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!
NEW: Regents Meeting, Benson Decision, Investigation Report -- Monday, 6/12
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
- Status
I'll make this a little easier for you. The reporting rules for OIEC become extremely vague when the victim is a) not a university student b) not a university employee c) the alleged events did not occur on CU property.
That is the gray area CU finds itself in.
Mac did what department policy was by reporting to RG who reported to Phil. So if the rumor that RG wanted to dismiss him immediately but was told no is true, they had to have orders from either Phil or Benson.
Bufffalo1
Member
This is why the OIEC was put in place....to take the guess work out of reporting. They were able to pick up the phone and call Banashek, but not one of them in any "confusing" discussion said, "let's run this by the OIEC". Its curious that PD wasn't confused on reporting responsibilities when it came to faculty. The Boulder DA stated that he trained MM and RG himself so he is confused as to how they were unclear.
It may be unclear to a layperson, but it is very clear to responsible parties and when in doubt about something as serious as a dangerous employee.....ask.
It may be unclear to a layperson, but it is very clear to responsible parties and when in doubt about something as serious as a dangerous employee.....ask.
I'm amazed at people's insistence the fault in this situation lies with the lowest ranking person knowledgeable about the situation (MM) vs. the highest ranking (Phil). Phil even issued a public apology for his and the department's mishandling of the situation. The fault - IF there is any, lies with Phil.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but who is leading the investigation?
He probably trained them on situations with involving university employees, not a victim that lives in Michigan.
Bufffalo1
Member
That is not correct. They were trained to report all abuse. Period. The fact that she lived in Michigan did nothing to ensure the safety of other women he dated in Colorado. He also recruited Michigan. The most dangerous time for victims is when they tell someone. JT was certainly capable of getting on a flight. Again, reporting abuse is reporting to people trained in handling it. If a football coach, AD and Chancellor are not equipped....they call and ask the campus organization set up to tell them what to do. It's not too far out of the realm of reason to expect any or all of those highly intelligent men to follow the procedures and if they had ANY question about how to deal with an abusive man on their staff....then they make one phone call. Not to an attorney. Not to JT to elevate him. To the OIEC.
Bufffalo1
Member
L
Leslie Gomez and Gina Maistos Smith from Cozen O'Connor. They were with Pepper Hamilton and led the Baylor investigation.
PD came out with a statement saying the procedures were not clear on reporting with victims not involved with the campus so I am not sure where you are getting your information from. I am not saying her being in Michigan made her safe just that she was not involved with the university and didn't live in the state so it wasn't clear what MM or RG should do so they escalated the issue and the CHANCELLOR of the university didn't even know what to do.
That was such a bad PR move since it linked the CU situation to the Baylor situation in a very easy and natural way for media writing about it. CU is so dumb on optics. In real terms, Pepper Hamilton did a hell of a job with the Baylor investigation and were the sole reason that the things that came to light didn't remain buried. But they came out of it looking bad because their client specifically instructed them to deliver an oral report so there'd be no paper trail and they did what was asked by their client, as proper. So, while CU probably hired the best firm for this job, doing so without considering the PR ramifications and how the media & public might perceive it (i.e., "Pepper Hamilton was part of the Baylor scandal and coverup! Now they're doing the same for CU!") was a gross misunderstanding of how to manage the situation.
Bufffalo1
Member
Did PD come out with a statement explaining why he didn't call the OIEC about such a confusing case of violence regarding one of his employees? They were aware of a 911 call so there was more than just an allegation. It is ludicrous that the Chancellor of a university is confused about whether he should call a reporting agency on HIS campus when he was "confused". They weren't too confused to call an attorney. They weren't too confused to elevate the man Mac 100% believed was a guy who beat women. It is not confusing. The fact that she lived in another state or wasn't on campus does not confuse anything. JT was working with young men and beating women at night. If it's that confusing as to whether or not they should assist the woman, protect other women, get him help, etc would have all been cleared up in one phone call. PD knew where to go for questions regarding domestic violence. Why do you think he never placed one call....even to just make sure a counselor contacted the victim? Weird.
The only reason that Phil came out with that statement is that it's likely going to be his neck on the chopping block for this when all the investigations are done; he's trying to get out ahead of it. Good ole' Uncle Phil might just be the fall guy for this one, and if anyone deserves it, it's him. As the senior person in the chain of command, and someone who has repeatedly excoriated and punished lower-ranking staff members for failure to comply with OIEC reporting guidelines, it's extreme hypocrisy for him to try to hide behind the complexity of the situation.
I don't think that MM or RG were completely wrong to push this to Phil's desk and obey his guidance- he's supposed to be the expert here.
