calumnus said:

---

movielover said:

---

Cal alum Catherine Breed - 2011 - 2015 - supports the Coach on her Instagram account. Breed was clear in that she's not addressing others experiences, only her own.

SwimSwam reposted her Instagram story. In part:

"...My story goes as follows and there's a lot more to it than I can write in an Instagram post so this may seem vague to you. When I struggled with my mental health because of some serious life upheavals Teri connected me with a life coach and a sports psychologist. She gave me the resources I needed because she understood the pain.

"When I struggled with my nutrition and weight she never once made me feel shame or called me fat. She connected me with Kristen and our nutritionist so I could have resources to learn how to better take care of myself. She understood the struggle.

"When I had to withdraw from WUGs because of my ACL tear I had a trip around Europe planned for after the meet. I was gutted to not be able to compete nor travel. She helped me get to Europe so that I could at least have that two week trip.

"My career at Cal was one of failure. I entered as a top recruit and by my senior year I did not even make NCAA. I failed at swimming, I failed at being a top academic, I failed at being a great captain, I failed over and over again. Teri did not guilt me about it, she did not take away my scholarship. We failed successfully.

"At one of my last meets I remember telling her I wish she was harder on me. She answered with tears in her eyes "I was afraid I would break you", she knew how much **** I was going through and she wanted to be there for me not worrying about my swimming but worrying about me as a person. She wanted me to understand people cared about me and people loved me even if the world didn't feel like that.

"I firmly believe Teri is not a monster. For every story in the article there are stories like mine. Teri wanted us to be strong women first and love the water second. I will always be proud to have swam at Cal."

Catherine Breed is now a successful and record-breaking open water swimmer.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CeBskLyLKyA/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

https://swimswam.com/former-cal-swimmer-catherine-breed-speaks-out-for-teri-mckeever/

---

Nice. That is the type of testimonial I'd be looking for, but with a focus on current and recent swimmers.

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

movielover said:

---

Oski003 - I've read reports going back to 2001. A 2012 Chronicle article by John Crumpacker describes her giving "tough love", being "authoritative", the oldest of 10 children, and quoting her as being "almost a 100 percent introvert."

bearsandgiants said:

---

Two thoughts.

1) If this has truly been going on for decades, a thorough investigation and resolution within two weeks is an unreasonable expectation.

2) To suggest that a coach is racist simply because they say a black athlete has an attitude problem is complete BS, and racist per-se. It's one thing if she had said "your black attitude." But that's not what happened, per the article, and it's the only thing referenced in the original article. They seem so be scratching for shock value there, to get more eyeballs, and it doesn't pass the smell test.

---

First, put at least two or three investigators on this. I believe most agree slow-walking this is untenable.

I believe the lawyers synopsis still stands. Let's say there are 60 witnesses. Some will have only seen one or two episodes of mistreatment - those should be short interviews, easily documented. Some parents may primarily authenticate their daughters complaints. Most likely a pattern will emerge. If there were one to three athletes targeted every year, those will be focus points with corroboration.

Did staff alert the proper authorities? If true, galling issues are possible severance packages for coaches and administrators who didn't protect these young women.

I had no idea that USA Swimming top coaches were 85% male, and that the mistreatment of young swimmers was a big issue.

"Racism" - we don't have any alleged facts here, and competing politics. It took a long time for the racist comments of WNBA star Liz Cambage to be published. Not liking rap music isn't illegal, but it probably offends the woke crowd.

---

I have been involved as a witness to two investigations in the work world. They were far les complicated, and involved far less people and time periods than the McKeever situations. And yet the investigations took about 3 months to play out. Since the people involved both times where physically near my office, I was interviewed twice both times, a preliminary interview and then a follow-up after other people were interviewed. So expect a lot of people to get multiple interviews. Let's look at the distinctions in the situations:

1) Knowing the allegations. In my case that was no brainer. Here you have allegations, a lot of them quite general, from a newspaper article(s). The investigators need to get a written (or verbal which is less preferable) complaint that is a summary of concerns, which will need to be explored further with the complainants to draw out the specific detail needed to draft a procedurally fair set of allegations. For an allegation to be considered procedurally fair it should contain as a minimum, who was allegedly involved, what is alleged to have occurred and when. This will take some time given the number of people and time frames involved. This means that many complaints will need to be interviewed more than once to address likely conflicts in asserted facts.

2) Lawyers. None in my case. Every participant has the right to have a person they are comfortable with present while they participate in an investigative process (typically the interview). Under the Title 9 and Cal rules, the support person is there to offer only moral support to the person. They are not there to advocate or speak on behalf of the participant. This is SOP. Interference from a support person can be very disruptive and can be remedied by ensuring that the support person understands their role before they participate. Non-employes don't necessary have to follow those rules, which means negotiating with lawyers. For example, there was an accusation by a former Olympics coach that Terry fired. She will likely not be willing to come for the interview without her own counsel and different rules, since she could face a suit from Terry at some point. Something will have to be negotiated. There is no guarantee that non-employees will agree to cooperate, but the investigators have to take the time to give it a shot. And then there is getting Terry's cooperation, and no doubt she will be lawyered-up.


3) Number of people involved and time period covered and breath of allegations. Mine involved a limited number of employees. Good grief, just 60 people? The law firm has to make arrangements and interview much of the present team, many graduates, employees, former employees, parents, various doctors, a good portion of the AD staff (or even former staff) given that the investigation will look at they conduct in handling accusations, members to men's swim team, members of Olympics teams, and others as the investigation develops. And again, they may have to request multiple interviews. Given that every complaint has the potential to become a lawsuit, the investigators need to investigate every accusation in a manner in which it can be presented to a court of law, if necessary. So every potential witness needs to be considered.


4) Cooperation issues. Employees are required to be witnesses and provide information under policies at the convenience of the employer, which made my investigation go rather efficiently. The law firm doing the investigation will have no such power over most of the witnesses. They probably will have to wait for non-employee scheduling and decide which of the interviews need to be done live, which likely involves someone traveling. I suspect there will need to be negotiations with the attorneys for McKeever and some of the accusers.

5) Qualified investigators don't grow on trees. Even the largest law firms don't have that many employment attorneys qualified to do investigations and guess what, they have other clients who also have important investigations, that may be even much more high profile than a college swim team coach.

6) There is a lot more information involved. In my situations there was information to be managed, prep by the investigator, time for analysis and drafting of findings. Thus, 3 months. There is going to be mountain more of information here. Thousands of pages of clear and detailed records of the investigation are going to have to be developed to support investigation findings. A complete investigation needs to develop a witness list, sources for information and evidence, interview questions targeted to elicit crucial information and details, and a process for retention of documentation and other technical aspects that take time.

