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

[Chief00]

Another approach is just run the job through the UConn Foundation - they helped pay Calhoun's salary for years.

 

[HuskyHawk]

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

Exactly, they all work for the school/AD, not the head coach. The HC has day to day supervision, and in this case, has even further delegated that. Cory, as TE coach, would be supervised by the OC.

I understand the rule, and support the overall goal, but let's get real. Nobody who is doing some nepotistic hiring of a useless person because they have power or influence, puts that person in their department. They stash them elsewhere, and do the same for others. That's where the fraud is. Go find all the siblings, cousins aunts and uncles of everyone working for the state at a high level or in the legislature, and that is where you will find people doing nothing and drawing a paycheck and pension for it.

 

[Chin Diesel]

They could drop the entire Michigan citation and reach the same conclusion. It says under CT statute they can use the common meaning of terms. They only cited Michigan for a court doing just that, applying a dictionary definition of "employee" that they like (Note: I could go to other dictionaries and find definitions that would not be as helpful to the board's interpretation). They could just cite the same dictionary and use the definition to be under CT law.

Which is my point. They have leeway to use different sources to reach a conclusion. Regardless of the conclusion.

 

[Excalibur]

Well, so far your way lost to a 7-1 vote

The committee is not the end game. They are an interested party.

 

[Chief00]

Speaking the truth

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

I wonder if they would get involved for a scholarship situation instead of a contract? Like if Ollie's son had been a top recruit, would this group have said that he couldn't be on scholarship at UConn because of the nepotism rules?

Could you imagine Calhoun going in front of this group back in the 1990s to justify giving Jeff a scholarship?! Or Marrone back in the 80s?

 

[SubbaBub]

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.

Civil service positions can not be terminated for convenience and compensation is set by collective bargaining. If a department head hired his kid, there would be little recourse for removing him or reducing an inflated salary. It would also deny other workers of their rights.

None of that is occurring here, each coach has an individual contract with the school/state. If they are tied to the collective bargaining agreements then that is a mistake by some lawyer/legislature somewhere.

What special leverage does Corey have that any other coach wouldn't? They are all tied to Randy's continued employment and any personell changes have to be OK with the AD. If there is a disagreement, the AD wins and Randy gets fired.

It's stupid and an unnecessary black eye for the program.

 

[CL82]

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?

Lol, here's a tip. If you have to fabricate long, complex, fictional scenarios to support your point, you don't have one.

 

[huskymedic]

None of that is occurring here, each coach has an individual contract with the school/state. If they are tied to the collective bargaining agreements then that is a mistake by some lawyer/legislature somewhere.

I believe that all UConn coaches full under the UConn-AAUP Collective Bargaining Agreement. Not 100% sure on what rights/benefits it covers off the top of my head.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

Exactly, they all work for the school/AD, not the head coach. The HC has day to day supervision, and in this case, has even further delegated that. Cory, as TE coach, would be supervised by the OC.

... and, Rhett Lashlee (sp?) himself directly reports in writing to AD Benedict.

 

[Kgun7]

Where the hell was this committee when P hired GDL????

 

[kibblesnbits]

Lol, here's a tip. If you have to fabricate long, complex, fictional scenarios to support your point, you don't have one.

You think a one sentence description is long? It is also not truly a work of fiction. It's exactly the same scenario with the job titles changed. It even allows the boss to actually ship the work of supervising off to a designee just like the AD can under the plan UConn submitted (if our AD has the time to actively supervise and direct a single position coach on one team there's something wrong). Bottom line: if you have a problem with this
long, complex and supposedly fictional scenario then you don't have much of a case because it's exactly what UConn did.

 

[BlueMAB]

The remaining (word choice) season ticket holders are ready to start cutting checks to recruits and this is where we are?

 

[CL82]

You think a one sentence description is long? It is also not truly a work of fiction. It's exactly the same scenario with the job titles changed. It even allows the boss to actually ship the work of supervising off to a designee just like the AD can under the plan UConn submitted (if our AD has the time to actively supervise and direct a single position coach on one team there's something wrong). Bottom line: if you have a problem with this
long, complex and supposedly fictional scenario then you don't have much of a case because it's exactly what UConn did.

No, it isn't. It is a fantasy that you've resorted to because you can't make a case under the actual facts.

Stop digging. The hole you are in is deep enough.

