Wait, so there is a Pepper Hamilton report?

6,702 Views | 74 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by trey3216
Alfred Anchorsen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/college/article/Plaintiffs-lawyers-in-Baylor-sex-case-petition-13779660.php
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

When are the people in charge at Baylor going to learn that the only way the school and its family will leave this chapter behind is to come clean, produce all the report and investigation, enact meaningful and transparent reforms and accept responsibility...

Damn straight.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was going to mention that the Trib reported last week there is in fact a written PH Report and the Court has ordered it be produced to the Plaintiffs. It will very interesting to see if the actual PH report is consistent with the BOR summary. I could have sworn at the time it was claimed there was no written report just a verbal one.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Its just keeps on going.

Didn't the regent clan tell us firing Briles would make all this go away?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

I was going to mention that the Trib reported last week there is in fact a written PH Report and the Court has ordered it be produced to the Plaintiffs. It will very interesting to see if the actual PH report is consistent with the BOR summary. I could have sworn at the time it was claimed there was no written report just a verbal one.
The Regents always claimed there was NO written report.

Anyone who knows anything about lawyers knows they always write something up.....even if its just a working draft of an eventual finished report.

Seriously, mafia members give each other non-written "verbal reports"......not $500hr lawyers.

The "NO WRITTEN REPORT" thing was a lie from the get go.....embarrassing that they think the average Baylor grad would fall for that...much less the public at large.

blackie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

I was going to mention that the Trib reported last week there is in fact a written PH Report and the Court has ordered it be produced to the Plaintiffs. It will very interesting to see if the actual PH report is consistent with the BOR summary. I could have sworn at the time it was claimed there was no written report just a verbal one.
That is what we were told.....and Truett told us that the correct action was to just stay quiet and it would blow over.

All of these situations are sad. Baylor was just the first to which it occurred. Everybody else since has been able to stonewall it. Staying quiet might have worked a year or two later. But being the first kid on the block was not the time to do it. This could have been handled without blowing up the university (and IMO more damage was done to the university than to any football program).

The division that was caused will linger far longer than my lifetime and that of many on this board. Many of us don't trust Baylor anymore, and I don't know of any reason why we should. The pettiness of the BOR was far worse than most of us ever imagined. You can't run a multi-billion dollar business as a personal toy or Sunday School. They ruined it for me, and not because of the sexual assaults, but how they "dealt" with it, and I don't think I am alone. Sexual assaults are unfortunately now a fact of student life. The stupidity at Baylor was trying to convince the public that somehow miraculously Baylor was immune to the evils of the world. Well, we aren't and come to find out we had evil roaming the halls of Pat Neff.

I have yet to answer one phone call from Baylor since this mess started. They don't deserve a penny of my money from a charitable perspective. The only money that I do give now is for personal pleasure (tickets) as I would for any other entertainment option out there. We have yet to walk the campus since this started. I just don't feel the pride in my school that I once had. That is a lot to lose.........and we still don't have an iota of an apology from anybody running the place during that time.
bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not clear to me from reading this whether (1) there was always a written report from P-H and the board simply lied to the public about it; or (2) what is being now described as the written report were actually more like the presentation notes P-H needed to prepare in order to give the 2-hour verbal briefing that the board requested, but that they never turned over these written notes to Baylor; or (3) after the verbal briefing, P-H put their findings in written form for their own records and perhaps their own protection.

In any case, what is tragic is that these board members who loudly profess their love for Baylor actually damaged Baylor severely by trying to hide the full picture of what went on -- by pretending that there wasn't a real problem beyond the football program.

The greater act of love here toward Baylor was shown by David Barron, who wrote this piece for the Chronicle. Barron is a Baylor alum who got his start at the Tribune-Herald and did a lot of work for Dave Campbell's Texas Football. It's better for Baylor in the long run that the truth come out, all of it, instead of a bunch of pious posturing.
"Free your ass and your mind will follow." -- George Clinton
ValhallaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bubbadog said:

Not clear to me from reading this whether (1) there was always a written report from P-H and the board simply lied to the public about it; or (2) what is being now described as the written report were actually more like the presentation notes P-H needed to prepare in order to give the 2-hour verbal briefing that the board requested, but that they never turned over these written notes to Baylor; or (3) after the verbal briefing, P-H put their findings in written form for their own records and perhaps their own protection.

