Email-gate: Impact on Schlissel and his timeline for dealing with Brandon?

Submitted by michgoblue on

I was going to post this in the comments section to the front page post, but there are already well over 300!  (DetNews and Freep:  take note, if you want to generate clicks, you can do so by putting out really good content).

I am curious as to whether people here think that email-gate is something that is likely to influence Schlissel's decision, and if so, whether it will impact his timeline.  When I initially read the front page story, my first reaction was, "hell yeah, DB is gone asap."  But, upon reflection, I started to wonder whether this is something that will gain traction in the mainstream media and be of interest to Brandon, or whether he will simply dismiss it as the rumblings of some fanatical sports blog (good tagline there:  the rumblings of some fanatic sportsblog)?

My personal opinon is that Brandon is likely gone anyway.  But, if Schlissel is close to reaching that conclusion on his own, something like this - especially if it becomes a story - could lead him to speed up his time frame to get in front of the story. 

What say you, knowledgeable MGoBloggers?

skegemogpoint

October 28th, 2014 at 1:49 PM ^

I had a few of my own email exchanges with DB which had an overall condescending tone but none as bad as these.  I believe Schlissel and DB will announce a resignation/settlement next week; these findings are just a small part of the overall record against him.

teldar

October 28th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^

if it is within the next week. I would still not be surprised if it is after the football season, instead. Obviously a bowl game is out of the question, so that would give Schlissel and a new AD 3 months cumulative to find a AD and new FB HC, respectively.

   I don't think this is the sort of thing to push over the edge the idea of finding a new AD, but I would think it all but pushes it to the edge. 

 

James Burrill Angell

October 28th, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^

No joke. As I said in another post, President Schlissel should start receiving some blowback for failing to act on this. There is AMPLE reason to fire Brandon at this point. Frankly, you could actually make a viable argument that there is just cause to not have to pay the buyout. The President's failure to act has to start affecting his reputation pretty soon and I hope he acts quickly rather than suffer the damaged reputation only four months into his tenure.

I Like Burgers

October 28th, 2014 at 3:03 PM ^

Deleting emails to get around FOIA is a big deal -- at least to journalists.  And for as many high level journalists that Michigan has pissed off with their FOIA nonsense, you can bet every one of them is going to be trying their hardest to prove this.  Schlissel can't afford to have Brandon in office when that story drops since it'll be a (another) national story.  So its in the university's best interest to get this done quickly since the outrage will be far less if the story comes out and Branon has already been fired.

All he needs to do this afternoon is launch in internal investigation into the deleting of the emails.  Start with the secretary and offer her protection in the event its true, since she's unlikely to find another 100k/yr secretary job.  If its true, then fire him ASAP.

Wolverine 73

October 28th, 2014 at 4:06 PM ^

I am not an expert on the Michigan public records law, but if the athletic department has a policy in place that provides for the deletion of emails after a certain prescribed period of time, and the law allows for that sort of systematic clean-up of emails, and that is all they are doing, there may not be a problem.  if they are deleting emails that have been requested, that is a different issue, of course.

James Burrill Angell

October 28th, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^

No joke. As I said in another post, President Schlissel should start receiving some blowback for failing to act on this. There is AMPLE reason to fire Brandon at this point. Frankly, you could actually make a viable argument that there is just cause to not have to pay the buyout. The President's failure to act has to start affecting his reputation pretty soon and I hope he acts quickly rather than suffer the damaged reputation only four months into his tenure.

Chiwolve

October 28th, 2014 at 2:53 PM ^

Bowl game = out of the question???

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor??

Clearly Hoke and co. are going ot lead the team to 4 straight wins including an epic route over OSU. The playoff committee will be forced to recognize Michigan's recent dominance and allow them into the playoff system...yada yada yada... national championship!!

FreddieMercuryHayes

October 28th, 2014 at 1:49 PM ^

No, I don't think it impacts Schlissel's timeline.  I mean I would like it to speed things up.  Maybe it would if it really gains national traction or something.  But Schlissel seems like a very deliberate guy.  I think he has his own plan, and unless Brandon walks down the street punching old ladies in the face, Schlissel will keep to his deliberate timeline.  There is already enough evidence in to fire Brandon that the e-mails confirming his petulance probably won't change much.

MayOhioEatTurds

October 28th, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^

Emailgate won't impact Schlissel's decision one way or the other. 

However, if Schlissel has decided to cut Brandon loose, it may well impact the timing of that firing.  While little embarrassments like this don't get an AD fired, it makes the messaging far easier when it comes time to fire an AD. 

Call it messaging, call it pretext, call it propaganda, call it "marketing" if you're in Brandon's Athletic Department--but this effect is real:  Take a any controversial decision, make the decision, and then wait for an opportune moment to spring that decision.  Just a small embarrassment like this goes a long way to smoothing over the controversy around your decision.  The plebs say, "Yeah, Brandon was good with money, but he just doesn't treat fans right.  He's an embarrassment.  He's got to go."  Even people who are Brandon supporters find themselves in a difficult position, and handicapped in arguing for an extended tenure. 

