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

[Skiblets]

Chief should have been there.

Chief was there. With Drummond. It's confirme_

 

[Skiblets]

I'm not differential to the committee... I have interacted w/ OSE previously and understand how they operate a bit - also my read of the AO (and I'm clearly not a lawyer but have dealt w/ both public sector and private sector issues of conflicts of interest and nepotism). My opinion holds no more weight than that.

I'm not convinced the "start date" argument of the equation wins out in the end but the supervisory piece of the argument is much clearer in my mind and is an issue that I'm not sure can be changed by the OSE CEAB). UConn interacts with these folks on a very regular basis - this should have been resolved before it got to where it is.

You seem to say their hands were tied but how can that be when they relied on an obscure Michigan ruling, a questionable interpretation of start date and a snarky opinion despite facts to the contrary, about supervisory authority. Their hands weren't tied. They contorted themselves into a pretzel to get to this decision. Btw. I did a little google research on the committee members. Not impressed

 

[sportsart]

Chief was there. With Drummond. It's confirme_

The b.it.ches?

 

[huskymedic]

You seem to say their hands were tied but how can that be when they relied on an obscure Michigan ruling, a questionable interpretation of start date and a snarky opinion despite facts to the contrary, about supervisory authority. Their hands weren't tied. They contorted themselves into a pretzel to get to this decision. Btw. I did a little google research on the committee members. Not impressed

They are volunteer political appointees... The vice chair attorney from Murtha Culina Richter is pretty sharp.

Go back and read the Rachael Rubin emails in the AO. They didn't help the cause.

 

[Skiblets]

They are volunteer political appointees... The vice chair attorney from Murtha Culina Richter is pretty sharp.

Go back and read the Rachael Rubin emails in the AO. They didn't help the cause.

People appointed by Looney, Malloy......

 

[huskymedic]

People appointed by Looney, Malloy.

Yup... it's bipartisan but I don't remember the actual breakdown.

 

[Skiblets]

Rubin emails don't matter in the eyes of the law...which this commission ignored. Reminds me an activist court trying to legislate from the bench and ignoring facts

 

[kibblesnbits]

I hope UConn finds a way to resolve this that permits Corey to stay. However, I just read the advisory opinion on the "date issue" and I think people here are dead wrong to blame the board for determining a violation. Imagine this scenario. UConn offers a construction manager a job in the facilities department starting on 1 August. He accepts today. Next Tuesday, he gets a $50K payment from the contractor (assume he didn't work for that contractor - as that would open up an entirely different set of ethical issues) on one of the jobs he will manage. Does that violate statutes forbidding payments from contractors to state employees? I don't think there's a person here that would say that's OK. Having accepted the job he should be governed by ethics rules protecting state interests, particularly when it comes to matters that only come up because he's going to be working for the state. Edsall wouldn't have been able to tell the COO what to put in the offer letter if it weren't the fact that he was going to be on the state payroll. In fact, the COO was treating him as if he was already in that position of authority.

Edit: Ideally the best resolution might be a narrowly crafted exception passed by the legislature. However, given the mess we're in right now I don't know how realistic that is. I can see it becoming yet another political football.

 

[Bezzz]

Next Tuesday, he gets a $50K payment from the contractor (assume he didn't work for that contractor - as that would open up an entirely different set of ethical issues) on one of the jobs he will manage.

A $50K payment for what? Sounds like you're describing a kickback/bribe, which is extremely un-ethical.

 

[CL82]

The problem is that we all know HCRE2 is Corey's real supervisor and so did the board. I'm sure they wouldn't accept, "so and so's son works in his department but is independently supervised by his boss" in any other case. I'm not familiar with the date issue, but I hope it's enough to distinguish the case because otherwise I think UConn is fighting an uphill battle. Alternatively, getting the legislature to pass a carefully crafted exemption would do the trick, but they have more important issues to deal with (or not deal with) right now. Corey seems to be doing a good job so I hope this is resolved, but I'm not optimistic.

"We all know" is the approach that the committee took but it is not borne out by the actual contractual language. So long as the power to hire/fire and for promotion and pay increases rests with AD Dave, there is no potential for abuse. I am optimistic, provided the school has decent counsel.

 

[kibblesnbits]

A $50K payment for what? Sounds like you're describing a kickback/bribe, which is extremely un-ethical.

That's the point. Posters here would exempt such unethical behavior because he's not an employee yet. From the intent of the statute, however, it should cover anyone whose employment status with the state puts him in a position of influence or control over the contractor - and that includes having accepted the supervisory position.

"We all know" is the approach that the committee took but it is not borne out by the actual contractual language. So long as the power to hire/fire and for promotion and pay increases rests with AD Dave, there is no potential for abuse. I am optimistic, provided the school has decent counsel.

There's plenty of potential for abuse. How does the AD separate his review of the son from the status of his father? Suppose the team is successful, but the son is not a competent position coach and should be fired in the AD's unbiased opinion. Can he truly act on it without putting at risk the relationship between the university and the valued head coach? When assigning raises does he push a little more to the coach's kid to make the HC happy? The mere fact that he might have to consider these issues, even with a contract that artificially tries to work around the statute, means there is not a clear separation between the span of control of the father and the son.

 

[CL82]

There's plenty of potential for abuse. How does the AD separate his review of the son from the status of his father? Uh, they are two separate individuals?

Suppose the team is successful, but the son is not a competent position coach and should be fired in the AD's unbiased opinion. Can he truly act on it without putting at risk the relationship between the university and the valued head coach? Yes.

