Marquette: McAdams matter FAQs

[keefe]

From what I understand, he wants to teach.

The only question is how long this whole process takes.  He wins in the WI Supreme Court, but it could take a while to get there.  If he loses in lower court, appeals could send the case directly to Supremes to expedite things since it's headed there anyhow.

Do you think this case will go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Do you think this case will go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

I do, if he loses in round one.  And I think they will be itching to take it.

[keefe]

I do, if he loses in round one.  And I think they will be itching to take it.

Jams

I was funnin' him. He mentions that in every post...

[rocket surgeon]

Do you think this case will go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

if they don't settle, but mcadams wants to grind it in and become a part of history.  the father groppi of the conservative catholic freedom of speech movement if you will

[Herman Cain]

Whatever Ners.

Two items that stand out from Lovell's time will have a huge impact, the partnership with the Bucks on the exercise program/building/research program and the partnership between biomedical engineering and MCW. That doesn't count that fundraising is up and student engagement has been great.

He ain't perfect that's for sure but it could be a whole lot worse and I think it will only get better with time

Partnership with the Bucks needs to be funded.

The other two  items you pointed out are positives.

Yes all things considered we could have much worse. I just feel in this case it is an opportunity lost. Stand up to the PC crowd and become more respected for having courage to do so. Money will come flooding in. Lovell is taking the week kneed corporate stuffed shirt approach which I am not very high on.

[GGGG]

Partnership with the Bucks needs to be funded.

The other two  items you pointed out are positives.

Yes all things considered we could have much worse. I just feel in this case it is an opportunity lost. Stand up to the PC crowd and become more respected for having courage to do so. Money will come flooding in. Lovell is taking the week kneed corporate stuffed shirt approach which I am not very high on.

"Stand up to the PC crowd."  LOL.  Cliched talking point.

[mayfairskatingrink]

Do you think this case will go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

MU is completely unprepared for that eventuality, it seems.  I don't know if MU thought McAdams would have trouble paying the legal bills and would be scared off, but he's not paying a cent for his representation, it's all pro bono.  McAdams attorney, Rick Essenberg is a very smart guy and has argued before the WI Supreme Court previously, and knows the lay of the land and the personalities very well.  And Lovell's twitter rant and the FAQ have been gifts to McAdams and his team. 

I will make sure to be there for oral arguments. 

[Lennys Tap]

Father Naus taught Oriental Philosophy (bet they changed the name of that course now....heeyna?) that I enjoyed.

 

Damn pcers! They stole "Orientals" from us but will never get our "Redskins"! As long as righteous folk like Chico are manning the battlements I feel safe!

[jsglow]

MU is completely unprepared for that eventuality, it seems.  I don't know if MU thought McAdams would have trouble paying the legal bills and would be scared off, but he's not paying a cent for his representation, it's all pro bono.  McAdams attorney, Rick Essenberg is a very smart guy and has argued before the WI Supreme Court previously, and knows the lay of the land and the personalities very well.  And Lovell's twitter rant and the FAQ have been gifts to McAdams and his team. 

I will make sure to be there for oral arguments.

I know MU is most often represented by Foley and Lardner but I'm not 100% certain they are handling this specific matter.  They were my top choice 'go to' guys over a 30 year banking career.  Outstanding albeit expensive at a price point no different than the big houses in Chicago.  BTW, I'm told that the original 'decency' communication was drafted entirely by outside counsel with MU's input. 

[GGGG]

Thanks glow.  I think the idea that Marquette is "completely unprepared" for the eventuality that this lands in the WI Supreme Court to be rather specious.  I'm sure Marquette is fully prepared for that eventuality and has been legally guided along this path throughout the process.

[mu03eng]

Thanks glow.  I think the idea that Marquette is "completely unprepared" for the eventuality that this lands in the WI Supreme Court to be rather specious.  I'm sure Marquette is fully prepared for that eventuality and has been legally guided along this path throughout the process.

