STrib: Reversing course, Kaler in favor of search firm for Gophers AD

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,809
Reaction score
16,256
Points
113
per Joe:

Two months after saying he was leaning against using a search firm to hire a new athletic director, University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler has changed his mind.

Kathy Brown, the university’s vice president of human resources, strongly recommended using a search firm again Thursday in a Board of Regents audit committee presentation at McNamara Alumni Center.

Kaler agreed, even though the university used a search firm when it hired former AD Norwood Teague, who resigned last August after being cited for two sexual harassment claims.

Kaler noted an external review by attorneys Karen Schanfield and Joseph Dixon “said that the search process was not the reason that we got a guy that turned out to behave very badly.”

But Kaler and Brown described other lessons learned from the Teague hiring — along with recent AD searches at Michigan and Illinois — as they outlined how they intend to make this search process better.

http://www.startribune.com/reversing-course-kaler-in-favor-of-search-firm-for-gophers-ad/368564451/

Go Gophers!!
 

After 6 months they choose to go down the same old road. It has been proven to be a disaster, but it will be better this time. Once they decide on a candidate, if they do not do a deep background check we are in for the same old ride. Hopefully they will come up with someone with a football background, realizing it is the engine that powers the entire department.
 

BleedGopher said:
per Joe:

Two months after saying he was leaning against using a search firm to hire a new athletic director, University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler has changed his mind.

Kathy Brown, the university’s vice president of human resources, strongly recommended using a search firm again Thursday in a Board of Regents audit committee presentation at McNamara Alumni Center.

Kaler agreed, even though the university used a search firm when it hired former AD Norwood Teague, who resigned last August after being cited for two sexual harassment claims.

Kaler noted an external review by attorneys Karen Schanfield and Joseph Dixon “said that the search process was not the reason that we got a guy that turned out to behave very badly.”

But Kaler and Brown described other lessons learned from the Teague hiring — along with recent AD searches at Michigan and Illinois — as they outlined how they intend to make this search process better.

http://www.startribune.com/reversing-course-kaler-in-favor-of-search-firm-for-gophers-ad/368564451/





IFRAME EMBED
<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/OUnQvYHi6AJva" width="480" height="489" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/espn-carter-skip-OUnQvYHi6AJva">via GIPHY</a></p>
Click to expand...
 

Perhaps have a cat, or Clever Hans select from a spinning wheel of candidates.





<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/13ZHjidRzoi7n2" width="480" height="494" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/reactiongifs-13ZHjidRzoi7n2">via GIPHY</a></p>
 

What a sh!t show......seriously! There's just no hope.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
Perhaps have a cat, or Clever Hans select from a spinning wheel of candidates.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they can just borrow the NCAA's random eligibility decision wheel and give it a spin for each candidate.
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GoXHVs65NFQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
.
 

You know that music that blares under the Big Top when you go to the circus? Maybe it's time to replace the Rouser with that.
 





"..........Kaler noted an external review by attorneys Karen Schanfield and Joseph Dixon “said that the search process was not the reason that we got a guy that turned out to behave very badly.............”

And the reason was??????

These dopes could screw up a one car parade.
 

This is just belated recognition that Kaler and those in his inner circle do not have the connections necessary to conduct the search on their own. I wish that they did, but if they don't then I'd rather have him acknowledge it now instead of coming to that conclusion in the middle of the search. Or even worse, have him just push ahead and hire someone on his own anyway.
 

Nah, they're just doing this so they can interview one black person first, then hire Goetz. They see the "rooney rule" coming for ADs too, not just coaches.
 



All of the armchair quarterbacks who post here are hilarious. What was the search committee supposed to do in order to determine that, at some indeterminate point in the future, Norwood Teague would royally screw up and turn out to be a sexual predator? Get their crystal ball repaired? Who here has read the entire 743-page external review, in particular the 12-page section regarding the hiring and vetting of Norwood Teague? I have. Here it is, I suggest that you read it: https://netfiles.umn.edu/regents/bor_-_dec_2015_-_special_meeting.compressed.pdf. These passages in particular are my favorites:

"The External Review Team concludes that the hiring and vetting process that resulted in Norwood Teague’s hire was generally consistent with comparable searches. The length of the process (approximately 11 weeks) and its confidential nature are consistent with Athletics Director searches at comparable institutions."

and

"The External Review Team concludes that had the form or the Candidate Questionnaire clearly called for the disclosure of all prior complaints, including those with and without merit, the Search Committee should have expected to learn of the existence of the VCU complaint. However, it is unclear what impact, if any, the disclosure of an internal complaint regarding salary and court-time would have had on the selection process on April 20, 2012, particularly
where the former employer found the complaint to be without merit. Moreover, even if University had known of the VCU complaint when Teague was hired, which it did not, or the University had learned more about the nature or lack of merit of the complaint when its existence was disclosed to it in 2013, this knowledge would not have foreshadowed that Teague would later engage in conduct of the type that occurred on July 15, 2015. It appears
unlikely that additional vetting by the Search Committee or Parker Executive Search would have uncovered evidence of conduct that Teague had engaged in sexual harassment while at his prior employers."

