Corey Edsall contract resolution in sight?

[RSTuthill]

Personally, I do not see it and I am unclear why people are so upset about what the Ethics Board did. Seems like a clear cut case to me. The law did not allow for exceptions. They could not have created one if they had wanted to.

But by the same token I do not see why the coaching staff had to be treated as employees. Just outsource the function and be done with it.

 

[huskymedic]

... But by the same token I do not see why the coaching staff had to be treated as employees. Just outsource the function and be done with it.

Not sure what the NCAA position on that would be... but for that even to be on the table the UConn BOT would have to negotiate the coaches’ positions out of the AAUP Recognition Language/Bargaining Unit.

Wonder how crazy expensive the liability insurance costs for coaches outside the University/State umbrella would be?

 

[Exit 4]

Personally, I do not see it and I am unclear why people are so upset about what the Ethics Board did. Seems like a clear cut case to me. The law did not allow for exceptions. They could not have created one if they had wanted to.

But by the same token I do not see why the coaching staff had to be treated as employees. Just outsource the function and be done with it.

Well - my useless two cents.
1) ethics board was correct on the initial ruling
2) legislation was the only way to deal with this
3) legislation was passed to address the issue, albeit the language was a little broad and clumsy in my opinion, but okay it’s done.
4) editorials scream bloody murder because the legislation, which had bipartisan support, was never debated and was tacked on as unrelated amendment.<— my issue here is that this kind of thing has been happening for decades and our media outlets ignore it because it doesn’t sell papers. The media jumped on this because it’s click bate.
5) then what really makes this state special is that the ethics commission actually gets super pissed about this legislation and starts putting in an extra effort to challenge and/or discredit the legislature. Wow.

What’s done is done. Hurray it’s done.

 

[RSTuthill]

Done. Back to sleep. Remember -- August 28 I would like a wake up call.

 

[freescooter]

If we are talking about appropriations, the term is earmark. My sense is that big cities have the political power to get earmarks, but I am not sure that "all the time" would be accurate. Sometimes small towns get them for special needs, for instance if there is a pond being infested with invasive species that need eradication for which they might need aid.

In Congress earmarking got out of control until there was a massive reaction to it and they became much harder. Nonetheless they still happen under various guises.

Rats are a bit different. My understanding is that they are usually non-appropriation related and are inserted into bills dealing with completely different subjects. Kinda like slipping in something about immigration into the defense appropriation bill. Maybe three lines into a 2,000 page bill.

Yeah. I worked at the legislature for a session. Take a look at the “implementer” bill someday. Passes every year and is absolutely loaded with stuff. This was simply politics. The ethics board over reached and got slapped down. Nothing more. But if you think this was the only rat this session, well I have a great deal for you on a bridge and you don’t even have to go to Brooklyn. Middletown or Portland will do. Just that mostly nobody hears about them because they involve such exciting things as sale of 200 square feet to Richard in Coventry.

 

[huskymedic]

(w/ video)

 

[CL82]

Personally, I do not see it and I am unclear why people are so upset about what the Ethics Board did. Seems like a clear cut case to me. The law did not allow for exceptions. They could not have created one if they had wanted to.

The hiring and supervision of Corey was entirely acceptable under CT ethics rules. The committee actually gave an advisory opinion to UConn stating that. They only changed there minds after they found out that facts related to football. In order to find it in violation, the ethics board created two fictions:

1) The board arbitrarily decided that Randy was employee before his start date. Without doing that there is no violation.
2) The board arbitrarily chose to ignore that Corey reported to the athletic director and not to Randy calling it a sham. Without doing that there is no violation.​

I'm not sure what drove the board to that but they would have lost if it went to trial. The legislature fixing that overreach was entirely inappropriate. I would have preferred that they did it more openly though.

 

[RSTuthill]

The ethics board over reached and got slapped down. Nothing more.

Absolutely not. The Ethics Board did exactly what it was supposed to do. Do I have a problem with Corey working for his father? Absolutely not as long as it is not as an employee of the State.

