I expect he did exactly as you describe. He called somebody in compliance or HR and asked what he was supposed to do, and followed those instructions.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
SI: CU Assistant Coach's Victim Seeks Justice
- Thread starter TDbuff
- Start date
Great post. I will add one more:
There is a difference between policy and the law. Some of these posts are written such that there is a belief that people should be going to jail for not following a policy.
I think the biggest source of confusion at the time was "Do our policies cover personal relationships of employees occurring outside of the University?" It is pretty clear if the conduct occurs on campus, occurs between two staff members, between two students, or a student and staff member, but the policy itself was not crystal clear that it applied to a staff member with an outside personal relationship. I went to the OIEC website and read the policy and it is buried in there, but it isn't obvious. To me it would be pretty unnerving to have an employer digging into a personal relationship that didn't take place at the workplace. I think there are some lines that need to be drawn. Perhaps the OIEC should provide guidance in these situations.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Your #2 is vague and harshly worded. No specific posters are called out. Is everyone participating in this thread acting morally superior? And what do you mean by that as it relates to fans who are sickened by the stain of violence against women tarnishing the glorious cultural institution of college football?
Do you think discussions about the stain of sexual misconduct and domestic violence should be swept under the rug? Of course stories about sexual assault and domestic violence involving CU are going to be thoroughly discussed because it's understood that how CU and the media handle these issues have been and will continue to be under the microscope.
Randy.Watson
Well-Known Member
I believe point #2 is rather clear, but to elaborate...it is far easier to look over a situation after it has played out and chastise those who were tasked with making the decisions in real time. Some are crucifying MM and RG for decisions that were out of their hands legally. Also, I would include myself among those "sickened with the stain of violence against women" and that is why if the allegations against Tumpkin are proven out, he should spend some time in jail and never have an opportunity to coach again.
To your second paragraph and related to my first, I don't think anything should be swept under the rug, but we should take the time to properly identify the perpetrators, the victims, and the bystanders in these scenarios before we begin our conversation. We owe that to all involved. That is where the failure in the SI article lies. In a rush to generate clicks, critical journalistic methods that ensure integrity were bypassed or ignored.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
Frankly, there is really only one person who is in the wrong here, regardless of how this all went down, and that is Tumkin. Period, end of story.
Deleted member 807
Guest
I appreciate the thoughtful response. Using words like "crucified" and as others have posted "very bad light" are exaggerated and hyperbolic.
No one has literally or figuratively crucified Mac. Tumpkin has been shunned, fired, and abused for his actions, despite the fact he hasn't been convicted of any crimes yet.
"Very bad light" means to me legal and NCAA infractions.
So far as I can tell, no one has asserted CU has done anything illegal. Sure there is some finger wagging about ethical decisions. Whether or not Tumpkin should have coached the Alamo Bowl or have been suspended when the judge ordered the TRO is the key point of discussion.
But so far, no one has asserted what the consequences should be for the Alamo staffing decisions.
No one besides Tumpkin is losing their job. No one is advocating CU settle with the victim. No one is criticizing MacIntyre's raise.
The story is a blip in the national media. SI should be expected to publish stories like this because it happened. It's news.
What you describe as "critique others while acting morally superior" seems to me like a bunch of fans struggling to come to terms with the news for purposes of determining key learnings so that similar events don't happen again.
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
Thoughts reading all this:
1. OIEC P&P Part G 2e is clear that this is part of the policy.
2. DiStefano has 40+ years with CU and part of the reason compliance is so strict is part of the things he witnessed as assistant Chancellor. He better know you are to report anything that is a gray area.
3. CU gave whomever didn't report to OIEC bad advice. OIEC was not invlolced until light of the temporary protection/restraining order were made.
4. Had the victim been kept in the loop instead of pushed on by an attorney CU is in bed with, Banashek, then maybe she doesn't feel jaded.
5. Chancellors open letter would have sounded better if he had actually reached out to victim and shown remorse fully instead of attacking article.
6. The legal advice was crap from Day One.
7. vacation is a bad excuse. Someone could have been reached.
The university has to be better. **** like this should not be swept under the rug. CU should be a shining example.