 

[SubbaBub]

I believe that all UConn coaches full under the UConn-AAUP Collective Bargaining Agreement. Not 100% sure on what rights/benefits it covers off the top of my head.

Probably true, but it's the wrong set up for this type of job. The football coach isn't faculty as much as we like to pretend it is. His contract is a one off, there is no need for underlying language from a collective bargaining agreement.

The idea they have to post the jobs is also silly. Why hire search firms then?

 

[Chin Diesel]

Probably true, but it's the wrong set up for this type of job. The football coach isn't faculty as much as we like to pretend it is. His contract is a one off, there is no need for underlying language from a collective bargaining agreement.

The idea they have to post the jobs is also silly. Why hire search firms then?

To find the candidate so they can get the candidates resume/background and write the job description.

 

[huskymedic]

Probably true, but it's the wrong set up for this type of job. The football coach isn't faculty as much as we like to pretend it is. His contract is a one off, there is no need for underlying language from a collective bargaining agreement.

The idea they have to post the jobs is also silly. Why hire search firms then?

I'm not disagreeing that there needs to be carve outs for UConn Athletic when and if reasonable. If State and University policy and procedures/regulations need to change to reflect "real world" scenarios/best practices - they need to work w/ the State Liaisons and CGA to get them changed. End arounds very rarely work.

Here are the UConn Athletic Dept Hiring Procedures (pg 33/34): http://policy.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/243/2016/09/2016-17-Employee-Handbook-1.pdf

Here is the proposed updated language for UConn Coaches to the new AAUP CBA: http://aaupbargaining.uconn.edu/wp-...ement-NEW-Coaches-and-Trainers-06.20.2017.pdf

 

[kibblesnbits]

Civil service positions can not be terminated for convenience and compensation is set by collective bargaining. If a department head hired his kid, there would be little recourse for removing him or reducing an inflated salary. It would also deny other workers of their rights.

None of that is occurring here, each coach has an individual contract with the school/state. If they are tied to the collective bargaining agreements then that is a mistake by some lawyer/legislature somewhere.

What special leverage does Corey have that any other coach wouldn't? They are all tied to Randy's continued employment and any personell changes have to be OK with the AD. If there is a disagreement, the AD wins and Randy gets fired.

It's stupid and an unnecessary black eye for the program.

Senior agency positions such as commissioners and their deputies are not civil service positions and can be terminated at the pleasure of the governor, but they are still covered by state ethics statutes just like coaches. If we believe coaches shouldn't be covered by certain ethics rules then its best to start reaching out our legislators because we can't just wish them away like some here want to believe.

 

[BlueMAB]

Bottom line: if you have a problem with this
long, complex and supposedly fictional scenario then you don't have much of a case because it's exactly what UConn did.

It is? Edsall got a $50,000 payment outside of the agreed upon terms in the contract? Edsall benefited financially after he agreed to the terms of the contract and before he started work? How, exactly?

Since that isn't what happened, it's not exactly what UConn did, and your scenario doesn't work. Why not just argue the merits of the case as it is, rather than fabricating a scenario that favors your opinion, but doesn't align with the facts as they pertain to the Edsalls?

 

[UConnNick]

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.

It's no "plan on paper" just to satisfy this one particular concern. The UConn AD is the head of the entire athletic dept. He or she can hire and fire anybody in their department, in their sole discretion. Benedict can fire any assistant coach with or without the blessing of the head coach of that particular sport. They didn't create some artificial hierarchy of authority just to satisfy the state ethics board on this one hire. That's the way it always has been and always will be. Benedict reports directly only to the president of the university.

Yes, it's quite a stretch to make it look plausible that Randy has no authority over his son's duties and performance. Clearly he does. Also, the university should never have consulted with him as though they were asking for a suggestion as to what Corey's salary offer should be, which I believe is documented in a couple of e-mails. They should have left Randy completely out of the entire hiring process once they had established that they wanted Corey to join the staff. Ultimately that may be what hangs the university in this situation. It was a big mistake, although they may have thought they had already satisfied any concerns with the ethics board.

 

[kibblesnbits]

It is? Edsall got a $50,000 payment outside of the agreed upon terms in the contract? Edsall benefited financially after he agreed to the terms of the contract and before he started work? How, exactly?

Since that isn't what happened, it's not exactly what UConn did, and your scenario doesn't work. Why not just argue the merits of the case as it is, rather than fabricating a scenario that favors your opinion, but doesn't align with the facts as they pertain to the Edsalls?

