Rhonda Revelle suspended pending review

[Mavric]

6.5 weeks to decide she's staying???  That seems .... odd.

[SouthLincoln Husker]

6 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

Depends on what the allegations were I suppose

Too long, glad she's back.  Kids are different today; they get way too upset when being scolded.  

[Ulty]

54 minutes ago, SouthLincoln Husker said:

Too long, glad she's back.  Kids are different today; they get way too upset when being scolded.  

 

I assume that whatever the allegations were, they were more serious and more credible than kids being scolded. People don't usually get placed on administrative leave for trivial issues, and the investigation took a bit longer than a typical university issue.

 

If the evidence didn't weigh that heavily against her, then reinstating her and getting back to work is the right thing to do, but it is also bad form to turn around and throw shade at the complaint, when we don't even know what the allegations were. That sort of attitude is what prevents legitimate concerns from being brought forward in the first place.

[teachercd]

She should get an apology and if any of the players are still on the team that bitched about what was clearly nothing...they need to be removed (pending investigation of course).

[Ulty]

8 minutes ago, teachercd said:

She should get an apology and if any of the players are still on the team that bitched about what was clearly nothing

Does anyone actually know what the allegations were? It was obviously not "clearly nothing." The only thing we know is that there was not enough of whatever it was to justify any further action.

 

8 minutes ago, teachercd said:

..they need to be removed (pending investigation of course).

This is how you get sued for retaliation, of course. 

[teachercd]

44 minutes ago, Ulty said:

Does anyone actually know what the allegations were? It was obviously not "clearly nothing." The only thing we know is that there was not enough of whatever it was to justify any further action.

 

This is how you get sued for retaliation, of course. 

I think it is safe to say it went like this...

 

Player(s) bitched about something and "turned her in" the U has to investigate any and all accusations.  Nothing at all turned up.

 

Sooooo, now the players need to be held accountable. 

 

 

 

[Ulty]

3 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I think it is safe to say it went like this...

 

Player(s) bitched about something and "turned her in" the U has to investigate any and all accusations.  Nothing at all turned up.

 

Sooooo, now the players need to be held accountable. 

 

 

 

 

No, that's not the way it works. But I'm also assuming you aren't being serious.

[teachercd]

5 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

No, that's not the way it works. But I'm also assuming you aren't being serious.

I am 100% serious and it is how it should work.

 

What if they find out one of the players has an axe to grind?  What if they find out that the player made it all up to hurt the coach?

 

We made the rules, we can change the rules so that they are actually fair.

[Ulty]

3 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I am 100% serious and it is how it should work.

 

What if they find out one of the players has an axe to grind?  What if they find out that the player made it all up to hurt the coach?

Okay, we can dive in a little further, but that is not how these things work, and a retaliatory response to a complaint being made against you is certainly not the right way to go.

 

 

13 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I think it is safe to say it went like this...

 

Player(s) bitched about something and "turned her in" the U has to investigate any and all accusations.  Nothing at all turned up.

 

Sooooo, now the players need to be held accountable. 

The University has to investigate accusations, that is true. But let's start with the nature of the complaint - which we do not know details of. Someone bitching about a coach (or a professor, or a coworker, or another student) rarely results in administrative leave. The allegations would have to be pretty damn serious, and there would have to be some sort of reasonable belief by the administration that there was merit to the complaint in order for leave to be forced up on her and for a full blown investigation to take place. Most complaints can be resolved informally or investigated quickly without disrupting operations. It only gets this far if there is some credibility to the complaint, and some mitigating concern that would require the coach to stay away from campus.

 

Then when you say that nothing at all turned up - we don't know if that is true either. Just because the end result of the investigation, as far as the public gets to see, is that she returns to work, doesn't mean nothing was found. Look at Moos' statement: "I have concluded that Coach Revelle will continue to lead our softball program." It doesn't say she was totally cleared. Maybe there was some sort of administrative discipline that is not being made public. Maybe there were other concessions that were negotiated. We don't know, that is all internal. But even if there was no finding against her, it may only mean that the evidence was not strong enough to lean the other direction. 

 

I conduct plenty of investigations in which the accused is a low-life sleaze, but the evidence is not enough to weigh toward a specific policy violation. People can do a lot of inappropriate things before it is deemed to be too far (allegations of harassment, for example, need to reach a certain threshold of severe and pervasive conduct before it is actually harassment according to the letter of the law - but it doesn't mean there aren't bad things going on that need to stop and need to be addressed some other way). Knowing how long administrative investigations usually take at a university, and the fact that this one took longer than usual, leads me to believe that there was a lot of info that needed to be dissected and analyzed before making a decision. That is not "nothing at all."