DiStrefano should have a suspension. RG and Mac should be talked to about anything needs reported to both us and superiors since it states OIEC is to be contacted. CU should be more open in why they chose their actions. My guess is this can't all be discussed yet and not a lot can be said to the victim but after the SI article I felt that was a half hearted/assed attempt at responding to it.
1. OIEC P&P Part G 2e is clear that this is part of the policy.
2. DiStefano has 40+ years with CU and part of the reason compliance is so strict is part of the things he witnessed as assistant Chancellor. He better know you are to report anything that is a gray area.
3. CU gave whomever didn't report to OIEC bad advice. OIEC was not invlolced until light of the temporary protection/restraining order were made.
4. Had the victim been kept in the loop instead of pushed on by an attorney CU is in bed with, Banashek, then maybe she doesn't feel jaded.
5. Chancellors open letter would have sounded better if he had actually reached out to victim and shown remorse fully instead of attacking article.
6. The legal advice was crap from Day One.
7. vacation is a bad excuse. Someone could have been reached.
The university has to be better. **** like this should not be swept under the rug. CU should be a shining example.
DiStrefano should have a suspension. RG and Mac should be talked to about anything needs reported to both us and superiors since it states OIEC is to be contacted. CU should be more open in why they chose their actions. My guess is this can't all be discussed yet and not a lot can be said to the victim but after the SI article I felt that was a half hearted/assed attempt at responding to it.
Randy.Watson
Well-Known Member
Not sure I want to go around and around on this. I stated my opinion and you seem to disagree with it, which is fine.
I will take a moment to correct a couple of oversights in your post though. First, Tumpkin was not fired without being found guilty of anything as you stated, he met with his employer and it was determined that having him resign would be in the best interest of both parties. Again, this speaks to the legal pitfalls that MM and RG had to navigate as mentioned in my previous post.
Secondly, Yes, SI should do stories like this. But they should also not omit pertinent information and intentionally structure an incomplete timeline that fits their narrative but fails to tell the whole story. In short, if they like to occasionally wade in the water of serious journalism, they should be held to the same standards.
My first thought in reading part of this, didn't read it all because I could sense the direction it was going and we have already been there, was is this Big Jim's sock or somebody else's sock.
We have a brand new poster with a total of 3 post, all of which are in this thread, trying to rip CU a new one over territory that has already been covered and acting like this reaches the levels of Baylor, Penn State, Nebraska, or Miami.
No question the situation could have been handled better. Had HCMM and RG been specialist in the area of DV they probably would have, same with Dr. Phil. They did the prudent thing and acted on the advice of counsel, like it or not this has been established. Even if they had acted sooner they could not have acted soon enough to make the complainers happy. Again until they had legal grounds which came with the PPO they could not act just on the word of an at the time alleged victim who stated she did not want to involve police and/or prosecute.
What has also been established is that A) The right conclusion was eventually reached in asking and receiving the resignation and all information being turned over to the authorities. B) Every indication that this was an isolated incident, not in any way an indicator of a climate that supports, encourages, or protects violence against women or others.
If someone is asking for discipline such as suspensions or terminations against members of the CU staff then they are simply being reactionary idiots. There was no intent to hide or protect an abuser. The people involved did the best they could under the circumstances and with the knowledge and experience they have.
We have a brand new poster with a total of 3 post, all of which are in this thread, trying to rip CU a new one over territory that has already been covered and acting like this reaches the levels of Baylor, Penn State, Nebraska, or Miami.
No question the situation could have been handled better. Had HCMM and RG been specialist in the area of DV they probably would have, same with Dr. Phil. They did the prudent thing and acted on the advice of counsel, like it or not this has been established. Even if they had acted sooner they could not have acted soon enough to make the complainers happy. Again until they had legal grounds which came with the PPO they could not act just on the word of an at the time alleged victim who stated she did not want to involve police and/or prosecute.
What has also been established is that A) The right conclusion was eventually reached in asking and receiving the resignation and all information being turned over to the authorities. B) Every indication that this was an isolated incident, not in any way an indicator of a climate that supports, encourages, or protects violence against women or others.
If someone is asking for discipline such as suspensions or terminations against members of the CU staff then they are simply being reactionary idiots. There was no intent to hide or protect an abuser. The people involved did the best they could under the circumstances and with the knowledge and experience they have.
