Opinion ID: 2618880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of the Alaska Public Records Statute, AS 09.25.110-.120, to the University of Alaska.

Text: Here the threshold question is raised regarding the power of the legislature to subject the University to the mandate of the public records disclosure statute. [5] The APEA cites University of Alaska v. National Aircraft Leasing, Ltd., 536 P.2d 121 (Alaska 1975), in support of its contention that the University's status as a constitutional corporation does not entitle it to immunity from compliance with statutes governing the operation of state instrumentalities, including the public records disclosure law. [6] The APEA's reliance upon National Aircraft is not misplaced. Under former AS 09.50.290, [7] actions against the state were to be tried by the court, a procedural limitation upon the state's general waiver of sovereign immunity. In National Aircraft, the issue was whether the University, as defendant in a tort suit arising from an accident that occurred on a University-owned air strip, was entitled to a trial by jury. We held that the corporate status of the University of Alaska under the Alaska Constitution does not militate against our conclusion that the University falls within the ambit of the language of AS 09.50.250-.300 which governs suits against the State of Alaska. 536 P.2d at 127. In National Aircraft we explicitly rejected the argument raised by the University in this case that the framers must have established the University as a body corporate in order to render it autonomous: It is true that the constitution has established the University as a body corporate. The fact that the University has had conferred upon it the status of a juristic person is not dispositive, however, of our ruling in this case. There are several reasons why this structural approach may have been taken. It may have been created as a corporation so as to simplify its transactions with the federal government in accepting grants of lands, and to facilitate its dealings with other persons in leasing and selling the lands it acquires or in conducting general business activities. Also, this corporate status may have been chosen in order to shield the individual members of the board of regents from personal liability in actions which might lead to a judgment for money damages against the University. 536 P.2d at 125 (footnotes omitted). [8] We are of the opinion that the policy considerations which led us to conclude in National Aircraft that the University was, in essence, a branch of the state system of public education, justify holding that the Alaska legislature could subject the University to the provisions of AS 09.25.110-.120.