I have to assume that MU has done the due diligence from a legal standpoint otherwise not doing it would be an extremely negligent action and very very poor leadership. That would cause me to call for walking out the entire administration. Like I said though, I really really doubt that is even a little true.

[keefe]

Thanks glow.  I think the idea that Marquette is "completely unprepared" for the eventuality that this lands in the WI Supreme Court to be rather specious.  I'm sure Marquette is fully prepared for that eventuality and has been legally guided along this path throughout the process.

I am glad to hear that MU is prepared to deal with a flaming mess.

But the real point is that there is a flaming mess.

And as we all know being prepared helps shape the outcome but does not ensure it.

The whole thing is a f#cking disaster that never had to happen.

[GGGG]

I think Marquette has handled it great and I trust they will continue to do so.

[mu03eng]

I am glad to hear that MU is prepared to deal with a flaming mess.

But the real point is that there is a flaming mess.

And as we all know being prepared helps shape the outcome but does not ensure it.

The whole thing is a f#cking disaster that never had to happen.

Question, and perhaps this is steering into legal territory where I don't belong having an opinion, ever but here goes.....we seem to be reacting to the legal aspect of this that it's going to the Supreme Court and they are going to lose and somehow saying that MU shouldn't have taken the actions they took(which will result in the legal loss). What action should MU not have taken or what were they not legally justified in taking? Is it the apology aspect or that they took any action or what?

From my viewpoint of what actions they took(non-legally speaking) I support the administration. I may not totally agree with the PR and posturing but the direct actions with McAdams I agree with them. The complicating factor is the legal aspect and maybe I just don't get the law to know where MU crossed the line.

[keefe]

I think Marquette has handled it great and I trust they will continue to do so.

Well, that's why America is a great nation.

Some people favor ribeye or NY strip. And others think Spam is an acceptable main course.

[keefe]

Question, and perhaps this is steering into legal territory where I don't belong having an opinion, ever but here goes.....we seem to be reacting to the legal aspect of this that it's going to the Supreme Court and they are going to lose and somehow saying that MU shouldn't have taken the actions they took(which will result in the legal loss). What action should MU not have taken or what were they not legally justified in taking? Is it the apology aspect or that they took any action or what?

From my viewpoint of what actions they took(non-legally speaking) I support the administration. I may not totally agree with the PR and posturing but the direct actions with McAdams I agree with them. The complicating factor is the legal aspect and maybe I just don't get the law to know where MU crossed the line.

I am not an attorney so I don't know where that line is. But anytime something heads into the courts you lose control of the situation.

My point is that Marquette's leadership had a fiduciary responsibility to manage the outcome for its constituency. The fact that it is out of their control in many ways reflects terribly on that stewardship.

Reading about Marquette in the WSJ should be for achievement and accomplishment. Unfortunately, that is not the narrative playing out.

I think this entire matter could have been managed more effectively. It wasn't and that failure rests with those who are tasked with both the authority and responsibility.

What amazes me is that MU can go from the O'Brien fiasco to this in such short order...

 
 

[mu03eng]

I am not an attorney so I don't know where that line is. But anytime something heads into the courts you lose control of the situation.

My point is that Marquette's leadership had a fiduciary responsibility to manage the outcome for its constituency. The fact that it is out of their control in many ways reflects terribly on that stewardship.

Reading about Marquette in the WSJ should be for achievement and accomplishment. Unfortunately, that is not the narrative playing out.

I think this entire matter could have been managed more effectively. It wasn't and that failure rests with those who are tasked with both the authority and responsibility.

What amazes me is that MU can go from the O'Brien fiasco to this in such short order...

 
 

I don't think that is a fair bar to set at all. Just because the university gets negative press, doesn't mean they didn't do the right thing....to say otherwise is to let the inmates run the asylum. Additionally, things going into a court of law has nothing to do with whether it was the "right thing to do" for the university. They could make a decision, win in court and still be wrong or make a decision, lose in court and still be right to make that decision.