 

And then, what if the accuser did have an axe to grind and made it all up? That can be investigated as well. I assume that knowingly making a false statement is a policy violation (it is at my workplace), so if they can prove that this is the case, so be it. However, just because an accusation does not result in a finding (and again, we don't actually know if there was a finding or not), does not mean that the allegations were false. Most complaints are made in good faith, and it is incredibly difficult to prove that an accusation was made maliciously under false pretenses. And the rub is, even launching an investigation into an allegedly false claim may appear to be retaliatory. 

 

The players, as well as any student or employee, have a right to make a complaint if they believe there is some sort of misconduct going on. It is a protected activity. "Holding them accountable" for daring to make such a complaint would be blatantly retaliatory. Retaliation of this kind is illegal and/or a likely policy violation on its own, depending on the nature of the protected activity. Moos's statement also said "Coach Revelle and her staff understand the seriousness of the student-athlete concerns and are committed to providing a complete and positive student-athlete experience..." If they start going after someone who made a complaint, not only does that negate this statement, but it creates a chilling effect on anyone else who might witnesses some sort of misconduct and considers reporting it. 

 

I bet Moos and UNL's general counsel are having conversations with Revelle and the entire staff to go about their business and do not do anything that can be construed as retaliatory, and especially do not follow the advice of @teachercd! 

 

 

4 minutes ago, teachercd said:

We made the rules, we can change the rules so that they are actually fair.

I don't understand what this means?

[teachercd]

18 minutes ago, Ulty said:

Okay, we can dive in a little further, but that is not how these things work, and a retaliatory response to a complaint being made against you is certainly not the right way to go.

 

 

The University has to investigate accusations, that is true. But let's start with the nature of the complaint - which we do not know details of. Someone bitching about a coach (or a professor, or a coworker, or another student) rarely results in administrative leave. The allegations would have to be pretty damn serious, and there would have to be some sort of reasonable belief by the administration that there was merit to the complaint in order for leave to be forced up on her and for a full blown investigation to take place. Most complaints can be resolved informally or investigated quickly without disrupting operations. It only gets this far if there is some credibility to the complaint, and some mitigating concern that would require the coach to stay away from campus.

 

Then when you say that nothing at all turned up - we don't know if that is true either. Just because the end result of the investigation, as far as the public gets to see, is that she returns to work, doesn't mean nothing was found. Look at Moos' statement: "I have concluded that Coach Revelle will continue to lead our softball program." It doesn't say she was totally cleared. Maybe there was some sort of administrative discipline that is not being made public. Maybe there were other concessions that were negotiated. We don't know, that is all internal. But even if there was no finding against her, it may only mean that the evidence was not strong enough to lean the other direction. 

 

I conduct plenty of investigations in which the accused is a low-life sleaze, but the evidence is not enough to weigh toward a specific policy violation. People can do a lot of inappropriate things before it is deemed to be too far (allegations of harassment, for example, need to reach a certain threshold of severe and pervasive conduct before it is actually harassment according to the letter of the law - but it doesn't mean there aren't bad things going on that need to stop and need to be addressed some other way). Knowing how long administrative investigations usually take at a university, and the fact that this one took longer than usual, leads me to believe that there was a lot of info that needed to be dissected and analyzed before making a decision. That is not "nothing at all."

 

And then, what if the accuser did have an axe to grind and made it all up? That can be investigated as well. I assume that knowingly making a false statement is a policy violation (it is at my workplace), so if they can prove that this is the case, so be it. However, just because an accusation does not result in a finding (and again, we don't actually know if there was a finding or not), does not mean that the allegations were false. Most complaints are made in good faith, and it is incredibly difficult to prove that an accusation was made maliciously under false pretenses. And the rub is, even launching an investigation into an allegedly false claim may appear to be retaliatory. 

 

The players, as well as any student or employee, have a right to make a complaint if they believe there is some sort of misconduct going on. It is a protected activity. "Holding them accountable" for daring to make such a complaint would be blatantly retaliatory. Retaliation of this kind is illegal and/or a likely policy violation on its own, depending on the nature of the protected activity. Moos's statement also said "Coach Revelle and her staff understand the seriousness of the student-athlete concerns and are committed to providing a complete and positive student-athlete experience..." If they start going after someone who made a complaint, not only does that negate this statement, but it creates a chilling effect on anyone else who might witnesses some sort of misconduct and considers reporting it. 

