State Ethics Office Rules Corey Edsall Can Coach Only This Year At UConn; Ethics Laws Broken | Page 8 | The Boneyard

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
HCRE is under paid by today's market and his son Corey is as well. Not sure why those in the "know" didn't take this into consideration. Then again this is the state of small time thinking
 
UConnSportsGuy said:
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?:rolleyes:
Expand ...

Good points - I could only imagine Jim - we would still be watching the Utube video now LOL!
This is beyond ridiculous and should be treated that way rather than in the weeds rebuttals.
 
kibblesnbits said:
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.
Expand ...

Got to call BS on that - after losing GE and Aetna has Malloy fired the Commissioner of Economic Developmemt or his whole cabinet for making it such a lousy business environment -I think not!
If a football coach was ranked 48th out of 50 would he be fired ?
 
Chief00 said:
Got to call BS on that - after losing GE and Aetna has Malloy fired the Commissioner of Economic Developmemt or his whole cabinet for making it such a lousy business environment -I think not!
If a football coach was ranked 48th out of 50 would he be fired ?
Expand ...

It really doesn't matter whether you don't like it and think the situations are not comparable, they are legally and you can't wish that away. Rather than pretend, contact your legislator and tell him you want the law changed to recognize that the circumstances are different. Otherwise, you aren't doing anything to make the situation better.
 
Governor Malloy's agreement with the state employees union says that no state employee can get laid off for 4 years.

So will assistant coaches be guaranteed their job for 4 years? Of course not.
There are a lot of differences. Every season they are in the bullseye based on wins/loses. There is no need for this type of law in this space.
 
Chief00 said:
Governor Malloy's agreement with the state employees union says that no state employee can get laid off for 4 years.

So will assistant coaches be guaranteed their job for 4 years? Of course not.
There are a lot of differences. Every season they are in the bullseye based on wins/loses. There is no need for this type of law in this space.
Expand ...

As noted in a post above:

>>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<<
 
.-.
Chief00 said:
Governor Malloy's agreement with the state employees union says that no state employee can get laid off for 4 years.

So will assistant coaches be guaranteed their job for 4 years? Of course not.
There are a lot of differences. Every season they are in the bullseye based on wins/loses. There is no need for this type of law in this space.
Expand ...

It's a case of first impression in this situation. Apparently no coach at UConn or any other state supported school has ever tried to employ a family member on his or her staff. For that reason, one would hope it will eventually be seen as such, and the legislature will step up and create some kind of modified exception which applies only to coaching staffs at state supported schools. The only thing that makes any of the coaches at UConn state employees is the benefits package they get as part of their compensation. If it weren't for that they technically wouldn't be state employees at all, since they're not being paid with taxpayer dollars.

Considering that we're talking about Connecticut politicians here, I'm not optimistic in anticipation of a good result.
 
UConnNick said:
It's a case of first impression in this situation. Apparently no coach at UConn or any other state supported school has ever tried to employ a family member on his or her staff. For that reason, one would hope it will eventually be seen as such, and the legislature will step up and create some kind of modified exception which applies only to coaching staffs at state supported schools. The only thing that makes any of the coaches at UConn state employees is the benefits package they get as part of their compensation. If it weren't for that they technically wouldn't be state employees at all, since they're not being paid with taxpayer dollars.

Considering that we're talking about Connecticut politicians here, I'm not optimistic in anticipation of a good result.
Expand ...
Yeah, they are 3 weeks over their statutory budget deadline - but the establishment at the Capital are just fine with that.
 
Interesting case from the SEC (see articles below). In the late '90s, two Georgia coaches, Jim Harrick in MBB and Jim Donnan in FB each tried to hire a son as an assistant. Both were denied due to a nepotism policy (yes, in the SEC). After a couple of years as a grad assistant, Donnan's kid was hired to a co-employment situation, with his other (presumably primary) job being a fund-raiser. I don't know how real that development job was or whether there were any other issues (Donnan was fired after that year), but it makes it easier to justify why the primary supervisor is not the head coach. I wonder if Corey could be hired as Director of Social Media for the AD while also serving as an on-field coach? I don't know if that will fly in CT, but it might be worth a shot to give both sides an out.

Georgia Bulldogs hires defensive coordinator from Tennessee | savannahnow.com | Savannah Morning News

Donnan hires son
 
Last edited:
.-.
So is the deal RE's kid can stay this one year then has to be gone next year? Or can he get some BS title next year and continue doing what he was doing this year?
 
SubZero said:
So is the deal RE's kid can stay this one year then has to be gone next year? Or can he get some BS title next year and continue doing what he was doing this year?
Expand ...

He's gone after this year unless: (1) UConn successfully appeals in court; (2) The legislature proposes and passes an exception; or (3) They find another way around the law.

I posted the above case to show that this wasn't unique to little, old, over-regulated Connecticut and that there still may be a way out. In our case, the university tried to do an end run around the nepotism laws without fully disclosing in advance. Not good. However, my guess is that the ethics board also got some blowback (or UConn's friends may create some) and might also be looking for a way out. CT's and Georgia's laws are different, but what worked in one might work in another (like the board they could even cite it as an out-of-state precedent even though it is technically irrelevant). Since Corey has been successful in improving the program's use of social media I just threw out one idea. Just ask first.
 
Just watched Mark Richt HC at Miami talking about having his son on his staff. UCONN needs to make this work. Doesn't seem to be a problem elsewhere. Yes I know Miami is a private school.
 
.-.
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.
 
brasssbonanzaa said:
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.
Expand ...

""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.
 
Jimmy Serrano said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
businesslawyer said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
Excalibur said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
CL82 said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
Excalibur said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
kibblesnbits said:
""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.
Expand ...
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,263
Messages
4,560,486
Members
10,452
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom