I don't want to revive an old battle, but to me the Mulcahy dismissal is easier to justify than Pernetti's. Mulcahy was spending funds without authorization, and that will get you fired anywhere. Pernetti's only problem is that he didn't anticipate that the University would agree to fire Rice even if it meant the University would pay Rice. But feel free to ignore me -- I don't want to divert the thread.
Rutgers Academic Building on Seminary Pl
- Thread starter RU G
- Start date
I'm not so sure how blindsided the U was by what Mulcahey was doing. It seems clear they knew and that he fell on the sword. And what he did do ended with RU joining the B1G, and he, and McCormick and Schiano agreed on that with very good reason.
Even if you remove the legal issues from the TP situation (and his contract had a moral turpitude clause), on its face you have an AD in 2012 not understanding how a video would go viral and damage the school when he was supposedly media savvy. He didn't fall on the sword, despite the crazy claims, because he didn't escalate the issues to the point where others could have gotten it.
In terms of hiring and firing...Mulcahey hired Schiano and Goodale (and FHJ). Pernetti hired Flood...and Rice, Donigan, Brecht...Pernetti was in way over his head.
Even if you remove the legal issues from the TP situation (and his contract had a moral turpitude clause), on its face you have an AD in 2012 not understanding how a video would go viral and damage the school when he was supposedly media savvy. He didn't fall on the sword, despite the crazy claims, because he didn't escalate the issues to the point where others could have gotten it.
In terms of hiring and firing...Mulcahey hired Schiano and Goodale (and FHJ). Pernetti hired Flood...and Rice, Donigan, Brecht...Pernetti was in way over his head.
As I understand it, TP asked if he could fire Rice without financial liability, and was told "no" by the lawyers. TP was understandably reluctant to go to Barchi and ask if Rutgers would be willing to pay Rice compensation for firing him. TP made the wrong decision, and from a PR standpoint he had to go, but I can sort of understand why TP's supporters would regard him as having been thrown under the bus by Barchi, who obviously was not at all focused on athletics.
If Mulcahy wasn't fired for financial sheningans, then why was he fired? (conspiracy theories not allowed!)
If Mulcahy wasn't fired for financial sheningans, then why was he fired? (conspiracy theories not allowed!)
Mulcahy was sacrificed to end a constant drumbeat by the Star Ledger. Where things like the employment of his son by Nelligan (which BM had fully disclosed to the BOG), and the "secret" terms of Schiano's contract (which had been reported in detail in their own paper a year earlier, based on a Rutgers press release) were framed as a scandal on par with Iran-Contra.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
That was absolutely not the case.
He was fired because he didn't have internal control in place to prevent such a thing, but they found no actual incident where he spent money without authorization. That is why it was so ridiculous at the time.
If he spent money he wasn't supposed to everyone here would have understood why he got fired.
Tin P definitely got thrown under the bus - thats how it works in large organizations. Barchi wasn't going to risk the universities governance structure just to save a mediocre AD.
Could Tim P have done more to get Rice fired? I suspect so. He, after all, managed to get the university to pay Hill to leave, and Hill's offenses were much less, and not on video. Reality is he either woefully underestimated the impact of the video, or he was too attached to Rice to do the right thing. .
Thats not to say Barchi is blameless. He should have realized the publicity impact that sports could have on a major university and approved the move. Of coursei n the end all of that bad publicity really didnt do much beyond basketball, so maybe his opinion is right - sports dont really matter that much in shaping the university image.
As for BM - the above post was my understanding. Rutgers had BM resign basically to get the dogs called off, but remember - he was on his way to retirement any way.
Lack of internal controls against mis-spending will get you fired anywhere. Rutgers probably suspected there had been misappropriation, but couldn't prove it, and instead relied on a systemic issue. As for the S-L, it simply does not have the clout that some people seem to think.
Ok, as someone that is in charge of the internal control environment where I work, that is also simply not true.
No business can run with 100% total protection against fraud/abuse. It is a constant balancing act of implementing reasonable controls in a practical way that work with your business.
I also don't think it is the AD's job to implement or manage the internal control environment where he works. This is something accountants/auditors do, not functional area managers. Their job is usually to follow the controls that are in place.
It was clearly a scapegoating when it happened. BM knew this. RM knew this. It had to be done just to get the pols off the back of the school, but it was scapegoating nonetheless.
It did make the news. That's how I know about it. I don't have any secret source. By contrast, I can't imagine the President or BOG booting him because of the S-L allegations, which the President and BOG knew to be fallacious. And while maybe I'm wrong, I can't remember a prominent politician making a big deal about the S-L stories.
Camden
If the SL had never picked up the story, would Mulcahey have been fired?
OTOH, the BBC reported on Rice. TMZ reported on Rice. The severity of the misdeed was way different.
Also, it was incumbent on TP to bring the gravity to Barchi's attention, moreso than it was incumbent on Barchi to ask more questions about it. We don't know how TP relayed it, but he never insisted Barchi watch. And something tells me he didn't include all the slurs in the video. Even if you wanted to assume Barchi didn't know a touchdown from a three pointer, he would know the rage that language would cause at RU and all over America.
If the SL had never picked up the story, would Mulcahey have been fired?
OTOH, the BBC reported on Rice. TMZ reported on Rice. The severity of the misdeed was way different.
