The charges and exhibits

Date: Apr 16, 2004

The charges and exhibits

Date: Apr 16, 2004

I know someone who has visited with Gary since Wed night. Gary and team didn't get anything they weren't expecting. Apparently one of the lawyer's was heard to say "we might not have to work as long on this one as we thought..."

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: babbs
"I know someone who has visited with Gary since Wed night. Gary and team didn't get anything they weren't expecting. Apparently one of the lawyer's was heard to say "we might not have to work as long on this one as we thought..." "

Like I said in another thread, I heard from a very well-placed source that some celebration occurred on Wednesday night.

Date: Apr 16, 2004

Well, that's some good news! Glad to hear it....

Date: Apr 16, 2004

I've had several people ask me lately for details about the upcoming hearing. I was wondering if anyone had seen details published, or knows anything for certain about location, time of day, etc. People have also been asking if "open" is going to mean open to the press and public transcript, or if it literally means open to the public. I apologize for my ignorance, but I have heard several different things and I don't want to give incorrect information.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: Hellgirl
"I've had several people ask me lately for details about the upcoming hearing. I was wondering if anyone had seen details published, or knows anything for certain about location, time of day, etc. People have also been asking if "open" is going to mean open to the press and public transcript, or if it literally means open to the public. I apologize for my ignorance, but I have heard several different things and I don't want to give incorrect information."

Here is what I have heard:

Where: Union A,B,C (so I've heard)

When: April 28-29 9:00 AM (I'm sure on the dates, almost positive on the time)

Who: general public, press (positive about this)

Yes, I believe the hearing will be taped and transcribed. Recordings and transcriptions will be turned over to Shelby and to the University Advisory Committee. Both entities will make a recommendation to Anderson. Then Anderson will make a written recommendation to the IHL board.

Date: Apr 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by:
"
Here is what I have heard:
Where: Union A,B,C (so I've heard)
When: April 28-29 9:00 AM (I'm sure on the dates, almost positive on the time)
Who: general public, press (positive about this)
Yes, I believe the hearing will be taped and transcribed. Recordings and transcriptions will be turned over to Shelby and to the University Advisory Committee. Both entities will make a recommendation to Anderson. Then Anderson will make a written recommendation to the IHL board.
"

Thanks so much, FS.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

I have never had a reason to visit the Union rooms. (I guess this brings up questions of the need for this financially wasteful new union which is now under construction) Anyway, how many people will these three rooms hold?

Date: Apr 17, 2004

-----------------------------
"Yes, I believe the hearing will be taped and transcribed. Recordings and transcriptions will be turned over to Shelby and to the University Advisory Committee. Both entities will make a recommendation to Anderson. Then Anderson will make a written recommendation to the IHL board."
------------------------------

This conflicts with what I've read elsewhere, i.e., that all three would make their proposed findings and recommendations to the Board separately. Here you are saying that the UAC and Stringer/Glamser will make recommeneations to Justice Anderson and that he in turn will make a single report to the Board.

The difference here is very important. Which is correct?

Date: Apr 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Distant Supporter of USM
"----------------------------- "Yes, I believe the hearing will be taped and transcribed. Recordings and transcriptions will be turned over to Shelby and to the University Advisory Committee. Both entities will make a recommendation to Anderson. Then Anderson will make a written recommendation to the IHL board." ------------------------------ This conflicts with what I've read elsewhere, i.e., that all three would make their proposed findings and recommendations to the Board separately. Here you are saying that the UAC and Stringer/Glamser will make recommeneations to Justice Anderson and that he in turn will make a single report to the Board. The difference here is very important. Which is correct?"

This is a paste from the IHL Press Release as posted on the official IHL website - sounds like President and UAC send reports to Justice Anderson, who subsequently makes recommendation, and then all three are forwarded to the IHL Board.

"...At the conclusion of the hearing, the record of the hearing shall be provided to members of the University Advisory Committee and President Shelby Thames, who may each make a written recommendation to the Hearing Officer based solely on matters contained in the record.