To be fair, I mean, these were professional litigators who were paid $690,000 over the course of several months to conduct this external review. I'm sure that all of you know better.

Stop trying to blame the U and place the blame where it accurately, and solely, lies: on the shoulders of Norwood Teague.
 


the search firm is the "safe" approach. If something goes wrong, the U can blame the search firm. If Kaler runs his own search or appoints an in-house search committee, then he's on the hook if things go bad.

CYA is the first rule of administration.

Of course, hindsight is always 20-20. If Teague had been a better AD, then no one would be complaining about the process used to hire him.
 

They got burned this way twice..... man I hope this third company is good...
 



dpodoll68 said:
All of the armchair quarterbacks who post here are hilarious. What was the search committee supposed to do in order to determine that, at some indeterminate point in the future, Norwood Teague would royally screw up and turn out to be a sexual predator? Get their crystal ball repaired?
Click to expand...

Actually the Minority Report should have had his name on it. (If you haven't seen the movie or tv show or read the book, then ignore this statement.)

I agree completely. I may have missed something, but I haven't heard of anyone saying this type of behavior had happened previous to Amelia Rayno's encounter and have heard no evidence it had happened at all at VCU. Everyone assumes it did, but we honestly don't know. If it didn't, what are you supposed to do? And as mentioned in your quote, the one complaint was way different than the complaints seen here, and likely sour grapes.

The only thing that may have helped is a psychological profile, assuming one wasn't done. Our company does that for our salespeople and is a firm believer. Granted, they are looking for completely different qualities, but maybe something would have been a red flag. Not sure if something like that is even tolerated in the University scene or not.

This is all the classic if something didn't work you have to do the exact opposite next time mentality. If they don't use a search firm, what are they going to do, post it on Monster and sort through the resumes? Call every university and see if they can hire their AD?

This is the standard way AD's are found. I would bet 90% of AD's at D1 schools were hired via search committee. Yes, the candidate hired may not work out, may drive drunk at some point, may get caught cheating on their spouse, etc. It doesn't mean the way they found the candidate was wrong. There's always risk. You can't know everything about a candidate. It's impossible.

The one thing I will say is this makes me wonder if Goetz is either not interested or being passed over. Then again, if the search committee recommends her it will be an additional vote of confidence to the public, even if it wasn't completely on the up and up (our ideal candidate would be female, 40's, already employed by the U...).
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
Actually the Minority Report should have had his name on it. (If you haven't seen the movie or tv show or read the book, then ignore this statement.)

I agree completely. I may have missed something, but I haven't heard of anyone saying this type of behavior had happened previous to Amelia Rayno's encounter and have heard no evidence it had happened at all at VCU. Everyone assumes it did, but we honestly don't know. If it didn't, what are you supposed to do? And as mentioned in your quote, the one complaint was way different than the complaints seen here, and likely sour grapes.

The only thing that may have helped is a psychological profile, assuming one wasn't done. Our company does that for our salespeople and is a firm believer. Granted, they are looking for completely different qualities, but maybe something would have been a red flag. Not sure if something like that is even tolerated in the University scene or not.

This is all the classic if something didn't work you have to do the exact opposite next time mentality. If they don't use a search firm, what are they going to do, post it on Monster and sort through the resumes? Call every university and see if they can hire their AD?

This is the standard way AD's are found. I would bet 90% of AD's at D1 schools were hired via search committee. Yes, the candidate hired may not work out, may drive drunk at some point, may get caught cheating on their spouse, etc. It doesn't mean the way they found the candidate was wrong. There's always risk. You can't know everything about a candidate. It's impossible.

The one thing I will say is this makes me wonder if Goetz is either not interested or being passed over. Then again, if the search committee recommends her it will be an additional vote of confidence to the public, even if it wasn't completely on the up and up (our ideal candidate would be female, 40's, already employed by the U...).
Click to expand...

You are looking for someone like Norwood. BS artist, evasive answers, overly self-confident, mega and flat tongue. Smooth with the ladies.

No offense, but if anyone involved in this hiring didn't pick up on the massive personality red flags (was any time spent with him on a social basis over a multi-day interview process ) they have no business in the hiring business.

You have to know your limitations.
 


dpodoll68 said:
All of the armchair quarterbacks who post here are hilarious. What was the search committee supposed to do in order to determine that, at some indeterminate point in the future, Norwood Teague would royally screw up and turn out to be a sexual predator? Get their crystal ball repaired? Who here has read the entire 743-page external review, in particular the 12-page section regarding the hiring and vetting of Norwood Teague? I have. Here it is, I suggest that you read it: https://netfiles.umn.edu/regents/bor_-_dec_2015_-_special_meeting.compressed.pdf. These passages in particular are my favorites:

"The External Review Team concludes that the hiring and vetting process that resulted in Norwood Teague’s hire was generally consistent with comparable searches. The length of the process (approximately 11 weeks) and its confidential nature are consistent with Athletics Director searches at comparable institutions."

and

"The External Review Team concludes that had the form or the Candidate Questionnaire clearly called for the disclosure of all prior complaints, including those with and without merit, the Search Committee should have expected to learn of the existence of the VCU complaint. However, it is unclear what impact, if any, the disclosure of an internal complaint regarding salary and court-time would have had on the selection process on April 20, 2012, particularly
where the former employer found the complaint to be without merit. Moreover, even if University had known of the VCU complaint when Teague was hired, which it did not, or the University had learned more about the nature or lack of merit of the complaint when its existence was disclosed to it in 2013, this knowledge would not have foreshadowed that Teague would later engage in conduct of the type that occurred on July 15, 2015. It appears
unlikely that additional vetting by the Search Committee or Parker Executive Search would have uncovered evidence of conduct that Teague had engaged in sexual harassment while at his prior employers."

