Spanberger's removal letter states "Your conduct has violated the Code of Conduct for Commonwealth Appointees to Boards, Authorities, & Commissions, the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors' Code of Ethics, and the governing statutes requiring board members to act in accordance with the best interests of Virginia Tech.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Interesting who Baine's political contributions went to in 2025. Also go ahead and look at Dominion Energy's Political and Corporate Contributions. Both are of Public Record.
I
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Baine has served on the BOV from appointments by both parties and has good relationships on all sides in Richmond and throughout the state. When he's served for VT, he's all in what's best for VT
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
unreal. we can never fail to be disappointed if this is indeed a ridiculous snafu. sabotage competition that is not in the interest of bow-tie, wine drinking, charcuterie board tailgaters.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I would encourage folks to communicate their thoughts on the removal of Rector Rocovich from the VT BOV to @GovernorVA via https://t.co/cptG9yViLd— Adam Boitnott (@Boitnott) May 28, 2026
editing to say: I simply emailed saying that the letter included some heavy sounding allegations and that students and alumni should be informed as to what he has done that violated these codes of ethics
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I wrote to let her know my dissatifaction with how hypocritical and political this appears due to all of the drama surrounding VA college board appointments in recent years. I recommended the whole system be amended to allow a more diplomatic forum to guide the direction of these institutions and I recommended that Virginia Tech's forum should be TKP.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Unless there was something hanky panky going on, does Rocovich have a legal case against her? She basically called him out on ethics. That could be considered slander.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
As much as it would definitely devolve into numerous CG violations a blind eye to it and a Hatin' On Spanberger thread does seem like a good use of the offseason.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Governor sent a letter citing the BOV Code of ethics. I would say that the use of "code of ethics" specifically here says that this isn't just a political move. That letter was absolutely reviewed by her legal team and this seems to rise above the level of "I don't like this guy".
There are at least half on the BOV now that were appointed by the previous governor and they aren't being ousted.
Long story short, there is likely much more to this and saying stuff like "Spanberger hates VT" is ignorant
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Something happened behind the scenes that is very not good for this to have happened, especially with the June 1st meeting coming up and the agenda that was a part of it.
If she wanted to hit VT politically, she would have done it right away.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Upon further review it appears that this justification requires no further explanation and that's why it was used. The odds it was political in nature are still high.
The code Gov. Spanberger cited — § 23.1-1300. Members of governing boards; removal; terms; nonvoting, advisory representatives; residency — includes:"C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection E or any other provision of law, the Governor may remove from office for...— David Cunningham (@therealdcunna) May 28, 2026
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Can anyone who's big mad right now tell me what the rector of the BOV actually does? This dude's name got out there as part of the Franklin thing, and it seems like he did some good work there. That seems to be the ostensible reason folks are mad at this, along with preexisting opinions that fall well outside the CGs to discuss.
Looking at the entirety of what's happening right now, seems like the combination of the term limit thing, something to do with Hokie Ventures and the rush to find a new AD and President got us here. Let's wait and see what combination of those things it was before everybody loses their minds.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Can anyone who's big mad right now tell me what the rector of the BOV actually does?
Not sure I'm 'big mad' but the Rector of Virginia Tech is the leader of the BoV. They are leader of the folks who decide:
Who to hire/fire as president
Finance Strategy
Capital Improvements
Let's wait and see what combination of those things it was before everybody loses their minds.
I think you're right - I'm in wait and see mode - but also, if you're a VT football fan, I think there's a lot of cause for concern:
Rokovich was a board member from 2002-04 - a time when VT was investing competitively with athletics. Seems like he knows what to do here.
Rokovich was reportedly instrumental in hiring Franklin - In an era where it's not uncommon for a coach to job hop for a new job, this isn't great. I'm sure Franklin does not love the additional instability in a time where there is already a lot of natural turnover
It definitely appears that one of the biggest advocates for VT football was just removed from their post shortly after kicking off some big transitions. Might be nothing, might even be good, we can't know yet... but right now it sure doesn't look/feel like a good sign.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Yeah, I think to the extent that it messes with the alignment of the BoV and the football program, it could be a net negative. But, he isn't the only dude on the BoV who cares about football. The current Gov just appointed Mehul back to the board, and he's probably the only huge donor to Tech athletics that most everybody on TKP could name off hand. J. Pearson is the other dude who got a lot of shine during the Franklin stuff, he's got a seat for the next two years. Color me skeptical that this is the beginning of the end for Tech football.
My point was mostly that there was a BIG knee-jerk reaction to the news and it seemed like a small percentage of that reaction actually had to do with the specifics of the news. I also think the effects that it's likely to have in the short to medium term are small (there's a lot of money already pledged and being spent, Franklin is currently mid-cook, etc.) and the long term effects are very hard to guess at without knowing who's getting appointed (both to replace him and as board seats open up soon).
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Rokovich was a board member from 2002-04 - a time when VT was investing competitively with athletics.
Weren't we so underfunded that our HoF football coach committed to coach another school?
We were the worst basketball team in the Big East.
As full time Big East members (2000-2003) we won 3 conference championships all in men's golf.
It's really hard to say we were investing well at that time when we basically were dragged into the ACC which was the main driver to increase our athletics. So if he had a hand on getting us into the ACC then sure, but i dont remember him ever mentioned.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
He was instrumental in getting us into the ACC. And at that time, we had some of the biggest/nicest facilities in the country and our assistant salary pool was one of if not the biggest.
As an aside, that is all the more reason that John Ballein's nostalgic mindset of "more with less, just like Frank" was not only stupid, but inaccurate. That's a separate discussion though.
For Roc, my only other comment at the moment is I'm not sure the governor's letter meets the legal requirements for his removal. She basically couches legal conclusions or statements of the law as facts, but without any specific allegations. His letter in rebuttal was quite strong. I suspect we'll see this play out in court.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Relax. VT Football (and athletics) isn't going to collapse. John Rocovich isn't some god. He's old and he wasn't going to be around much longer anyway (term wise, not life wise). And Spanberger literally just appointed several BOV members that are pro athletics, including Mehul who has been our most outspoken and well known alum athletic supporter. Also, don't pretend that Rocovich and a couple others on the BOV weren't doing things for their own personal benefit the last couple of years (without going into a CG violation, you can dig around yourself if you want to), which may actually be related to why this is happening.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Also, don't pretend that Rocovich and a couple others on the BOV weren't doing things for their own personal benefit the last couple of years (without going into a CG violation, you can dig around yourself if you want to), which may actually be related to why this is happening.
Can you say more? The most damning thing I found after a bit of googling was that he is an active donor to his political party/PACs, but I don't really think that qualifies as using his position for personal benefit.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
There is a member who owns substantial rental property around VT and generally takes all actions she can to force students off campus, enriching herself in the process...
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
One that I have heard from a very reliable source - there was a reason that VT BOV didn't approve building as many new dorms as were requested. Several of the members have commercial real estate interests in Blacksburg.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Partially correct but the Student Life Village did have a number of issues. It still should have gone through, but you largely nailed it, among other actions taken. Several BOV members own real estate interests in the area but none quite like one member.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
As someone who does not live in Virgina or follow the inner workings of the school, can someone tell me what made John Rocovich someone that people are upset to see being ousted? Was he a big proponent of cleaning house and bringing in Franklin? I'm assuming he was considered very good by the response to this, but I'm not up on things.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
He was very vocal and visible as part of the Franklin hiring. The dudes over at Tech Sideline were juicing him up during the hiring process (I think he was even on their podcast?). Big athletics guy.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Rocovich had been the spearhead on increasing VT's sports budget and was a critical piece on the committee that hired Franklin. Those 2 big headlines had put him in a positive light within Hokie nation. This move comes as a surprise, we will have to wait until all the cards are laid out, what ethic was violated, were their warnings, is there going to be a lawsuit, etc
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think it is unlikely we will ever know the full story
Regardless, I think we can acknowledge that we are living in a moment of high political tension. Every single act made by any person in any kind of political position is going to be scrutinized, attacked, defended, etc. based on whichever side one falls. It's kind of a sad state of affairs, frankly. We turn every action into a heated political pissing contest. This firing may be politically motivated. OR, it may be completely apolitical and justified. The truth is, outside of maybe VTGuitarman, nobody here will ever know for sure but many will latch on strongly to whichever narrative makes them feel better, irrespective of truth or facts (granted, many of which very few of us have access to).
It doesn't really matter if this was politically motivated or not. People on here have "their" tribe and people have already made up their minds how they feel about this move without knowing any of the facts. Spanberger is either in your tribe or in your enemy's tribe. We're blind to the facts. If she's in your tribe, she can do no wrong. If she's in your enemy's tribe, she can do nothing right. And 'round and 'round we go.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Good points. We do, however, know for a fact that Rocovich has been removed from his position by Governor Spanberger. It is perfectly alright to have an opinion on this as it relates to Virginia Tech and the athletic department without bringing a hint of politics into the discussion. While we as a people are living in a very divided time, I think it's important to communicate that having an opinion is a reasonable thing that doesn't have to involve party lines.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
yes, opinions are reasonable and can even be constructive, if discussed in good faith.
Having (and sharing) an opinion of how this may affect VT football (speculative) makes a ton of sense. Making an off-color, borderline sexist, clearly political-party-talking-line "joke" is disruptive noise that does nothing more than fan the flames of discord.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
yeah, totally agree. Its at a point where we make things political when they aren't actually political.
This may be an example of that. (or maybe not; frankly, we don't know)
It's an interesting phenomenon - it seems the further and further the extremes of the political spectrum get from one another, the more people seem to care about politics and make everything a political discussion (even things that, in reality, aren't remotely political). The more extreme our politics get, it seems people find it more important to be on one side or the other. And once they've decided which side they are on, that side must be right all the time because we're afraid of being wrong. And, even when that side is actually wrong, there are justifications that somehow redirect blame to the other side.
Like, "I was driving home today and there was an accident on I-40"
"Oh, that must be because of [X policy] signed into law by [Y political party/politician] which is a dumb law because [A, B, C reasons that vaguely, if at all, relate to the potentially assumed reason for crash]"
"yeah, so a vehicle's tire blew out while it was going 65 mph and the driver lost control and bounced into the barricade - I don't think it was [party/politician]'s fault."
'BUT YOU HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME BECAUSE MY PARTY IS RIGHT AND YOURS IS WRONG AND YOU'RE AN IDIOT IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT THAT WAY"
"bro, I'm just tellin' you why I was 20 min late. Chill"
"I CAN'T EVEN WITH YOU...PEOPLE ON YOUR SIDE ARE SO DENSE AND IMPOSSIBLE TO REASON WITH"
"..."
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
You're 100% correct. It's nauseating. The shitty part is most of us agree on 80% of nearly everything. Like cake is better than pie. But we somehow find a corner to back into on the most obscure point that we really don't care about. I feel like we need to ctrl+alt+delete and wait 15 minutes before rebooting, because for the last decade or so the hourglass has just been spinning.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think part of the challenge we face is that the 80% we agree on is largely made up of "what's wrong" and the 20% we disagree on is largely made up of "who's fault" it is and/or "how to fix it"
Without getting into specifics - classic examples include education, economy, various rights, etc. We all agree that we need schools. We just can't agree on which direction to go there. Or what makes a good education. Or whether schools are getting better or worse. Or who's responsible for schools getting better or worse.
