(08-02-2018 11:00 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 07:26 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  The primary issue here from OSU's perspective is that Meyer is a Reporting Authority for both Title IX and Clery Act violations since he is a supervisor of staff and students for the University. Every employee of a public institution in the country who is a Reporting Authority is required by the bounds of their position to report any suspected violations in a timely fashion and are subject to reprimand, most likely dismissal, if they do not do so. The media firestorm is a different thing entirely, but right now, OSU is investigating because of the reporting authority angle IMO.

Meyer's wife is 100% getting canned...she knew and did not report, and her role is absolutely a reporting authority (any medical director level staff is), so she'll be fired when it's all said and done.

And Clery Act Geography does not include off campus crimes (unless in adjacent student housing or university faciltites), if crime occurs by or involving a university employee/student outside of that geography (unless student or employee is on university activity or event) it is not reportable on annual campus security report.

Clery Act doesn't apply here, absolutely, I was simply saying he is almost assuredly a Reporting Authority due to his station. Typically, Reporting Authorities are obligated by their employment contract to report all incidents of criminal activities involving students or employees of the University that they are aware of. Thank you for the clarification though, I can understand how that may have been confusing on my part.

Things are getting...interesting...can't say there's a whole lot of stuff that they talk about that is that surprising if I'm honest, but this is about the worst possible time for more stuff to pop out.

(08-02-2018 12:38 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 11:00 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 07:26 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  The primary issue here from OSU's perspective is that Meyer is a Reporting Authority for both Title IX and Clery Act violations since he is a supervisor of staff and students for the University. Every employee of a public institution in the country who is a Reporting Authority is required by the bounds of their position to report any suspected violations in a timely fashion and are subject to reprimand, most likely dismissal, if they do not do so. The media firestorm is a different thing entirely, but right now, OSU is investigating because of the reporting authority angle IMO.

Meyer's wife is 100% getting canned...she knew and did not report, and her role is absolutely a reporting authority (any medical director level staff is), so she'll be fired when it's all said and done.

And Clery Act Geography does not include off campus crimes (unless in adjacent student housing or university faciltites), if crime occurs by or involving a university employee/student outside of that geography (unless student or employee is on university activity or event) it is not reportable on annual campus security report.

Clery Act doesn't apply here, absolutely, I was simply saying he is almost assuredly a Reporting Authority due to his station. Typically, Reporting Authorities are obligated by their employment contract to report all incidents of criminal activities involving students or employees of the University that they are aware of. Thank you for the clarification though, I can understand how that may have been confusing on my part.

I agree that OSU policy requires him to at least report criminal activities including employees, especially those under his supervision (not a provision of Title IX or Clery), and as a head coach a morals clause in his contract places even higher expectation of responsibility towards the institution and its reputation and legal status/responsibility. The key question I suspect for OSU lawyers (and perhaps eventually his lawyers) will be whether such failure to report is worthy of dismissal with cause (ending his contact and all salary) or other forms of punishment such as suspension or fines as OSU authority gives them wide range of options to pursue. Does OSU have the stomach to take a PR hit and major legal case if they fire him and his lawyers would certainly contest in court of law that his actions did not require OSU to fire with cause.

(08-02-2018 01:11 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 12:38 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 11:00 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 07:26 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  The primary issue here from OSU's perspective is that Meyer is a Reporting Authority for both Title IX and Clery Act violations since he is a supervisor of staff and students for the University. Every employee of a public institution in the country who is a Reporting Authority is required by the bounds of their position to report any suspected violations in a timely fashion and are subject to reprimand, most likely dismissal, if they do not do so. The media firestorm is a different thing entirely, but right now, OSU is investigating because of the reporting authority angle IMO.

Meyer's wife is 100% getting canned...she knew and did not report, and her role is absolutely a reporting authority (any medical director level staff is), so she'll be fired when it's all said and done.

And Clery Act Geography does not include off campus crimes (unless in adjacent student housing or university faciltites), if crime occurs by or involving a university employee/student outside of that geography (unless student or employee is on university activity or event) it is not reportable on annual campus security report.

Clery Act doesn't apply here, absolutely, I was simply saying he is almost assuredly a Reporting Authority due to his station. Typically, Reporting Authorities are obligated by their employment contract to report all incidents of criminal activities involving students or employees of the University that they are aware of. Thank you for the clarification though, I can understand how that may have been confusing on my part.

I agree that OSU policy requires him to at least report criminal activities including employees, especially those under his supervision (not a provision of Title IX or Clery), and as a head coach a morals clause in his contract places even higher expectation of responsibility towards the institution and its reputation and legal status/responsibility. The key question I suspect for OSU lawyers (and perhaps eventually his lawyers) will be whether such failure to report is worthy of dismissal with cause (ending his contact and all salary) or other forms of punishment such as suspension or fines as OSU authority gives them wide range of options to pursue. Does OSU have the stomach to take a PR hit and major legal case if they fire him and his lawyers would certainly contest in court of law that his actions did not require OSU to fire with cause.

I think the entire thing hinges on how much this affected OSU's public facing perception. They could definitely argue that he did significant damage to the University...but is it enough?

(08-02-2018 03:03 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 01:11 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 12:38 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 11:00 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 07:26 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  The primary issue here from OSU's perspective is that Meyer is a Reporting Authority for both Title IX and Clery Act violations since he is a supervisor of staff and students for the University. Every employee of a public institution in the country who is a Reporting Authority is required by the bounds of their position to report any suspected violations in a timely fashion and are subject to reprimand, most likely dismissal, if they do not do so. The media firestorm is a different thing entirely, but right now, OSU is investigating because of the reporting authority angle IMO.

Meyer's wife is 100% getting canned...she knew and did not report, and her role is absolutely a reporting authority (any medical director level staff is), so she'll be fired when it's all said and done.

And Clery Act Geography does not include off campus crimes (unless in adjacent student housing or university faciltites), if crime occurs by or involving a university employee/student outside of that geography (unless student or employee is on university activity or event) it is not reportable on annual campus security report.

Clery Act doesn't apply here, absolutely, I was simply saying he is almost assuredly a Reporting Authority due to his station. Typically, Reporting Authorities are obligated by their employment contract to report all incidents of criminal activities involving students or employees of the University that they are aware of. Thank you for the clarification though, I can understand how that may have been confusing on my part.

I agree that OSU policy requires him to at least report criminal activities including employees, especially those under his supervision (not a provision of Title IX or Clery), and as a head coach a morals clause in his contract places even higher expectation of responsibility towards the institution and its reputation and legal status/responsibility. The key question I suspect for OSU lawyers (and perhaps eventually his lawyers) will be whether such failure to report is worthy of dismissal with cause (ending his contact and all salary) or other forms of punishment such as suspension or fines as OSU authority gives them wide range of options to pursue. Does OSU have the stomach to take a PR hit and major legal case if they fire him and his lawyers would certainly contest in court of law that his actions did not require OSU to fire with cause.

I think the entire thing hinges on how much this affected OSU's public facing perception. They could definitely argue that he did significant damage to the University...but is it enough?

Agreed, and coming right after the concerns raised over the former OSU wrestling coach