D-1-GN-15-002473

CAUSE NO. ___________________

WALLACE L. HALL, JR., in his official
capacity as a Regent for the University of
Texas System,
Plaintiff,
V.
WILLIAM H. MCRAVEN, in his official
capacity as Chancellor for the University of
Texas System,
Defendant.

6/22/2015 11:56:51 AM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
D-1-GN-15-002473

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

200TH
_____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR INJUNCTION
Wallace L. Hall, Jr., files this suit in his official capacity as a Regent for the University of
Texas System, complaining of William H. McRaven, in his official capacity as Chancellor for
the University of Texas System, and would show the following:
Summary
1.

Chancellor McRaven is unlawfully withholding from Regent Hall information in

the Systems possession regarding influence-peddling in connection with admission decisions at

the University of Texas at Austin (the University). As a matter of law, System officials lack
the authority to restrict a Regents access to information that he deems necessary for the
performance of his official duties. Even so, Halls request was put to a vote of the Board of
Regents under the Systems formal policy on access to information, and it passed. Under Texas
law, the vote in Halls favor was sufficient to direct that the request will be filled without
delay. In defiance of his nondiscretionary legal duty, however, Chancellor McRaven continues
to withhold the requested information. Hall therefore seeks a judgment declaring that Chancellor
McRaven is acting ultra vires in refusing to provide the information and directing him by writ of
mandamus or mandatory injunction to provide it without further delay.

Discovery Level
2.

Hall intends that discovery be conducted under Level 3 of Texas Rule of Civil

Procedure 190.4.
Parties
3.

Plaintiff is Wallace L. Hall, Jr., an individual Texas resident, in his official

capacity as a Regent for the University of Texas System. By letter dated June 15, 2015, the
Office of the Attorney General approved Halls request to retain outside counsel to pursue the
relief requested herein.
4.

Defendant is William H. McRaven, an individual Texas resident, in his official

capacity as Chancellor for the University of Texas System. He can be served with process at:
Office of the Chancellor
The University of Texas System
601 Colorado Street, 4th Floor
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 499-4201
Jurisdiction
5.

The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, as he is a resident of the

state. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under sections 24.007 and
24.008 of the Texas Government Code and under Article V, Section 8, of the Texas Constitution.
Venue
6.

Venue in Travis County is proper because all or a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in Travis County. Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code 15.002(a)(1). Halls official requests have been communicated in Travis County,
the Regents vote took place in Travis County, Chancellor McRavens decision not to comply
was made and communicated in Travis County, and the relevant records are in Travis County.

Page 2

Factual Background
I.

Investigations into University of Texas admissions practices

7.

In the last two years, former Chancellor of the University of Texas System,

Francisco Cigarroa, commissioned two investigations into allegations of improper outside

influences on admission decisions at the University of Texas.

The first was an internal

investigation, led by University of Texas System General Counsel, Dan Sharphorn, culminating
in a report issued in May 2014. This report documented that legislators and other influential
people have routinely recommended prospective students directly to the University President;
such prospective students have been granted admission at rates significantly higher than the
remaining applicant pool; and this disparity in admission rates cannot be explained by grades,
test scores, or other legitimate factors of individual merit.

Nevertheless, while the report

recommended a review and revision of admissions practices, it recommended no discipline or

further investigation of past or current admissions practices.
8.

Soon after the internal investigation concluded, a former University Admissions

official reported information that cast doubt on the thoroughness of the internal investigation and
the accuracy of some of its findings.

Specifically, the former official reported that the

Universitys Office of the President, in response to outside influences, exerted pressure on the
Office of Admissions to admit prospective students who were less qualified than those whose
applications were denied.

Ultimately, the University President conceded that after the

Admissions Office had made decisions filling the incoming classes, the President unilaterally
increased the size of the classes to make room for students who would not have been admitted
but for influence from donors, alumni, regents, and/or legislators.
9.

