Press Release - April 1, 2003
Appeal for financial contributions
Petition for Writ of Mandate to Compel Release of Public Records (pdf)
Many documents filed with the Court by both parties.
UC engaged outside attorneys.
Hearing held June 24
>>>>> Judge issued ruling July 24, 2003: see the Court Order (partial copy)
Press Release - July 28, 2003
The Court granted almost everything sought in the Petition:
**UC must disclose minutes and/or tapes of closed meetings of the Regents' Investment Committee on
*Wilshire Asset Allocation Study (January and March 2000) and
*External Equity Investment Program (October and November 2002)
**UC must disclose IRR (internal rate of return) data on all its private equity investments.
Denied was a request for injunctive relief limiting the Regents' future use of closed meetings.
August: UC asks the court to reconsider its decision; the judge denies their motion after a hearing.
September: UC asks the state Court of Appeal to overturn the judge's
UC's Petition for Writ of Mandate: (54 page pdf, filed September 5, accompanied by 2270 pages of exhibits)
Our lawyers' Opposition to Petition: (55 page pdf, filed September 11)
The appeal court can choose to: summarily grant the petition; summarily deny the petition; or hold a hearing.
>>>>> In the Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 2, Case Number A103797
Petition Summarily Denied by Order, September 23, 2003
The Regents file a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court (9/25/03) Case Number S119291. Opposition brief filed 9/29/03. (This appeal is primarily on the issue of the IRR information.)
>>>>> The Regents' Petition for Review and Application for Stay DENIED by the State Supreme Court (9/30/03)
>>>>> October 7: Judge Richman issues a Further Order, after his In Camera review of Minutes and Tapes from the Regents' closed meetings on investments from October and November 2002. UC had objected that those documents contained personnel information that should be redacted before public release. The judge found that most of UC's redactions were "not well taken" and ordered the documents be released as is; he allowed UC to present its objections to this ruling.
October 23: A hearing was held at which UC's lawyer presented objections to the judge's ruling.
***** UC posts details of its Private Equity investments on the website
***** UC releases Minutes of the Regents' closed meetings on investments from January and March 2000.
***** UC agrees in stipulation to pay our attorneys' fees and costs - $174,670. - through October 3.
>>>>> November 14: Judge Richman issues a new ruling, reaffirming his previous one, but allowing a stay (through January 11, 2004) which UC had requested in order to file a further appeal.
November 17: We submit a Proposal to the UC Regents regarding guidelines for future public disclosure of investment information.
December 8: UC files a second Petition with the State Court of Appeal (case #A104796), raising one new and several old issues.
December 19: We file Opposition to UC's second appeal.
>>>>> December 31: UC's Petition Summarily Denied by order of the Court of Appeal.
January 7, 2004: UC files for Review in the California Supreme Court (case #S121761).
January 8: Our lawyers file opposition brief.
>>>>> January 12: UC's petition is denied by the state Supreme Court.
This legal battle is over; UC will release remaining documents and will pay our further legal costs.
The question now: Will the Regents improve their behavior - regarding
Public Records and Open Meetings - in the future?