Well Sid has been at it again. He filed his response to Duke's response. In many ways, these two litigants deserve each other. It's sort of pot calling the kettle black sort of litigation. However, Duke does have the law and equity on its side. Sid did file this case once, he lost on the merits. Now he wants to do it again, just exactly the same way. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and expecting a different result. That's Sid. For the good of all litigants, we cannot allow endless re-litigation of the same claims over and over again.
Walt-in-Durham
Friday, January 31, 2014
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Durham Police under a microscope.
According to WTVD the DPD has some explaining to do. All I have to say is the innocent lacrosse players have been suing for an independent monitor for years. Now you see why it's a good idea. Had the city accepted the players' suggestion, an independent monitor would be in place today. No matter what side you are on, the monitor could give a fair report and suggest changes. Then we would know if something is wrong.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt-in-Durham
Friday, January 17, 2014
Chancellor Folt responds to reading scandal.
Chancellor Carol Folt has responded with an open letter to the UNC community. Some background, UNC has been embroiled in athletic and academic scandal since the infamous tweet by Marvin Austin about a party he attended in Miami while he was still an undergrad. The problem with that party was, Austin was in college and there were questions about impermissible benefits to student athletes raised. It's been all down hill from there.
Of late, a reading specialist at UNC Mary Willingham has alleged that a number of UNC student athletes don't read at a college level. Michael Mcadoo has characterized academics for athletes at UNC as "a scam." in a WTVD report. In the same report, UNC has disputed Willingham's claims.
Chancellor Folt in her response, has asked for time to investigate. Yet another investigation, after seven. The picture the investigations paint is one where the institution is circling the wagons and there seems to be a lack of institutional control of its athletic processes. Because she is new, although hopefully hired with full disclosure, I am inclined to give Folt some time to investigate again. Otherwise, it's time for UNC System to step in and show some leadership.
Walt-in-Durham
Of late, a reading specialist at UNC Mary Willingham has alleged that a number of UNC student athletes don't read at a college level. Michael Mcadoo has characterized academics for athletes at UNC as "a scam." in a WTVD report. In the same report, UNC has disputed Willingham's claims.
Chancellor Folt in her response, has asked for time to investigate. Yet another investigation, after seven. The picture the investigations paint is one where the institution is circling the wagons and there seems to be a lack of institutional control of its athletic processes. Because she is new, although hopefully hired with full disclosure, I am inclined to give Folt some time to investigate again. Otherwise, it's time for UNC System to step in and show some leadership.
Walt-in-Durham
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Why wait so long?
WTVD is reporting on the Huerta protests. The most important part of the report though comes well down the page. WTVD and other news outlets got a look at text messages from city leaders. On the morning of the Huerta death, this is the exchange between Chief Jose Lopez and City Manager Tom Bonfield. At 3:32 AM Lopez texted: "17 yr old male was arrested, but not searched well and had a gun concealed, shot himself in back of police car while at the rear of police headquarters. He has died."
Folks, that is the gist of the report issued by DPD's professional responsibility and training officer six weeks after Huerta's death. The report that Lopez himself told the Mayor and City Council was not yet ready. So what was going on in those six weeks? Was the DPD looking for evidence to support what they had told the Chief in the wee hours after Huerta's death? Contrast this reticence with the DPD's conduct during the lacrosse hoax. The DPD was spewing out information, most of it erroneous, but still they had no reluctance to disclose where they were in the so called "investigation."
Walt-in-Durham
Folks, that is the gist of the report issued by DPD's professional responsibility and training officer six weeks after Huerta's death. The report that Lopez himself told the Mayor and City Council was not yet ready. So what was going on in those six weeks? Was the DPD looking for evidence to support what they had told the Chief in the wee hours after Huerta's death? Contrast this reticence with the DPD's conduct during the lacrosse hoax. The DPD was spewing out information, most of it erroneous, but still they had no reluctance to disclose where they were in the so called "investigation."
Walt-in-Durham
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Huerta Police Report released.
WTVD reports the DPD has released the report from Professional Standards. Here is the report.
