"Kansas State, citing a newly modified institutional policy, will allow guard Leticia Romero to transfer after all."
Now that's funny.
You don't know HOW funny. Only those interested in administrative appeals process may wish to read further.
Currie wrote a
proposed new policy that's ludicrous.
All legaled-up, AD has X number of days to start a review of the Appeals Committee's review of his own initial decision based on new information [talk about tailored to a specific case] etc. Then everything becomes "final."
Totally misses several points about how this should work:
1. The Appeals Committee exists to provide an avenue of review of a
negative decision by the AD. The AD should
always have the power to make a
positive decision. No need to limit himself to 15 days to start a review after the Committee acts or to limit his reason for doing so ("new information" whitewashes that the original decision may have been negligent, a mistake, or worse, ill-motivated).
2. The Committee decision does need some finality on the facts presented. You can't keep making appeals just because you don't like what you got in your first appeal. But even the Committee should be able to revisit a mistake on their part.
3. The AD's adverse decision
never needs to be final. Why write rules to handcuff yourself from acting in the student athlete's best interest based on new developments of whatever sort? This is an educational institution. It's the essence of intellectual rigor to discard prior conclusions when warranted by further examination.
This "finality" crapola is just trying to lend credence to the school's prior resort to that excuse. "Oooo, it's final and binding. There's no procedure for dealing with it. We can't do justice. We're helplessly floating in the current of our own irreversible decision process."
Bull, as they've repeatedly shown.
So now they've written a "new policy" -- to be followed in all future cases, mind you -- that makes no sense in terms of accepted administrative procedure.
To the contrary, it's very much oriented toward dressing up a series of blunders in a particular case as a lack of then-available procedures, rather than a pigheaded failure to deal competently and fairly with the case under existing procedures.
But never fear, this insufficiency of regulations is now heroically "remedied" -- with poorly conceived new regulations -- by the individual who pigheadedly caused the whole disastrous episode in the first place.
Is anyone surprised?
