State Ethics Office Rules Corey Edsall Can Coach Only This Year At UConn; Ethics Laws Broken

[kibblesnbits]

It is? Edsall got a $50,000 payment outside of the agreed upon terms in the contract? Edsall benefited financially after he agreed to the terms of the contract and before he started work? How, exactly?

Since that isn't what happened, it's not exactly what UConn did, and your scenario doesn't work. Why not just argue the merits of the case as it is, rather than fabricating a scenario that favors your opinion, but doesn't align with the facts as they pertain to the Edsalls?

You're mixing two separate scenarios. I never claimed that Edsall received $50K or that such a hypothetical matched what Edsall did. I used that to show why the ethics board would have a broad definition of what constitutes an employee. Otherwise, just give kickbacks to employees after they've accepted the job and before they start work without recourse.

The scenario that matches what UConn did is having an agency head such as the commissioner of revenue services hire his kid for a deputy position but arrange to
have the governor or his designee be nominally responsible for being his supervisor. Those are appointed positions that serve at the will of the governor and are covered by the ethics laws, just as UConn's coaches serve at the will of the AD and are also covered by them. If you don't like it, campaign to change the law.

 

[kibblesnbits]

It's no "plan on paper" just to satisfy this one particular concern. The UConn AD is the head of the entire athletic dept. He or she can hire and fire anybody in their department, in their sole discretion. Benedict can fire any assistant coach with or without the blessing of the head coach of that particular sport. They didn't create some artificial hierarchy of authority just to satisfy the state ethics board on this one hire. That's the way it always has been and always will be. Benedict reports directly only to the president of the university.

Yes, it's quite a stretch to make it look plausible that Randy has no authority over his son's duties and performance. Clearly he does. Also, the university should never have consulted with him as though they were asking for a suggestion as to what Corey's salary offer should be, which I believe is documented in a couple of e-mails. They should have left Randy completely out of the entire hiring process once they had established that they wanted Corey to join the staff. Ultimately that may be what hangs the university in this situation. It was a big mistake, although they may have thought they had already satisfied any concerns with the ethics board.

Are you claiming that the AD writes annual performance reviews for all assistant coaches? Does the AD attend position group meetings to evaluate those coaches? Does the AD schedule monthly performance review meetings with every assistant coach? These and other things were in the plan that was submitted to the ethics board to establish that the head coach was not the supervisor for his son. If they are not SOP (and I don't believe they are), then there was a plan on paper just to satisfy this one particular concern.

 

[BlueMAB]

UConn didn't handle this situation entirely correctly, there were clearly things they could have done better, but it does appear as if they were acting in good faith. I haven't read all of the documents, and if my "facts" are wrong please correct them. That said, if UConn indeed went to the ethics board prior to hiring Corey in an attempt to do this the right way, that act in and of itself should show that the hiring was done in good faith, and not in an unethical manner. How about a little common sense? If the state is concerned about unethical behavior, as they should be, they should carve out exceptions for people who attempt to be proactive, transparent, and are behaving in a manner that is common for the industry in which they are working.

 

[BlueMAB]

You're mixing two separate scenarios. I never claimed that Edsall received $50K or that such a hypothetical matched what Edsall did. I used that to show why the ethics board would have a broad definition of what constitutes an employee. Otherwise, just give kickbacks to employees after they've accepted the job and before they start work without recourse.

The scenario that matches what UConn did is having an agency head such as the commissioner of revenue services hire his kid for a deputy position but arrange to
have the governor or his designee be nominally responsible for being his supervisor. Those are appointed positions that serve at the will of the governor and are covered by the ethics laws, just as UConn's coaches serve at the will of the AD and are also covered by them. If you don't like it, campaign to change the law.

Well, you used the phrase "that's exactly what UConn did".

