Pre-trial Talks Planned In UConn Coach Randy Edsall's Case Against Ethics Board

[huskymedic]

Pre-trial Talks Planned In UConn Coach Randy Edsall's Case Against Ethics Board

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=HHBCV176039437S

(Background Thread: State Ethics Office Rules Corey Edsall Can Coach Only This Year At UConn; Ethics Laws Broken)

 

[LRock34]

"In their filing, the Edsalls argue that Randy Edsall wasn't hired as coach until Jan. 3 and a few weeks before UConn had gone to the ethics board's legal division for an opinion on whether a candidate for a UConn position could negotiate another position at UConn for an immediate family member. UConn didn't mention to the legal division that it was referring to Edsall.

The legal opinion said it wouldn't violate the state of Code of Ethics and that UConn should set up a management system so that the employee doesn't directly report to his family member."

I'm not an attorney but that sounds pretty open and shut to me.

 

[JMick]

I don't understand why they snuck around everyone's back on this, but I also think the ethics board is completely wrong. Hopefully Corey wins

 

[businesslawyer]

There are really two separate things going on here. The first is whether the Edsalls did anything wrong. The answer to that is pretty clearly no. UConn knew there was an issue, asked for an advisory opinion and was told it was o.k. Whatever the ruling is, this is not a moral issue. The second question is whether the situation is o.k. under the state's ethic laws, notwithstanding the non-binding advisory opinion. I can see this going either way. On a hyper technical level Edsall was not legally an employee when Corey got hired, but if you put substance over form he was the football coach -- the paperwork just wasn't done yet. But the decision is over a technicality. It would be great if Corey can stay but if he can't it doesn't reflect at all on anyone -- it just means we need to replace him next year.

 

[Exit 4]

Corey will be given a new job under AD Dave and will volunteer as a football coach.

 

[businesslawyer]

Corey will be given a new job under AD Dave and will volunteer as a football coach.

No. There are limitations on coaching. You can't just have another job at the school and be a coach. if you could, everyone would do it.

 

[Exit 4]

No. There are limitations on coaching. You can't just have another job at the school and be a coach. if you could, everyone would do it.

Corey will be the water boy that also runs the team twitter account. He'll do it one more year to soak up Lashlee and then move on. This is a tongue in cheek post.

 

[CL82]

On a hyper technical level Edsall was not legally an employee when Corey got hired

Agree, if by "hyper technical" you mean factual. Trying to assert RE was an employee before he actually was employed is a construct and a fairly tortured one at that.

 

[businesslawyer]

Agree, if by "hyper technical" you mean factual. Trying to assert RE was an employee before he actually was employed is a construct and a fairly tortured one at that.

I don't think it's nearly that clear. On that date, IIRC, he had already been announced as the football coach and was engaged in acts (like recruiting and hiring staff) on UConn's behalf. I wouldn't be surprised if the delay in signing him to a contract wasn't done specifically so Corey could be hired first.

And when you're dealing with ethics laws, substance and not just form has to matter.

 

[CL82]

I don't think it's nearly that clear. On that date, IIRC, he had already been announced as the football coach and was engaged in acts (like recruiting and hiring staff) on UConn's behalf. I wouldn't be surprised if the delay in signing him to a contract wasn't done specifically so Corey could be hired first.

And when you're dealing with ethics laws, substance and not just form has to matter.

I'm not so sure about that last sentence. Ethics law is often a safe harbor. Abide by it and you typically are going to be fine. Really, that's what it is there for, right? To guide behavior.

But let's look at the substance. What the anti-nepotism rule is designed to do is to prevent a manager from unilaterally hiring relatives or leveraging his position to negotiate a family member's comp with an underling or inferior. In RE's case, there was no skulduggery. He discussed his intention with his boss prior to being hired. So RE's immediate superior (AD Dave) knew of, and pre-approved Corey's hire. So where is the potential for abuse of authority?