Deleted member 807
Guest
I stand crucified.
No disagreement with your clarifications.
Don't hold your breath for sports journalism to be held to high standards, though. Social media puts a premium on speed over completeness and bias over neutrality.
Yes that is in there under the prohibited conduct. I think the confusion on applicability though comes from Part C 1:
I would venture to say that 1a doesn't apply in this situation as there was no allegation that the conduct occurred on University property or at any sponsored event. 1b(2) clearly doesn't apply either, so that leaves 1b(1). 1b(1) is very broad and non-specific in language so intent cannot clearly and precisely be obtained. I think the chancellor's statement is in effect now defining 1b(1) to include any conduct by a university employee in any domestic situation. I think any good lawyer could argue either way on 1b(1) and have very good reasons for arguing that.
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
I apologize. I realize we are on a pro-CU board and the only thing we can attack is the credibility of fellow posters or the competence of a coach. We can't look at the mishandling of a situation and say anything besides toeing the line of, CU did the best they could. Not that, it wasn't perfect and these were the actions and they aren't perfect and more explanation why is fair.
Suspending DiStefano may feed off his 40+ years of being at CU and his continued blunders both as acting chancellor and prior. He was made aware of what happened. His immediate action as someone that works with OIEC and is the tie between the university and athletics is to know what to do.
#1 to blame here is Joe Tumpkin.
#2 is whomever decided not following standard protocol of contacting OIEC was the best plan of action.
I love CU. It is difficult but after seeing how things can be handled, CU needs to do more than say OOPS, we'll do better. What got us to the OOPS moment is my main question. Why can't simple rules be followed until legal actions are brought up? OIEC is there to protect those afraid to bring up these issues. Just be better. That's life.
But, let's bury this thread or throw it to Barzil for those of us that don't want to see it any longer and can't see both the CU and victim side of things.
Suspending DiStefano may feed off his 40+ years of being at CU and his continued blunders both as acting chancellor and prior. He was made aware of what happened. His immediate action as someone that works with OIEC and is the tie between the university and athletics is to know what to do.
#1 to blame here is Joe Tumpkin.
#2 is whomever decided not following standard protocol of contacting OIEC was the best plan of action.
I love CU. It is difficult but after seeing how things can be handled, CU needs to do more than say OOPS, we'll do better. What got us to the OOPS moment is my main question. Why can't simple rules be followed until legal actions are brought up? OIEC is there to protect those afraid to bring up these issues. Just be better. That's life.
But, let's bury this thread or throw it to Barzil for those of us that don't want to see it any longer and can't see both the CU and victim side of things.
Fair. But as you point out any good lawyer can argue either way. CUs Athletic Department had the wrong lawyer arguing that OIEC shouldn't be involved. The timing makes it all appear like it was meant to save face for either short term or long term. Main arguments I have heard was this was done to keep quiet for bowl game or even signing day. If it wasn't, then there are just a lot of coincidences that added up. My main concern is CU betters themselves and is more genuine with victims since whether on or off campus and police are involved or not, CU has to be better being in a liberal, football hated community. I love CU, we all love CU but let's hold them to the same standard we'd want if a loved one was involved.
Last edited:
We are honestly looking at specific sections and subsections of regulations to point out how "clear" it is that it wasn't followed. What are we expecting? That MM, PD and RG are some kind of Spock like geniuses, able to recite line and verse of every policy and regulation at the drop of a hat?
This is absurd.
This is absurd.
That is one of the points I was trying to make. Considering the OIEC didn't even exist until 2014, the policies and procedures may not have been in effect until sometime after that, and were crafted by a team of legal experts, I can fully understand how the chancellor or others may not be fully aware of what is proper procedure. Procedures are great to have, but nobody can follow them perfectly if they haven't had too before for a given specific situation. Live, learn, move along.
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
You must not have worked for a company that has a large employee handbook. I read every line. I couldn't recite it, but whenever there was gray area, I went back to it if an employee of mine had any sort of questions or issues.
EVERYONE at CU is held to the OIEC Practices and Procedures. No, I don't expect them to know every line, but a simple google search can find that the "Gray area" is clear enough to say hey, let's make this call just in case.
