Bev Plocki Speaks Out on Rhonda Faehn
Bev Plocki was on WTKA with Sam this morning, speaking out on the Rhonda Faehn situation for the first time. Some highlights:
- She was, I thought, contrite and admitted that in hindsight, hiring Faehn was a mistake. Plocki said she was only thinking about the reaction within her own team, and didn't think of how the larger university community would be impacted and would react.
- When she first had the idea of hiring Faehn, she went first to a Nassar survivor on her team and asked what she thought about it. The survivor was totally on board. Then she went to the team and asked if anyone objected. Nobody did. She said that if they wanted to message her privately to object, they could. Nobody did. The whole team was on board and excited about this.
- She then went to Warde and said she wanted to hire Faehn. Warde said no. He then had an opportunity to meet with the captains and get the team's feeling on the situation, and decided to OK the hire.
I might have missed a few things, but that was the gist of it. Plocki was genuinely apologetic that she put the university in this situation, and admitted she didn't think it through.
January 17th, 2019 at 9:36 AM ^
You hit on the key mistep here. This is highly emotional, revolting and very public failure of institutions and people that should be trusted. Communication especially in a social media world is critical.
I don’t know this woman but I assume many involved with the team do. It sounds like some of the young adults on the team believe in her character. Certainly there are many lessons to be learned and I have no doubt she regrets not acting sooner.
I don’t view her as part of a coverup.
January 17th, 2019 at 9:50 AM ^
Jerry Sandusky's Penn State defense against Miami in the [86] national championship was one of the best performances I ever saw from a defense. Heisman Trophy winner Vinny Testaverde was helpless against them. Let's hire Jerry when he gets out of prison. /s.
I don't actually know how involved in the Nasser stuff Rhonda Faehn was, but when there is a huge ethical scandal you don't hire anyone even remotely associated with it no matter how good they are at their primary function. Let Faehn coach in Boliva.
Warde was right to say no the first time and shouldn't have let himself be talked into it.
January 17th, 2019 at 3:48 PM ^
Jeez... I hope you never serve on a jury.
January 17th, 2019 at 11:14 AM ^
Faehn's timeline is really difficult to put together. The way I understand it:
She joins USAG. A month later a coach overhears some ahtletes (Nichols, Raisman) discussing Nassar's "treatments" and approaches Faehn about the situation. Keep in mind that at the time, people were still trying to figure out if there was a legitimate medical procedure happening. It is known that some of Nassar's abuse occurred with the victim's parents present in the room... that's how fucked up this situation is. During that investigation Nichols, Raisman and Maroney disclose more details... that's when the FBI was contacted.
(LINK)
The quality of the decisions you make is directly related to the quality of the information you have. The gymnasts didn't go directly to their coach nor Rhonda Feahn... it is those women that initiated the investigation which ultimately led to the details coming out.
Aly Raisman's public criticism of Faehn was "I dont know what she did or didn't do with [the information we gave her]." Well, Ali, she took it to the FBI.
---
The Michigan gymnastics team lost a potential asset to its program and its very unfortunate because almost everything happened appropriately. Almost...
January 17th, 2019 at 8:51 AM ^
What I don’t understand is why they tried to hide it if this was the process. Personally, I think athletes should have a say in who is hired by coaches - have athletes in the interview processs and report back to the team and hear their thoughts. The university could have framed the hire completely differently if they had a press conference and laid all this out. I still wouldn’t have agreed with it but it makes a lot more sense than doing it under a cloak of darkness.
January 17th, 2019 at 8:55 AM ^
Do they do press releases for every assistant coach they hire across all sports? I've seen this argument a lot and I get it but don't know enough about the Athletic program to know if our assumption that they do is correct.
Edit: I found the news release for the hiring of the guy Faehn replaced, Steve Vetere in 2017. That pretty much answers THAT question. Warde, warde, warde...
January 17th, 2019 at 9:01 AM ^
I don't know about always, but I found these pretty quickly.
https://mgoblue.com/news/2017/6/13/Michigan_Names_Lucas_Volunteer_Assistant_Coach.aspx
https://mgoblue.com/news/2015/9/14/Torkington_Named_Volunteer_Assistant_Coach.aspx
https://mgoblue.com/news/2017/5/15/Edwards_Joins_Michigan_Coaching_Staff.aspx
https://mgoblue.com/news/2013/9/18/Rajewsky_Named_Assistant_Coach_to_Oversee_Sprints_Hurdles.aspx
January 17th, 2019 at 9:01 AM ^
Not every assistant or coach we hire has been embroiled in one of the largest sports scandals in state history.
