NEW: Regents Meeting, Benson Decision, Investigation Report -- Monday, 6/12

[CVBuff]

The CU policy on Sexual Misconduct APS 5014 seems to exclude the need to report if the individual effected and the site of offenses are unrelated to CU or its properties. APS 5014 seems to be a refinement or more legalistic policy description of the very general policy statements contained elsewhere. When sexual discrimination, harassment, and sexual or domestic assault occurs, it defines when reporting is required:

"This prohibition applies to conduct that occurs on campus. It also applies to off campus conduct, including on-line or electronic conduct, if the conduct (1) occurred in the context of an employment or education program or activity of the University or (2) has continuing adverse effects on campus.

The University takes prompt and effective steps reasonably intended to stop any form of sexual misconduct, eliminate any hostile environment, prevent its recurrence and as appropriate, remedy its effects."

If the powers that be at CU want reporting to occur any time any where that domestic violence occurs with its students and staff, it seems a change is required in its policy. I see major civil rights issues in regards to such a drastic intrusion on privacy, but who knows what is legal now days.

 

[DiggerBuffs]

The CU policy on Sexual Misconduct APS 5014 seems to exclude the need to report if the individual effected and the site of offenses are unrelated to CU or its properties. APS 5014 seems to be a refinement or more legalistic policy description of the very general policy statements contained elsewhere. When sexual discrimination, harassment, and sexual or domestic assault occurs, it defines when reporting is required:

"This prohibition applies to conduct that occurs on campus. It also applies to off campus conduct, including on-line or electronic conduct, if the conduct (1) occurred in the context of an employment or education program or activity of the University or (2) has continuing adverse effects on campus.

The University takes prompt and effective steps reasonably intended to stop any form of sexual misconduct, eliminate any hostile environment, prevent its recurrence and as appropriate, remedy its effects."

If the powers that be at CU want reporting to occur any time any where that domestic violence occurs with its students and staff, it seems a change is required in its policy. I see major civil rights issues in regards to such a drastic intrusion on privacy, but who knows what is legal now days.

Some of these abuses happened at CU paid for events which cover this. And still under the section of sexual misconduct, it doesn't matter where it happens if it involves those issues and a CU student or employee.

 

[goalline]

They may just be trying to go through all of the ramifications of whatever they decide to do.

1. They decide they did everything right. But, they admit they knew about the situation and that admission may allow room for a lawsuit from the girlfriend.
2. They decide someone did something wrong and needs a reprimand or firing. Now, they are open to a wrongful termination lawsuit.
3. Grey areas in between.

The long meeting may be just to prepare to CYA, once they figure out who's is hanging out in the wind.

 

[MtnBuff]

Was this sexual misconduct or just being an ass? Does beating/abusing a spouse/significant other qualify as sexual misconduct?

In my mind this is splitting hairs. I don't want somebody working for me who engages in sexual misconduct and I don't want somebody working for me who beats or otherwise abuses women. An institution that is in the public eye like CU can't afford to tolerate either and even if an institution isn't public they shouldn't tolerate it either.

Fact is though that I see zero evidence that CU or anyone at CU attempted or even wanted to attempt to cover this up. The response was slower than it could have been but from the start the focus was on the safety of the victim and they never looked for a way to "make it go away" like some other institutions have.

I am just hoping something productive comes from all of this. If you ask me this is about as complicated an issue as the school could face: she wasn't an employee, she didn't want to get the cops involved, she didn't live in Colorado, etc. Hopefully the firm comes back with some sound advice on how to approach this in the future and expands on different circumstances that could come out of issues involving domestic violence.

This is the part that gets me upset about this whole thing and the way it is being handled. Certainly they could have acted in a swifter and more decisive manner. After the fact there is always a different path that could have been taken and wasn't.

Fact is that Mike MacIntyre is not a lawyer specializing in domestic or relationship violence, he is not trained as a counselor or in any ways related to the subject, neither is Rick George or for that matter Dr. Phil. MacIntyre did what would be considered completely appropriate in most organizations, he recognized a potential issue which was outside of the normal scope of his knowledge and experience and took it to his direct supervisor without delay, that supervisor did the same going to the Chancellor's office. If a failure exist it is in the communication between DiStephano's office and the legal counsel for the school.

An appropriate response for this would not include any kind of consequence or reprimand for Coach MacIntyre or for RG, they both tried to do the right thing in a timely manner dealing with an issue outside the areas that could be expected of them to be knowledgeable.

An appropriate response would be to find out why they didn't get better and faster advice from the legal counsel of the university. This again is outside their areas of expertise but they should be expected to know who to call to find out and take that step.