After these revelations, Chancellor Cigarroa concluded that an independent firm

should be engaged to review the admission process, including an investigation of the extent to
Page 3

which pressure from influential individuals affected admissions decisions. The Board of Regents
authorized the independent investigation, and the consulting firm Kroll Inc. was engaged to
perform the work.
10.

11.

Kroll issued a Report on February 6, 2015, which found among other things:

The University President and his Chief of Staff, by their material omissions,
misled the internal admissions inquiry;

When the Office of the President receives a recommendation from a person of

influencesuch as a legislator, a regent, the Chancellors Office, or an important
donora hold is placed on the applicants file;

Once a hold has been placed on a file, the Admissions Office cannot deny the
application without first contacting the Presidents Office;

The Presidents Office can override the Admissions Office decision, and has used
this process to admit applicants over the objection of the Admissions Office;

Recommendations from legislators are particularly important due to the

legislatures ability to impact University finding;

Certain outlier admissions decisionspositive decisions for applicants with low

test scores and gradesmay be explained by political connections, alumni
influence, or considerations of racial/ethnic diversity; and

The existence of the hold system and the fact that the Presidents Office forces
certain admissions over the objection of the Admissions Office were not revealed
in connection with the Universitys internal investigation.
With the Board of Regents support, the University of Texas System paid Kroll

over $400,000 for the investigation. For this sum, Kroll conducted more than 60 interviews of
System officials and employees, reviewed more than 9,500 emails, analyzed ten years worth of
admissions data, and evaluated the application files of numerous prospective students, including
many whose files were tagged with a hold by the Office of the President and/or a Deans
Office.
12.

But the report is merely a Summary of Key Findings. It does not reveal the

content of Krolls interviews, the reviewed emails, the firms analyses of application files, or

Page 4

other source materials. It does not provide details of who exerted undue influence or whether
they are in positions to continue doing so. It does not describe the pressure that the President
claims to have been under to admit preferred applicants or explain what other incentives may
have been offered. And it does not quantify risks to the University System that can be inferred
from the summary of key findings. Members of the Board of Regents were never given an
opportunity to review the work product underlying Krolls summary or to ask questions of the
Kroll investigators.
13.

Chancellor McRaven succeeded Chancellor Cigarroa in 2015 and had been on the

job for 33 calendar days when he received Krolls report. Just three days later, Chancellor
McRaven adjudicated Krolls findings, decreeing there is no need for disciplinary action or
further investigation.
II.

Regent Hall requests access to the Kroll information

14.

In discharging his responsibilities as a Regent, Hall is concerned about the

thoroughness of the Chancellors quick, unilateral adjudication, and Hall continues to have
concerns about the Universitys admissions processes. In March 2015, Hall requested access to
the Kroll source materials. Among other things, he seeks to understand issues and potential risks
to the University System that were identified or discussed by Kroll but, for whatever reason, did
not make it into the published Kroll report.
15.

Hall has an absolute right to review these records in the performance of the

governance and oversight role entrusted to him as a Regent. The Board of Regents Rules in
effect at all relevant times provided that:

it is the responsibility of each Regent to be knowledgeable in some detail

regarding the operations, management, finances, and effectiveness of the
academic, research, and public service programs of the U. T. System, and each
member of the Board of Regents has the right and authority to inform

Page 5

himself/herself as to the duties, responsibilities, and obligations of the member in

such a manner as they each may deem proper;

Members of the Board of Regents are to be provided access to such information

as in their individual judgments will enable them to fulfill their duties and
responsibilities as Regents of the U. T. System.

Regent Rule 10101, 3.1, 3.2. 1

16.

Chancellor McRaven controls the records and refuses to discharge his ministerial

duty to provide them to Hall.

III.

The Systems Access Policy requires System officials to honor Halls request

17.