That's the crack into which you drive the maul.  The crack may only be open for a few weeks.  So if you're an intelligent man--and Schlissel is--then you seriously consider dampening any blowback from firing Brandon by doing it while Emailgate is still a frontpage issue. 

Along with Ross' approval, I think Emailgate hastens Schlissel's timetable. 

MayOhioEatTurds

October 29th, 2014 at 1:00 AM ^

No, I absolutely do NOT believe the AD will get better with the same people.  Nor does my statement "imply" that to be the case. 

What my statement does imply is that Emailgate will be a media issue for a limited time.  If you have made the decision to cut Brandon loose, then that media window is a great opportunity--because it will blunt the blowback from Brandon supporters. 

I am not one of those.  But they exist.  Schlissel should make the most of the Emailgate opportunity--and I think he will. 

 

991GT3

October 28th, 2014 at 5:40 PM ^

consider? By speaking with Ross like week and Ross sharing his discussion with the WSJ is a clear indication that Schissel is comtemplating discharging DB. As Bacon said, he needs to do this before the Board of Regents election next week. If an additional two Republicans are elected Schlissel's hands may be tied. They will be supportive of DB.

GoWings2008

October 28th, 2014 at 2:18 PM ^

I had the same thought.  With all the other things going on, and although he was making the department money, there was a chance I thought he'd last until this winter.  But now the conversations he's having with customers/fans, folks who were being critical but still respectful, and is attacking them in a far too personal manner, I say he's gone sooner rather than later. 

Sports

October 28th, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^

I think that this will certainly play a role in the process. It really disturbed me that DB had the athletic department staff potentially violating the law by purging old messages and ones where he confronted students, alumni, and other fans. I think that could end up being very significant. Ultimately though, this is no way represents the university well from an administrative perspective. 



TLDR: HE GONE.

FreddieMercuryHayes

October 28th, 2014 at 1:58 PM ^

While I don't deny Brain has a legit source on the deleting e-mails thing, I think any accusation where law is possibly being violated requires even more investigation to properly vetted.  Especially if it is used as cause for dismissal, and any investigation that finds something would likely result in the university having to admit wrong doing and pay the fines.  That section of MGoBlog's investigation is actually some serious stuff that warrents a second look at by the university.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

October 28th, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^

I am positive this will gain traction in the MSM.  It already has on Twitter.  Rittenberg, Mandel, Staples, et. al. have all taken notice.  They'll be furiously banging away at their typewriters, mark my words.  This evening you'll see the stories.

Yes, I think this speeds up the timeframe considerably.  From a matter of weeks or months to a matter of days.

Sinsoftheschafer

October 28th, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^

Maybe the more interesting question is: Can this be used as the basis of a for-cause firing that precludes the 3m buyout?  If Brandon is destroying the State's property (Email) in order to circumevent the FOIA, could the University fire him for cause?  I presume his contract allows him to be fired for violating the law, which would mean no buyout.  IT would be interesting for any MgoLaborLawyers to chime in   

Promote RichRod

October 28th, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^

I forget his actual contract language but most only provide for Cause if it's a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.  I'm not sure if this is an MDM, but even so, there would be an argument over whether moral turpitude is involved.

As I've noted in these threads before, Cause terminations are exceedingly rare, even when a ton of money is involved and the facts are heavily in favor of Cause.  95% of the time a new severance agreement is negotiated with lower severance and a bunch of other provisions to protect the parties.

Wolv1984

October 28th, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^

If it looks like the whole "Michigan's FOIA is an illegal shitstorm of ass covering" thing takes off, Brandon might be axed sooner rather than rather in an attempt to change the news story.  The FOIA evasion at Michigan is a big deal and done because the profits outweight the negatives.  The last thing Michigan wants is for the Feds to come by and regulate with some teeth.  

Baloo

October 28th, 2014 at 2:01 PM ^

So one blogger who doesn't work in FOIA law said Michigan is probably violating FOIA, and now "the FOIA evasion at Michigan is a big deal" because it's designed to make profits and will attract the attention of federal regulators.  Geez Louise some of you are off the rails.

Wolv1984

October 28th, 2014 at 2:15 PM ^

We can easily go back to 1993, see Booth Newspapers vs University of Michigan for Michigan violations of FOIA and there have been other complaints since, often with Michigan miracliously finding the document at the last minute or otherwise wheeling and dealing to avoid another Booth style ruling.  

Michigan staff have standard email purges in many fields. Brandon's 1 month timer is short, 1 year to 6 months is the norm depending on the posistion.  Often it is done via vague application of HIPAA or twisting of FERPA as a way of using them to trump FOIA, creating a legal swamp few people want to wade into it.  

The draining of that swamp is long overdue.  A more recent case would when the Author's Guild sued Michigan's Library, and lost as they should, the judge had to threaten Michigan with contempt to get them cough up certain things they were trying to hide under a misuse of student privacy regulations.  Citing whichever privacy regulation first comes to mind and hoping the problem goes away is a standard mode of operation.

