I still can't fathom the idea of my boss getting fired over allegations my wife might make to his wife over text messages or even conversations. Or the expectation that I would be responsible if my wife said she got a text from the wife of one of the guys on my team that he was abusing them. In a contract or not, it just doesn't make sense. Especially when you know law enforcement has been involved and such.
An employer is just that, an employer. They are not the judge/jury on any allegations made. They are not law enforcement.
The lack of personal responsibility of certain victims in this county can be a sad, sad thing. If he was so bad she should have left him years ago instead of somehow expecting someone else to correct the issue.
Ask yourself this - even if Urban knew and would have reported it or fired him years ago, how would that have solved her problem? In all actuality it probably would have made it worse. She would have been stuck with him till she left him!!!
“Don’t tell your husband, I don’t want anyone to get in trouble”
Maybe, just maybe Shelly is the POS here and you guys should start casting comments towards her. Let the public shaming begin.
How would I know? No one listens to their wife...How many times has someone told your wife that and she told you anyway then told you not to tell.
Professionals on a professional level like Robert mueller and his special counsel on Trump. Or professionals on a professional level like James Comey on the Hillary investigation. Two professionals heading the same body of law enforcement at different times with two different agendas. The term professional has little to do with validity.How would I know? No one listens to their wife...
This is all stupid IMO. Professionals handled this on a professional level. End of story
Professional contract people handled this. That is what this is all about, what did his contract say vs what did he do.Professionals on a professional level like Robert mueller and his special counsel on Trump. Or professionals on a professional level like James Comey on the Hillary investigation. Two professionals heading the same body of law enforcement at different times with two different agendas. The term professional has little to do with validity.
Sure sounded like to me that he was put on leave just so Drake could look like something was done and not be regarded as the bad guy that let it go. They admitted that they know Urban didn't cover it up which is what he was accused of. They got him on extraneous bs that the investigation shows no proof that he was even aware of it. So put him on leave bc he doesn't keep good enough tabs on his staffs private life. I wish they would interview the Powell police and have them chime in on what they came up with during all the police calls made to them that never resulted to anything.
It was never a question of if he should be responsible for the coaches actions. The question was did he engage in a pattern of activity to keep it quiet in order to keep him on as a coach. He would be held accountable for those actions. In the end the committee found that he absolutely knew. They ended up suspending him for not reporting it, and didn't fire him because they said he didn't cover it up. Now that is some very murky water. One could argue that not reporting it is covering it up. Basically they got him on obstruction instead of being an accomplice.
It happens all the time in criminal proceedings. Let's say that I know you are going to rob a bank, and then you go out and Rob said Bank. I have knowledge of this and do not report it. Technically I could be charged as an accomplice because my actions assisted you unhindered. Now when the police finally catch you they find out that I also knew. Through the course of their investigation they can prove that I knew but they cannot prove that I did anything outside of not reporting it to cover it up. If they could prove that I did something besides not report it like gave you advice or helped you hide then it would be easy for them to prove that I was an accomplice. But since they can only prove that I knew and didn't report it they will charge me with obstruction. Obstruction carries a far lesser penalty than an accomplice.. AKA suspended instead of Fired.
You left out the why behind not reporting it. Which the director was also involved in, if your boss said don't worry about it, are you going to go around them? It wasn't reported because the police investigated it and found nothing! What's he sposed to do? Report every call to the police that amounted to nothing? Either way no one can prove malicious intent on not reporting calls to police that resulted in no charges being filed.Yet in the same sentence, they admitted that he knew and didn't report it. Define "Didn't cover it up"
If I know something about you and don't report it because I know I won't be able to hire you, or that you'll get fired if it's reported. So I just plug my ears, turn a blind eye, and pretend I don't know. Is that not "covering it up" In one breath they say he didn't cover it up, in the next they say he knew in 2014 and didn't report it as he should have so they're suspending him. The two are at direct odds with each other.