Professional Standards makes clear that Officer Samuel Duncan did not search Huerta fully. Duncan was a new officer and had to be told by another officer before transporting Huerta that Huerta was trying to get out of the handcuffs. Duncan did not activate the in car video system when he was transporting Huerta. The Professional Standards report also says that Duncan was not advised that Huerta had threatened suicide. What we had was a new officer who did not get all the information the DPD had. Duncan failed to use the tools he had, the in car video and good police practices. That is he did not do a very good search. The DPD failed to communicate all the information they had to Duncan. A shared failure.
Walt-in-Durham
Professional Standards makes clear that Officer Samuel Duncan did not search Huerta fully. Duncan was a new officer and had to be told by another officer before transporting Huerta that Huerta was trying to get out of the handcuffs. Duncan did not activate the in car video system when he was transporting Huerta. The Professional Standards report also says that Duncan was not advised that Huerta had threatened suicide. What we had was a new officer who did not get all the information the DPD had. Duncan failed to use the tools he had, the in car video and good police practices. That is he did not do a very good search. The DPD failed to communicate all the information they had to Duncan. A shared failure.
Walt-in-Durham
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Huerta warrant released.
The police finally released the warrant return on Jesus Huerta, according to WTVD. The return discloses that police found electronics reported stolen from homes in Huerta's neighborhood. That does not excuse the DPD of course.
The DPD is behaving true to form. They are now releasing information that puts them in the best light and slanted against Huerta. This is the way the DPD acted in the lacrosse hoax and in too many other cases. This does not answer the key questions in the case: (1) did Officer Duncan adequately search Huerta when he arrested him and (2) did Officer Duncan adequately search his patrol car before taking it out? I suspect the timing of these latest revelations about Huerta is intentional. There is some damning evidence about to come out about either Duncan or the DPD.
Walt-in-Durham
The DPD is behaving true to form. They are now releasing information that puts them in the best light and slanted against Huerta. This is the way the DPD acted in the lacrosse hoax and in too many other cases. This does not answer the key questions in the case: (1) did Officer Duncan adequately search Huerta when he arrested him and (2) did Officer Duncan adequately search his patrol car before taking it out? I suspect the timing of these latest revelations about Huerta is intentional. There is some damning evidence about to come out about either Duncan or the DPD.
Walt-in-Durham
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Unemployment Benefits
Unemployment benefits have been in the news lately , especially UI for the long term unemployed. NC has taken a lot of heat from liberals and outsiders who really don't like Republicans very much. Senator Berger and House Speaker Tillis have gone on record blaming Senator Kay Hagan for much of the problem. I think I should explain a bit.
When the Democratic Party controlled the NC legislature, they made a number of changes to the unemployment law that kept state UI rates low. Those changes, coupled with the federal UI law that keeps rates low when there are few people unemployed, helped make NC more attractive to employers. That in turn kept employment figures high and rates low. A virtuous cycle, if you will.
Employers have two taxes that individual taxpayers never encounter on their 1040s. Employers have FUTA and SUTA taxes. Federal Unemployment Tax Act and State Unemployment Tax Act. Those rates are set fairly low and generally apply to only the first $8000 of each employee's wages. Most states adjust the SUTA tax by employer based on the employer's track record of laying off people. The more people an employer puts on UI, the higher its rate. Simple enough. But, in the good years, NC stopped adjusting employers individually. In stead, and this is where Kay Hagan comes in, the NC legislature changed the law. Hagen was the chairperson of the Senate Finance Committee that wrote the changes in the SUTA for North Carolina. She and the other Democrats who voted for the changes (in those days the Dems simply ignored the GOP as the Dems had a super majority) did so in the belief that keeping taxes lower even for employers who laid off workers would make it easier to attract new employers to NC. That worked well enough for a while.
But, the Great Recession was too much for the NC UI system. Too many people lost their jobs through no fault of their own. They turned to UI for assistance. But, NC was unprepared for the massive influx of newly unemployed high wage earners. Very quickly, NC had to borrow $2.0 billion from the federal government to keep making UI payments Our debt exploded from nothing to $2.0 billion in just three years.
Then, the GOP was swept into power in state government. One of the many problems facing the newly in power Republicans was what to do with $2.0 billion in debt to the federal government. The federal government had a mechanism to collect the debt, the FUTA. The federal law called for a roughly 810% increase in FUTA taxes across the board for NC employers. That would cripple North Carolina's efforts to attract new jobs and expand existing companies. The GOP looked for and found a different way. Cut benefits to levels consistent with surrounding states, and cut the length of time an unemployed person can receive UI benefits.
