CLICK HERE TO READ THE LETTER FROM THE NORTH WIND’S ATTORNEY’S TO PRESIDENT ERICKSON
Attorneys representing The North Wind sent a letter Wednesday, Feb. 11 to President Fritz Erickson regarding administrator emails the paper requested under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act. The university released the emails to The North Wind. However, many were significantly redacted.
The attorneys, Robin Luce Herrmann and Frank D. LoMonte, are asking Erickson to release the emails un-redacted, change The North Wind bylaws and restore the faculty advisor’s four hours of faculty release time.
According to the letter, “It became necessary for the student editor and their adviser to seek legal counsel because of a pattern of antagonism toward the newspaper, its staff and faculty adviser connected with The North Wind’s pursuit of news stories about the University’s contracting practices.”
The letter states that “…it appears NMU takes an unnecessarily negative view of FOIA requests.” But reputable journalism schools require students learn how to obtain records through laws such as Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act. Requesting information from NMU should not be seen as “antagonistic,” but “standard journalistic practice,” the letter states.
The attorneys took issue with the university’s use of the “frank communication” exemption under FOIA and argue that it is not applicable to the administrator e-mails. For a communication to be considered under that exemption, it “must be of an advisory nature and preliminary to a final determination of policy or action,” Herrmann and Lomonte said. Even if the communications are protected under the “frank communication” exemption the university must “[demonstrate] that the interest in frank communication outweighs the public interest in disclosure,” said the letter.
In addition, the attorney’s urge the university to release the redacted emails because “continued insistence on secrecy will breed further public distrust and suspicion.”
The North Wind adviser Cheryl Reed requested and received permission from The North Wind board in November to seek advice and pro-bono legal representation after the university delayed providing the Starbucks contracts, citing “confidentiality agreements.” First Amendment experts said such a delay was illegal.
Subsequently, The North Wind reporters alleged intimidation from faculty and administration after the publication of stories concerning the Starbucks contract. According to the letter, an editor was told by a faculty member the administration was unhappy with the Starbucks stories and if she continued to pursue those stories “it could hurt her professionally.” The letter goes on to say the news editor was told “she individually and the newspaper were at risk of sanctions, including withdrawal of the newspaper’s funding,” if she continued writing about the university.
The 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines Community Independent School District, is held as precedent for student journalist rights. According to the letter, “the Court ruled that nothing short of a ‘substantial’ disruption of the orderly operations of the school could justify censoring students or punishing them for the content of their speech.”
The letter goes on to say, “A government agency (such as a public university or those acting under the authority of a university or on its behalf) is prohibited from censoring indirectly as well as directly.” Indirect censorship is seen, as the letter says, as “retaliatory or punitive actions short of literally ‘stopping the presses.’”
“In summary,” the letter said, “the law of the First Amendment is clear that administrators at a public university may not interfere, directly or indirectly, with the student editor’s decision to publish or not publish the content of their choice. This is true even if the publication receives financial support from the institution.” Vice president of Identity, Brand and Marketing Derek Hall was asked to comment but had yet to read the letter.
In other news, The North Wind requested all expense reports, travel records and budget reports of NMU’s Board of Trustees under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act Wednesday, Feb. 11.
























James Gweetoski • Feb 20, 2015 at 6:02 pm
Mr. Goose,
Your generosity is astounding. I was thinking about withholding my $2 donation along the same lines. Thank you for being a leader among our alumni community. NMU doesn’t want me to make haste to the Mobil, get some greasy fryer chicken, slam six OE 40’s and make my presence known at their next event. That ends poorly for everyone. Kind of like the administration continuing to hold up this process. I do not speak for alumni everywhere…but there are two on this thread that add up to $7.00. Watch out…we are growing.
Goose • Feb 16, 2015 at 9:18 pm
As an alumni of your IT school, I find this very concerning. If I find any suspect activity has taken place, you can kiss my $5 annual alumni donation goodbye!
James Gweetoski • Feb 14, 2015 at 11:23 pm
I do believe that Mr. Hall, President Erickson, NW personnel and other administrators need to be keen on the fact that THOUSANDS of alumni are watching this unfold and are awaiting some truth. NMU alumni will not tolerate some knuckleheads (NW personnel or NMU personnel) creating a stain on the NMU institution. Get this fixed, or I will feel terribly about the NMU Alumni Association telemarketer calling me to ask for my yearly donation…after a situation like this brings my blood to a boil. President Erickson and the NW need to get this fixed ASAP. They don’t get to leave a black eye on my diploma seal.
Anon • Feb 12, 2015 at 5:57 pm
Here is what I don’t understand.
Mr. Herrmann, on behalf of the North Wind states at the end if the letter that “we appreciate your interest in restoring a civil and respectful working environment with the student media”.
Almost obviously, you would expect the same standards to be held to the North Wind with it’s engagement with faculty. A civil and respectful working environment should be what the North Wind is interested in.
However, when I see an article titled to Fritz: “give up the emails”, I receive a very negative image of Fritz in my head, as if he is a bad guy, destined for Jail for withholding or stealing something that ultimately doesn’t belong to him. Whether this is the case or not, painting an image to the public like the one now painted in my head of resentment towards Fritz is the exact reason I refuse to support the North Wind. It’s completely immature and mediocre to send this letter to Fritz and then entitle this article with the EXACT OPPOSITE INTENTION of what this letter is striving to achieve. (A civil and respectful working environment with student media).
As a first year transfer student, I am embarrassed with the relationship between the student media and faculty of the university. Stop with the negativity and trying to skew the student body’s view of our university to accommodate popular opinion. It’s utterly childish.
Maddog • Feb 12, 2015 at 4:53 pm
Dear N , You are right, the illegal activity by administration does give NMU a black eye. Do Not blame the press for doing their job.
Editor in Chief, • Feb 12, 2015 at 3:40 pm
Derek,
In fact I did respond to Gavin in an email about that proposal. I also told him that the attorneys would be responding with a letter. That letter was sent yesterday. That is the North Wind’s response. Now it’s NMU’s turn to decide what to do.
Emma
N • Feb 12, 2015 at 2:12 pm
I think how the North Wind Represents this school is absolutely insulting. The lack of pride you have by writing articles against the school is truly sad. Be proud to be a wildcat and stop dissing the school NMU has been extremely patient by allowing you to post such slander but your team should be disgusted with yourselves. I’m not sure what there is to be bitter about, but if I were to see this as a high schooler it would probably deter me away from the school. Freedom of speech is important but stop bashing NMU.
Derek Hall • Feb 12, 2015 at 11:14 am
Prior to receiving this letter, the NMU administration made a proposal concerning the North Wind’s belief that the redactions may contain information that point to intimidation.
To work toward a more positive relationship while at the same time protecting NMU’s legal privileges, it is proposed to identify a mutually agreeable third-party, someone with a legal background and FOIA expertise, to review the redacted information. That party would determine whether the emails contained information that would support the North Wind’s assertion of intimidation by the administrators.
There were no redactions that evidenced intimidation on behalf of any administrator. The university’s legal counsel redacts records to comply with various laws and preserve important legal privileges, not to hide information, privileges similar to those often rely on by the media.
No response from the North Wind yet.