However, what I think that MM and RG did wrong was how they interacted with Banashek- there is strong evidence that Banashek was in direct communication about this case with both RG and MM, and that Banashek knew about the TSO when it was filed as I gave in the timeline previously. That leaves three scenarios:
- If Banashek was Tumpkin's lawyer in this case, then RG and MM as Tumpkin's employer were not required to give (and likely should not have given) any information communicated to them by the victim to Banashek, but there is enough coincidence in the timing to posit that they did, anyway.
- If Banashek was representing CU in his communications with the victim instead of Tumpkin, then he owed it to CU to inform them that the TSO had been filed.
- If he did, and CU did nothing, then that's pretty disgusting
- If he didn't, then CU should get a new lawyer
- If Banashek was somehow representing Tumpkin AND CU in this case, it's a pretty huge conflict of interest in my opinion.
CB17Cubed
Well-Known Member
Is it a bad move? They hammered Baylor, so I would say by doing this, CU is taking this seriously. Unlike Baylor who didn't like what the report stated and has refused to release much of it.
To this, I think there would be harm. It would have been very public that JT was not on the trip to the Alamo Bowl or working at the CU practices heading up to it. It's a safe bet that CU would have been asked about it. And if it was reported that CU, in absence of a legal filing or police investigation had suspended Tumpkin based on an accusation of domestic abuse he denies, that is probably some legal hot water where JT could sue CU.
Also on the "no harm, no foul" thing: where was the harm in how CU actually handled it? Seems like a procedural error with OIEC reporting that caused no harm.
I agree from that standpoint. It was only bad from a PR standpoint because you don't want Baylor parallels in every article written about the CU situation. I strongly suspect that most people don't view Pepper Hamilton as the white knights of the Baylor scandal (even if they're the closest thing to it other than the victims).
Bufffalo1
Member
Well, they certainly are answering a lot of question about it now. They indefinitely suspended him on Jan 6 when they "found out" about a TPO. That was just the victim's word in writing until it became a PPO on Jan 24. The TPO was cause for indefinite suspension THAT DAY by RG. So, if it is determined that MM and RG knew about the TPO on Dec 20th and did not indefinitely suspend him and then "elevated" his position until the press got ahold of it......then surely that would indicate hypocrisy and deceit to you.
No disputing that the TPO filing was part of the grounds for indefinite suspension, though the police opening an investigation was also part of that.
If CU was aware of a TPO a couple weeks earlier and ignored it so as not to upset the apple cart in the bowl game, then that would be pretty sh!tty. Is there any evidence of this beyond reason to believe that Tumpkin and his attorney knew prior to January?
Bufffalo1
Member
Without a doubt, JT and his attorney knew immediately. It is an official court document that protects her from any communication from him whatsoever. She had a lawyer and so did JT. If her lawyer did not inform Banashek immediately of the TPO and the woman was hurt by Tumpkin or he violated a court order to not contact her, then her attorney would be in trouble. She flew to Colorado to get protection and speak to the police. She retained an attorney for the TPO process. To think that her counsel would then "not tell" Mr Tumpkin about it until Dec 30th is implausible. They knew immediately and that I'm sure has been proven easily by now. Banashek would have had to have signed acknowledgment of the TPO against his client shortly after it was issued by the Boulder judge.
I don't know if you can put this down as "all's well that ends well"- the victim wasn't directly harmed through CU's inaction, but it's not too difficult to envision a scenario where she was.
Also, I don't know if you'd consider bad PR as "harm" to CU but there definitely has been some in this case.
Finally, in a more ephemeral sense, there's harm because inaction by DiStefano in this case sends the message that "OIEC reporting is mandatory- unless it involves the football program. Then it's a case by case basis." In the current climate it's not a good message to be sending.
I stated this earlier, but at the risk of putting too fine of a point on it: it's not clear who was Banashek's client when he was contacting the victim.
If he was CU's lawyer, then he owed it to CU to reveal the existence of the investigation and the TPO on January 19th, which probably would be grounds for suspension.
If he was Tumpkin's lawyer, then it was highly inappropriate for MM to give Banashek the information from the victim that MM did.
If Banashek was working for both, I don't see how that's not a huge conflict of interest.
I do agree that it looks like a mishandling of OIEC. Phil D admitted to that, right? Or at least he said that he made a decision and still maintains that there wasn't a mandatory reporting requirement in this case.