Like, we all want our kids to get the best possible education. We don't all agree on how to achieve that.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Yes. And most importantly, how to pay for it. There are a lot of great ideas. It's how you implement them and fund them that is the issue. "We need to do better" is not a plan and may not even be feasible. I don't think we can even agree on who "we" is. Does that mean me and you? Does that mean them? Does that mean our communities? Does that mean our government? It's all coach speak and I don't think many politicians really want the problems sovled for fear of not having a platform for which to leverage power.
"I" still need a beer btw. "We" need to set up a TKP tailgate for the VMI game.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The sad part is as a moderate both sides get farther and farther away from what I actually want and every election seems like a choice of the lesser of two evils.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Well, in fairness, it does seem like the Governor has pissed off both sides of the equation here. Sounds like an attempt at "moderation", as I define it, to me.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I still believe that a majority of people are generally moderate. The further the extremes get from each other the louder their minorities become, which makes it feel like there are more extremists than there really are. It's felt like "the lesser of two evils" for a while but one problem there is that it still throws weight behind an evil. But not voting means I can't complain so.... Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Right?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
This is coming fresh off of her throwing a fit that "the wrong party's BOV" was hiring the President at UVA like 6 months ago.... A position that I wouldn't have even though of as being a political one. It's an on brand thing now for her to want her political lackies in positions of power at VA's universities.
This sub-thread was locked by a moderator.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Yeah, I'm closing this subthread before it gets out of hand with naked partisanship. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. I know a lot about what happened internally at UVA and here at VT. Neither should be distilled down to something so trivial.
This sub-thread was locked by a moderator.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm going to avoid the Political aspects of it as much as possible...other than to say this seems....odd.
The bigger picture I worry about is how all of this upheaval is going to affect Franklin.
He currently has no AD, no University President, and now someone who was presumed to be a significant ally on the BoV is *poof*.
I think any reasonable coach would be really questioning the foundation they are standing on at this point. He's already Recruiting well, if CJF puts together a solid year (maybe two) on the field, the grass might really start to look greener other places.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Well if it helps ease your worries any, Franklin is on the committee that will be hiring the AD along with several members that were on the head coaching search committee and also BOV member and huge athletic supporter Mehul Sanghani.
So it appears that VT Athletics is still aligned with the plans that have been put in place
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
J. Pearson and Ryan McCarthy, both nominated by Gov. Youngkin, are still on the board, and they were the board's two point men in bringing Franklin in. Mehul was nominated by Gov. Spanberger, and we all know where he's coming from.
Whatever's going on here, I don't think taking VT football/athletics down a peg has anything to do with it, and I think assuming Spanberger is pro-UVa and anti-VT is a pretty silly way to look at how a politician is going to handle two of the biggest economic drivers in the state.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
how all of this upheaval is going to affect Franklin.
He currently has no AD, no University President, and now someone who was presumed to be a significant ally on the BoV is *poof*.
You're not getting it. This isn't a Spanberger decision, this is Franklin's move so that he can pick the Rector, President, and AD. Because Franklin is actually the Rector, President, and AD.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
There's a lot that (1) I know but can't tell you and (2) that I don't know at all. Informed reasoning says that VT athletics will be fine, the governor does not hate the university, this is not necessarily naked politics (TBD on that) and that there are very specific reasons for this that I'm generally aware of but can't 100% confirm. I know everyone liked Mr. Rocovich for what he did for athletics, hiring Franklin, etc. but there was a lot of other stuff going on.
For my part, Mr. Rocovich was always very fair and professional with me, we had some good and frank discussions on things. But I understand there were concerns about some of his actions from many different entities. That's all I'm going to say.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Respect for saying a lot without saying much, and I mean that.
If I can read between the lines a bit, sounds like you're not surprised it happened. Glad to hear we're still good to go on the future of VT athletics. At this point, I think too much time and money has been invested in this change to pull the plug now.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Thank you for providing a level response and maybe that will help with some if the polarizing comments in this thread. Glad you're part of TKP to offer these insights.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
yeah... I found out about the news there first, read some comments, bailed quickly and ran over here. Unless you are looking to get into an asynchronous fight i dont recommend going there.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
That's a fun town. I was standing in the rainy woods of WV, attending the same MDW camping party for the 42nd year in a row. I had one Busch Light, six or seven Ranch Waters, a dozen Budweisers and 1000 Model Zero Especiales. Little bit of bourbon and wine too!
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I set my lifetime beer achievement record many years ago on a fly in fishing trip to Canada. Drank nothing but beer for 8 days. I have a rough estimate of the total but I've never written it down and can't for fear of a life audit when I die. I am sadly/gladly not that man anymore.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It's startling but from what I've been reading it's largely politically motivated which is um something I'm not going to get into here. That said he did play a role in bringing Franklin here, but at the same time what role does this rector have football-wise? As long as they hire an AD and bring on a president who aligns with Franklin's vision I am fine.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm sure politics played a part, but what I've been told is that this is not nakedly political and it's not a surprise. He was a powerful dude that played by his own set of rules. I've heard he's not going to fight it, which if correct, is very telling.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The letter explicitly fires him though. He can't really decline. (Given the statement, I'm assuming he was offered the opportunity to resign, declined to take it and was fired but I have no information to support that assumption)
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Here are the sections noted in the dismissal. You can bet, being a lawyer, that Rocovich will pursue this to clear his reputation. Silence on his part would be telling.
C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection E or any other provision of law, the Governor may remove from office for malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty any member of the board of any public institution of higher education and fill the vacancy resulting from the removal.
D. The Governor shall set forth in a written public statement his reasons for removing any member pursuant to subsection C at the time the removal occurs. The Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal as set forth in subsection C.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Counterpoint: any legal action will result in public discovery. And you can be absolutely sure the Governor's office reviewed their legal bases before this decision was made.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The Governor that signed an illegal redistricting law that was overturned by VA SC didnt have a hand in the drafting of the SCOTUS appeal.....c'mon man!
This sub-thread was locked by a moderator.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Pretty sure you know why the downvotes are coming, and it has nothing to do with ragging on UVA. Just reign in the political talk bro and you'll be good
This sub-thread was locked by a moderator.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Pretty clear her letter doesn't satisfy the requirements as I noted above. She could try to elaborate, but that would not be at the time of removal as required. But, suppose he "wins" some kind of Dec action, what is stopping her from just removing him again, in her sole discretion? What a mess of a situation and statute. Classic Virginia.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
See this is wild because i read that and go "well he has no recourse".
the initial announcement says she's removing him because his actions were unbefitting a member of the BOV -- where does anything say she needs to elaborate on that as the sole arbiter?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection E or any other provision of law, the Governor may remove from office for malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty any member of the board of any public institution of higher education and fill the vacancy resulting from the removal.
D. The Governor shall set forth in a written public statement his reasons for removing any member pursuant to subsection C at the time the removal occurs. The Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal as set forth in subsection C.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
So, saying that he violated the Code of Conduct, the Code of Ethics, and guidelines regarding acting in Virginia Tech's best interest isn't sufficient reason?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I read it as she provided that as the reason and isn't legally required to elaborate further because it is her discretion and hers only that he didnt act in tech's best interests 🤷♂️
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
A fair/objective reading of section D is that it requires a written statement as to how he engaged in conduct that violates section C. Her letter is nothing more than legal conclusions or statements of the law couched as factual allegations. Nobody reading that has any idea of what he allegedly did wrong and that is the problem. In my legal opinion, anyway.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
D. The Governor shall set forth in a written public statement his[sic] reasons for removing any member pursuant to subsection C at the time the removal occurs. The Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal as set forth in subsection C.
Here's what you said.
A fair/objective reading of section D is that it requires a written statement as to how he engaged in conduct that violates section C
Nowhere in the clause does it require a statement "as to how he engaged in conduct that violates section C". It simply says a statement of his[sic] reasons shall be set forth. Spanberger issued a statement and gave her reason, pursuant to subsection C as (again, emphasis my own):
Your conduct has violated the Code of Conduct for Commonwealth Appointees to Boards, Authorities, & Commissions, the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors' Code of Ethics, and the governing statutes requiring board members to act in accordance with the best interests of Virginia Tech.
Now, lets go back to subsection C (again, emphasis my own):
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection E or any other provision of law, the Governor may remove from office for malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty any member of the board of any public institution of higher education and fill the vacancy resulting from the removal.
Spanberger cites two codes and gives her reason as a violation of those codes which would constitute either malfeasance or gross neglect of duty, both mentioned in subsection C. You don't have to like it, but the way the law is laid out, she adhered to it.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
This is how I read it. I think there will be more narrative-y leaks/dicussions around this over the next few weeks, especially if Roc continues to fight it, but I think putting more detail into the letter that cites the statutes just gives more toeholds to attack. "I say you did this, therefore I say you're gone, as per the statute" is clean and leaves very little room for action in court. "You did A, B, C and D, and I think that those consitute, blah blah blah" gives you A, B, C and D, along with their histories and contexts to attack, if you're on the other side.
Would it be better for us, people watching from the outside with an interest in the outcomes here, to get more details? Sure. I'm clearly curious. But from a legal standpoint, doing the bare minimum and giving the fewest points to attack feels like the obvious choice.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I see your point. I just think it's a circular argument. Like when you read a complaint that just sets out the elements of a cause of action without any specific factual allegations to establish those elements. I agree she has broad/sole discretion. But I dont think she's met her very minimal burden.
HYPO/ANALOGY:
Mods: VPIhokieME is banned from TKP, effective immediately.
HokieME: on what basis?
Mods: You violated the community guidelines.
HokieME: which ones? Which guideline(s) did I violate?
Mods: We're not telling. Have a nice life.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
as much as that would suck, I don't think there's anything stopping the mods from banning me in that hypothetical. I could piss and moan about it but that's about it. I'd have no real recourse.
I'm not saying that I like or agree with the removal. I'm not saying that I like or agree with Spanberger. I'm not saying that I like or agree with the way the code is written. I just think your original interpretation of the way the law was written missed the mark. Yes, the Governor must give a reason. No, that reason doesn't have to satisfy the voting public, as the Governor is the "sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal"
Spanberger gave a reason (Rocovich violated two separate codes of conduct/ethics, and was not acting in the best interest of the institution). If the Governor is satisfied with the sufficiency of the cause for removal there's not much we can do about it. I won't argue the merits of the reason. But there is a reason given and that is all that was required.
All that said, I totally get where you're coming from. I want to know more before I have a fully formed opinion on the matter. I wish there was more meat on the bone. I want to know the specific reason just as much as the next guy. But the law, for whatever reason, doesn't require that. So this is what we're stuck with. IIWII
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
This case it would be more like the general tkp population saying: Which ones? Which guidelines did HE violate?
Mods response: He knows, and communications have been sent.
