Ok there is three problems with your post. First off I don't want UM to go through is so MSU can benefit from it. I would rather have us beat you guys when your at your best. Secondly, Donaldson isnt off the team he is currently suspended. Thirdly, and not last I suspect O'Day and Plflu broke university rules when they disciplined players in 2010 without communicating the incident with higher ups. As far as the third one goes it might have went differently, but that is what the emails suggested anyway.havgrizfan said:
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
President Engstrom on KUFM
- Thread starter goatcreekgriz
- Start date
MooUBaby said:
You are terribly confused with your assumption that having contempt for an incompetent administrator equates with having hate for that individual. Sorry, that dog doesn't hunt, but you did produce a rare light moment on the subject with your dyslexic keyboarding.
George Ferguson
Well-known member
i never said you wanted this all to happen so your team can beat the griz..i wasn't implying that at all actually. i said what i keep seeing from Cat posters is, a lot of talk about the Griz football team and violations, and I'm saying, while yes, personally and probably obviously rules have been broken, THERE IS NO PROOF of that and that's where the frustration with Engstrom comes from at this point in time. And see, that's exactly what I'm talking about, UM'S refusal to be transparent has created so many rumors and inuendos because if you listened and watched Engstrom's higher ed address last week, HE actually said Donaldson has been dismissed from the team.
I understood Engstrom to say that Pflugrad didn't make the right judgement in disciplining players without notifying his superiors..but it wasn't really against policy at the time. He also said multiple times, that he also made mistakes. Seems like if being guilty of making mistakes in judgement is cause for Pflugrad's "contract not be renewed" then perhaps Engstrom's should not be renewed either.
Grizzlies1982
Well-known member
1976griz said:
I think this sizes it up pretty well. Pflu wasn't necessarily "fired for breaking school policy" or NCAA rules as some seem to imply. Instead Pflu's contract simply wasn't renewed. The bar is set far lower for that case than for the first. Coaching is an insecure business. A coach's contract renewal can be denied for virtually any reason the school chooses, including no reason at all.
On the other hand, being a University President is not that insecure of a business. Once in it is rare for them to be let go. So I wouldn't hold my breath for the Board of Regents to fire him. He has taken some heat over the Saudi student, they'll make some policy changes, then it will be forgotten.
:ugeek:
Tokyogriz
Well-known member
Grizzlies1982 said:
1 - Royce Engstroms involvement and lack of it in this complete disaster will NOT BE FORGOTTEN by UM alumns, Fans, and the people of Montana EVER. Many are angry about his horrendous lack of leadership, initiative and his obvious firing of Jim Oday and Robin Pflugrad to cover his own ass in this mess. We will not forget and what we the people of Montana, UM alumns and supporters think DOES MATTER.
2 - If all the happenings of the last year are not enough to question the security of Royce Engstroms job by the Board of Regents then we the people of Montana will have to remedy that situation either through citizen initiative or lawsuits.
A friend of mine who was at the signing of the Montana constitution in the 70s told me they designed the BOR to be a 4th branch of our state goverment. We may need to act as the citizens of this state to reign in the BOR and take back control of our University!
There are many, many upset folks who truely feel Royce Engstrom is the man who needs to take the responsibility and a great deal of the blame for this situation as it is. The loudmoths blathering away on here saying how great Royce is are in fact the actual MINORITY in the real world.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
Tokyogriz said:
If the Missoulian ever gets around to an "analysis," that will be the real story here.
Engstrom, for whatever reasons, wanted to appear "in charge." In commissioning Diane Barz to do an "investigation," he did nothing more than commission the collection of mostly hearsay, of the kind that would always appear damning in nearly any context. That's the nature of hearsay. And, compacting between three and five years of it into one report makes it look like "something that isn't."
Well, Engstrom wanted to "show something," and he did that. He drew attention to something that, growing out of hearsay, "demanded attention." OK, he got it. After flubbing the Saudi student incident -- and claiming that it "was the best" response -- he is starting to feel the heat.
In all of this, the Athletic Department was the ONLY consistent player, imposing sanctions and disciplinary actions on players -- whether or not charges were filed -- simply for being "involved" in any allegation.
Compare and contrast the Athletic Department's consistent imposition of disciplinary measures with that of Engstrom and Couture. The Dean of Students has more authority over student athletes than the coaches do, yet Couture did little although the diversity of his responses was remarkable, ranging from warning the alleged perpetrator to expulsion. Couture's message? Hard to tell. It apparently depends on who you are and what your religion is.
