Report: U Followed Rules & Law in Suspensions


Does this mean Coyle and Kaler won't be fired?
 

Seems to me that the leadership gaffe went well beyond Claeys. Report seems far from independent.
 

No surprise, everything was done in accordance with the procedures.
 

Seems to me that the leadership gaffe went well beyond Claeys. Report seems far from independent.
+1 Paraphrasing Coyle, I know more than you know. If so, why did he have to wait till December? According to him, he knew what he knew for some time.
 


It's a bit surprising to see factual errors within the first two paragraphs of the report. Their statistics regarding sexual assault include things like unwelcome kisses and advances, and affirmative consent violations. They describe these acts as not only student conduct violations but criminal matters which is false. For example, incapacitation not simply having a drink or "affirmatively (verbally) consenting throughout the act" is the legal standard for consent. They need to revisit their source data.

Jillian Kornblatt is an expert in employer defense litigation in suits brought by employees.

This should be good reading if the opening statement is any indication of the quality. Here is the full report:

http://regents.umn.edu/sites/regents.umn.edu/files/AUG_2017_-_Special_Oversight_Docket.pdf
 

Seems to me that the leadership gaffe went well beyond Claeys. Report seems far from independent.

That's what they said:

The situation may have been managed better, it said, if members of the Board of Regents, university administrators and coaches had “responded in a more coordinated and unified manner.”

The report also criticized unnamed “third parties” for contributing to the turmoil by influencing both the football team and coaching staff. It also urged the Athletics department to “be mindful of the need to maintain control in potential crises and to keep open direct lines of communication with student-athletes.”
 

The school received the headline they wanted, 98% of readers will never look beyond that.
 




For me, I don't think there was a doubt that the U was following the rules & laws. It was that some of these rules & laws seem suspect and unfair, particularly with the EOAA and the way they conducted their investigation and came to their findings, which seemed to me to have a pre-established agenda and conclusion.
 

Unnamed 3rd party..... Does his name rhyme with Bee Mutton?

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
 

Unnamed 3rd party..... Does his name rhyme with Bee Mutton?

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
Ha! I'm thinking it was Slim Farter.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 




For me, I don't think there was a doubt that the U was following the rules & laws. It was that some of these rules & laws seem suspect and unfair, particularly with the EOAA and the way they conducted their investigation and came to their findings, which seemed to me to have a pre-established agenda and conclusion.

Agree with you 100%. I always chuckle at the "independent lawyer" bit too. Hmmm....let me see...they hired us to investigate and are paying us a lot of money....let's accuse them of breaking the law....yeah right. I am pretty sure I could have hired an independent lawyer to find exactly the opposite.
 

For me, I don't think there was a doubt that the U was following the rules & laws. It was that some of these rules & laws seem suspect and unfair, particularly with the EOAA and the way they conducted their investigation and came to their findings, which seemed to me to have a pre-established agenda and conclusion.

+1. I don't know of anyone who thought U broke the law.
Think the procedures are poor? Sure.
Think the EOAA "investigation" was biased and predetermined? Of course.
Situation mIshandled at every turn by the U Administration? Tough to deny.
But illegal? Who thought that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Agree with you 100%. I always chuckle at the "independent lawyer" bit too. Hmmm....let me see...they hired us to investigate and are paying us a lot of money....let's accuse them of breaking the law....yeah right. I am pretty sure I could have hired an independent lawyer to find exactly the opposite.

Is this the lawyer handling the cases costing the U millions of dollars in lawsuits?
 


So, Kaler and Coyle followed the law and rules in suspending all 10 football players. That is just another way of saying that the players received all of the due process they had coming to them. And that is exactly what a few of us in GopherHole have been saying all along. And finally, there are 10 to 15 GopherHolers who were wrong about almost everything they posted on this subject. Of course, they will never admit it or apologize for the verbal abuse they administered to every poster who had the audacity to disagree with them.


Report: University of Minnesota followed law, rules in suspending 10 football players

Marti told the oversight committee that much of the criticism stemmed from a misunderstanding of the university's obligation to investigate sexual assault complaints, even when the county attorney declines to file charges. "The university did not have a choice," he said. "You were required by law to do so."

The report also found that the university offers "substantial due process protections" for accused students, "including protections that far exceed the due process protections of other Big Ten universities." Among other things, the U permits students' attorneys to participate "in all stages" of the disciplinary process, and to cross-examine witnesses, unlike many other schools.


Read more at: http://www.startribune.com/universi...g-10-football-players-review-finds/440720013/
 

+1. I don't know of anyone who thought U broke the law.
Think the procedures are poor? Sure.
Think the EOAA "investigation" was biased and predetermined? Of course.
Situation mIshandled at every turn by the U Administration? Tough to deny.
But illegal? Who thought that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haven't you seen all the posts that claimed the players were going to be able to sue the U for tons of money because they violated the players rights?

Honestly, I would have been surprised if they found anything else. That said, I thought most of the recommendations made were pretty spot on. Having a defined set of stipulations that people are suspended under these circumstances but not these should be a must. And it should be followed regardless of sport - revenue sports should not be different than non-revenue. There should be more communication up and down the line. They should make sure incoming students whether by transfer or new have the same initiation info (only yes means yes, etc.).