7) Developing Evidence. Not much in the cases I was in. Basically he said, she said, and a lot of asking people what they saw. Here there are allegations that involve health issues, so there is a ton of medical evidence to evaluate when it comes to the overtraining complaint. There is the argument that the D1 swimmer contemplating suicide had other issues than just the coach. So that is very broad look at the complaint's medical history and phycological profile. There may be that some complainant's won't be willing to provide all the requested medical data, but the investigator has to take the time to try to get the information.

The suggestion about how little time this investigation should take are as naive as the commentary about having D1 coaches that never shout, get angry, curse, or whatever is in their snowflake minds.

---

I think it is a mistake to view this as a typical corporate employment harassment complaint or a criminal prosecution.

The determination needs to be made quickly whether Teri McKeever is the right person to lead Cal swimming going forward. That should be done primarily by interviewing the current Cal swimmers individually. Determining what is best for them and for the program (future swimmers) going forward.

Again, the question and focus is not about making McKeever "wrong," the question is, is she RiGHT for Cal going forward?

It would have been far better if it had not gotten to this point. However, If the determination is made (relatively quickly) to go in a new direction, McKeever can be offered an administrative role, or retirement with the honor her accomplishments deserve. The current process, a six-month investigation with the prospect of McKeever potentially being fired for cause, leaving everyone in limbo is not healthy and is poor management. However, if in meetings with the student athletes, you gauge strong support for McKeever and believe the accusations of bullying and other abuse are baseless, then reassure the team and give them a plan going forward. If the vast majority of the team supports her then by all means, wait until she is cleared by the investigation. However, the determination of desired direction should not have to wait.

---

I understand your concerns and also why from a non-legal background you take the positions you do.

The problem is the Cal athletic department is not in charge here. The students and athletic department are part of a University and have to play by the school's rules. Cal, prompted by Congressional Legislation and court cases has put in place policies that must be followed (in fact, Cal is subject to a Federal consent decree to develop and enforce these policies). You can accuse whoever you want of poor management or whatever you feel is necessary to assuage your anger, but Cal is subject to basically to same rules as private employers for the types of allegations that have been made. And citing cases where the coach was fired because a team's won loss record didn't meet expectations doesn't change the equation. Lou probably would have been subject to an investigation if his conduct occurred today.

You can say pay Terry a ton of money to go away. But she probably will not accept that offer and instead want to vindicate her name, in which case you are right back to investigating her and waiting. But let's say she will take a huge payout. Who is going to pay it? You? Do we cut the crap out the future women's swimming budget for the next 50 years to fund it? That doesn't stop the requirements Cal must go through since Terry is not the only one being accused . And also because the law and Cal policy says these claims still have to be investigated. Not to mention Cal could get sued by accusing swimmers.

Or you could say terminate her. That might have been a great idea before these allegations went public. And you also want to start a modified investigation that violates Cal's own rules. From a legal perspective it could not get more dumb. if you terminate her now without due process, you might as well just roll the Brinks truck up to her front door. Not to mention you violated the consent decree. The cost to Cal could be astronomical, and it is Campus picking up the tab. If you think the Campus isn't willing to sacrifice a team to protect its mission, then you must have missed how Jason Wilcox was muted to defend his program against the City of Berkeley Health Department, so that Cal could get its building entitlements through the City of Berkeley.

The only scenario that this really plays out is the investigators find the "bad" accusations accurate and Terry is pushed out with her agreement or fired for cause. If will likely take a non-disclosure to make her voluntary leave, which is another reason an outside investigation under the cloak of attorney client privilege is being used. That said, I don't know how this plays out for the administrators who are under scrutiny. But I really don't see a scenario where "the determination of desired direction should not have to wait" is viable. Nor does it appear does Cal. Look for someone to be wearing the interim coach label for some time.

---

Wyking Jones was reportedly fired by Knowlton after several players went to Knowlton saying they wanted a change. Did that violate the university rules and laws that you have cited?

Coaches are fired all the time. Very, very rarely "for cause" (without pay). In fact, their contracts almost always stipulate what the payment will be if they are terminated. Therefore, it is permitted under their contract. That is different than "being paid to go away." It is following their contract. Their contract determines their employment, not university HR policies.

The investigation needs to continue, of course. I am just saying the women's swim program needs to be managed and the swimmers need to be taken care of.

A preferred direction needs to be decided on quickly. This is not an "informal investigation" it is not asking "what happened" it is asking the student athletes what they need and want going forward. If the team wants Teri back that gives you a path (subject to the results of the investigation), if they don't thst gives you a path.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

movielover said:

---

Oski003 - I've read reports going back to 2001. A 2012 Chronicle article by John Crumpacker describes her giving "tough love", being "authoritative", the oldest of 10 children, and quoting her as being "almost a 100 percent introvert."

bearsandgiants said:

---

Two thoughts.

1) If this has truly been going on for decades, a thorough investigation and resolution within two weeks is an unreasonable expectation.

2) To suggest that a coach is racist simply because they say a black athlete has an attitude problem is complete BS, and racist per-se. It's one thing if she had said "your black attitude." But that's not what happened, per the article, and it's the only thing referenced in the original article. They seem so be scratching for shock value there, to get more eyeballs, and it doesn't pass the smell test.

---

First, put at least two or three investigators on this. I believe most agree slow-walking this is untenable.

I believe the lawyers synopsis still stands. Let's say there are 60 witnesses. Some will have only seen one or two episodes of mistreatment - those should be short interviews, easily documented. Some parents may primarily authenticate their daughters complaints. Most likely a pattern will emerge. If there were one to three athletes targeted every year, those will be focus points with corroboration.

Did staff alert the proper authorities? If true, galling issues are possible severance packages for coaches and administrators who didn't protect these young women.

I had no idea that USA Swimming top coaches were 85% male, and that the mistreatment of young swimmers was a big issue.

"Racism" - we don't have any alleged facts here, and competing politics. It took a long time for the racist comments of WNBA star Liz Cambage to be published. Not liking rap music isn't illegal, but it probably offends the woke crowd.