January 17th, 2019 at 8:59 AM ^
It may not be the case that the Athletic Department was trying to hide anything, but rather following what they may have believed was a bit of a non-story in hiring a consultant (or assistant coach, or whatever her actual role - I am still confused). It certainly LOOKS bad from the outside, but I think that's just as likely because Plocki and Warde didn't think through the external voices who would LOUDLY protest Faehn's hiring.
January 17th, 2019 at 8:54 AM ^
Was there any discussion as to why they did not issue a press release when she was hired? Why did they try to sneak it under the radar if there was no consideration for how the public would react?
January 17th, 2019 at 1:55 PM ^
No Julesh, none. There were five or six critical issues not asked about by PR Man/Salesman/huckster/non journalist Sam, nor talked about by Bev. That was certainly one of them.
I need time to research more facts before I lay it all out and blast the shit out of Sam's whitewash/cover up/spinterview.
January 17th, 2019 at 1:55 PM ^
Edit: Whoops! A post so nice I wrote it twice!~
No Julesh, none. There were five or six critical issues not asked about by PR Man/Salesman/huckster/non journalist Sam, nor talked about by Bev. That was certainly one of them.
I need time to research more facts before I lay it all out and blast the shit out of Sam's whitewash/cover up/spinterview.
January 17th, 2019 at 7:17 PM ^
They did make an announcement:
https://mgoblue.com/news/2019/1/12/womens-gymnastics-u-m-announces-faehn-to-coaching-staff.aspx
Not sure where the "sneak it under the radar" but comes from. What evidence of that is there?
January 17th, 2019 at 8:56 AM ^
Remorse.
The Michigan difference.
January 17th, 2019 at 8:59 AM ^
Brian's take on the recent podcast that, from a PR perspective, this was handled brutally, is spot on. If you didn't listen, he basically said that there was a way to do this right, by calling a press conference and explaining exactly what was happening but that that was not done. You can't sneak anyone tied to the USA Gymnastics situation by the goalie, no matter the degree to which that person was involved. He indicated (I haven't researched independently) that she'd been there a month when she was told and she immediately passed that info on, as one would do. Call a presser, explain that you did your due diligence, explain that the team (including survivors) was in favor of her coming in, and this goes a lot more smoothly.
January 17th, 2019 at 9:17 AM ^
This is a classic example of 'the cover-up is worse than the crime'.
Ever since Brian has gone borderline Emo I have not agreed with a ton of his takes, but he was spot on here: The way to do this was to take all the info in the OP (along with what she testified to) and do a press conference with the coach and the AD. Lay out the fact she did nothing to be named in a lawsuit and did nothing that law enforcement felt the need to investigate.
And please do not try to use the Paterno analogy; if he had lived for years past when that all went down, I am 99.9% sure he would have had many lawsuits filed against him.
January 17th, 2019 at 10:02 AM ^
This is going to sound so stupid that I can't believe I'm typing it, but it has stuck in my memory when these bad PR situations come up so judge away.
In the old Jake Ryan movie "Clear and Present Danger" there's a scandal involving one of the president's close friends being found to having involvement with drug trafficking. All of the president's advisers are telling him to downplay his relationship with this guy or even deny it. Harrison Ford's character (Jack Ryan) advises the opposite. He suggests saying, "This guy wasn't just a friend, he was one of my BEST friends." Don't give the narrative anywhere to go.
In this case by hiding or downplaying the back story it became a story. If Warde comes out and outlines what was in the OP then perhaps we're discussing how they set the example for vetting a potential second chance and they have this under control. Now they look stupid.....even if they were very thoughtful in their process.
January 17th, 2019 at 9:16 AM ^
I'm glad that Warde's first reaction was "no," and I'm glad that he spoke with the team to get their take. Interacting with student athletes and seeking out / understanding their perspective is a big part of what an AD should be doing.
If the AD had been transparent initially (particularly the fact that a Nassar survivor and other teammates were on board), then the public may have reacted differently.
