Herbst letter to the Big 12 expressing UConn's interest | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Herbst letter to the Big 12 expressing UConn's interest

Status
Not open for further replies.
Muddler said:
I don't know how to interpret Cincy and Houston directing their interests to the Big 12's law firm and Uconn sending it directly to Bowlsby, but it is a bit bizarre.
Expand ...

Cincy and Houston didn't direct their interests to the Big 12 law firm. All of them (Houston, Cincy and UConn) expressed their interest to Bowlsby directly. UConn and Cincy followed the correct process and waited to be contacted by Bowlsby. Houston (Khator) jumped the gun and emailed Bowlsby.

At the teleconference Boren explained the process. He said:

"So at the end of all of that discussion, the direction from the Board was to the commissioner to contact those schools, recontact those schools who have expressed interest to us, who have come to us, and to find out exactly the nature of the interest..."

Cincy and UConn waited to be contacted by Bowlsby (per Boren's statement above) and then responded to him of their interest. Cincy asked for further correspondence to be sent to Cincy's law firm.

Khator didn't wait for the letter from Bowlsby. She emailed him, telling him of Houston's interest, and then he wrote her back in reply to her email (he mentions her email) with the instructions of what law firm to send the info to. Since she had emailed him and already told him of Houston's interest, his letter to her explained the next step which was to send material to the Big 12's law firm.

In other words, Houston skipped the first step, which was to wait for the letter from Bowlsby asking them if they were still interested. She didn't wait, she emailed him.

That's my understanding of it. It has nothing to do with schools getting preferential treatment.
 
jostar1 said:
Cincy and Houston didn't direct their interests to the Big 12 law firm. All of them (Houston, Cincy and UConn) expressed their interest to Bowlsby directly. UConn and Cincy followed the correct process and waited to be contacted by Bowlsby. Houston (Khator) jumped the gun and emailed Bowlsby.

At the teleconference Boren explained the process. He said:

"So at the end of all of that discussion, the direction from the Board was to the commissioner to contact those schools, recontact those schools who have expressed interest to us, who have come to us, and to find out exactly the nature of the interest..."

Cincy and UConn waited to be contacted by Bowlsby (per Boren's statement above) and then responded to him of their interest. Cincy asked for further correspondence to be sent to Cincy's law firm.

Khator didn't wait for the letter from Bowlsby. She emailed him, telling him of Houston's interest, and then he wrote her back in reply to her email (he mentions her email) with the instructions of what law firm to send the info to. Since she had emailed him and already told him of Houston's interest, his letter to her explained the next step which was to send material to the Big 12's law firm.

In other words, Houston skipped the first step, which was to wait for the letter from Bowlsby asking them if they were still interested. She didn't wait, she emailed him.

That's my understanding of it.
Expand ...

Nor did USF and they surely didn't keep it "very brief". USF letter to Big 12 Commissioner-Bob-Bowlsby
 
@jostar1 please see the address that was used on the Cinci letter vis-a-vis the instructions in the email to UH. Also, Bowlsby requested the schools general counsel contact info (thus, Cinci followed Bowlsby's instructions).

Bowlsby also could have led off his email to UH and all candidates stating that they had previously contacted him (again so it doesn't look like poaching).

The bottom half of the UConn letter is not shown - Trotter said because he didn't want to publish cell phone numbers. Hmmm
 
huskymedic said:
Nor did USF and they surely didn't keep it "very brief". USF letter to Big 12 Commissioner-Bob-Bowlsby
Expand ...
jostar1 said:
Well, that letter may have been in response to a letter of inquiry from Bowlsby. I dont think we can tell.
Expand ...
And looks like USF didn't provide general counsel contact information.

It looks like UH and Cinci received the same instructions. USF either got different instructions or didn't follow instructions. And UConn -- we kept it brief...I'm just hoping that they already have our general counsel information -- maybe we are just way ahead of the game ...so I'm really not concerned...just curious as to the process.
 
If the B12 anticipated your interest and response, the addressee (Bowlsby or Sweeney) would be relatively meaningless, especially if it occurred early in the process. However, spelling errors under the university president's signature would, to me anyway, indicate a certain lack of gravitas/seriousness about your interest.
 
.-.
UConn Dan said:
@jostar1 please see the address that was used on the Cinci letter vis-a-vis the instructions in the email to UH. Also, Bowlsby requested the schools general counsel contact info (thus, Cinci followed Bowlsby's instructions).

Bowlsby also could have led off his email to UH and all candidates stating that they had previously contacted him (again so it doesn't look like poaching).

The bottom half of the UConn letter is not shown - Trotter said because he didn't want to publish cell phone numbers. Hmmm
Expand ...

Yes, I stand corrected on that. It looks like Bowlsby was holding Houston to sending the letter of interest, even though she had emailed him.
 
NYUConn said:
I don't know if this was intended as a joke, but I burst out laughing when I read it.

I love that you can always count on the fact that within the first 30 posts on any somewhat significant news post about UConn/Big 12, somehow says that it could cause the ACC to invite us.

Not. Gonna. Happen.
Expand ...
Their loss.
 
