John U. Bacon: Mary Sue Coleman (Interim Pres) meeting with Warde - Pearson news soon
Always try for informative titles, but per John U. Bacon, Mary Sue Coleman (the interim President before Santa Ono takes over in Oct) is meeting with Warde and we should expect news soon.
In case the tweet embed doesn't work - LINK
I have it from multiple sources that University of Michigan interim president Mary Sue Coleman is meeting with AD Warde Manuel regarding head hockey coach Mel Pearson. Expect news of some sort soon.
— John U. Bacon (@Johnubacon) August 3, 2022
Actually just meeting to exchange recipes for tailgating.
Interesting comments for that tweet regarding timing and the "why didn't this happen in May?!" question:
appeal or now, it seems odd with his contract expired to waste any energy not moving on
To make certain that you are releasing one of the better coaches (performance-wise) in college hockey (who almost made it to a national championship a few months ago) for factual and legitimate reasons? Yes, that might be good to double check - especially if they are appealing it and contesting something in the report. I would rather have the process done *right* rather than err just so that it is done *right now*.
but but but sir we are the INTERWEB!!! and we have OUTRAGE!!!!1!
this MUST be taken care of before we find something ELSE to CARE ABOUT in ... oh about 60-90 minutes
Exactly! Omg Warde should've fired himself first and then Mel, just before the appeal. Then he could write his resignation on Mgoblog for the posters that have been asking for at least two years for his head.
I HOPE THEY HIRE ERIK BAKICH JUST SO THEY CAN FIRE HIM!!
Lol! I agree.
in the wake of the anderson case I think showing signs of competent, decisive leadership when misconduct is found is a step in the right direction. This is a thorough report that was released over 2 months ago and the leaking of it now looks either self serving, incompetent or both.
It definitely appears that way but I guess there's a small chance there's a legitimate reason to wait so I'm fine being patient enough to hear if there's an explanation.
Oh no. Not due process. Please don't tell me a University such as Michigan should consult with their brass and make sure that what actions that they're about to take won't be a violation of someone's legal rights. Oh no not common sense. Let's just act like an idiot and fire him first, and get Mary Sued later.
what's in the report seems pretty damning. Obviously I haven't read it, and I am going on the trusted sources reporting on it. It doesn't seem to be one smoking bullet but many. It would seem for an appeal to have any merit they would need to overhaul large swaths of it. I agree that dotting I's and crossing T's is prudent, but given the work Wilmer Hale has done for the school and what the payout was last time, expediency might be warranted
"what's in the report seems pretty damning. Obviously I haven't read it, and I am going on the trusted sources reporting on it."
Got it. Based on your observation or non-observation alone, Warde should resign.
have you read all 70 pages or are you just going on what you've read second hand as well? I'm going on what Bacon, Brian, The Athletic and others wrote about it. I'd say thats a wide enough net of trusted sources for me.
So I don't assume or never will I agree based on what someone else said to opine what should or should NOT happen to a said party. I'm sorry I'm not in the position to make any decisions so that's my take. Your opinion is definitely warranted. It's yours.
“Obviously I haven't read it, and I am going on the trusted sources reporting on it.”
This is a bad idea. Strongly encourage reading it. It’s actually interesting and well laid out. And when you do you will realize it is WAAAAAAAAAAY different than the “trusted sources” are presenting it.
So Bacon is WAAAAAAY misrepresenting what it says? I'm not disputing that at all, I haven't read it and certainly won't. He just seems like a guy that wouldn't be way off.
Unfortunately, my opinion is that is the case. I highly doubt intentionally, but it’s easy to miss what this report actually is and found and conflate it with what it isn’t and didn’t find.
How do you appeal a report?
I’m guessing a condition of this report process was that anyone that fully cooperated that was not named in the best of light was allowed to file an “appeal” - provided new information was given - with the idea that part or parts of the report would be modified.
I think "contest" is probably a better word? So if anyone contested any of the information as potentially false, maybe they're digging into certain things further. But yes, there has been no decision to "appeal" yet.
The BIG question would be WHAT was being appealed and by whom. Remember, the final outcome of the report was to CLEAR the respondent (Pearson). So, the party that would appeal the outcome of the report itself would be the claimant (whose claim the report did not support). Different story if there was discipline levied on the Respondent based on the four items the report encouraged the University address (which would not be a function of the report, but rather any supplemental, post-report process).
There could be some reasonable explanation why the interim President MSC has to meet with Manuel on an athletic department personnel matter, but from the outside looking in (admittedly without all the facts yet), it doesn't seem to be a good look for Warde.
I would agree... If Coleman feels she needs to be involved, then she believes Warde isn't up to the task. It could be that Warde asked for an audience with her to request support/advice. But that doesn't really add any confidence to his performance. Mel has no contract, simply not renewing it is cost-free.
