October 24, 2014
Oct 24 01:37 Davenport's disaster, Part I Oct 24 06:36 Davenport's disaster, Part II Oct 24 09:47 Davenport's disaster, Part III Oct 24 11:43 Liberal bias, Franken-Perske edition Oct 24 14:13 Another Coakley fail?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Davenport's disaster, Part I
If Minnesota State University, Mankato President Richard Davenport is in a tight spot, it's a spot of his own making. According to the OLA's report into Todd Hoffner's termination , we now know that President Davenport notified Coach Hoffner that Davenport had made a 'tentative decision' to terminate Coach Hoffner's employment at MSU, Mankato in a letter dated October 18, 2012. That isn't the only information we got from the report. Here's more:
At President Davenport's direction, MSU, Mankato initiated an investigation of Coach Hoffner before the Blue Earth County District Court process was concluded, and the criminal charges were dismissed.
This information provides a timeline of events:
The investigator provided President Davenport with an initial report on September 7, 2012; addendum I on September 19, 2012; and addendum II on November 1, 2012.
Later in the report, it adds this information:
Based on the results from the MSU, Mankato internal investigation, President Davenport notified Coach Hoffner in a letter dated October 18, 2012, that President Davenport had made a 'tentative decision' to terminate Coach Hoffner's employment at MSU, Mankato. On November 30, 2012, a Blue Earth District Court Judge dismissed the criminal charges against Coach Hoffner.
If you put these dates together, President Davenport was given the initial report on Sept. 7, 2012 and the initial addendum on Sept. 19, 2012. After receiving those parts of the report, President Davenport waited until Oct. 18, 2012 to notify Coach Hoffner that President Davenport had made a tentative decision to fire Coach Hoffner. Further, a Blue Earth district court judge dismissed the criminal charges against Coach Hoffner.
Finally, we learned this:
In a letter dated May 6, 2013, President Davenport notified Todd Hoffner that his employment at MSU, Mankato would terminate at the end of the day.
That means President Davenport didn't officially terminate Coach Hoffner's employment until 6 months after he first notified Hoffner that he'd tentatively decided his fate.
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 1:37 AM
No comments.
Davenport's disaster, Part II
This post about Richard Davenport's termination of Coach Todd Hoffner highlights the timeline of Mankato State University, Mankato's investigation that ultimately led to Coach Hoffner's termination. This post will highlight the OLA's report of what happened that triggered the investigation:
On August 10, 2012, Coach Hoffner asked a MSU, Mankato information technology staff person to examine his cell phone because it was not working properly. The staff person found a video recording of naked children on the phone and brought it to the attention of MSU, Mankato officials, who turned the cell phone over to the Mankato police. Coach Hoffner was arrested at his home on August 21, 2012. The following day, the Blue Earth County Attorney filed charges against Todd Hoffner alleging that the images of the children were pornographic and criminal.
After reviewing the images, other evidence, and considering the applicable laws, on November 30, 2012, a Blue Earth County District Court Judge dismissed the criminal charges for lack of 'probable cause.' In her order, the judge noted that the children in the video were Todd Hoffner's children, who asked their father to record a 'performance' after they emerged from a bath. The judge went on to say
that the context of the video showed that the 'children's performance was not intended to be erotic or pornographic in nature.' She also noted that the children acted silly, playful, and age appropriate.
Despite the fact that charges were dismissed by a Blue Earth County district court judge, President Davenport proceeded with his investigation.
It's worth highlighting that the judge ruled that "the children acted silly, playful and age appropriate."
Here's another situation that might put President Davenport into a delicate situation:
President Davenport also told us that he responded to the allegations against Coach Hoffner with the Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) football sex scandal in mind. In that case, a former Penn State assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky, was accused of sexually abusing children for more than a decade. In addition, university officials were accused of failing to respond adequately when concerns about the coach were brought to their attention.
The Penn State situation was dramatically different from what happened in Mankato. Here's one of the report's footnotes:
In June 2012, former Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was found guilty of 45 counts of child sexual abuse and, in October 2012, he was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) imposed severe sanctions against the Penn State football program, including: a $60 million fine to create an endowment to prevent child sexual abuse and help child abuse victims; barring Penn State's football program from post-season play for four years; and vacating the team's wins from 1998-2011. In addition, former Penn State officials, President Graham Spanier, Senior VP for Finance and Business Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Tim Curley were indicted for endangering the welfare of children, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. They are awaiting trial.
In the Penn State case, senior members of the administration, including Penn State's president were accused of lying to investigators and for trying to hide Jerry Sandusky's actions. Further, they "were indicted "for endangering the welfare of children..."
