Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Buffalo Brad said:
I think once the regents let this get out of hand, Benson called up one of his respected colleagues and knew it would be a better way to allow the process to move. It also would help get the process respectability and credibility. I think this is where Benson, his connections and his leadership behind the scenes was tremendously helpful.
Click to expand...
Hopefully CU will be applauded for doing it the right way instead of criticized for not doing enough.
 
leftybuff said:
Perhaps you can clarify for me.

As Joe Citizen, I have no obligation to report a crime. There are situations, particularly those pertaining to sexual assault, where a duty to report is imposed (i.e. physicians, nurses, schoolteachers and probably ones I do not know), but those are imposed by law.

However, if a duty is imposed by a contract of employment, how is the employee now not an agent of law enforcement? It would seem a duty is being assumed that did not otherwise exist. Thus, an employee's failure to report sexual misconduct, including domestic and dating violence, now opens the employer to potential liability that did not exist until the duty was assumed. Failure to report opens the door to a failure of the employer to properly train, among other things, and I can imagine one could come up with another half dozen ways to attach liability to the employer.

Now CU has to train its employees, assuming this recommendation is adopted and contracts amended, to spot, for instance, dating violence, and discriminate that from garden variety violence. What are they gong to do, have a date registry? I know it sounds silly, but this is why I do not understand the thinking behind making employers, clubs, and other non-governmental entities mini-law enforcement agencies. It seems redundant and fraught with problems, self-imposed civil liability among them.

It has been a while since I was employed by a large entity, so maybe this really is the new normal. I can understand training employees to spot fraud, theft, signs of domestic abuse, avoid liability for gender, sexual, age discrimination etc. But impose on them an obligation to spot, diagnose and report crime? Seems like you are asking for lawsuits.
Click to expand...

I have to do required online training and certs every year, and every year it states that you have to report this stuff if it happens during company time, on company premises, even a company happy hour or social event. This training is required for all employees, and as far as I know any HR department worth a damn requires the same from their company. Now how that differs from the recommendations made by CU today isn't something I can accurately answer. I'm just saying this doesn't sound much, if any, different than what other companies require of their employees. The term CYA heavily applies here.
 
Everything is essentially avoided if Mac just goes against the victims wishes and reports it to the police immediately and let's them and the rest of the legal process work it out.
 
TSchekler said:
Everything is essentially avoided if Mac just goes against the victims wishes and reports it to the police immediately and let's them and the rest of the legal process work it out.
Click to expand...

More specifically, goes to OIEC.

I get what you mean but report does not cite him in regard to police if I recall correctly.
 
Scotch said:
I have to do required online training and certs every year, and every year it states that you have to report this stuff if it happens during company time, on company premises, even a company happy hour or social event. This training is required for all employees, and as far as I know any HR department worth a damn requires the same from their company. Now how that differs from the recommendations made by CU today isn't something I can accurately answer. I'm just saying this doesn't sound much, if any, different than what other companies require of their employees. The term CYA heavily applies here.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
Is releasing the entire report a strategy for the possible lawsuit? They must believe the report exonerates them from the potential claim.
 
DBT said:
Is releasing the entire report a strategy for the possible lawsuit? They must believe the report exonerates them from the potential claim.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Report is more damning than punishment. Maybe it's to prevent claims of a cover up.
 
I tend to tune out during the off-season so forgive my confusion. Am I understanding correctly that this whole thing boils down to Tumpkin being accused of domestic violence that occurred off-campus with a non-CU affiliated individual? Where does Mac fall into this whole thing? Can someone ELI5 please
 
No one is going to sue the University over this. The injured party is the victim, and her (real) injuries were not caused by CU. The firm that was hired to investigate this is the top-ranked one in its field in this country. The University did its due diligence, and took action without any NCAA involvement. It seems like the fines and suspension were negotiated and agreed upon. This will have minimal national splash. Go Buffs.
 
Looks like everyone can exit the fallout shelter now.