Finally, the GOP leadership thought there would be a compromise on the fiscal cliff in Washington. They had worked with the federal government in crafting the new NC law that would avoid a massive FUTA tax increase, so they were not working in isolation. (Here comes Hagan again.) The GOP asked Kay Hagan, now in the U.S. Senate to "grandfather in" the NC law so that if there was a federal extension of UI benefits, NC would participate without the massive FUTA tax increase. She didn't get that done. Thus NC's unemployed lost out. Berger and Tillis are working to get the NC law grandfathered into any upcoming compromise to extend UI benefits in congress. Read about Berger's take on the mess at his website.
Walt-in-Durham
When the Democratic Party controlled the NC legislature, they made a number of changes to the unemployment law that kept state UI rates low. Those changes, coupled with the federal UI law that keeps rates low when there are few people unemployed, helped make NC more attractive to employers. That in turn kept employment figures high and rates low. A virtuous cycle, if you will.
Employers have two taxes that individual taxpayers never encounter on their 1040s. Employers have FUTA and SUTA taxes. Federal Unemployment Tax Act and State Unemployment Tax Act. Those rates are set fairly low and generally apply to only the first $8000 of each employee's wages. Most states adjust the SUTA tax by employer based on the employer's track record of laying off people. The more people an employer puts on UI, the higher its rate. Simple enough. But, in the good years, NC stopped adjusting employers individually. In stead, and this is where Kay Hagan comes in, the NC legislature changed the law. Hagen was the chairperson of the Senate Finance Committee that wrote the changes in the SUTA for North Carolina. She and the other Democrats who voted for the changes (in those days the Dems simply ignored the GOP as the Dems had a super majority) did so in the belief that keeping taxes lower even for employers who laid off workers would make it easier to attract new employers to NC. That worked well enough for a while.
But, the Great Recession was too much for the NC UI system. Too many people lost their jobs through no fault of their own. They turned to UI for assistance. But, NC was unprepared for the massive influx of newly unemployed high wage earners. Very quickly, NC had to borrow $2.0 billion from the federal government to keep making UI payments Our debt exploded from nothing to $2.0 billion in just three years.
Then, the GOP was swept into power in state government. One of the many problems facing the newly in power Republicans was what to do with $2.0 billion in debt to the federal government. The federal government had a mechanism to collect the debt, the FUTA. The federal law called for a roughly 810% increase in FUTA taxes across the board for NC employers. That would cripple North Carolina's efforts to attract new jobs and expand existing companies. The GOP looked for and found a different way. Cut benefits to levels consistent with surrounding states, and cut the length of time an unemployed person can receive UI benefits.
Finally, the GOP leadership thought there would be a compromise on the fiscal cliff in Washington. They had worked with the federal government in crafting the new NC law that would avoid a massive FUTA tax increase, so they were not working in isolation. (Here comes Hagan again.) The GOP asked Kay Hagan, now in the U.S. Senate to "grandfather in" the NC law so that if there was a federal extension of UI benefits, NC would participate without the massive FUTA tax increase. She didn't get that done. Thus NC's unemployed lost out. Berger and Tillis are working to get the NC law grandfathered into any upcoming compromise to extend UI benefits in congress. Read about Berger's take on the mess at his website.
Walt-in-Durham
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Memo to Carol Folt and Bubba Cunningham - CLEAN UP THE MESS!
Bloomberg's Business Week is out this week with a national rendition of the academic fraud scandal at UNC-CH. This is not good news for Carol Folt and the UNC-CH crowd. I take no pleasure in this misfortune at my adopted home state's major liberal arts university. As an employer I depend on the UNC system to educate the people I hire. I depend on the UNC system to provide education that is meaningful. As a parent, I expect I will depend on the UNC system to educate my children. That's my stake in this mess. Oh, and I'm a North Carolina taxpayer, that's a big stake in this mess.
