Utah’s top boss has been accused of sexual misconduct. Officials sued The Tribune to keep the investigation secret.

To keep an investigative report secret, the Utah Board of Higher Education filed a lawsuit, arguing it should not release the draft report describing how it handled sexual harassment complaints made against the commissioner who then headed the colleges and universities in the state.

The board sued Tribune reporter Courtney Tanner and the Utah State Records Committee earlier this month, saying the report should not be disclosed because it was “the result of an incomplete complaint process.” Tanner requested the report and other records related to any investigation into Dave Woolstenhulme after the former commissioner suddenly resigned last September.

The State Records Committee decided that the draft report should be made public, a decision the committee wants a district judge to overturn.

When Woolstenhulme left the job, he said he planned to “pursue other opportunities that presented themselves.” The Utah Board of Higher Education reiterated the same reason after members hastily gathered to approve his resignation.

But the panel’s lawsuit says Woolstenhulme resigned two weeks after receiving a draft investigative report about “complaints” against him – and his decision to leave ultimately ended the investigation into him while the panel was in session was still in the middle of the procedures the committee is following to receive complaints.

A recording released to The Salt Lake Tribune said the investigation into Woolstenhulme began in March 2023 after a Utah State University employee accused the provost of sexual misconduct. It appears that at least one other employee subsequently came forward to also report an allegation of sexual harassment against Woolstenhulme.

The document refers to “employees” in the plural, and a Utah State University prosecutor also confirmed in a public hearing that the public school had received several “complaints from university employees.” The school did not want to say exactly how many there were.

Tanner requested the draft investigative report, among other documents, as part of a public records request. The State Records Committee decided earlier this year that the public interest in releasing the draft was more important than privacy concerns – and ordered its release. However, it also decided that the original complaints against Woolstenhulme would not be made public.

The Board of Higher Education’s lawsuit appeals the Archives Board’s decision on the draft investigative report. The panel said in the lawsuit that forcing it to disclose the draft would undermine existing due process steps and could deter others from filing similar complaints if they fear they are not relying on confidentiality that the committee has offered them.

In his role, Woolstenhulme held the highest position in higher education in the state. He served hundreds of thousands of students and employees at eight public colleges and universities and eight technical colleges. He held the position for four years, starting as interim commissioner in 2019 before officially taking up the post a year later.

Mike Judd, an attorney at Parsons Behle & Latimer who is working on The Tribune’s defense, said the Utah Board of Education’s business is a matter for the public – and the law says the board requires Utahns easy and reasonable access to records in the connection with this transaction should be granted.

“The public has a significant interest in how our colleges and universities are run,” he said. “And if the system commissioner suddenly resigns, the public has a right to understand why.”

“After hearing the panel’s arguments against disclosure, the State Records Committee – Utah’s access to records specialists – concluded that the panel was unfairly withholding the Woolstenhulme investigation,” he continued. “The Tribune agrees and will continue to push for the release of such records, whether before the committee or in court.”

A spokesman for the Utah Board of Education declined to comment for this story, saying it does not speak publicly about issues currently under judicial review.

In the lawsuit, the board detailed what it does when complaints like the one against Woolstenhulme are made: It hires an outside investigator to review those complaints, who then prepares a draft investigative report.

But before a final report can be submitted, the draft investigation report must be given to all parties involved and given the opportunity to present any additional evidence, the lawsuit says. And after the final investigation report is published, there will be a closed hearing at which a committee will make a final decision on whether guidelines have been violated and whether sanctions should be imposed.

In the Woolstenhulmes case, according to the lawsuit, the external investigator wrote the investigation report and the commissioner was given until September 14 to provide additional evidence. He resigned on September 11th.

“The board has accepted Mr. Woolstenhulme’s resignation,” the lawsuit states. “At that time, the complaints were dismissed and the investigation process was closed in accordance with (Utah Board of Education) policy.”

According to the lawsuit, Woolstenhulme never responded to the draft investigative report. Last week he told a Tribune reporter: “I deny any wrongdoing.”

The board noted in its lawsuit that because of Woolstenhulme’s resignation, there was never a final investigative report, no hearing and no determination of whether Woolstenhulme violated policies. Therefore, they argued, publishing the report would be publishing a product of a process that was never completed.

In addition to undermining the trust of those who file complaints, the panel argues in its lawsuit that releasing the draft report would also discourage those accused of wrongdoing from participating in an investigation if they knew Information “could be made available to the public.” at any point in the process, whether the process is complete or a final decision has been made.”

If the report were made public, the board argued to a district judge, it would impact its ability to “effectively detect and appropriately address wrongdoing” if those with information do not trust and participate in the process.