The underlying allegations included this:
Victims also commonly reported that Sandusky would place his hand on their thighs or inside the waistband of their underpants. Two recounted oral sex with Sandusky, sometimes culminating in his ejaculation.
That's totally different than the situation at Mankato. First, President Davenport didn't attempt to cover anything up. Second, he wasn't accused of lying to investigators. Those things alone differentiate this situation from the Penn State scandal.
I understand that administrators nationwide worried about being accused of covering up a pervert's lengthy history of child sex abuse. That's appropriate and justified. What isn't appropriate or justified is conflating everything into another Penn State.
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 6:36 AM
No comments.
Davenport's disaster, Part III
Part I of this series highlighted a timeline of events that led to the termination of Todd Hoffner, the head football coach at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Part II highlighted some of President Davenport's rationalizations for terminating Coach Hoffner. This post will highlight the substantive complaints from Coach Hoffner's attorneys. This paragraph is particularly noteworthy:
Second, in that same section, the OLA report devotes an entire paragraph to President Davenport's justification for his reaction to the charges against Coach Hoffner and, specifically, the description of the Pennsylvania State University sex scandal. No comparable explanation from Coach Hoffner is included, nor is the fundamental distinguishing fact that the alleged conduct that MSU Mankato investigated had nothing to do with sexual abuse or similar conduct with respect to MSU Mankato students.
Comparing the Hoffner situation with what happened at Penn State is foolish. According to a footnote in the OLA's report, Penn State's high-level administrators, including Penn State's president at the time, "were indicted for endangering the welfare of children , conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury . They are awaiting trial." In Coach Hoffner's case, he didn't exercise good judgment. Still, the Blue Earth County judge that dismissed the charges said that "the children acted silly, playful and age appropriate."
There's a little bit of hyperbole in this paragraph:
To omit from the OLA's report even the most basic of facts in this regard is misleading and profoundly unfair. The notion that a person could equate Coach Hoffner with Jerry Sandusky is absurd, and that a person could draw such a comparison exemplifies why that person should not have the authority to make life-changing employment decisions affecting others.
First, Hoffner's attorneys went a little overboard in saying that President Davenport shouldn't "have the authority to make life-changing employment decisions affecting others." That being said, Hoffner's attorneys are right in saying that comparing Coach Hoffner's actions with Sandusky's is absurd. They aren't close to being similar, much less close to being the same thing.
Jerry Sandusky is serving a minimum of 30 years in prison. According to Wikipedia , which I realize isn't always the most accurate website, "Specifically, Sandusky was convicted of the following charges and counts: eight counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, seven counts of indecent assault, one count of criminal intent to commit indecent assault, nine counts of unlawful contact with minors, 10 counts of corruption of minors and 10 counts of endangering the welfare of children. Cleland immediately revoked Sandusky's bail and remanded him to the Centre County Correctional Facility to await sentencing."
It shouldn't be difficult for university presidents to differentiate between a man who was investigated and had charges dropped and a man convicted of "eight counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, seven counts of indecent assault, one count of criminal intent to commit indecent assault [and] nine counts of unlawful contact with minors..." I'm betting that most high school students could differentiate between the two.
Simply put, this would be a disaster for President Davenport if the MnSCU Chancellor, aka Davenport's boss, were a principled man or if the DFL-chaired Higher Ed committees took their oversight responsibilities seriously. Since neither is the case, it isn't likely that this will hurt President Davenport.
That's the biggest of disasters in this entire situation.
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 9:47 AM
No comments.
Liberal bias, Franken-Perske edition
To the surprise of nobody, the St. Cloud Times in endorsing Joe Perske and Al Franken . What's surprising is that the Times admits they're biased:
Central Minnesotans should back Sartell Mayor Joe Perske in the 6th District House race and incumbent Al Franken in the race for U.S. Senate.
Republicans will immediately call "liberal bias" with the endorsement of two Democrats. The truth, though, in both these races is no matter which major-party candidate wins, the victor is going to seldom cross party lines and compromise on major issues.
Before anyone gets their undies in a bunch, it's clear that the St. Cloud Times thinks they're fairly impartial. The truth is that they aren't impartial. Here's proof:
Voters need to elect the person who can begin to restore district credibility while improving the return district residents get on the tax dollars they send to Washington.
The soft-spoken, blue-collar-leaning Perske is a better choice than Republican Tom Emmer. While Emmer is the likely favorite because of the district's conservative demographics, voters need to seriously consider whether his political persona will help the district. He's similarly conservative to Bachmann and he is known as a political bully, which makes his House strategy is "building relationships" a tough sell.