[GGGG]

I don't think that is a fair bar to set at all. Just because the university gets negative press, doesn't mean they didn't do the right thing....to say otherwise is to let the inmates run the asylum. Additionally, things going into a court of law has nothing to do with whether it was the "right thing to do" for the university. They could make a decision, win in court and still be wrong or make a decision, lose in court and still be right to make that decision.

You are correct.

Pretty much every university worth anything gets bad press - even bad press as a result of its own good decisions.  It is unavoidable.  Some constituents will obsess about it.  Most won't.  And in the end you hope that the "positive" will outweigh the "negative" and your institution is viewed in a positive light.

[jsglow]

Question, and perhaps this is steering into legal territory where I don't belong having an opinion, ever but here goes.....we seem to be reacting to the legal aspect of this that it's going to the Supreme Court and they are going to lose and somehow saying that MU shouldn't have taken the actions they took(which will result in the legal loss). What action should MU not have taken or what were they not legally justified in taking? Is it the apology aspect or that they took any action or what?

From my viewpoint of what actions they took(non-legally speaking) I support the administration. I may not totally agree with the PR and posturing but the direct actions with McAdams I agree with them. The complicating factor is the legal aspect and maybe I just don't get the law to know where MU crossed the line.

Here's what I am sure of eng.  Outside counsel has been intimately involved since the first nano-second reviewing everything from the specifics of the actual matter to MU's HR and tenure policy.  Now MU may have a 'few holes' in their position (no contract case is ever absolutely perfect) but rest assured they and their counsel view this as an acceptable legal risk given the facts on the ground.  Put it another way, had outside counsel found a big hole, Mike would have slapped Mac on the wrist, tweaked the internal governing paperwork on a going forward basis, and nailed him next time.  Agree or disagree, a little credit please.

[Coleman]

Here's what I am sure of eng.  Outside counsel has been intimately involved since the first nano-second reviewing everything from the specifics of the actual matter to MU's HR and tenure policy.  Now MU may have a 'few holes' in their position (no contract case is ever absolutely perfect) but rest assured they and their counsel view this as an acceptable legal risk given the facts on the ground.  Put it another way, had outside counsel found a big hole, Mike would have slapped Mac on the wrist, tweaked the internal governing paperwork on a going forward basis, and nailed him next time.  Agree or disagree, a little credit please.

If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt you, it is despicable that members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court "can't wait" to get this case and have already pre-determined the outcome before hearing any of the particulars simply, if true.

[keefe]

I don't think that is a fair bar to set at all. Just because the university gets negative press, doesn't mean they didn't do the right thing....to say otherwise is to let the inmates run the asylum. Additionally, things going into a court of law has nothing to do with whether it was the "right thing to do" for the university. They could make a decision, win in court and still be wrong or make a decision, lose in court and still be right to make that decision.

I stand by my insistence that executive decision-making really focuses on the standard 2% deviation. If the resources, people, processes, and training are in place 98% of stuff happens. Executive talent manages five years out and addresses only that 2% of current issues.

I have seen inspired executive action in many ways but three are captured in HBS Cases:

1. PepsiCo Hypodermic Hoax (USA)
2. PepsiCo Lottery Hoax (Philippines)
3. PepsiCo Response to Jack-in-the-Box Tainted Meat Deaths (USA)

You are correct - bad stuff happens. Executive talent earns its paycheck on how they manage crises.

And if you read these case studies you will understand how inspired and effective leadership addresses threats to the enterprise. Nothing Marquette did in either the O'Brien matter or this McAdams mess inspires confidence.
 

[mu03eng]

I stand by my insistence that executive decision-making really focuses on the standard 2% deviation. If the resources, people, processes, and training are in place 98% of stuff happens. Executive talent manages five years out and addresses only that 2% of current issues.

I have seen inspired executive action in many ways but three are captured in HBS Cases:

1. PepsiCo Hypodermic Hoax (USA)
2. PepsiCo Lottery Hoax (Philippines)
3. PepsiCo Response to Jack-in-the-Box Tainted Meat Deaths (USA)

You are correct - bad stuff happens. Executive talent earns its paycheck on how they manage crises.

