[BostonCard]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg195584#msg195584 date=1500360716]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16598.msg195570#msg195570 date=1500329662]
Can someone explain how Muir "botched" the Rittman firing?

Winflop didn't say Muir botched the Rittman firing.  He said Muir botched the "Rittman situation." 
[/quote]

The Rittman "situation" includes his gross mishandling of the player revolt/meltdown and their helicopter parents, the investigation into Rittman's NCAA violations and the situation involving the S&C coach.
[/quote]

again, you speak as if the player revolt/meltdown and helicopter parents was something that happened to Rittman and that he had no responsibility in diffusing the situation before it led to open revolt, and that Muir somehow foisted this upon him.  The fact that it even reached Muir suggests the situation had already spiraled out of control and whatever you may think of how Muir handled it once it reached his desk, you wonder what it says that it got there in the first place.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg195584#msg195584 date=1500360716]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16598.msg195570#msg195570 date=1500329662]
Can someone explain how Muir "botched" the Rittman firing?

Winflop didn't say Muir botched the Rittman firing.  He said Muir botched the "Rittman situation." 
[/quote]

The Rittman "situation" includes his gross mishandling of the player revolt/meltdown and their helicopter parents, the investigation into Rittman's NCAA violations and the situation involving the S&C coach.
[/quote]

again, you speak as if the player revolt/meltdown and helicopter parents was something that happened to Rittman and that he had no responsibility in diffusing the situation before it led to open revolt, and that Muir somehow foisted this upon him.  The fact that it even reached Muir suggests the situation had already spiraled out of control and whatever you may think of how Muir handled it once it reached his desk, you wonder what it says that it got there in the first place.

[BostonCard]

I appreciate your detailed and well-written post, Mick.  Lots of very good points.

BC

[BostonCard]

I appreciate your detailed and well-written post, Mick.  Lots of very good points.

BC

[BobK]

Hope you weren't invoved with Enron like my friend from the 70's, Mick.

The AAD is now AD at Davis.  So gone if that's what you wanted. 

[BobK]

Hope you weren't invoved with Enron like my friend from the 70's, Mick.

The AAD is now AD at Davis.  So gone if that's what you wanted. 

[d4cohn]

For those screaming for a midseason firing, and then so concerned about finding a coach in July.  I trust this type of quality find is acceptable.

Either Muir is a true wizard to get this all done in a few days, or this has been in the works for quite a bit of time.

Or in a nod to the 30 pages of naysayers blasts here, Muir is really lucky that a good coach wants to join the softball program at Stanford.

Now, its time to worry about other sports at Stanford.  Skiing, ice hockey, bowling!  If Muir can't get a coach to lead Stanford to NCAA team titles in those sports by 2018 he should be FIRED!!  Let's start the 40 page thread for those sports today. 

:P

All I will say in response to this is that sometimes people post on this board not because any of this affects them directly, but because it has affected classmates and good people.

I will direct you to this quote from a Stanford softball player at the end of the Daily's story regarding the state of the program after Coach Rittman's departure (Link: http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28/...signation/):

“The sad thing is, a recruit is coming here in the hopes of elite athletics and prestigious academics,” one player said, “not knowing that they are about to sacrifice so much for so little.”

This quote has been the reality for many players on the team over the last three years, which you seem to be dismissing.

Thankfully, we can now focus on the bright future of the program.

[d4cohn]

For those screaming for a midseason firing, and then so concerned about finding a coach in July.  I trust this type of quality find is acceptable.

Either Muir is a true wizard to get this all done in a few days, or this has been in the works for quite a bit of time.

Or in a nod to the 30 pages of naysayers blasts here, Muir is really lucky that a good coach wants to join the softball program at Stanford.

Now, its time to worry about other sports at Stanford.  Skiing, ice hockey, bowling!  If Muir can't get a coach to lead Stanford to NCAA team titles in those sports by 2018 he should be FIRED!!  Let's start the 40 page thread for those sports today. 

:P

All I will say in response to this is that sometimes people post on this board not because any of this affects them directly, but because it has affected classmates and good people.

I will direct you to this quote from a Stanford softball player at the end of the Daily's story regarding the state of the program after Coach Rittman's departure (Link: http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/05/28/...signation/):

“The sad thing is, a recruit is coming here in the hopes of elite athletics and prestigious academics,” one player said, “not knowing that they are about to sacrifice so much for so little.”

This quote has been the reality for many players on the team over the last three years, which you seem to be dismissing.

Thankfully, we can now focus on the bright future of the program.

[winflop]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16598.msg195593#msg195593 date=1500398291]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg195584#msg195584 date=1500360716]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16598.msg195570#msg195570 date=1500329662]
Can someone explain how Muir "botched" the Rittman firing?

