Per JUB- stand off between Regents/MSC vs. Warde/Mel
I was really trying to give Warde the benefit of the doubt this week
More sources: the status of UM hockey coach Mel Pearson has now been reduced to a stand-off between the Regents (8-0) and interim pres. Mary Sue Coleman on one side, and Pearson and UM AD Warde Manuel (who earlier this week wanted to sign Pearson to an extension) on the other.
https://twitter.com/Johnubacon/status/1555246709088854017?s=20&t=b4sVvFB5zfH3-dacur4oRw
I would be interested to hear why Warde thinks Mel is worthy of an extension. I'm afraid to know the answer
So weird. You commission an independent review by a well regarded firm, whose findings are pretty unequivocal. Seems to me there's only one viable move here.
Not really ... The findings were "pretty unequivocal" that he was not responsible for retaliation .. fundamental reason / scope for report. The most high profile Mgoblog accusations ("chased off captain", COVID and harassment response) now are secondary/footnotes and not findings of the report. I say findings in the traditional understood sense of the word ... official conclusions of the report.
This is like trying to argue Al Capone was only a tax evader because that's what he officially was charged with. I understand there is a segment of the population who's sole interest is to argue and be contrarian, but come on. Mel was caught lying to the investigating team, with proof. That alone is grounds for dismissal even if the report was commissioned to investigate something else.
Being dishonest in an inquiry is a sufficient excuse to terminate an employee... but that is not the only disciplinary action at their disposal.
Think of it this way: would Alabama fire Nick Saban simply because he had lied about something to them?
Exactly. It’s not the only remedy for any of items 1-4.
Sorry but this simpleton just doesn't get it. The facts as represented in the OP:
1. The Regents are 8-0 for parting ways.
2. The (interim) President is for parting ways.
3. Warde says no.
Are we saying Warde has the leverage to force a standoff?? I'm sorry but this doesn't add up.
So either the reporting is wrong and there is no standoff, or apparently he… does.
And how about we refrain from name calling and be adults, ok?
Hey Clarence...I was calling myself a simpleton. Sorry, man.
Jim Tressel and Bruce Pearl were both fired and given show-cause penalties for lying to investigators. And rightly so. Pearson is no different.
Didn't Tressel resign? Neither he nor Meyer were actually fired, though they should have been.
What Alabama would or would not do with Saban has no bearing on this.
If Mel was not the subject of the investigation, AND simply was someone being interviewed for secondary or tertiary input. AND was being threatened or coerced to lie by his boss, then I could see exploring other disciplinary actions.
Mel was THE subject of the investigation. One that has surfaced some pretty bad allegations tied directly to him. Mel was a critical voice in providing honest feedback to get a fair assessment of the situation and he lied. And he didn't lie about an event which could have multiple interpretations. He lied about not even having a conversation until proof he had the conversation was presented to him.
There's really no point in trying to reason or logic this. It sucks Mel chose to go this route because I like watching Michigan's hockey team win and he was one of the best options for making that happen. But he did chose this, and even if the hockey team takes a step back over the next few years or even decades, firing Mel now is the best decision.
Well yes, other examples from the college sports industry *are* relevant. The Saban-Bama example was a hypothetical (that we know of at least), but we can cite myriad others that aren't. From within our own ranks, we can point to Juwan Howard as one of the most recent case studies.
Like it or not, performance does matter to some extent when talking about positions of authority. Had Pearson (or Juwan) been mediocre or worse - both are probably gone by now. Yet both add substantial value to the school and AD, which is a mitigating factor even if we don't like it. This is *not* to say they are "untouchable" or that they should not be held fully accountable for proven improrieties. However, when operating in the "grey area" where facts are lacking and allegations and opinion are the basis for judgement... the threshold for action is somewhat different.
Careful how you throw around that "The" pal.
August 4th, 2022 at 11:08 PM ^
How many championships has Mel won? Is Michigan constantly in the Championship game? No. Not a big hockey guy but the amount of talent we have had he has actually been underwhelming. If he was fired, will Michigan still have the same type of Hockey program? If the answer is yes then fire him now. If it is no then that is what Warde must be considering?
Yup, and you could have probably got rid of him at the start when that was found out without all the bad press for the AD and really for him if you were inclined to try and protect him. Just no comment, going a different direction after the end of the contract.
Al Capone murdered people. Can put Mel in this category.
All that may be true but post I responded to acted like he was guilty of what was being investigated is disingenuous. You / Mgoblog can say it was lying but sure Mel would disagree and must add that the "lies" were not found to be relevant to the conclusions of the report even when corrected. Guess the Shields "forgotten" audio taping really paid off. ... is secret taping even legal / admissible? Maybe he felt need to cover himself by taping but odd he would forget that when speaking with investigators the first time. Guess that guy gets the last laugh on this one.