C'mon, guys. Nothing is supposed to straight forward or transparent. This is CR. It's all about the "head fakes" and "horse trading". Ask the guy who has made deals with hundreds of people smarter than the average university president...he knows.
 
I don't think we are wound tight here. This is such a heavily orchestrated process so as not to divulge any information to the public. But no matter how well managed, there are clues to be found. This feels like a seam that can expose some real information, if we knew how to do it.
 
StorrsSouth had this on twitter last night
CqpydDYWEAAJnoV.jpg
 
.-.
auggie22 said:
I don't think we are wound tight here. This is such a heavily orchestrated process so as not to divulge any information to the public. But no matter how well managed, there are clues to be found. This feels like a seam that can expose some real information, if we knew how to do it.
Expand ...
The devil is in the details.
 
UCONN in OKC said:
There could be a 3rd option,

Letter written to commissioner, but enveloped to Lawyer
Expand ...
No, no, no. That misses the point. Except for BYU these are all public schools subject to FOIA. Bowlsby is sending his emails saying, have your General Counsel contact my lawyer. Now that communication is governed by attorney client privilege on both sides and we don't get yahoos like this posting it on Twitter. A letter from Susan to their lawyer accomplishes nothing.

So what we are seeing here, in each case, are the preliminary letters to Bowlsby. Then he contacts each school and says...hey don't write to me, send it to Polsinelli in KC, and send it from your GC. That ensures that a bunch of CR nuts like us don't go into a frenzy over the actual, meaningful content. Yet here we are anyway.

None of these letters mean anything. They are all merely the initial "expression of interest in joining" from each school that then triggers Bob's emails.
 
HuskyHawk said:
No, no, no. That misses the point. Except for BYU these are all public schools subject to FOIA. Bowlsby is sending his emails saying, have your General Counsel contact my lawyer. Now that communication is governed by attorney client privilege on both sides and we don't get yahoos like this posting it on Twitter. A letter from Susan to their lawyer accomplishes nothing.

So what we are seeing here, in each case, are the preliminary letters to Bowlsby. Then he contacts each school and says...hey don't write to me, send it to Polsinelli in KC, and send it from your GC. That ensures that a bunch of CR nuts like us don't go into a frenzy over the actual, meaningful content. Yet here we are anyway.

None of these letters mean anything. They are all merely the initial "expression of interest in joining" from each school that then triggers Bob's emails.
Expand ...
But they do in a sense...because then the bozo's who call themselves journalists..the ones like McMurphy who have been touting schools like Memphis (and no I don't think C. Austin Cox is a journalist) would be posting letters from a school such as Memphis. So far the ONLY communication we have seen from FOIA institutions are Cincy, Houston and UConn. All dated around a similar date. Where are the others?
 
HuskyHawk said:
No, no, no. That misses the point. Except for BYU these are all public schools subject to FOIA. Bowlsby is sending his emails saying, have your General Counsel contact my lawyer. Now that communication is governed by attorney client privilege on both sides
Expand ...

This isn't true. Attorney/Client privilege only applies to communications between the attorney and the client. Once it's been sent to a third-party, it's no longer privileged.
 
Is it not possible that the letter was not snail mailed but, rather, emailed to the recipient? Who mails stuff nowadays?

She could have just written Bowlsby's address on the letter then emailed it to both the attorney and the Commissioner.
 
.-.
FDNY99 said:
But they do in a sense...because then the bozo's who call themselves journalists..the ones like McMurphy who have been touting schools like Memphis (and no I don't think C. Austin Cox is a journalist) would be posting letters from a school such as Memphis. So far the ONLY communication we have seen from FOIA institutions are Cincy, Houston and UConn. All dated around a similar date. Where are the others?
Expand ...
We saw the letter from USF:
USF letter to Big 12 Commissioner-Bob-Bowlsby
 
FDNY99 said:
But they do in a sense...because then the bozo's who call themselves journalists..the ones like McMurphy who have been touting schools like Memphis (and no I don't think C. Austin Cox is a journalist) would be posting letters from a school such as Memphis. So far the ONLY communication we have seen from FOIA institutions are Cincy, Houston and UConn. All dated around a similar date. Where are the others?
Expand ...

Here is the letter Colorado State sent. They addressed it to the Big 12 Conference address and to the Big 12's lawyer.
http://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/csu/2016/08/24/csu-pitch-big-12/89264410/
 
CallMeBruce said:
This isn't true. Attorney/Client privilege only applies to communications between the attorney and the client. Once it's been sent to a third-party, it's no longer privileged.
Expand ...

Yes, I phrased it badly. Not trying to over-lawyer this. But in improves the chances that it would be considered Attorney Work Product.
 
CallMeBruce said:
This isn't true. Attorney/Client privilege only applies to communications between the attorney and the client. Once it's been sent to a third-party, it's no longer privileged.
Expand ...
I would expect that communications between attorneys aren't subject to FOIA.
 
.-.
CL82 said:
I would expect that communications between attorneys aren't subject to FOIA.
Expand ...

If one or more of the attorneys are state employees, they likely are. Especially if it's not in a trial setting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,680
Messages
4,534,672
Members
10,408
Latest member
Bigo-Nel


Top Bottom