Message to all Griz donors withholding their donations

[AllWeatherFan]

I'm no attorney, but I'm pretty sure you can't defame somebody with silence.

 

[AZGrizFan]

You are back to posting at a low level again...judgeAZ. Comparing a deputy to UM's Athletic Director continually in the public eye and media....not so similar.

Why? They're both funded with taxpayer dollars. Using his logic, they're exactly the same thing. And in NEITHER case are we entitled to know anything HR-related.

AZGriz might want to rethink his response on this. A Judge in Ravalli County recently determined the public had the right to know with regard to the firing of a deputy county attorney last summer, and Lake County recently had a lawsuit filed against it and a legislative hearing is scheduled in Helena for next week with reagard to HR actions (both taken and not taken) by the Sherriff of Lake County.

Any governmental official's discretion in his actions only goes so far, and there's a lot of people out there who feel pretty strongly that Engstrom abused his. I've had one person analogize the current situation to UM firing Hannon in the early 70s hoping the problems would go away, only to have it blow up, 6 UM officials getting indicted including Swarthout, UM football taking a dozen years to recover, and a general consensus by some people that Hannon should never have been fired in the first place.

Engstrom said the school needed a change in leadership. I wonder if, with both retaining counsel, Engstrom was advised to keep a tight lip until any legal proceeding was completed?

Nah, that can't be it. :lol:

 

[mcg]

Why? They're both funded with taxpayer dollars. Using his logic, they're exactly the same thing. And in NEITHER case are we entitled to know anything HR-related.

AZGriz might want to rethink his response on this. A Judge in Ravalli County recently determined the public had the right to know with regard to the firing of a deputy county attorney last summer, and Lake County recently had a lawsuit filed against it and a legislative hearing is scheduled in Helena for next week with reagard to HR actions (both taken and not taken) by the Sherriff of Lake County.

Any governmental official's discretion in his actions only goes so far, and there's a lot of people out there who feel pretty strongly that Engstrom abused his. I've had one person analogize the current situation to UM firing Hannon in the early 70s hoping the problems would go away, only to have it blow up, 6 UM officials getting indicted including Swarthout, UM football taking a dozen years to recover, and a general consensus by some people that Hannon should never have been fired in the first place.

Engstrom said the school needed a change in leadership. I wonder if, with both retaining counsel, Engstrom was advised to keep a tight lip until any legal proceeding was completed?

Nah, that can't be it. :lol:

I think Dr. Engstrom said all he wanted to say; change in leadership, contracts not renewed. No matter what else he might have said somebody will be unhappy, so why bother?

 

[putter]

Why? They're both funded with taxpayer dollars. Using his logic, they're exactly the same thing. And in NEITHER case are we entitled to know anything HR-related.

AZGriz might want to rethink his response on this. A Judge in Ravalli County recently determined the public had the right to know with regard to the firing of a deputy county attorney last summer, and Lake County recently had a lawsuit filed against it and a legislative hearing is scheduled in Helena for next week with reagard to HR actions (both taken and not taken) by the Sherriff of Lake County.

Any governmental official's discretion in his actions only goes so far, and there's a lot of people out there who feel pretty strongly that Engstrom abused his. I've had one person analogize the current situation to UM firing Hannon in the early 70s hoping the problems would go away, only to have it blow up, 6 UM officials getting indicted including Swarthout, UM football taking a dozen years to recover, and a general consensus by some people that Hannon should never have been fired in the first place.

Engstrom said the school needed a change in leadership. I wonder if, with both retaining counsel, Engstrom was advised to keep a tight lip until any legal proceeding was completed?

Nah, that can't be it. :lol:

Yea, AZ...it seems pretty simple yet people are still upset that he has not said anything.... :?:

 

[PlayerRep]

I'm no attorney, but I'm pretty sure you can't defame somebody with silence.

The manner in which Pflu was terminated is likely to impact his ability to get a job. Employers will wonder why he got fired. There will be suspicion that there are unknown things lurking.

I'm thinking you are probably correct that there isn't a concept of defamation by silence, but I don't know.

The better argument would be that the termination was wrongful and has caused damages. It was wrongful because there were no valid reasons for the termination and no valid reasons were given, and it was caused widespread suspicion that Pflu did something horribly wrong or that there is bad information that may come out in the future. Note that Pflu and O'Day weren't given any reasons, other than change of leadership, either. So, Pflu isn't able to tell a prospective employer the real reasons, nor is able to have the prospective employer contact the university for an explanation.

 

[Cats2506]

I'm no attorney, but I'm pretty sure you can't defame somebody with silence.