 

[RSTuthill]

The hiring and supervision of Corey was entirely acceptable under CT ethics rules. The committee actually gave an advisory opinion to UConn stating that. They only changed there minds after they found out that facts related to football. In order to find it in violation, the ethics board created two fictions:

1) The board arbitrarily decided that Randy was employee before his start date. Without doing that there is no violation.
2) The board arbitrarily chose to ignore that Corey reported to the athletic director and not to Randy calling it a sham. Without doing that there is no violation.​

I'm not sure what drove the board to that but they would have lost if it went to trial. The legislature fixing that overreach was entirely inappropriate. I would have preferred that they did it more openly though.

You sound like a lawyer or someone who plays one on TV. The reporting arrangement is a sham. The AD has no power in this arrangement short of firing the HC. Read Kevin Rennie today.

 

[Stainmaster]

You sound like a lawyer or someone who plays one on TV. The reporting arrangement is a sham. The AD has no power in this arrangement short of firing the HC. Read Kevin Rennie today.

Kevin Rennie is a hack. Why are you using his column for anything besides toilet paper?

 

[UConnRock]

The hiring and supervision of Corey was entirely acceptable under CT ethics rules. The committee actually gave an advisory opinion to UConn stating that. They only changed there minds after they found out that facts related to football. In order to find it in violation, the ethics board created two fictions:

1) The board arbitrarily decided that Randy was employee before his start date. Without doing that there is no violation.
2) The board arbitrarily chose to ignore that Corey reported to the athletic director and not to Randy calling it a sham. Without doing that there is no violation.​

I'm not sure what drove the board to that but they would have lost if it went to trial. The legislature fixing that overreach was entirely inappropriate. I would have preferred that they did it more openly though.

The issue with comment 1) above is that the hiring of Corey was incorporated into Randy's contract which was obviously drafted before his start date. This showed an intent regardless of whether Randy was truly and employee of the State at the time. I still think that inclusion of Corey's hiring in the contract was the impetus for the ethics action. However, I do agree with statement 2) that for the board to call a reporting structure a "sham" showed a lack of awareness of management and reporting structures as a whole. Throughout the working world there are people who manage projects and related staff who do not have direct or indirect HR reporting relationship to that staff.

 

[huskymedic]

Kevin Rennie is a hack.

Kevin Rennie: Legislative End Around For Edsall Erodes Trust

 

[CL82]

The issue with comment 1) above is that the hiring of Corey was incorporated into Randy's contract which was obviously drafted before his start date. This showed an intent regardless of whether Randy was truly and employee of the State at the time.

Mmm, intent of what exactly?

The harm that we are looking to avert is having state of Connecticut employees using their authority to hire family members. Prior to being an employee they have no such authority.

This rule is aimed at preventing employees from directly hiring family members unilaterally. Here when Corey was suggested as staff member with Edsall's direct supervisor, there is no abuse of authority, no duplicity or secrecy. The ethics committee saw "football coach" and decided to manufacture a problem that didn't exist.

In my humble opinion.

 

[CL82]

You sound like a lawyer or someone who plays one on TV.

Hmmm, insult or compliment?

The reporting arrangement is a sham. The AD has no power in this arrangement short of firing the HC.

No, Benedict had direct hire/fire, promotion/salary authority. Now I understand why you and the ethics committee want to pretend otherwise in order to fabricate an argument against the Edsall and UConn, but it isn't reality based.

Read Kevin Rennie today.

I did, at your suggestion. I didn't find the "we have stop Edsall's son from working at UConn because.... um TRUMP" particularly persuasive.

 

[RSTuthill]

No, Benedict had direct hire/fire, promotion/salary authority. Now I understand why you and the ethics committee want to pretend otherwise in order to fabricate an argument against the Edsall and UConn, but it isn't reality based.

Riiight. And how about that bridge I have listed on eBay? I'll give you 50% off twice the price.

And when have I ever said I want to fabricate an argument. Never. Check the record. But I do believe that there should be no exceptions for football. You sign on as an employee and you abide by the same rules everyone else abides by. But I have no idea why the coaching staff needs to be employees.

 

[UConnRock]

Mmm, intent of what exactly?

The harm that we are looking to avert is having state of Connecticut employees using their authority to hire family members. Prior to being an employee they have no such authority.

