Let's review St. Olaf College's credibility in light of its recent actions with the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
December 18, 2008: The hearing was held in Rice County District Court regarding SaveWCAL's Petition to Redress Breach of Trust. The hearing was limited to oral arguments by the attorneys on legal issues, no evidentiary hearings were held — which would be the only reason a transcript would be necessary in an appeal.
December 2008: St. Olaf College attorney Michael Cunningham personally orders a transcript of the proceeding from the Court Reporter.
December 30, 2008: A copy of the completed transcript is mailed to St. Olaf College attorney Michael Cunningham, according to the Certificate filed by the Rice County District Court reporter with the Minnesota Court of Appeals on May 12.
January 15, 2009: The complete transcript is filed with the Rice County Court Administrator, according to the Certificate filed by the Rice County District Court reporter with the Minnesota Court of Appeals on May 12.
April 20, 2009: SaveWCAL files a Notice of Appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals and serves the same on St. Olaf College, MPR and the Minnesota Attorney General. The Notice of Appeal also includes the Statement of the Case and a Notice re Transcript. The Notice re Transcript declares that a) a transcript is not needed for the appeal and, in any case, b) one is already on file with the Rice County District Court. SaveWCAL now has 30 days to file an Appeal Brief.
April 23, 2009: SaveWCAL files the Appeal Brief just three days later and hand-delivers copies to the attorneys for St. Olaf College, MPR and the Minnesota Attorney General. The other parties now have 30 days to file their responding briefs.
April 28, 2009: This is the date that the MPR attorneys claim, per its May 5 Certificate of Transcript, that a copy of the transcript was requested.
April 30, 2009: The St. Olaf College attorneys file St. Olaf's Statement of the Case in which St. Olaf attorney Michael Cunningham declares to the court that a transcript has not been delivered to the parties or filed with the Rice County District Court Administrator. He also declares that a transcript will be ordered by MPR.
May 4, 2009: The Minnesota Attorney General's attorney files a Statement of the Case in which the AG declares that no transcript is needed for the appeal.
May 5, 2009: The MPR attorneys file a Certificate of Transcript with the court stating that a transcript was ordered on April 28, 2009, and has an estimated completion date of May 11, 2009.
May 6, 2009: SaveWCAL attorney Mike McNabb files a Motion re Briefs and Affidavit re Transcript asking the Appeals Court to require St. Olaf College and MPR to file their response briefs within 30 days of the service of the SaveWCAL brief on April 23, 2009.
May 8, 2009: The St. Olaf College attorneys complete a Response re SaveWCAL's Motion in which St. Olaf College attorney Michael Cunningham admits to having the transcript in his possession — but claims that it is not an "official" transcript.
May 11, 2009: In a memorandum to the court, SaveWCAL attorney Michael McNabb points out that neither St. Olaf nor MPR attempts to explain why a transcript is necessary. He points out that St. Olaf has had a copy of the offical transcript for months and that St. Olaf's response does not explain Cunningham's original declaration to the court that the transcript had not been delivered and filed with the court.
May 12, 2009: The court reporter for the Rice County District Court files a Certificate with the Minnesota Court of Appeals that says:
"The original transcript, having been previously ordered by Michael R. Cunningham, counsel for St. Olaf College, was hand-delivered and filed with the Rice County Court Administrator on January 15, 2009. A copy was sent via U.S. Mail to Attorney Cunningham on December 30, 2008.
Contrary to the information presented by St. Olaf College attorney Cunningham to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the Rice County District Court reporter had prepared the original transcript of the hearing, filed it in the District Court file and had delivered copy to Cunningham by mid-January!!!
May 14, 2009: MPR attorneys file a Response re Briefs where they erroneously refer to the transcript as "unofficial" and claim that it is not part of the appellate record. Transcripts that are filed automatically become part of the record for an appeal.
May 15, 2009: SaveWCAL attorney Michael McNabb files SaveWCAL's Response re Briefs that, once again, points outs that the St. Olaf attorneys' statements to the court regarding the filing and delivery of the transcript are not accurate and the MPR attorney's claim that the transcript is not already part of the appelate record is erroneous.
May 19, 2009: SaveWCAL receives the decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals — apparently made without reviewing some of the filings made in the case – to allow St. Olaf College and MPR to delay filing their briefs until June 15 2009. The Court focused on the technical requirement of the rule rather than looking at the underlying reason that caused St. Olaf and MPR to make the claims they did to the court.
So what has been going on here?
It appears that St. Olaf College and MPR have been using the transcript issue to create time to prepare their briefs. They may have expected that SaveWCAL would wait the full 30 days to file the Appeal Brief. However, SaveWCAL filed the appellants brief just three days later. Copies of the brief were then hand-delivered that same day to the attorneys for St. Olaf College, MPR and the Minnesota Attorney General.
Instead of honestly and forthrightly requesting more time — a request to which SaveWCAL would have had no objection — both St. Olaf and MPR have engaged in unnecessary maneuvers.
You may remember that this is not the first time that St. Olaf has attempted to use procedural maneuvers to avoid and/or delay a court hearing regarding the WCAL charitable trust. St. Olaf and MPR worked in tandem in an attempt to avoid the initial Petition To Redress Breach Of Trust hearing in October 2008 using another procedural tactic.
But facts are fact. There is no need for a transcript and, in any case, it is already included in the appellate record.
SaveWCAL has a very strong case in this appeal. The facts are not in dispute by any of the parties, only the application of the law.
So it doesn't matter how much time St. Olaf College and MPR have — or take.
Time may be running out.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
The more I read, the more I see St. Olaf as some kind of foreign place for me. I never suspected this kind of chicanery. I adored the place when I was there and later learned that, outside of music, it is a very ordinary college without much to recommend it. Now, I find its leaders playing games in concert with MPA, a Jezebel if there ever was one. Notice how many fund raisers MPA has? Notice how many advertisements creep into its broadcasts. If WCAL were alive today, its listeners would have increased in number and time significantly. This is a sad tale, but nonetheless real, and unfortunate. There are colleges which have maintained a higher ethic than what I see at St. Olaf now. I thought this new fellow Anderson would make a difference, since he was once an announcer at WCAL. But…….
Wow! What happened to St. Olaf's ethics? Does the Honor Code still mean anything?
Imagine: A student wants more time to complete an exam or paper. Instead of just asking the professor for more time, the student concocts an elaborate lie that she is waiting for a crucial document. But not only is the document unnecessary, the student already has it and has had it for months.
If this lie were discovered, there might be consequences for the student.
Yet St. Olaf allows its own attorneys to do this on its behalf *under oath to a court of law*!!!!
For shame. They should J-board the entire St. Olaf leadership.