In any case, what is tragic is that these board members who loudly profess their love for Baylor actually damaged Baylor severely by trying to hide the full picture of what went on -- by pretending that there wasn't a real problem beyond the football program.

The greater act of love here toward Baylor was shown by David Barron, who wrote this piece for the Chronicle. Barron is a Baylor alum who got his start at the Tribune-Herald and did a lot of work for Dave Campbell's Texas Football. It's better for Baylor in the long run that the truth come out, all of it, instead of a bunch of pious posturing.
Does this mean the hiatus of butt hurt is over?
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Its just keeps on going.

Didn't the regent clan tell us firing Briles would make all this go away?


" ......... the regent clan ...... "
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We were idiots to hire Pepper Hamilton in the first place.
drahthaar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

We were idiots to hire Pepper Hamilton in the first place.
Hiring Solomon wouldn't do much good if you didn't use the findings and advice well. Who knows whether or not we responded to P-H "well" or not? BU has sent some folks packing and others drifted into shadows so far as I can tell, but did that really address the issues in P-H? Lots of opinions being batted around and conventional wisdom says we did not. Problem is that none of us know really what that "report" said, and I don't believe much of what I read that others have said about that "report" given to the BOR. Maybe this lawyer knows something--he'd better with all the claims and depositions he's making and taking., and all the demands he's sending out. My grandkids might live to see this diminish into nothingness...
Keyser Soze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
witchmo said:

Johnny Bear said:

We were idiots to hire Pepper Hamilton in the first place.
Hiring Solomon wouldn't do much good if you didn't use the findings and advice well. Who knows whether or not we responded to P-H "well" or not? BU has sent some folks packing and others drifted into shadows so far as I can tell, but did that really address the issues in P-H? Lots of opinions being batted around and conventional wisdom says we did not. Problem is that none of us know really what that "report" said, and I don't believe much of what I read that others have said about that "report" given to the BOR. Maybe this lawyer knows something--he'd better with all the claims and depositions he's making and taking., and all the demands he's sending out. My grandkids might live to see this diminish into nothingness...

Well according to Smith and Gomez, the lead attorneys in the PH investigation, Baylor did. This is their report on the completion of the 105 recommendations.

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/doc.php/301337.pdf


We find that the University has effectively implemented the 105 Recommendations. From all walks of the University community students, faculty, staff, senior leadership, the President, and the Board of Regents we have seen tremendous effort and engagement that has met or exceeded the tasks set forth in the recommendations. We note and the University recognizes that implementation is an ongoing task for many of these recommendations. To that end, we find that the University has invested time, energy, resources, personnel, policy, procedures and systems that will continue to support and enhance the ongoing implementation efforts.

Going through the 750 pages of Smith & Gomez's report, it is clear that the Findings of Fact given in 2016 are a valid summary of what Smith & Gomez discovered at Baylor.


Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
28 hours. Somebody's slippin'.
Keyser Soze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Check was late
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keyser Soze said:

Check was late
It was probably short too.
drahthaar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keyser Soze said:

witchmo said:

Johnny Bear said:

We were idiots to hire Pepper Hamilton in the first place.
Hiring Solomon wouldn't do much good if you didn't use the findings and advice well. Who knows whether or not we responded to P-H "well" or not? BU has sent some folks packing and others drifted into shadows so far as I can tell, but did that really address the issues in P-H? Lots of opinions being batted around and conventional wisdom says we did not. Problem is that none of us know really what that "report" said, and I don't believe much of what I read that others have said about that "report" given to the BOR. Maybe this lawyer knows something--he'd better with all the claims and depositions he's making and taking., and all the demands he's sending out. My grandkids might live to see this diminish into nothingness...

Well according to Smith and Gomez, the lead attorneys in the PH investigation, Baylor did. This is their report on the completion of the 105 recommendations.

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/doc.php/301337.pdf


We find that the University has effectively implemented the 105 Recommendations. From all walks of the University community students, faculty, staff, senior leadership, the President, and the Board of Regents we have seen tremendous effort and engagement that has met or exceeded the tasks set forth in the recommendations. We note and the University recognizes that implementation is an ongoing task for many of these recommendations. To that end, we find that the University has invested time, energy, resources, personnel, policy, procedures and systems that will continue to support and enhance the ongoing implementation efforts.







