Fayetteville : UA: Goal of lawsuit curiosity, not taxes
Posted on Saturday, June 2, 2007
A lawsuit over how the University of Arkansas handled critical e-mail to a former quarterback is a fishing expedition for details about controversy in the football program, a UA attorney said Friday in a court filing. Scott Varady, UA associate general counsel, said in the filing that the real reason plaintiff John David Terry and his attorney, Eddie Christian Jr., sued is to glean more details about the e-mail flap, not to correct a taxpayer wrong. The lawsuit is an illegal exaction case, which alleges public money is being misused.
Varady on Friday called Terry’s and Christian’s bid for information an “obsession.”
The lawsuit, filed in April in Washington County Circuit Court, states that UA-Fayetteville Chancellor John A. White and UA System President B. Alan Sugg failed to properly investigate a harshly critical e-mail sent in December to former freshman quarterback Mitch Mustain.
The e-mail was sent by Teresa Prewett, who has been a friend of football Coach Houston Nutt.
Mustain asked to be released from the team, which was granted in January.
The lawsuit states White and Sugg should have investigated a possible link among Prewett, Houston Nutt and others on the coaching staff. It states public money is being misused on White’s and Sugg’s salaries because they failed to act properly in the matter.
In January, Mustain’s mother, Beck Campbell, sent an e-mail to White requesting his review and assistance regarding Prewett’s e-mail.
White had Nutt investigate, and the coach ordered Prewett to write a letter of apology to Mustain and barred her from sidelines at games.
The lawsuit states White had a duty to investigate further.
Christian has subpoenaed telephone and computer records from White, Nutt and others involved in the football program.
UA wants the lawsuit and the subpoenas dismissed.
Circuit Judge Mark Lindsay is scheduled to hear arguments at a hearing 1: 30 p. m. Monday.
UA said White acted properly and took action in accordance with Campbell’s wishes.
Even if White did nothing, inaction isn’t an illegal activ- ity, which is the basis of the illegal exaction claim in the suit, Varady said in Friday’s filing.
There’s no law or legal precedent that says White had to take any action over the e-mail, the filing states.
The lawsuit states that as chancellor, White was obligated to follow NCAA rules that protect student athletes from harassment. The filing said compliance NCAA rules are irrelevant to the legal claims in the suit.
UA attorneys contend White handled the investigation properly.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