And so the hairsplitting begins! From the Michigan Daily:
MLive released WilmerHale’s damning 68-page report that details the level of misconduct Pearson allowed and sends shivers down the spine. Every page reveals more and more harm committed by Pearson and his sidekick, former director of hockey operations Rick Bancroft.
When former Michigan goaltender Strauss Mann came forward with complaints about the team’s culture, Pearson forced him out of the program. Mann was heading into his senior year at Stephen M. Ross School of Business, just two semesters away from a degree that sources tell The Daily would have meant a great deal to him and his family. When ice hockey sports information director Kristy McNeil scheduled interviews with the media late one week in February 2021, Pearson allegedly screamed at her, causing her to break down and cry at work. When volunteer director of player development Steve Shields tried to protect student athletes by confronting the abuser, Pearson revoked his building access and fired him from his volunteer position.
And all of that is just a sliver of the damage Pearson caused. It doesn’t cover how he let Bancroft harass, bully and play mind games with female employees. It doesn’t cover how he threw players who tested positive for COVID-19 in a van and “snuck (them) out of North Dakota” in a last-ditch attempt to keep his team in the NCAA Tournament. It doesn’t cover how he loomed over Mann even after the player left the program, attempting to sabotage his professional career — sending text messages feigning positivity and support over his time with the Wolverines — by getting in his head before important games.
Could you bullet point the facts that collaborate each one of these statements. It would really help everyone that each allegation that is stated as fact would also have the facts that collaborate each allegation. Right now, allegations are being presented as facts and not the allegations that they technically are.
To be clear, I am not for keeping him or firing him. All I want is for someone to please post the supporting facts for each allegation so we can all move on and there is no more debate.
An example: The allegation that Pearson forced Mann out is stated as a fact. Could someone detail all the supporting facts that Pearson forced him out. Step by step, what did Pearson do to force him out?
I'm not being contrary. This would really help the Fire Mel cause if someone would present that.
It is pretty difficult to differentiate between factual findings and hearsay in these reports. Particularly if you aren’t reading the entire report yourself and are instead basing your own opinion on what we hear from other sources.
Collaborate means to work together. Corroborate means to confirm or give support to.
I’m only mentioning this because I’ve seen this malaprop so many times this week.
Cool story bro: I was the computer center monitor for the West Quad computing center and showed Steve Sheilds how to play Mac Risk (and it might have been his first time using a mouse*.) Nice guy.
*In 1989 a lot of people hadn't used a mouse.
Mann was heading into his senior year at Stephen M. Ross School of Business, just two semesters away from a degree that sources tell The Daily would have meant a great deal to him and his family.
OK. So IF he was “run off”, he has to pay for 2 semesters on his own. Two words: STUDENT LOANS.
Sorry, but painting it as if his life was ruined is BS.
Don’t have enough info on what Mel did or didn’t do. And don’t really care. But media BS is so tiring!
"Finally, as we discuss below, our investigation did identify cultural issues within the hockey program that warrant attention."
Last line of the executive summary... while the preponderance of evidence could not support that Shields was retaliated against by Pearson, they did find "pretty unequivocally" that:
- Bancroft mistreated female employees
- Pearson's did not hold Bancroft accountable for his conduct
- "pervasive fears" amongst players/staff that they would be retaliated against for raising issues
- Pearson lied during the investigation
I don't consider those to be footnotes to the report as they are the final 4 bullet points at the end of the conclusion. My opinion, I would consider 2, 3 and 4 to be fireable offenses on their own... all three together is a no brainer.
Bullet #3 is very much "feelingsball" area and not something I would want to rely upon heavily (as far as how "pervasive" was this - if it was truly as bad as claimed, why has it not manifested in mass departures of players & staff - especially with easy transfers now available? Something is still not adding up here.)
Retaliation for raising issues in most workplaces would typically equate to corporate/organizational policy violations at minimum and potentially legal violations for whistleblower protections based upon the discrimation issues in a public institution.
It is absolutely a leadership issue and I would say a firing offense if your team/employees feel that you cannot share details about the program for fear of reprisal from the senior most leader. Combine those with the other noted findings and this would be a no brainer termination in my opinion.
But was there actual retaliation though? If yes, then absolutely dismiss. If it was just a feeling expressed by some - and without any action taken, that might be a different matter.
I stated in earlier posts that I thought Pearson and Manuel should both be gone. Having said that, I do have some concerns that venture into the legal arena. For starters. one of the people alleged to have been abused was the nutritionist, Caroline Mandel. Ms. Mandel did not accept an offer to testify so now you have a hearsay problem.
Then you have the not so small fact that many players who were early draft choices returned. If the atmosphere was so toxic, wouldn't you expect that many players would have left?
Bancroft, a source of trouble, left the program, His departure should have been sooner, but he was relieved of his position. The timing may be subject to conjecture, but you are talking about a man's (Pearson's) career going down the drain.