In your scenario you would want a broad definition of employee because it involves illegal (not just unethical) behavior that financially benefits the person breaking the law. It's not the same thing. Edsall's behavior was not illegal, only arguably unethical, he was transparent about his intention when he negotiated for the job, and he didn't benefit financially. None of that is the case in your scenario, so it shouldn't be viewed through the same lens because the behavior is strikingly dissimilar.

Again comparing political appointees is a different scenario. Edsall isn't a political appointee, neither is AD Dave. They were hired. Edsall gave terms for his employment. One of those terms was he wanted his son on the staff. That's common in college sports, which operates under an entirely different structure than political appointees. It's not apples to apples.

 

[huskymedic]

UConn didn't handle this situation entirely correctly, there were clearly things they could have done better, but it does appear as if they were acting in good faith. I haven't read all of the documents, and if my "facts" are wrong please correct them. That said, if UConn indeed went to the ethics board prior to hiring Corey in an attempt to do this the right way, that act in and of itself should show that the hiring was done in good faith, and not in an unethical manner. How about a little common sense? If the state is concerned about unethical behavior, as they should be, they should carve out exceptions for people who attempt to be proactive, transparent, and are behaving in a manner that is common for the industry in which they are working.

About that transparent piece... Read page 2: http://www.ct.gov/ethics/lib/ethics/advisory_opinions/2017/draft_advisory_opinion_no._2017-2.pdf . It was framed as if they were hiring a professor (I get why they didn't spill the beans on the who's but...). Common sense and State/Federal government findings don't always align like we would like them to.

I hope they follow through on the appeal to Superior Court and at the same time work to fix this legislatively before December.

 

[UConnNick]

Are you claiming that the AD writes annual performance reviews for all assistant coaches? Does the AD attend position group meetings to evaluate those coaches? Does the AD schedule monthly performance review meetings with every assistant coach? These and other things were in the plan that was submitted to the ethics board to establish that the head coach was not the supervisor for his son. If they are not SOP (and I don't believe they are), then there was a plan on paper just to satisfy this one particular concern.

None of that changes the fact that the AD always has full authority over hiring and firing decisions within the entire athletic dept. They just spelled out some procedures that illustrate that point.

I'm sure it normally doesn't work that way in practice either, but that doesn't matter. None of it is any different than what would apply to any other employee of the athletic dept.

 

[BlueMAB]

About that transparent piece... Read page 2: http://www.ct.gov/ethics/lib/ethics/advisory_opinions/2017/draft_advisory_opinion_no._2017-2.pdf . (I get why they didn't spill the beans on the who's but...). It was framed as if they were hiring a professor.

Then they screwed the pooch with that move.

 

[kibblesnbits]

UConn didn't handle this situation entirely correctly, there were clearly things they could have done better, but it does appear as if they were acting in good faith. I haven't read all of the documents, and if my "facts" are wrong please correct them. That said, if UConn indeed went to the ethics board prior to hiring Corey in an attempt to do this the right way, that act in and of itself should show that the hiring was done in good faith, and not in an unethical manner. How about a little common sense? If the state is concerned about unethical behavior, as they should be, they should carve out exceptions for people who attempt to be proactive, transparent, and are behaving in a manner that is common for the industry in which they are working.

I think UConn got a little too cute when they reached out to the ethics board and made the following statement: "In addition, I know from prior guidance that it would be permissible for the family member to work within the same department, if they are not reporting, either directly or indirectly, to their family member."

By that point they clearly had decided to create the purported structure in which the assistant coach (who, by definition, assists the coach in directing the team) would report outside the traditional head coach/assistant coach roles. Yet, how can that be? The definition of "to report" is "to be responsible to". Does anyone believe that an assistant coach is not "directly or indirectly" responsible to the head coach? Instead, UConn made it sound like there were too independent positions (say coach of one sport and trainer of another) within the span of control of the same department. If they really wanted a complete answer they should have come clean and said, "This is what we have in mind."

 

[kibblesnbits]

Well, you used the phrase "that's exactly what UConn did".