Ultimately, Engstrom did just what he set out to do: attract attention to his leadership. He really thought he could show "the high road" and that he "was in charge."
Yet, that approach backfired completely into a widespread and well-publicized elevation of hearsay into "allegations" into ... as Couture wrongly and stupidly claimed in one email ... it was gang rape "because that's what it was," even though the Missoula PD couldn't get past the voluntary testimony of a key female witness that, in fact, it wasn't; it was far from it and charges were never filed because there was, in fact, no evidence to support those charges. It was an outright libel of the athletes for Couture to make that claim. It was an outrageous slander of the University of Montana by one of its own officers.
Together, Engstrom and Couture have both exercised extremely poor judgment; Engstrom in framing a public forum for hearsay, which is always a dangerous course; Couture for simply fabricating a lie about the players and calling it a truth.
Collecting and disseminating accumulated hearsay under the imprimatur of an "official" proceeding is a tyro's mistake. And that's all that was. It was an extraordinary mis-step. It is difficult to see what Engstrom expected as a result; he appears to have been much more invested in the appearance of "doing something," even if it was guaranteed to produce a veritable lynch mob -- the inevitable reaction to unfiltered hearsay reports.
And yet, as a good example, the Athletic Department, not Couture or Engstrom, imposed disciplinary sanctions on the players involved simply because they had shown poor judgment; but those penalties were imposed no thanks to Barz, Engstrom, or any of the rest of the stampeding herd of self-righteous cows. Indeed, the irony is that in that instance Pflugrad was alleged to have imposed the sanctions on the players WITHOUT having advised Their Majesties in Main Hall regarding allegations which had been shown by independent investigation to be groundless.
To me that is a remarkable spectacle. The Athletic Department appears to have consistently imposed disciplinary measures. Main Hall appears consistent only in flying off in all directions, imposing on accused students wildly disparate and inconsistent treatments, after having drawn attention to ... what?
Over six months later, every allegation dredged up by Barz remains hearsay, despite the heightened attention and focus on them. Indeed, there is a remarkable inability to focus and identify specific wrongs that the University may have done, or alleged crimes that may have been perpetrated, outside of the inevitability of the hearsay culture -- which is the real "culture" that has infected this whole debacle.
The single charge actually brought -- before any of this blew up, notably -- involved a purely personal relationship, in a relationship long predating his college days, with the alleged victim choosing to spend the night at the young man's home. Nothing, so far, to offer a debate about because the details are so personal, but the fact is, the significant details have nothing to do with college, athletics, the teams, the coach, or the AD., nor anything they could do about it. But, typically, the Athletic Department had directly acted against the student-athlete with a complete team suspension, which was appropriate and, again, Engstrom decided he needed to look like he was "in charge" of something even though the Athletic Department had already acted quickly and appropriately.
Remarkably, after all that Engstrom has wrought, there remains a single charge involving sexual assault, a charge unrelated to the accused's college or athletic experience, and for all the tumult, a charge predating whatever it was that Engstrom thought he was going to fix, or expose, or whatever it was that he thought he was doing.
In fact, the single charge involving a sexual charge over the past three years was investigated, the alleged perpetrator charged, and the appropriate suspension immediately imposed by the AD and the Coach.
Everything did, in fact, function as it was supposed to.
If there was more to do, where was Couture? Engstrom? The Saudi episode came afterwards. Their actions there certainly did not show the consistency nor the loyalty to process and justice that the AD and Coach demonstrated; and the Saudi episode involved multiple assaults and violence as well; facts that the Administration chose to treat far differently and more leniently than the Athletic Department treated allegations against team members.
Seven months on into "the scandal," the single sexual assault charge filed was filed before Engstrom decided to "commission a study," before there was a "scandal," nothing has been charged since, and the only practical outcome so far has been the firing of two good men who, in fact, did their jobs and did them well.
mtgrizrule
Well-known member
As time drags on, it is beginning to look like, maybe Engstrom did jump the gun. With all the rumor mongrels on egriz, not one egrizzer, has come up with any legit facts, regarding the firing of Pflu and O'day.