Also, it was incumbent on TP to bring the gravity to Barchi's attention, moreso than it was incumbent on Barchi to ask more questions about it. We don't know how TP relayed it, but he never insisted Barchi watch. And something tells me he didn't include all the slurs in the video. Even if you wanted to assume Barchi didn't know a touchdown from a three pointer, he would know the rage that language would cause at RU and all over America.
Yes, I believe Mulcahy would have been fired even if there had no S-L reporting. Failure to have internal controls is a serious offense because it means someone may be spending improperly.
It would have been insubordinate for the Athletic Director to "insist" that Barchi watch the tape.
It would have been insubordinate for the Athletic Director to "insist" that Barchi watch the tape.
On the bolded part, you are now exaggerating. Not have sufficient controls is not the same thing as not having controls. I am not even sure you understand what you are saying.
I think at some point you have to take a step back and look at the overall circumstances. BM was a political hire. He then became a political fire. Everyone even remotely knowledgeable about the situation knows that he had a member of the BoG gunning for him for political reasons.
The "accusations" and "revelations" that eventually got him fired (even though the university's review found no wrongdoing) were about the "side deals" that provided external funding for Schiano's contract. Again, anyone remotely familiar with what happened also knows that the SL reported on the "side deal" when the contract was signed a couple years before they broke the "scandal." It was never secret. In fact such endorsement deals, as we all now know, were (and still are) EXTREMELY common when hiring coaches. Flood has essentially the same side deals.
If you aren't familiar with what happen, just accept that and move on. Not everyone has to know everything about everything. But pretending that BM did something heinous that absolutely would get anyone fired anywhere in the world is ridiculous.
BM has been intimately involved with the AD even after his forced resignation/retirement. If he did something so heinous that he HAD to get fired...do you think the next AD and the University President would have been so welcoming to him? Heck, now even JH is using him as a consultant.
Both positions I think are wrong. Unles RU was working behind the scenes (and that information never came out later) there was no push to fire BM before the Ledger articles came out. Without them he would have happily retired a year later, a move which I think was already in the works.
Basically you are alleging that there were other improprities beyond the stuff the SL articles listed (and which are listed here.) If so, I don't remember them.
As for insubordination. I am organzing a major meeting right now. My boss and her bosses are dragging their feet. They have things that no doubt seem more important at this time than reviewing a meeting plan for a meeting quiet a while in the future. But it will be my ass if it goes poorly because we got a late start. So is it insubordinate of me to hassle her about it? Insist that she do things faster? Maybe, but its good for both of us and she knows it.
Same thing here. Obviously Pernetti wasnt going to strap him in a chair and tape his eyes open. But if Tim P was persistent dont you think that Barchi would have listened and watched the tape? Hey Bob? Did you watch that tape? Our legal department says we are going to have to pay him off, but the stuff on their is going to be pretty ruinous to the university's image if it leaks. You should really watch it, so you can get the full effect. Words just don't cut it.
I guess we have to agree to disagree. But I do think your points are strong ones, so maybe I should reconsider.
Keep in mind that Barchi was an unknown quantity to TP. TP would have been cautious in dealing with a new boss. But I do agree that TP should have done more, and that his judgement was poor. But so too was the judgement of the lawyers who told TP he couldn't fire Rice without paying Rice a considerable settlement.
Keep in mind that Barchi was an unknown quantity to TP. TP would have been cautious in dealing with a new boss. But I do agree that TP should have done more, and that his judgement was poor. But so too was the judgement of the lawyers who told TP he couldn't fire Rice without paying Rice a considerable settlement.
I would think that someone who told their superior that their subordinate is on tape throwing basketballs at heads and saying "Lithuanian f*****" should not even have to demand the video be watched.
I still recall a meeting one time with superiors about a case, and I was asked to go through each and every racial slur, another where I had to describe sexually explicit comments, and another about workplace full nudity. Not comfortable, but you have to get authority for things sometimes.
I still recall a meeting one time with superiors about a case, and I was asked to go through each and every racial slur, another where I had to describe sexually explicit comments, and another about workplace full nudity. Not comfortable, but you have to get authority for things sometimes.
As long as we're rehashing this, TP could've been more persistent but the lawyers were incompetent & maybe committed malpractice if they advised that Rice couldn't be fired for cause without a significant payoff.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
But Leonard, wasn't Rice paid a settlement after he was fired? So the lawyers weren't wrong; instead TP assumed that the University would not want to have to pay Rice off. Thanks, everyone, for their views. It's given me new perspective.
We paid off Rice because we didn't want to go through litigation. His conduct was certainly enough to terminate for cause & not pay anything.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Agree- we paid him because he was fired after the fact.
If RU done the right thing and fired him on the spot, we would have never paid him. If he would have sued, RU could have released the tapes, and he'd never work again. He would have been a real moron to sue and no lawyer is that bad a bottom feeder.
If RU done the right thing and fired him on the spot, we would have never paid him. If he would have sued, RU could have released the tapes, and he'd never work again. He would have been a real moron to sue and no lawyer is that bad a bottom feeder.
to get back on topic here is a new aerial of the construction progress.
Wasn't the last CAC dorms either Brett or Tinsley or Clothier all from the early 60s?
My guess is that the River Dorms would have been later than those but also sometime in the 60s.
I had to look it up and they were built in 1956. I think the basic point holds that no significant academic or residential building on CAC was built from the mid sixties to now.