The manner in which Pflu was terminated is likely to impact his ability to get a job. Employers will wonder why he got fired. There will be suspicion that there are unknown things lurking.

I'm thinking you are probably correct that there isn't a concept of defamation by silence, but I don't know.

The better argument would be that the termination was wrongful and has caused damages. It was wrongful because there were no valid reasons for the termination and no valid reasons were given, and it was caused widespread suspicion that Pflu did something horribly wrong or that there is bad information that may come out in the future. Note that Pflu and O'Day weren't given any reasons, other than change of leadership, either. So, Pflu isn't able to tell a prospective employer the real reasons, nor is able to have the prospective employer contact the university for an explanation.

\
Pflu's ability to get a job will be more impacted by his track record of not showing leadership to HC a program, he is a career assistant for a reason

 

[PlayerRep]

I'm no attorney, but I'm pretty sure you can't defame somebody with silence.

The manner in which Pflu was terminated is likely to impact his ability to get a job. Employers will wonder why he got fired. There will be suspicion that there are unknown things lurking.

I'm thinking you are probably correct that there isn't a concept of defamation by silence, but I don't know.

The better argument would be that the termination was wrongful and has caused damages. It was wrongful because there were no valid reasons for the termination and no valid reasons were given, and it was caused widespread suspicion that Pflu did something horribly wrong or that there is bad information that may come out in the future. Note that Pflu and O'Day weren't given any reasons, other than change of leadership, either. So, Pflu isn't able to tell a prospective employer the real reasons, nor is able to have the prospective employer contact the university for an explanation.

\
Pflu's ability to get a job will be more impacted by his track record of not showing leadership to HC a program, he is a career assistant for a reason

Getting a job as an asst will also be impacted, and probably already has been.

 

[mcg]

I'm no attorney, but I'm pretty sure you can't defame somebody with silence.

The manner in which Pflu was terminated is likely to impact his ability to get a job. Employers will wonder why he got fired. There will be suspicion that there are unknown things lurking.

I'm thinking you are probably correct that there isn't a concept of defamation by silence, but I don't know.

The better argument would be that the termination was wrongful and has caused damages. It was wrongful because there were no valid reasons for the termination and no valid reasons were given, and it was caused widespread suspicion that Pflu did something horribly wrong or that there is bad information that may come out in the future. Note that Pflu and O'Day weren't given any reasons, other than change of leadership, either. So, Pflu isn't able to tell a prospective employer the real reasons, nor is able to have the prospective employer contact the university for an explanation.

The problem (or challenge) with that argument is that you'd have to establish that Pflu was terminated. The University's position will be that his contract simply wasn't renewed, with no material comment as to why. This is an argument that could find it's way to court, but I doubt it will. Pflu's immediate post non-renewal interview was all about establishing he had three years left on his contract. I suspect his counsel is more interested in arguing about how much time was left on the contract, rather than wrongful termination.

 

[Hammer]

I'm no attorney, but I'm pretty sure you can't defame somebody with silence.

The manner in which Pflu was terminated is likely to impact his ability to get a job. Employers will wonder why he got fired. There will be suspicion that there are unknown things lurking.

I'm thinking you are probably correct that there isn't a concept of defamation by silence, but I don't know.

The better argument would be that the termination was wrongful and has caused damages. It was wrongful because there were no valid reasons for the termination and no valid reasons were given, and it was caused widespread suspicion that Pflu did something horribly wrong or that there is bad information that may come out in the future. Note that Pflu and O'Day weren't given any reasons, other than change of leadership, either. So, Pflu isn't able to tell a prospective employer the real reasons, nor is able to have the prospective employer contact the university for an explanation.

\
Pflu's ability to get a job will be more impacted by his track record of not showing leadership to HC a program, he is a career assistant for a reason

Yeah that career assistant beat your kittys within an inch of their lives last Nov. You remember that one, don't you? Your self proclaimed "Passing of the Torch" game. From what I remember is was just a good old fashioned ass whoopin!!

 

[PlayerRep]

I'm no attorney, but I'm pretty sure you can't defame somebody with silence.

The manner in which Pflu was terminated is likely to impact his ability to get a job. Employers will wonder why he got fired. There will be suspicion that there are unknown things lurking.

I'm thinking you are probably correct that there isn't a concept of defamation by silence, but I don't know.

The better argument would be that the termination was wrongful and has caused damages. It was wrongful because there were no valid reasons for the termination and no valid reasons were given, and it was caused widespread suspicion that Pflu did something horribly wrong or that there is bad information that may come out in the future. Note that Pflu and O'Day weren't given any reasons, other than change of leadership, either. So, Pflu isn't able to tell a prospective employer the real reasons, nor is able to have the prospective employer contact the university for an explanation.