You are assuming that he doesn't know how he violated the code and that no further communications or correspondence has been offered from one party to the other. Perfect case is that he was asked to resign...but THAT piece of correspondence hasn't shown up. Maybe other things will show up in time. Maybe he was told, in detail, what they believe he violated. Maybe Spanberger wielded her power and the position was at-will and she can do what she likes. (This is the case with many municipal engineers and planners that we work with. They can be terminated at any time.) Maybe she hasn't proven it to you, but who are the royal YOU in all of this? A non-party. We all are. (Except Guitarman...)
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I see what you're saying, but I would think the Governor's statement would be sufficient. For a couple of reasons:
The statute doesn't state removal is only allowed to remove from office for malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty... The statute reads as a list of possible reasons that removal may occur (similar to why you can have under 2A despite not being a member in a militia): "the Governor may remove from office for malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty any member of the board of any public institution of higher education"
If explanation was required under D, I would think the statute would say the magic words "with particularity". If it read like "The Governor shall set forth in a written public statement his reasons with particularity for removing any member pursuant to subsection C...." Without it, not so sure.
Lastly, this seems similar to the US Executive Admin law which SCOTUS has found that unless dictated by statute, the President has the right to remove any Executive from Office if he has the power to appoint that Executive. And given that the statue actually sets the power is solely of the Governor, I think the Governor has strong arguments she has power to remove without making any statement.
Alternatively, if there is "any other provision of law" that the Governor has not met, I think that would be Rocovich's strongest argument. For instance, maybe there is statute that requires the Governor to make decisions that are not "arbitrary or capricious" or some other statute that covers appointments and removals.
I do think Rocovich's argument is enough to get into court. And I think we've seen enough to know that once in court, the outcome is more political than strictly legal. So, idk.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Update: it appears Rocovich has filed suit in Montgomery County Circuit Court making precisely this argument. That is, that the termination letter was unlawfully vague. I still say the obvious outcome is she just writes another public letter detailing the reasons, at which point, he's out with no recourse. But will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Well based on his first letter we knew he was considering it. I wonder if he is trying to bait her into something that he can sue her over rather than an injunction on his firing?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
IM(ns)HO, this lawsuit is not a good move on his part, because he's just forcing the governor to detail the reasons he was terminated. This is not going to be a good look on VT, and by filing the lawsuit, he proves the third of the termination reasons (that he wasn't acting in VT's best interests).
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I agree, but to play devil's advocate - the filing of this lawsuit proves that he is no longer acting in VT's best interests, but his own, now that he's been terminated.
It does not prove that he was acting outside of VT's best interests at the time.
(There are other things that might lead you to that conclusion though. Just not the simple fact that he has now filed this lawsuit.)
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I agree with both of you. What is the purpose of his suit? Settlement? Clear his name? As far as it goes, he's free to act in his own interest, for sure, and were I to feel I was unlawfully treated, I'd be inclined to sue as well. What a mess, though.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
A lawyer accused of an ethics violation without evidence. Does he really have any other choice to attempt to clear his reputation? The Governor isnt forthcoming.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The first half of this is, at the very least, missing a lot of context surrounding what's happened at the various schools. Some of those were actions by the legislature (VCU), some were votes by their own boards of trustees (VMI). The GMU thing looks like it was a total clusterfuck, both before and after their rector stepped down. Is there political context behind all that stuff? Sure. Did the governor "whack" the boards? Feels hyperbolic at best, intentionally inflammatory at worst.
The second half seems to be ignoring the other 340 comments on here that spell out, at least some of, what was going on behind the scenes. If you don't want to read all that, then don't. But if you're going to comment on an already pretty charged board, it feels like it's worth having a bit of nuance to what you're saying.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Ok, let's take out the word "whack" and replaced it with "significantly altered"? It's to setup so others can go and read up on the situations at the various schools themselves, others may not know about those actions.
The intent was to add information, not be inflammatory. That's not really what I do here.
Also, it is not contradictory to GGC's comment. It is contextual.
Similar situations, depending on POV, exist at some of these other schools.
edited for word duplication.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
True, the Governor isn't being forthcoming about this issue, but it remains to be seen what evidence there may be at hand. I find it difficult to believe the Gov would make such a move without expert counsel and evidence. I guess we'll see.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
There is more to this story than everyone is jumping to conclusions on. Trust that this was the right move for the situation (and was not political by the Governor). I was personally involved in something regarding the BOV this year and can tell you we have some serious problems that need be to fixed from their inside out.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It's inherently political. It's silly to pretend otherwise, even if there is an additional justification to making the move. The prudent thing would be to take a skeptical posture until more information comes out. So far the governor's office has declined to give any additional context.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think the shenanigans that occurred up the road in Hooville for their president search which happened in between the election and the inauguration might provide some background. Plenty of material out on the web on how that played out.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Honestly when I saw the news I didn't know this was a big deal, living in Florida our college boards and such have been fired constantly the last 6 years.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
So why are the boards politically appointed in the first place? Is this the norm around the country? I've never understood why these are appointments that are made by the governor
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think the short answer is they are responsible for managing the finances (as well as many other areas) of the institution. Since VT is a land grant university that receives state funding, the state has a say on who is on the BoV.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
"Good thing politicians are so pure especially when money is involved, it's inconceivable that something ill could come from this!"
Not sure where you live, but if you want to feel better about your state, just come up to NJ for a while and see what real corruption is like! Read The Jersey Sting to get a feel for it.
100 days until kickoff in the 'Burg. The energy, the traditions, the people & the community we're proud to call home!Appreciate @MartySmithESPN setting the scene #LGHpic.twitter.com/q6tIBm9muV— James Franklin (@coachjfranklin) May 28, 2026
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Rumor on Reddit is he tried to stack the deck of Presidential nominations for the BOV to consider and was pressuring other BOV members to do things his way. If the reddit reported nomination for President of Tech is to be believed, it might be a good thing he is gone. The person proposed was not qualified to be a University President.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The rumor stunk of collusion dating back to Roco's appointment and would have been terrible for the university. If true, Spanberger was well within her right imo.
However, he's issued his rebuttal so I'm somewhat intrigued to see how this plays out.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Just curious how the back and forth impacts the search for a new President...if at all. There's a lot of dysfunction all around, but when it's on the front page at a major university, might dissuade some top candidates that just want to come in and work without having to worry about eggshells all around.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
This makes me much less sympathetic to Roc's cause. It doesn't matter what he thinks, the governor is well within her rights to boot him. Now he can either go away gracefully or drag this, and subsequently VT, through it.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Is the Governor well within her rights to potentially defame the character and reputation of a very well-respected attorney in VA and alumnus of the University for alleged "ethics violations" which are totally unsubstantiated at this point? You're telling me the Chair of a major University Board tried to use his influence and politic with other Board members to gain support on a hiring decision? SHOCKED I tell you, SHOCKED!
If Roc is comfortable with the discovery here, let it play out. I wouldn't want someone sullying my reputation either, especially as an accomplished attorney and businessman.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Yeah there is no chance I would take that accusation sitting down. If the answer is "not listening to others on the board", then say that. Don't leave an open ended accusation for people to draw their own conclusions.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The initial statement says he didnt act in the best interests of the university -- that's not defamation of character and doesn't require anyone (or invite them, really) to draw any further conclusions or to speculate.
If we are inviting speculation, just by connecting the dots i can surmise that this is connected to the rectorship and university president search, and could even include the university president vacancy to begin with 🤷♂️
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The rumor I saw was that he put Youngkin on the short list for President. That is probably not in the best interest of the University as he has no background, education, or experience to my knowledge to support a successful execution of those duties.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
also that moving to change longstanding BOV bylaws on term limits isn't in tech's best interests
The article with his rebuttal information linked above states that no one wanted the Rector position and he offered/wanted to do it again. Clearly the BoV saw the need to change the bylaws to support that. I don't know how factual that article is, but the above statement - which seems directed at Roc - is not what happened according to that article. based on that article the bylaws change was joint by the entire BoV (vote was 11-2 with one abstention).
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Did no one want it or was enough people on the board conveniently convinced to not want it therefore leaving him totally by coincidence as the only one who wants it?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I don't think the bylaws have been changed. The election of Rocovich to rector was also treated as a temporary suspension of the term limits, but otherwise the term limits are still in place.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I don't think the term limits would stand up. A lot of schools don't even have any limits. Tech had nobody willing to take the role so they were proposing an exception to allow him to serve again.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Is the Governor well within her rights to potentially defame the character and reputation of a very well-respected attorney in VA and alumnus of the University for alleged "ethics violations" which are totally unsubstantiated at this point?
Yes. Of course yes.
Anyone is allowed to defame anyone else within the laws of libel and slander. I mean, look at the president, congress, judges, etc., on both sides of the aisle. They constantly defame other peoples character without any substantiation. Unless it's illegal, then it's within someone's right.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The legislators have specific and very broad protections at the federal level. This is to allow the legislators to be able to openly debate without fear of suit.
The Executive does not have these protections other than the executive cannot be sued for specific acts as the executive carried out as defined by federal law.
The state level will vary by state law.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Correct. While on the floor or in acting in their congressional duties, Congress members are allowed to slander anyone or any company. So, those protections carve into what is considered illegal outside of legislation. Similar protections are afforded for attorneys, expert witnesses, etc. in the courtroom.
It is sort of crazy, but the theory is that if there are two sides, you can go to extremes that would rise to illegal defamation outside of these arenas, because the other side can counter. And therefore, the public (or jury in court) can be the arbitrator of fact. And because the Executive is one-sided, they are not afforded these carve outs.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
This feels like a fight he will lose but it will be a MESS all the way through. The law part of it seems pretty clear. If she deems that he's been negligent to his duty to the University, she can remove him. She, and only she, gets to decide. Feels like there would need to be some kind of smoking gun that she was lying about the reasons or whatever for a court to step in. He doesn't get a lot of say in that. But, he can certainly make a stink about it on the way out.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
This right here. The law is clear. Although he was asked to resign (and didn't), the governor followed up with a public letter stating that he was being removed. He doesn't get the option to accept the resignation request. He's been removed.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
He's simply making it publicly known that he does not agree with the decision, does not believe it is justified, and making it clear he is adverse to the removal. Board appointees can only be removed FOR CAUSE, and he's making it clear that he does not believe that cause existed. How does it look if you accept a resignation request for something like this and then try to fight it?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think the stink is the law says the reason needs to be explained even if she is the ultimate judge and her letter was very vague and didn't actually say anything. I get the behinds the scenes information indicates he probably should be gone. But he apparently wants her to explain why publicly to clear or actually tarnish completely his name.
Not sure if it is even possible, but could he find a judge to back him with an injunction? It sounds like he doesn't have a leg to stand on legally.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think the reason is that the governor is saying he violated the code of conduct and code of ethics. Maybe others feel there needs to be more details about what specific parts of those he is to have violated, but I don't know that the law requires more than that.
She determined he violated them and saw that as sufficient cause (not agreeing or disagreeing here with no information, just talking through the process)
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
If what is being rumored is true, then his demanding an explanation, and the subsequent mud-slinging that is surely to follow, is definitely not acting in Virginia Tech's best interests, thus justifying his removal.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
D. The Governor shall set forth in a written public statement his reasons for removing any member pursuant to subsection C at the time the removal occurs. The Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal as set forth in subsection C.