Board of Regents Rule 10801, entitled Policy on Transparency, Accountability,

and Access to Information (Access Policy), articulates the Systems policy on Regents
access to information. Consistent with state law, the Access Policy applicable to Halls request
acknowledged that System officials cannot lawfully prevent a Regent from reviewing
information in the Systems possession that the Regent believes he must review to discharge his
official responsibilities. It stated in part:
This process is not intended nor will it be implemented to prevent a
member of the Board of Regents or the Chancellor from access to
information or data that the Board member or Chancellor deems is
necessary to fulfill his or her official duties and responsibilities.
Regent Rule 10801, 5.4.1. The Access Policy appropriately contained no qualifications: if a
Regent deems the information necessary to fulfill his or her duties, the Regent has the right and
responsibility to review the information. 2
1

The rule quoted above accurately reflects state law, which prohibits any provision that would deprive a Regent of
access to information that he deems necessary to discharge his official responsibilities. After the events giving rise
to this lawsuit, however, the Board of Regents amended Rule 10101 to delete the language in italics above.
Reliance by the Chancellor or other System officials on the new rule to deny access to information that Hall or any
other Regent considers necessary to the performance of their official duties would violate state law.
2

After the events giving rise to this lawsuit, the Board amended this rule too, deleting the phrase that the Board
member or Chancellor deems is. Reliance by the Chancellor or other System official on the new rule to deny
access to information that Hall or any other Regent considers necessary to the performance of their official duties
would violate state law.

Page 6

18.

In fact, the Access Policy forcefully articulates the Board of Regents unqualified

expectation that System officials will meet the Regents information requirements:
The Board requires all U. T. System Administration and U. T.
System institutional employees to respond thoroughly and
appropriately to requests for information from a member of the
Board or the Chancellor, without undue delay.
Regent Rule 10801, 5.4.5.
19.

Although the Chancellor has no authority to withhold information from a Regent,

the Access Policy in effect at all relevant times provided the following process for addressing
any concerns that he may have regarding a Regents request:
In the rare circumstance when there are concerns about a Regents
request, the matter will be discussed with the Regent within 5
business days of receipt of the request. If concerns about a request
for information or data are unresolved following discussion with
the Regent, the matter will be presented to the Board as quickly as
possible, but in no event later than 21 days from the date of the
receipt of the request. For the purpose of a Board vote on this
issue, the vote of any two or more Regents in support of the
request is sufficient to direct that the request will be filled without
delay.
Regent Rule 10801, 5.4.5. Under this provision, after vetting his concerns, the Chancellor
must fulfill the information request if two or more Regents vote in support of it. This policy
prevents a minority, or even a majority, of the Board from impeding an individual Regents
attempt to fulfill his responsibilities, even if that attempt involves inquiries into issues or
allegations that are unpopular or uncomfortable.
IV.

The Regents vote to require the Chancellor to honor Halls request

20.

On April 8, 2015, the Board of Regents convened a special meeting to consider

Halls request and Chancellor McRavens concerns about it. The Chairman of the Board, Paul
Foster, confirmed at the beginning of the meeting that for the purposes of a board vote on such

Page 7

a matter, the vote of any two regents in support of the request is sufficient to direct that the
request be filled without delay.
21.

Before a vote was taken, the Chairman suggested that the real problem with Halls

request had to do with maintaining the confidentiality of the requested records. The Chairman
stated that if Hall would agree to review the records in the Chancellors office, without making
copies, then the Chancellor would provide access to the records and there would be no need for a
Board vote under section 5.4.5.

Hall, who has independent legal obligations to maintain

confidentiality, replied that he would readily accept that offer.

22.

But Chancellor McRaven promptly backtracked, refusing to provide the

information even for a confidential review and making clear that his objection is not genuinely
based on confidentiality of student information. Instead, Chancellor McRaven views Halls
request an affront to McRavens authority: We received a report from Kroll. I acted on that
report under my full authority to do so; and to my way of thinking, that is closed. . . . But if the
expectation is that every time I make a decision as the CEO and the Chancellor that a single
regent or a regent or two can trump that decision, then frankly I need to rethink this relationship
with the Board because thats not consistent with my understanding of my role as the CEO.
Rather than allowing Hall to review the requested information in his office, therefore, Chancellor
McRaven stated, [i]f you want to reopen all the information that we got from the Kroll report
and take a look at all that data, Im not inclined to go there.
23.

