Flood...Obvious Question

[RUfan1979]

The investigative report described Flood's interaction with the professor a clear violation of policy.
It didn't take too much intelligence to predict where this team regarding performance was heading.
There was everything in place to fire him FOR CAUSE saving us the 1.4 million buyout.
For a University crying there is no money, this was the perfect out.
Why did they not act?

 

[kupuna133]

Poor leadership that cow tows to the lowest common denominator.

 

[knightfan7]

I'm not a lawyer but as a layman here's my thought....

Yes, RU could reasonably fire him but I doubt they would be able to escape the buyout. Wouldn't any attorney worth his salt demand Rutgers show that every employee fired for a policy violation was denied severance or the like? There is already the recent history of "paying off" Hill, Rice, and Pernetti. Wouldn't it open up to scrutiny every employment decision made in the AD.

 

[RUJohnny99]

Rumor I heard from a well placed source is Barchi demanded to fire him, but Flood lawyered up.

So instead of paying legal fees to fight Flood, it was cheaper to spend the money on an outside investigation.

 

[lighty]

New Rumor I heard from a well placed source is Barchi demanded to fire him, but Flood lawyered up.

Could be. Barchi did publicly mention that firing Flood was part of the discussions.

 

[c_husk]

Rumor I heard from a well placed source is Barchi demanded to fire him, but Flood lawyered up.

So instead of paying legal fees to fight Flood, it was cheaper to spend the money on an outside investigation.

If I were Barchi Id say , Kyle f*** your lawyer. Your gone for cause. See ya in court.

 

[dollarbill]

Either way, the "time of the flood" is close to the end. We can't afford the hit in ticket sales if he is retained. Money as usual, will do the talking. $$$$