According to the terms of a settlement obtained thru the open records law, U of L’s former deputy general counsel has has been paid $750,000 by the school to settle her whistleblower lawsuit.

https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/uofl-pays-750-000-to-settle-former-offici…

WDRB reporter Jason Riley writes:

"Amy Shoemaker claimed she was demoted after she angered then-U of L President Neeli Bendapudi by telling police about an extortion attempt by then-assistant basketball coach Dino Gaudio.

"Shoemaker's suit shed more behind-the-scenes light on the series of events that transpired after then-men’s basketball coach Chris Mack decided not to renew the contracts of Gaudio and assistant Luke Murray when the Cards failed to make the NCAA Tournament in 2021."

In an interesting decade old coincidence, Courier Journals Andrew Wolfson reported, "Documents obtained under the Kentucky Open Records Act show UofL is paying [General Counsel] Angela Koshewa --
who has questioned some expenditures and proposals backed by President James Ramsey -- $346,844 to settle … all possible claims and differences among them."

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2014/04/18/university-…

Riley confirms that the Shoemaker settlement contains a nondisparagement clause. The "severance" agreement between UofL and Koshewa also contained a nondisparagement clause -- common, apparently, in situations like these.

From the Courier Journal's 2014 article, "Louisville employment lawyer Irwin Cutler Jr. said businesses usually offer such severance payments to avoid potential whistleblower suits or claims of age, race or gender discrimination."

"But Cutler said there are fewer reasons why a public agency would make a payment it is not obligated to pay. 'The university is accountable to the public for being good stewards of its funds.'" Other experts agreed.

"It is inappropriate for a public university to buy the silence of officials who are in the best position to inform the public about how a university is being run & spending public money.

"Such deals give the public 'reason to suspect that there is something worth hiding,'" Wolfson reported.

In 2014, "the money [for the severance agreement with Koshewa came] from private contributions to the university that can be used for any purpose, including to advance its academic mission."

From what source the $750,000 settlement in Shoemaker's case will be paid is unclear -- probably by an insurer for the university -- but 
the university remains "accountable to the public."

Unlike some state public records laws, Kentucky's open records law leaves no doubt that public agency settlement agreements are accessible to the public.

In two cases, the Kentucky Supreme Court has affirmed that such agreements are public records for purposes of the Open Records Act:

In Central Kentucky News v. George, the Court reasoned:

"Appellees contend that the agreements are exempted from disclosure by virtue of the Act's personal privacy exception. We cannot agree and find controlling this Court's holding in Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't v. Lexington Herald-Leader (1997).

"Lexington Herald-Leader concluded that because the settlement agreements involved the expenditure of public funds, the public's interest in the outcome of the settlement was, a fortiori, strong: '[t]here could be no viable contention that an agreement which represents the final settlement of a civil lawsuit whereby a governmental entity pays public funds to compensate for an injury it inflicted is not a public record.'

"Moreover, Lexington Herald-Leader rejected the idea that a confidentiality agreement may impute, per se, a public record with a privacy claim superior to that of the public's right of access:

"'[A] confidentiality clause reached by the agreement of parties to litigation cannot in and of itself create an inherent right to privacy superior to and exempt from the statutory mandate for disclosure contained in the Open Records Act. . . . In balancing the sacrosanct right of an individual to privacy against legitimate public concerns and the right of the public to inquire into the workings of government, we find that a settlement of litigation between private citizens and a governmental entity is a matter of legitimate public concern which the public is entitled to scrutinize. A confidentiality clause in such an agreement is not entitled to protection . . . ."

https://kyopengov.org/law/court-decisions/central-kentucky-new-journal-…

https://kyopengov.org/law/court-decisions/lexington-fayette-v-herald-le…