 

I bet Moos and UNL's general counsel are having conversations with Revelle and the entire staff to go about their business and do not do anything that can be construed as retaliatory, and especially do not follow the advice of @teachercd! 

 

 

I don't understand what this means?

Correct and then incorrect.

 

Most complaints about coaches are not made in good faith.  Kids don't think like adults (and even a lot of adults are a$$h@!es) kids rip coaches, turn them in, transfer because they were not "treated fairly" all the time.

 

Last year...a meeting took place at a school here in Omaha because a QB was benched during a game...the next day the meeting was set up by the parents to complain about the coach and all the "bad things" he did...guess what the bad thing was...he benched the QB.  That was it.

 

It is not wrong to look into someone that made a dishonest claim, it is normal.

 

 

[Ulty]

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

Last year...a meeting took place at a school here in Omaha because a QB was benched during a game...the next day the meeting was set up by the parents to complain about the coach and all the "bad things" he did...guess what the bad thing was...he benched the QB.  That was it.

Yeah, a meeting took place. Not a 6 week investigation with administrative leave. That is not an apt comparison. 

 

Someone complaining about getting benched is not a false claim, it is a simply a stupid one. No one is going to launch an investigation based on that.

 

4 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Most complaints about coaches are not made in good faith.  Kids don't think like adults (and even a lot of adults are a$$h@!es) kids rip coaches, turn them in, transfer because they were not "treated fairly" all the time.

Bitching about your coach or shouting into the ether that you are not treated fairly is not the same as an actual allegation of misconduct. I'm talking about actual administrative complaints. It is more than tattling on someone and then disappearing. It is more than bitching about playing time. The vast majority of reports that result in investigation are made in good faith, because the complainant has a stake in being a part of the process. Once the process is explained, many complainants do not have the will to keep pressing forward. The majority of cases do not result in a finding, because the evidence has to be so substantial, but it does not mean that the complainant did not actually believe something wrong was going on. And then again, if it turns out that a false allegation was knowingly made, there is a process for dealing with that too.

[teachercd]

4 minutes ago, Ulty said:

Yeah, a meeting took place. Not a 6 week investigation with administrative leave. That is not an apt comparison. 

 

Someone complaining about getting benched is not a false claim, it is a simply a stupid one. No one is going to launch an investigation based on that.

 

Bitching about your coach or shouting into the ether that you are not treated fairly is not the same as an actual allegation of misconduct. I'm talking about actual administrative complaints. It is more than tattling on someone and then disappearing. It is more than bitching about playing time. The vast majority of reports that result in investigation are made in good faith, because the complainant has a stake in being a part of the process. Once the process is explained, many complainants do not have the will to keep pressing forward. The majority of cases do not result in a finding, because the evidence has to be so substantial, but it does not mean that the complainant did not actually believe something wrong was going on. And then again, if it turns out that a false allegation was knowingly made, there is a process for dealing with that too.

Ahhh, but like I said the family started to accuse the coach of "bad things"

 

You are constantly agreeing with me but still arguing (which I must admit I admire)

 

Bro, we are basically saying the same exact thing.  We are both saying that if some dorky a$$ player made s#!t up that the player should have consequences.  We don't know the exact details in the case, I am saying that I bet the dorky a$$ player made s#!t up (for the most part).

[Ulty]

4 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Bro, we are basically saying the same exact thing. 

 

No, I don't think we are saying the same thing. You said that the allegations were clearly nothing, and now any players who complained should be removed from the team. 

 

Your comparison of the kid bitching about getting benched started with a preliminary meeting because he said there were other bad things. I'm guessing that the meeting was the end of the matter right there because there was nothing that warranted further investigation. In UNL's case, a coach isn't put on administrative leave with a six week investigation if the allegations do not merit that kind of action. There are big differences here. If everything was a lie, it would have been sniffed out long before now. You made assumptions that "nothing at all turned up" and that the allegations were not made in good faith. You can't make those assumptions. Well, you can, because this is a message board, but UNL can't.

[teachercd]

We are.  

 

And some people are really good liars.

 

 

[Cdog923]

7 hours ago, SouthLincoln Husker said:

Too long, glad she's back.  Kids are different today; they get way too upset when being scolded.  

 

It's not the kids; it's their parents.