After additional discussion, both in public session and in executive session, Hall

moved for a vote on his request to see the Kroll materials. The Chairman clarified that Halls
motion was on his request to see all Kroll materials, specifically including information that may
be subject to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Regent Cranberg

Page 8

seconded Halls motion. Regent Hicks proposed an amendment to Halls motion which would
have allowed the Chancellor to withhold information subject to FERPA. But Hall rejected the
amendment, prompting the Chairman to call for a vote on Halls original motion.
24.

Regents Hall, Cranberg, and Pejovich voted for Halls motion. Francie Frederick,

General Counsel to the Board, confirmed: Mr. Chairman, there were three votes in favor of
allowing Regent Hall to review the data, and the Chairman confirmed that the motion passes.
25.

Thus, the Board of Regents considered all of Chancellor McRavens concerns,

including his real concern about his authority as CEO and his professed concern about FERPA
and privacy, and the Board voted to grant Hall access to all requested information. Under the
unequivocal terms of the Access Policy, this was sufficient, as a matter of state law, to direct
that the request will be filled without delay.
V.

Chancellor McRaven refuses to perform his ministerial duty

26.

More than two months later, however, the request still has not been filled.

Instead, the Chancellors Office reverted to the pretense that Halls request for information must
be denied not because it is an affront to the Chancellors authority, but because FERPA does not
permit a Regent to access student educational information. Under this disingenuous logic,
federal law allows the Chancellor to provide confidential student records to Kroll, but prohibits a
Regent from performing a confidential review of the same records in evaluating policy decisions
and overseeing the performance of system administrators in light of what those records reveal.
This is nonsense.
A. FERPA is a pretext
27.

FERPA generally provides that federal funding will be denied to an educational

institution that releases students educational records to persons who are not authorized to see

Page 9

them. But the statute does not prohibit confidential review of such records by a Regent in the
performance of his official duties. The statute provides in part:
No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to
any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice
of permitting the release of education records . . . of students
without the written consent of their parents to any individual,
agency, or organization, other than to . . . school officials,
including teachers within the educational institution or local
educational agency, who have been determined by such agency or
institution to have legitimate educational interests.
20 U.S. Code 1232g(b)(1)(A). As a Regent for the University of Texas System, Hall is a
school official with legitimate educational interests in records relating to a Board-supported
investigation into University admissions practices. 3
28.

In fact, when its officials did not have an ulterior motive to hide behind FERPA,

the System specifically determined that Hall has a legitimate educational interest in precisely
such records.

Hall previously received certain emails that the System determined were

potentially subject to FERPA. Lawyers for the System were asked to determine whether Halls
receipt and review of the confidential emails was permissible under FERPA. In a public report
on behalf of the System, they repeatedly explained that Hall had a legitimate educational interest
in records that bear on concerns regarding the Universitys admissions practices:

Regent Hall had a legitimate educational purpose for possessing

the alleged FERPA email(s) because it/they raise concerns about
possible favoritism in the U.T. Austin admissions process.

Regent Hall would have an educational purpose since oversight of

campus admissions standards [are] consistent with the role and
mission of U.T. System institutions.

Hall is also permitted to view FERPA-protected records under the provision that [n]othing in this section shall
preclude authorized representatives of . . . State educational authorities from having access to student or other
records which may be necessary in connection with the audit and evaluation of Federally-supported education
programs. 20 U.S. Code 1232g(b)(3)(C).

Page 10

Regent Halls retention of the email(s) after he realized they

might potentially be confidential under FERPA also did not violate
FERPA . . . the emails gave rise to an educational purpose, namely
a concern related to U.T. Austins admissions practices, which
justified retaining the documents.

