SI: CU Assistant Coach's Victim Seeks Justice

[Buffnik]

The big **** up was the "Interim DC" tag that HCMM placed on JT.

Without that, this is a non-story. He messed up there.

Should not have announced or done that. Would have been so much better for HCMM to say he was personally taking over the DC responsibility for the Alamo Bowl, but that the defensive assistants would all be taking on a larger role than normal up to and including the play calling.

 

[buff4bcs1985]

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...all-there-s-a-storm-brewing-in-boulder-020417

Fansided is random internet poster with a blog...

 

[SuperiorBuff]

Can this circle jerk get moved to the island or Barzil?

 

[The Monk]

I think the plan was to keep things quiet and have Tumpkin find another job somewhere else at the end of the season, mostly because that seems to be the MO most programs take with problem athletes and staff. And personally my own experience in strong leader driven hierarchal organizations.

We were gifted the SI story came out so late, but it's CU's own fault for not going ugly early and letting the media drive the narrative. I think there's a tendency for programs on the upswing to try to keep a positive image at all costs and in the end it trips them all up.

 

[letsgoavs192]

The big **** up was the "Interim DC" tag that HCMM placed on JT.

Without that, this is a non-story. He messed up there.

Should not have announced or done that. Would have been so much better for HCMM to say he was personally taking over the DC responsibility for the Alamo Bowl, but that the defensive assistants would all be taking on a larger role than normal up to and including the play calling.

But you are innocent until proven guilty. At that time Leavitt and Clark were gone, and no charges had been filed.

 

[sackman]

But you are innocent until proven guilty. At that time Leavitt and Clark were gone, and no charges had been filed.

If you're truly innocent until proven guilty, he would still be on the staff today.

The charges alone, coupled with the restraining order, were enough to remove him. Promoting him, even if temporarily, was bad form, but I can understand the reasons behind it.

Again, there really isn't a lot of meat on this bone. At worst, it's an unfortunate couple of decisions, followed by the right decision. Hardly the level of bailer - who STILL employs many of the same personnel who were directly involved in their shenanigans.

 

[DBT]

Even the victim, at the time she called Mac and his wife, sent the message that she was worried for JT's well being. Just very odd stuff.

 

[Buffnik]

Even the victim, at the time she called Mac and his wife, sent the message that she was worried for JT's well being. Just very odd stuff.

I don't doubt that she loved him and probably still does. She stuck it out for quite a while, it seems. I don't have personal experience with her type of situation, but it reminds me of living with an addict -- but in this case the incapacity on impulse control is with rage & violence. I'd bet that 99% of the time it was a really good relationship, but then those demons would surface. So glad she had the strength and courage to get herself out.

 

[Deleted member 807]

I give her the benefit of the doubt because I don't believe in victim shaming. Why an abused partner sticks around with her abuser is a syndrome I don't understand.

But an attorney might have a field day discoving info about how CU might have tried to balance Jane Doe's request for Tumpkin's job security with his need to not to be abusive. Based on her demand to keep legal out of it, a part of me is channeling Admiral Akbar.

 

[Buffnik]

Haven't listened yet. Starting now. Also a Signing Day show.

 

[DiggerBuffs]

Haven't listened yet. Starting now. Also a Signing Day show.

This podcast will probably just piss me off like @SINKRATZ not being able to see multiple sides to this. Mac is the least person to blame in all of this. ADDED: Jake and Ryan on point in discussion. END of ADDED. He was following orders and followed up every time. The biggest issues are these:

1. Banashek, Tumpkin's attorney, and his relationship with CU really jacked this thing up.
2. Client/attorney probably kept the sticky details out of it once he knew she had filed the TPO. Banashek goes from telling all and transparent to protecting his client.
3. Play calling duties or interim DC, both hurt knowing what Mac did. Mac should have called plays.
4. CU deciding OIEC did not need to be contacted until they realized she had filed. Err on the side of caution. They should have been more proactive. Not alerting OIEC makes it look like it is a cover-up until after the bowl was over. OIEC is the ultimate decision maker and may have said, suspend Tumpkin. Would have hurt the team, but teh way this was done hurts the image long-term.

