A South Carolina freedom of information advocate with a history of suing the University of South Carolina has again sued the USC, this time to obtain the school’s deals to share more than $20 million with its student-athletes.
As reported by Ted Clifford and Jordan Kaye of The State in Columbia, Frank Heindel, a former grain merchant and open records advocate, filed the lawsuit Sept. 30 in Richland County. He sent USC a request Sept. 4 for records under South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act. Heindel requested any executed revenue-sharing contracts or agreements between the university and its football players.
South Carolina has denied that it has any records of these multimillion dollar deals, and whatever records they might have would be shielded by a law that protects students’ academic records.
Less than a week after Heindel's request, the university responded with an email stating that the documents were “scholastic records” protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a federal law that shields a student’s educational records from disclosure. “Therefore, there are no records responsive to your request,” wrote the school’s FOIA coordinator, as reported by Clifford and Kaye.
The university’s justification for its secrecy is “contradictory and legally untenable,” wrote Heindel. “I’m not asking for names or grade point averages. I’m asking how a public university spends public money,” Heindel told The State.
Earlier this year, The State submitted a FOIA request for all invoices from South Carolina’s NIL Collective, The Garnet Trust. After nearly three months, the school claimed it did not possess any responsive documents.
"That could be true," Clifford and Kaye wrote. "It could also be true that South Carolina used one of its privatized arms — such as The Gamecock Club (USC’s booster club) to handle the payments, knowing they wouldn’t be subject to the same FOIA laws."
According to The State, when South Carolina agreed to a partnership with Blanchard CAT in August, resulting in a sponsored field logo at Williams-Brice Stadium, the newspaper submitted a FOIA request for that contract. South Carolina claimed to not possess that contract, saying it was maintained by Learfield, the company in charge of its athletics marketing.
"Like The Gamecock Club, Learfield is a private company not subject to the same FOIA laws as the University of South Carolina," Clifford and Kaye wrote.