Unless those facts are being saved for legal procedures, which is possible, I am beginning to believe, O'day and Pflu will get some pretty good settlements, out of this. I also am wondering if the heat is starting to increase on Engstrom, and whoever else he in this with him?
I would love to see all this sorted out by next march of 2013. How ironic would it be, if we are looking for a replacement for Engstrom? I wish the facts would come out, sooner than later. I doubt they will ever come out though.
Unless those facts are being saved for legal procedures, which is possible, I am beginning to believe, O'day and Pflu will get some pretty good settlements, out of this. I also am wondering if the heat is starting to increase on Engstrom, and whoever else he in this with him?
I would love to see all this sorted out by next march of 2013. How ironic would it be, if we are looking for a replacement for Engstrom? I wish the facts would come out, sooner than later. I doubt they will ever come out though.
Tokyogriz
Well-known member
I have requested all recorded conversations (written or spoken) between Engstrom and the BOR regarding the firing (Non-renewal) of Jim Oday and Robin Pflugrads contracts as well as anything regarding the NCAA investigation into the University of Montana as is my right in the Montana constitutuion.
What follows is a series of emails I sent/recieved this week.
My original email
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1, 2012
Mr Mcrae
Thank you for returning my call promptly.
I apoligize for the phone tag.
Please forward me all documents, minutes and recorded conversations regarding the non renewal of contract for Jim Oday, Robin Pflugrad and the NCAA investigation.
Thank you and enjoy your weekend.
Brandon Palmer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did also post a request regarding as to wether the UM president needs any sort of confirmation to fire/non-renew the AD or Football coaches contract. There had been some debate amongst my friends as to this.
I recieved the following email in reply to both my emails.
In this reply please note I was sent the original NCAA letter that UM recieved in January as per request. If anyone wishes to recieve this please PM me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1st, 2012
Good afternoon, Mr. Palmer.
I am copying this message to Cathy Swift, chief counsel for the Montana University System, who can direct your statutory information request to the appropriate counsel for reply. In the meantime, I am providing you with the requested notice of inquiry from the NCAA (attached). In response to your questions below:
· In the Montana University System, an employment contract is entered into between a head coach and a university after a president recommends the contract to the commissioner, the commissioner recommends the contract to the board of regents, and the board approves the contract. To non-renew an employment contract, a president may notify the coach that his/her contract will not be renewed upon its expiration. Board action or commissioner approval is not necessary for a president to non-renew a contract, either in the case of a coach or in the case of 1,000 or so other contract professional employees across the system.
· As for an athletic director, an employment contract is entered into between an athletic director and a university after a president recommends the contract to the commissioner and the commissioner approves the contract. The board has delegated to the commissioner the authority to approve contracts for about 1,000 contract professional employees, including athletic directors, dining services directors, human resource directors, residence life directors, etc. As with a coach, the commissioner’s approval is not necessary for a president to notify a director of non-renewal.
As for the part of your request pertaining to all incoming or outgoing communications or conversations pertaining to the issue you mentioned, there are a number of folks and organizations in line ahead of you, but we’re doing our best. You may or may not be aware, from published news reports last week, that we are working on an extensive information request similar to yours for the Missoulian and the Wall Street Journal. As soon as we complete it, and complete the other requests that we’ve had for some time longer than yours, we will get back to you.
Thank you for your interest.
Sincerely,
Kevin McRae
Associate Commissioner of Higher Education
for Communications and Human Resources
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my intention for the people of Montana to get all information we feel necessary from the Board of Regents and the University of Montana in regards to this ongoing situation. We are guaranteed this right to information in our Montana Constitution and the Board of Regents and UM will comply.
Its time we recieved honest and truthful answers. If necessary there are lawyers and many people in Montana willing to support this move to get the truth from UM and the Board of Regents.
I will keep posting details as they come in and if the truth is still withheld we will act further. If anyone wishes to join in this struggle to get the truth and reclaim our University please PM me.
We are Griz Nation! We are Montana!
http://freedomofinformationacts.uslegal.com/state-freedom-of-information-acts/montana/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What follows is a series of emails I sent/recieved this week.
My original email
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1, 2012
Mr Mcrae
Thank you for returning my call promptly.
I apoligize for the phone tag.
Please forward me all documents, minutes and recorded conversations regarding the non renewal of contract for Jim Oday, Robin Pflugrad and the NCAA investigation.
Thank you and enjoy your weekend.