Read Process and Procedures by OIEC: Section G 2e and you will see why this is a big mess up!!!
5. This became a web of who knows what happened at CU behind closed doors, but whatever they did was not right for the victim.

CU ultimately did what was right but some bad advice/decision making made this look much worse than it actually was.

 

[onealcd]

They did a good job on the podcast. Said the mishaps were promoting Tumpkin to DC which I don't necessarily agree with but a good conversation to listen to.

 

[DBT]

They did a good job on the podcast. Said the mishaps were temporarily assigning Tumpkin to DC which I don't necessarily agree with but a good conversation to listen to.

FIFY

 

[SINKRATZ]

This podcast will probably just piss me off like @SINKRATZ not being able to see multiple sides to this. Mac is the least person to blame in all of this. ADDED: Jake and Ryan on point in discussion. END of ADDED. He was following orders and followed up every time. The biggest issues are these:

1. Banashek, Tumpkin's attorney, and his relationship with CU really jacked this thing up.
2. Client/attorney probably kept the sticky details out of it once he knew she had filed the TPO. Banashek goes from telling all and transparent to protecting his client.
3. Play calling duties or interim DC, both hurt knowing what Mac did. Mac should have called plays.
4. CU deciding OIEC did not need to be contacted until they realized she had filed. Err on the side of caution. They should have been more proactive. Not alerting OIEC makes it look like it is a cover-up until after the bowl was over. OIEC is the ultimate decision maker and may have said, suspend Tumpkin. Would have hurt the team, but teh way this was done hurts the image long-term.

Read Process and Procedures by OIEC: Section G 2e and you will see why this is a big mess up!!!
5. This became a web of who knows what happened at CU behind closed doors, but whatever they did was not right for the victim.

CU ultimately did what was right but some bad advice/decision making made this look much worse than it actually was.

I haven't listened to the podcast, but I do find it ironic that you single me out for criticising Mac and in the same post highlight a couple of mistakes he made in this whole ordeal.

I'm not saying Mac is a bad guy - I've said before I think Mac truly tried to do what he thought was right here, but made a couple of errors in judgement (in my opinion) which were:

1) Not calling authorities and OIEC immediately after the first Jane call. She expressed fear for his safety (allegedly).

2) Not suspending Tumpkin immediately after the Jane call. Could have been with pay and kept fairly quiet, but with allegations like that coming from someone apparently close to Mac and his wife, I would want to distance the program from that while it's sorted out.

3) No one from CU following up with Jane to let her know what their plan of action was. Her only hearing from Banashek and the message he was trying to deliver looks bad and I can see why she felt abandoned by CU after opening up to Mac.

I understand others disagree and think Mac did everything right and that's fine. I'm just glad nothing more serious occurred in the last couple months since she opened up to Mac.

 

[Buffnik]

I haven't listened to the podcast, but I do find it ironic that you single me out for criticising Mac and in the same post highlight a couple of mistakes he made in this whole ordeal.

I'm not saying Mac is a bad guy - I've said before I think Mac truly tried to do what he thought was right here, but made a couple of errors in judgement (in my opinion) which were:

1) Not calling authorities and OIEC immediately after the first Jane call. She expressed fear for his safety (allegedly).

2) Not suspending Tumpkin immediately after the Jane call. Could have been with pay and kept fairly quiet, but with allegations like that coming from someone apparently close to Mac and his wife, I would want to distance the program from that while it's sorted out.

3) No one from CU following up with Jane to let her know what their plan of action was. Her only hearing from Banashek and the message he was trying to deliver looks bad and I can see why she felt abandoned by CU after opening up to Mac.

I understand others disagree and think Mac did everything right and that's fine. I'm just glad nothing more serious occurred in the last couple months since she opened up to Mac.

I don't know anything, but the whispers I'm hearing are that after what happened in 2004 CU made decisions above MM and RG that there would be no deviation from the advice of legal counsel. That came across as cold hearted and in some ways it was despite MM's main concern being that Jane was out of danger and RG wanting to immediately terminate (allegedly). Hopefully a lesson was learned and CU will be better in the future.

 

[DBT]

I haven't listened to the podcast, but I do find it ironic that you single me out for criticising Mac and in the same post highlight a couple of mistakes he made in this whole ordeal.