I'm just a simple country ass pocket, but to me this reads ambiguously enough and Spanberger's letter is vague enough that both sides could use them to prove their case.
On one hand, she did state Areason in her letter.
Your conduct has violated the Code of Conduct for Commonwealth Appointees to Boards, Authorities, & Commissions, the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors' Code of Ethics, and the governing statutes requiring board members to act in accordance with the best interests of Virginia Tech.
I find this is sufficient cause for your removal from the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors pursuant to subsections C and D of § 23.1-1300 of the Code of Virginia.
On the other hand, it could be argued she didn't exactly state THEreason.
I mean, do you take "You're going to jail for breaking the law" at face value? Or are you going to fight that like hell until it's "You're going to jail for trafficking narcotics."?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Those aren't the same things though. We have laws and procedures that spell out when you go to jail, and those are different from the laws and procedures that control removing a member of the BoV. To send me to jail you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I did something that violated the law. That requires a trial and enough evidence to convince a jury. To remove a member of the BoV for cause, the governor has to decide that your conduct is worthy of removal. It specifies in the law that the governor alone gets to make that determination.
D. The Governor shall set forth in a written public statement his reasons for removing any member pursuant to subsection C at the time the removal occurs. The Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal as set forth in subsection C.
That seems like the whole enchilada right there.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Exactly. And the first sentence of part D states that she has to publicly lay out said reasons. The question is does her stating her reasons in general satisfy that. I'm not arguing it does or doesn't. I'm just saying if I was a lawyer arguing for him, I would argue that the law is too vague for her letter to satisfy that stipulation. And if I was arguing for the governor, I would argue that it did and the second sentence of part D you highlighted makes their argument moot anyway. I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it's an argument. I'm just saying they left enough unsaid in the law to give way to different interpretations.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
A man who has put decades of service to this Institution is not all of a sudden going to do things unethical just doesn't pass the smell test.
The Governor ran on a platform that she wasn't going to meddle in University business. It was part of her platform, period. I didn't agree with what happened at UVA, but this reeks of an eye for an eye political wise.
The Governor owes the Virginia Tech community a response.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It looks unusual for sure, but I'm waiting for the facts to come out. SOMETHING happened that got the governor's attention, we don't know at all what that was.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Not only that, but people who care deeply can justify unethical decisions because of the depths of their commitments. "X is bad, so it's worth bending or breaking some rules to avoid X," is a tale as old as time.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Was hoping someone else would say it so I didn't have to but here it is.
Roc was making multiple unilateral decisions without going through the proper processes/procedures that are required of both him as the Rector and of the BOV in general. Worked out great as it related to the athletics side, but that is not his only job in his position.
The final straw was that he was attempting to skirt standard procedure for electing a new university president in an attempt to have one appointed before July 1st. There are a handful of Youngkin appointees whose terms are up on 6/30 so the goal was to have them around to elect Sand's replacement before they were replaced by Spanberger appointees. The only way to make that happen in time was to skip several steps that the state requires of its universities. It was a clear violation of his roles and responsibilities. From my understanding, it is almost impossible to make a hire like this in under 4 months and he was trying to do it in less than 3.
There was also a lot of pressure from other BOV members on both sides of the political aisle who did not like how the Sands retirement was handled (Roc expedited that as well) and how much power Roc believed that he had. There were several who were threatening to step down if action wasn't taken.
Obviously I am not naive enough to say that there wasn't some part of political motivation here but anyone who is saying this is just Spanberger trying to replace a Youngkin guy with her own apointee is way off base.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Adding some folks to a committee doesn't mean they weren't fast tracking things and skipping steps. Also, regardless of who's on the search committee, if they push the vote to before new members are officially added, they still wouldn't get a vote in the actual decision, right? Not sure it's in conflict at all.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Adding people to the committee was just a superficial move when he was running an end around to the entire process. Really it was just a rather weak CYA type of move making it seem like he was not motivated by politics and personal preferences
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
There are a handful of Youngkin appointees whose terms are up on 6/30 so the goal was to have them around to elect Sand's replacement before they were replaced by Spanberger appointees.
Because their replacements sure as hell were not going to vote for Youngkin to be hired as university president.
If that rumor is true, then Rocovich was right to be fired. And that's not a political statement, either. He has no university leadership experience, which is exactly what Virginia Tech needs right now, strong university leadership.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Likely no one outside of a few people under NDAs would even know the identities of any potential candidates or people who have been encouraged to apply...
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Putting the politics aside, he has zero career background in education at any level. That's a huge gap for any candidate that i would want under consideration for this role.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It's the next step, battlefield, arena (not sure right word here), having political appointments either former or even active elected officials be appointed the president of colleges, or their high up aids. 6 Florida schools have had this done. In Idaho, Indiana and Texas there have been massive overhauls to college boards, removing facility, alumni and student reps.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It's a rumor I've seen pop up in multiple places, both online and in the office. But like VTGuitarMan says, the only people who really know likely have NDAs.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Even if he doesn't, the shenanigans at UVA plus the perceived rush to push out Sands and hire a replacement before the board turnover makes it smell fishy. And that isn't taking into account any behind the scenes info that may exist
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It was listed on Reddit for all the truth behind that. I posted above, I might not like Spanberger but Youngkin is completely unqualified to be the President of the New River Valley Community College let alone VT.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Has no University Leadership. Okay - but most folks in education have no real experience, or couldn't cut it in the real world. Youngkin's resume is about as impressive as you can get...
1) CEO of The Carlyle Group on of the Largest Asset Managers in the world with almost a $500BB of AUM.
2) Former Governor of Virginia with $800BB of annual GDP
This sub-thread was locked by a moderator.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
You might as well just read the room here and not go down this path. Offset your downvote. I'm in no position to determine who is qualified for the job, but it's not unprecedented for former CEOs or Governors even to subsequently lead colleges and universities. But as neutral as many claim to be, a lot of opinions here are obviously very biased toward a certain side. You will be outright dismissed for even trying to take this route.
This sub-thread was locked by a moderator.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It isn't about sides. Getting picked for a job where you appointed the people who do the picking is downright masturbatory and certainly not in the best interests of the university, no matter how qualified you might be.
This sub-thread was locked by a moderator.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think a lot of people are also taking rumors and running with it. Youngkin may have been mentioned as a candidate, but that's a lot different than one man was unilaterally bypassing the Board and trying to hire him. Either way the full Board would have to vote on any candidate before they are appointed.
This sub-thread was locked by a moderator.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'll say this as well, the two names that I've heard who one person thinks are the most likely candidates to be the next rector are Youngkin appointees and allies.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I have no problem with Youngkin appointees and allies serving on the BoV and potentially as Rector. I have objections to the theoretical appointment of an unqualified person as President. Regardless if you liked Sands or not, he had the educational background and experience for the position.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
As do I. I was making that point to dispel this idea that it was purely a political move by Spanberger to get a left leaning BOV member appointed to Rector
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Dont care about the political affiliation as long as the new rector follows the by-laws, doesn't try an end-around on the president search, and has the best interest of VT in mind.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think LA pointed that out to sort of address some of the sentiment above that this might have been a political move. Love our governor or hate her, if her reason for the removal is true then she did a great job working to protect the University we all love.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think Mr. Miller will do a fine job as rector. He has chaired the Finance and Resource Management committee and has always run efficient and productive meetings. He has a strong analytical mind, looks for new opportunities to push forward. I look forward to working with him (I was re-elected to my role on the BOV so I'll serve for another year).
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Obviously I am not naive enough to say that there wasn't some part of political motivation here but anyone who is saying this is just Spanberger trying to replace a Youngkin guy with her own apointee is way off base.
There is definitely political motivation. In the hypothetical world that Earle-Sears won the governorship, this doesn't happen. Primarily because Rocovich would likely not need to rush to get Youngkin people through. And even if he was skirting procedures, Earle-Sears likely would not have cared if it was politically aligned. And alternatively, if the prior governor and appointees were of the same party as Spanberger, she likely overlooks the skirting of procedures if it ends up with a politically aligned result.
Here, we're definitely in a scenario where the appointees in power were appointed by a prior Governor of a different party, and as such, the Governor has an interest to ensure her political persuasion influences the decision of VT's president. It's just like when any Executive is of a different party of their predecessor. They will replace all prior appointees with appointees that align with their political agenda. It's the way the US government works. It's the reason why SCOTUS judges are slanted 6-3 towards a party, why DOGE was legal, why many vaccines are no longer suggested by the CDC, and why the EPA has unregulated the oil and gas industry. And as the current party in power always says, if you don't like it, take it to the ballot box.
(And my personal belief is one of the reasons that the 2-party system sucks is this constant Executive overhaul. Everything built in either direction gets taken down by the other party, often in spite, cultish opinion, or due to campaign promises to the donor class. Even popular programs are removed because it doesn't favor the current political party. Wake me up when the US has ranked choice voting and there are legitimately 4-5 parties that don't caucus as only two parties.)
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Like I said, there were several BOV members on both sides of the political aisle that were threatening to step down if action wasn't taken. Rocovich's lack of process undermines every other member's authority
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
No insider info, just what the BOV has posted for session materials pg453. It has been changed to a non-profit and will apparently be voted on around 4pm today.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I don't understand this strategy at all. The model will be universities having for-profit wings that manage revenue athletics. With the IRS recently piercing the veil on NIL collectives and deeming them for-profits, what charitable or educational purpose is this entity going to serve moving forward under 501(c)3 rules? Just seems to really miss the whole point of where things are headed with major college athletics. This isn't going to be able to hide under the guise of non-profit higher education much longer.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
That seems silly to me. You can donate money to a for-profit, it's just not tax deductible. That's what is happening to all these NIL collectives now with the IRS determining that they are not valid 501c3's. People can donate but it's not tax deductible, and collectives will likely need to start filing tax returns. I guess having a very strong tax attorney on the board guiding this would have been beneficial, but oh well.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It's not laundering. It's more like keeping money clean, preventing it from needing to be laundered.
The for-profit entities are required to have their own banking/tax system separate from the nonprofit. And money cannot freely flow between the entities.
So, here, the subsidiary would need to raise revenue independently the nonprofit. The advantage is that nonprofit can raise money for employment and make certain payments (e.g., related to facilities) that would be nontaxable, as long as the employment and payments benefit the mission of the nonprofit. The for-profit subsidiaries could raise and pay for anything unrelated to the mission (for example, raise money for NIL payments). And for profit subsidiaries could have shareholders (e.g., if set as an S-Corp).
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I know we have THW, but what is the other non-profit within the athletic dept? I won't pretend to understand the exact goal of the creation of this entity, but here is the language from the BOV materials:
Joint Open Session
1. Approval of Resolution to Affiliate with a New University-Related
Corporation*#: The Committees will review for approval a resolution documenting
the creation of a New University-Related Corporation and approving the affiliation
thereof with the university. In addition to the university's strategic priorities, Global
Distinction and VT Advantage, the university recognizes the critical importance of
intercollegiate athletics to Virginia Tech, the region, and the commonwealth.