Going through the 750 pages of Smith & Gomez's report, it is clear that the Findings of Fact given in 2016 are a valid summary of what Smith & Gomez discovered at Baylor.




Appreciate your comments here as I hadn't seen the attorneys' assessment of Baylor's response. For the most part I tend to accept at face value a reporting from groups such as a governance board. One problem for Baylor in this situation is that of this/these horrific revelation(s) following on the heels of the Bliss malfeasance which was part of the disruption of the academy during the Sloan administration. That 15-20 year period led the Baylor family to question with justification nearly everything the administration and governance board did or reported. Leadership from a silo while eroding trust is problematic for any organization, especially one which is making huge leaps in its footprint in the academy. I know and have known throughout this time many of the Trustees/Regents as well as administration, faculty and staff, so I'm not ignorant of much of what has occurred. I'm really caught in the middle, with no "side" to take.

The ongoing problem from my perspective is the original report itself and how it was given to the governance board and administration. I get the value in a "no report" attitude from a liability standpoint, and I don't have a sense that good would have come from an open revelation, given the way which the media have assaulted the university and its individuals. I do have the sense that, for the present time at least, keeping it close to the vest is best for everyone. Right now, at least. Obviously, Dunham thinks differently. I'm absolutely convinced that attacking the university over this is the worst response. Changes have been made. But from an attorney-client standpoint, I would expect P-H/lawyers to say exactly what they said in their report, regardless of the extent of corrections which have been implemented. That's not criticism on my part; just a statement of expectations following such an investigation. And I will take time to fully correct, as the lawyers noted.

There remains large questions or issues that everyone is expected to ignore, issues such as no physical report for the Regents to study; no "notes" for guidance; how can investigators deliver a report over several hours without a "written" report/powerpoint guide; if no reproducible documentation, how can the governance board develop their report (Findings of Facts) or legitimately go about relieving people of their duties at Baylor. The demand for blind trust by thinking people outside the university who deal with these issues daily is a pretty big stretch. Thus, doubt will remain for now. Genuine trust will be gained only over a long time, and people will continue to ask "what is in these findings that requires them being sealed?" Like a tsunami, it will take a lifetime to rebuild what was destroyed in a sudden disaster. But the questions will continue to be asked by those who care about Baylor.
Keyser Soze
How long do you want to ignore this user?

First, thanks for a thought out response. Agree with most.

There was a power point presentation. This was considered "work product" so it would not be something a plaintiff could easily get. Dunnam is trying to get this and other document now. He likely will get it.

The regents who wrote the Findings of Facts did so with the guidance of PH. The subsequent audit of the completion of the 105 recommendations very much supports the accuracy of the FoF. Much like the power point, done in this fashion the document is of limited value to a potential plaintiff.



Alfred Anchorsen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blackie said:

PartyBear said:

I was going to mention that the Trib reported last week there is in fact a written PH Report and the Court has ordered it be produced to the Plaintiffs. It will very interesting to see if the actual PH report is consistent with the BOR summary. I could have sworn at the time it was claimed there was no written report just a verbal one.
That is what we were told.....and Truett told us that the correct action was to just stay quiet and it would blow over.

All of these situations are sad. Baylor was just the first to which it occurred. Everybody else since has been able to stonewall it. Staying quiet might have worked a year or two later. But being the first kid on the block was not the time to do it. This could have been handled without blowing up the university (and IMO more damage was done to the university than to any football program).

The division that was caused will linger far longer than my lifetime and that of many on this board. Many of us don't trust Baylor anymore, and I don't know of any reason why we should. The pettiness of the BOR was far worse than most of us ever imagined. You can't run a multi-billion dollar business as a personal toy or Sunday School. They ruined it for me, and not because of the sexual assaults, but how they "dealt" with it, and I don't think I am alone. Sexual assaults are unfortunately now a fact of student life. The stupidity at Baylor was trying to convince the public that somehow miraculously Baylor was immune to the evils of the world. Well, we aren't and come to find out we had evil roaming the halls of Pat Neff.