---

I have been involved as a witness to two investigations in the work world. They were far les complicated, and involved far less people and time periods than the McKeever situations. And yet the investigations took about 3 months to play out. Since the people involved both times where physically near my office, I was interviewed twice both times, a preliminary interview and then a follow-up after other people were interviewed. So expect a lot of people to get multiple interviews. Let's look at the distinctions in the situations:

1) Knowing the allegations. In my case that was no brainer. Here you have allegations, a lot of them quite general, from a newspaper article(s). The investigators need to get a written (or verbal which is less preferable) complaint that is a summary of concerns, which will need to be explored further with the complainants to draw out the specific detail needed to draft a procedurally fair set of allegations. For an allegation to be considered procedurally fair it should contain as a minimum, who was allegedly involved, what is alleged to have occurred and when. This will take some time given the number of people and time frames involved. This means that many complaints will need to be interviewed more than once to address likely conflicts in asserted facts.

2) Lawyers. None in my case. Every participant has the right to have a person they are comfortable with present while they participate in an investigative process (typically the interview). Under the Title 9 and Cal rules, the support person is there to offer only moral support to the person. They are not there to advocate or speak on behalf of the participant. This is SOP. Interference from a support person can be very disruptive and can be remedied by ensuring that the support person understands their role before they participate. Non-employes don't necessary have to follow those rules, which means negotiating with lawyers. For example, there was an accusation by a former Olympics coach that Terry fired. She will likely not be willing to come for the interview without her own counsel and different rules, since she could face a suit from Terry at some point. Something will have to be negotiated. There is no guarantee that non-employees will agree to cooperate, but the investigators have to take the time to give it a shot. And then there is getting Terry's cooperation, and no doubt she will be lawyered-up.


3) Number of people involved and time period covered and breath of allegations. Mine involved a limited number of employees. Good grief, just 60 people? The law firm has to make arrangements and interview much of the present team, many graduates, employees, former employees, parents, various doctors, a good portion of the AD staff (or even former staff) given that the investigation will look at they conduct in handling accusations, members to men's swim team, members of Olympics teams, and others as the investigation develops. And again, they may have to request multiple interviews. Given that every complaint has the potential to become a lawsuit, the investigators need to investigate every accusation in a manner in which it can be presented to a court of law, if necessary. So every potential witness needs to be considered.


4) Cooperation issues. Employees are required to be witnesses and provide information under policies at the convenience of the employer, which made my investigation go rather efficiently. The law firm doing the investigation will have no such power over most of the witnesses. They probably will have to wait for non-employee scheduling and decide which of the interviews need to be done live, which likely involves someone traveling. I suspect there will need to be negotiations with the attorneys for McKeever and some of the accusers.

5) Qualified investigators don't grow on trees. Even the largest law firms don't have that many employment attorneys qualified to do investigations and guess what, they have other clients who also have important investigations, that may be even much more high profile than a college swim team coach.

6) There is a lot more information involved. In my situations there was information to be managed, prep by the investigator, time for analysis and drafting of findings. Thus, 3 months. There is going to be mountain more of information here. Thousands of pages of clear and detailed records of the investigation are going to have to be developed to support investigation findings. A complete investigation needs to develop a witness list, sources for information and evidence, interview questions targeted to elicit crucial information and details, and a process for retention of documentation and other technical aspects that take time.

7) Developing Evidence. Not much in the cases I was in. Basically he said, she said, and a lot of asking people what they saw. Here there are allegations that involve health issues, so there is a ton of medical evidence to evaluate when it comes to the overtraining complaint. There is the argument that the D1 swimmer contemplating suicide had other issues than just the coach. So that is very broad look at the complaint's medical history and phycological profile. There may be that some complainant's won't be willing to provide all the requested medical data, but the investigator has to take the time to try to get the information.

The suggestion about how little time this investigation should take are as naive as the commentary about having D1 coaches that never shout, get angry, curse, or whatever is in their snowflake minds.

---

I think it is a mistake to view this as a typical corporate employment harassment complaint or a criminal prosecution.

The determination needs to be made quickly whether Teri McKeever is the right person to lead Cal swimming going forward. That should be done primarily by interviewing the current Cal swimmers individually. Determining what is best for them and for the program (future swimmers) going forward.

Again, the question and focus is not about making McKeever "wrong," the question is, is she RiGHT for Cal going forward?

It would have been far better if it had not gotten to this point. However, If the determination is made (relatively quickly) to go in a new direction, McKeever can be offered an administrative role, or retirement with the honor her accomplishments deserve. The current process, a six-month investigation with the prospect of McKeever potentially being fired for cause, leaving everyone in limbo is not healthy and is poor management. However, if in meetings with the student athletes, you gauge strong support for McKeever and believe the accusations of bullying and other abuse are baseless, then reassure the team and give them a plan going forward. If the vast majority of the team supports her then by all means, wait until she is cleared by the investigation. However, the determination of desired direction should not have to wait.

---

I understand your concerns and also why from a non-legal background you take the positions you do.

The problem is the Cal athletic department is not in charge here. The students and athletic department are part of a University and have to play by the school's rules. Cal, prompted by Congressional Legislation and court cases has put in place policies that must be followed (in fact, Cal is subject to a Federal consent decree to develop and enforce these policies). You can accuse whoever you want of poor management or whatever you feel is necessary to assuage your anger, but Cal is subject to basically to same rules as private employers for the types of allegations that have been made. And citing cases where the coach was fired because a team's won loss record didn't meet expectations doesn't change the equation. Lou probably would have been subject to an investigation if his conduct occurred today.

You can say pay Terry a ton of money to go away. But she probably will not accept that offer and instead want to vindicate her name, in which case you are right back to investigating her and waiting. But let's say she will take a huge payout. Who is going to pay it? You? Do we cut the crap out the future women's swimming budget for the next 50 years to fund it? That doesn't stop the requirements Cal must go through since Terry is not the only one being accused . And also because the law and Cal policy says these claims still have to be investigated. Not to mention Cal could get sued by accusing swimmers.

Or you could say terminate her. That might have been a great idea before these allegations went public. And you also want to start a modified investigation that violates Cal's own rules. From a legal perspective it could not get more dumb. if you terminate her now without due process, you might as well just roll the Brinks truck up to her front door. Not to mention you violated the consent decree. The cost to Cal could be astronomical, and it is Campus picking up the tab. If you think the Campus isn't willing to sacrifice a team to protect its mission, then you must have missed how Jason Wilcox was muted to defend his program against the City of Berkeley Health Department, so that Cal could get its building entitlements through the City of Berkeley.

The only scenario that this really plays out is the investigators find the "bad" accusations accurate and Terry is pushed out with her agreement or fired for cause. If will likely take a non-disclosure to make her voluntary leave, which is another reason an outside investigation under the cloak of attorney client privilege is being used. That said, I don't know how this plays out for the administrators who are under scrutiny. But I really don't see a scenario where "the determination of desired direction should not have to wait" is viable. Nor does it appear does Cal. Look for someone to be wearing the interim coach label for some time.