Is Julius Nyang'oro the first and only jock sniffing prof to be employed at UNC? No. He's not the last either. But, there's a difference between trading an easy grade for sideline tickets (bad enough) and teaching no-show classes. The vast majority of college athletes will not go professional. Most will get a job coaching at a high school or middle school level. A very few will get jobs in college coaching and fewer yet coaching at the professional level. Thus, it is vitally important that our college athletes get the education that is supposed to be the basis for the bargain. Deny them the education and we have denied them the sole compensation promised by the onerous contract they sign when they agree to play college sports.
If you are wondering how I think this might play out. Let an athlete who took one of Nyang'oro's no show courses file suit against the University of North Carolina for breech of contract. He alleges that UNC promised to give him an education in return for playing football. He alleges UNC failed to uphold its end of the contract, thus voiding contract all together. That entitles the football playing athlete to damages. What kind of damages? How about the value of his athletic efforts? Let's be conservative, say half the NFL minimum contract. About $1,000,000 for four years of academic fraud! The contract also calls for attorney fees. Under NC law, if one side of a contract is entitled to attorney fees, then the other side can get them if they prevail. OOPS! Athlete gets to play with house money.
Is Julius Nyang'oro the first and only jock sniffing prof to be employed at UNC? No. He's not the last either. But, there's a difference between trading an easy grade for sideline tickets (bad enough) and teaching no-show classes. The vast majority of college athletes will not go professional. Most will get a job coaching at a high school or middle school level. A very few will get jobs in college coaching and fewer yet coaching at the professional level. Thus, it is vitally important that our college athletes get the education that is supposed to be the basis for the bargain. Deny them the education and we have denied them the sole compensation promised by the onerous contract they sign when they agree to play college sports.
If you are wondering how I think this might play out. Let an athlete who took one of Nyang'oro's no show courses file suit against the University of North Carolina for breech of contract. He alleges that UNC promised to give him an education in return for playing football. He alleges UNC failed to uphold its end of the contract, thus voiding contract all together. That entitles the football playing athlete to damages. What kind of damages? How about the value of his athletic efforts? Let's be conservative, say half the NFL minimum contract. About $1,000,000 for four years of academic fraud! The contract also calls for attorney fees. Under NC law, if one side of a contract is entitled to attorney fees, then the other side can get them if they prevail. OOPS! Athlete gets to play with house money.
Friday, January 3, 2014
City Council to discuss Huerta case on Monday
The Herald-Sun is reporting that the City Council will discuss the Huerta case with City Manager Tom Bonfield on Monday in a closed session. Personnel matters are appropriate for an executive session. The notice that went out said "attorney-client" discussion. That too is appropriate for an executive session, but as no litigation has been threatened, that seems a flimsy excuse. The City Manager clarified saying the executive session was about Huerta. The truth is, they will be covering probationary officer Samuel Duncan's performance and Chief Jose Lopez performance as well. The meeting is not until 5:30 PM. I don't know if there will be a presser after, or not. But, it wouldn't surprise me if there was.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt-in-Durham
Police report finally due on Huerta.
According to WRAL a police report is due today, Friday January 3, 2014.
We shall see what it says. Supposedly the SBI investigation is done but for the autopsy. I will be looking to see if the two major questions I have posed are answered:
(1) Did officer Duncan do an adequate search of his patrol car before he went on shift or last transported someone, and
(2) Did Officer Duncan do an adequate frisk of Huerta when Duncan arrested Huerta?
It has to be one way or the other. Either the gun was left behind by another person arrested or Duncan missed the gun on Huerta's person. Neither is good for Duncan. The other question, which I don't expect the report to answer is why the DPD was so reticent with information. In the lacrosse hoax, the DPD was a veritable sieve of leaks and official releases of information.
Walt-in-Durham
We shall see what it says. Supposedly the SBI investigation is done but for the autopsy. I will be looking to see if the two major questions I have posed are answered:
(1) Did officer Duncan do an adequate search of his patrol car before he went on shift or last transported someone, and
(2) Did Officer Duncan do an adequate frisk of Huerta when Duncan arrested Huerta?
It has to be one way or the other. Either the gun was left behind by another person arrested or Duncan missed the gun on Huerta's person. Neither is good for Duncan. The other question, which I don't expect the report to answer is why the DPD was so reticent with information. In the lacrosse hoax, the DPD was a veritable sieve of leaks and official releases of information.
Walt-in-Durham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)