Report of January 13, 2014, from Hilder & Assoc. to Representatives Alvarado and Flynn
(Hilder Report), at 3, 4. There is no lawful explanation for the Systems about-face on the
exact same issue.
29.

Although the Board of Regents considered FERPA before they cast their binding

vote in favor of Halls access to all requested records, Chancellor McRaven took the position that
Hall had to satisfy System General Counsel Dan Sharphorn that Hall had legitimate educational
interests before he could review the requested information. This was another disingenuous
roadblock because the System itself had previously concluded that FERPA requires neither
antecedent justifications nor written expositions of an original, educational purpose. Hilder
Report at 4.
30.

Nevertheless, on April 9, 2015, Hall sent a letter addressed to Sharphorn and to

Barbara Holthaus, Assistant General Counsel and Systemwide Privacy Officer.

This letter

contained a nonexclusive list of twelve legitimate educational interests that Hall, as a Regent
with governance responsibilities to the System, has in reviewing information that led an outside
consultant to conclude that outside influences have led the University to admit students based on
their political connections, legacy status, race, or other special factors, while better-qualified
applicants were turned away. Among other things, Hall articulated his desire and responsibility
to

assess the risks to the University associated with alleged threats of adverse
consequences if legislators recommended applicants did not receive special
favors, including what was threatened, by whom, and whether such persons are
still in positions to exert leverage over the University;

Page 11

31.

evaluate the effect that outside influences on the admissions process may have on
the Universitys ongoing struggles with low graduation rates;

understand the Universitys use of racial preferences in the admissions process,

which is the subject of litigation against the System and members of the Board,
including Hall;

assess allegations of influence that are not spelled out in the Kroll report;

evaluate institutional risks that Kroll identified but was not permitted by the scope
of the investigation to fully vet or spell out in its report, including matters that
Kroll was instructed to raise with the System General Counsel, who oversaw the
ineffective internal investigation;

understand the role that members of the Board of Regents played in exerting
pressure on University officials to admit their preferred applicants;

learn more about the Universitys consideration of legacy status in admissions,

which could constitute violations of state law and place at risk the 75% cap on
automatic admissions under the ten percent rule; and

determine whether the Universitys advertised use of the holistic admissions

process is inconsistent with its actual use of the process, which could subject the
University to further liability.
All of these specific concerns relate to the Universitys admissions process, and

the System has already determined that Hall is entitled not only to reviewwhich is all he seeks
herebut to possess and retain records that relate to an educational purpose, namely, a concern
related to U.T. Austins admission practices. Hilder Report at 4.
32.

In private, nonprivileged conversations, the Chancellor and the General Counsel

have conceded that Hall has articulated legitimate educational interests in the Kroll information
as a Regent for the University of Texas System. But their official position remains defiant and
unlawful.
33.

On April 13, Chancellor McRaven sent an email to Hall, communicating his

predetermined decision to continue withholding the requested information from Hall in violation
of his legal duty and despite the Access Policys plain directive that a vote of any two Regents is

Page 12

sufficient to direct that the request be fulfilled without delay. While Chancellor McRaven may
claim that his hands are tied by FERPA, his own words confirm again that the statute is but a
convenient excuse. McRaven still views the dispute as a power struggle and specifically fails to
understand that a Regents responsibility includes oversight of the Chancellors Office and all
other University officials:
Regent Hall, I have reviewed the request for information you
provided Dan Sharphorn and in my opinion your request goes well
beyond any reasonable desire to be better informed as a regent.
As the Chancellor and CEO of the UT System it is my
responsibility to manage the UT system and to foster the national
prestige of all its institutions. This current request for information
seeks to undermine my recent decisions as the CEO and I believe it
is detrimental to the overall well-being of the system. It reveals
your intent to conduct your own investigations contrary to what is
contemplated under RR 10801 and in contravention of Sec. 3.4 of
RR 10101, which requires you to bring concerns about the need for
investigations to me or the board. Consequently, I will not be
giving you access to the information you requested and would
offer that you address your concerns to the full board.
34.

