Brown is the odd one out. It's not nearly as rigorous as the others. Penn or, as much as I hate to say it, Duke, seem more likely to lead to long-term success.
When do the schedules get set? I know football is typically years in advance. Is there any chance this was set before we knew those teams would be good?
the problem is they don't have any real leverage. Their only option, as far as I can tell, is revoking UNC's accreditation, which is basically the death penalty. The accreditor will issue a sternly-worded letter and there will be a press conference where UNC says they are Very Sorry and then everything will go back to normal.
are the probabilities really independent? Shouldn't there be some sort of correlation? I.e. a loss to Northwestern should make the model less confident we'll beat Maryland or ohio.
I think the tracks are still used. I can't remember specifically, but I feel like I've waited for a train where they intersect with State within the past two years
I'm no statistician, but is a 3% movement on a relatively small dataset enough to be statistically significant?
(seriously, I'm no statistician-- I have no idea if I'm even using the phrase "statistically significant" correctly-- but I know that small effects in small datasets aren't necessarily meaningful)
Before Dave told you on Wednesday that he was going to resign had you told him that you wanted him to resign, and if he did not were you prepared to potentially fire him?
maybe he didn't change what was inevitable, but if the emails were the difference between him being fired without cause and "resigning," the University now has a lot more money to spend on a new coach
Basically, I think it's being presupposed that snarky emails from DB's account are automatically "public records" when that classification is not at all clear.
The Bentley guide you post isn't clear. Since "correspondence" clearly doesn't mean all correspondence (see section 4.3.2), we need to figure out what the policy is actually intended to cover. Ejusdem generis - a word is known by the company it keeps - can help. "Correspondence" could plausibly be read to only refer to things that relate to the "topical file," which is presumably official business.
I think it's possible that DB violated FOIA, but this is far from clear. As you are a lawyer, I'm surprised you're so certain about something that hasn't been heavily litigated.
You’re right that DB and the University have an obligation to preserve public records, but you’re presupposing that what’s at issue here is a “public record.” A “public record” is “a writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by a public body in the performance of an official function.” MCL 15.232(e) (emphasis added). The "black text, son" is in the statute, but you know that reading the statute is only the first step.
As far as I can tell, this hasn’t been heavily litigated, but if, as DB would likely argue, the emails were not sent in the course of official business but were instead snarky responses to snarky fans whose views had no influence on any actions he took or decided not to take, he could succeed on a claim that the emails were just personal correspondence to his work address, not true public records.
Discussing whether a record maintained by a public university constituted a public record, a plurality of the Michigan Supreme Court wrote that before a document can be considered a public record, the court must find it was maintained “in the performance of an official function.” Kestenbaum v. Michigan State Univ., 327 N.W.2d 783, 792 (1982) (Ryan, J., dissenting) (3-3 opinion that affirmed by default because court was equally divided).
While Judge Ryan’s Kestenbaum opinion is of limited use given it was filed in dissent, the court in Howell Ed. Ass'n, MEA/NEA v. Howell Bd. of Ed., 789 N.W.2d 495, 502 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) quoted it with approval in its finding that certain emails sent by public school teachers were personal communications not subject to FOIA. In Howell, the court held that “unofficial private writings belonging solely to an individual should not be subject to public disclosure merely because that individual is a state employee.” Id. at 500. While recognizing the broad scope of FOIA and the public policy of full disclosure, the court stated it was “unwilling to judicially convert every e-mail ever sent or received by public body employees,” from their official account “into a public record subject to FOIA.” Id. While emails like the ones at issue can become business records, “it is their subsequent use or retention in the performance of an official function that render[s] them so.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).
Were this to be litigated, DB would have a compelling argument that the emails sent to his work account were not public records but were the rants of pissed off fans which he did not consider when he performed his work. In fact, in Longer Exchange 1, he states that his “job description doesn’t include having to be a punching bag for people who can’t handle their disappointment or frustration.” He (certainly unintentionally) helped his case right there by stating even then he didn’t believe what he was doing was part of his job, meaning the email wouldn’t be a public record.
