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?