I read the reports and one matter of fact is that the last online training that HCMM, RG, and Dr. Phil had was in 2013 for dealing with dating violence. All three were required to report to the OEIC or something like that. I have all kinds of required online training as a federal employee and I have to wonder if CU could have done more in that area. Also keep in mind about APS 5014 which deals with dating violence and appears to be added after those online training sessions. That might be what saved Dr. Phil, RG, and HCMM from being fired with cause.

What is concerning is that the report did disclose how the contract extension negotiations went between HCMM and CU. I do not know what is the norm in such contract extension talks but I sure hope we can retain MacIntyre beyond 2018.
 
Kuratz said:
I tend to tune out during the off-season so forgive my confusion. Am I understanding correctly that this whole thing boils down to Tumpkin being accused of domestic violence that occurred off-campus with a non-CU affiliated individual? Where does Mac fall into this whole thing? Can someone ELI5 please
Click to expand...

Read the ****ing thread.
 
Just read that monster. Lots of learning on the job going on. Those going through this will never let something like that happen again. I'd rather keep RG, MM, and PD around than fire them based on this issue.


Banashek's testimony would be an interesting addition regarding his recollection of the TRO discussions taking place during the basketball games. Nonetheless, RG's explanation that he did not realize the legal process and the existence of the TRO seems credible.

The report opened my eyes more to the function of the OIEC. It did not occur to me how much that body is involved with reaching out to the victim in early January.

MacIntyre's original perspective that simply reporting to his supervisor was addressed well by the report. It's clear that the attorneys strongly disagree with MacIntyre's passive approach and reliance on his external counsel.

There was a lot of travel by all the principles in December. Vietnam, China, New York, Tampa, etc. And those phone calls were mostly short 3 to 20 minute conversations. Interesting insight into the lives of all involved. It sounded exhausting.

Plati really got blindsided.

It took experts six months to investigate policy and the gaps in behavior. You'd need a legal degree to fully understand all those P&P.

Training on these and any other compliance subjects sounds necessary, but grueling.

Good news is that Tumpkin didn't ever have the chance to lay hands on the victim as a consequence of her stepping forward.
 
Clean Undies said:
Just read that monster. Lots of learning on the job going on. Those going through this will never let something like that happen again. I'd rather keep RG, MM, and PD around than fire them based on this iss

Banashek's testimony would be an interesting addition regarding his recollection of the TRO discussions taking place during the basketball games. Nonetheless, RG's explanation that he did not realize the legal process and the existence of the TRO seems credible.

The report opened my eyes more to the function of the OIEC. It did not occur to me how much that body is involved with reaching out to the victim in early January.

MacIntyre's original perspective that simply reporting to his supervisor was addressed well by the report. It's clear that the attorneys strongly disagree with MacIntyre's passive approach and reliance on his external counsel.

There was a lot of travel by all the principles in December. Vietnam, China, New York, Tampa, etc. And those phone calls were mostly short 3 to 20 minute conversations. Interesting insight into the lives of all involved. It sounded exhausting.

Plati really got blindsided.

It took experts six months to investigate policy and the gaps in behavior. You'd need a legal degree to fully understand all those P&P.

Training on these and any other compliance subjects sounds necessary, but grueling.

Good news is that Tumpkin didn't ever have the chance to lay hands on the victim as a consequence of her stepping forward.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
Man, Football Scoop went off. I think I counted 21 Tweets using words like "holy goodness!!" and "wow" in the headlines. Why is he going off so much about this? I don't recall a similar outrage over the Baylor stuff.
 
Darth Snow said:
Glad this is almost over.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, if only it was that easy. The victims lawyer now has ground to sue for the $3.5M since the University admitted it failed in it processes. She is going to get paid, unfortunately, by CU and by the comments from her lawyer this afternoon, he is not done dragging CU's name thru the dirt until the payment is made.
 
BuffinCali said:
Hmmmm, if only it was that easy. The victims lawyer now has ground to sue for the $3.5M since the University admitted it failed in it processes. She is going to get paid, unfortunately, by CU and by the comments from her lawyer this afternoon, he is not done dragging CU's name thru the dirt until the payment is made.
Click to expand...


Probably, but not going back 2 years like what the Lawyer is asking for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top