helps family heal after tragedy May 28, 2012
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
d_prowess (anonymous) says…
Is that fee really that much? It seems to me that it has to be high enough to cover the expense of having to collect that data.
redcoalcarpet (anonymous) says…
Come on Lew; what do you have to hide???
cthulhu_4_president (anonymous) says…
d_prowess: You hit it on the head. The larger/more presigous the program, the more man-hours it will take to gather the data, and there will be much more of it. This fee, however, sounds far from "unaffordable" and is being given a somewhat negative spin. Rather, we should analyze the cost that other similarly sized private corporations charge media outlets for records such as these. Then we could have a meaningful comparison. As it stands now, the story reads like "The average Garage sale makes an average of $75 per day, but the average Wal-Mart makes $1 million". Sure the figures are vastly different, but is it fair to compare a garage sale to Wal-Mart? It is just as fair to compare the KUAC with some other small-time athletics program.
Phillbert (anonymous) says…
"Copies cost money" - wow, I'm riveted. Tell me more!
If you look at the original story, Maryland wanted $35,330 - now THAT's a story. This? Just the LJW hitting its KU potshot quota.
kusp8 (anonymous) says…
I agree...nothing really newsworthy here. I'd actually be a little bit disappointed if KU Athletics had provided this all for free...every penny counts.
AlfVenison (Alf Venison) says…
That should be "complimentary."
local_support (anonymous) says…
If I was lucky enough to accompany the team to an away game on a chartered jet I wouldn't necessarily want that info made available to the public.
Plus I think $328 is a reasonable fee. $35,330 is not.
Noweigh (anonymous) says…
What "obligation" does KU Athletics have to an Ohio newspaper beyond providing information determined allowable under the law? None. Banks and all kinds of other organizations charge all kinds of information-gathering fees. As for "hiding behind privacy laws", yes, I suppose KU does exercise its right ......just like we all "hide" behind laws that provide reasonable protection and privacy. No story here. Do some digging on the "T" and its cost efficiency. Now there's a story. Or do one on the number of KU football games that have been on national television since the current administration arrived..compared to years past, including the upcoming KU vs. Duke game this fall. The wins in football and basketball just keep on comin'...love it!
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
If someone is doing research for records, it usually costs money at government agencies, or for obituary records. Cost $5-10 for an obituary. If you think about it, charging for $700 seems rather fair considering what it was asking for. Whether it is correct or ethical is not for me to decide.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Let's see - if each of the schools charged $328, that would be $39,032. And you all think that a newspaper should have to pay that much to write a story - especially one about openness?
What if the City Council decided to charge the LJW that much to account for how it's spending the sales tax dollars it takes in for the mT? That okay with you?
SandCoAlmanac (anonymous) says…
It's my understanding that the KU Athletics Corporation is a private business, answerable to the Chancellor, the NCAA and, of course, to alumni contributors. I could be wrong, of course. If I am correct, why would a private business have to reveal anything? If the $328 figure is correct, it seems they were willing to reveal at least something, and receive money to defray their costs. I'm not sure if this is an attempt to create a tempest in a teapot or if the Dispatch is tilting at windmills. Regardless, it doesn't seem like much of a story.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
SandCoAlmanac (Anonymous) says…
"It's my understanding that the KU Athletics Corporation is a private business, answerable to the Chancellor, the NCAA and, of course, to alumni contributors."
And that is the issue, isn't it?
Regardless of whether we're talking about the $328 KU wanted or the $35K Maryland wanted, the issue is whether the athletics department is a private or public agency. If it's the latter, then charging a fee pretty much defeats the purpose of FOI laws.
- Why would a "private business" be "answerable to the Chancellor" of a taxpayer-funded university?
- Pretty sure the "C" in NCAA stands for 'collegiate,' not 'corporate.'
- If you'd read the story in the Dispatch, you would have seen that the focus was on athletics departments hiding behind FERPA in refusing to provide information related to actual or potential NCAA violations. The excuse most of them are giving for not releasing the information is that it constitutes protected student information/educational records. They can't have it both ways - that they're private businesses, but the information requested is school records.
Whether or not the charging of a fee suggests KU had nothing to hide is debatable - it would be impractical for a newspaper to shell out over $300 to each of the 119 schools, or even to the 69 that replied, to write a story. That does make the information inaccessible to a large extent (could the average taxpayer in the state of Kansas shell out that much if they wanted the information?). If the athletics department is a public agency, then fees should cover actual costs at most, to make the information truly available to the public.
However, I happen to agree with your opinion that they *are* a private business. Intercollegiate athletics has become a joke, nothing more than the minor leagues for the pro sports. The players are professional athletes in a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry, chosen from around the country and around the world to attend a school for the sole purpose of competition, and being about as representative of the student body as a penthouse suite in a swank hotel is representative of the living accomodations for the city's residents. It would be nice if we just came out and said so.
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
FOIA laws don't mean "free" just "freedom". Depending how you are requesting (not for profit, business, etc.) your cost may be free or several thousand dollars depending on the volume of documents you are asking for and how long it takes you to gather them. My guess is that KU Athletic attorneys determined that $328 was the allowable charge.
And FOIA only applies to public documents. There are all sorts of exemptions to release including confedential business info.
$328 is small change given that it could be and the people doing the investigation are fooling themselves to think it would all be free.