6. After receiving the recommendations of the University Advisory Committee and President Thames, the Hearing Officer shall make a written decision which shall be forwarded to the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning. The decision shall be based solely on the proceedings before the Hearing Officer. The record, the decision of the Hearing Officer, and the recommendations of both the University Advisory Committee and President Thames shall be forwarded to the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning.

7. The Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning will make a final determination of this matter based solely on the record and recommendations submitted, or, in the alternative, may choose to conduct a de novo hearing. ..."

Date: Apr 17, 2004

I meant, of course, that Thames, the UAC and Stringer/Glamser would make recommendations to Justice Anderson and that he in turn would make the single recommendation which would be addressed to the Board.

This does make more sense procedurally and psychologically at least it prevents the Board from cherry picking from three sets of findings and proposed conclusions.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

Don't mean to sound like a conspiracy nut, but if the board has the right to request a de novo hearing, then they can concievably ignore anything from the first hearing, hold the second behind closed doors, then do whatever the hell they want...

Date: Apr 17, 2004

So this is from the original document:
----------------
"...At the conclusion of the hearing, the record of the hearing shall be provided to members of the University Advisory Committee and President Shelby Thames, who may each make a written recommendation to the Hearing Officer based solely on matters contained in the record.

6. &nb sp; After receiving the recommendations of the University Advisory Committee and President Thames, the Hearing Officer shall make a written decision which shall be forwarded to the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning. The decision shall be based solely on the proceedings before the Hearing Officer. The record, the decision of the Hearing Officer, and the recommendations of both the University Advisory Committee and President Thames shall be forwarded to the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning.

7. &nb sp; The Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning will make a final determination of this matter based solely on the record and recommendations submitted, or, in the alternative, may choose to conduct a de novo hearing. ..."
---------------------------

But this is a bit strange too. At the risk of sounding a bit picky it appears that the Defendants, Stringer and Glamser, don't have the right to submit proposed findings and conclusions (i.e., a recommendation) but that the Prosecution, the President, does. I should think that it would be both or neither especially given the fact that you have an exceptionally competent hearings officer who in paragraph 6 is to make a "decision" which goes up to the Board.

This matter hasn't been run by the book from the beginning. It should have started at the Departmental level instead of in the President's office. The procedure actually used had to be constructed ad hoc. So it is whatever the parties agreed to. But according to a strict reading of the above the Defendants not only don't have a right equivalent to the President's to submit a recommendation, they don't even get a copy of the record. Most important, the Board ultimately decides based on: (1) theThames' recommendation, (2) the UAC recommendation and (3) the record. It apparently has no legal obligation to consider a written recommendation from the Defendants or even the "decision" by Justice Anderson.

Shouldn't someone consider clarifying this procedure? The intention was probably not this narrow but most litigants at the end of the day will take advantage of mistakes by the opposition if they can. The words recommendation and decision are not synonems.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Distant supporter of USM
" Most important, the Board ultimately decides based on: (1) theThames' recommendation, (2) the UAC recommendation and (3) the record. It apparently has no legal obligation to consider a written recommendation from the Defendants or even the "decision" by Justice Anderson. Shouldn't someone consider clarifying this procedure? The intention was probably not this narrow but most litigants at the end of the day will take advantage of mistakes by the opposition if they can. The words recommendation and decision are not synonems."

"...The decision shall be based solely on the proceedings before the Hearing Officer. The record, the decision of the Hearing Officer, and the recommendations of both the University Advisory Committee and President Thames shall be forwarded to the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning.

7. &nb sp; The Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning will make a final determination of this matter based solely on the record and recommendations submitted, or, in the alternative, may choose to conduct a de novo hearing. ..."

My bold emphasis

But, as Justice Anderson's recommendation is one of the three, I'm not sure I understand your point here.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

Indy eagle says:

"Don't mean to sound like a conspiracy nut, but if the board has the right to request a de novo hearing, then they can concievably ignore anything from the first hearing, hold the second behind closed doors, then do whatever the hell they want..."