Further a protocol should be developed to handle this type of situation in the future, not just in the athletic department but system wide. It is just as likely that the next time something like this comes up it will be in the history department at UCD or the finance department at UCCS or in the radiology department at the med school. Each corresponding department head then needs to be made aware of the protocol and be trained how to appropriately respond not just to this situation but to any unusual or unexpected situation that could potentially impact the university.

You can't train every supervisor how to handle every situation, it simply isn't practical. What you can do is create an easily accessible resource office that can assist with these situations. Then train the supervisors (and below as appropriate) to use this resource office at any time that a situation arises. The resource office is then equipped with the ability access both upper administration and the resources they need to deal with any situation that may come up. If an employee of the university can document that they took the situation to that resource office in a complete, honest, and timely manner then they should be able to be comfortable knowing that they don't risk further consequences if they act in accordance with that resource offices response.

 

[TDbuff]

Because the restraining order doesn't get served to the school or AD or anyone beside Tumpkin. So we would need to know exactly when and where Tumpkin was served and who he notified of the restraining order. I don't see how there is any burden on CU to follow the personal lives of every employee. They acted on the information they had at the time and stayed prudent to discover all the facts in the case before making any decisions.

According to the victim she texted and left a vm for HCMM saying she was going to the police in Colorado, which apparently prompted a call from Tumpkin's attorney. So, I really don't know how they wouldn't have known about it unless she's lying, or just willful ignorance.

 

[Creebuzz]

I stand by my assertion that the CU Board of Regents, as it is presently comprised, does not appear to have the managerial depth to be governing an organization with the size and complexity of CU.

 

[BuffNut99]

It is possible that the Regents and Benson are discussing a policy change (Regent Law) that would expand the current policies to include situations like this, and that they are not waiting until the next meeting to decide.

 

[SINKRATZ]

It is possible that the Regents and Benson are discussing a policy change (Regent Law) that would expand the current policies to include situations like this, and that they are not waiting until the next meeting to decide.

Maybe it's part of the discussion, but I'm not sure why that would need to be in closed session.

I still can't believe we are this far into the investigation and only now thought it might be good to get a report of the findings in writing.

 

[CVBuff]

DiggerBuffs

Where did you get the information that abuse occurred at a CU sponsored event? I haven't read that anywhere. Do you have inside information?

Also, a reasonable reading of the policy seems to exclude the anywhere anytime interpretation if the victim is not a student or employee and the abuse occurred away from CU or CU sponsored events. If the victim is a CU student or employee, I agree with your reading.

 

[Duff Man]

As I recall, some/most of the alleged abuse that brought charges occurred at the Interlocken where the team was staying before games.

 

[CVBuff]

Thanks.

 

[SINKRATZ]

As I recall, some/most of the alleged abuse that brought charges occurred at the Interlocken where the team was staying before games.

Completely off topic, but why does the team stay in a hotel the night before a home game? So they can enforce curfew more easily? That's got to be expensive.

 

[MtnBuff]

It is possible that the Regents and Benson are discussing a policy change (Regent Law) that would expand the current policies to include situations like this, and that they are not waiting until the next meeting to decide.

Since this would be a policy issue rather than dealing with a specific personnel issue wouldn't this have to be done in open session.

 

[Buffnik]

Completely off topic, but why does the team stay in a hotel the night before a home game? So they can enforce curfew more easily? That's got to be expensive.

That's exactly why. It's a good policy.

 

[Duff Man]

Completely off topic, but why does the team stay in a hotel the night before a home game? So they can enforce curfew more easily? That's got to be expensive.

Curfew and you can control the team the morning of games as well. Less distractions overall.

 

[Buffnik]

Curfew and you can control the team the morning of games as well. Less distractions overall.

Other thing is also that athletes thrive on routines. This makes game weeks more similar, whether home or away.

 

[MtnBuff]

Completely off topic, but why does the team stay in a hotel the night before a home game? So they can enforce curfew more easily? That's got to be expensive.

Virtually everybody does it, major college or pros.

Takes the team away from distractions and makes it easier to keep them focused on the game. Also filters out the hangers on and bad influences. Makes it much less likely that a guy is going to get into an argument with his girlfriend or that a roommate is going to convince them that another round or six of drinks is a good idea.

Get into the hotel, do team meetings and position group meeting, watch some film, have a good dinner and for some a good late meal before bed.

Get everyone up in the morning, have breakfast, go over some final details at the hotel.

Would be hard to convince the coaches that it isn't worth the money.

 

[SINKRATZ]

That's exactly why. It's a good policy.

I wish CU had put me up in a hotel the night before finals.

Then again, my professors didn't get fired if I failed an exam.

 

[Liver]

Curfew and you can control the team the morning of games as well. Less distractions overall.

and, the staff can make sure everyone eats well, gets enough sleep, etc. and, the staff can set up work stations for film study, game planning, and other stuff. and, usually, teams also arrange for out of town parents of players to spend some time with their kids.

it is an excellent policy. i've seen it up close and it works well. except maybe for the time i was at the cal team hotel before they played CU and i rodeup the elevator with about 6 cal d-linemen and i felt the need to give them a "Go Buffs"... heh.