---

Wyking Jones was reportedly fired by Knowlton after several players went to Knowlton saying they wanted a change. Did that violate the university rules and laws that you have cited?

Coaches are fired all the time. Very, very rarely "for cause" (without pay). In fact, their contracts almost always stipulate what the payment will be if they are terminated. Therefore, it is permitted under their contract. That is different than "being paid to go away." It is following their contract. Their contract determines their employment, not university HR policies.

The investigation needs to continue, of course. I am just saying the women's swim program needs to be managed and the swimmers need to be taken care of.

A preferred direction needs to be decided on quickly. This is not an "informal investigation" it is not asking "what happened" it is asking the student athletes what they need and want going forward. If the team wants Teri back that gives you a path (subject to the results of the investigation), if they don't thst gives you a path.

---

You clearly don't want to hear this. But let me try again. No one leveled charges against Jones regarding harassment, discrimination, physical abuse, and other things which fall within the purview of Cal policies. Just not being a very good coach.

You don't know what you are talking about on the contracts. You simply made-up a bunch of BS. If a coach is fired for cause they don't get paid severance or a buy-out fee. You could not be more wrong on the policies not being in the contract - which are expressly incorporated into contracts. You seem to have some idiotic notion that a buy-out fee is somehow is like liquidated damages for breaching the agreement. Once the allegations are made the contractual default is to the policies. You then instead want to replace those polices with your own abbreviated process, which would violate the contract and and a federal consent decree. The employee is then entitled to damages for breach not the termination fee.

Then a comparison of this post and your last post turns to utter gibberish. in the latest post you return with "the investigation needs to continue, of course" which means you seem to want to run now two sets of investigations: the abbreviated investigation in your prior post or the long one required by contract and law? Is this so every party can take a shot at suing? Then you come back with the stupid notion of having a plebiscite. Terry may have violated federal laws, harmed swimmers, and subjected Cal to lawsuits, but you know who gives a crap if the majority of swimmers want her back. Btu wait, now you say that vote is subject to the results of an investigation. First of alll, which investigation? Because if its the full out investigation that you need to comply with your policies, what the F are you talking about, and if its your let's talk to few people and conclude if Terry did it, then pretty much everyone gets to sue Cal. Not sure you get this, but the athletes don't get to hold a vote under any contact in any coach's contract.

This is why Cal uses actual lawyers to interpret contracts and advise the Chancellor, and she has taken the acoitn she has.

Why don't you send this with Diablo's letter to the Chancellor, I'm sure she once she

---

movielover said:

---

Swimming World: Maggie Mac Neil to Swim Fifth Year at LSU; No Longer Heading to Cal

"Shortly after concluding her senior-year NCAA Championships for the University of Michigan, Olympic gold medalist Maggie Mac Neil announced that she would compete a fifth year in college swimming for Cal-Berkeley. However, Mac Neil's plans have since changed, and Louisiana State University announced Saturday that Mac Neil will be heading to Baton Rouge to join the Tigers for her final year of college swimming..."
.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Don't believe anyone has posted McKeever's most recent contract but here it is: https://swimswam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/McKeever-T-30Apr2024.pdf

Looks like a termination without cause would only entitle her to a buyout of around $180k (50% of this year's $240k salary, 25% of next year's), which is certainly less than they will spend "investigating" the alleged wrongdoing. The contract includes some interesting terms like a waiver of a Skelly hearing as well as a very broad definition of cause.

I'm sure the University will figure out a way to screw all this up however and that it will cost the university far more than anticipated.

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

movielover said:

---

Oski003 - I've read reports going back to 2001. A 2012 Chronicle article by John Crumpacker describes her giving "tough love", being "authoritative", the oldest of 10 children, and quoting her as being "almost a 100 percent introvert."

bearsandgiants said:

---

Two thoughts.

1) If this has truly been going on for decades, a thorough investigation and resolution within two weeks is an unreasonable expectation.

2) To suggest that a coach is racist simply because they say a black athlete has an attitude problem is complete BS, and racist per-se. It's one thing if she had said "your black attitude." But that's not what happened, per the article, and it's the only thing referenced in the original article. They seem so be scratching for shock value there, to get more eyeballs, and it doesn't pass the smell test.

---

First, put at least two or three investigators on this. I believe most agree slow-walking this is untenable.

I believe the lawyers synopsis still stands. Let's say there are 60 witnesses. Some will have only seen one or two episodes of mistreatment - those should be short interviews, easily documented. Some parents may primarily authenticate their daughters complaints. Most likely a pattern will emerge. If there were one to three athletes targeted every year, those will be focus points with corroboration.

Did staff alert the proper authorities? If true, galling issues are possible severance packages for coaches and administrators who didn't protect these young women.

I had no idea that USA Swimming top coaches were 85% male, and that the mistreatment of young swimmers was a big issue.

"Racism" - we don't have any alleged facts here, and competing politics. It took a long time for the racist comments of WNBA star Liz Cambage to be published. Not liking rap music isn't illegal, but it probably offends the woke crowd.

---

I have been involved as a witness to two investigations in the work world. They were far les complicated, and involved far less people and time periods than the McKeever situations. And yet the investigations took about 3 months to play out. Since the people involved both times where physically near my office, I was interviewed twice both times, a preliminary interview and then a follow-up after other people were interviewed. So expect a lot of people to get multiple interviews. Let's look at the distinctions in the situations:

1) Knowing the allegations. In my case that was no brainer. Here you have allegations, a lot of them quite general, from a newspaper article(s). The investigators need to get a written (or verbal which is less preferable) complaint that is a summary of concerns, which will need to be explored further with the complainants to draw out the specific detail needed to draft a procedurally fair set of allegations. For an allegation to be considered procedurally fair it should contain as a minimum, who was allegedly involved, what is alleged to have occurred and when. This will take some time given the number of people and time frames involved. This means that many complaints will need to be interviewed more than once to address likely conflicts in asserted facts.

2) Lawyers. None in my case. Every participant has the right to have a person they are comfortable with present while they participate in an investigative process (typically the interview). Under the Title 9 and Cal rules, the support person is there to offer only moral support to the person. They are not there to advocate or speak on behalf of the participant. This is SOP. Interference from a support person can be very disruptive and can be remedied by ensuring that the support person understands their role before they participate. Non-employes don't necessary have to follow those rules, which means negotiating with lawyers. For example, there was an accusation by a former Olympics coach that Terry fired. She will likely not be willing to come for the interview without her own counsel and different rules, since she could face a suit from Terry at some point. Something will have to be negotiated. There is no guarantee that non-employees will agree to cooperate, but the investigators have to take the time to give it a shot. And then there is getting Terry's cooperation, and no doubt she will be lawyered-up.