BiSB

October 28th, 2014 at 2:35 PM ^

I said that deleting emails to avoid FOIA was probably a violation of FOIA. And there is a solid body of evidence (beyond even what is addressed in Brian's post) that he DOES delete emails.

And you can call me a "blogger who doesn't work in FOIA law" if you'd like, but I do have a law degree and a bar card, both of which required me to learn to be able to read a law and, like, understand it and shit.

uncleFred

October 28th, 2014 at 3:14 PM ^

You'd have to prove that they deleted the only copy of those emails to avoid FOIA and not for any other purpose. This would require that those emails are not recoverable from some source other than his email account. I suppose you could depose his staff to see if he was stupid enough to tell them to delete them to cover them up, but I rather doubt he was. 

Unless the University is deliberately violating federal law on the preservation of electronic communications, they have a copy of those emails somewhere and with enough effort can pull them up. 

My response to a charge that the emails were deleted to avoid FIOA would be that they were removed for housekeeping purposes and that I, like everyone else using the system, rely on the various backup mechanisms that are in place to recover anything that might need to be produced for legal reasons. 

Now the level of effort to comply with the FOI requests seems to me, and I am not a lawyer, to be clearly inadequate and the University needs to get slapped around for that.  Merely searching his emails currently on the server, at least from a technical perspective, does not approach a good faith or even a minimal effort to determine if those emails exist. 

I suppose you could make a very strong case that the failure to pursue the existence of those emails in the various available backups demonstrates a deliberate intent to avoid compliance with the FOIA requests. Were I on that jury, barring some technical details as yet unrevealed, I'd have a hard time not supporting such a position. 

Girlbleedsblue

October 28th, 2014 at 6:43 PM ^

.. who does not work in FOIA law, so obviously I'm qualified to speak on this ;)  

I have quite a bit of investigative blogging experience with FOIA, and it really is very difficult to prove that someone purged records for the sole purpose of avoiding a FOIA.  By "prove" I mean "meet the legal standard required for whatever happens when you get caught avoiding FOIA."  Accidental purging, poor retention policies, system crashes, oops I lost it, etc., are all valid excuses.

On the other side of things, it's easy to avoid complying with a FOIA.  You can delete it and say it doesn't exist, keep it and say "it" doesn't exist based on the interpretaion of the request, or just charge a gazillion dollars for compliance with the FOIA with the intent of discouraging the person to pursue the request.  That being said, the mere appearance of wrongdoing in this case is probably enough to work against the staff.  

T

October 28th, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^

I would imagine that would depend on the extent to which this story is picked up by the MSM.  Having a douchebag on your payroll becomes much more of a problem when everybody knows and is talking about it.  I wouldn't be surprised if this got picked up by the B1G blog at ESPN.com, at the least.

Everyone Murders

October 28th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^

I say that mostly because I think Dave Brandon is a dead man walking, and was before Brian and Ace wrote up the results of their research.  Put a fork in him ... he's done.  I suspected as much before the Ross story broke in the WSJ, and became confident after the WSJ story.

I expect there will be a few mentions of this in the msm, but if you're looking for a newsflash, "Dave Brandon Is A Smug Tone-Deaf Douche" doesn't qualify (truth of the matter notwithstanding).  If it gets more attention than the laughable hubub about the tent stake, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Baloo

October 28th, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^

There is nothing unlawful about that. Even if the Brandon emails were not transitory, which they are, the University is well within Michigan's FOIA if they have a retention and disposal schedule that eliminates emails after one month provided that they are not the current subject of a FOIA request or pertain to ongoing/anticipated litigation.

Baloo

October 28th, 2014 at 2:16 PM ^

There is nothing in the story that says Brandon individually instructed his secretary to delete emails. The source who worked at the department said that emails are routinely deleted to avoid having to respond to FOIA requests of dated material.  Yes, welcome to the world of FOIA.  Michigan is in the company of about 1,000 other state organizations.

Ben Mathis-Lilley

October 28th, 2014 at 4:54 PM ^

But I am a journalist, and I find the idea that a court would accept the notion that public records could fairly be deleted after one month (!) absurd. Is there any precedent for such a ruling? And on the nitpick front, I'm not sure how you would argue that emails older than 15 days-a month are "dated." There are any number of reasons someone could request documents more than a month old that related to an ongoing matter of public interest.

Ben Mathis-Lilley

October 28th, 2014 at 6:00 PM ^

For reference, here are the rules governing Michigan public schools (primary and secondary).

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal_mhc_rms_local_gs2_171482_7.pdf

It would seem that correspondence with alums about department policies and personnel would fall under category 100 (which includes "topical correspondence" about "administrative analysis" and "programmatic activties" in areas such as athletics), which must be kept for two years _after_ the topic they cover "is of interest for ongoing administration." 

Though perhaps you could argue that they constituted transitory correspondence and could be deleted after 30 days.

Baloo

October 28th, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^

So you're actually arguing that all state organizations have a responsibility under FOIA to implement Retention and Disposal policies that preserve emails indefinitely? I'm not aware of a single opinion that supports that view, and it directly contradicts that government's own policy on email deletion.