Heard her give a speech the other week... She mentioned the "training table" issue of walk ons getting free food a year or so ago and seemed to think that CU deserved the pretty harsh punishment we got... I didn't have a chance to get into it with her about what she thought about the relatively light sentences Bama etc got for worse transgressions....
Anyways, that strange attitude (to me anyways) was born out when I heard her approach: Basically, she has purposely built an antagonistic relationship between the AD and the compliance department. The leader of the compliance department specifically tells her department that their job is NOT to help the AD be compliant, but instead to protect the University from the AD. This involves actively looking for ways to expose the AD, and then exposing them.
She called it a "checks and balances" approach... I don't know if I agree with it. Does it need to be so antagonistic? Is this how other AD compliance departments are run/
Anyways, that strange attitude (to me anyways) was born out when I heard her approach: Basically, she has purposely built an antagonistic relationship between the AD and the compliance department. The leader of the compliance department specifically tells her department that their job is NOT to help the AD be compliant, but instead to protect the University from the AD. This involves actively looking for ways to expose the AD, and then exposing them.
She called it a "checks and balances" approach... I don't know if I agree with it. Does it need to be so antagonistic? Is this how other AD compliance departments are run/