1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tax Payer's Bill of Rights

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by DBT, Nov 30, 2012.

  1. DBT

    DBT Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Messages:
    58,422
    Likes Received:
    4,654
    Or, lovingly knows as TABOR. How much does that hurt us in a coaching hunt? I was in the car flipping the stations around and came across the old codgers, Irv and Joe. Some idot called in arguing that we need to sign assistants to long term contracts. Joe said, "I think there is some law or something." Irving had no clue about TABOR, which surprised me. Irv said, "They have Bienemy on a long term contract. So, there must be a way." :doh:

    So, how do we deal with TABOR. The AD has 6 exemptions for long term contracts. They use 2 for football. First, how badly does TABOR really hurt us? Does it act as a deterrent? We need the new guy to bring in some of his guys. He can only offer them a 1 year guarantee. I'm sure some of Embree's guy's wish, now, that they'd looked for other gigs. Job security, last time I looked, is an important factor to many. Could Colorado (the State) put an amendment on the ballot strictly for the Universities to add long term employees? Essentially, increasing the number from the current 6 to, say, 20? Is there some sort of contractual way around it?
     
  2. skibum

    skibum Peed in your Cheerios. Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,020
    Likes Received:
    1,196
    I thought the University as a whole (well, at least at the campus level) had only 6 contracts, and athletics historically used 4 of them (AD, FBHC, MBBHC, WBBHC), but Bohn got that up to 5 with EB.
     
  3. L Buff

    L Buff Commissar of the Albuffs Collective Left Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,839
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    That is correct ... and it is university wide.
     
  4. WizzersGhost

    WizzersGhost Banned BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    56
    I want some legal beagle here on ABs, to explain why CU doesn't set up the AD as a "recreation enterprise" and exempt themselves from TABOR?
     
  5. skibum

    skibum Peed in your Cheerios. Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,020
    Likes Received:
    1,196
    I've been wondering the same thing for a while. There should be some way to legally separate the AD from the university to get from under some of the crazy restrictions. This could be a "be careful what you ask for" type thing though: some things, like, for instance, the university general fund covering some AD costs in lean years might become illegal if that was done.
     
  6. buffedup

    buffedup Cooler than a Popsicle Stand. Club Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    820
    Still surprised those old guys are still alive.
     
  7. CUBUFF80

    CUBUFF80 No Stinkin' Title Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    11,855
    Likes Received:
    813
    We can thank this guy:
    [​IMG]
     
  8. GoBeers

    GoBeers Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    32
    How about giving assistants contracts that have a large severance payment if they are let go? Somewhat of a crazy work around, but if the severance pay is the same as one's yearly, that's essentially an automatically renewing 2 year contract. If it's the same as as two years' salary, it's essentially a three year auto renewing contract, etc, etc. Have some provisions that if the coach accepts another job, he doesn't get the rest of the payment. It can't be easy to get a good assistant to come to CU with only one year's work guaranteed. Bohn hinted at this in the PC I thought - even if embree fired the entire staff and hires better assistants, would anyone worth any amount of self respect walk into a situation with 1 guarenteed year, but a coach that is more likely than not after the next year w/o massive improvement.

    Not sure if that's even legal under TABOR - so anther thing would be to find some lawmakers that are sympathetic and convince them that since CU athletics are not tax payer funded anyway - they should be exempt from TABOR. If it's required for transparency purposes to show where the money comes from, the AD can put guaranteed salaries + buyout money in some kind of endowment account that has clear traceability to donors and/or P12 TV revenue - then even in years where the coach is canned, it's guaranteed that no money for the buyout would EVER come from university general funds (and therefore it absolutely can't be taxpayer money). Since the salary money is in separate place than other AD funds, it would also be clear that even in a year where the AD loses money of any amount for whatever reason, the salary money is separate and non university funded.
     
  9. DBT

    DBT Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Messages:
    58,422
    Likes Received:
    4,654
    Good thoughts GoBeers. I do not get how CU has not gotten with their lawyers and figured out a work around.
     
  10. MiamiBuffs

    MiamiBuffs Wᴉɐɯᴉ qnɟɟs Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    36,103
    Likes Received:
    2,008
    There is no work around. The constitutions pretty clear on six contracts. If you were serious you could collect signatures to have TABOR amended to increase the number of contracts from 6 to 12. Or exempt sports departments from the law. I dont think the legislature can do it. And Im not sure CU will want it changed because we can let these go anytime and not pay them a dime. The workaround, it seems to me, is to amp up the pay amount so that its attractive.
     
  11. L Buff

    L Buff Commissar of the Albuffs Collective Left Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,839
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    Severance payments are specifically prohibited by TABOR. That was a result of Gordon Gee giving what was seen as lucrative severance bonuses to several of his underlings as he went out the door. Your other suggestions have merit, although it would probably take a referendum to exempt CU athletics from TABOR ... not just legislative action.
     
  12. tsarbomba

    tsarbomba One Damn Dirty Ape Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    140
    It's actually not TABOR. It is found in CRS 24-19-104(1.5), which allows "each system of higher education and each campus if each state institute of higher education" to have "employment contracts . . . having a duration not more than five years with not more than six government-supported officials or employees."

    This law took effect in 1993 and was passed by the General Assembly. It was amended this year to allow an unlimited number of such contracts for non-tenure track classroom teachers, so coaches won't count. TABOR was an initiative passed by the voters a year earlier.

    CU can't just try to create an independent recreation entity to get around this, as the employment contracts is state-government wide, with exceptions for universities. So, unless CU totally spun off athletics as a privately owned and operated company, or an independent not-for-profit corporation, no fancy lawyering will get around the prohibition. And I think CU would not want to loose control of athletics, nor do I think the NCAA or PAC-12 would allow it.
     
  13. skibum

    skibum Peed in your Cheerios. Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,020
    Likes Received:
    1,196
    Didn't JoePa teach a course at PSU? It's not unheard of - this could actually be the loophole we're looking for.
     

Share This Page