This rule is aimed at preventing employees from directly hiring family members unilaterally. Here when Corey was suggested as staff member with Edsall's direct supervisor, there is no abuse of authority, no duplicity or secrecy. The ethics committee saw "football coach" and decided to manufacture a problem that didn't exist.

In my humble opinion.

The inclusion of Corey's hiring in the contract takes this beyond simply an existing employee's authority, as it could be implied that Randy may not have accepted the position as Head Coach unless hiring of his son was agreed to. Randy was using a position of authority as a desired prospective employee to make a contractual obligation for the hiring of a family member. Although not directly addressed in the wording of the ethics standards, the interpretation of the ethics board was that this essentially amounted to an "employee hiring" of a family member. It is no surprise that general state ethics standards do not fit into the football hiring world. Yes, UConn and Randy do have a loophole with the start date argument, but the answer to this debacle is correctly to pass the legislation that just takes this out of the ethics board's hands.

 

[CL82]

Riiight. And how about that bridge I have listed on eBay? I'll give you 50% off twice the price.

And when have I ever said I want to fabricate an argument. Never. Check the record. But I do believe that there should be no exceptions for football. You sign on as an employee and you abide by the same rules everyone else abides by. But I have no idea why the coaching staff needs to be employees.

Um, if you don't want to fabricate an argument, then you have accept things the way they are and they way they are is entirely consistent with ethics rules.

Pro tip: If in order to make your argument you have say well it is totally in compliance but I will ignore that because "I know how things really are..." you don't have one.

But I've taken too much of your time, I'll let you go back to yelling at kids to get off your yard.

 

[uconnbill]

The Hartford Courant needs to get off their high horse. This was a terrible decision, to begin with and it is good that the legislative branch took this out of those not elected to office and appointed instead.

Good day for UConn football and the state overall.

 

[CL82]

Randy was using a position of authority as a desired prospective employee to make a contractual obligation for the hiring of a family member. Although not directly addressed in the wording of the ethics standards, the interpretation of the ethics board was that this essentially amounted to an "employee hiring" of a family member.

Transalation: The way this was entirely compliant with ethics rules.

Randy is entirely allowed to make whatever deal he wants, on whatever terms he wants prior to becoming employed. That is clear under the law. That's why the ethics board create a fiction that start date was prior to the start date listed in his employment agreement.

 

[RSTuthill]

Um, if you don't want to fabricate an argument, then you have accept things the way they are and they way they are is entirely consistent with ethics rules.

Pro tip: If in order to make your argument you have say well it is totally in compliance but I will ignore that because "I know how things really are..." you don't have one.

But I've taken too much of your time, I'll let you go back to yelling at kids to get off your yard.

Why don't you proof read what you just wrote and clean up the grammatical errors so that we can understand what you are trying to say. Personally I have no clue what you are getting at. I doubt that you are a "Pro" with writing like that. At least one qualified enough to be giving tips.

 

[CL82]

Why don't you proof read what you just wrote and clean up the grammatical errors so that we can understand what you are trying to say. Personally I have no clue what you are getting at. I doubt that you are a "Pro" with writing like that. At least one qualified enough to be giving tips.

I guess. Still you understand that if you need to make up facts to have an argument, you don't have a valid one now right? Or is that still confusing to you?

 

[huskymedic]

 

[Exit 4]

Jacobs absolutely nails it. Bravo.

 

[CL82]

On Dec. 23, 2016, UConn sought a non-binding opinion from the ethics board. It was presented as a hypothetical, a coy move by UConn, but not a unique practice and Bob Diaco hadn’t been fired yet. UConn got the tentative go-ahead. When the ethics board realized it was about Edsall, the angry brakes hit. Big name. Big morality.

Corey would receive no raises or bonuses, only raises mandated by the union. Corey would be directly supervised by offensive coordinator Rhett Lashlee, who himself had a fixed three-year deal. Beth Goetz, athletic department COO, would be Corey’s overall supervisor and responsible for all financial decisions. Athletic director David Benedict would oversee it.

None of UConn’s plan, no safeguard was good enough.