3) Number of people involved and time period covered and breath of allegations. Mine involved a limited number of employees. Good grief, just 60 people? The law firm has to make arrangements and interview much of the present team, many graduates, employees, former employees, parents, various doctors, a good portion of the AD staff (or even former staff) given that the investigation will look at they conduct in handling accusations, members to men's swim team, members of Olympics teams, and others as the investigation develops. And again, they may have to request multiple interviews. Given that every complaint has the potential to become a lawsuit, the investigators need to investigate every accusation in a manner in which it can be presented to a court of law, if necessary. So every potential witness needs to be considered.


4) Cooperation issues. Employees are required to be witnesses and provide information under policies at the convenience of the employer, which made my investigation go rather efficiently. The law firm doing the investigation will have no such power over most of the witnesses. They probably will have to wait for non-employee scheduling and decide which of the interviews need to be done live, which likely involves someone traveling. I suspect there will need to be negotiations with the attorneys for McKeever and some of the accusers.

5) Qualified investigators don't grow on trees. Even the largest law firms don't have that many employment attorneys qualified to do investigations and guess what, they have other clients who also have important investigations, that may be even much more high profile than a college swim team coach.

6) There is a lot more information involved. In my situations there was information to be managed, prep by the investigator, time for analysis and drafting of findings. Thus, 3 months. There is going to be mountain more of information here. Thousands of pages of clear and detailed records of the investigation are going to have to be developed to support investigation findings. A complete investigation needs to develop a witness list, sources for information and evidence, interview questions targeted to elicit crucial information and details, and a process for retention of documentation and other technical aspects that take time.

7) Developing Evidence. Not much in the cases I was in. Basically he said, she said, and a lot of asking people what they saw. Here there are allegations that involve health issues, so there is a ton of medical evidence to evaluate when it comes to the overtraining complaint. There is the argument that the D1 swimmer contemplating suicide had other issues than just the coach. So that is very broad look at the complaint's medical history and phycological profile. There may be that some complainant's won't be willing to provide all the requested medical data, but the investigator has to take the time to try to get the information.

The suggestion about how little time this investigation should take are as naive as the commentary about having D1 coaches that never shout, get angry, curse, or whatever is in their snowflake minds.

---

I think it is a mistake to view this as a typical corporate employment harassment complaint or a criminal prosecution.

The determination needs to be made quickly whether Teri McKeever is the right person to lead Cal swimming going forward. That should be done primarily by interviewing the current Cal swimmers individually. Determining what is best for them and for the program (future swimmers) going forward.

Again, the question and focus is not about making McKeever "wrong," the question is, is she RiGHT for Cal going forward?

It would have been far better if it had not gotten to this point. However, If the determination is made (relatively quickly) to go in a new direction, McKeever can be offered an administrative role, or retirement with the honor her accomplishments deserve. The current process, a six-month investigation with the prospect of McKeever potentially being fired for cause, leaving everyone in limbo is not healthy and is poor management. However, if in meetings with the student athletes, you gauge strong support for McKeever and believe the accusations of bullying and other abuse are baseless, then reassure the team and give them a plan going forward. If the vast majority of the team supports her then by all means, wait until she is cleared by the investigation. However, the determination of desired direction should not have to wait.

---

I understand your concerns and also why from a non-legal background you take the positions you do.

The problem is the Cal athletic department is not in charge here. The students and athletic department are part of a University and have to play by the school's rules. Cal, prompted by Congressional Legislation and court cases has put in place policies that must be followed (in fact, Cal is subject to a Federal consent decree to develop and enforce these policies). You can accuse whoever you want of poor management or whatever you feel is necessary to assuage your anger, but Cal is subject to basically to same rules as private employers for the types of allegations that have been made. And citing cases where the coach was fired because a team's won loss record didn't meet expectations doesn't change the equation. Lou probably would have been subject to an investigation if his conduct occurred today.

You can say pay Terry a ton of money to go away. But she probably will not accept that offer and instead want to vindicate her name, in which case you are right back to investigating her and waiting. But let's say she will take a huge payout. Who is going to pay it? You? Do we cut the crap out the future women's swimming budget for the next 50 years to fund it? That doesn't stop the requirements Cal must go through since Terry is not the only one being accused . And also because the law and Cal policy says these claims still have to be investigated. Not to mention Cal could get sued by accusing swimmers.

Or you could say terminate her. That might have been a great idea before these allegations went public. And you also want to start a modified investigation that violates Cal's own rules. From a legal perspective it could not get more dumb. if you terminate her now without due process, you might as well just roll the Brinks truck up to her front door. Not to mention you violated the consent decree. The cost to Cal could be astronomical, and it is Campus picking up the tab. If you think the Campus isn't willing to sacrifice a team to protect its mission, then you must have missed how Jason Wilcox was muted to defend his program against the City of Berkeley Health Department, so that Cal could get its building entitlements through the City of Berkeley.

The only scenario that this really plays out is the investigators find the "bad" accusations accurate and Terry is pushed out with her agreement or fired for cause. If will likely take a non-disclosure to make her voluntary leave, which is another reason an outside investigation under the cloak of attorney client privilege is being used. That said, I don't know how this plays out for the administrators who are under scrutiny. But I really don't see a scenario where "the determination of desired direction should not have to wait" is viable. Nor does it appear does Cal. Look for someone to be wearing the interim coach label for some time.

---

Wyking Jones was reportedly fired by Knowlton after several players went to Knowlton saying they wanted a change. Did that violate the university rules and laws that you have cited?

Coaches are fired all the time. Very, very rarely "for cause" (without pay). In fact, their contracts almost always stipulate what the payment will be if they are terminated. Therefore, it is permitted under their contract. That is different than "being paid to go away." It is following their contract. Their contract determines their employment, not university HR policies.

The investigation needs to continue, of course. I am just saying the women's swim program needs to be managed and the swimmers need to be taken care of.

A preferred direction needs to be decided on quickly. This is not an "informal investigation" it is not asking "what happened" it is asking the student athletes what they need and want going forward. If the team wants Teri back that gives you a path (subject to the results of the investigation), if they don't thst gives you a path.

---

You clearly don't want to hear this. But let me try again. No one leveled charges against Jones regarding harassment, discrimination, physical abuse, and other things which fall within the purview of Cal policies. Just not being a very good coach.