In your scenario you would want a broad definition of employee because it involves illegal (not just unethical) behavior that financially benefits the person breaking the law. It's not the same thing. Edsall's behavior was not illegal, only arguably unethical, he was transparent about his intention when he negotiated for the job, and he didn't benefit financially. None of that is the case in your scenario, so it shouldn't be viewed through the same lens because the behavior is strikingly dissimilar.

Again comparing political appointees is a different scenario. Edsall isn't a political appointee, neither is AD Dave. They were hired. Edsall gave terms for his employment. One of those terms was he wanted his son on the staff. That's common in college sports, which operates under an entirely different structure than political appointees. It's not apples to apples.

1) You are taking a statement from a discussion about the second scenario and claiming it was about a different scenario presented much earlier in the thread. It wasn't.
2) I don't disagree that political appointees and football coaches are different. Unfortunately, state law makes no such distinction - they are both management in a state enterprise and are not supposed to hire relatives to work for them. That's why the best chance to get this resolved to everyone's benefit is to change the law.

 

[BlueMAB]

1) You are taking a statement from a discussion about the second scenario and claiming it was about a different scenario presented much earlier in the thread. It wasn't.

Huh?

Your definition of employee argument is off base for all the reasons I stated, but if you want to keep riding with it go ahead.

The law does need to be changed, but that doesn't change the fact that the board's opinion isn't also flawed.

 

[uconnbill]

HCRE is under paid by today's market and his son Corey is as well. Not sure why those in the "know" didn't take this into consideration. Then again this is the state of small time thinking

 

[Chief00]

I wonder if they would get involved for a scholarship situation instead of a contract? Like if Ollie's son had been a top recruit, would this group have said that he couldn't be on scholarship at UConn because of the nepotism rules?

Could you imagine Calhoun going in front of this group back in the 1990s to justify giving Jeff a scholarship?! Or Marrone back in the 80s?

Good points - I could only imagine Jim - we would still be watching the Utube video now LOL!
This is beyond ridiculous and should be treated that way rather than in the weeds rebuttals.

 

[Chief00]

Senior agency positions such as commissioners and their deputies are not civil service positions and can be terminated at the pleasure of the governor, but they are still covered by state ethics statutes just like coaches. If we believe coaches shouldn't be covered by certain ethics rules then its best to start reaching out our legislators because we can't just wish them away like some here want to believe.

Got to call BS on that - after losing GE and Aetna has Malloy fired the Commissioner of Economic Developmemt or his whole cabinet for making it such a lousy business environment -I think not!
If a football coach was ranked 48th out of 50 would he be fired ?

 

[kibblesnbits]

Got to call BS on that - after losing GE and Aetna has Malloy fired the Commissioner of Economic Developmemt or his whole cabinet for making it such a lousy business environment -I think not!
If a football coach was ranked 48th out of 50 would he be fired ?

It really doesn't matter whether you don't like it and think the situations are not comparable, they are legally and you can't wish that away. Rather than pretend, contact your legislator and tell him you want the law changed to recognize that the circumstances are different. Otherwise, you aren't doing anything to make the situation better.

 

[Chief00]

Governor Malloy's agreement with the state employees union says that no state employee can get laid off for 4 years.

So will assistant coaches be guaranteed their job for 4 years? Of course not.
There are a lot of differences. Every season they are in the bullseye based on wins/loses. There is no need for this type of law in this space.

 

[huskymedic]

Governor Malloy's agreement with the state employees union says that no state employee can get laid off for 4 years.

So will assistant coaches be guaranteed their job for 4 years? Of course not.
There are a lot of differences. Every season they are in the bullseye based on wins/loses. There is no need for this type of law in this space.

As noted in a post above:

>>Here is the proposed updated language for UConn Coaches to the new AAUP CBA: http://aaupbargaining.uconn.edu/wp-...ement-NEW-Coaches-and-Trainers-06.20.2017.pdf<<

 

[Chief00]

As noted in a post above:

>>Here is the proposed updated language for UConn Coaches to the new AAUP CBA: http://aaupbargaining.uconn.edu/wp-...ement-NEW-Coaches-and-Trainers-06.20.2017.pdf<<

LOL - so of course they don't get a 4 year guarantee of employment like the average union employee!

