Rick Wimmer, former Fishers High School varsity football coach, is now retired, but his suspension years ago, and what Hamilton Southeastern (HSE) Schools did and did not disclose about that suspension, were before the justices of the Indiana State Supreme Court Thursday morning.

The legal arguments centered on what Indiana lawmakers meant when writing into the public records statute that public employee discipline disclosures must include the “factual basis for” the decision in a 2003 change to the law.  The HSE Schools attorney, Liberty Roberts, a partner in the Hamilton County law firm Church, Church, Hittle and Antrim, argued that the factual basis test applied to school districts should be a narrow one.  Adam A. Marshal, a senior staff attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, represented WTHR and told justices the factual basis test should include much more than HSE Schools provided to WTHR-TV journalists.

When Mr. Wimmer was suspended roughly 5 years ago, WTHR made two requests that went to the Indiana Public Access Counselor’s Office.  HSE responded to WTHR’s request for a factual basis for the suspension of Mr. Wimmer, only saying he failed to control the classroom and provided a section of school policy with a long list of possible violations.  The HSE District provided no other facts.

The Public Access Counselor’s office appeared to side with WTHR, saying a factual basis for the suspension needed to include more than HSE provided to the television station’s journalists.  Public Access Counselor opinions are advisory.

WTHR, with the help of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, filed suit seeking more details of the reason for Mr. Wimmer’s 5-day suspension.  The Hamilton County Court and the Indiana Court of Appeals sided with HSE Schools, leading to the oral arguments before the state’s highest court when WTHR appealed.

The legal arguments presented to the court, and the questions posed to attorneys by the justices, centered on what the Indiana General Assembly meant by the phrase “factual basis for” in the 2003 change in the statute.

The privacy rights of public employees, versus the public’s right to know under the law, is the issue justices must decide in their decision.  There is no indication when that decision will be handed down.

The 5 justices pressed both attorneys with hypothetical situations on what must be provided by a school district that would meet the test of disclosing  “factual basis for” public employee discipline.

One thing all agreed upon in the Thursday morning proceedings – this statute language has never been before the state’s high court previously and whatever decision the justices publish will have ramifications state-wide.