That is absurd that is being brushed over.
My employee handbook is 20 pages thick. I've read every word and I have no idea what it says about what I'm supposed to do if an employees girlfriend approaches me to confide in me about the abuse she is receiving from her boyfriend. If I were put in that position, I would do exactly as MM did. I'd tell my boss, and then get on the phone with HR to see what I am supposed to do next.
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
I agree with you on this. The problem is OIEC is like your HR and I don't blame Mac. He talked to his superiors and my assumption is they said they would contact who needs to be contacted.
The question is whom gave the advice that HR/OIEC did not need contacted. That is my main problem along with the chancellor of the University being in the loop and not immediately going, we need to run this by OIEC. The OIEC Process and Procedures is also under 30 pages single sided BTW.
a little nostalgia re Di Stefano:
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20135292/cu-boulders-ric-porreca-given-100k-pay-increase
$8 million - where did it go?
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20135292/cu-boulders-ric-porreca-given-100k-pay-increase
$8 million - where did it go?
pcbuff
Well-Known Member
I agree. Having spent quite a bit of time around college coaches, I can say that HR, and interpersonal relationships are not their strength. Stereotyping, they are pretty damn one demensional. Mike called his boss, and HR. He then got back to bowl game and recruiting. He handled this about as well as a coach can. For you guys to equate this to your standard work place is making a quantum leap. These are guys that spend their lives motivating Jocks. Marriage and relationship counseling is not their sweet spot. To expect him to go 35 pages into an HR document is ludicrous. The university has great people to do that, and he called them and let them do their job.
Yep. If there were no legalities involved, I suspect that MM's "go to move" would have been to have his wife speak with Jane and make sure she was safe while he reported it to RG and let him know that he believed Jane and would not be bringing JT back when the contract expired or have him on the road recruiting those 3 weeks in January.
Am I allowed to be absolutely disgusted with Tumpkin's actions, while also being disappointed in the response of the people at CU, and angry that they committed such a misstep in the PR department? Is it OK to recognize that the flak that CU is taking over this is at least partially self-inflicted? Can we even allow for the idea that, given the what has been out there in the past and what is going on in the rest of the college sports world, that CU would at least be prepared for something like this? Can I still be a fan of MikeMac (which I am), while recognizing that he makes some mistakes too? Can I think that it sucks that I have to defend this to people who are not CU fans, and that all they hear is me blindly defending the program, again? Is that too morally superior for some of you?
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
AllStarBuffs
Member
I agree, let's sweep this under the rug, a lot of folks here are on pins and needles, how much $$ do we need to pay the mods to get rid of this discussion?
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
For me, I didn't find anything that CU did or didn't do that aggregous. My whole issue with this entire episode was her dumping this in MMs lap and forcing him and CU to deal with something that should have been a). either personal, or b.) handled legally. Not from a phone call to a head football coach at a major university.
jkppkjjkp
Well-Known Member
Nope, I don't expect them to know it front and back. I expect them to reach out to the OIEC. As a matter of preference, I would like it if they put the victim in touch with support systems and legal help instead of solely putting Tumpkin in touch with legal assistance.
NWD said it better than I ever will be able to, it's OK to approve of MM, PD and RG on the whole while still questioning their actions in this matter.
I haven't really weighed in on this topic yet.
What I do find interesting is that most crucify Briles for knowing information and not allowing the legal system to run its course properly - even actively burying criminal activity.
I get that she specifically asked for the police not to be involved at the start, but it still doesn't feel all that great, either.
PS - for the person asking for this to be in the Barzil - there is this really cool feature called "ignore thread". Use it. This thread should absolutely be in the public domain given that it is about a factual incident, no matter how difficult it is to read about.
What I do find interesting is that most crucify Briles for knowing information and not allowing the legal system to run its course properly - even actively burying criminal activity.
I get that she specifically asked for the police not to be involved at the start, but it still doesn't feel all that great, either.
PS - for the person asking for this to be in the Barzil - there is this really cool feature called "ignore thread". Use it. This thread should absolutely be in the public domain given that it is about a factual incident, no matter how difficult it is to read about.