Results of an informal audit of University of Memphis offices showed an improvement in the readiness and availability of public information since an audit conducted last year.
Of nine offices surveyed, three provided information to students immediately and without questioning. Two more attempted to comply but were unable to find the records while the student was there. Four offices did not give out the information requested or make an attempt to find it while the student was in the office.
One year ago, The Daily Helmsman reported a student audit of The U of M offices, resulting in a 43.7 percent compliance rate within seven business days. While the results of this year's more informal audit are not completely comparable due to different research techniques, offices at The University seem to be improving when it comes to providing information that is public record to University students.
The Tennessee Constitution states, "that the printing presses shall be free to every person to examine the proceedings of ... any branch or officer of the government."
As 33 percent of its budget comes from the state, The U of M is considered a branch of the government and must comply with this basic right to know.
University policy states "all records made or received in connection with the transaction of official University of Memphis business shall at all times, during business hours, be open for personal inspection by any citizen of Tennessee unless otherwise provided by law or regulations pursuant thereto."
"Anybody should be able to walk in off the street and get information without unnecessary roadblocks," said Curt Guenther, director of communications services for The U of M. "In reality, it's not possible to get all information all the time."
For this audit, students went to campus offices and made an informal request for information ranging from the number of students dropped for failure to pay tuition to the estimated building costs for the new University Center. Students were instructed to ask verbally for the information, and requests were tailored to the offices where it was thought the information would be based on office Web sites. Students did not follow up when referred to another office, asked to fill out request forms or told to come back another day.
Police services, financial aid and the office of the vice president for student affairs answered students' questions immediately. Derek Myers, deputy director of police services, took the time to show a student the number of car thefts on campus and in the nearby area for both this year and last, adding that "smash-and-grab" thefts of items out of cars are more prevalent and offered advice on how not to be the next statistic.
In Student Affairs, a secretary said the information on the distribution of student activity funds was not readily available, but that she could get the records and call the student to come pick them up. She did call the next day with the information.
In financial aid, a front office worker provided an estimation of the number of students at The U of M who are on financial aid and called a supervisor to confirm the number when asked.
Two offices, the physical plant and the student employment office of human resources, attempted to immediately find the information requested, but were unable to do so while the student was there. In the physical plant, although the person in charge of the information was not available, another worker spent time looking for the cost estimates for the new University Center before telling the student he needed to come back when the official was back in the office.
The student employment office spent about 20 minutes looking for a graduate student's personal employment record, but could not find it. When Andrew Trundle said he was a journalism major, workers assumed he was affiliated with The Daily Helmsman and quit searching for the document. They said they had just switched offices and were unsure where to look.
An office worker at the registrar's office said she could not give the student auditor the number of students dropped due to failure to pay tuition because the person who had the information could not be reached.
The secretary in the purchasing office said she needed the purchasing request number before she could locate the cost for the new equipment in the recreation center.
In the accounting office, a secretary told a student she needed to contact the individual department to find travel expenses for the Egyptian archaeology team.
A secretary in human resources told a student she could not tell him how much money provost Ralph Faudree makes each year, although she did show him the salary range for a vice provost.
Although the results do show improvement from last spring, Frank Gibson, executive director of Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, said the level of compliance is still lower than it should be. His organization conducted a statewide audit of government public records compliance in fall 2004.
Although the records asked for in the statewide audit were all commonly requested, many auditors were still stalled, discouraged, threatened and even detained.
"The thing that we documented is that public employees are very poorly trained on the law in this area," he said. "Regardless of who was there and who wasn't there, that doesn't make it any less a public record."
No universities were audited, but Gibson said he wasn't surprised by the results of The U of M audit, as it was based on records that may not be often requested.
"That the compliance rate increased shows education is increasing, but the information should be there," he said. "But I guess I am surprised at a public institution of higher learning where education should be a little better."
Since the spring 2005 audit, The University has been working on educating its employees about public records law, said both Guenther and Sheri Lipman, legal counsel for The U of M.
Lipman said she has held training sessions on this issue for the Arts and Sciences, Business and Finance and Academic Affairs departments. She recently held another for graduate counselors.
"We certainly struggle with offices that don't often get requests," she said. "They don't understand what to do. People who deal with it on a regular basis know what to do."
"I do think it's improving, in the sense that I've been in several rooms with large groups of people and they said, 'oh, now I understand it.'"
Guenther said that many people, especially those on the lowest levels in an office, do not know what to do with an information request.
"They may not understand the policies and the law and, for whatever reason, they don't want to give out information," he said. "It is incumbent on the organization that anyone involved in the process should know what the procedure is."
What employees do know could be changing, depending on an ongoing court case. The Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled in Byron C. Wells v. A.C. Wharton, Jr., et al. that people requesting public information cannot be required to make their requests in writing.
The decision states, "Nowhere in the Tennessee Public Records Act allows for an official to deny access to public records if a citizen does not first request access in writing."
The U of M's policy says that a requestor "must show identification of Tennessee citizenship and complete a Request Form to Inspect/Copy Public Records." The ruling, however, means that the Court of Appeals saw merit in the case, not that this opinion is law, Lipman said.
"TBR (Tennessee Board of Regents) is still able to include a written request in their policy, but if someone doesn't want to, they can't deny the request," she said. The case goes back to chancery court now for a decision.
Although Guenther agreed that public records requests should technically not be a problem, he said the timing of the request could have a lot to do with response time.
"Unless you drop what you are doing, it may not be possible to get it that day," he said.
Universities also have to comply with privacy laws that make some information, such as social security numbers, inaccessible. For example, in human resources, manager Margaret Anne Jarred considers a request a 24-hour procedure.
When a request is made for an employee record, she and her assistants spend hours going through the record and redacting, or blacking out, information that must remain private, Jarred said. Depending on how big the record is, it can sometimes take a full day simply to prepare the record for release, she said.
"I always try to follow the law, but I have to remember I have to protect you," Jarred said. "We don't want stalkers coming in and getting information that could lead them to their victims."