I have yet to answer one phone call from Baylor since this mess started. They don't deserve a penny of my money from a charitable perspective. The only money that I do give now is for personal pleasure (tickets) as I would for any other entertainment option out there. We have yet to walk the campus since this started. I just don't feel the pride in my school that I once had. That is a lot to lose.........and we still don't have an iota of an apology from anybody running the place during that time.
Right there with you on this Blackie. I don't trust Baylor at all any more.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Alfred Anchorsen said:

blackie said:

PartyBear said:

I was going to mention that the Trib reported last week there is in fact a written PH Report and the Court has ordered it be produced to the Plaintiffs. It will very interesting to see if the actual PH report is consistent with the BOR summary. I could have sworn at the time it was claimed there was no written report just a verbal one.
That is what we were told.....and Truett told us that the correct action was to just stay quiet and it would blow over.

All of these situations are sad. Baylor was just the first to which it occurred. Everybody else since has been able to stonewall it. Staying quiet might have worked a year or two later. But being the first kid on the block was not the time to do it. This could have been handled without blowing up the university (and IMO more damage was done to the university than to any football program).

The division that was caused will linger far longer than my lifetime and that of many on this board. Many of us don't trust Baylor anymore, and I don't know of any reason why we should. The pettiness of the BOR was far worse than most of us ever imagined. You can't run a multi-billion dollar business as a personal toy or Sunday School. They ruined it for me, and not because of the sexual assaults, but how they "dealt" with it, and I don't think I am alone. Sexual assaults are unfortunately now a fact of student life. The stupidity at Baylor was trying to convince the public that somehow miraculously Baylor was immune to the evils of the world. Well, we aren't and come to find out we had evil roaming the halls of Pat Neff.

I have yet to answer one phone call from Baylor since this mess started. They don't deserve a penny of my money from a charitable perspective. The only money that I do give now is for personal pleasure (tickets) as I would for any other entertainment option out there. We have yet to walk the campus since this started. I just don't feel the pride in my school that I once had. That is a lot to lose.........and we still don't have an iota of an apology from anybody running the place during that time.
Right there with you on this Blackie. I don't trust Baylor at all any more.


"Hierarchy" has been about protecting the image more than the truth as far back as I can remember. Some would argue that's a good thing, and others say that makes Baylor not much different from Catholic Church hierarchy

But it's not Baylor that's untrustworthy, just the hierarchy whomever they are at the time imo
YoakDaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As many of us have stated numerous times since May 2016, the best way for Baylor to handle this was full disclosure of all facts no matter where they may lead. Transparency and Accountability.

But, hey, 105! 105! 105! 105! 105! 105! Look at our 105! It's all been bullshlt and leadership trying to save their own a sses.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
YoakDaddy said:

As many of us have stated numerous times since May 2016, the best way for Baylor to handle this was full disclosure of all facts no matter where they may lead. Transparency and Accountability.

But, hey, 105! 105! 105! 105! 105! 105! Look at our 105! It's all been bullshlt and leadership trying to save their own a sses.
The Pepper Hamilton Report can be found nestled with Hillary Clinton's missing 30,000 E-mails. Unfortunately, that is just how Baylor rolls these days.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keyser Soze said:



The regents who wrote the Findings of Facts did so with the guidance of PH. The subsequent audit of the completion of the 105 recommendations very much supports the accuracy of the FoF. Much like the power point, done in this fashion the document is of limited value to a potential plaintiff.




Who did the audit?
Keyser Soze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
read the thread
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keyser Soze said:

read the thread
I did. bubba's questions below never answered. I guess PH did audit and wants us to stop asking questions.

This from bubba:
Not clear to me from reading this whether (1) there was always a written report from P-H and the board simply lied to the public about it; or (2) what is being now described as the written report were actually more like the presentation notes P-H needed to prepare in order to give the 2-hour verbal briefing that the board requested, but that they never turned over these written notes to Baylor; or (3) after the verbal briefing, P-H put their findings in written form for their own records and perhaps their own protection.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keyser Soze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Keyser Soze said:

read the thread
I did. bubba's questions below never answered

This from bubba:
Not clear to me from reading this whether (1) there was always a written report from P-H and the board simply lied to the public about it; or (2) what is being now described as the written report were actually more like the presentation notes P-H needed to prepare in order to give the 2-hour verbal briefing that the board requested, but that they never turned over these written notes to Baylor; or (3) after the verbal briefing, P-H put their findings in written form for their own records and perhaps their own protection.


