University of Wyoming

An Albany County District Court judge today ordered the University of Wyoming to present for her private review contested documents regarding former university President Laurie Nichols, who was demoted without explanation. 

Judge Tori Kricken  on July 16, ordered UW’s lawyers to provide “documents to the Court” by Aug. 15 for her review, along with further legal arguments as to why the records should be kept secret. She set a hearing for Oct. 8.

The order is the latest development in a public records lawsuit filed by WyoFile, Lee Publications, Inc. and APG Media of the Rockies, LLC, and follows the University’s response last week to the news coalition’s petition. Lee publishes the Casper-Star Tribune and APG publishes the Laramie Boomerang and Wyoming Tribune Eagle.

Before becoming University of Wyoming President, Laurie Nichols chats with students during her first official visit to the campus.
(Thaddeus Mast/Laramie Boomerang)

The university declined to provide the requesting news organizations with documents believed to be related to the board of trustees’ decision not to renew Nichols’ contract and has maintained that such records are not public, positions UW lawyers reiterated in last week’s filing.

The judge will review the records in question and take arguments from both sides on whether they are or are not public, said Bruce Moats, attorney for the news organizations. 

In their July 11 response lawyers representing UW from the Cheyenne firm Hirst Applegate contested the news organizations’ assertions that requested records are in the public interest. The June 21 press petition sought records of an evaluation they believe was conducted into Nichols performance and records of any investigations conducted into the president’s leadership or behavior.

The press petition with the court alleges that “upon information and belief, the University hired a third party to investigate President Nichols in response to a complaint.”

In her response to the initial records request by a Casper Star-Tribune reporter, UW general counsel Tara Evans denied the request without acknowledging such an investigation existed. In the July 11 response to the press petition, UW’s lawyers suggested records of an internal investigation “may” exist. 

“Some of the documents” that were withheld may fall under an exemption for internal investigations, the university’s lawyers wrote. In its original response to the Casper Star’s records request, the university withheld many records under an exemption for personnel files. 

The lawsuit challenged UW’s use of the “personnel files” exemption to deny release of any records of investigations into Nichols. The exemption only protects records where publicity would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy,” the press filing argued.

“Public access to an investigation into the conduct or performance of the leader of the state’s only university is clearly a matter in which the public has a legitimate interest,” the petition reads. “Therefore, the exemption does not prevent public access to any investigative report or related documents.”

In its response, UW argued it wasn’t clear there was a public interest in Nichols’ performance as president of the state’s only public four-year university. UW has “insufficient knowledge regarding the public’s interest in the University president’s performance,” the university’s lawyers wrote. 

The public interest in this case was clear, press lawyer Moats said in an interview. “I don’t think there is any doubt that there’s a great public interest in the university’s performance,” Moats said, “as well as in the performance of the university’s governors and how they handled the [Nichols] situation.” 

The university’s governors are the board of trustees, who voted in an executive session not to renew Nichols’ contract and have yet to offer any public explanation for the decision. 

UW’s lawyers argued that because the school did not terminate Nichols — it simply did not renew her contract — there is no need to offer an explanation. “Reasons for not extending the contract were not necessary,” they wrote. 

The judge will use the private review of the records to determine whether the records invade Nichols’ personal privacy to an extent that outweighs the public’s interest in seeing their contents, Moats said. 

“The [Wyoming] Supreme Court has said that what really matters in these cases is whether it’s an unwarranted invasion of privacy,” Moats said. Unwarranted would suggest “personnel facts with which the public does not have legitimate interests,” he said.

WyoFile did not receive a response from a University of Wyoming spokesperson to a request for comment Tuesday afternoon.

Support transparency with a tax-deductible donation today.

Andrew Graham is reporting for WyoFile from Laramie. He covers state government, energy and the economy. Reach him at 443-848-8756 or at, follow him @AndrewGraham88

Join the Conversation


Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. I will admit it. I am just plain curious as to why her contract was not renewed. I liked her and feel she’s been slighted in someway.

  2. As they say, “Be careful for what you wish for” if her performance records are published, she may never work again….

    Don’t fool yourself Nichols has “friends “ in the groups behind the lawsuit.

  3. If Nichols doesn’t think her privacy was invaded (and she is as puzzled as anyone as to why her contract wasn’t renewed then I’m confused as to what the privacy issue is?

    Nichols wants to know too.

    1. I understand your sentiment. But Nichols isn’t the one requesting the documents here. Wyoming news organizations are, and presumably for the purpose of being able to publish them or about them. There ARE privacy concerns and the University DOES have an obligation to protect that privacy, especially since Nichols herself is not party to this action/lawsuit.

      HOWEVER, it seems to me like most of what the News Orgs. are seeking does not directly concern Nichols’ private, sensitive information, but rather information of/from/on the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees; their processes, communications and their direct decision-making regarding the institution, which the Board is seeking to keep private and protected. Unfortunately for them, (at least I hope!) such things are not and ought not to be private for the sake of government transparency and accountability.