January 17th, 2019 at 9:22 AM ^
After reading some comments on the board, I'm not sure people have done the proper research and actually know Faehn's relationship with Nassar. The issue here isn't really with Faehn as she was found to have reported the abuse to her immediate supervisor. The issue is how the University handled her hiring.
Faehn is definitely a hireable coach, but not when you wait to announce it until after she's already consulting and is spotted by the public. All the Athletic Department had to do was announce it ahead of time and release the information about how all the gymnasts were asked, including Nassar victims, and they were fine with it.
January 17th, 2019 at 10:04 AM ^
I still think her response is a major issue. She may have only been on the job a month but she has worked in the industry and with young people for years. The person who hears the complaints directly should call the authorities. That is what I do. I work with kids. If one of my employees is told something by a student, I make my employee make the call. I will sit with them if they are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the process. USAG’s protocol was terrible for reporting and rife for a cover up. She may have done her job, but there are situations that require more and she failed. Doesn’t mean she should be in jail or never work again, but working for UofM is not the next job for her IMO
January 17th, 2019 at 12:42 PM ^
Bacon you work with kids and so do I. So since you’re in somewhat of a place of authority, I pose this question to you. There’s a student who lights a bathroom on fire during class. Said teacher who allowed the male student to leave class finds out what happened after walking the class down the hall a few seconds later to check on that particular student and of course to allow the other students an opportunity to relieve themselves. I’d like to know who do you feel is at fault and what would you think was suggested to said teacher in order to prevent this from happening again. Keep in mind that the teacher was written up for this students transgression. I’ll wait patiently.
January 17th, 2019 at 12:56 PM ^
Sorry, I don't engage with bad faith arguments.
January 17th, 2019 at 12:57 PM ^
It’s not an argument but it shows that you are afraid of not knowing exactly what to do in every situation. I get it.
January 17th, 2019 at 2:09 PM ^
No, it shows that you are presenting a situation that is completely irrelevant and not analogous to what happened at USAG. I could answer it completely on point and I'm sure you'd find something else to complain about because that's all you seem to do.
January 17th, 2019 at 2:56 PM ^
Once again you speak about you. You are an I first person. That’s the only thing you can relate to. I get it. First you don’t engage. Then you do engage however, it has to be on your terms. You are pitiful. You’re arguing with yourself. Why would you go out of your way to repost only to act childish and say I could answer it but? Thanks a lot. I don’t know you or care to know you personally. I asked you a question without judgement and as an adult,”you” could NOT handle it. Thank the lord I never worked in or around in any capacity with you knowingly.
January 17th, 2019 at 4:22 PM ^
Weird, you’ve acted exactly how I thought you would: in bad faith
January 17th, 2019 at 4:41 PM ^
I asked for your input, in bad faith! Yes. See if you can follow, your own wording. Sorry about asking you a question. It’s a sin.
January 17th, 2019 at 12:55 PM ^
Exactly!
CALL 911!
January 17th, 2019 at 1:02 PM ^
Thanks Caz, however this wasn’t meant for joint chiefs of staff. It was directed at someone who already spoke outwardly about his or her specific role as an administrator. Trust me the answer is in there. However, Bacon is convinced solely on his or her experiences on how things are supposed to work every time. Sorry life isn’t that easy.
January 17th, 2019 at 1:35 PM ^
This is a great example displaying how it is so easy for us to judge situations where others could have acted better, after the fact, but not so much to make perfect decisions given our knowledge and experience, at the time.
January 17th, 2019 at 9:33 AM ^
Yeah, having read this, if the University had been forthright about the entire process which led to the decision, up to and including how they vetted this with the team before even committing to it, I think it is entirely possible that this goes so much differently (Faehn still doesn't end up staying, but at least the context would possibly have permitted some understanding as to their thought process here). As it was, the public relations side of this was terribly handled and shrouding the process with a news dump that was short on these details guaranteed the result that we now have.
January 17th, 2019 at 10:01 AM ^
So if the University handles this correctly from the beginning, Faehn may still be employed at UofM? IDK
January 17th, 2019 at 1:02 PM ^
No. If Rhonda Faehn did everything she could have, i.e. call the police herself (and tell her superiors as well. Why not both?), then she may still be employed by UM. Maybe even by MSU.
