You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.



Wartell, Purdue square off before appellate judges

Former chancellor seeks report about dismissal

INDIANAPOLIS – A panel of three appellate judges expressed skepticism that Purdue University can claim attorney-client privilege as a reason not to release a report on the dismissal of former IPFW Chancellor Michael Wartell.

The judges heard oral arguments in the case Tuesday and could rule in the coming weeks.

“He got sandbagged,” Judge Terry Crone said of the process used to investigate Wartell’s departure.

The issue is whether attorney John C. Trimble was acting as Purdue’s attorney, an independent investigator or both when he issued a report and recommendations to three members of the university’s board of trustees.

Wartell sought access to that report but was denied by Purdue claiming attorney-client privilege, which led to the lawsuit. He won an initial trial court ruling.

“How would you feel if you found out we were on Wartell’s payroll after the fact?” Crone asked Dina Cox – the attorney representing Purdue in the argument.

She acknowledged the concern that something “awry” or “icky” occurred in the case but said Wartell’s remedy is an ongoing federal lawsuit – not damaging attorney-client privilege rules in a public records request.

Wartell was forced out at IPFW in 2011 because Purdue University requires university executives to retire at age 65. Requests from IPFW that he be allowed to stay were denied.

Wartell filed a complaint against Purdue University, claiming discrimination and harassment. Purdue hired Trimble as an independent investigator. The investigation was completed and the board found no discrimination had taken place.

But nothing was ever made public, not even to Wartell, who filed requests with Purdue officials and the state’s public access counselor to see the report.

He alleges that Trimble can’t be an independent third-party investigator and an attorney for Purdue at the same time – a view the appellate judges went back to again and again.

Mark Ulmschneider, attorney for Wartell, said Purdue ultimately waived its privilege when agreeing that Trimble would act as an independent investigator.

He noted a baseball manager can’t also call balls and strikes because of an inherent conflict.

But the judges seemed uncomfortable that making the document available to Wartell would mean it was public for any citizen to see. And the agreement between Wartell and Purdue was silent on whether the report would be open to Wartell.

The judges also questioned whether Trimble had a professional responsibility to tell Wartell he was representing the university.

Cox said even if that were true it wouldn’t negate Purdue’s intent to hire an attorney and maintain privileged information.