You don't know what you are talking about on the contracts. You simply made-up a bunch of BS. If a coach is fired for cause they don't get paid severance or a buy-out fee. You could not be more wrong on the policies not being in the contract - which are expressly incorporated into contracts. You seem to have some idiotic notion that a buy-out fee is somehow is like liquidated damages for breaching the agreement. Once the allegations are made the contractual default is to the policies. You then instead want to replace those polices with your own abbreviated process, which would violate the contract and and a federal consent decree. The employee is then entitled to damages for breach not the termination fee.

Then a comparison of this post and your last post turns to utter gibberish. in the latest post you return with "the investigation needs to continue, of course" which means you seem to want to run now two sets of investigations: the abbreviated investigation in your prior post or the long one required by contract and law? Is this so every party can take a shot at suing? Then you come back with the stupid notion of having a plebiscite. Terry may have violated federal laws, harmed swimmers, and subjected Cal to lawsuits, but you know who gives a crap if the majority of swimmers want her back. Btu wait, now you say that vote is subject to the results of an investigation. First of alll, which investigation? Because if its the full out investigation that you need to comply with your policies, what the F are you talking about, and if its your let's talk to few people and conclude if Terry did it, then pretty much everyone gets to sue Cal. Not sure you get this, but the athletes don't get to hold a vote under any contact in any coach's contract.

This is why Cal uses actual lawyers to interpret contracts and advise the Chancellor, and she has taken the acoitn she has.

Why don't you send this with Diablo's letter to the Chancellor, I'm sure she once she

---

I never said university rules would not be incorporated into the contract, what I said is she is not a normal employee, she has an employment contract and the contract should govern the terms by which she can be fired with the buyout or fired for cause without.

It is June. A six month investigation will come back in December.

Are you saying that, putting aside final disposition of McKeever's contract, Cal cannot legally hire a new swim coach right now even if they want to? And if she is cleared at the end of the year she cannot be fired under the contract like other coaches?

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Don't believe anyone has posted McKeever's most recent contract but here it is: https://swimswam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/McKeever-T-30Apr2024.pdf

Looks like a termination without cause would only entitle her to a buyout of around $180k (50% of this year's $240k salary, 25% of next year's), which is certainly less than they will spend "investigating" the alleged wrongdoing. The contract includes some interesting terms like a waiver of a Skelly hearing as well as a very broad definition of cause.

I'm sure the University will figure out a way to screw all this up however and that it will cost the university far more than anticipated.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Did bad things happen at MD? It seems so. LOL - who is not paying attention? You asked for examples ....

And whether or not Cal chooses to respond, the reporter still has an obligation to ask for a comment on all allegations. That is journalism 101.

---

Quote:

---

Cal can do whatever it wants, it simply is a matter of much liability it wants to take on. If it terminates McKeever now without an investigation, it simply breached her contract and faces potentially large damages (and probably huge push back from donors, the media, members of the Cal swimming community, etc). It is Cal's money and they clearly are not replacing McKeever until the investigation is over. Hiring a new coach (w/o an interim title) is a constructive termination for McKeever's contract.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Don't believe anyone has posted McKeever's most recent contract but here it is: https://swimswam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/McKeever-T-30Apr2024.pdf

Looks like a termination without cause would only entitle her to a buyout of around $180k (50% of this year's $240k salary, 25% of next year's), which is certainly less than they will spend "investigating" the alleged wrongdoing. The contract includes some interesting terms like a waiver of a Skelly hearing as well as a very broad definition of cause.

I'm sure the University will figure out a way to screw all this up however and that it will cost the university far more than anticipated.

---

Thank you for posting that. I wonder what the internal politics are within the aquatics donor community? It could be that McKeever has her supporters and the larger concern is losing donor support?

And given that the allegations relate to others, including Knowlton, I assume an investigation would be required in any event.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Don't believe anyone has posted McKeever's most recent contract but here it is: https://swimswam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/McKeever-T-30Apr2024.pdf

Looks like a termination without cause would only entitle her to a buyout of around $180k (50% of this year's $240k salary, 25% of next year's), which is certainly less than they will spend "investigating" the alleged wrongdoing. The contract includes some interesting terms like a waiver of a Skelly hearing as well as a very broad definition of cause.

I'm sure the University will figure out a way to screw all this up however and that it will cost the university far more than anticipated.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Don't believe anyone has posted McKeever's most recent contract but here it is: https://swimswam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/McKeever-T-30Apr2024.pdf

Looks like a termination without cause would only entitle her to a buyout of around $180k (50% of this year's $240k salary, 25% of next year's), which is certainly less than they will spend "investigating" the alleged wrongdoing. The contract includes some interesting terms like a waiver of a Skelly hearing as well as a very broad definition of cause.

I'm sure the University will figure out a way to screw all this up however and that it will cost the university far more than anticipated.

---

Thank you for posting that. I wonder what the internal politics are within the aquatics donor community? It could be that McKeever has her supporters and the larger concern is losing donor support?

And given that the allegations relate to others, including Knowlton, I assume an investigation would be required in any event.

---

Yeah no idea what the donor politics or historical practices are but this is a very university favorable contract. I didn't see constructive termination (which WIAF mentioned) and the cause definition is extremely broad and includes performance (which is atypical) as well as a number of elements which are implicated by the allegations.

---

BearSD said:

---

Quote:

---

Cal can do whatever it wants, it simply is a matter of much liability it wants to take on. If it terminates McKeever now without an investigation, it simply breached her contract and faces potentially large damages (and probably huge push back from donors, the media, members of the Cal swimming community, etc). It is Cal's money and they clearly are not replacing McKeever until the investigation is over. Hiring a new coach (w/o an interim title) is a constructive termination for McKeever's contract.

---

???

If the contract allows the university to simply pay a buyout and let the coach go, it's not a breach of the contract.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Don't believe anyone has posted McKeever's most recent contract but here it is: https://swimswam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/McKeever-T-30Apr2024.pdf

Looks like a termination without cause would only entitle her to a buyout of around $180k (50% of this year's $240k salary, 25% of next year's), which is certainly less than they will spend "investigating" the alleged wrongdoing. The contract includes some interesting terms like a waiver of a Skelly hearing as well as a very broad definition of cause.

I'm sure the University will figure out a way to screw all this up however and that it will cost the university far more than anticipated.

---

Thank you for posting that. I wonder what the internal politics are within the aquatics donor community? It could be that McKeever has her supporters and the larger concern is losing donor support?

And given that the allegations relate to others, including Knowlton, I assume an investigation would be required in any event.

---

Yeah no idea what the donor politics or historical practices are but this is a very university favorable contract. I didn't see constructive termination (which WIAF mentioned) and the cause definition is extremely broad and includes performance (which is atypical) as well as a number of elements which are implicated by the allegations.