The university is requesting Board approval, at the President's discretion, to
affiliate with a Virginia non-profit corporation, Hokie Ventures, as a strategic
partner for Athletics. This university-related corporation will be focused on both
maximizing existing revenues and securing new revenue sources that can be
called by the Athletics Director in support of Athletics and will be governed by an
independent board to include ex officio university representation.
2. Approval of Resolution for Authority to Loan Funds to Capitalize New
University-Related Corporation*#: The Committees will review for approval a
Resolution for Authority to Loan Funds to Capitalize a New University-Related
Corporation. The university desires to advance working capital up to a maximum
of $15.2 million to the newly established university-related corporation, Hokie
Ventures, to provide initial capitalization of the corporation. This request redirects
a portion of the loan funding already approved by the Board of Visitors under the
Invest to Win strategy by directing those funds to Hokie Ventures rather than as
an internal loan to the athletic department. These capitalization funds will provide
working capital loan(s) of up to three months of expenditures to finance operations
at the corporation, as well as to fund and support marketing activities.
The resolution sets basic conditions and requirements for the loan(s) and
establishes that the Vice President for Finance, in coordination with the Athletics
Director, will be responsible for finalizing the terms and authorizing specific
advances and altering terms in the future to achieve objectives. The Athletics
Director will oversee the financial performance of Hokie Ventures, review
documentation of ongoing operating expenditures, adjust the working capital
loan(s) to minimize the funds advanced, and ensure repayment of the working
capital advance(s) prior to termination of the agreement.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
What at Clemson has been successful in the last 5ish years? Texas Tech made huge leaps forward in just about every sport but Clemson looks meh in both basketball and football from their pre NIL days.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I put Football on Dabo being unwilling to effectively use the portal. He finally used it this offseason to bring in 10 players. Prior to that he had only brought in 6 players from 2018-2025. Put way too much of the NIL budget into HS players or retaining lesser players.
That said Clemson has ranked top three in Football NIL in the ACC for the last four years. Miami basically doubles or triples everyone. Clemson is usually second with around $18-$20M so between NIL and revenue share its a $33-$35M Football payment to players.
Basketball though Brownell the last 4 years went from winning 17 or 18 games to 23 to 27 games. Conference play prior to 21-22 they were +/- 1 game of .500. Last four seasons 14, 11, 18, 12 wins. Brownell has made some really solid moves signing talent, especially pulling starters from lesser ACC squads.
Basketball gets $4.5M-$6M in NIL so they trail Duke, UNC, and Miami typically.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
100% Dabo hasnt done what needs to be done. But Wendy about their system helped basketball they had tons of donations on the past snd now can openly pay, is that just they have a coach using the money they got him or is it their system?
Texas tech has won like 8 conference titles this year alone. They were in the CFP, are playing right now to try to get to the softball world series final, and have been really good in a number of sports. Clemson was a middle of the road acc team in almost every sport
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Texas Tech is spending proportionally way more than almost every Big12 team so if they weren't winning conference titles, they would be underachieving.
Clemson is spending at or near the top of the ACC but isnt significantly more.
As for Texas Tech and softball, they have a Billionaire, Cody Campbell, funding it because his wife was a Texas Tech Softball player.
They have a group of ten to twelve Billionaires, led by Campbell's high school classmate, John Sellers, funding the majority of NIL elsewhere. They were #2 in NIL spending in college football behind Texas. It really is a different animal.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Looking up Cody Campbell and, dang. This is a pretty darn impressive resume he has. Granted, it is Wikipedia, so may not be totally accurate, but anyone accomplishing have of this would be darn impressive.
Agree its different which is why I thought it was odd they were paired together. if Clemson is the top at ACC for spending then they are doing it very poor job of it because I think their best finish was men's basketball which was what 4th?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Miami is far and away #1 in the ACC. Estimates are about $40M more than anyone else, mostly focused on football. Not sure they won a single ACC Championship this year although they benefited the most of any school thanks to keeping all the CFP revenue.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Where did you see that? The only reporting I've seen on the athletics meeting is from the Sons and they said that Hokie Ventures was not talked about in the open sessions outside of being mentioned by Danny White. They did mention the video board, lights, and a 3mil upgrade to hallways and the recruiting lobby in Merryman and Jamerson were getting done.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Beat writer from the Roanoke Times had it on Twitter. TSL and David Teel later said it was just a committee vote and that it will go to the full board tomorrow (Tuesday). It's expected to pass
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It's still all about political alignment, which is clear if Roc was focused on getting Youngkin or a Youngkin appointee in before a certain deadline. If the current governor was Youngkin disciple, does Roc get kicked off the committee or does that hypothetical governor convince people on his side of the aisle that are threating to step down to go along with that process for political expediency. (Political expediency is all the rage these days at the national level, often at the expense of their own personal power, but I'm digressing...)
But I get your point and you're definitely more in the know of the process than I am. My point is that almost everything related to decisions made in an executive capacity are inherently political. And that's true here, even if right-sided appointees were upset with Roc's process. The question is ultimately how did the executive respond, not whether board members politically aligned with Roc were also upset.
But it's possible that what Roc was doing was so egregious that even politically aligned governor's would have to remove him. And unless further details are revealed that show his actions rose to that level, one can only assume Spangberger's decision was political (but rightfully so).
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
If he was truly trying to cut corners and schedules to install a completely unqualified person as President to repay or gather political favors he needed to go.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Saw the thread, thought about everything I know, the things I can say and can't, and just went "well shit." I think folks have generally done a good job minus a few asides. Kudos to TKP, this could have been a complete dumpster fire within 5 minutes, but it wasn't.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The other tkp tale as old as tkp time is a thread being mild and tame and then someone coming in and responding to every 2 day old comments as if it's new and pouring gasoline on the tiniest ember
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
As 04hokie said below, Rogue One is the best Star Wars movie, period. And it's not close. The original trilogy is the best trilogy, but they're not that good of movies. The 3 best Star Wars movies in order are
1) Rogue One
2) The Siege of Mandalore (Clone Wars arc)
3) Attack on Umbara (Clone Wars arc)
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Same here! Saw all three of the originals in theaters (as they were meant to be seen). The first I saw 9 times in theaters! NEVER watched a single minute of the prequels or sequels and have zero desire to ever do so.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Prequels = bad movies, but good star wars
Sequels = mixed quality movies, but terrible star wars
If you described the prequels to someone who only saw the original trilogy (senate manipulated, fall of the jedi, anakin's path to the dark side), they'd be like "ok yeah that makes sense". If you described the sequels to that same person they'd be like "WTF"
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Correct take
Correct take
Correct take
Hot dogs are quagmires as it can refer to the meat and the meat and bun at the same time. But either it is an exception to the rule as if some one defines a sandwich I will list a lot of things that no one thinks are sandwiches.
Only if the mashed potatoes are Yukon gold, russets are too starchy for double potato.
correct take
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Wow, get busy for a while and come back to a slew of 4 star commits and BOV intrigue. I think Chazz, LA and VTG have this all wrapped up nicely.
For those interested if you look through history of blue bloods (and I'm sure many, many other universities with or without football) they have had periodic blowups at this level too. For reasons that are similar to what LAHokie is explaining. People in power take advantage until other people in power take it from them. That's the nature of the pond you swim in.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
Did I miss something? What did he do?
Spanberger's removal letter states "Your conduct has violated the Code of Conduct for Commonwealth Appointees to Boards, Authorities, & Commissions, the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors' Code of Ethics, and the governing statutes requiring board members to act in accordance with the best interests of Virginia Tech.
She wants to make room for a new appointment? But yeah, another reason for me not to like Spanberger.
They literally were changing the rules so he could stay on as Rector and help pick the next University.
Doubtful - she reappointed Edward Baine (current BOV member) to finish Rocovich's term, which ends in summer 2027.
Rocovich's actions and disregard for the bylaws were getting blow back from other BOV members and legislators on both sides of the aisle in Richmond
Baine is finishing Roc's term as a BOV member, not as rector. A new rector will be voted on this week
Interesting who Baine's political contributions went to in 2025. Also go ahead and look at Dominion Energy's Political and Corporate Contributions. Both are of Public Record.
I
Baine has served on the BOV from appointments by both parties and has good relationships on all sides in Richmond and throughout the state. When he's served for VT, he's all in what's best for VT
I'd suggest waiting to see if we ever find out what the Code of Ethics violation was if there in fact was one
Would this fall under FOIA?
Assuming it was because the new 'no term limits.' Also wonder if it would put Mehul in this position.
unreal. we can never fail to be disappointed if this is indeed a ridiculous snafu. sabotage competition that is not in the interest of bow-tie, wine drinking, charcuterie board tailgaters.
This is massive for football. The Governor may end up killing VT athletics.
The BOV is highly political. Lets wait and see if anything actually comes out. Probably just politics.
I am finding it pretty difficult to look up much on this topic. Seems it would have a little more coverage on the interwebs.
Just happened. The two sides will come out on the political bandwidth
IDK it's a pretty niche subject and news just broke 2 hours ago... not sure what I'd expect to see.
More spanberger nonsense fucking over swva
Apparently it also is changing the entire discussion on Hokies Ventures. Seems straight forward a political ploy so wont delve farther into that here.
The fact that (it seems) that the plans for HV have changed from an LLC to a non-profit could be something real, and not necessarily political.
I guess spanberger can get her new president appointed and they fill the mens restrooms with tampons just as uva has done.
Crazy all the nosebleeds guys keep getting on these campuses.Soft.Really? We can't see the joke here?
Just ask Hunter Cantwell, amirite?
editing to say: I simply emailed saying that the letter included some heavy sounding allegations and that students and alumni should be informed as to what he has done that violated these codes of ethics
I wrote to let her know my dissatifaction with how hypocritical and political this appears due to all of the drama surrounding VA college board appointments in recent years. I recommended the whole system be amended to allow a more diplomatic forum to guide the direction of these institutions and I recommended that Virginia Tech's forum should be TKP.
Does that make me governor now?
I almost mentioned you as a rector nomination, but didn't want to do that to you. I thought sharing the workload would be more manageable.
Governor do you have any comment on your recent self-promotion scandal when you posted a side project in clear violation of CGs?
Damn, maybe I was wrong, Joe is ready for politics.
Lol. Politicians are certainly shining examples of "do as I say, not as I do"
Alternatively, "rules for thee, but not for me."
Yes that also works
More like "Govna!"
I'll drink!
Unless there was something hanky panky going on, does Rocovich have a legal case against her? She basically called him out on ethics. That could be considered slander.
Slander wouldn't apply. 1) It's not slander if it's true. 2) If it isn't true, you sue for wrongful removal.
I guess slander could be a secondary suit to wrongful removal if he was harmed by such a statement, but probably not.
Being publicly removed and humiliated is considered "harm"; proving intent will be the difficult part.
Also, wouldn't slander not apply because it was written and not spoken?
As much as it would definitely devolve into numerous CG violations a blind eye to it and a Hatin' On Spanberger thread does seem like a good use of the offseason.
Sign me up and I don't even live in Virginia.
Governor sent a letter citing the BOV Code of ethics. I would say that the use of "code of ethics" specifically here says that this isn't just a political move. That letter was absolutely reviewed by her legal team and this seems to rise above the level of "I don't like this guy".
There are at least half on the BOV now that were appointed by the previous governor and they aren't being ousted.