You're mixing two separate scenarios. I never claimed that Edsall received $50K or that such a hypothetical matched what Edsall did. I used that to show why the ethics board would have a broad definition of what constitutes an employee. Otherwise, just give kickbacks to employees after they've accepted the job and before they start work without recourse.

The scenario that matches what UConn did is having an agency head such as the commissioner of revenue services hire his kid for a deputy position but arrange to
have the governor or his designee be nominally responsible for being his supervisor. Those are appointed positions that serve at the will of the governor and are covered by the ethics laws, just as UConn's coaches serve at the will of the AD and are also covered by them. If you don't like it, campaign to change the law.

 

[kibblesnbits]

It's no "plan on paper" just to satisfy this one particular concern. The UConn AD is the head of the entire athletic dept. He or she can hire and fire anybody in their department, in their sole discretion. Benedict can fire any assistant coach with or without the blessing of the head coach of that particular sport. They didn't create some artificial hierarchy of authority just to satisfy the state ethics board on this one hire. That's the way it always has been and always will be. Benedict reports directly only to the president of the university.

Yes, it's quite a stretch to make it look plausible that Randy has no authority over his son's duties and performance. Clearly he does. Also, the university should never have consulted with him as though they were asking for a suggestion as to what Corey's salary offer should be, which I believe is documented in a couple of e-mails. They should have left Randy completely out of the entire hiring process once they had established that they wanted Corey to join the staff. Ultimately that may be what hangs the university in this situation. It was a big mistake, although they may have thought they had already satisfied any concerns with the ethics board.

Are you claiming that the AD writes annual performance reviews for all assistant coaches? Does the AD attend position group meetings to evaluate those coaches? Does the AD schedule monthly performance review meetings with every assistant coach? These and other things were in the plan that was submitted to the ethics board to establish that the head coach was not the supervisor for his son. If they are not SOP (and I don't believe they are), then there was a plan on paper just to satisfy this one particular concern.

 

[BlueMAB]

UConn didn't handle this situation entirely correctly, there were clearly things they could have done better, but it does appear as if they were acting in good faith. I haven't read all of the documents, and if my "facts" are wrong please correct them. That said, if UConn indeed went to the ethics board prior to hiring Corey in an attempt to do this the right way, that act in and of itself should show that the hiring was done in good faith, and not in an unethical manner. How about a little common sense? If the state is concerned about unethical behavior, as they should be, they should carve out exceptions for people who attempt to be proactive, transparent, and are behaving in a manner that is common for the industry in which they are working.

 

[BlueMAB]

You're mixing two separate scenarios. I never claimed that Edsall received $50K or that such a hypothetical matched what Edsall did. I used that to show why the ethics board would have a broad definition of what constitutes an employee. Otherwise, just give kickbacks to employees after they've accepted the job and before they start work without recourse.

The scenario that matches what UConn did is having an agency head such as the commissioner of revenue services hire his kid for a deputy position but arrange to
have the governor or his designee be nominally responsible for being his supervisor. Those are appointed positions that serve at the will of the governor and are covered by the ethics laws, just as UConn's coaches serve at the will of the AD and are also covered by them. If you don't like it, campaign to change the law.

Well, you used the phrase "that's exactly what UConn did".

In your scenario you would want a broad definition of employee because it involves illegal (not just unethical) behavior that financially benefits the person breaking the law. It's not the same thing. Edsall's behavior was not illegal, only arguably unethical, he was transparent about his intention when he negotiated for the job, and he didn't benefit financially. None of that is the case in your scenario, so it shouldn't be viewed through the same lens because the behavior is strikingly dissimilar.

Again comparing political appointees is a different scenario. Edsall isn't a political appointee, neither is AD Dave. They were hired. Edsall gave terms for his employment. One of those terms was he wanted his son on the staff. That's common in college sports, which operates under an entirely different structure than political appointees. It's not apples to apples.

 

[huskymedic]

UConn didn't handle this situation entirely correctly, there were clearly things they could have done better, but it does appear as if they were acting in good faith. I haven't read all of the documents, and if my "facts" are wrong please correct them. That said, if UConn indeed went to the ethics board prior to hiring Corey in an attempt to do this the right way, that act in and of itself should show that the hiring was done in good faith, and not in an unethical manner. How about a little common sense? If the state is concerned about unethical behavior, as they should be, they should carve out exceptions for people who attempt to be proactive, transparent, and are behaving in a manner that is common for the industry in which they are working.