Winflop didn't say Muir botched the Rittman firing.  He said Muir botched the "Rittman situation." 
[/quote]

The Rittman "situation" includes his gross mishandling of the player revolt/meltdown and their helicopter parents, the investigation into Rittman's NCAA violations and the situation involving the S&C coach.
[/quote]

again, you speak as if the player revolt/meltdown and helicopter parents was something that happened to Rittman and that he had no responsibility in diffusing the situation before it led to open revolt, and that Muir somehow foisted this upon him.  The fact that it even reached Muir suggests the situation had already spiraled out of control and whatever you may think of how Muir handled it once it reached his desk, you wonder what it says that it got there in the first place.
[/quote]

I do not speak as if there was nothing there until Muir got involved nor do I believe Muir foisted this upon Rittman. Please show me where I gave any indication whatsoever of either of those claims. I think Muir handled it horribly once it got to his desk. He had a responsibility to hear all parties involved equally, gather facts in an impartial way, and then make what was undoubtedly a difficult judgment call (although perhaps not with 20/20 hindsight). He didn't listen to both "camps" players, he didn't communicate well with one of the camps, the investigation/fact gathering was conducted by a firm that couldn't possibly be neutral, and he allowed Rittman to resign when he should have been fired as soon as Muir knew there was a major violation. I could go on.

[winflop]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16598.msg195593#msg195593 date=1500398291]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg195584#msg195584 date=1500360716]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16598.msg195570#msg195570 date=1500329662]
Can someone explain how Muir "botched" the Rittman firing?

Winflop didn't say Muir botched the Rittman firing.  He said Muir botched the "Rittman situation." 
[/quote]

The Rittman "situation" includes his gross mishandling of the player revolt/meltdown and their helicopter parents, the investigation into Rittman's NCAA violations and the situation involving the S&C coach.
[/quote]

again, you speak as if the player revolt/meltdown and helicopter parents was something that happened to Rittman and that he had no responsibility in diffusing the situation before it led to open revolt, and that Muir somehow foisted this upon him.  The fact that it even reached Muir suggests the situation had already spiraled out of control and whatever you may think of how Muir handled it once it reached his desk, you wonder what it says that it got there in the first place.
[/quote]

I do not speak as if there was nothing there until Muir got involved nor do I believe Muir foisted this upon Rittman. Please show me where I gave any indication whatsoever of either of those claims. I think Muir handled it horribly once it got to his desk. He had a responsibility to hear all parties involved equally, gather facts in an impartial way, and then make what was undoubtedly a difficult judgment call (although perhaps not with 20/20 hindsight). He didn't listen to both "camps" players, he didn't communicate well with one of the camps, the investigation/fact gathering was conducted by a firm that couldn't possibly be neutral, and he allowed Rittman to resign when he should have been fired as soon as Muir knew there was a major violation. I could go on.

[BostonCard]

Ok, I misinterpreted "gross mishandling of the player revolt/meltdown and their helicopter parents" to mean that he failed to quell the dissent. That wasn't fair to you, and I now see your argument was more subtle.

Perhaps I am misremembering, but it did seem to me that prior to the NCAA's major violation and show-cause finding that there were many people on this board who felt Muir was unfair in firing (forcing the resignation of) Rittman, and that was how he "botched the situation.  That recollection is corroborated by CTCard's post.  Regardless, having been three years ago, I can't remember who posted what about it, and I apologize if my faulty recollection lumped you in that group (the apology extends to Mick as well).  I do appreciate both of you taking the time to clarify your thoughts.

BC

[BostonCard]

Ok, I misinterpreted "gross mishandling of the player revolt/meltdown and their helicopter parents" to mean that he failed to quell the dissent. That wasn't fair to you, and I now see your argument was more subtle.

Perhaps I am misremembering, but it did seem to me that prior to the NCAA's major violation and show-cause finding that there were many people on this board who felt Muir was unfair in firing (forcing the resignation of) Rittman, and that was how he "botched the situation.  That recollection is corroborated by CTCard's post.  Regardless, having been three years ago, I can't remember who posted what about it, and I apologize if my faulty recollection lumped you in that group (the apology extends to Mick as well).  I do appreciate both of you taking the time to clarify your thoughts.

BC

[winflop]

I did think Muir was unfair in firing him at the time because the facts we knew at the time did not include the NCAA violations.  Once it came out that Rittman was responsible for major NCAA violations - something Muir was clearly aware of at the time of the firing but we were not - I let Muir off the hook for the firing.  However, I did not let him off the hook for the gross mishandling of the players and their parents and the investigation that uncovered those facts and I am still not letting him off the hook for that.  Hopefully that additional clarity makes sense.