I'm not saying Mac is a bad guy - I've said before I think Mac truly tried to do what he thought was right here, but made a couple of errors in judgement (in my opinion) which were:

1) Not calling authorities and OIEC immediately after the first Jane call. She expressed fear for his safety (allegedly).

2) Not suspending Tumpkin immediately after the Jane call. Could have been with pay and kept fairly quiet, but with allegations like that coming from someone apparently close to Mac and his wife, I would want to distance the program from that while it's sorted out.

3) No one from CU following up with Jane to let her know what their plan of action was. Her only hearing from Banashek and the message he was trying to deliver looks bad and I can see why she felt abandoned by CU after opening up to Mac.

I understand others disagree and think Mac did everything right and that's fine. I'm just glad nothing more serious occurred in the last couple months since she opened up to Mac.

1. Against Jane's expressed wishes
2. Against Jane's expressed wishes
3. How do you know?

 

[DiggerBuffs]

I haven't listened to the podcast, but I do find it ironic that you single me out for criticising Mac and in the same post highlight a couple of mistakes he made in this whole ordeal.

I'm not saying Mac is a bad guy - I've said before I think Mac truly tried to do what he thought was right here, but made a couple of errors in judgement (in my opinion) which were:

1) Not calling authorities and OIEC immediately after the first Jane call. She expressed fear for his safety (allegedly).

2) Not suspending Tumpkin immediately after the Jane call. Could have been with pay and kept fairly quiet, but with allegations like that coming from someone apparently close to Mac and his wife, I would want to distance the program from that while it's sorted out.

3) No one from CU following up with Jane to let her know what their plan of action was. Her only hearing from Banashek and the message he was trying to deliver looks bad and I can see why she felt abandoned by CU after opening up to Mac.

I understand others disagree and think Mac did everything right and that's fine. I'm just glad nothing more serious occurred in the last couple months since she opened up to Mac.

I understand your stance. I agree with it, but I feel the characters to question are the chancellor and CU legal. The other two were told we will take the correct course of action. If Mac is told this and the opposite happens even though he continued to report what he knew, then the procedures are ****ed up and DiStefano needs to go. Reading DiStefano's "apology" it covers his ass and throws the blame elsewhere when it falls on his shoulders. Mac screwed up, but if I am repeatedly told by my supervisor you are doing this correctly and don't do anything else because we are handling it correctly, what are you supposed to do? I believe this will open Mac's eyes to say trust people but still follow up with OIEC and everyone else. There was no gray area, CU dropped the ball per very clear OIEC Procedures.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

SIAP.....some clarity to a lot of continued questions in here

http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_30777871/cu-chancellor-ad-okd-allowing-joe-tumpkin-coach

 

[sackman]

Slightly off topic, but I can attest to the fact that federal procedures are never clearly defined. They are always up to interpretation. We shouldn't expect a football coach to know the ins and outs of the federal guidelines with regards to who is told what and when.

 

[DiggerBuffs]

1. Against Jane's expressed wishes
2. Against Jane's expressed wishes
3. How do you know?

-

1. Yes, but even then you must report. That is the pattern of someone abused.
2. See above
3. OIEC did not reach out to her until the TPO was filed and CU was then forced to report to OIEC because they knew about it. It was poorly handled by whomever was giving the advice and calling the shots. OIEC has to be called as I stated. Looks bad big time because of that.

 

[SINKRATZ]

1. Against Jane's expressed wishes
2. Against Jane's expressed wishes
3. How do you know?

1. Her express wishes should come 2nd to protecting someone's safety.
2. Her express wishes should have no bearing on AD personnel decisions. Would you make personnel decisions in your business based on the express wishes of an employee's girlfriend?
3. She said so.

