State Ethics Office Rules Corey Edsall Can Coach Only This Year At UConn; Ethics Laws Broken

[Drew]

 

[Excalibur]

Good, and I like the fact that it got personal. Time for some scorched earth . . .

 

[warbler1055]

Please disband the State Ethic board as I have no need for them. I am a CT taxpayer for over 30 years!!!! What a bunch of leeches!!!

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Good, as he should. That ruling was a ridiculous load of garbage. Anyone with half a brain can figure out Edsall was not an employee of the state on 12/28. Even if he was, he and UConn are guilty of bad procedure but nothing unethical or illegal. Slap them on the wrist, let Corey coach, and everyone should move on.

 

[kibblesnbits]

Good, as he should. That ruling was a ridiculous load of garbage. Anyone with half a brain can figure out Edsall was not an employee of the state on 12/28. Even if he was, he and UConn are guilty of bad procedure but nothing unethical or illegal. Slap them on the wrist, let Corey coach, and everyone should move on.

""Mr. Edsall had neither performed any duties as head football coach for UConn, nor had he been compensated for any work prior to Jan. 3, 2017." How can his attorney make such a claim if Edsall was instructing HR what to put in offer letters for assistant coaches? He might not have been on the payroll, but Edsall clearly was performing a duty as head football coach.

 

[businesslawyer]

How many state gov jobs go the most qualified candidate? It's never based on anything like who's uncle in influential in the governor's office (sarcasm off). Sometimes I really think the legislature has a hard on the UConn athletics. And not in a good way.

Except this rule applies to the entire state workforce -- it wasn't created for the athletic department.

So your position is either we should exclude the Athletic Department from state ethics concerns or the State as a whole shouldn't try to prevent nepotism. Instead of that swarmy nothingburger implying a factual premise having nothing to do with the truth.

 

[Excalibur]

Except this rule applies to the entire state workforce -- it wasn't created for the athletic department.

So your position is either we should exclude the Athletic Department from state ethics concerns or the State as a whole shouldn't try to prevent nepotism. Instead of that swarmy nothingburger implying a factual premise having nothing to do with the truth.

Don't want an ethics regulation that you can't drive a truck through? Write a better ethics regulation. Don't leave a hole big enough to drive a truck through and then ignore the plain words of the regulation because you don't like the result.

 

[BlueMAB]

Bump

Edsall appeals ruling that hiring son improper

 

[CL82]

Don't want an ethics regulation that you can't drive a truck through? Write a better ethics regulation. Don't leave a hole big enough to drive a truck through and then ignore the plain words of the regulation because you don't like the result.

Here's the thing though. In order to find an "ethics violation" the committee had to ignore Edsall's contract to move the starting date back and ignore the fact that Corey reports to AD Dave.

The problem isn't that anyone wants the ethics law to be skirted rather they want the law to enforced as written without fabrications to make situations in compliance with the law suddenly a problem. So to paraphrase you, if you want an over broad ethics law that includes actions prior to employment and ignores who people actually report to, write it that way.

REv2 did nothing wrong. I am confident that the school will prevail.

 

[Excalibur]

Here's the thing though. In order to find an "ethics violation" the committee had to ignore Edsall's contract to move the starting date back and ignore the fact that Corey reports to AD Dave.

The problem isn't that anyone wants the ethics law to be skirted rather they want the law to enforced as written without fabrications to make situations in compliance with the law suddenly a problem. So to paraphrase you, if you want an over broad ethics law that includes actions prior to employment and ignores who people actually report to, write it that way.

REv2 did nothing wrong. I am confident that the school will prevail.

I think we agree. The law is clear and the hire date point should be the dispositive issue. That's the loophole that you can drive a truck through. It would be reasonable to close that loophole by stating that any time an employee or candidate for employment controls or influences the hiring decision in question it is a violation. Right now, that's not the case, even if the commission wants it to be.

 

[CL82]

I think we agree. The law is clear and the hire date point should be the dispositive issue. That's the loophole that you can drive a truck through. It would be reasonable to close that loophole by stating that any time an employee or candidate for employment controls or influences the hiring decision in question it is a violation. Right now, that's not the case, even if the commission wants it to be.

I just don't see it as an issue in the least. This isn't an established manager who is hiring family members without supervision or review. This is a guy making a deal with his prospective employer. It has been a good deal for the university, both in getting Randy under market value and with Corey who appears to be doing an outstanding job.

I don't see this a Randy taking advantage of a loophole, which, though legal, sounds unsavory. I strongly suspect a court will view it the same way.

 

[BlueDogs]

""Mr. Edsall had neither performed any duties as head football coach for UConn, nor had he been compensated for any work prior to Jan. 3, 2017." How can his attorney make such a claim if Edsall was instructing HR what to put in offer letters for assistant coaches? He might not have been on the payroll, but Edsall clearly was performing a duty as head football coach.

In reality, Edsall had no authority to act on behalf of UConn until he was formally hired. The fact that he volunteered his personal time in advance of and in anticipation of hire does not make him the Head Coach. To perform a duty as a head coach means by definition exercising the power to direct subordinates under a cognizable grant of authority which has the power to bind. No such thing can occur in that situation. Moreover, under sovereign immunity the State was not bound to any commitment until it signed a contract in accordance with statutory authority. The state is a distinctly different type of entity than a private person. So, no, he was not a head coach nor could exercise any authority as one.