[winflop]

I did think Muir was unfair in firing him at the time because the facts we knew at the time did not include the NCAA violations.  Once it came out that Rittman was responsible for major NCAA violations - something Muir was clearly aware of at the time of the firing but we were not - I let Muir off the hook for the firing.  However, I did not let him off the hook for the gross mishandling of the players and their parents and the investigation that uncovered those facts and I am still not letting him off the hook for that.  Hopefully that additional clarity makes sense.

[BostonCard]

I did think Muir was unfair in firing him at the time because the facts we knew at the time did not include the NCAA violations.  Once it came out that Rittman was responsible for major NCAA violations - something Muir was clearly aware of at the time of the firing but we were not - I let Muir off the hook for the firing.  However, I did not let him off the hook for the gross mishandling of the players and their parents and the investigation that uncovered those facts and I am still not letting him off the hook for that.  Hopefully that additional clarity makes sense.

Yes, thanks.

[BostonCard]

I did think Muir was unfair in firing him at the time because the facts we knew at the time did not include the NCAA violations.  Once it came out that Rittman was responsible for major NCAA violations - something Muir was clearly aware of at the time of the firing but we were not - I let Muir off the hook for the firing.  However, I did not let him off the hook for the gross mishandling of the players and their parents and the investigation that uncovered those facts and I am still not letting him off the hook for that.  Hopefully that additional clarity makes sense.

Yes, thanks.

[2006alum]

Interesting footnote on all of this: if you're Muir and, hypothetically, the anti-Rittman contingent contacts you and say they have proof that Rittman had conducted extra practices in violation of NCAA rules and had covered it up, and because two of the parents were involved in other NCAA programs they knew the rules very well and knew how Rittman had covered his tracks, wouldn't you want to take that meeting and get that information before making Rittman aware of it? In other words, even if the anti-Rittman folks had other reasons to feel aggrieved and go to Muir, if I were Muir, I would definitely want to take that meeting and get any evidence without the possibility that Rittman could try to alter anything. It's also possible the anti-Rittman folks threatened to go directly to the NCAA if Muir refused to take the meeting.

I have no idea exactly how it went down, but it strikes me that, given everything we now know, perhaps the meeting wasn't as inappropriate as it seemed at the time? If those were the circumstances in play, I honestly can't fault Muir for doing what he did and getting out in front of the issue.

[2006alum]

Interesting footnote on all of this: if you're Muir and, hypothetically, the anti-Rittman contingent contacts you and say they have proof that Rittman had conducted extra practices in violation of NCAA rules and had covered it up, and because two of the parents were involved in other NCAA programs they knew the rules very well and knew how Rittman had covered his tracks, wouldn't you want to take that meeting and get that information before making Rittman aware of it? In other words, even if the anti-Rittman folks had other reasons to feel aggrieved and go to Muir, if I were Muir, I would definitely want to take that meeting and get any evidence without the possibility that Rittman could try to alter anything. It's also possible the anti-Rittman folks threatened to go directly to the NCAA if Muir refused to take the meeting.

I have no idea exactly how it went down, but it strikes me that, given everything we now know, perhaps the meeting wasn't as inappropriate as it seemed at the time? If those were the circumstances in play, I honestly can't fault Muir for doing what he did and getting out in front of the issue.

[Mick]

I did think Muir was unfair in firing him at the time because the facts we knew at the time did not include the NCAA violations.  Once it came out that Rittman was responsible for major NCAA violations - something Muir was clearly aware of at the time of the firing but we were not - I let Muir off the hook for the firing.  However, I did not let him off the hook for the gross mishandling of the players and their parents and the investigation that uncovered those facts and I am still not letting him off the hook for that.  Hopefully that additional clarity makes sense.

I agree with Winflop.  Muir did not botch the actual firing of Rittman.  Perfectly executed.

[Mick]

I did think Muir was unfair in firing him at the time because the facts we knew at the time did not include the NCAA violations.  Once it came out that Rittman was responsible for major NCAA violations - something Muir was clearly aware of at the time of the firing but we were not - I let Muir off the hook for the firing.  However, I did not let him off the hook for the gross mishandling of the players and their parents and the investigation that uncovered those facts and I am still not letting him off the hook for that.  Hopefully that additional clarity makes sense.

I agree with Winflop.  Muir did not botch the actual firing of Rittman.  Perfectly executed.

[winflop]

Interesting footnote on all of this: if you're Muir and, hypothetically, the anti-Rittman contingent contacts you and say they have proof that Rittman had conducted extra practices in violation of NCAA rules and had covered it up, and because two of the parents were involved in other NCAA programs they knew the rules very well and knew how Rittman had covered his tracks, wouldn't you want to take that meeting and get that information before making Rittman aware of it? In other words, even if the anti-Rittman folks had other reasons to feel aggrieved and go to Muir, if I were Muir, I would definitely want to take that meeting and get any evidence without the possibility that Rittman could try to alter anything. It's also possible the anti-Rittman folks threatened to go directly to the NCAA if Muir refused to take the meeting.