Long story short, there is likely much more to this and saying stuff like "Spanberger hates VT" is ignorant
No idea why this got a downvote, as it's the most thoughtful and least CG violating post on here so far.
Because I didn't say "GRRRR SPANBERGER BAD"
well she is
Stop
Yep.
Something happened behind the scenes that is very not good for this to have happened, especially with the June 1st meeting coming up and the agenda that was a part of it.
If she wanted to hit VT politically, she would have done it right away.
Upon further review it appears that this justification requires no further explanation and that's why it was used. The odds it was political in nature are still high.
Didn't she speak at graduation this year?
All newly elected governors do.
Can anyone who's big mad right now tell me what the rector of the BOV actually does? This dude's name got out there as part of the Franklin thing, and it seems like he did some good work there. That seems to be the ostensible reason folks are mad at this, along with preexisting opinions that fall well outside the CGs to discuss.
Looking at the entirety of what's happening right now, seems like the combination of the term limit thing, something to do with Hokie Ventures and the rush to find a new AD and President got us here. Let's wait and see what combination of those things it was before everybody loses their minds.
Not sure I'm 'big mad' but the Rector of Virginia Tech is the leader of the BoV. They are leader of the folks who decide:
I think you're right - I'm in wait and see mode - but also, if you're a VT football fan, I think there's a lot of cause for concern:
It definitely appears that one of the biggest advocates for VT football was just removed from their post shortly after kicking off some big transitions. Might be nothing, might even be good, we can't know yet... but right now it sure doesn't look/feel like a good sign.
Yeah, I think to the extent that it messes with the alignment of the BoV and the football program, it could be a net negative. But, he isn't the only dude on the BoV who cares about football. The current Gov just appointed Mehul back to the board, and he's probably the only huge donor to Tech athletics that most everybody on TKP could name off hand. J. Pearson is the other dude who got a lot of shine during the Franklin stuff, he's got a seat for the next two years. Color me skeptical that this is the beginning of the end for Tech football.
My point was mostly that there was a BIG knee-jerk reaction to the news and it seemed like a small percentage of that reaction actually had to do with the specifics of the news. I also think the effects that it's likely to have in the short to medium term are small (there's a lot of money already pledged and being spent, Franklin is currently mid-cook, etc.) and the long term effects are very hard to guess at without knowing who's getting appointed (both to replace him and as board seats open up soon).
Yea I think TSL, CJf, bud foster, all put Rokovich on a pedestal recently. Hell, in September there was a TKP post essentially asking "Can John Rocovick Save us?"
I don't how accurate/deserved this hype was, but there was definitely a segment of VT media crediting him with turning the athletics ship around.
Weren't we so underfunded that our HoF football coach committed to coach another school?
We were the worst basketball team in the Big East.
As full time Big East members (2000-2003) we won 3 conference championships all in men's golf.
It's really hard to say we were investing well at that time when we basically were dragged into the ACC which was the main driver to increase our athletics. So if he had a hand on getting us into the ACC then sure, but i dont remember him ever mentioned.
He was instrumental in getting us into the ACC. And at that time, we had some of the biggest/nicest facilities in the country and our assistant salary pool was one of if not the biggest.
As an aside, that is all the more reason that John Ballein's nostalgic mindset of "more with less, just like Frank" was not only stupid, but inaccurate. That's a separate discussion though.
For Roc, my only other comment at the moment is I'm not sure the governor's letter meets the legal requirements for his removal. She basically couches legal conclusions or statements of the law as facts, but without any specific allegations. His letter in rebuttal was quite strong. I suspect we'll see this play out in court.
Relax. VT Football (and athletics) isn't going to collapse. John Rocovich isn't some god. He's old and he wasn't going to be around much longer anyway (term wise, not life wise). And Spanberger literally just appointed several BOV members that are pro athletics, including Mehul who has been our most outspoken and well known alum athletic supporter. Also, don't pretend that Rocovich and a couple others on the BOV weren't doing things for their own personal benefit the last couple of years (without going into a CG violation, you can dig around yourself if you want to), which may actually be related to why this is happening.
Can you say more? The most damning thing I found after a bit of googling was that he is an active donor to his political party/PACs, but I don't really think that qualifies as using his position for personal benefit.
There is a member who owns substantial rental property around VT and generally takes all actions she can to force students off campus, enriching herself in the process...
One that I have heard from a very reliable source - there was a reason that VT BOV didn't approve building as many new dorms as were requested. Several of the members have commercial real estate interests in Blacksburg.
Partially correct but the Student Life Village did have a number of issues. It still should have gone through, but you largely nailed it, among other actions taken. Several BOV members own real estate interests in the area but none quite like one member.
Tech literally just got bids for four new dorms.
yes but this issue has been ongoing for years
Probably safer to avoid jumping to conclusions
As someone who does not live in Virgina or follow the inner workings of the school, can someone tell me what made John Rocovich someone that people are upset to see being ousted? Was he a big proponent of cleaning house and bringing in Franklin? I'm assuming he was considered very good by the response to this, but I'm not up on things.
He was very vocal and visible as part of the Franklin hiring. The dudes over at Tech Sideline were juicing him up during the hiring process (I think he was even on their podcast?). Big athletics guy.
Thank you.
And James Franklin has publicly stated multiple times how pivotal he, and his leadership were in putting VT in the running as an attractive stop.
I mean he also said that about Babcock
Rocovich had been the spearhead on increasing VT's sports budget and was a critical piece on the committee that hired Franklin. Those 2 big headlines had put him in a positive light within Hokie nation. This move comes as a surprise, we will have to wait until all the cards are laid out, what ethic was violated, were their warnings, is there going to be a lawsuit, etc
I think it is unlikely we will ever know the full story
Regardless, I think we can acknowledge that we are living in a moment of high political tension. Every single act made by any person in any kind of political position is going to be scrutinized, attacked, defended, etc. based on whichever side one falls. It's kind of a sad state of affairs, frankly. We turn every action into a heated political pissing contest. This firing may be politically motivated. OR, it may be completely apolitical and justified. The truth is, outside of maybe VTGuitarman, nobody here will ever know for sure but many will latch on strongly to whichever narrative makes them feel better, irrespective of truth or facts (granted, many of which very few of us have access to).
It doesn't really matter if this was politically motivated or not. People on here have "their" tribe and people have already made up their minds how they feel about this move without knowing any of the facts. Spanberger is either in your tribe or in your enemy's tribe. We're blind to the facts. If she's in your tribe, she can do no wrong. If she's in your enemy's tribe, she can do nothing right. And 'round and 'round we go.
Good points. We do, however, know for a fact that Rocovich has been removed from his position by Governor Spanberger. It is perfectly alright to have an opinion on this as it relates to Virginia Tech and the athletic department without bringing a hint of politics into the discussion. While we as a people are living in a very divided time, I think it's important to communicate that having an opinion is a reasonable thing that doesn't have to involve party lines.
yes, opinions are reasonable and can even be constructive, if discussed in good faith.
Having (and sharing) an opinion of how this may affect VT football (speculative) makes a ton of sense. Making an off-color, borderline sexist, clearly political-party-talking-line "joke" is disruptive noise that does nothing more than fan the flames of discord.
Agreed. I just get tired of politics in general as they've somehow entered nearly every corner of our meager lives.
yeah, totally agree. Its at a point where we make things political when they aren't actually political.
This may be an example of that. (or maybe not; frankly, we don't know)
It's an interesting phenomenon - it seems the further and further the extremes of the political spectrum get from one another, the more people seem to care about politics and make everything a political discussion (even things that, in reality, aren't remotely political). The more extreme our politics get, it seems people find it more important to be on one side or the other. And once they've decided which side they are on, that side must be right all the time because we're afraid of being wrong. And, even when that side is actually wrong, there are justifications that somehow redirect blame to the other side.
Like, "I was driving home today and there was an accident on I-40"
"Oh, that must be because of [X policy] signed into law by [Y political party/politician] which is a dumb law because [A, B, C reasons that vaguely, if at all, relate to the potentially assumed reason for crash]"
"yeah, so a vehicle's tire blew out while it was going 65 mph and the driver lost control and bounced into the barricade - I don't think it was [party/politician]'s fault."
'BUT YOU HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME BECAUSE MY PARTY IS RIGHT AND YOURS IS WRONG AND YOU'RE AN IDIOT IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT THAT WAY"
"bro, I'm just tellin' you why I was 20 min late. Chill"
"I CAN'T EVEN WITH YOU...PEOPLE ON YOUR SIDE ARE SO DENSE AND IMPOSSIBLE TO REASON WITH"
"..."
You're 100% correct. It's nauseating. The shitty part is most of us agree on 80% of nearly everything. Like cake is better than pie. But we somehow find a corner to back into on the most obscure point that we really don't care about. I feel like we need to ctrl+alt+delete and wait 15 minutes before rebooting, because for the last decade or so the hourglass has just been spinning.
I think part of the challenge we face is that the 80% we agree on is largely made up of "what's wrong" and the 20% we disagree on is largely made up of "who's fault" it is and/or "how to fix it"
Without getting into specifics - classic examples include education, economy, various rights, etc. We all agree that we need schools. We just can't agree on which direction to go there. Or what makes a good education. Or whether schools are getting better or worse. Or who's responsible for schools getting better or worse.
Like, we all want our kids to get the best possible education. We don't all agree on how to achieve that.
Yes. And most importantly, how to pay for it. There are a lot of great ideas. It's how you implement them and fund them that is the issue. "We need to do better" is not a plan and may not even be feasible. I don't think we can even agree on who "we" is. Does that mean me and you? Does that mean them? Does that mean our communities? Does that mean our government? It's all coach speak and I don't think many politicians really want the problems sovled for fear of not having a platform for which to leverage power.
"I" still need a beer btw. "We" need to set up a TKP tailgate for the VMI game.
The sad part is as a moderate both sides get farther and farther away from what I actually want and every election seems like a choice of the lesser of two evils.
Well, in fairness, it does seem like the Governor has pissed off both sides of the equation here. Sounds like an attempt at "moderation", as I define it, to me.
I still believe that a majority of people are generally moderate. The further the extremes get from each other the louder their minorities become, which makes it feel like there are more extremists than there really are. It's felt like "the lesser of two evils" for a while but one problem there is that it still throws weight behind an evil. But not voting means I can't complain so.... Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Right?
This is coming fresh off of her throwing a fit that "the wrong party's BOV" was hiring the President at UVA like 6 months ago.... A position that I wouldn't have even though of as being a political one. It's an on brand thing now for her to want her political lackies in positions of power at VA's universities.
this is a gross misrepresentation of what happened but that's neither here nor there. The two situations are vastly different
Yeah, I'm closing this subthread before it gets out of hand with naked partisanship. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. I know a lot about what happened internally at UVA and here at VT. Neither should be distilled down to something so trivial.
Thank you.
I'm going to avoid the Political aspects of it as much as possible...other than to say this seems....odd.
The bigger picture I worry about is how all of this upheaval is going to affect Franklin.
He currently has no AD, no University President, and now someone who was presumed to be a significant ally on the BoV is *poof*.
