Corey Edsall contract resolution in sight?

[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.