I have no idea exactly how it went down, but it strikes me that, given everything we now know, perhaps the meeting wasn't as inappropriate as it seemed at the time? If those were the circumstances in play, I honestly can't fault Muir for doing what he did and getting out in front of the issue.

You absolutely take that meeting, but you also take the meeting with players who support Rittman (and their parents).  Also, to the extent there is communication & transparency it is done equally with both "camps". You also don't hire a law firm with strong university connections to handle the investigation so as to not create any impression of bias. And if you find that a coach has committed major NCAA violations, you don't allow him to resign YOU FIRE HIM

[winflop]

Interesting footnote on all of this: if you're Muir and, hypothetically, the anti-Rittman contingent contacts you and say they have proof that Rittman had conducted extra practices in violation of NCAA rules and had covered it up, and because two of the parents were involved in other NCAA programs they knew the rules very well and knew how Rittman had covered his tracks, wouldn't you want to take that meeting and get that information before making Rittman aware of it? In other words, even if the anti-Rittman folks had other reasons to feel aggrieved and go to Muir, if I were Muir, I would definitely want to take that meeting and get any evidence without the possibility that Rittman could try to alter anything. It's also possible the anti-Rittman folks threatened to go directly to the NCAA if Muir refused to take the meeting.

I have no idea exactly how it went down, but it strikes me that, given everything we now know, perhaps the meeting wasn't as inappropriate as it seemed at the time? If those were the circumstances in play, I honestly can't fault Muir for doing what he did and getting out in front of the issue.

You absolutely take that meeting, but you also take the meeting with players who support Rittman (and their parents).  Also, to the extent there is communication & transparency it is done equally with both "camps". You also don't hire a law firm with strong university connections to handle the investigation so as to not create any impression of bias. And if you find that a coach has committed major NCAA violations, you don't allow him to resign YOU FIRE HIM

[2006alum]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=16598.msg195674#msg195674 date=1500501265]
Interesting footnote on all of this: if you're Muir and, hypothetically, the anti-Rittman contingent contacts you and say they have proof that Rittman had conducted extra practices in violation of NCAA rules and had covered it up, and because two of the parents were involved in other NCAA programs they knew the rules very well and knew how Rittman had covered his tracks, wouldn't you want to take that meeting and get that information before making Rittman aware of it? In other words, even if the anti-Rittman folks had other reasons to feel aggrieved and go to Muir, if I were Muir, I would definitely want to take that meeting and get any evidence without the possibility that Rittman could try to alter anything. It's also possible the anti-Rittman folks threatened to go directly to the NCAA if Muir refused to take the meeting.

I have no idea exactly how it went down, but it strikes me that, given everything we now know, perhaps the meeting wasn't as inappropriate as it seemed at the time? If those were the circumstances in play, I honestly can't fault Muir for doing what he did and getting out in front of the issue.

You absolutely take that meeting, but you also take the meeting with players who support Rittman (and their parents).  Also, to the extent there is communication & transparency it is done equally with both "camps". You also don't hire a law firm with strong university connections to handle the investigation so as to not create any impression of bias. And if you find that a coach has committed major NCAA violations, you don't allow him to resign YOU FIRE HIM
[/quote]

From my understanding and this SJ Mercury write-up and this Stanford Daily story, the internal investigation was also looking at both the alleged NCAA violations and also allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships with players against both Rittman and Director of Sports Performance Brandon Marcello. Rittman was cleared but ultimately given a Show Cause by the NCAA for the practice violations, and Marcello found responsible and removed.

If the meeting with the anti-Rittman parents and students brought forward allegations of sexual harassment against both Rittman and Marcello, why in the world would Muir take a meeting with other students and parents who supported Rittman concerning such allegations? It is far, far, more appropriate to do what he did - contact the Title IX office and hire an outside investigator.

Indeed, I think "transprency" as to those issues with the pro-Rittman camp could actually expose the university to liability if Muir discussed the allegations of the anti-Rittman folks with the pro-Rittman contingent. And given that the concerns were of a legal nature, why would he have any obligation to discuss them with the pro-Rittman camp in the first place? Whether or not part of the meeting was about "we don't like his coaching strategies," another part of it was "we think he's violated university policy, NCAA rules, and the law, and abused his players." Maybe the allegations were trumped up, and Rittman was ultimately partially vindicated, but Muir had to take them at face value at the time they were reported to him.

As far as the firm used, I'm not clear precisely why Stanford using Pillsbury, a firm it's used previously, is a problem - maybe I missed something here, but it's pretty common for universities to return to the same firm for different kinds of legal work if that firm specializes in more than one area of legal practice. Title IX procedures ultimately found Marcello responsible by a preponderance of the evidence and the NCAA ultimately concluded that Rittman committed a Level II violation. If both sets of findings were confirmed by other bodies, I guess I'm not sure why we have reason to think the outside investigation was somehow questionably conducted.