This exact argument was vetted at the April 8 meeting of the Board of Regents.

Under the Access Policy, the Chancellors attempt to recharacterize Halls request as an
investigation and concerns about undermining his authority were rejected when three Regents
cast a vote that is sufficient to direct that the request be filled without delay.
35.

Chancellor McRavens stated reasons for continuing to withhold the requested

information emphasize exactly why his conduct is unlawful.

A Regents oversight

responsibilities require him to ask tough questions. They require him to review records that
university officials may prefer to keep secret. They require him to attempt to ensure that the
University is not engaged in practices or exposed to ongoing risks that could subject it to
liability.

They require him to evaluate the performance of System administrators.

The

Chancellor has no legal authority to keep the Kroll information from Hall, even if the

Page 13

information may lead to revelations that tarnish the Universitys national prestige or call the
Chancellors judgment into question. Indeed, the very reason why public corporations have
boards of directors and universities have boards of regents is to provide this sort of independent
oversight.
B. The Attorney General confirms that the Chancellor is acting unlawfully
36.

Hall would have been well justified in filing this lawsuit immediately upon receipt

of Chancellor McRavens April 13 email. But Hall decided to first request an opinion from the
Texas Attorney General regarding whether the Chancellors Office can legally withhold
information that a Regent deems necessary to perform the oversight functions of his office.
37.

On May 12, 2015, the Attorney General issued Opinion KP-0021, which

persuasively explains why Chancellor McRaven is acting illegally in continuing to withhold the
Kroll information from Hall. First, as a matter of law, no System official has legal authority to
keep from a Regent information that the Regent deems necessary to fulfill the obligations of his
office.

Second, a Regent is clearly authorized under FERPA to access student records in

connection with concerns relating to the Universitys admissions practices, exactly as the System
itself determined last year.
38.

Even after the issuance of this opinion, Chancellor McRaven continues to

unlawfully withhold the records from Hall, preventing him from performing his official duties
and requiring Hall to enlist the Courts assistance in compelling compliance with the law.
Causes of Action
I.

Declaratory Judgment

39.

Hall incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 38 above as if fully set

forth here.

Page 14

40.

As described above, Hall has concerns about the University of Texas admissions

practices and that they may expose the University to legal and practical risks that are not
identified or fully explained in the Kroll Report. He has requested access to all Kroll records in
his official capacity as a Regent of the University of Texas System and deems review of the
records necessary for him to discharge the duties of that office.
41.

These records are in the possession, custody, and control of the Office of the

Chancellor.
42.

Neither the Chancellor, nor any other System official, can legally deny Hall

access to the Kroll records under these circumstances.

43.

Hall requests a declaratory judgment that (a) neither the Chancellor, nor any other

University of Texas System official, can lawfully withhold information in the Systems
possession that a Regent has requested in his official capacity and deems necessary to review in
the discharge of his official duties; (b) neither the Chancellor, nor any other University of Texas
System official, can lawfully withhold the Kroll records from Hall; and (c) Chancellor McRaven
is acting ultra vires in refusing to perform his legal duty to provide the Kroll records for Halls
review.
II

Declaratory Judgment

44.

Hall incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 43 above as if fully set

forth here.
45.

Hall has concerns about the University of Texas admissions practices and that

they may expose the University to legal and practical risks that are not identified or fully
explained in the Kroll Report. He has requested access to all Kroll records in his official

Page 15

capacity as a Regent of the University of Texas System and deems review of the records
necessary for him to discharge the duties of that office.
46.

These records are in the possession, custody, and control of the Office of the

Chancellor.
47.

