arbitragegls...ACC Question

[JackBauer44]

Hey man. Question to see if your ACC/NC State source has heard any news on what's been happening here in Raleigh.

I just got word from my AD at the college I work at that the Raleigh News and Report sued and won in state court to get access to all the UNC Football academic transcripts. I couldn't believe when I heard it, but I wanted to see if you heard anything? That's got federal violations all over it. I have a hard time believing the state court would grant a newspaper those rights.

 

[jcuse44]

SWEET. Too bad the NCAA still wont do anything about it. Ohio St, USC, UNC, all SEC teams etc...the untouchables

 

[Crusty]

Hey man. Question to see if your ACC/NC State source has heard any news on what's been happening here in Raleigh.

I just got word from my AD at the college I work at that the Raleigh News and Report sued and won in state court to get access to all the UNC Football academic transcripts. I couldn't believe when I heard it, but I wanted to see if you heard anything? That's got federal violations all over it. I have a hard time believing the state court would grant a newspaper those rights.

That is the law in NC.

 

[JackBauer44]

That is the law in NC.

That anyone can have access transcripts? No way. That's got FERPA written all over it.

 

[arbitragegls]

Hey man. Question to see if your ACC/NC State source has heard any news on what's been happening here in Raleigh.

I just got word from my AD at the college I work at that the Raleigh News and Report sued and won in state court to get access to all the UNC Football academic transcripts. I couldn't believe when I heard it, but I wanted to see if you heard anything? That's got federal violations all over it. I have a hard time believing the state court would grant a newspaper those rights.

This is a very long response with direction provided by my source. This is ongoing, but it is a winding road to #4 below which basically says...transcripts can be released but not with name associated with it...FERBA is most often followed but sometimes not in North Carolina...I highly doubt that names are going to be attached...but possible the athletic group as a whole may be given without individual names identifying...this is NOT going away nor is it going to be decided quickly in court:

Tough question...and to be sure there is numerous investigations taking place at UNC..and I may add other schools also. According to source, names attached to transcripts have not been released...but court rulings are ongoing. Let's look at the following but #4 at bottom is what prevents names associated with transcripts from happening.

1. http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/05/2392751/experts-say-ncaa-should-return.html

and this which indicates that media companies have gone to court to get more information:
2. http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07...records-are-sometimes.html#storylink=misearch

and finally the following on FERPA...note that it may be possible to gain non identifiable transcripts but having those transcripts be associated with a group...say football players without names attached...is still prohibited:
3. http://sogpubs.unc.edu/electronicversions/slb/slbwin01/article2.pdf

AND MOST IMPORTANTLYAND SO FAR HAVE NOT GOTTEN)
4. Statutory exceptions to the public records law
North Carolina statutes exempt several types of
school records from the definition of public records.
Students’ official records. Under G.S. 115C-402,
the “official record” of a student is not a public record
and therefore is not subject to a right of inspection by
members of the general public. The statute provides
that the official record of each student must include the
student’s name, address, birth date, and grading and
promotion data.
111
This minimal information may be
supplemented by “such other factual information as
may be deemed appropriate by the local board of education [for inclusion in the official record.]” Because the
statute does not suggest what kinds of additional information are anticipated, the documents that are included
in a student’s “official record” may vary among school
districts. Furthermore, the statute does not address
whether a school board must adopt policies in advance
defining what is included in the official record, or
whether a board may decide to include particular materials in the official record after receiving a request to see
the document in question.

 

[Crusty]

The jurisdiction for the case is in Wake County Superior Court, not US District Court (Greensboro) as it involves interpretation of NC statutes namely, G.S. 115C-402 which defines what student records are and provides confidentiality to those so defined and G.S. 132 Public Records Law . G.S. 115C-402 does not speak to records without names or identifiable attributes attached. The only NC FERPA case is not on point as it involved disciplinary hearings as educational records.

However, NC Public Records Law does have language relating to "Personally Identifiable Admissions Information. – Records maintained by The University of North Carolina or any constituent institution", that reads in part:

"Nothing in this subsection is intended to limit the disclosure of public records that do not contain personally identifiable information, including aggregated data, guidelines, instructions, summaries, or reports that do not contain personally identifiable information or from which it is feasible to redact any personally identifiable information that the record contains."​

So, it would seem that the media has the better of the argument and the judge and the Appeals Court saw it that way.

BTW - The presiding judge is Howard "Howdy" Edward Manning, Jr. who went ot Chapel Hill for his undergraduate degree and the UNC Law School for his law degree. His great-grandfather, John Manning Jr., was one of the founders of Carolina’s School of Law. Judge Manning’s grandfather, Isaac Hall Manning, served as dean of Carolina’s School of Medicine. His great-grandfather, John Manning Jr., was one of the founders of Carolina’s School of Law. Judge Manning’s grandfather, Isaac Hall Manning, served as dean of Carolina’s School of Medicine.

While some say he should have recused himself, most don't as he is a widely respected judge. Don't know if he is a football fan.

Stay tuned.