I just re-read the SI report. "Jane" basically said that she wanted MM to be aware of this, but that she didn't want anything to happen other than JT getting help. She said that she was safe and the only way she might feel unsafe would be if JT lost his job over this and flew off in a rage over it. Then, MM had another conversation with her as follow up. A few days later Banashek called her and identified himself as representing JT. He asked whether she wanted JT to pay for her treatment for PTSD and whatnot. Not what she wanted. He asked if she wanted an apology. She said she'd gotten a bunch of apologies. She did say she wanted JT to get help and Banashek said that he was. She also said that what she really wanted is for the abuse to have never happened and that she might file for a restraining order. It also sounds like Banashek contacted her without JT out of respect for her expressed wishes that JT have no contact with her, but that this made her feel like maybe CU or MM had betrayed her by not continuing a personal dialogue. That right there points to why I can see it being important to report to OIEC because if they'd done that, then MM could have texted or emailed her to let her know they had to report due to internal policies and that OIEC would be getting in contact with her. Then, the next call would have been from OIEC instead of from JT's attorney, which would have been a much smoother handling of it for all involved. With that, it may have changed the timeline on when JT got suspended based on the OIEC recommendation/ report back to Phil et al. I definitely see the value of turning to OIEC in a situation like this and why that policy is in place (for a number of reasons).
I just re-read the SI report. "Jane" basically said that she wanted MM to be aware of this, but that she didn't want anything to happen other than JT getting help. She said that she was safe and the only way she might feel unsafe would be if JT lost his job over this and flew off in a rage over it. Then, MM had another conversation with her as follow up. A few days later Banashek called her and identified himself as representing JT. He asked whether she wanted JT to pay for her treatment for PTSD and whatnot. Not what she wanted. He asked if she wanted an apology. She said she'd gotten a bunch of apologies. She did say she wanted JT to get help and Banashek said that he was. She also said that what she really wanted is for the abuse to have never happened and that she might file for a restraining order. It also sounds like Banashek contacted her without JT out of respect for her expressed wishes that JT have no contact with her, but that this made her feel like maybe CU or MM had betrayed her by not continuing a personal dialogue. That right there points to why I can see it being important to report to OIEC because if they'd done that, then MM could have texted or emailed her to let her know they had to report due to internal policies and that OIEC would be getting in contact with her. Then, the next call would have been from OIEC instead of from JT's attorney, which would have been a much smoother handling of it for all involved. With that, it may have changed the timeline on when JT got suspended based on the OIEC recommendation/ report back to Phil et al. I definitely see the value of turning to OIEC in a situation like this and why that policy is in place (for a number of reasons).
Bufffalo1
Member
According to the article, the second call was placed to MM to tell him there was a 911 call on record that could come out. It also states that he believed every word. If you believe 100% that a man is dangerous and abuses women and there is a 911 call on record, then it would seem to dictate that action be taken to protect everyone involved.
It seems that in a police investigation producing 8 warrants, the police would want to speak to MM about his phone calls with the victim. If he was interviewed by the police or asked to be interviewed, then he clearly would know about the report. I would assume if this were the case, then that will also be disclosed in the report.
I hope that whatever the findings, CU will be an even better program going forward.
It seems that in a police investigation producing 8 warrants, the police would want to speak to MM about his phone calls with the victim. If he was interviewed by the police or asked to be interviewed, then he clearly would know about the report. I would assume if this were the case, then that will also be disclosed in the report.
I hope that whatever the findings, CU will be an even better program going forward.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Pepper Hamilton totally botch a Duke investigation?
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
Everyone is getting hung up on the fact that the attorney talked to MM and RG. Guess what? That's his job to be able to form a defense. He's going to ask Mac what was told to him. Ask to hear the VM. Pretty common practice and if he was my attorney and DIDNT do all that, I wouldn't want him.
Bufffalo1
Member
Then that means that the prosecution/police detectives would want to talk to MM, too, regarding his conversations with the victim. Proving the point that they knew about the police investigation and TPO around Dec 20, which contradicts their statements.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
And they will talk to them. Probably haven't yet.
Bufffalo1
Member
They filed 5 felony warrants against him in January. I'm assuming contacting witnesses began right after Dec 19. Why would they not have called MM at the beginning of the investigation when his name is listed in the victim's report and police affadavit on Dec 19? However, you say Banashek should have been asking MM and RG so they knew anyway under your scenario. Either way.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
No. The attorney would ask what was said and that's it. Not a two way street. He's not telling Mac and RG about anything . Had an accusation made about me, I'm hiring an attorney, regardless of an investigation. And I'm guessing the charges are being filed based on the victims reports. Mac is not a witness to the crime so in terms of the investigation, he is inconsequential to filing of charges as it didn't happen on campus or on the job. Frankly, the police really wouldn't have any reason to contact MM or CU as they are not victim/accused or direct witnesses
Bufffalo1
Member
My point is that people want it both ways. They didn't know anything and as soon as they knew, they terminated him. Then, they were letting the police handle it. Now, so what they talked to Banashek. Banashek should have contacted them. My point was if that is your argument, then they knew earlier than they said.
My only point all along was that I do not ascribe to the "we were confused" argument with no explanation as to why then you wouldn't consult with the agency established to make sure there were no more reporting issues and just ask. One call.
- Status