bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009 
|
Post by bill82 on Oct 25, 2023 16:58:09 GMT -8
Here is a link to the main document. This is the free substack account I'm using to post documents. It includes discovery today. Too large to attach here. I have not had a chance to review. Heading out to dinner. |
|
escott58
Sophomore
Posts: 1,319
Grad Year: 1983
|
Post by escott58 on Oct 25, 2023 18:46:05 GMT -8
Is this required reading? JK!!  I got up to Exhibit 11 (both Exhibits 10 & 11 seem to be particularly eye opening). IANAL or a particularly good analyst, but I'll point out what was interesting to me. Both exhibits (10 & 11) tell UCLA and USC respectively that "...joining certain meetings and committees will create a material conflict of interest and it will therefore be inappropriate for [ucla/usc] to participate..." That is going to be great fodder for the Judge to see. I didn't read much else with interest as it seems Exhibits 1 - 9 lead up to 10 & 11. There are probably a lot more "interesting" items. |
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009
|
Post by bill82 on Oct 25, 2023 18:52:22 GMT -8
I've looked through the documents. I agree with John Canzanno's review with one addition.
First, after Colorado jumped to the Big 12 the Pac-12 advised the remaining members that they would get the revenue that would have gone to the departing members. See Exhibit 36: Page 150.
Second, an email (to Canzanno) is provided that shows the Pac 12 there indicated were only four voting members of the Pac-12 board after the four corner schools left. See Exhibit 33: Page 137.
Third (my addition), the Pac 12 uses BoardVantage as a communication tool among members. In a discussion I had with an expert in public records requests, this tool is exempt from public records requests. Exhibit 12: Page 46.
|
|
escott58
Sophomore
Posts: 1,319
Grad Year: 1983
|
Post by escott58 on Oct 25, 2023 19:28:02 GMT -8
Another interesting item is the Pac-12's acknowledgement of both USC's and UCLA's "notice of withdrawal from the Pac-12 to join the Big 10 conference."
Exh 6: page 30 and Exh 7: page 32
"We received [ucla's/usc's] notice of withdrawal by telephone... and separately by Zoom ... June 30, 2022..." [emphasis mine].
This seems to negate having to draft up a formal letter of withdrawal to the Commissioner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Oct 25, 2023 21:36:09 GMT -8
I've looked through the documents. I agree with John Canzanno's review with one addition. First, after Colorado jumped to the Big 12 the Pac-12 advised the remaining members that they would get the revenue that would have gone to the departing members. See Exhibit 36: Page 150. Second, an email (to Canzanno) is provided that shows the Pac 12 there indicated were only four voting members of the Pac-12 board after the four corner schools left. See Exhibit 33: Page 137. Third (my addition), the Pac 12 uses BoardVantage as a communication tool among members. In a discussion I had with an expert in public records requests, this tool is exempt from public records requests. Exhibit 12: Page 46. I am pretty sure it is not exempt from court-ordered discovery. |
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009
|
Post by bill82 on Oct 26, 2023 4:55:35 GMT -8
I've looked through the documents. I agree with John Canzanno's review with one addition. First, after Colorado jumped to the Big 12 the Pac-12 advised the remaining members that they would get the revenue that would have gone to the departing members. See Exhibit 36: Page 150. Second, an email (to Canzanno) is provided that shows the Pac 12 there indicated were only four voting members of the Pac-12 board after the four corner schools left. See Exhibit 33: Page 137. Third (my addition), the Pac 12 uses BoardVantage as a communication tool among members. In a discussion I had with an expert in public records requests, this tool is exempt from public records requests. Exhibit 12: Page 46. I am pretty sure it is not exempt from court-ordered discovery. Agree. But if they settle out of court we may never get the full story via public record requests. From what I understand Iowa and Indiana courts allow public access to these records, |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Oct 26, 2023 13:25:51 GMT -8
I am pretty sure it is not exempt from court-ordered discovery. Agree. But if they settle out of court we may never get the full story via public record requests. From what I understand Iowa and Indiana courts allow public access to these records, Why is that specific tool exempt? If that were the case, why wouldn't everyone use it? |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Oct 26, 2023 13:37:29 GMT -8
Agree. But if they settle out of court we may never get the full story via public record requests. From what I understand Iowa and Indiana courts allow public access to these records, Why is that specific tool exempt? If that were the case, why wouldn't everyone use it? I may have answered my own question... captimes.com/news/local/education/uws-blank-big-ten-leaders-draw-scrutiny-for-private-correspondence-on-football-plans/article_e7fff0a0-0e3c-5931-8b28-f3e10a354ccc.htmlandywittry.substack.com/p/the-big-tens-brazen-use-of-boardvantageIt appears that the B1G believed that if they used BoardVantage, that the contents were not "in their possession" and therefore couldn't be accessed via public records requests (vs emails, which clearly live on the university servers, etc.). And it also appears that B1G primarily relied upon this belief to shield all of its information from public view in opposition, if not legally then at least in spirit, to the idea of open and transparent public government operations. The thing is - I haven't read anywhere where that is a guarantee. In the second article, the attorney says that actually isn't a guarantee of immunity from FOIA requests. I just don't think anyone has brought the challenge far enough. What would be helpful is to request records of a "friendlier" university like Utah or even OSU itself, to see if they will divulge any information on BoardVantage or whatever similar tool they may use. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Oct 30, 2023 10:15:46 GMT -8
Scumbags!!
|
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Oct 30, 2023 11:15:14 GMT -8
uw was supposed to produce discovery documents today, according to Bill's website. Anxious to see what, if any, nuggets are in that...
|
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Nov 1, 2023 16:00:47 GMT -8
uw was supposed to produce discovery documents today, according to Bill's website. Anxious to see what, if any, nuggets are in that... Anything yet? |
|
ftd
Junior
"I think real leaders show up when times are hard." Trent Bray 11/29/2023
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by ftd on Nov 1, 2023 16:09:34 GMT -8
uw was supposed to produce discovery documents today, according to Bill's website. Anxious to see what, if any, nuggets are in that... Anything yet?  Here are the UW 'nuggets' that I found.. (hey it's from this websites GIF link) |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Nov 2, 2023 7:58:04 GMT -8
uw was supposed to produce discovery documents today, according to Bill's website. Anxious to see what, if any, nuggets are in that... Anything yet? See the top of the thread with Bill82's link. He does an excellent analysis. Sounds like they provide the discovery documents but then it's a wait to actually see what was provided when OSU/WSU respond. If I recall, I think Bill said Nov 9th was when the response was and that may have uw discovery information provided. Of course, any of us could FOIA that information as well, just not sure it wouldn't all be shut down as "ongoing negotiations" or some other ploy. |
|