---

Why would any contract ever mention constructive termination? It is a legal concept where at least in California law is a situation where an employer intentionally creates or knowingly permits such intolerable working conditions the employee can't do therijob. For example, giving their job to another person would be per se constructive termination.

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Quote:

---

Cal can do whatever it wants, it simply is a matter of much liability it wants to take on. If it terminates McKeever now without an investigation, it simply breached her contract and faces potentially large damages (and probably huge push back from donors, the media, members of the Cal swimming community, etc). It is Cal's money and they clearly are not replacing McKeever until the investigation is over. Hiring a new coach (w/o an interim title) is a constructive termination for McKeever's contract.

---

???

If the contract allows the university to simply pay a buyout and let the coach go, it's not a breach of the contract.

---

Exactly my point all along. I don't know why WIAF is being so insulting in this discussion, it is uncharacteristic of him.

The investigation would of course continue, but should focus as much on Knowlton's actions/inactions as McKeever.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Quote:

---

Cal can do whatever it wants, it simply is a matter of much liability it wants to take on. If it terminates McKeever now without an investigation, it simply breached her contract and faces potentially large damages (and probably huge push back from donors, the media, members of the Cal swimming community, etc). It is Cal's money and they clearly are not replacing McKeever until the investigation is over. Hiring a new coach (w/o an interim title) is a constructive termination for McKeever's contract.

---

???

If the contract allows the university to simply pay a buyout and let the coach go, it's not a breach of the contract.

---

Exactly my point all along. I don't know why WIAF is being so insulting in this discussion, it is uncharacteristic of him.

The investigation would of course continue, but should focus as much on Knowlton's actions/inactions as McKeever.

---

You ned to stop making stuff-up about the contract, and instead read it.

Section 6 expressly incorporates the policies that require an investigation of these allegations before an employee can be terminated. Not only does it reference the specific policy, it also restates that any changes to policies regarding discrimination, harassment, etc. can be changed and those changes are incorporated into the contract.

I actually read the contract before commenting, so this is now my third telling you this.

You stated:

"The determination needs to be made quickly whether Teri McKeever is the right person to lead Cal swimming going forward. That should be done primarily by interviewing the current Cal swimmers individually. Determining what is best for them and for the program (future swimmers) going forward." NO, the incorporated policies control

"It would have been far better if it had not gotten to this point. However, If the determination is made (relatively quickly) to go in a new direction, McKeever can be offered an administrative role, or retirement with the honor her accomplishments deserve." There is absolutely no right under the contact for Cal to be able to do this.


"if in meetings with the student athletes, you gauge strong support for McKeever and believe the accusations of bullying and other abuse are baseless, then reassure the team and give them a plan going forward. If the vast majority of the team supports her then by all means, wait until she is cleared by the investigation. However, the determination of desired direction should not have to wait. NO, the contract doesn't provide for any of this. Many of the accusations are alleged to occur for period before many if not all of these swimmers even were on the team . It also overrides the right of the employer to separate the accused from the accusers, which beside being employment 101, is part of the incorporated policies.

"The determination needs to be made quickly whether Teri McKeever is the right person to lead Cal swimming going forward. That should be done primarily by interviewing the current Cal swimmers individually. Determining what is best for them and for the program (future swimmers) going forward." No, when allegations are made the policies control and you don't get to make-up procedures. This is an automatic vote for McKeever by swimmers who want continuity (and the fact the complainants are a small number of the current swimmers). There is no authority to do this under applicable policies, and Cal should suspect automatic lawsuits from the complainants and to crucified in the media. The path forward once you allegations that trigger these policies is these policies, and the contract doesn't say otherwise, no less what you are proposing.

"If the contract allows the university to simply pay a buyout and let the coach go, it's not a breach of the contract." No, unless you want to delete Section 6 of the contact.

"Their contract determines their employment, not university HR policies. No, the contract is littered with incorpoations of "HR policies."

This is why Cal uses actual lawyers to read and interpret contracts and advise the Chancellor, and she has taken the action she has.

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Don't believe anyone has posted McKeever's most recent contract but here it is: https://swimswam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/McKeever-T-30Apr2024.pdf

Looks like a termination without cause would only entitle her to a buyout of around $180k (50% of this year's $240k salary, 25% of next year's), which is certainly less than they will spend "investigating" the alleged wrongdoing. The contract includes some interesting terms like a waiver of a Skelly hearing as well as a very broad definition of cause.

I'm sure the University will figure out a way to screw all this up however and that it will cost the university far more than anticipated.

---

Thank you for posting that. I wonder what the internal politics are within the aquatics donor community? It could be that McKeever has her supporters and the larger concern is losing donor support?

And given that the allegations relate to others, including Knowlton, I assume an investigation would be required in any event.

---

Yeah no idea what the donor politics or historical practices are but this is a very university favorable contract. I didn't see constructive termination (which WIAF mentioned) and the cause definition is extremely broad and includes performance (which is atypical) as well as a number of elements which are implicated by the allegations.

---

Why would any contract ever mention constructive termination? It is a legal concept where at least in California law is a situation where an employer intentionally creates or knowingly permits such intolerable working conditions the employee can't do therijob. For example, giving their job to another person would be per se constructive termination.

---

So you believe Levy, Willsey, White, Theder, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe, Tedford, Dykes, Kutchen, Campanelli, Braun and Jones all could have sued Cal when they were terminated and received their payout as per their contracts? If not, what makes McKeever's situation so different in your mind?

---

Quote:

---

12. TERMINATION BY UNIVERSITY WITHOUT CAUSE. In addition to and exclusive of the foregoing provisions, there is also reserved to the University the right to terminate this Contract without cause at any time by giving written notice to Coach of such decision. Except as set forth below, in the event the University terminates this Contract without cause pursuant to this Paragraph 12, the University shall pay to Coach as liquidated damages, in lieu of any and all other legal remedies or equitable relief, the following sum(s):

In the event the University terminates Coach's employment pursuant to this Section, the University shall pay to Coach the base salary for the remainder of the Contract Year (as identified in Paragraph 2.A titled "Compensation - Base Salary" in the Contract Addendum) during which Coach was terminated, as well the base salary for all remaining Contract Years, based upon the percentages as outlined below:

Contract Year 1 - 100% of base salary for the Contract Year
Contract Year 2 - 100% of base salary for the Contract Year
Contract Year 3 - 75% of base salary for the Contract Year
Contract Year 4 - 50% of base salary for the Contract Year
Contract Year 5 - 25% of base salary for the Contract Year

The University's obligation pursuant to this paragraph shall not extend beyond the Term. For purposes of this Paragraph 12, base salary is as identified in Paragraph 2.A titled "Compensation - Base Salary" in the Contract Addendum. These payments to Coach by University shall be paid in substantially equal monthly installments during what would have been the remaining term of this Contract had it not been terminated. University shall also pay to Coach all compensation including performance-based compensation earned by Coach prior to the effective date of termination. University shall not be liable to Coach for any University benefits, which are not vested at the time of termination, nor for any collateral business opportunities or other benefits associated with Coach's position as Coach.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Did bad things happen at MD? It seems so. LOL - who is not paying attention? You asked for examples ....