As for firing Rittman vs. letting him resign, the NCAA did not confirm the university's findings until September 2016, so until the NCAA actually made its own findings, would it have been appropriate for Muir to fire Rittman? Clearly Rittman knew the writing was on the wall, but it seems like letting him resign was a face-saving procedure for all involved.

In short, I guess I don't see what Muir should have done differently now that all the facts are out, and given that the allegations of both practice violations, a cover-up, and sexual harassment were all ultimately proven to be true, I guess I just have to disagree that Muir grossly mishandled the situation. Was it ideal? No. But how could it ever be when you have a popular coach and a divided team?

I totally understand the strong feelings given the popularity of Rittman and the partially questionable intentions and motives of the anti-Rittman folks. Nevertheless, Muir's number one job as AD is to keep his students safe and minimize the university's exposure to liability. I think he succeeded on that front, whatever fallout came of it on the field.

[2006alum]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=16598.msg195674#msg195674 date=1500501265]
Interesting footnote on all of this: if you're Muir and, hypothetically, the anti-Rittman contingent contacts you and say they have proof that Rittman had conducted extra practices in violation of NCAA rules and had covered it up, and because two of the parents were involved in other NCAA programs they knew the rules very well and knew how Rittman had covered his tracks, wouldn't you want to take that meeting and get that information before making Rittman aware of it? In other words, even if the anti-Rittman folks had other reasons to feel aggrieved and go to Muir, if I were Muir, I would definitely want to take that meeting and get any evidence without the possibility that Rittman could try to alter anything. It's also possible the anti-Rittman folks threatened to go directly to the NCAA if Muir refused to take the meeting.

I have no idea exactly how it went down, but it strikes me that, given everything we now know, perhaps the meeting wasn't as inappropriate as it seemed at the time? If those were the circumstances in play, I honestly can't fault Muir for doing what he did and getting out in front of the issue.

You absolutely take that meeting, but you also take the meeting with players who support Rittman (and their parents).  Also, to the extent there is communication & transparency it is done equally with both "camps". You also don't hire a law firm with strong university connections to handle the investigation so as to not create any impression of bias. And if you find that a coach has committed major NCAA violations, you don't allow him to resign YOU FIRE HIM
[/quote]

From my understanding and this SJ Mercury write-up and this Stanford Daily story, the internal investigation was also looking at both the alleged NCAA violations and also allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships with players against both Rittman and Director of Sports Performance Brandon Marcello. Rittman was cleared but ultimately given a Show Cause by the NCAA for the practice violations, and Marcello found responsible and removed.

If the meeting with the anti-Rittman parents and students brought forward allegations of sexual harassment against both Rittman and Marcello, why in the world would Muir take a meeting with other students and parents who supported Rittman concerning such allegations? It is far, far, more appropriate to do what he did - contact the Title IX office and hire an outside investigator.

Indeed, I think "transprency" as to those issues with the pro-Rittman camp could actually expose the university to liability if Muir discussed the allegations of the anti-Rittman folks with the pro-Rittman contingent. And given that the concerns were of a legal nature, why would he have any obligation to discuss them with the pro-Rittman camp in the first place? Whether or not part of the meeting was about "we don't like his coaching strategies," another part of it was "we think he's violated university policy, NCAA rules, and the law, and abused his players." Maybe the allegations were trumped up, and Rittman was ultimately partially vindicated, but Muir had to take them at face value at the time they were reported to him.

As far as the firm used, I'm not clear precisely why Stanford using Pillsbury, a firm it's used previously, is a problem - maybe I missed something here, but it's pretty common for universities to return to the same firm for different kinds of legal work if that firm specializes in more than one area of legal practice. Title IX procedures ultimately found Marcello responsible by a preponderance of the evidence and the NCAA ultimately concluded that Rittman committed a Level II violation. If both sets of findings were confirmed by other bodies, I guess I'm not sure why we have reason to think the outside investigation was somehow questionably conducted.

As for firing Rittman vs. letting him resign, the NCAA did not confirm the university's findings until September 2016, so until the NCAA actually made its own findings, would it have been appropriate for Muir to fire Rittman? Clearly Rittman knew the writing was on the wall, but it seems like letting him resign was a face-saving procedure for all involved.

In short, I guess I don't see what Muir should have done differently now that all the facts are out, and given that the allegations of both practice violations, a cover-up, and sexual harassment were all ultimately proven to be true, I guess I just have to disagree that Muir grossly mishandled the situation. Was it ideal? No. But how could it ever be when you have a popular coach and a divided team?

I totally understand the strong feelings given the popularity of Rittman and the partially questionable intentions and motives of the anti-Rittman folks. Nevertheless, Muir's number one job as AD is to keep his students safe and minimize the university's exposure to liability. I think he succeeded on that front, whatever fallout came of it on the field.