I may be totally off base, but I would bet that the University is hearing from lawyers that they need to proceed cautiously.
Pretty sure the lawyers advice would be git rid of the whole lot, you have a great opening with the contract expiring to do it without noise/drama.
The contract expiring is a red herring. It’s expiration doesn’t absolve the university giving his termination the same due process it would any other employee.
But it does. His contract is up. They can literally just walk away and say they’re going in a different direction. In this situation, he’s not being “terminated.” His contract is simply not being renewed.
You don’t have to give due process to someone who isn't a contractually protected employee.
He is still an employee. I have no idea what policies and procedures UM has in place for employees without a contract (i.e. most employees) but he has the same protection as they do. He just has presumably less protection than before when he was under contract. UM would still have to terminate his employment (like any other employee).
Michigan can terminate employment of non-contract employees for essentially any reason they want. Michigan is an at-will employment state. Mel would have no grounds to sue.
This. Unless you're party to a CBA establishing a step procedure for termination or have an employment agreement establishing for cause termination or you can point to some policy that creates a reasonable expectation (good luck on this last one) of just cause employment, you're fucked. You cannot be fired for asserting your rights under a law that prohibits retaliation (e.g., taking FMLA leave or asking for an reasonable accommodation under the ADA) or for belonging to a protected class of persons (age, race, gender, LGBTQ). That's it. He has no "due process rights" under the law as an at-will employee.
Yes, agreed unless UM has adopted "due process" or "warnings before firing" types of policies (which I don't think it has but some organizations do). But in any event, he does need to be "terminated."
You, sir, get it. This is the great thing about contracts.
Nope, you do. You do understand that Steve Shields, whose complaint for protection started this, was no longer under contract, or even being paid at all anymore, correct?
Complaint for protection doesn’t have anything to do with due process or employment. Michigan is an at-will employment state. They can terminate employment for pretty much any reason. You don’t have to give due process before termination.
Yes and Sheilds position was terminated with no process.
The situation we are discussing is not my area of expertise, but as someone who has been involved with a fair amount of litigation, I see areas where a good lawyer could raise questions which could prove to be costly in a defamation litigation.
I would venture a guess that things may not be as black and white as some would surmise, thus leaving the University with a difficult decision.
What grounds would there be on defamation? Mel hasn’t been defamed by the University at all. The university choosing not to renew his contract isn’t defamation. And if you’re referring to the results of the investigation, it was an external investigation so you’re going to have a difficult time tying that to the school.
External investigation contracted by the university - and those findings were leaked to the public (most likely by the university). Defamation is certainly a possibility here if the allegations are not proven but he is still released (and cannot find similar employment).
I cannot even begin to tell you how hard defamation is to prove, especially for a public figure, in Michigan. None of what you just described would survive a summary disposition motion.
That doesn't render the *threat* of litigation moot. There may be other considerations as well beyond the defamation alone - the fact that this is dragging on implies that the matter is not as "cut and dry" as some people are implying.
Stop moving the goal posts because you’re wrong. I’m on my phone so I can’t look it up as easily, but Michigan law recognizes privileges in the context of internal investigations and their results. On top of this, as a public figure, he’d have to prove malice and the falsity of any statements. Good luck. Oh, and what did UM do? Commission a report? They haven’t actually done any defamatory act. That’s not defamatory. I don’t pretend to know nor care about all the specific details of what happened. But the notion that Mel has some special rights or he’s being defamed is wrong as a matter of law. I get everyone became an expert after the Depp-Heard trial, but defamation cases in the US are very very very hard to win. They are what you plead when you have nothing else.
No "goalposts" have been moved - the difference is that this isn't some issue of media statements being made against a public individual. This is an issue about potentially unverifiable allegstions stemming from an employer-sanctioned action that could cause real financial harm. I'm not saying that he would win a suit, but I'm saying it probably would not be difficult to find a decent attorney to argue the case - thus requiring a university response (most likely a settlement to make it go away).
literally, no.
Maybe I missed something, but typically in these types of investigations, you're not under oath. I've done dozens of these investigations in my career and I can't remember one time where we had the interviews actually under oath. A few times we've recorded them or had them transcribed, but never under oath.
I get everyone stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night, but none of this matters for purposes of firing him unless there's a procedure outlined in some agreement otherwise. As long as he's not being terminated for any reason that violates a law (e.g., asserting rights or protected characteristic) they can fire him for any reason or no reason at all.
The fact that MP clearly lied to investigators is by itself cause for termination. All the rest, which is plentiful, is just icing on the cake.
This. 100% this. How it keeps being looked right past that the report unequivocally cleared Mel for the one thing it was tasked to investigate is beyond me. Yes it uncovered other things through the course of the investigation, yes we all know that and those things need to be addressed, but to be real clear, if the call is to fire Mel, it’s being made on the back of a report that actually cleared him. Just so there is no confusion on that.