The Times' logic behind endorsing Joe Perske is that he's a "blue-collar-leaning" kind of guy and that Tom Emmer's a "political bully." That's stunning in its lack of seriousness. There's this though:
Voters need to elect the person who can begin to restore district credibility while improving the return district residents get on the tax dollars they send to Washington.
I won't insist that the Sixth District's credibility is untattered. That said, the Times Editorial Board's animosity towards Michele Bachmann is extensive and well documented. Another thing I'll say is that it isn't just about "improving the return district residents get on the tax dollars they send to Washington." It's about whose policies will strengthen central Minnesota's economy and Minnesota's economy.
One of the things Tom Emmer will jump right into is cutting the federal government's wasteful spending. He's spoken frequently about his admiration of Sen. Tom Coborn, the man who put together a series of videos on sequestration.
Franken
In not endorsing Al Franken in 2008, this board cited Independence candidate Dean Barkley as being most in touch with local, middle-class voters. Franken objected immediately and vowed to show it. In six years, and in a highly polarized Capitol, he has, and he deserves re-election.
Again, noting neither he nor Republican challenger Mike McFadden will stray far from their respective party's line, Franken still stood up for Main Street over Wall Street, for a reasonable farm bill, and for better matching people with employers through education.
That's insulting. The Times didn't mention the fact that Sen. Franken signed onto letters that oppressed his president's political opponents while ignoring the Bill of Rights protections of citizens. The Times ignored the fact that Sen. Franken signed onto a letter to the IRS directing the IRS to apply additional scrutiny to TEA Party organizations.
As for Sen. Franken staying in touch with Main Street, he'd pass with flying colors if Main Street was defined as a union hall. If staying in touch with Main Street is defined by holding town halls in profitable businesses, Franken would get a D-.
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 11:43 AM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 25-Oct-14 03:41 PM
"Franken still stood up for Main Street over Wall Street..."
I call bulls**t. He voted against securing the border (Franken voted against Senate Amendment 1197) - an action that the US Chamber of Commerce (Wall Street) was all for - creating a cheap easily exploitable workforce that puts Main Street Americans out of work. He rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash FROM Wall Street (all the while decrying special interest money). He has voted against Main Street jobs in Minnesota (against Twin Metals and Polymet) and in other states (opposed Keystone XL and the Main Street jobs it would have created). He has a history of speaking one way (for Main Street) and ACTING the opposite.
LL
Another Coakley fail?
When Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley to fill Ted Kennedy's term, people thought that Brown had pulled the upset to end all upsets. This article suggests that it might be that Martha isn't that good of a candidate:
A new Boston Globe poll released Friday suggests Baker is pulling 45 percent support to Coakley's 36 percent among likely voters, the widest margin any poll has shown for either candidate since September. A poll released last week had the two neck-to-neck, with 41 percent support each.
'There is just positive movement in every single metric we can ask around Baker,' SocialSphere executive John Della Volpe, who conducted the poll, told the Globe. 'The more voters have gotten to know him, the stronger he performs.'
At some point, Massachusetts Democrats will need to tell Ms. Coakley to hit the road. If she loses again, I can't see how she'd remain politically viable. Either you've got it or you don't. Apparently, Ms. Coakley, a liberal Democrat, can't win in deep blue Massachusetts.
The Democratic establishment in Massachusetts largely threw its support behind Coakley's gubernatorial bid. Both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are slated to appear with Coakley this morning in Boston.
I'll be paying attention to the polling after this event. If Coakley doesn't rebound after holding rallies with the 2 women most likely to run for the Democratic nomination, then she's hopeless.
In the governor's race, Baker has picked up momentum with an across-the-board improvement on questions where voters were asked which candidate would do a better job handling certain broad policy areas. For instance, in mid-September, the poll gave him a 15-point lead over Coakley on creating jobs. In this week's poll, he is ahead by 24 points.
Voters still think Coakley would do better ensuring high-quality, affordable health care, but the 15-point edge she had in mid-September is now down to 6 points.
'What we've seen from mid-September through today is that Baker has either extended his lead or closed a gap in which he was deficient,' Della Volpe said, adding, 'Based on that, I'm not surprised that he was able to...create a lead, and some distance for the first time.'
The poll's volatility can't be ignored. Then, too, Baker's lead can't just be explained away, either.
Among independents, Baker has nearly triple the support that Coakley has, 57 percent to 20 percent. In mid-September, when Coakley had an overall lead of 39 percent to 36 percent, Baker had secured 43 percent of the independent vote, to Coakley's 24 percent.
Republicans can't win in Massachusetts if they don't decisively with independents. Baker is apparently winning independents quite handily.
If she loses, history will record this as Ms. Coakley's exit from the political stage.
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 2:13 PM
No comments.