When assigning raises does he push a little more to the coach's kid to make the HC happy? Nope, why would assume that he is dishonest?

The mere fact that he might have to consider these issues, even with a contract that artificially tries to work around the statute, means there is not a clear separation between the span of control of the father and the son. No. The fact that you can imagine abuses doesn't change the fact that the ability to give Corey and unwarranted benefit rests in the hands of an unrelated third party.

 

[kibblesnbits]

He can no more independently fire the coach's kid than he can independently decide to promote him to offensive coordinator. Both would require consultation with the real supervisor in this case, the HC. Football teams have to work together. The AD can't effectively supervise a position coach independently of the head coach. Setting up an artificial organizational structure doesn't change that.

 

[SubbaBub]

Corey has a contract with the University, not the Head Coach. If the AD or anyone above Randy wants Corey gone, he's gone. If Randy didn't like it, he'd be gone too. It doesn't sound like a civil service personnel situation to me.

The logic behind this decision is the same as daytime TV. More interest in the buzz than the correct outcome.

 

[uconnbill]

UConn will appeal in court:

What a bunch of crap. I will say it again, small time state, small time thinking once again.

Disgusted Husky fan

I was off but my Mom is in the hospital so that took precedent

 

[huskymedic]

UConn will appeal in court:

Original article has been updated (UConn has 45 days to decide if they will appeal to Superior Court) and this is a video of the UConn Attorney Response: UConn Response

 

[Chief00]

Chief should have been there.

I agree and I shouldn't say this for the flak I will take but at the last minute the meeting got moved again - so I could have gone after all but at that point it was too late. I feel terrible!
This is a very defining moment and collectively it's not going real well.

 

[UCYamsMD]

I agree and I shouldn't say this for the flak I will take but at the last minute the meeting got moved again - so I could have gone after all but at that point it was too late. I feel terrible!
This is a very defining moment and collectively it's not going real well.

i get it Chief. You had an appointment--no blame there. You do all you can for the program, don't sweat it!

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I agree and I shouldn't say this for the flak I will take but at the last minute the meeting got moved again - so I could have gone after all but at that point it was too late. I feel terrible!
This is a very defining moment and collectively it's not going real well.

Casual fan move.

 

[CL82]

He can no more independently fire the coach's kid than he can independently decide to promote him to offensive coordinator. Both would require consultation with the real supervisor in this case, the HC. Football teams have to work together. The AD can't effectively supervise a position coach independently of the head coach. Setting up an artificial organizational structure doesn't change that.

Wrong. AD has hire/fire authority. Regarding Corey, Randy does not.

 

[Chief00]

i get it Chief. You had an appointment--no blame there. You do all you can for the program, don't sweat it!

Thanks for your understanding. I am as frustrated as the choir of casual fans that I did not make it. Perhaps, I should have said screw everything else and just had gone? I am sorry if I disappointed so many.
Once I heard the decision, l felt even worse.

 

[Chief00]

Chief was there. With Drummond. It's confirme_

Nah Dre is in Cali last I heard

 

[Chief00]

I'm not differential to the committee... I have interacted w/ OSE previously and understand how they operate a bit - also my read of the AO (and I'm clearly not a lawyer but have dealt w/ both public sector and private sector issues of conflicts of interest and nepotism). My opinion holds no more weight than that.

I'm not convinced the "start date" argument of the equation wins out in the end but the supervisory piece of the argument is much clearer in my mind and is an issue that I'm not sure can be changed by the OSE CEAB). UConn interacts with these folks on a very regular basis - this should have been resolved before it got to where it is. Interested to see what comes of the Superior Court appeal. I'm clearly rooting for UConn but...

I think UConn is taking the wrong approach. Clearly, Rachel Rubin is not the sharpest knife in the draw.
The argument should be screw the rules that apply to the average state employee; those rules don't apply here. It's a different employment situation. Corey will almost assuredly get fired if his father does. His father will get fired if he has a couple losing seasons. If those rules applied to other state employees there wouldn't be any employees left - since the state has had more losing seasons than Coach P and Diaco combined.

 

[kibblesnbits]

Wrong. AD has hire/fire authority. Regarding Corey, Randy does not.

So, the head of every state agency can hire their kid to an assistant director position (or any other appointed, non-civil service position) as long as there's a plan on paper making the governor the nominal supervisor (or maybe the governor's designee such as the CoS) with hire/fire authority. That's an appropriate arms length relationship that should satisfy ethics authorities?

Based on what appears to be good performance in his non-player development duties (we'll see this fall how the TEs develop on the field) I want the kid here too. I just think people are dreaming if they think the current plan is going to fly in court. I hope I'm wrong, but they should have friendly legislators draft a narrow bill exempting this case (i.e. Athletic Department contract employees that serve at the pleasure of a head coach can be relatives with approval of the AD and school president) just in case.

 

[Excalibur]

I think UConn is taking the wrong approach. Clearly, Rachel Rubin is not the sharpest knife in the draw.
The argument should be screw the rules that apply to the average state employee; those rules don't apply here. It's a different employment situation. Corey will almost assuredly get fired if his father does. His father will get fired if he has a couple losing seasons. If those rules applied to other state employees there wouldn't be any employees left - since the state has had more losing seasons than Coach P and Diaco combined.

That would be the losing-est of losing arguments. Arguing that the statute does not apply is fruitless because it clearly does. Arguing that the statute has not been violated is at least debatably correct and it gives them the best chance to prevail on appeal.

The university should also pursue a legislative solution