Of course, not all of his emails could be “personal” and if the wholesale deletion alleged by one of his secretaries is true, that would be an obvious issue. But we don’t have any confirmation of that. In fact, the fact that they’re attempting to charge Brian a fair amount of money for records of his emails indicates that many emails still exist, which cuts against any claim that he deletes allof his emails
To be clear, I’m not saying it’s a slam-dunk for DB to argue this. It’s a close call. But questioning Baloo’s credentials merely because s/he disagrees with your analysis is a bit of a low blow considering it’s a closer legal issue than you’re making it out to be.
Ok, here's the thing. The fact that there are "no responsive records" doesn't mean this was faked. It also doesn't mean it was not faked.
I've been a reader of the blog and the message boards for a long time, but this is the first time I've posted and I'm doing so because I saw a lot of things that were inaccurate in this thread. A few other people have also made these same points, but really, they're worth reiterating.
Someone mentioned above that "no responsive records" could be due to the fact that the email was deleted. This is true. The response didn't say "there are no responsive records and no responsive records ever existed." It would be illegal for DB or anyone else in the University to delete the email after receiving the FOIA request, but nothing would prevent him from deleting it prior to that. There are posters up all over the admin offices reminding people to delete email they don't need. Why do you think those posters exist? (Hint- they don't care about the space the email takes up)
Furthermore, if the email is not an "official record," it is not responsive. This means if DB or the University decided that it was a personal email, they would state that no responsive records existed. While I can't remember exactly what the email WD posted said, it would probably be dubious to call that a personal email, but I'm saying it's possible.
Most of UM uses email hosted by Google. This means we don't an exchange server (Exchange is a Microsoft thing). I'm not sure if we control our MX server but frankly I doubt it. This could mean that any email purporting to be from a UMich email account would look like it was sent from a gmail account. There's a chance that the AD has its own email servers and isn't managed by Gmail - I know UMHS operates like this (due to HIPAA I think?) and that may not be the only unit.
It's not libel.
To reiterate, the FOIA response is not proof the email was false (even though it certainly could be false). The fact that WD can't produce the original email is far better evidence than the FOIA response.
Recent Comments
Brown is the odd one out. It's not nearly as rigorous as the others. Penn or, as much as I hate to say it, Duke, seem more likely to lead to long-term success.
This is the real takeaway from the post. If they had sources, they wouldn't be waiting to rip of someone else's report.
Apologies if by the time this posts 100 people have already made the same point - the blog is a little slow today.
BTN announcers talking about MSU injuries. Some things never change.
I miss Stauskas.
When do the schedules get set? I know football is typically years in advance. Is there any chance this was set before we knew those teams would be good?
I think he was surprised the BWW bowl involved football rather than more of this.
the problem is they don't have any real leverage. Their only option, as far as I can tell, is revoking UNC's accreditation, which is basically the death penalty. The accreditor will issue a sternly-worded letter and there will be a press conference where UNC says they are Very Sorry and then everything will go back to normal.
I really hope you're serious about running for Regent. I will be the first to donate to your campaign.
are the probabilities really independent? Shouldn't there be some sort of correlation? I.e. a loss to Northwestern should make the model less confident we'll beat Maryland or ohio.
Seconded. We need to hire a sure thing rather than take a gamble on having to do yet another coaching search five seasons from now
I think the tracks are still used. I can't remember specifically, but I feel like I've waited for a train where they intersect with State within the past two years
I'm no statistician, but is a 3% movement on a relatively small dataset enough to be statistically significant?
(seriously, I'm no statistician-- I have no idea if I'm even using the phrase "statistically significant" correctly-- but I know that small effects in small datasets aren't necessarily meaningful)
Before Dave told you on Wednesday that he was going to resign had you told him that you wanted him to resign, and if he did not were you prepared to potentially fire him?
We don't talk about injuries.
I've heard the team is doing really well in practice
the site is still managing timeouts better than Hoke
DB for AD of ohio
eh, I don't know why he'd go to the Dolphins. DB needs something to run into the ground. Why go somewhere that already sucks?
maybe he didn't change what was inevitable, but if the emails were the difference between him being fired without cause and "resigning," the University now has a lot more money to spend on a new coach
what happens to the white out with DB gone?