 

[Bufffalo1]

According to CU's employee sexual misconduct policy, the Chancellor did not have any choice as a "responsible party" not to immediately report the alleged abuse to OIEC. It is not a "we should have" reported as his letter states. It is policy. It includes staff, students and "third parties". December 9th he decided to not follow the policy of the university. She was put in additional danger because her abuser was informed that she had told his boss. "I'm only in danger if he loses his job"
Other women around him were in danger and so was the employee himself according to Jane. The Chancellor's statement is that they were waiting for the police findings, but they say they didn't know about any findings until Jan 6th. However, the victim had originally told Mac she wasn't going to the police, so they either
1. knew she had indeed filed a report and TPO on Dec 20th and are saying they had no knowledge of it until Jan 6th or
2. they really didn't know that there was a police report and they ignored the policies set forth that they are mandated reporters and must report whether the victim wants them to or not. "He is dangerous to himself and other women."
Why wasn't the victim contacted after Dec 9th by OIEC to see if she could provide evidence? Offered victim support?
It does not matter from the Chancellor's responsibility standpoint if she goes to the police. If she NEVER went to the police after the initial call, then what? The Chancellor would not have been on "pins and needles?" He would do nothing with the allegations of a coach abusing women if they were never reported to the police? No.

OIEC would have done a separate investigation from the police anyway....had Phil followed policy. Tumpkin could have ended up being below the DA's bar of filing warrants yet still be found to be above the university standard of "preponderance".
Police investigation or no police investigation....it does not change what the Chancellor was required to do after he was told by RG.

Dec 9-Jan 6 the Chancellor said they had no "written" evidence. Did they check on the 911 call they had been told about? Apparently, they had never called her so they couldn't know that she was still safe after they informed her abuser she had told on him. If they never contacted her again then how did they know she had filed for protection and gone to the police? Banashek? If that's the case, then they knew it all on Dec 21st when Mr Banashek knew. Not Jan 6.
If not and they really knew of nothing other than her telling Mac she wasn't going to the police, why weren't they starting an internal investigation? They couldn't have started one because Phil admits the victim was never contacted by them again.
If 5 felony charges were signed by the DA, then surely she had enough evidence to meet the CU bar of "preponderance" (51%).
Yet, they didn't go to OIEC. They didn't check on the victim. They didn't follow the law for reporting. They waited on pins and needles and made Tumpkin the defensive play caller and defensive spokesperson for the Alamo Bowl.
The police report was filed Dec 19th. The TPO was signed in court on Dec 20th. It was legal on Dec 20. It is semantics to say Tumpkin signed it on Dec 30. If he had contacted her after Dec 21, he would have broken the law. The original court date set by the judge on Dec 20 in Boulder court was Jan 3rd. Tumpkin got a continuance until Jan 31. Yet Phil didn't know until the article came out on the 6th? I think Plati was the only one who found out on the 6th.
Phil states that they all want to apologize to the victim and her son. She lives in Michigan. Did he call her to apologize or just decide that a public letter would be somehow seen by her and her son? Has he been asked that? If you apologize for never contacting someone, then I'm assuming you then contact them to apologize. Maybe he has, but is anyone questioning him about his statement?
He states that from now on he will make sure that mandated reporters, which he is, will report to OIEC. So, has he reported this situation to OIEC so they can hear both sides of these allegations? Is he holding up to what he said in his letter about going to OIEC? Has he been asked that?
Has the victim heard from OIEC or victim services since the SI allegations? If not, then his letter seems to be disingenuous and a PR piece. He admits mistakes were made. Has he corrected any of them? If not, then it shows his letter was to quiet the noise.
It's not a "should have". It is required. OIEC can provide anyone interested with both CU's sexual misconduct policy and their policy and procedures for reporting. It is clearly outlined (no grey) and it is certainly not "confusing" that the Chancellor, not the attorney, was responsible for the safety of his staff and the "third party" (Jane) and is required to report to OIEC immediately. Mac reported to RG who brought in the Chancellor. Mac and RG reported to their boss. Mac is taking the heat, which I think is unfair. Jane said he was "so kind" and "numb". He was going to see what he had to do legally. He went immediately to his boss who went to the Chancellor of our university.
If you read the policies of the university it is very clear....nowhere does it say have a defense attorney contact the victim in lieu of using the agencies put in place to make sure all parties involved are safe.