They do have a right to hold a de novo hearing but it is unlikely that will wish to do so. Pretty much the same record would be made the second time around. And they are bound by that in the same fashion. The Board knows that if Gary and Frank are denied reinstatement all parties will end up in the court system. There is a strong deterrent to misbehavior on the part of the Board such as use of evidence not in the record. The Board members are laymen but judges are professionals. You can presume they will be getting good legal advice on such things from the Attorney General.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

"But, as Justice Anderson's recommendation is one of the three, I'm not sure I understand your point here."

There are only two "recommendations". I'm simply reading the "black letter" of the agreement and presuming nothing. The Board is called upon to make its decision based upon recommendations and the record. Justice Anderson's submission is a 'decision", not a recommendation. The language is not consistent and it disturbs me. I know this doesn't look like it ought to be considered a real world danger but you never know what might come back to bite you later in the procedure. Ambiguities are potentially dangerous.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: indy eagle
"Don't mean to sound like a conspiracy nut, but if the board has the right to request a de novo hearing, then they can concievably ignore anything from the first hearing, hold the second behind closed doors, then do whatever the hell they want..."

. . . and they will.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Distant supporter of USM
"Justice Anderson's submission is a 'decision", not a recommendation. The language is not consistent and it disturbs me. I know this doesn't look like it ought to be considered a real world danger but you never know what might come back to bite you later in the procedure. Ambiguities are potentially dangerous. "

Ok, I understand - read through it several times and didn't pick up on the differences in wording - thanks for your patience while I caught up!

Date: Apr 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Distant supporter of USM
"So this is from the original document: ---------------- This matter hasn't been run by the book from the beginning. . . . Shouldn't someone consider clarifying this procedure? . . .

Mike Adelman is a pretty good attorney. He seems pretty comfortable with the way the hearing is put together gith now so I suspect if he didn't think things were either equally balanced or somewhwat balanced in favor of his clients de'd still be in negotiation.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: DIstant supporter of USM
"Indy eagle says: . . . .The Board knows that if Gary and Frank are denied reinstatement all parties will end up in the court system. There is a strong deterrent to misbehavior on the part of the Board such as use of evidence not in the record. The Board members are laymen but judges are professionals. You can presume they will be getting good legal advice on such things from the Attorney General."

Yep, and from what I saw at the last Board meeting they are terrified of being sued themselves. As was made clear in that meeting (on a different matter) they could be sued as a Board or individually.

So I think they can try to create a process that isn't balanced (if you follow the conspiracy theory) but they can go only so far to determine the ultimate result. If any of their actions really can be seen as clearly malicious they'd be in trouble. I suspect that there are also enough folks on the board with a more balanced perspective to be able to put a stop to the most egregious kinds of actions.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

I haven't the slightest doubt that the attorneys for the Defense are first rate. I just think this ought to be looked at to make sure there is no mistake. Everyone misses something once a decade or so.

Date: Apr 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Distant supporter of usm
"I haven't the slightest doubt that the attorneys for the Defense are first rate. I just think this ought to be looked at to make sure there is no mistake. Everyone misses something once a decade or so."

fair enough. Knowing those folks as I do, I am quite sure your cautionary has already been seen and discussed where it counts.

If you are too distant to come down (or up) for the hearings -- stay tuned! I can't wait to see how the hearing plays on this site.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
" fair enough. Knowing those folks as I do, I am quite sure your cautionary has already been seen and discussed where it counts. If you are too distant to come down (or up) for the hearings -- stay tuned! I can't wait to see how the hearing plays on this site."

Does anyone know if WUSM is going to do a live feed of the hearings? We need to contact them and find out, and if they say "no" then we need to flood them with letters requesting that they do.

If they do a live feed, I will provide a link on the front page. If not, I will try to find SOMEONE who is providing a live feed.