[BostonCard]

You also don't hire a law firm with strong university connections to handle the investigation so as to not create any impression of bias

Wouldn't most law firms be biased towards not finding anything wrong happening at their client?  My impression was that to the extent biased investigations happen, it's mostly a "sweep things under the rug" kind of thing.

If the meeting with the anti-Rittman parents and students brought forward allegations of sexual harassment against both Rittman and Marcello, why in the world would Muir take a meeting with other students and parents who supported Rittman concerning such allegations? It is far, far, more appropriate to do what he did - contact the Title IX office and hire an outside investigator.

I don't have as many issues with the investigation as some people here do, but generally speaking, you can still have a meeting, even if you can't share certain things until the investigation is concluded.  You still want to make sure that all sides perceive the investigation as being fair and that their voices are being heard.

In short, I guess I don't see what Muir should have done differently now that all the facts are out

While I agree with your sentiment generally, I would caution that it is likely that not all facts are out.  A lot of things are public, but I suspect that outside of allegations of NCAA violations and of Title IX violations, a lot of what is out there has been shared by people with very strong feelings (either pro- or anti- Rittman), and what really happened will never be known.

BC

[BostonCard]

You also don't hire a law firm with strong university connections to handle the investigation so as to not create any impression of bias

Wouldn't most law firms be biased towards not finding anything wrong happening at their client?  My impression was that to the extent biased investigations happen, it's mostly a "sweep things under the rug" kind of thing.

If the meeting with the anti-Rittman parents and students brought forward allegations of sexual harassment against both Rittman and Marcello, why in the world would Muir take a meeting with other students and parents who supported Rittman concerning such allegations? It is far, far, more appropriate to do what he did - contact the Title IX office and hire an outside investigator.

I don't have as many issues with the investigation as some people here do, but generally speaking, you can still have a meeting, even if you can't share certain things until the investigation is concluded.  You still want to make sure that all sides perceive the investigation as being fair and that their voices are being heard.

In short, I guess I don't see what Muir should have done differently now that all the facts are out

While I agree with your sentiment generally, I would caution that it is likely that not all facts are out.  A lot of things are public, but I suspect that outside of allegations of NCAA violations and of Title IX violations, a lot of what is out there has been shared by people with very strong feelings (either pro- or anti- Rittman), and what really happened will never be known.

BC

[2006alum]

You also don't hire a law firm with strong university connections to handle the investigation so as to not create any impression of bias

Wouldn't most law firms be biased towards not finding anything wrong happening at their client?  My impression was that to the extent biased investigations happen, it's mostly a "sweep things under the rug" kind of thing.

Putting my lawyer hat on for a moment, I don't have specific familiarity with this particular investigation, but in general when a client hires outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation prior to the initiation of any sort of formal litigation or prosecution against the client, the goal of the investigation is to find out as much as possible about what happened and to identify any potential sources of liability or wrongdoing in anticipation that some sort of external source of accountability (prosecutors, the threat of a lawsuit, regulators, etc.) may later seek to hold the client liable for that possible wrongdoing.

In such circumstances, the client's best interest is always for the internal investigation to be as thorough as possible. Think of it like a restaurant that hopes to pass health and fire safety code inspections. If you hire an outside inspector to check your restaurant before the real inspections, the last thing you want is for them to miss crucial violations such that when the real inspectors show up, they catch things you didn't and you get fined or get your licensed pulled and have to close up shop. If that happens, you're going to pretty unhappy with the investigator you hired. In similar fashion, Muir's goal is to figure out as much as possible about what happened, figure out what responsibility Stanford has, and take action so that they can then go to the NCAA and say, with integrity, that they've cleaned up shop.

Of course, that also means that an outside investigator's report can be really unflattering for the institution if it becomes public. If you recall, the Baylor Board of Trustees initially sought to block the release of their outside investigator's report about the athletic department's handling of the football players' assaults. Baylor wanted to get out in front of the situation, but not necessarily let the public know what it found. Eventually, given the uproar, they had no choice but to release a summary of it, and the report was extraordinarily damning. Once that happened, Briles was swiftly fired, Starr was removed as University President, and Baylor self-reported the violations to the NCAA. Thus even at a school that had a long history of covering things up, it was still in the school's interest for the internal investigation to be thorough and accurate.

In short, in the long term my sense is that a law firm risks much more by doing a poor job at an internal investigation and leaving the client exposed to liability than finding damning things and giving recommendations for how the institution can clean them up. The law firm can potentially be on the hook for malpractice, violations of legal ethics, and develop a reputation for shoddy work that will lead future clients to go elsewhere. As a result, my sense is that it would be in both Stanford's and Pillsbury's best interest for Pillsbury to conduct the most thorough investigation possible given time and resource constraints.