 

[Deleted member 807]

According to CU's employee sexual misconduct policy, the Chancellor did not have any choice as a "responsible party" not to immediately report the alleged abuse to OIEC. It is not a "we should have" reported as his letter states. It is policy. It includes staff, students and "third parties". December 9th he decided to not follow the policy of the university. She was put in additional danger because her abuser was informed that she had told his boss. "I'm only in danger if he loses his job"
Other women around him were in danger and so was the employee himself according to Jane. The Chancellor's statement is that they were waiting for the police findings, but they say they didn't know about any findings until Jan 6th. However, the victim had originally told Mac she wasn't going to the police, so they either
1. knew she had indeed filed a report and TPO on Dec 20th and are saying they had no knowledge of it until Jan 6th or
2. they really didn't know that there was a police report and they ignored the policies set forth that they are mandated reporters and must report whether the victim wants them to or not. "He is dangerous to himself and other women."
Why wasn't the victim contacted after Dec 9th by OIEC to see if she could provide evidence? Offered victim support?
It does not matter from the Chancellor's responsibility standpoint if she goes to the police. If she NEVER went to the police after the initial call, then what? The Chancellor would not have been on "pins and needles?" He would do nothing with the allegations of a coach abusing women if they were never reported to the police? No.

OIEC would have done a separate investigation from the police anyway....had Phil followed policy. Tumpkin could have ended up being below the DA's bar of filing warrants yet still be found to be above the university standard of "preponderance".
Police investigation or no police investigation....it does not change what the Chancellor was required to do after he was told by RG.

Dec 9-Jan 6 the Chancellor said they had no "written" evidence. Did they check on the 911 call they had been told about? Apparently, they had never called her so they couldn't know that she was still safe after they informed her abuser she had told on him. If they never contacted her again then how did they know she had filed for protection and gone to the police? Banashek? If that's the case, then they knew it all on Dec 21st when Mr Banashek knew. Not Jan 6.
If not and they really knew of nothing other than her telling Mac she wasn't going to the police, why weren't they starting an internal investigation? They couldn't have started one because Phil admits the victim was never contacted by them again.
If 5 felony charges were signed by the DA, then surely she had enough evidence to meet the CU bar of "preponderance" (51%).
Yet, they didn't go to OIEC. They didn't check on the victim. They didn't follow the law for reporting. They waited on pins and needles and made Tumpkin the defensive play caller and defensive spokesperson for the Alamo Bowl.
The police report was filed Dec 19th. The TPO was signed in court on Dec 20th. It was legal on Dec 20. It is semantics to say Tumpkin signed it on Dec 30. If he had contacted her after Dec 21, he would have broken the law. The original court date set by the judge on Dec 20 in Boulder court was Jan 3rd. Tumpkin got a continuance until Jan 31. Yet Phil didn't know until the article came out on the 6th? I think Plati was the only one who found out on the 6th.
Phil states that they all want to apologize to the victim and her son. She lives in Michigan. Did he call her to apologize or just decide that a public letter would be somehow seen by her and her son? Has he been asked that? If you apologize for never contacting someone, then I'm assuming you then contact them to apologize. Maybe he has, but is anyone questioning him about his statement?
He states that from now on he will make sure that mandated reporters, which he is, will report to OIEC. So, has he reported this situation to OIEC so they can hear both sides of these allegations? Is he holding up to what he said in his letter about going to OIEC? Has he been asked that?
Has the victim heard from OIEC or victim services since the SI allegations? If not, then his letter seems to be disingenuous and a PR piece. He admits mistakes were made. Has he corrected any of them? If not, then it shows his letter was to quiet the noise.
It's not a "should have". It is required. OIEC can provide anyone interested with both CU's sexual misconduct policy and their policy and procedures for reporting. It is clearly outlined (no grey) and it is certainly not "confusing" that the Chancellor, not the attorney, was responsible for the safety of his staff and the "third party" (Jane) and is required to report to OIEC immediately. Mac reported to RG who brought in the Chancellor. Mac and RG reported to their boss. Mac is taking the heat, which I think is unfair. Jane said he was "so kind" and "numb". He was going to see what he had to do legally. He went immediately to his boss who went to the Chancellor of our university.
If you read the policies of the university it is very clear....nowhere does it say have a defense attorney contact the victim in lieu of using the agencies put in place to make sure all parties involved are safe.

You left out what repercussions you think should apply to HCMM, ADRG, CPDiS, & the university.

 

[sackman]

Why would DiStefano know that particular policy?

Who knows all of the policies in his/her company? I can tell you that if something similar happened to me, I'd probably do almost the exact same thing that MM did. I'd be like "I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do, but I'll look into it and try to figure it out".