That could very well be, but as interim president I’m wondering if MSC would fire Warde and hire a new AD a month before Santa takes over? Seems like those kind of decisions might be better left for a non-interim president
Oh, absolutely! I apologize for leading the reader down a path I didn't mean to go! I don't think Warde is in any danger of being fired, merely that MSC may see a need to push him into an obvious move. Conversely, if he requested the meeting, she can't be feeling good about his seeming indecision. She doesn't strike me as one to tolerate fools (or foolish behavior from her direct reports).
I have a different take.
Sometimes, it's very important for the relevant, senior players in a pending action to get together and review what's what, what's best to do about it, and how to verbally frame things when answering the inevitable barrage of questions after actions are taken.
Exactly. Always good to consult with higher ups at an organization before making a big decision.
Maybe Warde had a knish to share with her.
Too soon?
This can't be good news for Warde. On the other hand, it might give Warde an out to get rid of Pearson saying it was MSC's decision. Either way it's not a good sign if the AD needs an excuse like that.
I guess I don't get why he'd want or need an out. As a manager, the consistent lying to the investigators alone would be enough to fire one of my direct reports, not to mention everything else. That's basically what got Jim Tressle fired.
Honestly, unless there's a non-public and good explanation for why the report has been finished for 3 months and nothing's happened, she should fire Warde and Mel. This shit is so embarrassing.
Comments in the JUB tweet suggest that some form of appeal process was filed internally after the WH report was submitted in May - hence the delay.
No idea if this is true (no corroborating evidence), but this seems plausible.
Yeah, I'm not sure what appeal you could make to a report (it's not a legally-binding decision) but I could Pearson being put on administrative leave or something similar prior to termination and him appealing that action. Still, feels like the AD and president should have met up before now and had a plan of action already in place.
I'll admit blissful ignorance of Michigan's employee procedures, but I am struggling to imagine why Pearson would have any appeal or grievance rights.* He is not a faculty member, so tenure and its associated protections don't come into play. He is a member of a union, so there is no collective bargaining agreement to that Michigan must follow. Pearson had a contract, which presumably limited the reason that Michigan could terminated his employment. While I have not spent a lot of time reading coaches' employment contracts, I would be shocked if they ordinarily create grievance or appeal procedures. Furthermore, that contract expired and I would be even more shocked if it had some sort of holdover provision that preserved any hypothetical grievance and appeal process after its expiration. That leaves me with a general university (or athletic department) policy or specific protections enjoyed by public employees under Michigan law.
*I agree that any appeal had to be from sort of decision made as result of the WilmerHale report. I have an even harder time conceiving of plausible grounds to appeal a nonbinding report.
Yeah, I'm not abreast of Michigan employment law but perhaps the fact some grievance was initiated during the life of his contract extends beyond it's natural termination, and from a public policy standpoint that makes sense - you would want to maintain that continuity for grievances or appeals that could have significant impacts on someone's future employment even after he/she left that current employer if only because of the passage of time.
But yeah, not sure. Though as we've seen when other coaches they tend to have specific provisions around their employment that aren't classically found in others specifically because of their unique circumstances and pay grade.
I'm sure we'll find out pretty soon.
“but I am struggling to imagine why Pearson would have any appeal or grievance rights”
For the same reason that Steve Shields did. Which is the basis for this entire report.
You (and some others) seem to be assuming that MSC didn't already know what the report says, which seems unlikely.
You (and some others) seem to be assuming that MSC didn't already know what the report says, which seems unlikely.
I feel like this is a perfect example of a meeting being held when an email would suffice.
Dear Warde,
Fire Mel.
Thanks,
MSC
Alas, we have another lonely M.
Mary Sue and Warde have to take the hit on this. No way can we taint Santa.
Not to be confused with taking a hit off Santa's taint which would simply ruin the holiday...or make the Seasons Bright depending.
Wow. The Warde crew. This board never ceases to amaize!!!
I'm left wondering what the hell anyone at Michigan has been doing for the last three months. We have been operating on the assumption that Warde Manuel was waiting for WilmerHale's report before making a decision about Mel Pearson's future. But then the report leaks and we learn that Manuel has had the report since May. And now it appears that he and Mary Sue Coleman have never talked about the report's conclusions or Pearson's future at Michigan. Was Coleman unaware of the report until it leaked? Or did she know about it and assume that Manuel was taking action?
With comments above about a possible appeal, I guess waiting is good, but this doesn't look good for my fellow alum. I'd say he brought it on himself though. I imagine if he is ultimately let go, he will be done coaching. Hard to bring someone like that on with this in their past.
“But then the report leaks and we learn that Manuel has had the report since May.”
And has publicly stated over the summer that he was confident it would all turn out fine.
Please answer my wishes ever since November 2016 and can Warde
Can yourself!!! You can't hide your incessant disdain for success. He hasn't had a bad review yet by the Regents. However, I guess they'll call you sooner than later to get your input!
HATER
so bye, bye mr. michigan pie,
i was toast, out at yost, and told a lie,
and good old boys were drinking whiskey and rye,
saying this'll be the day i'm bye-bye....