Now the there is a secondary argument that Randy is the de facto manager for his son. Again, that's a tough argument since the manager on paper is Randy's boss who certainly isn't worried about retaliation from RE. Again, it is tough to articulate a meaningful potential for abuse of authority.

 

[SubbaBub]

Does the fact that assistants are on 1 year service contracts and that the Head Coach doesn't really have final say on who gets hired factor into this at all?
IMO, it would be an ethics violation if the AD's kid was hired as an assistant coach.

 

[jostar1]

Randy Edsall, Son Expected To Seek Court Order Allowing Corey Edsall To Remain A UConn Assistant Coach

>The meeting “was a initial status conference where the judge looks at the matter, talks to the parties, determines where everyone stands in their position and tries to develop a plan,” George said. “As we discussed the matter it was evident that the case is not going to be resolved prior to Jan. 14, 2018, and we requested that the court issue a stay of any enforcement action similar to what the ethics commission ordered for this year and continue that same status quo moving forward.”

When it issued its ruling the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board recommended Corey Edsall, 24, remain in his position but that his one-year contract not be renewed.

The judge ordered the parties to file any motion for a stay by Nov. 16 and for the state ethics office to reply by Nov. 30.

Should the judge issue the stay, George said, UConn would be able to renew Corey Edsall’s contract as litigation over the matter continues.

The Edsall appeal argues that, in reaching its decision, the board arbitrarily "chose to disregard and/or downplay (a) Dec. 23 informal opinion" that the Office of State Ethics provided to UConn and which UConn and Edsall relied upon.

The Office of State Ethics told UConn not to rely on the informal opinion.<

 

[Chin Diesel]

I have no idea how this plays out but it seems to me explaining the process of how a coach hires his staff and demonstrating that Corey's hiring was inline with all other staff hires is an argument worth bringing up.

The entire staff of every UConn team and every other public university is outside normal state hiring practices.

Make the argument that declaring Corey's hiring null and void means every team, including those precious lady Huskies, would have to be redone.

 

[Marty Jackson]

There are really two separate things going on here. The first is whether the Edsalls did anything wrong. The answer to that is pretty clearly no. UConn knew there was an issue, asked for an advisory opinion and was told it was o.k. Whatever the ruling is, this is not a moral issue. The second question is whether the situation is o.k. under the state's ethic laws, notwithstanding the non-binding advisory opinion. I can see this going either way. On a hyper technical level Edsall was not legally an employee when Corey got hired, but if you put substance over form he was the football coach -- the paperwork just wasn't done yet. But the decision is over a technicality. It would be great if Corey can stay but if he can't it doesn't reflect at all on anyone -- it just means we need to replace him next year.

Well stated from what I would gather is a position of knowledge.

 

[UConnNick]

Agree, if by "hyper technical" you mean factual. Trying to assert RE was an employee before he actually was employed is a construct and a fairly tortured one at that.

Yeah, remember old George O'Leary at ND? He was hired as head coach, but at some point they found out his resume was based on fictional creative marketing, and he quit. I can't remember now what the exact timeline was, but it does show that things can happen between the time you have an agreement in principle on a handshake between the prospective coach and the AD, and the time all the paperwork is actually signed, sealed and delivered.

 

[UConnNick]

What may ultimately hang him is that he was having discussions with Benedict during the week prior to the official hire date in January, during which time they discussed the possibility, and also discussed salary. Those discussions were obviously triggered by Edsall in the first place, since they were apparently well aware he wanted to hire Corey and it was likely discussed much earlier than that. My fear is that the ethics board ruled the way they did because they specifically told UConn they couldn't rely on the advisory opinion. They're going to look at all the back and forth about salary amounts and such things as though Edsall had already become the de facto head coach, since he was orchestrating things during that week prior to the official hire date. They were trying to comply with an advisory opinion they were specifically told they could not rely on. I hope I'm wrong, but that's how they might look at it judicially.

It's really stupid to lump together the athletic program hiring practices at state colleges with the overall nepotism ethics rules, but that's Connecticut for you.