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

The jurisdiction for the case is in Wake County Superior Court, not US District Court (Greensboro) as it involves interpretation of NC statutes namely, G.S. 115C-402 which defines what student records are and provides confidentiality to those so defined and G.S. 132 Public Records Law . G.S. 115C-402 does not speak to records without names or identifiable attributes attached. The only NC FERPA case is not on point as it involved disciplinary hearings as educational records.

However, NC Public Records Law does have language relating to "Personally Identifiable Admissions Information. – Records maintained by The University of North Carolina or any constituent institution", that reads in part:

"Nothing in this subsection is intended to limit the disclosure of public records that do not contain personally identifiable information, including aggregated data, guidelines, instructions, summaries, or reports that do not contain personally identifiable information or from which it is feasible to redact any personally identifiable information that the record contains."​

So, it would seem that the media has the better of the argument and the judge and the Appeals Court saw it that way.

Stay tuned.

UNC should appeal that decision. They would likely win in my opinion. I appreciate the legal analysis Crusty, and I am certainly not going to research the North Carolina statues, but must state FOIA laws (FOIA being the federal version of the legislations that states have adopted in some capacity - i.e., FOIL in NY), operate under the presumption that all public records are subject to disclosure, unless when disclosure is specifically prohibited by some exception set forth in the statute. In NY, there is a catch-all for records that "are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute," FERPA in this case.

FERPA generally provides that schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record (including "personally identifiable information"). However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR § 99.31):

• School officials with legitimate educational interest;
• Other schools to which a student is transferring;
• Specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes;
• Appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student;
• Organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school;
• Accrediting organizations;
• To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;
• Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies; and
• State and local authorities, within a juvenile justice system, pursuant to specific State law.

The request of a local newspaper would not meet any of the conditions described above.
All of this brings us to the issue of is the disclosure permitted if the names of the students and other obviously identifiable information is redacted. I say "obviously" because this is really the sticking point. Without having the information at hand, i have encountered situations where even redacted records were deemed to include "personally identifiable information," because the records themselves contained other info that could lead one to identify the individual to whom the record relates. Guessing here, you are talking about the transcripts for roughly 100 players. When you factor in the semesters included on the transcript, that will identify the class of the students- can't be more than 25 (25 recruits per class). Then you can look at players' majors in comparison to classes on the transcripts to further limit the number of players the records could be attributed to.
In the end, all of this may mean that even the redacted records contain "personally identifiable information," and therefore should/could be exempt from disclosure.

 

[arbitragegls]

Terrific analysis by both Crusty and Shrmdougluvr.
It is my understanding, that the Federal laws will trump FERBA. Moreover, it would seem that regardless of whether this goes on further in court, I do not believe student names will be released. Transcripts may be released without names as previously indicated. It appears that UNC is not out of the woods...BUT THINK WHAT THIS CASE does insofar as providing PRECEDENT to following cases...all schools could be at risk for public release of transcripts...going to be a potential mess!

 

[Crusty]

UNC should appeal that decision. They would likely win in my opinion. I appreciate the legal analysis Crusty, and I am certainly not going to research the North Carolina statues, but must state FOIA laws (FOIA being the federal version of the legislations that states have adopted in some capacity - i.e., FOIL in NY), operate under the presumption that all public records are subject to disclosure, unless when disclosure is specifically prohibited by some exception set forth in the statute. In NY, there is a catch-all for records that "are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute," FERPA in this case.

FERPA generally provides that schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record (including "personally identifiable information"). However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR § 99.31):

• School officials with legitimate educational interest;
• Other schools to which a student is transferring;
• Specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes;
• Appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student;
• Organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school;
• Accrediting organizations;
• To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;
• Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies; and
• State and local authorities, within a juvenile justice system, pursuant to specific State law.

The request of a local newspaper would not meet any of the conditions described above.

All of this brings us to the issue of is the disclosure permitted if the names of the students and other obviously identifiable information is redacted. I say "obviously" because this is really the sticking point. Without having the information at hand, i have encountered situations where even redacted records were deemed to include "personally identifiable information," because the records themselves contained other info that could lead one to identify the individual to whom the record relates. Guessing here, you are talking about the transcripts for roughly 100 players. When you factor in the semesters included on the transcript, that will identify the class of the students- can't be more than 25 (25 recruits per class). Then you can look at players' majors in comparison to classes on the transcripts to further limit the number of players the records could be attributed to.
In the end, all of this may mean that even the redacted records contain "personally identifiable information," and therefore should/could be exempt from disclosure.

They will never get the names, because, as you rightly point out, that is protected by both federal and state statute. However, I do not think it is necessary to get names if they can get information relating to the tutoring program for example. That information is not "personally identifiable information" and is not protected.

In NC everybody has standing to get public information - you do not need a reason and, in fact, do not even have to state one in your request. I have used the law several times in real estate zoning transactions and the info is given up without a whimper because the law is so specific in that regard. Media use it all the time in NC - reporters even do it in their personal names.

The courts in NC are pretty poos compared to NYS. At any rate the NC Supreme Court would never reverse this decision.

As I say, stay tuned - it is going to get interesting.