[2006alum]

You also don't hire a law firm with strong university connections to handle the investigation so as to not create any impression of bias

Wouldn't most law firms be biased towards not finding anything wrong happening at their client?  My impression was that to the extent biased investigations happen, it's mostly a "sweep things under the rug" kind of thing.

Putting my lawyer hat on for a moment, I don't have specific familiarity with this particular investigation, but in general when a client hires outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation prior to the initiation of any sort of formal litigation or prosecution against the client, the goal of the investigation is to find out as much as possible about what happened and to identify any potential sources of liability or wrongdoing in anticipation that some sort of external source of accountability (prosecutors, the threat of a lawsuit, regulators, etc.) may later seek to hold the client liable for that possible wrongdoing.

In such circumstances, the client's best interest is always for the internal investigation to be as thorough as possible. Think of it like a restaurant that hopes to pass health and fire safety code inspections. If you hire an outside inspector to check your restaurant before the real inspections, the last thing you want is for them to miss crucial violations such that when the real inspectors show up, they catch things you didn't and you get fined or get your licensed pulled and have to close up shop. If that happens, you're going to pretty unhappy with the investigator you hired. In similar fashion, Muir's goal is to figure out as much as possible about what happened, figure out what responsibility Stanford has, and take action so that they can then go to the NCAA and say, with integrity, that they've cleaned up shop.

Of course, that also means that an outside investigator's report can be really unflattering for the institution if it becomes public. If you recall, the Baylor Board of Trustees initially sought to block the release of their outside investigator's report about the athletic department's handling of the football players' assaults. Baylor wanted to get out in front of the situation, but not necessarily let the public know what it found. Eventually, given the uproar, they had no choice but to release a summary of it, and the report was extraordinarily damning. Once that happened, Briles was swiftly fired, Starr was removed as University President, and Baylor self-reported the violations to the NCAA. Thus even at a school that had a long history of covering things up, it was still in the school's interest for the internal investigation to be thorough and accurate.

In short, in the long term my sense is that a law firm risks much more by doing a poor job at an internal investigation and leaving the client exposed to liability than finding damning things and giving recommendations for how the institution can clean them up. The law firm can potentially be on the hook for malpractice, violations of legal ethics, and develop a reputation for shoddy work that will lead future clients to go elsewhere. As a result, my sense is that it would be in both Stanford's and Pillsbury's best interest for Pillsbury to conduct the most thorough investigation possible given time and resource constraints.

[DC 86]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16598.msg195711#msg195711 date=1500570118]

You also don't hire a law firm with strong university connections to handle the investigation so as to not create any impression of bias

Wouldn't most law firms be biased towards not finding anything wrong happening at their client?  My impression was that to the extent biased investigations happen, it's mostly a "sweep things under the rug" kind of thing.

Putting my lawyer hat on for a moment, I don't have specific familiarity with this particular investigation, but in general when a client hires outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation prior to the initiation of any sort of formal litigation or prosecution against the client, the goal of the investigation is to find out as much as possible about what happened and to identify any potential sources of liability or wrongdoing in anticipation that some sort of external source of accountability (prosecutors, the threat of a lawsuit, regulators, etc.) may later seek to hold the client liable for that possible wrongdoing.

In such circumstances, the client's best interest is always for the internal investigation to be as thorough as possible. Think of it like a restaurant that hopes to pass health and fire safety code inspections. If you hire an outside inspector to check your restaurant before the real inspections, the last thing you want is for them to miss crucial violations such that when the real inspectors show up, they catch things you didn't and you get fined or get your licensed pulled and have to close up shop. If that happens, you're going to pretty unhappy with the investigator you hired. In similar fashion, Muir's goal is to figure out as much as possible about what happened, figure out what responsibility Stanford has, and take action so that they can then go to the NCAA and say, with integrity, that they've cleaned up shop.

Of course, that also means that an outside investigator's report can be really unflattering for the institution if it becomes public. If you recall, the Baylor Board of Trustees initially sought to block the release of their outside investigator's report about the athletic department's handling of the football players' assaults. Baylor wanted to get out in front of the situation, but not necessarily let the public know what it found. Eventually, given the uproar, they had no choice but to release a summary of it, and the report was extraordinarily damning. Once that happened, Briles was swiftly fired, Starr was removed as University President, and Baylor self-reported the violations to the NCAA. Thus even at a school that had a long history of covering things up, it was still in the school's interest for the internal investigation to be thorough and accurate.

In short, in the long term my sense is that a law firm risks much more by doing a poor job at an internal investigation and leaving the client exposed to liability than finding damning things and giving recommendations for how the institution can clean them up. The law firm can potentially be on the hook for malpractice, violations of legal ethics, and develop a reputation for shoddy work that will lead future clients to go elsewhere. As a result, my sense is that it would be in both Stanford's and Pillsbury's best interest for Pillsbury to conduct the most thorough investigation possible given time and resource constraints.
[/quote]
+1. The Freeh report at Penn State another recent example.