 

[DiggerBuffs]

DiggerBuffs

Where did you get the information that abuse occurred at a CU sponsored event? I haven't read that anywhere. Do you have inside information?

Also, a reasonable reading of the policy seems to exclude the anywhere anytime interpretation if the victim is not a student or employee and the abuse occurred away from CU or CU sponsored events. If the victim is a CU student or employee, I agree with your reading.

The Renaissance was paid for by CU and is widely known. I may have inside info but that was part of a few articles that gave that info.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Virtually everybody does it, major college or pros.

Takes the team away from distractions and makes it easier to keep them focused on the game. Also filters out the hangers on and bad influences. Makes it much less likely that a guy is going to get into an argument with his girlfriend or that a roommate is going to convince them that another round or six of drinks is a good idea.

Get into the hotel, do team meetings and position group meeting, watch some film, have a good dinner and for some a good late meal before bed.

Get everyone up in the morning, have breakfast, go over some final details at the hotel.

Would be hard to convince the coaches that it isn't worth the money.

Bringing this back to the Tumpkin issue - this hotel policy didn't seem to prevent Tumpkin from drinking and abusing his girlfriend the night before a game (allegedly). I assume coaches probably have more freedom and alone time than players do.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Completely off topic, but why does the team stay in a hotel the night before a home game? So they can enforce curfew more easily? That's got to be expensive.

To keep everyone out of trouble.

 

[MtnBuff]

Bringing this back to the Tumpkin issue - this hotel policy didn't seem to prevent Tumpkin from drinking and abusing his girlfriend the night before a game (allegedly). I assume coaches probably have more freedom and alone time than players do.

Fair to assume that coaches do have more freedom in what they do.

Also handled differently from team to team. Some schools go on full lock down even shutting of the ability to do outside calls (much harder now with cellphones) and structuring every minute. Others, well, I've heard some stories about the hotel before games when Switzer was the coach at Oklahoma.

 

[Buffnik]

Bringing this back to the Tumpkin issue - this hotel policy didn't seem to prevent Tumpkin from drinking and abusing his girlfriend the night before a game (allegedly). I assume coaches probably have more freedom and alone time than players do.

Makes me wonder if Tumpkin would have been back regardless of the abuse allegations. MacIntyre does not seem like the kind of guy who has a lot of patience for it if he feels like he's got to do a bed check on his staff the night before games.

 

[BlackNGold]

Here is where I am confused - If one of my employees significant others calls me and says they are being abused by said employee - what are my responsibilities to the victim and to the employee? I am not a law enforcement official and I am not a family counselor - I would normally advise someone to look at those areas for help Can I even confront an employee or take action based on someone's say so. It seems like our rush to guarantee a perfect world ends up stepping over some rights like innocent until proven guilty..

 

[Buffnik]

Here is where I am confused - If one of my employees significant others calls me and says they are being abused by said employee - what are my responsibilities to the victim and to the employee? I am not a law enforcement official and I am not a family counselor - I would normally advise someone to look at those areas for help Can I even confront an employee or take action based on someone's say so. It seems like our rush to guarantee a perfect world ends up stepping over some rights like innocent until proven guilty..

Yep. If that happened to me at my workplace, I would:

1) Make sure that she was safe.
2) Tell her that I need to go to HR and my superiors with this and they are likely to be in contact with her.
3) Go to HR and my superiors & follow whatever they tell me to do.

 

[Bear Fiend]

The lack of a Junta placed microwave in the meeting room is a red flag to me.

 

[leftybuff]

Yep. If that happened to me at my workplace, I would:

1) Make sure that she was safe.
2) Tell her that I need to go to HR and my superiors with this and they are likely to be in contact with her.
3) Go to HR and my superiors & follow whatever they tell me to do.

Interesting you assume the victim is female.

 

[onealcd]

Yep. If that happened to me at my workplace, I would:

1) Make sure that she was safe.
2) Tell her that I need to go to HR and my superiors with this and they are likely to be in contact with her.
3) Go to HR and my superiors & follow whatever they tell me to do.

This is where I disagree and though Mac messed up. He should have told her immediately to go to the cops because she was putting him in an impossible situation of trying to either discipline an assistant without proof or pushing an assistant out the door into another program instead of the allegations coming out.

 

[leftybuff]

This is where I disagree and though Mac messed up. He should have told her immediately to go to the cops because she was putting him in an impossible situation of trying to either discipline an assistant without proof or pushing an assistant out the door into another program instead of the allegations coming out.

Maybe, but if the victim is saying don't do anything about it. MikMac was in an impossible position....