And I'll say this, while there were a lot of jabs at the former coaching staff (very deserved in my book) there were a lot of subtle jabs at the rest of the admin. It'll be interesting to see what actually comes of this...
 

For me, I don't think there was a doubt that the U was following the rules & laws. It was that some of these rules & laws seem suspect and unfair, particularly with the EOAA and the way they conducted their investigation and came to their findings, which seemed to me to have a pre-established agenda and conclusion.

Well said
 


For me, I don't think there was a doubt that the U was following the rules & laws. It was that some of these rules & laws seem suspect and unfair, particularly with the EOAA and the way they conducted their investigation and came to their findings, which seemed to me to have a pre-established agenda and conclusion.

Exactly. I don't recall anyone claiming that the U didn't follow laws and rules. It's that the laws and rules governing these types of incidents are a farce.
 




So, Kaler and Coyle followed the law and rules in suspending all 10 football players. That is just another way of saying that the players received all of the due process they had coming to them. And that is exactly what a few of us in GopherHole have been saying all along. And finally, there are 10 to 15 GopherHolers who were wrong about almost everything they posted on this subject. Of course, they will never admit it or apologize for the verbal abuse they administered to every poster who had the audacity to disagree with them.


Report: University of Minnesota followed law, rules in suspending 10 football players

Marti told the oversight committee that much of the criticism stemmed from a misunderstanding of the university's obligation to investigate sexual assault complaints, even when the county attorney declines to file charges. "The university did not have a choice," he said. "You were required by law to do so."

The report also found that the university offers "substantial due process protections" for accused students, "including protections that far exceed the due process protections of other Big Ten universities." Among other things, the U permits students' attorneys to participate "in all stages" of the disciplinary process, and to cross-examine witnesses, unlike many other schools.


Read more at: http://www.startribune.com/universi...g-10-football-players-review-finds/440720013/

Cruze, when are you going to fill me in on the basis of the $$$ investigation into the Randy Handel "leak"? A disciplinary proceeding disposition that is/was/supposed to be public record and may not have seen the light of day otherwise?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MK6TXMsvgQg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

So, Kaler and Coyle followed the law and rules in suspending all 10 football players. That is just another way of saying that the players received all of the due process they had coming to them. And that is exactly what a few of us in GopherHole have been saying all along. And finally, there are 10 to 15 GopherHolers who were wrong about almost everything they posted on this subject. Of course, they will never admit it or apologize for the verbal abuse they administered to every poster who had the audacity to disagree with them.


Report: University of Minnesota followed law, rules in suspending 10 football players

Marti told the oversight committee that much of the criticism stemmed from a misunderstanding of the university's obligation to investigate sexual assault complaints, even when the county attorney declines to file charges. "The university did not have a choice," he said. "You were required by law to do so."

The report also found that the university offers "substantial due process protections" for accused students, "including protections that far exceed the due process protections of other Big Ten universities." Among other things, the U permits students' attorneys to participate "in all stages" of the disciplinary process, and to cross-examine witnesses, unlike many other schools.


Read more at: http://www.startribune.com/universi...g-10-football-players-review-finds/440720013/

PS. Several of the 10 to 15 GopherHolers who displayed their ignorance of "due process", administrative law, and criminal/civil procedure on a daily basis over many months are lawyers (or so they say). We can only hope they serve their clients better than the readers of GopherHole.
 

None of the 10 played in the bowl game. And their reputations certainly took a big hit.

That's the part that's painful for those not directly involved.

I don't know about you all but I can't wait for the first game of the season to have this mentioned, the first BiG game to have that repeated, and the. The huge anniversary story that will be in both papers and at least one new outlet just to remind us again.

It's like Groundhog Day but without the ability to change anything, it's the gift that keeps on giving! I couldn't imagine being acquitted and having my name brought up over and over again in association of this mess.
 

Let me try to explain a position many of us take. Simply because something is legitimized by executive order, rule, law, code, doesn't mean it is right.

Banning travel and refugees from Muslim countries the US may cut down on terrorism but goes against what many consider fair and ethical principles.

Slavery was protected by law and religious decree for centuries (and still exists in some localities) but goes against what most consider fair or ethical.

Internment camps possibly reduced espionage activities during WWII. Again,....

Simply because the EOAA exists in its current form doesn't mean it should. It may cut down on rape (is there any evidence if this since 2011?) but as with the above activities the cost is too high.

Do you understand?
 

Agree with you 100%. I always chuckle at the "independent lawyer" bit too. Hmmm....let me see...they hired us to investigate and are paying us a lot of money....let's accuse them of breaking the law....yeah right. I am pretty sure I could have hired an independent lawyer to find exactly the opposite.

Sounds like "independent" pharmaceutical testing.
 

PS. Several of the 10 to 15 GopherHolers who displayed their ignorance of "due process", administrative law, and criminal/civil procedure on a daily basis over many months are lawyers (or so they say). We can only hope they serve their clients better than the readers of GopherHole.

It doesn't take a law degree to recognize plausible deniability/holding forth of sacrificial lambs practiced at its highest level.
 




Top Bottom