 

[Palatine]

Is Corey's direct report the OC not the HC?

 

[noeynox]

Is Corey's direct report the OC not the HC?

I can't think if a more meaningless distinction.

 

[UConnRock]

Is Corey's direct report the OC not the HC?

Corey can't report directly to anybody that is under Randy's supervision. That is why he reports directly to Goetz in AD's office. All need to accept that this was a justified nepotism hire that occurs frequently in the college sports world. Corey had appropriate experience away from Randy to earn the coaching role at a lower than market salary. I do think it was a mistake to put Corey's hiring into Randy's contract. This muddied the water in terms of prior knowledge regardless of Randy's actual start date.

There obviously should be different hiring and reporting requirements for sports teams as "relationships", be they family or based on other experiences, do not correlate directly to traditional hiring requirements (i.e. experience, salary requirements, interviews, recommendations, ect...), but are an incredibly significant in developing a cohesive coaching staff. If traditional blind resume hiring practices were used coaching staffs would be full of DeLeone's and Vertucci's that have years of experience. In the coach hiring realm, is there truly a difference between nepotism and cronyism.

The OC was hired based on a relationship with the AD. Kevin Ollie's staff is based on UConn basketball connections or recruiting connections, not coaching work experience. None of these "job requirements" show up in the posted job descriptions. We all know of the convoluted hiring process for the sports teams as the interviews and handshake hiring are completed and then the job posting is created to match the hired person's work experience. This is accepted as "ethical" just as the sexism of male hires for male sports is accepted albeit against general hiring standards. These "handshake rules" apply for every hire except if that person is a blood relative. That is not a logical approach and it creates a tremendous amount of useless hoops for many to jump through. The difficulty is drafting enforceable hiring practices that will be protective enough of truly negative nepotistic hiring that would undoubtedly occur. Possibly incorporating limitations on raises, promotions to senior staff level positions, or hiring at senior levels would be appropriate as some of the negatives of nepotism is the fast tracking to higher level positions. Corey gets the experience of working with his father, but if he wants to advance in the coaching field he would have to accept a position with another team. That is the best approach I can come up with.

Interesting article on nepotism hires and issues faced by other schools : Athletic Departments Navigate Nepotism Policy - Athletic Business

 

[Chin Diesel]

It would seem easy to craft a policy similar to political hired within state offices.

Does the governor's Chief of Staff go through a blind application and interview process? No. Everyone knows the governor picks the person out and leaves when the governor leaves.

I'm assuming state jobs can be classified as career civil servant (no nepostism) or as a conditional hire on the premise their employment is tied to employment of a hire level employee.

 

[huskysupporter]

I think everyone agrees that language needs to be changed in regards to hiring practices of sports teams.

Unfortunately I think the language as written does not bode well for Corey.

Hopefully discussions include changing language going forward.

 

[sportsart]

I still say someone, with a better research skill set than me, dig up all the state employees who have a family member "reporting to someone else"

 

[uconnbill]

Still think the ethics board acted small time with the decision. I've seen this happen at a number of other schools and yet it is an issue at UConn, nowhere's else. Sigh

 

[BlueDogs]

Agree, if by "hyper technical" you mean factual. Trying to assert RE was an employee before he actually was employed is a construct and a fairly tortured one at that.

"Hyper- technical" is precisely what the law is about. People subject to the law are entitled to its plain meaning, not what "it really was meant to cover or its spirit". The reason is citizens are entities to basic due process as a fundamental Constitutional right... they need to know what is violative of the law. The only place where this concept deviates is in tax law where somehow Congress has given the power to the IRS to use substance over form in structuring transactions that they deem to be intended to have no purpose but to avoid taxes.

The state issued an advisory opinion and the citizen is entitled to rely on it in so far as it comports to the asserted circumstance set forth. Any judge worth his salt sends the Ethics Board packing.

 

[Travelman6]

Always funny when a politician or anyone in govt' talks ethics. Insane...