And if you read these case studies you will understand how inspired and effective leadership addresses threats to the enterprise. Nothing Marquette did in either the O'Brien matter or this McAdams mess inspires confidence.

Fair, but in all 3 of those HBS cases the leadership was in place from start to finish. Certainly the O'Brien case predated Lovell and the majority of the McAdams case predates him as well. He is cleaning up a mess that existed previously and managing some inherent issues that have always been at MU and need to be resolved. You don't clean up a mess overnight nor resolve cultural and organizational issues. Keep in mind, when Lovell came in, he had to hire an AD, a leader for MU's lead "product" (men's basketball), a provost, deans for engineering and b-school not to mention whatever else was going on behind the scenes we're only partially privy to. To expect someone to have come in and handled it any better is probably unrealistic.

You are seeming to hold all the messes at MU for the last 8 years to Lovell's record which is not appropriate. I firmly believe Lovell will be a stead handed executive going forward, and nothing I've seen so far would lead me to believe otherwise. We disagree, so we'll see who's right 5 years out.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt you, it is despicable that members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court "can't wait" to get this case and have already pre-determined the outcome before hearing any of the particulars simply, if true.

Counsel often feels they are right in their case, while the other side feels the same about theirs.  That's why we have court proceedings.  Now, I have no doubt MU's outside counsel feels the risk is limited, whether they are right or not is another story altogether.  The world is littered with examples where an institution's General Counsel or outside counsel thought risk was small, only to get hammered.  Of course the opposite is true as well.

I thought Jonathon Turley's article on this whole thing was rather interesting, and he's a social liberal, but also a "rule of law" guy.  His article is worth a read.  My conclusion is that he doesn't know which way things would go, and that tells me that the risk certainly isn't small....but that is ultimately up to someone willing to take on the risk or decide how much risk is acceptable.

[keefe]

Fair, but in all 3 of those HBS cases the leadership was in place from start to finish. Certainly the O'Brien case predated Lovell and the majority of the McAdams case predates him as well. He is cleaning up a mess that existed previously and managing some inherent issues that have always been at MU and need to be resolved. You don't clean up a mess overnight nor resolve cultural and organizational issues. Keep in mind, when Lovell came in, he had to hire an AD, a leader for MU's lead "product" (men's basketball), a provost, deans for engineering and b-school not to mention whatever else was going on behind the scenes we're only partially privy to. To expect someone to have come in and handled it any better is probably unrealistic.

You are seeming to hold all the messes at MU for the last 8 years to Lovell's record which is not appropriate. I firmly believe Lovell will be a stead handed executive going forward, and nothing I've seen so far would lead me to believe otherwise. We disagree, so we'll see who's right 5 years out.

I am not singling out Lovell as I am aware of the chronology.

As for the PepsiCo cases I strongly urge you to read them in order to understand my point.

Also, another superb case study on leadership taught at HBS is "Twelve O'Clock High". Watch the movie then think about leadership principles and how they are applied most effectively.

I recently met with Robin Chase of ZipCar and she recommended reading a case study she wrote up for Sloan (her alma mater). It is an excellent articulation of how she addressed a major structural issue with her incipient business through creativity, poise, and acumen.

If you read how successful leaders have addressed threats to the enterprise then contrast that with Marquette's tragic blunders you will shake your head.

[mayfairskatingrink]

If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt you, it is despicable that members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court "can't wait" to get this case and have already pre-determined the outcome before hearing any of the particulars simply, if true.

Well, most high courts look forward to getting cases that are important since many are very "dry" and technical.  BTW, both conservative and liberal members of the court said they look forward to tackling this if/when it gets to them.

And just look at the US Supreme Court.  When the gay marriage case got there, the result was pre-ordained.  None of the arguments or briefs mattered.  Kennedy's written decision was unprofessional in the extreme (not the decision but his reaction), patting himself on the back and celebrating the outcome.  He acted more like a politician and not a Justice.