I think any reasonable coach would be really questioning the foundation they are standing on at this point. He's already Recruiting well, if CJF puts together a solid year (maybe two) on the field, the grass might really start to look greener other places.
Well if it helps ease your worries any, Franklin is on the committee that will be hiring the AD along with several members that were on the head coaching search committee and also BOV member and huge athletic supporter Mehul Sanghani.
So it appears that VT Athletics is still aligned with the plans that have been put in place
J. Pearson and Ryan McCarthy, both nominated by Gov. Youngkin, are still on the board, and they were the board's two point men in bringing Franklin in. Mehul was nominated by Gov. Spanberger, and we all know where he's coming from.
Whatever's going on here, I don't think taking VT football/athletics down a peg has anything to do with it, and I think assuming Spanberger is pro-UVa and anti-VT is a pretty silly way to look at how a politician is going to handle two of the biggest economic drivers in the state.
You're not getting it. This isn't a Spanberger decision, this is Franklin's move so that he can pick the Rector, President, and AD. Because Franklin is actually the Rector, President, and AD.
Finkle is Einhorn
Einhorn is Finkle
This movie was a childhood favorite of mine. I don't think I really understood everything going on in the movie tho...
There's a lot that (1) I know but can't tell you and (2) that I don't know at all. Informed reasoning says that VT athletics will be fine, the governor does not hate the university, this is not necessarily naked politics (TBD on that) and that there are very specific reasons for this that I'm generally aware of but can't 100% confirm. I know everyone liked Mr. Rocovich for what he did for athletics, hiring Franklin, etc. but there was a lot of other stuff going on.
For my part, Mr. Rocovich was always very fair and professional with me, we had some good and frank discussions on things. But I understand there were concerns about some of his actions from many different entities. That's all I'm going to say.
Respect for saying a lot without saying much, and I mean that.
If I can read between the lines a bit, sounds like you're not surprised it happened. Glad to hear we're still good to go on the future of VT athletics. At this point, I think too much time and money has been invested in this change to pull the plug now.
I was somewhat surprised to get the text message that I did this morning but not shocked at all.
surprised, and not shocked. I've been there...
Gotcha
As an aside, I just got a good laugh at your badge. Never noticed that before
Haha, all in good fun, my friend!
lol it cracked me up
Thank you for providing a level response and maybe that will help with some if the polarizing comments in this thread. Glad you're part of TKP to offer these insights.
If you think these are polarizing you should see some of the commentary on instagram
Hard pass
yeah... I found out about the news there first, read some comments, bailed quickly and ran over here. Unless you are looking to get into an asynchronous fight i dont recommend going there.
No fanks.
Big reason I don't do social media. I have this, a 247 account, a LinkedIn and a Glassdoor, and that's probably way toooo much.
The Twitter commentary is... something.
I saw it on reddit, then went to TSL and here. Reddit had some interesting theories.
Thanks for the insight/Inside Baseball...it's always appreciated, obviously.
I need a beer. Who wants one?
[raises hand]
Drank 80 over the five day Memorial Day Weekend. I'll have another.
Chattanooga Beer Fest was lovely. Lost count of how many I tried, but I didn't do any repeats.
That's a fun town. I was standing in the rainy woods of WV, attending the same MDW camping party for the 42nd year in a row. I had one Busch Light, six or seven Ranch Waters, a dozen Budweisers and 1000 Model Zero Especiales. Little bit of bourbon and wine too!
I set my lifetime beer achievement record many years ago on a fly in fishing trip to Canada. Drank nothing but beer for 8 days. I have a rough estimate of the total but I've never written it down and can't for fear of a life audit when I die. I am sadly/gladly not that man anymore.
Here is a depressing fact.... Danny Glover was 40 years old when they shot Lethal Weapon and we he first said "I'm too old for this shit."
His character was 50, though.
And I definitely have a Murtaugh List.
You had me at fly fishing!
Find me a cold bass ale and I'm in
It's startling but from what I've been reading it's largely politically motivated which is um something I'm not going to get into here. That said he did play a role in bringing Franklin here, but at the same time what role does this rector have football-wise? As long as they hire an AD and bring on a president who aligns with Franklin's vision I am fine.
I'm sure politics played a part, but what I've been told is that this is not nakedly political and it's not a surprise. He was a powerful dude that played by his own set of rules. I've heard he's not going to fight it, which if correct, is very telling.
He already came out and said he won't resign.....
The letter explicitly fires him though. He can't really decline. (Given the statement, I'm assuming he was offered the opportunity to resign, declined to take it and was fired but I have no information to support that assumption)
Yes, but he obviously thinks Spanberger's claims are dubious and unwarranted.
Here are the sections noted in the dismissal. You can bet, being a lawyer, that Rocovich will pursue this to clear his reputation. Silence on his part would be telling.
C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection E or any other provision of law, the Governor may remove from office for malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty any member of the board of any public institution of higher education and fill the vacancy resulting from the removal.
D. The Governor shall set forth in a written public statement his reasons for removing any member pursuant to subsection C at the time the removal occurs. The Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal as set forth in subsection C.
Counterpoint: any legal action will result in public discovery. And you can be absolutely sure the Governor's office reviewed their legal bases before this decision was made.
Just like when they reviewed their recent SCOTUS Appeal and misspelled 'Virginia' and even addressed it to the wrong court?
And I'll just stop there with this thread.
Thank you.
The governor doesn't handle appeals in courts. That's the attorney general.
The Governor that signed an illegal redistricting law that was overturned by VA SC didnt have a hand in the drafting of the SCOTUS appeal.....c'mon man!
Must have been some UVA lawyers....amiright????
Downvoted for raggin' on UVA....pretty sad what this community has become...
Pretty sure you know why the downvotes are coming, and it has nothing to do with ragging on UVA. Just reign in the political talk bro and you'll be good
Pretty clear her letter doesn't satisfy the requirements as I noted above. She could try to elaborate, but that would not be at the time of removal as required. But, suppose he "wins" some kind of Dec action, what is stopping her from just removing him again, in her sole discretion? What a mess of a situation and statute. Classic Virginia.
See this is wild because i read that and go "well he has no recourse".
the initial announcement says she's removing him because his actions were unbefitting a member of the BOV -- where does anything say she needs to elaborate on that as the sole arbiter?
Adding on to this, to quote from the Code of the Commonwealth of Virginia, § 23.1-1300:
So, saying that he violated the Code of Conduct, the Code of Ethics, and guidelines regarding acting in Virginia Tech's best interest isn't sufficient reason?
I read it as she provided that as the reason and isn't legally required to elaborate further because it is her discretion and hers only that he didnt act in tech's best interests 🤷♂️
A fair/objective reading of section D is that it requires a written statement as to how he engaged in conduct that violates section C. Her letter is nothing more than legal conclusions or statements of the law couched as factual allegations. Nobody reading that has any idea of what he allegedly did wrong and that is the problem. In my legal opinion, anyway.
I don't necessarily agree here. If section D required that, then it should say it explicitly.
getting into legal weeds here:
The legalese (emphasis my own):
Here's what you said.
Nowhere in the clause does it require a statement "as to how he engaged in conduct that violates section C". It simply says a statement of his[sic] reasons shall be set forth. Spanberger issued a statement and gave her reason, pursuant to subsection C as (again, emphasis my own):
Your conduct has violated the Code of Conduct for Commonwealth Appointees to Boards, Authorities, & Commissions, the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors' Code of Ethics, and the governing statutes requiring board members to act in accordance with the best interests of Virginia Tech.
Now, lets go back to subsection C (again, emphasis my own):
Spanberger cites two codes and gives her reason as a violation of those codes which would constitute either malfeasance or gross neglect of duty, both mentioned in subsection C. You don't have to like it, but the way the law is laid out, she adhered to it.
This is how I read it. I think there will be more narrative-y leaks/dicussions around this over the next few weeks, especially if Roc continues to fight it, but I think putting more detail into the letter that cites the statutes just gives more toeholds to attack. "I say you did this, therefore I say you're gone, as per the statute" is clean and leaves very little room for action in court. "You did A, B, C and D, and I think that those consitute, blah blah blah" gives you A, B, C and D, along with their histories and contexts to attack, if you're on the other side.
Would it be better for us, people watching from the outside with an interest in the outcomes here, to get more details? Sure. I'm clearly curious. But from a legal standpoint, doing the bare minimum and giving the fewest points to attack feels like the obvious choice.
Honestly, I hope not. As long as there is mudslinging back and forth, this is going to look bad for VT. I'd rather that not be the case.
So am I. But I still recognize that it's better for this to quickly, quietly, go away.
Oh, I fully agree. When the first response is "I'm not going anywhere" though, feels like we're in for a bit of a ride.
I see your point. I just think it's a circular argument. Like when you read a complaint that just sets out the elements of a cause of action without any specific factual allegations to establish those elements. I agree she has broad/sole discretion. But I dont think she's met her very minimal burden.
HYPO/ANALOGY:
Mods: VPIhokieME is banned from TKP, effective immediately.
HokieME: on what basis?
Mods: You violated the community guidelines.
HokieME: which ones? Which guideline(s) did I violate?
Mods: We're not telling. Have a nice life.
as much as that would suck, I don't think there's anything stopping the mods from banning me in that hypothetical. I could piss and moan about it but that's about it. I'd have no real recourse.
I'm not saying that I like or agree with the removal. I'm not saying that I like or agree with Spanberger. I'm not saying that I like or agree with the way the code is written. I just think your original interpretation of the way the law was written missed the mark. Yes, the Governor must give a reason. No, that reason doesn't have to satisfy the voting public, as the Governor is the "sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal"
Spanberger gave a reason (Rocovich violated two separate codes of conduct/ethics, and was not acting in the best interest of the institution). If the Governor is satisfied with the sufficiency of the cause for removal there's not much we can do about it. I won't argue the merits of the reason. But there is a reason given and that is all that was required.
All that said, I totally get where you're coming from. I want to know more before I have a fully formed opinion on the matter. I wish there was more meat on the bone. I want to know the specific reason just as much as the next guy. But the law, for whatever reason, doesn't require that. So this is what we're stuck with. IIWII
This case it would be more like the general tkp population saying: Which ones? Which guidelines did HE violate?
Mods response: He knows, and communications have been sent.
You are assuming that he doesn't know how he violated the code and that no further communications or correspondence has been offered from one party to the other. Perfect case is that he was asked to resign...but THAT piece of correspondence hasn't shown up. Maybe other things will show up in time. Maybe he was told, in detail, what they believe he violated. Maybe Spanberger wielded her power and the position was at-will and she can do what she likes. (This is the case with many municipal engineers and planners that we work with. They can be terminated at any time.) Maybe she hasn't proven it to you, but who are the royal YOU in all of this? A non-party. We all are. (Except Guitarman...)
I see what you're saying, but I would think the Governor's statement would be sufficient. For a couple of reasons:
Alternatively, if there is "any other provision of law" that the Governor has not met, I think that would be Rocovich's strongest argument. For instance, maybe there is statute that requires the Governor to make decisions that are not "arbitrary or capricious" or some other statute that covers appointments and removals.
I do think Rocovich's argument is enough to get into court. And I think we've seen enough to know that once in court, the outcome is more political than strictly legal. So, idk.
