- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 103,733
- Reaction Score
- 428,163
Corey will be given a new job under AD Dave and will volunteer as a football coach.
Corey will be the water boy that also runs the team twitter account. He'll do it one more year to soak up Lashlee and then move on. This is a tongue in cheek post.No. There are limitations on coaching. You can't just have another job at the school and be a coach. if you could, everyone would do it.
Agree, if by "hyper technical" you mean factual. Trying to assert RE was an employee before he actually was employed is a construct and a fairly tortured one at that.On a hyper technical level Edsall was not legally an employee when Corey got hired
Agree, if by "hyper technical" you mean factual. Trying to assert RE was an employee before he actually was employed is a construct and a fairly tortured one at that.
I'm not so sure about that last sentence. Ethics law is often a safe harbor. Abide by it and you typically are going to be fine. Really, that's what it is there for, right? To guide behavior.I don't think it's nearly that clear. On that date, IIRC, he had already been announced as the football coach and was engaged in acts (like recruiting and hiring staff) on UConn's behalf. I wouldn't be surprised if the delay in signing him to a contract wasn't done specifically so Corey could be hired first.
And when you're dealing with ethics laws, substance and not just form has to matter.
Well stated from what I would gather is a position of knowledge.There are really two separate things going on here. The first is whether the Edsalls did anything wrong. The answer to that is pretty clearly no. UConn knew there was an issue, asked for an advisory opinion and was told it was o.k. Whatever the ruling is, this is not a moral issue. The second question is whether the situation is o.k. under the state's ethic laws, notwithstanding the non-binding advisory opinion. I can see this going either way. On a hyper technical level Edsall was not legally an employee when Corey got hired, but if you put substance over form he was the football coach -- the paperwork just wasn't done yet. But the decision is over a technicality. It would be great if Corey can stay but if he can't it doesn't reflect at all on anyone -- it just means we need to replace him next year.
Agree, if by "hyper technical" you mean factual. Trying to assert RE was an employee before he actually was employed is a construct and a fairly tortured one at that.
I can't think if a more meaningless distinction.Is Corey's direct report the OC not the HC?
Is Corey's direct report the OC not the HC?
"Hyper- technical" is precisely what the law is about. People subject to the law are entitled to its plain meaning, not what "it really was meant to cover or its spirit". The reason is citizens are entities to basic due process as a fundamental Constitutional right... they need to know what is violative of the law. The only place where this concept deviates is in tax law where somehow Congress has given the power to the IRS to use substance over form in structuring transactions that they deem to be intended to have no purpose but to avoid taxes.Agree, if by "hyper technical" you mean factual. Trying to assert RE was an employee before he actually was employed is a construct and a fairly tortured one at that.