Haase signs extension

  • Haase signs unique extension with UAB

    Haase might not be able to critize the administration but I will for him. What a bs contract. I didn’t know UAB was ran by the Chinese. If the administration is going to make controversial calls like shutting down the football program they should expect people to speak their mind. Who’s next to be out of a program, job there?

  • @Kip_McSmithers Not unlike the psuedo Big 12. You never hear the coaches badmouth officials.

  • @brooksmd

    It is not just the Big 12; I believe all the conferences have rules against criticizing the referees publicly and will incur fines if they do so…it might even be a NCAA rule.

  • @JayHawkFanToo I’m sure. But know for a fact the psuedo Big 12 does and my point being what is in Haase’s contract is not at all unusual.

  • @brooksmd

    The university president is under fire and facing a vote of no confidence, partly because the elimination of the football program. It is indeed highly unusual to specifically insert a clause preventing Hasse from criticizing school officials; normally this is covered by other, more generic, clauses.

  • Does this mean Haase cannot comment publicly that the chancellor is raping another employee, or embezzling, or firing someone for practicing a religion, etc.?

    Does Haase no longer have the right to publicly criticize the Chancellor for running sham classes for certain students?

    There ought to be a law against this sort of thing in a free country. Are we a free country?

  • @JayHawkFanToo @brooksmd this contract is how @jaybate-1.0 laid it out. Haase can’t critize the schools’ president. Are they imposing gag orders on all incoming students so they don’t tweet, facebook, snapchat, or ect about it??? Wouldn’t be shocked with this move.

  • @Kip_McSmithers

    Although in the last 6 years we have lost some freedoms and all, and I mean ALL of our privacy, we are still a somewhat free country and Hasse was free to sign or not sign the contract.

    I personally think the clause, in the context presented in the story, and much like most non-compete clauses in contracts, a half way decent attorney can get around it and make it unenforceable without too much problem. I am sure the contract specifically refers to criticism of administrative decision such as eliminating the football programs or changes to the Athletic Department budget or admission/eligibility criteria and such. More specifically, the items @jaybate-1.0 indicated in the first paragraph above are most likely unenforceable and if the school tries to enforce it, first, it would have a tough time having it upheld in a court of law and second, the backlash would be huge, particularly for public institution; a private school might have better luck…

    These type of clauses are normally part of the “morals or morality clause” in contracts which limits some but not all behavior. It is very likely that this particular item is a proviso of such clause and just taken out of context in the story. This type of clause is typical of endorsement contracts, where a business paying and endorser/celebrity/athlete a huge amount of money, obviously does not want the endorser badmouthing the product or business and I am sure all coaches have such clause in their contracts. Most likely the is “much a do about nothing” as Shakespeare would say.

  • @Kip_McSmithers

    Always remember, Shakespeare’s recurring theme was appearance vs. reality and his recurring setting of 2/3s of his work–in histories and tragedies–featured the corruption, intrigue, conspiracy and murder amidst the court and aristocracy. He understood something was rotten in Denmark and in his own kingdom too. His life spanned the late high Renaissance, the disillusioning mannerist period and then the top down coercion of the very early baroque period of the Renaissance and was describing a Renaissance beginning to be understood as hopelessly corrupt and spiraling downward out of control due to corruption at the top. It was his horrific message wrapped beautifully in language and skillfully in dramatic construction for posterity. He knew what he was talking about. It was also the rapacious age of Discovery. We recall him now so frequently because we have been moving through another Renaissance the last two centuries.

    And what he said of his resonates in ours.

  • @jaybate-1.0 I once worked for a large German company that had all kinds of official policies. It emboldened some individuals to be blatant about their lifestyle. I got tired of it and once made a comment while some of us were out drinking. That comment got back to someone above my pay-grade and the next review I got put me on probation for bad performance, with no mention of any offense. Just bad marks although I was always above quota. I quit shortly there after. Right in front of my desk is a bookcase with two plaques from said company congratulating me for above quota performance for the two years I was an employee there. It reminds me how screwed up things can be with some people and/or organizations.

  • @JayhawkRock78

    Thanks for sharing that one! Whew!

    All bureaucracies–large and small–are routinized and so very vulnerable to emergent complexity.

    All large organizations in private and public sectors are ever more bureaucratic and unwieldy.

    Transparency is the only way to know what a bureaucracy is doing.

    Thus secrecy is the enemy of us all in a free society full of bureaucracy and national security compartmentalization and opacity.

    Secrecy breeds unaccountability.

    Unaccountability encourages abuse of power to concentrate power.

    Concentrated power leads to cost shifting onto all but the top of the bureaucracy.

    Cost shifting destroys the will of the lower 80 percent of the bureaucracy to find solutions at the levels they need to be found at.

    Ricardo’s top 20% begin to make all decisions and actions based on the assumption that bottom 80% cannot execute effectively.

    The bureaucracy ceases to serve its function and instead becomes an organization seeking only to perpetuate the top 20%.

    The top 20 percent see diminshing returns in cannabalizing the bottom 80 percent and instead begin to divide and conquer the top 20% and cannabalize it.

    This process continues until half of one percent is left being perpetuated and the organization is really just a giant hulk dead in the water going out of business, or through serial bankruptcies and bailouts, only dying when the government that subsidizes it finally collapses itself.

    Glad you are out of it.

  • Thanks. You are describing some the other half of the problems I had in that organization. More and more meetings, reports, and rules and less and less autonomy to do one’s job.

    The current job I have is 180 degrees from that and I count myself very lucky.

Log in to reply