[DC 86]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16598.msg195711#msg195711 date=1500570118]

You also don't hire a law firm with strong university connections to handle the investigation so as to not create any impression of bias

Wouldn't most law firms be biased towards not finding anything wrong happening at their client?  My impression was that to the extent biased investigations happen, it's mostly a "sweep things under the rug" kind of thing.

Putting my lawyer hat on for a moment, I don't have specific familiarity with this particular investigation, but in general when a client hires outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation prior to the initiation of any sort of formal litigation or prosecution against the client, the goal of the investigation is to find out as much as possible about what happened and to identify any potential sources of liability or wrongdoing in anticipation that some sort of external source of accountability (prosecutors, the threat of a lawsuit, regulators, etc.) may later seek to hold the client liable for that possible wrongdoing.

In such circumstances, the client's best interest is always for the internal investigation to be as thorough as possible. Think of it like a restaurant that hopes to pass health and fire safety code inspections. If you hire an outside inspector to check your restaurant before the real inspections, the last thing you want is for them to miss crucial violations such that when the real inspectors show up, they catch things you didn't and you get fined or get your licensed pulled and have to close up shop. If that happens, you're going to pretty unhappy with the investigator you hired. In similar fashion, Muir's goal is to figure out as much as possible about what happened, figure out what responsibility Stanford has, and take action so that they can then go to the NCAA and say, with integrity, that they've cleaned up shop.

Of course, that also means that an outside investigator's report can be really unflattering for the institution if it becomes public. If you recall, the Baylor Board of Trustees initially sought to block the release of their outside investigator's report about the athletic department's handling of the football players' assaults. Baylor wanted to get out in front of the situation, but not necessarily let the public know what it found. Eventually, given the uproar, they had no choice but to release a summary of it, and the report was extraordinarily damning. Once that happened, Briles was swiftly fired, Starr was removed as University President, and Baylor self-reported the violations to the NCAA. Thus even at a school that had a long history of covering things up, it was still in the school's interest for the internal investigation to be thorough and accurate.

In short, in the long term my sense is that a law firm risks much more by doing a poor job at an internal investigation and leaving the client exposed to liability than finding damning things and giving recommendations for how the institution can clean them up. The law firm can potentially be on the hook for malpractice, violations of legal ethics, and develop a reputation for shoddy work that will lead future clients to go elsewhere. As a result, my sense is that it would be in both Stanford's and Pillsbury's best interest for Pillsbury to conduct the most thorough investigation possible given time and resource constraints.
[/quote]
+1. The Freeh report at Penn State another recent example.

[Cred]

Skimming over parts of this thread last night, I extracted from it a few "one-liners" (in addition to numerous others that I deemed worthy of reposting). The first two (see below) I selected solely for their amusement value.

"wow, it must be the slow time of the year to have 108 posts in a thread on softball  :)" Reply #109 (March 24)

"If Hanson were fired, do we think we'd lose any of our current players and/or incoming recruits?" (Reply #71, March 22)

BTW, I'm not poking fun at you, #71, for raising such a question, I trust you realize that. It's just that when one considers the primed-for-success position in which the program now finds itself, as contrasted with where it has been for the past three years, well, it can be hard to suppress something of a drunk-on-giddiness chuckle at the notion of Stanford softball perhaps taking a hit in the human resources department as a result of Hanson's being let go.

And today's final resurrected thought:

"It is time the reins of Stanford Softball were surrendered to a coaching staff that bleeds Cardinal red." (Reply #125, March 26)

GOODBYE! BIG GREEN, HELLO! CARDINAL RED

[Cred]

Skimming over parts of this thread last night, I extracted from it a few "one-liners" (in addition to numerous others that I deemed worthy of reposting). The first two (see below) I selected solely for their amusement value.

"wow, it must be the slow time of the year to have 108 posts in a thread on softball  :)" Reply #109 (March 24)

"If Hanson were fired, do we think we'd lose any of our current players and/or incoming recruits?" (Reply #71, March 22)

BTW, I'm not poking fun at you, #71, for raising such a question, I trust you realize that. It's just that when one considers the primed-for-success position in which the program now finds itself, as contrasted with where it has been for the past three years, well, it can be hard to suppress something of a drunk-on-giddiness chuckle at the notion of Stanford softball perhaps taking a hit in the human resources department as a result of Hanson's being let go.

And today's final resurrected thought:

"It is time the reins of Stanford Softball were surrendered to a coaching staff that bleeds Cardinal red." (Reply #125, March 26)

GOODBYE! BIG GREEN, HELLO! CARDINAL RED