My understanding is #2

Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keyser Soze said:

Osodecentx said:

Keyser Soze said:

read the thread
I did. bubba's questions below never answered

This from bubba:
Not clear to me from reading this whether (1) there was always a written report from P-H and the board simply lied to the public about it; or (2) what is being now described as the written report were actually more like the presentation notes P-H needed to prepare in order to give the 2-hour verbal briefing that the board requested, but that they never turned over these written notes to Baylor; or (3) after the verbal briefing, P-H put their findings in written form for their own records and perhaps their own protection.


My understanding is #2


Thanks, but is that the audit?
Keyser Soze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The audit was of the completion of the 105 recommendations. It was done by Smith & Gomez the main attorneys of the PH investigation.

The Findings of Fact is mentioned in the audit multiple times. It is either an accurate summary or you must draw the conclusions Smith and Gomez are part of any deception. Far fetched, but plenty of conspiracy nuts around here.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keyser Soze said:

The audit was of the completion of the 105 recommendations. It was done by Smith & Gomez the main attorneys of the PH investigation.

The Findings of Fact is mentioned in the audit multiple times. It is either an accurate summary or you must draw the conclusions Smith and Gomez are part of any deception. Far fetched, but plenty of conspiracy nuts around here.
Thanks for the clarification

People out here who are skeptics aren't all conspiracy nuts. The skepticism of BOR is well deserved
Keyser Soze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was speaking of thinking Smith & Gomez being in on it. I find that very far fetched.

Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Keyser Soze said:

The audit was of the completion of the 105 recommendations. It was done by Smith & Gomez the main attorneys of the PH investigation.

The Findings of Fact is mentioned in the audit multiple times. It is either an accurate summary or you must draw the conclusions Smith and Gomez are part of any deception. Far fetched, but plenty of conspiracy nuts around here.
Thanks for the clarification

People out here who are skeptics aren't all conspiracy nuts. The skepticism of BOR is well deserved


Absolutely
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why didn't the BOR engage PH to conduct the audit of the recommendations that were created under their auspices? And if they were going to hire another firm that was independent of the responsibility for those PH recommendations, why did they hire the same attorneys (who had been separated from the responsible law firm) who had acted in concert with the BOR to produce the FoF who were now working at another firm, instead of bringing in a firm with no ties to the investigation at all?
bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Keyser Soze said:

read the thread
I did. bubba's questions below never answered. I guess PH did audit and wants us to stop asking questions.

This from bubba:
Not clear to me from reading this whether (1) there was always a written report from P-H and the board simply lied to the public about it; or (2) what is being now described as the written report were actually more like the presentation notes P-H needed to prepare in order to give the 2-hour verbal briefing that the board requested, but that they never turned over these written notes to Baylor; or (3) after the verbal briefing, P-H put their findings in written form for their own records and perhaps their own protection.
I took Keyser's post as the answer to my question. Or at least that was his understanding, although it didn't sound like he could make this statement with absolute certainty.

So if this is the case, then the plaintiffs' attorneys are attempting to get the presentation notes that P-H used?

And I guess their legal argument is that the notes are effectively part and parcel of the report -- and thus not protected by attorney/client privilege?

I'm no attorney, but I'm not sure I buy that as a legal argument (assuming that actually is their argument).

On the other hand, I want to see all of the information come out. Until it does, it will look like Baylor and its agents are trying to hide stuff, and as long as that's the perception then the university will never be able to put it behind them. I don't care how many "recommendations" they implement; it will still stink as long as they're hiding information that could help plaintiffs in lawsuits. Sometimes you have to quit listening to the lawyers, do the right thing morally and let the chips fall where they may.
"Free your ass and your mind will follow." -- George Clinton
bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malbec said:

Why didn't the BOR engage PH to conduct the audit of the recommendations that were created under their auspices? And if they were going to hire another firm that was independent of the responsibility for those PH recommendations, why did they hire the same attorneys (who had been separated from the responsible law firm) who had acted in concert with the BOR to produce the FoF who were now working at another firm, instead of bringing in a firm with no ties to the investigation at all?
Good questions. I'd like to know the answers.

One possible answer is that the two attorneys were the people at P-H who possessed the majority of the firm's institutional knowledge about the case. Since they were most familiar with the BU situation, it might have made more sense to hire them for the audit, even though they had moved to a new firm. Attorneys and advertising/PR people routinely take clients with them when they move to new firms. It could be as simple as that.
"Free your ass and your mind will follow." -- George Clinton
Keyser Soze
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Many around here are not big fans of Occam's Razor.


Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.