January 17th, 2019 at 9:33 AM ^
How could she not think it would raise eyebrows? That was literally everyone's first reaction, thus the media coverage and blog posts, etc.
There was a small handfull of people that had the Intel she did but that's such a miniscule percentage. I find it strange that Bev didn't consider the probable reaction given the huge magnifying glass over the Nassar investigation. Major gaffe on her part IMO.
January 17th, 2019 at 9:36 AM ^
To me, the failure was in Warde not having a process to vet decisions from a public reaction perspective that are recognized as controversial, newsworthy and with potential to harm the university and the department. He first said "no" based on his own meter - CHECK. He then went to the student athletes, got input and reversed his decision - CHECK. He then went to Schlissel and got approval - CHECK. What he didn't do was have a professional public relations POV crafted that would tell him the potential upside and downside that he would weigh. This is probably above the skill set or thinking of the AD PR staff, but he should know that he should go to the university communications team and get an analysis and recommendation.
Since he was consulted, this is also on Schlissel. He has a big, well-paid staff to guide him on issues like this and he (apparently) didn't bring them in. They might have recognized that there would be external voices (Raisman, Hollander, women's rights advocates) that would come into play and that they would need to consider their reaction and impact. Don't know how it would have changed the decision to hire, but it certainly would have changed their process on how to communicate it. It would also give them cover with the Regents who, as politicians, are now harrumphing their way through this episode.
January 17th, 2019 at 11:30 AM ^
Agree with most of your comments on this. However, an institution like UM cannot possibly make decisions based on public opinion. Obviously, the stench of the Nassar scandal is still in the air and therefore much more needed to be done on the PR side of this than was done. That is on the university.
As for Ms. Faehn. I would have to classify her as collateral damage from the whole thing. Despite those on this board preaching how much more they would have done had they been in her shoes, I suspect she has no problem looking herself in the mirror each day. She was new at USAG, reported as was required and seems to be way more a part of the solution than of the problem. Additionally, she was a coach for quite some time...Are there any questions about misconduct on her part during that time? None that I have heard.
If she was good enough for the kids on the team, some of whom were victims themselves, then she is good enough for me. Consider this: What if the girls on the team were actually excited about this coach joining the team? Does that not then make them victims of this situation, as well? It bothers me to think that the very people the general public insists it wishes to protect may be the ones feeling the worst about the outcome...In fact, their voices were silenced all over again in the interest of doing what??? Protecting the image of an institution. Such irony.
January 17th, 2019 at 11:40 AM ^
I definitely understand your view but disagree some. Michigan is a public institution, the public perception is very important. If a small community within the University is ok with something but it paints the institution in a bad light, that is very bad for the community as a whole. We have a stellar reputation thus far and we should look to keep it as clean as possible.
As far as collateral damage yes and no. She was viewed as innocent in this from a legal perspective. I think that is right. She did what she had to at a minimum (maybe more). There was a ton more she could have done to come away completely clean and as a champion / advocate for those women and girls. Yes her career took a hit in the short-term; that's probably right and ok. I think she should absolutely be allowed to work at lower levels, gain back all of the trust she lost and work her way back up. Maybe this is fair, maybe not. But as someone else said, unfortunately given the severity of the situation I don't think there is an alternative.
Lastly, as far as the kids, I don't know how much was done to truly let their voices and concerns be felt. was this a quick flippant question? was this a private session where they truly felt free and comfortable to express their views? I think given the power dynamic at play you have to be mindful they could have felt pressured to fall in line. Maybe, maybe not, but I don't fully take value in them being good with it.
January 17th, 2019 at 1:33 PM ^
Had the institution not been so incompetent in making this hire public then they could have used the fact that the TEAM wanted this, thus eliminating all but a tiny amount of public outcry from the very unreasonable among us.
Admittedly, I have no way to know all of the dynamics of how this was presented to the young ladies on the team. I am choosing to believe that they were truly free to share any concerns without negative consequence, as anything less could have really been a poop-storm if, even one on the team had a concern, shared it and then this lady was hired anyhow.
I get what you are saying, but stand by my opinion that a group of student athletes may very well have been ignored to appease the masses and keep the shine on the ole block M. Certainly not the worst thing in the world, but also far from being the leaders and best that we like to portray.