The problem (or challenge) with that argument is that you'd have to establish that Pflu was terminated. The University's position will be that his contract simply wasn't renewed, with no material comment as to why. This is an argument that could find it's way to court, but I doubt it will. Pflu's immediate post non-renewal interview was all about establishing he had three years left on his contract. I suspect his counsel is more interested in arguing about how much time was left on the contract, rather than wrongful termination.

It is absolutely clear that Pflu was terminated. If the contract had not been renewed, Pflu would still be coaching. A court would laugh anyone out of court if they tried to argue that these guys weren't terminated. The contract says that he will be the football coach. I assume his lawyer will argue the extension aspect and wrongful termination. Again, as has been stated in other threads, the recent MT Sup Ct case specifically says that the type of provision that the university relied on for termination without cause, results in the employment situation reverting to and being governed by the MT wrongful termination statute. By not providing reasons and trying to terminate for cause, UM may inadvertently gotten itself into a position where 4 years of salary/damages and punitive damages can be argued. An eventual settlement might be a payment of the remaining salary under a 3-year contract. Speaking only for me.

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Anyone outside the Griz program knows exactly why Pflu was fired.......most of you just wont accept it.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[granitegriz]

There are a lot of armchair QBs and attorneys on this board. :lol: The few and the proud. PR is right on this...take it to the bank.

 

[cclarkblues]

Anyone outside the Griz program knows exactly why Pflu was fired.......most of you just wont accept it.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Pflu was fired because he chews gum and didn't win a NC. O'Day was fired because he comes from Irish stock.

 

[Growler1]

Hey Growler - just because I have chosen to put my annual contribution to athletics (which is significant), on hold until I get some REAL answers, does NOT make me any less of a Griz fan than you. Somehow, in your demented world you think it does, which is what any dork like you should say.

Wow, thanks for the apartment building you donated that has probably been in your family, passed onto you, for a generation or two

You see, I can make stupid comments about you that I know nothing about, just like you can about me....

My money is 100% self-made, so you get off the dead horse! You are still a bandwagon fan. We don't your money, because it comes with qualifications and demands. Shove it, as far as I am concerned!

 

[Ursa Major]

That's funny!!

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Hey Growler - just because I have chosen to put my annual contribution to athletics (which is significant), on hold until I get some REAL answers, does NOT make me any less of a Griz fan than you. Somehow, in your demented world you think it does, which is what any dork like you should say.

Wow, thanks for the apartment building you donated that has probably been in your family, passed onto you, for a generation or two

You see, I can make stupid comments about you that I know nothing about, just like you can about me....

My money is 100% self-made, so you get off the dead horse! You are still a bandwagon fan. We don't your money, because it comes with qualifications and demands. Shove it, as far as I am concerned!

With all that money you think you would get your ass fixed...........try Tucks Medicated Pads....I like their commercials.

 

[argh!]

sunshine - you have self-made money?? can i borrow your printer?

 

[granitegriz]

Remainder trust? Sounds like UM gets the remainder after Growler drinks and gambles the bulk of the assets away. :?

 

[mtgrizrule]

PR, thanks for the legal POV, well put too. I am hearing so many stories from so many people, online, and elsewhere. I have no idea the reasons why, but am really putting some stock into a how a few Pflu (try saying that fast 10 times.) backers are actually pretty supportive of what has gone on, nor bad mouthing the outcome.

One example is Alpha, he was as much on Pflu's bandwagon as anyone, and did not waiver. I have a feeling whatever the reasons are, they will be justified. Then again, we may never know, all parties are doing a great job, at keeping things quiet, and close to the vest.

This will drag out for a long while.

 

[WaGriz4life]

Well that's how it works everywhere else. I don't know what world you live in or what college football programs you follow but this is unprecedented. Could you imagine if an SEC school or PAC 12 school fired their Coach and gave no reasons and didnt even have a press conference? I can't

Really? Joe Paterno got fired and Sandusky still hasn't been found guilty. Not so unprecedented.

Don't you think it might be possible that the landscape (and apetite for bad press) has changed just SLIGHTLY in the collegiate sports world in the past 12 months?

Wrong again (unbelievable). Penn State had a press conference the night they fired Joe Paterno and they gave reasons for his firing and even fielded questions that night and in the days following. Engstrom has given no reasons and even told the players on the team that their firings did NOT have to do with the sexual assault investigation. Not even close to the same situation. I'm still waiting for that one example when no press conference was held and no reasons were given. Keep trying.