Brandon Palmer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did also post a request regarding as to wether the UM president needs any sort of confirmation to fire/non-renew the AD or Football coaches contract. There had been some debate amongst my friends as to this.
I recieved the following email in reply to both my emails.
In this reply please note I was sent the original NCAA letter that UM recieved in January as per request. If anyone wishes to recieve this please PM me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1st, 2012
Good afternoon, Mr. Palmer.
I am copying this message to Cathy Swift, chief counsel for the Montana University System, who can direct your statutory information request to the appropriate counsel for reply. In the meantime, I am providing you with the requested notice of inquiry from the NCAA (attached). In response to your questions below:
· In the Montana University System, an employment contract is entered into between a head coach and a university after a president recommends the contract to the commissioner, the commissioner recommends the contract to the board of regents, and the board approves the contract. To non-renew an employment contract, a president may notify the coach that his/her contract will not be renewed upon its expiration. Board action or commissioner approval is not necessary for a president to non-renew a contract, either in the case of a coach or in the case of 1,000 or so other contract professional employees across the system.
· As for an athletic director, an employment contract is entered into between an athletic director and a university after a president recommends the contract to the commissioner and the commissioner approves the contract. The board has delegated to the commissioner the authority to approve contracts for about 1,000 contract professional employees, including athletic directors, dining services directors, human resource directors, residence life directors, etc. As with a coach, the commissioner’s approval is not necessary for a president to notify a director of non-renewal.
As for the part of your request pertaining to all incoming or outgoing communications or conversations pertaining to the issue you mentioned, there are a number of folks and organizations in line ahead of you, but we’re doing our best. You may or may not be aware, from published news reports last week, that we are working on an extensive information request similar to yours for the Missoulian and the Wall Street Journal. As soon as we complete it, and complete the other requests that we’ve had for some time longer than yours, we will get back to you.
Thank you for your interest.
Sincerely,
Kevin McRae
Associate Commissioner of Higher Education
for Communications and Human Resources
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my intention for the people of Montana to get all information we feel necessary from the Board of Regents and the University of Montana in regards to this ongoing situation. We are guaranteed this right to information in our Montana Constitution and the Board of Regents and UM will comply.
Its time we recieved honest and truthful answers. If necessary there are lawyers and many people in Montana willing to support this move to get the truth from UM and the Board of Regents.
I will keep posting details as they come in and if the truth is still withheld we will act further. If anyone wishes to join in this struggle to get the truth and reclaim our University please PM me.
We are Griz Nation! We are Montana!
Tokyogriz said:
While I applaud your right to request this information. I hate to tell you that an uphill battle is ahead of you. You will be provided information on the NCAA investigation, however the other portions of your request will denied for this reason:
(3) Records and materials that are constitutionally protected from disclosure are not subject to the provisions of this section. Information that is constitutionally protected from disclosure is information in which there is an individual privacy interest that clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure, including legitimate trade secrets, as defined in 30-14-402, and matters related to individual or public safety
http://law.justia.com/codes/montana/2005/2/2-6-102.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
While you have constitutional rights, Mr. O'Day and Mr. Pflugrad both have a constitutional right to privacy which I doubt they have waived at this point. Montana is one of the strictest states when it comes to an indivdual's right to privacy. This is a personnel matter and the rights for privacy supersedes the publics need to know. Now, if a case is filed (which is doubtful), the communications will come out. If a case is filed, I will guarantee it will be settled out of court.
Finally, Cahty Swift is one of if not the finest education/personnel law attorneys in the State of Montana and she will eat your lunch.
Well, then there is the small matter that, even if UM's decision was wrongheaded and unjustified, they're under no obligation to renew a contract, even if it's for a bad reason or no reason at all.
[Cue Player Rep]
So, the question must be asked. What is the best possible outcome? I suspect it goes something like this:
1. Engstrom gets fired.
2. Foley gets fired.
3. O'Day is reinstated.
4. Pflugrad is reinstated.
#1 and #2 are longshots at best.
#3 and #4 will simply not happen.
[Cue Player Rep]
So, the question must be asked. What is the best possible outcome? I suspect it goes something like this:
1. Engstrom gets fired.
2. Foley gets fired.
3. O'Day is reinstated.
4. Pflugrad is reinstated.
#1 and #2 are longshots at best.
#3 and #4 will simply not happen.