WD for AD?
WD for AD?
I'm hoping Schlissel fires him at 1am in an announcement that explicitly contradicts something he was told the day before.
I'm not going to copy it here, but I posted a somewhat lengthy analysis in another thread: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/email-gate-impact-schlissel-and-his-timelin…
Basically, I think it's being presupposed that snarky emails from DB's account are automatically "public records" when that classification is not at all clear.
The Bentley guide you post isn't clear. Since "correspondence" clearly doesn't mean all correspondence (see section 4.3.2), we need to figure out what the policy is actually intended to cover. Ejusdem generis - a word is known by the company it keeps - can help. "Correspondence" could plausibly be read to only refer to things that relate to the "topical file," which is presumably official business.
I think it's possible that DB violated FOIA, but this is far from clear. As you are a lawyer, I'm surprised you're so certain about something that hasn't been heavily litigated.
You’re right that DB and the University have an obligation to preserve public records, but you’re presupposing that what’s at issue here is a “public record.” A “public record” is “a writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by a public body in the performance of an official function.” MCL 15.232(e) (emphasis added). The "black text, son" is in the statute, but you know that reading the statute is only the first step.
As far as I can tell, this hasn’t been heavily litigated, but if, as DB would likely argue, the emails were not sent in the course of official business but were instead snarky responses to snarky fans whose views had no influence on any actions he took or decided not to take, he could succeed on a claim that the emails were just personal correspondence to his work address, not true public records.
Discussing whether a record maintained by a public university constituted a public record, a plurality of the Michigan Supreme Court wrote that before a document can be considered a public record, the court must find it was maintained “in the performance of an official function.” Kestenbaum v. Michigan State Univ., 327 N.W.2d 783, 792 (1982) (Ryan, J., dissenting) (3-3 opinion that affirmed by default because court was equally divided).
While Judge Ryan’s Kestenbaum opinion is of limited use given it was filed in dissent, the court in Howell Ed. Ass'n, MEA/NEA v. Howell Bd. of Ed., 789 N.W.2d 495, 502 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) quoted it with approval in its finding that certain emails sent by public school teachers were personal communications not subject to FOIA. In Howell, the court held that “unofficial private writings belonging solely to an individual should not be subject to public disclosure merely because that individual is a state employee.” Id. at 500. While recognizing the broad scope of FOIA and the public policy of full disclosure, the court stated it was “unwilling to judicially convert every e-mail ever sent or received by public body employees,” from their official account “into a public record subject to FOIA.” Id. While emails like the ones at issue can become business records, “it is their subsequent use or retention in the performance of an official function that render[s] them so.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).
Were this to be litigated, DB would have a compelling argument that the emails sent to his work account were not public records but were the rants of pissed off fans which he did not consider when he performed his work. In fact, in Longer Exchange 1, he states that his “job description doesn’t include having to be a punching bag for people who can’t handle their disappointment or frustration.” He (certainly unintentionally) helped his case right there by stating even then he didn’t believe what he was doing was part of his job, meaning the email wouldn’t be a public record.
Of course, not all of his emails could be “personal” and if the wholesale deletion alleged by one of his secretaries is true, that would be an obvious issue. But we don’t have any confirmation of that. In fact, the fact that they’re attempting to charge Brian a fair amount of money for records of his emails indicates that many emails still exist, which cuts against any claim that he deletes allof his emails
To be clear, I’m not saying it’s a slam-dunk for DB to argue this. It’s a close call. But questioning Baloo’s credentials merely because s/he disagrees with your analysis is a bit of a low blow considering it’s a closer legal issue than you’re making it out to be.
Ok, here's the thing. The fact that there are "no responsive records" doesn't mean this was faked. It also doesn't mean it was not faked.
I've been a reader of the blog and the message boards for a long time, but this is the first time I've posted and I'm doing so because I saw a lot of things that were inaccurate in this thread. A few other people have also made these same points, but really, they're worth reiterating.
To reiterate, the FOIA response is not proof the email was false (even though it certainly could be false). The fact that WD can't produce the original email is far better evidence than the FOIA response.