About that transparent piece... Read page 2: http://www.ct.gov/ethics/lib/ethics/advisory_opinions/2017/draft_advisory_opinion_no._2017-2.pdf . It was framed as if they were hiring a professor (I get why they didn't spill the beans on the who's but...). Common sense and State/Federal government findings don't always align like we would like them to.

I hope they follow through on the appeal to Superior Court and at the same time work to fix this legislatively before December.

 

[UConnNick]

Are you claiming that the AD writes annual performance reviews for all assistant coaches? Does the AD attend position group meetings to evaluate those coaches? Does the AD schedule monthly performance review meetings with every assistant coach? These and other things were in the plan that was submitted to the ethics board to establish that the head coach was not the supervisor for his son. If they are not SOP (and I don't believe they are), then there was a plan on paper just to satisfy this one particular concern.

None of that changes the fact that the AD always has full authority over hiring and firing decisions within the entire athletic dept. They just spelled out some procedures that illustrate that point.

I'm sure it normally doesn't work that way in practice either, but that doesn't matter. None of it is any different than what would apply to any other employee of the athletic dept.

 

[BlueMAB]

About that transparent piece... Read page 2: http://www.ct.gov/ethics/lib/ethics/advisory_opinions/2017/draft_advisory_opinion_no._2017-2.pdf . (I get why they didn't spill the beans on the who's but...). It was framed as if they were hiring a professor.

Then they screwed the pooch with that move.

 

[kibblesnbits]

UConn didn't handle this situation entirely correctly, there were clearly things they could have done better, but it does appear as if they were acting in good faith. I haven't read all of the documents, and if my "facts" are wrong please correct them. That said, if UConn indeed went to the ethics board prior to hiring Corey in an attempt to do this the right way, that act in and of itself should show that the hiring was done in good faith, and not in an unethical manner. How about a little common sense? If the state is concerned about unethical behavior, as they should be, they should carve out exceptions for people who attempt to be proactive, transparent, and are behaving in a manner that is common for the industry in which they are working.

I think UConn got a little too cute when they reached out to the ethics board and made the following statement: "In addition, I know from prior guidance that it would be permissible for the family member to work within the same department, if they are not reporting, either directly or indirectly, to their family member."

By that point they clearly had decided to create the purported structure in which the assistant coach (who, by definition, assists the coach in directing the team) would report outside the traditional head coach/assistant coach roles. Yet, how can that be? The definition of "to report" is "to be responsible to". Does anyone believe that an assistant coach is not "directly or indirectly" responsible to the head coach? Instead, UConn made it sound like there were too independent positions (say coach of one sport and trainer of another) within the span of control of the same department. If they really wanted a complete answer they should have come clean and said, "This is what we have in mind."

 

[kibblesnbits]

Well, you used the phrase "that's exactly what UConn did".

In your scenario you would want a broad definition of employee because it involves illegal (not just unethical) behavior that financially benefits the person breaking the law. It's not the same thing. Edsall's behavior was not illegal, only arguably unethical, he was transparent about his intention when he negotiated for the job, and he didn't benefit financially. None of that is the case in your scenario, so it shouldn't be viewed through the same lens because the behavior is strikingly dissimilar.

Again comparing political appointees is a different scenario. Edsall isn't a political appointee, neither is AD Dave. They were hired. Edsall gave terms for his employment. One of those terms was he wanted his son on the staff. That's common in college sports, which operates under an entirely different structure than political appointees. It's not apples to apples.

1) You are taking a statement from a discussion about the second scenario and claiming it was about a different scenario presented much earlier in the thread. It wasn't.
2) I don't disagree that political appointees and football coaches are different. Unfortunately, state law makes no such distinction - they are both management in a state enterprise and are not supposed to hire relatives to work for them. That's why the best chance to get this resolved to everyone's benefit is to change the law.

 

[BlueMAB]

1) You are taking a statement from a discussion about the second scenario and claiming it was about a different scenario presented much earlier in the thread. It wasn't.

Huh?

Your definition of employee argument is off base for all the reasons I stated, but if you want to keep riding with it go ahead.

The law does need to be changed, but that doesn't change the fact that the board's opinion isn't also flawed.