To be fair, I mean, these were professional litigators who were paid $690,000 over the course of several months to conduct this external review. I'm sure that all of you know better.

Stop trying to blame the U and place the blame where it accurately, and solely, lies: on the shoulders of Norwood Teague.
Click to expand...

+1
 

Here is the reality. You either hire Beth or you go for a search firm. I suspect this means Beth is likely out as an AD candidate.

I personally would hire Beth and hope for the best.
 

My prediction:

We won't be hiring any AD, other than Goetz, until after the Title IX discrimination lawsuit gets settled. If the Title IX results go against the UofM, then Goetz will be hired. If they're in favor of the U, then we'll hire someone else.
 

dpodoll68 said:
All of the armchair quarterbacks who post here are hilarious. What was the search committee supposed to do in order to determine that, at some indeterminate point in the future, Norwood Teague would royally screw up and turn out to be a sexual predator? Get their crystal ball repaired? Who here has read the entire 743-page external review, in particular the 12-page section regarding the hiring and vetting of Norwood Teague? I have.

To be fair, I mean, these were professional litigators who were paid $690,000 over the course of several months to conduct this external review. I'm sure that all of you know better.

Stop trying to blame the U and place the blame where it accurately, and solely, lies: on the shoulders of Norwood Teague.
Click to expand...

I had some time to review this impressively collated document. * Firstly, if you are suggesting the U has no responsibility because it negligently delegated nearly the entire vetting process to an uninterested third party, you'd be wrong. *Has the definition of responsibility changed?

It appears the search committee, consisting of a small and odd collection of members, spent little time actually interacting with Teague. It appears they had only one short interview? In fact, if I read that correctly Kaler never interviewed him personally? I spent more time reading this document than the members spent vetting and interviewing Teague. I probably invested more time in interviewing house painters, much less a partner or colleague. For such an important position...it is hard to comprehend.

This droll observation and recommendation from page 106 summarizes the dog and pony show:

E. consider whether to use in-depth interviewing process with multiple interviewers. The external review team recommends that the university assess whether candidates should be subject to multiple in-depth interviews by a broad group of interviewers before a finalist is selected...
 

What you are seeing here is bureaucracy at its finest. It's amazing how this encrusted layer of bureaucracy has formed within the milieu of American education, in fact it's not just one layer but rather layer on top of layer, such that the bureaucrats by far outweigh the teachers, adjuncts, maintenance, and support staff...you know, those people that are ostensibly the backbone of education in America. And people wonder why and how education has gotten so expensive...

The more you're weighed down in bureaucracy, the more you get inertia, this movement at a glacial rate of speed because you can't move faster anymore. You lose that ability. And I'm not saying that in relation to the AD search, as I'm not feeling that needs to be done in any particular rush. The department is functioning, things are moving forward, Goetz is apparently doing just fine in her interim role, great. But Kaler, he was all set to proceed, right? "Hey, we're gonna do this internally. No search firm, yadda yadda yadda." Again, great, but why did it take the guy two months to change his mind? That to me is nonsensical, and it's frustrating. Make a f*cking decision, man, and unless circumstance forces you to do otherwise, stick to it. That's what you're paid to do.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Here is the reality. You either hire Beth or you go for a search firm. I suspect this means Beth is likely out as an AD candidate.

I personally would hire Beth and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

The point of the search firm is to find the best candidate. After the search, if they think Beth is the best candidate, then they should hire her.

It's kinda a no win situation to some degree. If they just hire her without doing a big search, then people will be upset that they didn't at least see what else is out there. If they do a search and still hire her, then some will think they're just wasting money.
 

GophersInIowa said:
The point of the search firm is to find the best candidate. After the search, if they think Beth is the best candidate, then they should hire her.

It's kinda a no win situation to some degree. If they just hire her without doing a big search, then people will be upset that they didn't at least see what else is out there. If they do a search and still hire her, then some will think they're just wasting money.
Click to expand...

You summed it up nicely.
 

GophersInIowa said:
The point of the search firm is to find the best candidate. After the search, if they think Beth is the best candidate, then they should hire her.

It's kinda a no win situation to some degree. If they just hire her without doing a big search, then people will be upset that they didn't at least see what else is out there. If they do a search and still hire her, then some will think they're just wasting money.
Click to expand...

On GH it's a no win to the ultimate degree with some.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom