Foley resigning as VP of External Relations

[tnt]

Spinning "negative" information by any organization and especially by someone antagonistic to the press will always be perceived as "cover up (or worse)

 

[PlayerRep]

Editing a report to get it accurate and comply with confidentiality obligations is not a cover up. ...

That excuse may apply to them covering up the reference to "athletes" in the report but editing the report to cover up the fact that Pflu was the "gap" is the antithesis of "accurate" and has nothing to do with INTERNAL "confidentiality obligations."

I don't agree. If you say the coach was the gap, then you have identified that athletes, or some athletes, are involved. Actually, the wording of Barz' report about their being a gap in reporting was inaccurate too, as there was no obligation under the rules and procedures at that time for anything to be reported.

Also, if someone calls to say we're giving you a heads up that we've looked at what we believe is a false report, or an allegation that we're not pursuing for lack of evidence--and where minimum information is provided--would you really think the matter was a big deal? And again, since the woman hadn't gone to the university to complain, I don't believe the university could have done anything about it, could they? You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[PlayerRep]

Spinning "negative" information by any organization and especially by someone antagonistic to the press will always be perceived as "cover up (or worse)

Spinning negative information is what public relations has become in recent decades. I think it's funny that some of you think spinning shouldn't be part of public relations. It's a large part of it.

 

[tnt]

Spinning "negative" information by any organization and especially by someone antagonistic to the press will always be perceived as "cover up (or worse)

Spinning negative information is what public relations has become in recent decades. I think it's funny that some of you think spinning shouldn't be part of public relations. It's a large part of it.

Not necessarily, but if you are going to spin it, you better be good at it.........(and had better be liked by the press or they will tear you apart and possibly hurt some innocent people along the way)

 

[garizzalies]

the wording of Barz' report about their being a gap in reporting was inaccurate too, as there was no obligation under the rules and procedures at that time for anything to be reported.

that's why she called it a "gap." If there was a written requirement, she would have called it a "failure" to report.

 

[UMGriz75]

the wording of Barz' report about their being a gap in reporting was inaccurate too, as there was no obligation under the rules and procedures at that time for anything to be reported.

that's why she called it a "gap." If there was a written requirement, she would have called it a "failure" to report.

That's a key point.

Engstrom/Aronofsky were in place for two years as the "new management." Sexual misconduct and reporting are a key administrative and management issue these days in any setting, and need to have firm, clear, direct policies in place that everyone knows and understands.

That's not the AD's responsibility nor is it the Coaches.

Ultimately, it is Engstrom's, and apparently he hadn't gotten "around to it."

Aronofsky's job was to advise Engstrom on that. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

But, ultimately, by taking the job, Engstrom represented he was capable of the necessary level of management skills, and ultimately, harassment and reporting policies on a campus of 15,000 kids living in co-ed dorms is ... "up there" on the list.

It's no excuse that UM has only one-third the rate of reported sexual assaults as practically any other peer university, or that Missoula has a lower rate of such reports than Kalispell, Hamilton, or Bozeman.

For staff charged with implementing policies, it is no measure of leadership that they have to "guess" at what those policies might be, and then get fired for "guessing" wrong.

 

[tnt]

the wording of Barz' report about their being a gap in reporting was inaccurate too, as there was no obligation under the rules and procedures at that time for anything to be reported.

that's why she called it a "gap." If there was a written requirement, she would have called it a "failure" to report.

That's a key point.

Engstrom/Aronofsky were in place for two years as the "new management." Sexual misconduct and reporting are a key administrative and management issue these days in any setting, and need to have firm, clear, direct policies in place that everyone knows and understands.

That's not the AD's responsibility nor is it the Coaches.

Ultimately, it is Engstrom's, and apparently he hadn't gotten "around to it."

Aronofsky's job was to advise Engstrom on that. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

But, ultimately, by taking the job, Engstrom represented he was capable of the necessary level of management skills, and ultimately, harassment and reporting policies on a campus of 15,000 kids living in co-ed dorms is ... "up there" on the list.

It's no excuse that UM has only one-third the rate of reported sexual assaults as practically any other peer university, or that Missoula has a lower rate of such reports than Kalispell, Hamilton, or Bozeman.

For staff charged with implementing policies, it is no measure of leadership that they have to "guess" at what those policies might be, and then get fired for "guessing" wrong.

We have no clue that thats why they were let go, it could have been the culmination of many little things. I would have thought common sense (in leaders) was part of the job requirements.

Failure to report yet another incident in an already escalating situation could only be an attempt at a cover up (CYA type cover up) or depending on "I wasn't told I had to" shows an inability to lead. Either one is concerning.

Failure for a supervisor to impress the departmen/team was walking on thin ground is another.

 

[PlayerRep]

the wording of Barz' report about their being a gap in reporting was inaccurate too, as there was no obligation under the rules and procedures at that time for anything to be reported.

that's why she called it a "gap." If there was a written requirement, she would have called it a "failure" to report.

That's a key point.

Engstrom/Aronofsky were in place for two years as the "new management." Sexual misconduct and reporting are a key administrative and management issue these days in any setting, and need to have firm, clear, direct policies in place that everyone knows and understands.

That's not the AD's responsibility nor is it the Coaches.

Ultimately, it is Engstrom's, and apparently he hadn't gotten "around to it."

Aronofsky's job was to advise Engstrom on that. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

But, ultimately, by taking the job, Engstrom represented he was capable of the necessary level of management skills, and ultimately, harassment and reporting policies on a campus of 15,000 kids living in co-ed dorms is ... "up there" on the list.

It's no excuse that UM has only one-third the rate of reported sexual assaults as practically any other peer university, or that Missoula has a lower rate of such reports than Kalispell, Hamilton, or Bozeman.

For staff charged with implementing policies, it is no measure of leadership that they have to "guess" at what those policies might be, and then get fired for "guessing" wrong.

We have no clue that thats why they were let go, it could have been the culmination of many little things. I would have thought common sense (in leaders) was part of the job requirements.

Failure to report yet another incident in an already escalating situation could only be an attempt at a cover up (CYA type cover up) or depending on "I wasn't told I had to" shows an inability to lead. Either one is concerning.

Failure for a supervisor to impress the departmen/team was walking on thin ground is another.

What do you mean by "failure to report yet another incident in an already escalating situation"?

 

[tnt]

PR

Are you that naive, or do you just hope if you are contrarian enough, the entire country will wake up following a snow storm from the good witch of the North and think this is all a dream

 

[PlayerRep]

PR

Are you that naive, or do you just hope if you are contrarian enough, the entire country will wake up following a snow storm from the good witch of the North and think this is all a dream

I repeat: What do you mean by "failure to report yet another incident in an already escalating situation"?

I don't understand what you were intending to say. Can you explain what you were trying to say?

 

[tnt]

Pretty simple...

If Pflu didn't have brains enough after the frat parities,curb stompings, duis (reduced to stupidity), leg biting, cops visiting the party, incidents that when informed of possible "gang rape/bang" rumors to say "Uh boss, we could have a problem" because there wasn't a rule that said he had to, then he didn't have the brains to be a head coach at Montana. A complete fool would have known that if the cops were involved AT ALL, someone somewhere would be asking questions. It turned out to be the Missoulian, but even another campus rumor would have been bad.







But then maybe he did and the stupid one was JOD who didn't have brains enough to tell someone

Maybe he did and it was Foley, or any of the half dozen people now gone, retired or reassigned.

Maybe they all knew but blamed it on JOD and Pflu and as a result Engstrom fired everyone just to get the right person????

 

[PlayerRep]

Pretty simple...

If Pflu didn't have brains enough after the frat parities. curb. stompin dui (reduced to stupidity), leg biting, cops visiting the party incident when informed of possible "gang rape/bang" rumors to say "Uh boss, we may have a problem" because there wasn't a rule that says he had to, then didn't have brains to be a head coach at Montana. A complete fool would have known that if the cops were involved AT ALL, someone somewhere would be asking questions. It turned out to be the Missoulian, but even a campus rumor would havwe been bad.

The non-reported incident occurred in Dec. 2010--a full one-year prior to the Dec. 2011 sexual assault stuff started getting reported in the Missoulian. The Missoulian didn't report anything on the Dec. 2010 matter until the woman went to the Missoulian in Dec. 2011. The Dec. 2011 matter and the JJ matter were reported almost immediately to Engstrom. The Donaldson matter effectively reported itself.

So you're complaining only about a matter, from Dec. 2010, that actually turned out not to be true and didn't result in any prosecution and any player being sanctioned (according to egriz posts) by the university? This is how the former prosecutor's blog site describted several of these allegations as of yesterday: "So why can the Missoulian publish allegations labeling legally innocent people as ‘sexual offenders’ because a couple of disgruntled young adults, who get to remain anonymous, spin a good story to a reporter too lazy to check the facts." "I assure you that the foundation for the string of ‘sexual scandal’ articles is not based in fact."

Man, you are really stretching.

 

[tnt]

Pretty simple...

If Pflu didn't have brains enough after the frat parities. curb. stompin dui (reduced to stupidity), leg biting, cops visiting the party incident when informed of possible "gang rape/bang" rumors to say "Uh boss, we may have a problem" because there wasn't a rule that says he had to, then didn't have brains to be a head coach at Montana. A complete fool would have known that if the cops were involved AT ALL, someone somewhere would be asking questions. It turned out to be the Missoulian, but even a campus rumor would havwe been bad.

The non-reported incident occurred in Dec. 2010--a full one-year prior to the Dec. 2011 sexual assault stuff started getting reported in the Missoulian. The Missoulian didn't report anything on the Dec. 2010 matter until the woman went to the Missoulian in Dec. 2011. The Dec. 2011 matter and the JJ matter were reported almost immediately to Engstrom. The Donaldson matter effectively reported itself.

So you're complaining only about a matter, from Dec. 2010, that actually turned out not to be true and didn't result in any prosecution and any player being sanctioned (according to egriz posts) by the university? This is how the former prosecutor's blog site describted several of these allegations as of yesterday: "So why can the Missoulian publish allegations labeling legally innocent people as ‘sexual offenders’ because a couple of disgruntled young adults, who get to remain anonymous, spin a good story to a reporter too lazy to check the facts." "I assure you that the foundation for the string of ‘sexual scandal’ articles is not based in fact."

Man, you are really stretching.

We are talking about a failure in public relations and communication. I'm finding it hard to believe you find it a success. "The innocents" (even those referred to in the since taken down blog) were a victim of this failure. Even if Pflu had reported what he knew, I'm not sure Foley wouldn't have muffed it in his attemp to protect the university. But then a fair number of folks went to prison in Watergate in their attempt to protect the president. As I recall a more recent incident where a president was impeached was not because he had an affair in the oval office (hell Roosevelt died with his mistress in bed with him) it was because he tried to "protect his office" with his ever famous I didn't have sex with that woman.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Just so I understand, are you two saying you don't agree with each other?

 

[tnt]

Just so I understand, are you two saying you don't agree with each other?

Actually I thionk we do agree that the kids got the dirty end of the stick. he blames the missoulian, I blame the adults at the University.

 

[garizzalies]

The Missoulian didn't report anything on the Dec. 2010 matter until the woman went to the Missoulian in Dec. 2011.

you seem to be faulting the missoulian for not reporting on a matter that Pflu first failed to report(?).

here is one of my biggest complaints: if Pflu heard about this on the street, then maybe he doesn't have an obligation to look into it. But when the cops contact him directly about it, he should have sent it up the flagpole (with or without a written requirement to do so) and maybe we could have gotten out ahead of this shitstorm. Instead, it festered for a year. This is one of several f-ups IMO that show incompetence and a weird relationship between the football program and the rest of the community (e.g., walking accused players to law offices, showing pics of bite marks, being contacted directly from the cops, [and the MPD] handing out propaganda re false rape accusations). I realize none of those events are per se improper but they create a horrible perception of a cover up and preferential treatment, which is what the job "External Relations" is all about, right?

 

[PlayerRep]

Just so I understand, are you two saying you don't agree with each other?

Actually, I can't understand what he's saying much of the time, so I don't know whether we agree or disagree. I'm guessing we don't agree. Do you understand what he's trying to say?

 

[PlayerRep]

The Missoulian didn't report anything on the Dec. 2010 matter until the woman went to the Missoulian in Dec. 2011.

you seem to be faulting the missoulian for not reporting on a matter that Pflu first failed to report(?).

here is one of my biggest complaints: if Pflu heard about this on the street, then maybe he doesn't have an obligation to look into it. But when the cops contact him directly about it, he should have sent it up the flagpole (with or without a written requirement to do so) and maybe we could have gotten out ahead of this shitstorm. Instead, it festered for a year. This is one of several f-ups IMO that show incompetence and a weird relationship between the football program and the rest of the community (e.g., walking accused players to law offices, showing pics of bite marks, being contacted directly from the cops, [and the MPD] handing out propaganda re false rape accusations). I realize none of those events are per se improper but they create a horrible perception of a cover up and preferential treatment, which is what the job "External Relations" is all about, right?

Nope, wasn't faulting the Missoulian on this. Was just pointing out the timeline to you. You cited multiple events, all but one of which occurred before Pflu learned in Dec. 2010 of this incident, and tried to use those events to fault Pflu. I pointed out that those events occurred after Pflu learned the the Dec. 2010 matter.

How did this fester for a year? Absolutely nothing occurred for a year, until the woman went to the Missoulian. Then, the police looked at the matter again, and declined to pursue it (presumably for lack of evidence again), and the university panel voted unanimously against the woman.

How is something preferential treatment or cover up if the police conclude there is nothing to pursue, and the accuser doesn't complain to the university?

I assume Pflu did not know the accuser's name, as I doubt the police would provide that information (and that wouldn't be appropriate). I believe the Missoulian said that the accuser dropped out of school. So, let's assume Pflu reports the matter to O'Day and he reports to the university. They don't know her name, and she's actually not in school the next semester. Let's assume the university somehow gets her name. Would it be legal or appropriate for the school to contact her, when she specifically had not gone to the university? I don't believe it would be. Okay, let's assume the school goes ahead and contacts her--after perhaps hearing what the guys told the university, and perhaps after seeing the supposed video. Do you not think the woman would have been horrified to have the university contact her, especially in this circumstance? Isn't she entitled to her privacy?

 

[garizzalies]

like i said, i realize there's an explanation for all the events, but the public only cares about the perception. you keep saying this or that was "not a big deal" but they all added up to a big deal. it almost seems like the reason Foley was re-assigned instead of fired is because he was good at his job, maybe a little too good.

and who said anything about contacting the girl? funny your mind goes there. i was thinking more along the lines of disciplining the players not attempting to silence the girl.

 

[PlayerRep]

like i said, i realize there's an explanation for all the events, but the public only cares about the perception. you keep saying this or that was "not a big deal" but they all added up to a big deal. it almost seems like the reason Foley was re-assigned instead of fired is because he was good at his job, maybe a little too good.

and who said anything about contacting the girl? funny your mind goes there. i was thinking more along the lines of disciplining the players not attempting to silence the girl.

The players were disciplined. It says that in the Barz report.