And whether or not Cal chooses to respond, the reporter still has an obligation to ask for a comment on all allegations. That is journalism 101.

---

YOU are not paying attention.

Former Cal swimmers like Missy Franklin were ASKED by reporter Scott Reid to comment. Franklin declined.

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Don't believe anyone has posted McKeever's most recent contract but here it is: https://swimswam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/McKeever-T-30Apr2024.pdf

Looks like a termination without cause would only entitle her to a buyout of around $180k (50% of this year's $240k salary, 25% of next year's), which is certainly less than they will spend "investigating" the alleged wrongdoing. The contract includes some interesting terms like a waiver of a Skelly hearing as well as a very broad definition of cause.

I'm sure the University will figure out a way to screw all this up however and that it will cost the university far more than anticipated.

---

Thank you for posting that. I wonder what the internal politics are within the aquatics donor community? It could be that McKeever has her supporters and the larger concern is losing donor support?

And given that the allegations relate to others, including Knowlton, I assume an investigation would be required in any event.

---

Yeah no idea what the donor politics or historical practices are but this is a very university favorable contract. I didn't see constructive termination (which WIAF mentioned) and the cause definition is extremely broad and includes performance (which is atypical) as well as a number of elements which are implicated by the allegations.

---

Why would any contract ever mention constructive termination? It is a legal concept where at least in California law is a situation where an employer intentionally creates or knowingly permits such intolerable working conditions the employee can't do therijob. For example, giving their job to another person would be per se constructive termination.

---

So you believe Levy, Willsey, White, Theder, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe, Tedford, Dykes, Kutchen, Campanelli, Braun and Jones all could have sued Cal when they were terminated and received their payout as per their contracts? If not, what makes McKeever's situation so different in your mind?

---

I don't think it is different.

Paragraph 12 of McKeever's contract allows the university to terminate with no cause by making the payments specified in that paragraph. Paragraph 6 applies only if the university chooses to terminate for cause and pay the coach nothing.

We can all read this ourselves:

"... there is also reserved to the University the right to terminate this Contract without cause at any time by giving written notice to Coach of such decision."

Quote:

---

12. TERMINATION BY UNIVERSITY WITHOUT CAUSE. In addition to and exclusive of the foregoing provisions, there is also reserved to the University the right to terminate this Contract without cause at any time by giving written notice to Coach of such decision. Except as set forth below, in the event the University terminates this Contract without cause pursuant to this Paragraph 12, the University shall pay to Coach as liquidated damages, in lieu of any and all other legal remedies or equitable relief, the following sum(s):

In the event the University terminates Coach's employment pursuant to this Section, the University shall pay to Coach the base salary for the remainder of the Contract Year (as identified in Paragraph 2.A titled "Compensation - Base Salary" in the Contract Addendum) during which Coach was terminated, as well the base salary for all remaining Contract Years, based upon the percentages as outlined below:

Contract Year 1 - 100% of base salary for the Contract Year
Contract Year 2 - 100% of base salary for the Contract Year
Contract Year 3 - 75% of base salary for the Contract Year
Contract Year 4 - 50% of base salary for the Contract Year
Contract Year 5 - 25% of base salary for the Contract Year

The University's obligation pursuant to this paragraph shall not extend beyond the Term. For purposes of this Paragraph 12, base salary is as identified in Paragraph 2.A titled "Compensation - Base Salary" in the Contract Addendum. These payments to Coach by University shall be paid in substantially equal monthly installments during what would have been the remaining term of this Contract had it not been terminated. University shall also pay to Coach all compensation including performance-based compensation earned by Coach prior to the effective date of termination. University shall not be liable to Coach for any University benefits, which are not vested at the time of termination, nor for any collateral business opportunities or other benefits associated with Coach's position as Coach.

---

---

BearSD said:

---

Paragraph 12 of McKeever's contract allows the university to terminate with no cause by making the payments specified in that paragraph. Paragraph 6 applies only if the university chooses to terminate for cause and pay the coach nothing.

We can all read this ourselves:

"... there is also reserved to the University the right to terminate this Contract without cause at any time by giving written notice to Coach of such decision."

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Don't believe anyone has posted McKeever's most recent contract but here it is: https://swimswam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/McKeever-T-30Apr2024.pdf

Looks like a termination without cause would only entitle her to a buyout of around $180k (50% of this year's $240k salary, 25% of next year's), which is certainly less than they will spend "investigating" the alleged wrongdoing. The contract includes some interesting terms like a waiver of a Skelly hearing as well as a very broad definition of cause.

I'm sure the University will figure out a way to screw all this up however and that it will cost the university far more than anticipated.

---

Thank you for posting that. I wonder what the internal politics are within the aquatics donor community? It could be that McKeever has her supporters and the larger concern is losing donor support?

And given that the allegations relate to others, including Knowlton, I assume an investigation would be required in any event.

---

Yeah no idea what the donor politics or historical practices are but this is a very university favorable contract. I didn't see constructive termination (which WIAF mentioned) and the cause definition is extremely broad and includes performance (which is atypical) as well as a number of elements which are implicated by the allegations.

---

Why would any contract ever mention constructive termination? It is a legal concept where at least in California law is a situation where an employer intentionally creates or knowingly permits such intolerable working conditions the employee can't do therijob. For example, giving their job to another person would be per se constructive termination.

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Paragraph 12 of McKeever's contract allows the university to terminate with no cause by making the payments specified in that paragraph. Paragraph 6 applies only if the university chooses to terminate for cause and pay the coach nothing.

We can all read this ourselves:

"... there is also reserved to the University the right to terminate this Contract without cause at any time by giving written notice to Coach of such decision."

---

No need for a 6 month "investigation" with a high priced law firm.
No need to make certain that any allegations or claims made against McKeever can stand the test of a Court of Law or some sort of HR "policy". McKeever's contract is extremely clear. Cal can terminate McKeever at any time without cause.

---