 

[Bufffalo1]

You left out what repercussions you think should apply to HCMM, ADRG, CPDiS, & the university.

That would follow the procedural guidelines of OIEC or NCAA Compliance rules, I assume. As Chancellor, not following your own guidelines for reporting a possibly dangerous employee to OIEC, which resulted in a potentially dangerous situation for the employee or a third party and shed a very bad light on the university should have a significant level of Accountability, in my opinion.

 

[Bufffalo1]

Why would DiStefano know that particular policy?

Who knows all of the policies in his/her company? I can tell you that if something similar happened to me, I'd probably do almost the exact same thing that MM did. I'd be like "I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do, but I'll look into it and try to figure it out".

Why would the Chancellor of a university know the policy on reporting abuse? If for some reason, he was confused, he had 4 weeks to consult OIEC or look it up online in 5 min like anyone else can.

 

[Randy.Watson]

Things I learned from this thread...

1. It's sad that the SI writer was able to position anyone but Tumpkin as the perpetrator and individual who should be maligned. Some posters here bought that narrative and continue to run with it.

2. People outside of the situation love to use hindsight and then critique those involved while acting morally superior.

3. Some are able to gloss over the fact that once Mac was aware of the victim's concerns he immediately took action and the victim was never in physical danger again.

4. Some do not recognize the difference between a promotion and being given a temporary assignment. Tumpkin was not promoted to DC, our DC had just bailed and as the next in line Tumpkin was asked to call plays for the Alamo Bowl.

5. To go off point 4, those who were calling for immediate termination or suspension, it sounds like that is precisely what MM and RG wanted to do, but at that time there were no charges being filed and no documentation of an incident at all. You can't call a state employee into your office and tell them they're fired or suspended because their ex called and said some horrible things that she is not willing to commit to public record.

 

[Deleted member 807]

That would follow the procedural guidelines of OIEC or NCAA Compliance rules, I assume. As Chancellor, not following your own guidelines for reporting a possibly dangerous employee to OIEC, which resulted in a potentially dangerous situation for the employee or a third party and shed a very bad light on the university should have a significant level of Accountability, in my opinion.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda is not a repercussion.

In your opinion, a hand-slap and public shaming is sufficient?

Should someone be disciplined?
Demoted? No raise? Fired?

Should the victim be paid?

Certainly not double super extra bad light shed on the university like the death penalty?

I dont understand what are you saying, unless you are implying "shed a very bad light" on the university is how this saga ends.

 

[sackman]

I think you assign too much credit to DiStafano. Guy has a campus to run. I'd be surprised if he even knew there was a policy. If this kind of thing happened all the time, it would be different. Thankfully it doesn't. Then thereis the issue of whether the policy applies to non-employee, non-spouse relationships. Remember, Jane is neither an employee of the university nor a spouse of an employee. That alone, I would think, is reason to pause and make sure you are doing the right things.
It's never as black and white as some random policy makes it out to be. There are variables in this case that made it challenging to know exactly what the right thing to do was and at what time to do it. I'm satisfied that every effort was made to help his lady while protecting the University and follow the rules. Sometimes, those things are at odds with each other.

 

[Buffnik]

I think you assign too much credit to DiStafano. Guy has a campus to run. I'd be surprised if he even knew there was a policy. If this kind of thing happened all the time, it would be different. Thankfully it doesn't. Then thereis the issue of whether the policy applies to non-employee, non-spouse relationships. Remember, Jane is neither an employee of the university nor a spouse of an employee. That alone, I would think, is reason to pause and make sure you are doing the right things.
It's never as black and white as some random policy makes it out to be. There are variables in this case that made it challenging to know exactly what the right thing to do was and at what time to do it. I'm satisfied that every effort was made to help his lady while protecting the University and follow the rules. Sometimes, those things are at odds with each other.

I don't expect Phil to know the ins and outs of every policy. That would be ridiculous.

But I would expect him to call in HR and compliance officers along with university counsel to brief him on what the university's obligations and options are. If he didn't do that, he's pretty much incompetent.

I wonder how much the fact that most everyone was on vacation played into this. It was Winter Break when this was going on.