Any notable changes from prior agreements?

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Stuff isn't dominated by State U. grads here as they are elsewhere in the country.

 

[UConnNick]

Governor Malloy's agreement with the state employees union says that no state employee can get laid off for 4 years.

So will assistant coaches be guaranteed their job for 4 years? Of course not.
There are a lot of differences. Every season they are in the bullseye based on wins/loses. There is no need for this type of law in this space.

It's a case of first impression in this situation. Apparently no coach at UConn or any other state supported school has ever tried to employ a family member on his or her staff. For that reason, one would hope it will eventually be seen as such, and the legislature will step up and create some kind of modified exception which applies only to coaching staffs at state supported schools. The only thing that makes any of the coaches at UConn state employees is the benefits package they get as part of their compensation. If it weren't for that they technically wouldn't be state employees at all, since they're not being paid with taxpayer dollars.

Considering that we're talking about Connecticut politicians here, I'm not optimistic in anticipation of a good result.

 

[Chief00]

It's a case of first impression in this situation. Apparently no coach at UConn or any other state supported school has ever tried to employ a family member on his or her staff. For that reason, one would hope it will eventually be seen as such, and the legislature will step up and create some kind of modified exception which applies only to coaching staffs at state supported schools. The only thing that makes any of the coaches at UConn state employees is the benefits package they get as part of their compensation. If it weren't for that they technically wouldn't be state employees at all, since they're not being paid with taxpayer dollars.

Considering that we're talking about Connecticut politicians here, I'm not optimistic in anticipation of a good result.

Yeah, they are 3 weeks over their statutory budget deadline - but the establishment at the Capital are just fine with that.

 

[UCONNRPh]

I hope this doesn't cause HCRE to get frustrated with the University and want out.

 

[kibblesnbits]

Interesting case from the SEC (see articles below). In the late '90s, two Georgia coaches, Jim Harrick in MBB and Jim Donnan in FB each tried to hire a son as an assistant. Both were denied due to a nepotism policy (yes, in the SEC). After a couple of years as a grad assistant, Donnan's kid was hired to a co-employment situation, with his other (presumably primary) job being a fund-raiser. I don't know how real that development job was or whether there were any other issues (Donnan was fired after that year), but it makes it easier to justify why the primary supervisor is not the head coach. I wonder if Corey could be hired as Director of Social Media for the AD while also serving as an on-field coach? I don't know if that will fly in CT, but it might be worth a shot to give both sides an out.

Georgia Bulldogs hires defensive coordinator from Tennessee | savannahnow.com | Savannah Morning News

Donnan hires son

 

[SubZero]

So is the deal RE's kid can stay this one year then has to be gone next year? Or can he get some BS title next year and continue doing what he was doing this year?

 

[kibblesnbits]

So is the deal RE's kid can stay this one year then has to be gone next year? Or can he get some BS title next year and continue doing what he was doing this year?

He's gone after this year unless: (1) UConn successfully appeals in court; (2) The legislature proposes and passes an exception; or (3) They find another way around the law.

I posted the above case to show that this wasn't unique to little, old, over-regulated Connecticut and that there still may be a way out. In our case, the university tried to do an end run around the nepotism laws without fully disclosing in advance. Not good. However, my guess is that the ethics board also got some blowback (or UConn's friends may create some) and might also be looking for a way out. CT's and Georgia's laws are different, but what worked in one might work in another (like the board they could even cite it as an out-of-state precedent even though it is technically irrelevant). Since Corey has been successful in improving the program's use of social media I just threw out one idea. Just ask first.

 

[Bubba1957]

Just watched Mark Richt HC at Miami talking about having his son on his staff. UCONN needs to make this work. Doesn't seem to be a problem elsewhere. Yes I know Miami is a private school.