Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate education panel advances bill shielding college rev-share deals from public records after heated transparency clash
Summary
The Senate Committee on Education voted to report House Bill 608 favorably after hours of debate over whether intercollegiate athletics revenue‑sharing agreements should be exempt from public-records requests. LSU and athletics officials urged confidentiality to protect student athletes and negotiations; transparency advocates warned state dollars and accountability would be undermined.
The Senate Committee on Education reported House Bill 608 favorable after a lengthy hearing in which university athletics officials, government watchdogs and news‑media representatives sparred over public‑records exemptions for revenue‑sharing agreements.
Julie Cromer, executive deputy athletics director at LSU, told the committee the proposal would protect student athletes and sensitive negotiated terms. "We're simply asking to be able to protect the breakdown individually and by sport," Cromer said, describing current reporting as aggregated and asking the panel to extend privacy protections to negotiated revenue‑share agreements.
Opponents urged caution. Steven Procopio, president of the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, argued that revenue sharing represents state or state‑related dollars and should remain subject to public records. "That is state money," Procopio said. "If we set the standard and said, ‘this isn't really tax dollars,’ we set a terrible precedent — citizens have a right to know how their money is being spent."
Scott Sternberg, general counsel for the Louisiana Press Association, told senators he was unconvinced the competitiveness and safety arguments justified carving out an exemption from public‑records law. "What problem are we trying to solve with this bill?" Sternberg asked. "No one's making a public‑records request for this to date; that competitive‑disadvantage claim doesn't jive." He emphasized the constitutional and historical basis for Louisiana's strong public‑records regime.
The committee also debated how the proposal interacts with NIL (name, image, likeness) deals and FERPA protections for student records. Supporters drew a distinction between NIL payments — which often flow directly to individuals — and revenue sharing, which they described as self‑generated institutional revenue that can be distributed by universities. Opponents countered that much athletics revenue is fungible and that some of those funds ultimately derive from public sources.
Senator Andrews moved to report the bill favorable; there was no recorded roll call and the chair announced the bill would be reported favorable as amended. The measure will advance to the next legislative stage where floor amendments and further debate are possible.
Why it matters: The bill would change how much information citizens and journalists can access about how public universities allocate money generated by athletics, raising questions about transparency, privacy and the limits of public‑records law.