In the alternative to the declaratory judgment requested above and assuming for

the sake of argument that the Board of Regents can lawfully adopt rules that may limit a
Regents access to information that he deems necessary for the performance of his official duties,
the Access Policy in effect at all relevant times has the force and effect of state law. Under the
Access Policy, the Boards 3-6 vote on Halls motion to require Chancellor McRaven to provide
access to all Kroll records requires Chancellor McRaven to provide the records without delay as
a matter of law. Even if Chancellor McRavens professed FERPA concerns were not (i) wrong,
(ii) pretextual, and (iii) diametrically opposed to the Systems prior determinations, the Board of
Regents considered the FERPA arguments before Halls motion passed, and state law still
requires Chancellor McRaven to fulfill Halls request.
48.

Accordingly, Hall requests a declaratory judgment that the Chancellors Office is

required by the 3-6 vote on Halls motion to provide access to all Kroll records without delay,
and that Chancellor McRaven is acting ultra vires in refusing to discharge this legal duty.
III

Mandamus or Mandatory Injunction

49.

Hall incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 48 above as if fully set

forth here.
50.

Hall has concerns about the University of Texas admissions practices and that

they may expose the University to legal and practical risks that are not identified or fully
explained in the Kroll Report. He has requested access to all Kroll records in his official

Page 16

capacity as a Regent of the University of Texas System and deems review of the records
necessary for him to discharge the duties of that office.
51.

These records are in the possession, custody, and control of the Office of the

Chancellor.
52.

Neither the Chancellor, nor any other System official, can legally deny Hall

access to the Kroll records under these circumstances.

53.

Alternatively, and assuming for the sake of argument that the Board of Regents

can lawfully adopt rules that may limit a Regents access to information that he deems necessary
for the performance of his official duties, the Access Policy in effect at all relevant times has the
force and effect of state law. Under the Access Policy, the Boards 3-6 vote on Halls motion to
require Chancellor McRaven to provide access to all Kroll records requires Chancellor McRaven
to provide the records without delay as a matter of law.
54.

Therefore, Chancellor McRaven has a nondiscretionary legal duty to provide Hall

with access to all Kroll records as he has requested.

55.

Hall requests that the Court issue a writ of mandamus requiring McRaven, in his

official capacity as Chancellor of the University of Texas System, to provide Hall with
immediate access to all records reviewed or created in connection with the Kroll investigation.
56.

Alternatively, Hall requests that the Court issue a mandatory injunction requiring

McRaven, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the University of Texas System, to provide
Hall with immediate access to all records reviewed or created in connection with the Kroll
investigation.
PRAYER
Hall prays that the Court render a judgment declaring that (a) neither the
Chancellor, nor any other University of Texas System official, can lawfully withhold information
Page 17

in the Systems possession that a Regent has requested in his official capacity and deems
necessary to review in the discharge of his official duties; (b) neither the Chancellor, nor any
other University of Texas System official, can lawfully withhold the Kroll records from Hall;
and (c) Chancellor McRaven is acting ultra vires in refusing to perform his legal duty to provide
the Kroll records for Halls review.
Alternatively, Hall prays that the Court render a judgment declaring that the
Chancellors Office is required by the 3-6 vote on Halls motion to provide access to all Kroll
records without delay, and Chancellor McRaven is acting ultra vires in refusing to discharge this
legal duty.
Hall further prays that the Court issue a writ of mandamus and/or mandatory
injunction requiring McRaven, in his official capacity as Chancellor for the University of Texas
System, to perform his ministerial legal duty to provide Hall with access to all records reviewed
or created in connection with the Kroll investigation.
Finally, Hall prays for such further relief to which he may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/Joseph R. Knight
Joseph R. Knight
State Bar No. 11601275
jknight@knighttxlaw.com
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH R. KNIGHT
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2800
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 457-0231
(512) 684-7681 (Facsimile)
Attorney for Wallace L. Hall, Jr., in his official
capacity as a Regent for the University of Texas
System

Page 18