|
 E-mail Story Print Friendly
Opinion editorials Handling of Pit Appeal Calls for a Time-Out |
Front Page 
opinion editorialsThis editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by editorial page staff and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers
.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
UNM Must Do More To Restore Lost Trust
University of New Mexico administrators are right about one thing. They certainly have "dug a big hole" in their handling of the scuffle involving Lobos football coaches.
What they're trying to fill it with isn't likely to restore confidence. Apologies and huge helpings of humble pie are not enough to cover head coach Mike Locksley's assault on an assistant and the questionable— a charitable description — investigation that occurred in response to the altercation:
• The intentional destruction of notes written shortly after the incident by the Athletics Department's human resources employee, whose query itself was a violation of UNM policy. Sure, poor copies of the notes were made, but they appear to eliminate what was on the margins. Witness signatures? Time stamps? We'll never know.
But at least this employee hustled out and interviewed witnesses in a timely fashion. In some ways, she is the star performer in this sad show.
• A stale and lightweight official investigation by the UNM Human Resources director that borders on embarrassing . It was begun 10 days after the incident and during that time the assistant coaches/witnesses were in close, almost daily contact with their accused boss and meal ticket. And those official interviews began one day after their coach's boss, Vice President for Athletics Paul Krebs, had publicly backed Locksley. Krebs said of the incident: "I do not believe this is a reflection of his leadership, I do not believe this is a reflection of his character." Nothing to worry about there, witnesses. Go right ahead and speak up. And get your resumes ready.
Official interviews with witnesses were not recorded, and the witnesses were not confronted with direct statements attributed to them by the first interviewer 10 days earlier and asked whether they were accurate. The bizarre explanation was that it was an investigation, not an interrogation.
• A confusing series of punishments.
• The decision to keep paying the accuser for not showing up to work while insisting he has no grounds for a claim. The university did the right thing by denying his lawyer's request for $500,000 to just keep quiet, but to say the assistant has absolutely no claim seems to border on fantasy given anyone's version of what happened.
UNM President David Schmidly emphatically insists all this is not part of a cover-up, just "bungling" of the investigation and follow-up.
Schmidly says that while mistakes were made, he has confidence in Krebs, Human Resources director Helen Gonzales and Locksley. Schmidly has announced some corrective procedural measures such as moving human resources oversight to UNM's HR division and better training on dealing with personnel problems. Locksley was suspended for 10 days and faces anger management training.
But if UNM really wants to fill this hole with something stable, it needs to pay for an independent examination of both the incident involving the coaches and the subsequent investigation(s). The university needs to commit in advance to give the investigator carte blanche, full access to all witnesses and to everything already compiled from both investigations. And it needs to commit in advance to make the findings public.
Or, it can hunker down in a really deep foxhole and hope for the best.
You also can send comments via our comment form
|
|