January 17th, 2019 at 1:44 PM ^
I definitely understand your view and thats completely fair, we don't know the dynamics of how this presented. I think we just disagree on the view of the Leaders and Best. Your view is we should have done what was right by team regardless of public opinion (I think thats what your saying I could have it wrong, if so sorry).
In my view we should hold ourselves to a higher moral standard and while unfortunate fro Faehn part of that higher moral standard is not hiring her. No clue if thats a right view or not, just my view.
January 17th, 2019 at 4:32 PM ^
How bout that!!! We have agreed to disagree, have reasonable discussion about a rather volatile subject and not call one another names. Huh!!!
I understand that an institution must look out for itself as a whole more than one small group within it. I just think that with better leadership and forethought they could have landed what seems to be a top level coach without the tarnish (except for the radical few who likely want even the janitors at the USAG jailed). I like to think leaders and best are just that not by avoiding anything deemed controversial, but by seeing their way clear to make good decisions with all the facts at hand.
Maybe I am wrong, too.
January 17th, 2019 at 5:23 PM ^
how dare we come to a reasonable understanding of mutual disagreement!
That's fair, had this been done in a different way maybe it could have worked out. IMO I would have like them to reach out to some of the more prominent figures not associated with the university (Racahel Denhollinder, Aly Raismen, and the other victims who told her first). I think if they circled the wagons fully I might have a different view.
Alas we are where we are and now lets learn and move forward!
January 17th, 2019 at 9:39 AM ^
What? The head coach is speaking publicly for the first time about this.
January 17th, 2019 at 11:35 AM ^
I'm just over it being discussed and I'll take the negs. Other than Warde saying "no" the first time this was brought to him, we haven't learned anything new about the situation. Many of us have already figured out everything that happened through Brian. Hearing it from the coach does nothing for me unless she is going to answer the most important question of, "why was this hire done on the down low?" Since she did not answer that question, I don't understand the continued conversation about stuff we already know. The timeline of events is really irrelevant to me as it has all been rectified.
January 17th, 2019 at 9:41 AM ^
Hmmm, so it sounds like she did do her due diligence and the Athletic Department panicked. It also sounds like maybe the outrage mob could have calmed down and waited for the University to say why they did something that appeared to be questionable on the surface. Question now becomes when does Faehn sue and for how much?
January 17th, 2019 at 9:42 AM ^
I thought Plocki said the right things in her interview this morning and came across well despite the circumstances surrounding the decision. She regretted the decision and apologized for it. I think that's what a leader does in situations like this. All of us sometimes make poor decisions in our jobs or everyday lives. The important thing is owning up to them, fixing them as best as possible, and not letting them take on a life of their own by moving on. Yes, Manuel did not handle this well. He should have stuck with his first decision. And then not made things worse by trying to keep it low key. Overall, though, I'm glad the University eventually fixed it and it will likely be a good lesson for those involved.
January 17th, 2019 at 10:29 AM ^
"He should have stuck with his first decision." That's not a good leadership trait either. He discussed the issue with those actually impacted and made a decision based on what they wanted. That is good leadership.
It's a tough situation, I can see both sides. However, letting people that are only impacted by the embarrassment felt when sparty gives them grief at the water cooler influence the decision isn’t entirely right either.
January 17th, 2019 at 9:52 AM ^
Sexual abuse is bad. Im against it. Warde did a not good job.
January 17th, 2019 at 10:06 AM ^
So, basically this woman can never work again. Got it.
January 17th, 2019 at 9:55 AM ^
There are, I think, four ways the University could’ve handled this. In descending order of tact, they are:
- Don’t touch it at all. Without getting into whether Faehn deserved a consultant role or not, it’s too fraught with controversy right now and there are another qualified coaches who could fill that niche.
- Get out in front of the story and say **exactly** what Plocki said on Webb’s show. There are people who won’t like it and they have a legit case to make, but Michigan also has a leg to stand on by virtue of showing they approached the matter with sensitivity and consideration and you play your strongest card first (i.e., most of the team was on-board)
- Do what we actually did
- Same as #3 but let the one-day story become a one-week story.
So... /wavestinyflag for us not handling it in the literal worst possible fashion.