In his quest to quash a subpoena demanding personal phone records, former head football coach Butch Davis raises a sad consequence of the NCAA’s investigation into UNC. He explains how the investigation not only cost him his job but the privacy of his family’s cellphone numbers, as well. With a coalition of media organizations, including The Daily Tar Heel, now requesting his personal cellphone records, Davis raises the reasonable fear that those records would subject his friends and associates to the same media and “crank” calls his family endured. Yet as he pursues this motion, Davis has only himself to blame.
Davis received a University-issued cellphone for a reason: conducting his business as it pertained to UNC. But he neglects to recognize this in an affidavit released Tuesday, pleading that his family, associates and friends be protected if Wake County Judge Howard Manning Jr. correctly rules that some of Davis’ personal records are public.
In the affidavit, Davis claims that he continued to use the cellphone number from his time in Cleveland after moving to Chapel Hill. From that explanation, one is left to wonder if Davis ever made the transition from coach of the private Cleveland Browns football franchise to coach of a publicly funded college team, like the UNC Tar Heels.
That explanation showed a stunning disregard — or utter ignorance — for the obligation he had to conduct his University affairs through the appropriate channels. It showed also an ignorance of state public records law, which does not exempt personal phones if they are used to communicate on behalf of a public entity. And it is tantamount to any other coach or administrator using a private, non-UNC email with the goal of conducting University business outside the public eye.
Had he used his UNC cellphone, the release of personal phone records would not run the risk of unveiling the numbers of “well-known athletes, coaches, owners of sports franchises, and the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies” Davis counts as his associates. More importantly, the use of his UNC cellphone would likely have removed the obstacles that now stand in the way between the records and the public that deserves to have them.
Davis’ legal team argues that the subpoena seeks records that are not public and provide information that is no longer relevant to the case. If these records are, in fact, irrelevant, there should be no harm in producing them.
Davis promised as much before his firing, saying he would produce records of his business calls with personal calls redacted for the media. He has yet to make good on this promise, but offered to do so in the affidavit.
He said he has “nothing to hide, other than the protection of my privacy as well as the privacy of others,” but that remains to be seen given his reneging on that promise.
In the affidavit, Davis continues his feeble attempts at absolving himself of guilt. “I did not have any knowledge of any NCAA violations, nor did I condone or promote an atmosphere conducive to ignoring NCAA rules,” he said.