 

[warbler1055]

I am not a lawyer but I do not see the logic here. UConn was paying BD millions for not coaching. For Diaco just to leave. Then UConn is hiring RE for a reported 1M a year. It then hired Corey Edsall for something like $95000 a year. But If I am not mistaken, Corey was making the same amount at Colorado (State?). So he was really taking a pay cut coming to UConn which is a more costly place to live. So the Ethics Board found that RE father hiring of his son to benefit whom? Again, I thought that UConn ADD had it set up so Corey would not be under RE supervision but reporting to a different line of management. I might be completely out of touch here, but $95K a year is not really a high compensation for anybody in division 1a football, is it? Rhett Lashlee was taking a pay cut of $300k to come to UConn. It just seems like the Ethics Board would be so much better if it would go after the real ethics violation in the state instead of this UConn situation having a rather a low paying job at best.

 

[Skiblets]

Corey was a GA at CU so he was definitely getting a pay raise to come here. Nevertheless this ethics committees case has too many holes

 

[RSTuthill]

There is a potential solution. RE2.0 forms an LLC and renegotiates his contract. His assistants work for him, not UConn.

Apologies if this has already been suggested, but I did not have time to plow through the whole thread.

 

[kibblesnbits]

In reality, Edsall had no authority to act on behalf of UConn until he was formally hired. The fact that he volunteered his personal time in advance of and in anticipation of hire does not make him the Head Coach. To perform a duty as a head coach means by definition exercising the power to direct subordinates under a cognizable grant of authority which has the power to bind. No such thing can occur in that situation. Moreover, under sovereign immunity the State was not bound to any commitment until it signed a contract in accordance with statutory authority. The state is a distinctly different type of entity than a private person. So, no, he was not a head coach nor could exercise any authority as one.

Can you point to any authority that says "performing a duty" of a position is limited to "exercising the power to direct subordinates?" I know my job description includes many other duties and I'm sure Edsall's does too. Some are explicit (e.g. manage a budget) and some are implicit (e.g. hire a staff includes following organization processes such as going through HR to post jobs and execute offers). Edsall was performing a duty as head coach in working with HR and recruiting staff.

The best solution is to have an exception carved out by the legislature. Unfortunately, they are grid-locked with the budget mess and I don't know if getting anything else done is possible.

 

[BlueDogs]

Can you point to any authority that says "performing a duty" of a position is limited to "exercising the power to direct subordinates?" I know my job description includes many other duties and I'm sure Edsall's does too. Some are explicit (e.g. manage a budget) and some are implicit (e.g. hire a staff includes following organization processes such as going through HR to post jobs and execute offers). Edsall was performing a duty as head coach in working with HR and recruiting staff.

The best solution is to have an exception carved out by the legislature. Unfortunately, they are grid-locked with the budget mess and I don't know if getting anything else done is possible.

I think your point reinforces what I am saying. To be responsible for overseeing a budget means exercising a power (that is a power to direct to spend or not to spend)... unless you are not really responsible and just reporting information to others who make that decision. In so far as recruiting goes, he had no power to act because he was not employed. He could not make any commitment to any recruit. He was at best an adviser (unpaid) that could recommend to the AD an offer go out, but he could not do so himself on behalf of the school. Remember the flimsy argument of the Board has to be he was already an employee of the state with supervisory powers. This simply is not the case no matter how much they think the arrangement was in substance an avoidance strategy. The law's a bitch and they are refusing to acknowledge its reality. Was he acting as a head coach? No, because lawfully he couldn't. Did they navigate around the provisions of the law? Undoubtedly. Are they permitted to do so? Yes. Otherwise, we live in a banana republic where authorities can interpret laws to mean whatever they want irrespective of their express meaning. We don't do.. "well even if it didn't say it, that's what we meant and therefore you violated it." The Board decision is classicly an overreach by authorities that have an axe to grind because somebody circumvented them instead of genuflecting at their feet.

 

[CL82]

Can you point to any authority that says "performing a duty" of a position is limited to "exercising the power to direct subordinates?" I know my job description includes many other duties and I'm sure Edsall's does too. Some are explicit (e.g. manage a budget) and some are implicit (e.g. hire a staff includes following organization processes such as going through HR to post jobs and execute offers). Edsall was performing a duty as head coach in working with HR and recruiting staff.

The best solution is to have an exception carved out by the legislature. Unfortunately, they are grid-locked with the budget mess and I don't know if getting anything else done is possible.

Tortured analysis.

The contract expressly states his start date. He had no ability to bind the university prior to that.

 

[kibblesnbits]

He has no ability to unilaterally bind the university now to an employment contract. I'm sure only HR can issue job offers. However, if they were acting under his instructions and issuing offers prior to 1/3, then I still believe a court can reasonably find that he was acting based on the powers conveyed in his binding contract to be UConn's head football coach (in fact, he could have only been acting based on those powers as he had no other relationship with the university), even though he hadn't officially started. We'll see who is right, and frankly I hope you and Bluedogs are, but I suspect that won't be the case.