Update: it appears Rocovich has filed suit in Montgomery County Circuit Court making precisely this argument. That is, that the termination letter was unlawfully vague. I still say the obvious outcome is she just writes another public letter detailing the reasons, at which point, he's out with no recourse. But will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Well based on his first letter we knew he was considering it. I wonder if he is trying to bait her into something that he can sue her over rather than an injunction on his firing?
IM(ns)HO, this lawsuit is not a good move on his part, because he's just forcing the governor to detail the reasons he was terminated. This is not going to be a good look on VT, and by filing the lawsuit, he proves the third of the termination reasons (that he wasn't acting in VT's best interests).
I agree, but to play devil's advocate - the filing of this lawsuit proves that he is no longer acting in VT's best interests, but his own, now that he's been terminated.
It does not prove that he was acting outside of VT's best interests at the time.
(There are other things that might lead you to that conclusion though. Just not the simple fact that he has now filed this lawsuit.)
I agree with both of you. What is the purpose of his suit? Settlement? Clear his name? As far as it goes, he's free to act in his own interest, for sure, and were I to feel I was unlawfully treated, I'd be inclined to sue as well. What a mess, though.
A lawyer accused of an ethics violation without evidence. Does he really have any other choice to attempt to clear his reputation? The Governor isnt forthcoming.
I would clear my name. Conjecture on the part of the governor shouldnt ruin his integrity
Especially given that she's already significantly altered
whackedthe boards at Virginia Tech, VMI, George Mason, VCU, and UVA.Doesn't sound like our guys have done anything out of sorts except not being liked by the Governor.
edited to change words some may find inflamatory.
The first half of this is, at the very least, missing a lot of context surrounding what's happened at the various schools. Some of those were actions by the legislature (VCU), some were votes by their own boards of trustees (VMI). The GMU thing looks like it was a total clusterfuck, both before and after their rector stepped down. Is there political context behind all that stuff? Sure. Did the governor "whack" the boards? Feels hyperbolic at best, intentionally inflammatory at worst.
The second half seems to be ignoring the other 340 comments on here that spell out, at least some of, what was going on behind the scenes. If you don't want to read all that, then don't. But if you're going to comment on an already pretty charged board, it feels like it's worth having a bit of nuance to what you're saying.
Ok, let's take out the word "whack" and replaced it with "significantly altered"? It's to setup so others can go and read up on the situations at the various schools themselves, others may not know about those actions.
The intent was to add information, not be inflammatory. That's not really what I do here.
Also, it is not contradictory to GGC's comment. It is contextual.
Similar situations, depending on POV, exist at some of these other schools.
edited for word duplication.
We have a bov member in this thread all but confirming otherwise 🤷♂️
Conjecture? Lots of conjecture about what and why, but as for the Governor, how do you know she's conjecturing?
True, the Governor isn't being forthcoming about this issue, but it remains to be seen what evidence there may be at hand. I find it difficult to believe the Gov would make such a move without expert counsel and evidence. I guess we'll see.
Which is why you have to defend yourself... his professional reputation relies upon it
Fair point.
There is more to this story than everyone is jumping to conclusions on. Trust that this was the right move for the situation (and was not political by the Governor). I was personally involved in something regarding the BOV this year and can tell you we have some serious problems that need be to fixed from their inside out.
Go on
Well.... we're waiting!
It's inherently political. It's silly to pretend otherwise, even if there is an additional justification to making the move. The prudent thing would be to take a skeptical posture until more information comes out. So far the governor's office has declined to give any additional context.
I think the shenanigans that occurred up the road in Hooville for their president search which happened in between the election and the inauguration might provide some background. Plenty of material out on the web on how that played out.
Honestly when I saw the news I didn't know this was a big deal, living in Florida our college boards and such have been fired constantly the last 6 years.
I've spoken with a few people tonight on this and they all believe the situation is manageable.
So why are the boards politically appointed in the first place? Is this the norm around the country? I've never understood why these are appointments that are made by the governor
I think the short answer is they are responsible for managing the finances (as well as many other areas) of the institution. Since VT is a land grant university that receives state funding, the state has a say on who is on the BoV.
Good thing politicians are so pure especially when money is involved, it's inconceivable that something ill could come from this!
"Good thing politicians are so pure especially when money is involved, it's inconceivable that something ill could come from this!"
Not sure where you live, but if you want to feel better about your state, just come up to NJ for a while and see what real corruption is like! Read The Jersey Sting to get a feel for it.
https://www.amazon.com/Jersey-Sting-Crooked-Money-Laundering-Informant/d...
How many people in power have you seen that are pure with money? Would you rather trust some billionaire? Or voters? Truth is everyone sucks.
The comment you're replying to was pretty tongue in cheek lol
They are elected in Michigan, at least for UM, MSU and Wayne State. But then again we elect judges, too.
peeks into thread
Ah, okay cool. I see we got all the angles covered here. Good job team
yeah, fuck'em all, left and right.
We all know that no matter what side of the aisle they're on, they're looking out for the best interests of us - the constituents.... /s
Time to go down to the Winchester, have a pint, and wait for this all to blow over
Igotthatreference.gif
Leg
How's that for a slice of fried gold?
Alright chill y'all and watch this.
Thanks for making me shotgun two Budweisers and run through a wall at 7:45 am.
Rumor on Reddit is he tried to stack the deck of Presidential nominations for the BOV to consider and was pressuring other BOV members to do things his way. If the reddit reported nomination for President of Tech is to be believed, it might be a good thing he is gone. The person proposed was not qualified to be a University President.
The rumor stunk of collusion dating back to Roco's appointment and would have been terrible for the university. If true, Spanberger was well within her right imo.
However, he's issued his rebuttal so I'm somewhat intrigued to see how this plays out.
Just curious how the back and forth impacts the search for a new President...if at all. There's a lot of dysfunction all around, but when it's on the front page at a major university, might dissuade some top candidates that just want to come in and work without having to worry about eggshells all around.
For some reason I'm getting messy SEC vibes from this situation. All signs point to VT Football is BAK!
lol, if this gets us into the SEC I'll take it
Rocovich has responded and says he won't step down.
https://cardinalnews.org/2026/05/28/spanberger-fires-rocovich-from-virgi...
This makes me much less sympathetic to Roc's cause. It doesn't matter what he thinks, the governor is well within her rights to boot him. Now he can either go away gracefully or drag this, and subsequently VT, through it.
Is the Governor well within her rights to potentially defame the character and reputation of a very well-respected attorney in VA and alumnus of the University for alleged "ethics violations" which are totally unsubstantiated at this point? You're telling me the Chair of a major University Board tried to use his influence and politic with other Board members to gain support on a hiring decision? SHOCKED I tell you, SHOCKED!
If Roc is comfortable with the discovery here, let it play out. I wouldn't want someone sullying my reputation either, especially as an accomplished attorney and businessman.
Yeah there is no chance I would take that accusation sitting down. If the answer is "not listening to others on the board", then say that. Don't leave an open ended accusation for people to draw their own conclusions.
The initial statement says he didnt act in the best interests of the university -- that's not defamation of character and doesn't require anyone (or invite them, really) to draw any further conclusions or to speculate.
If we are inviting speculation, just by connecting the dots i can surmise that this is connected to the rectorship and university president search, and could even include the university president vacancy to begin with 🤷♂️
The rumor I saw was that he put Youngkin on the short list for President. That is probably not in the best interest of the University as he has no background, education, or experience to my knowledge to support a successful execution of those duties.
Potentially also that moving to change longstanding BOV bylaws on term limits isn't in tech's best interests
The article with his rebuttal information linked above states that no one wanted the Rector position and he offered/wanted to do it again. Clearly the BoV saw the need to change the bylaws to support that. I don't know how factual that article is, but the above statement - which seems directed at Roc - is not what happened according to that article. based on that article the bylaws change was joint by the entire BoV (vote was 11-2 with one abstention).
Did no one want it or was enough people on the board conveniently convinced to not want it therefore leaving him totally by coincidence as the only one who wants it?
I don't think the bylaws have been changed. The election of Rocovich to rector was also treated as a temporary suspension of the term limits, but otherwise the term limits are still in place.
I don't think the term limits would stand up. A lot of schools don't even have any limits. Tech had nobody willing to take the role so they were proposing an exception to allow him to serve again.
Yea that's what happened here in Florida, 6 politicians or aids to the governor have been appointed university presidents.
HERE HERE!
Yes. Of course yes.
Anyone is allowed to defame anyone else within the laws of libel and slander. I mean, look at the president, congress, judges, etc., on both sides of the aisle. They constantly defame other peoples character without any substantiation. Unless it's illegal, then it's within someone's right.
The legislators have specific and very broad protections at the federal level. This is to allow the legislators to be able to openly debate without fear of suit.
The Executive does not have these protections other than the executive cannot be sued for specific acts as the executive carried out as defined by federal law.
The state level will vary by state law.
Correct. While on the floor or in acting in their congressional duties, Congress members are allowed to slander anyone or any company. So, those protections carve into what is considered illegal outside of legislation. Similar protections are afforded for attorneys, expert witnesses, etc. in the courtroom.
It is sort of crazy, but the theory is that if there are two sides, you can go to extremes that would rise to illegal defamation outside of these arenas, because the other side can counter. And therefore, the public (or jury in court) can be the arbitrator of fact. And because the Executive is one-sided, they are not afforded these carve outs.
This feels like a fight he will lose but it will be a MESS all the way through. The law part of it seems pretty clear. If she deems that he's been negligent to his duty to the University, she can remove him. She, and only she, gets to decide. Feels like there would need to be some kind of smoking gun that she was lying about the reasons or whatever for a court to step in. He doesn't get a lot of say in that. But, he can certainly make a stink about it on the way out.
This right here. The law is clear. Although he was asked to resign (and didn't), the governor followed up with a public letter stating that he was being removed. He doesn't get the option to accept the resignation request. He's been removed.
He's simply making it publicly known that he does not agree with the decision, does not believe it is justified, and making it clear he is adverse to the removal. Board appointees can only be removed FOR CAUSE, and he's making it clear that he does not believe that cause existed. How does it look if you accept a resignation request for something like this and then try to fight it?
Its not a resignation request though
I'm simply referring to Guitarman's statement that he was asked to resign before the removal process.
And subsequently announcing that he isnt stepping down after being fired is some theater
Reread the statute and point to where it says that.
I think the stink is the law says the reason needs to be explained even if she is the ultimate judge and her letter was very vague and didn't actually say anything. I get the behinds the scenes information indicates he probably should be gone. But he apparently wants her to explain why publicly to clear or actually tarnish completely his name.
Not sure if it is even possible, but could he find a judge to back him with an injunction? It sounds like he doesn't have a leg to stand on legally.
I think the reason is that the governor is saying he violated the code of conduct and code of ethics. Maybe others feel there needs to be more details about what specific parts of those he is to have violated, but I don't know that the law requires more than that.
She determined he violated them and saw that as sufficient cause (not agreeing or disagreeing here with no information, just talking through the process)
If what is being rumored is true, then his demanding an explanation, and the subsequent mud-slinging that is surely to follow, is definitely not acting in Virginia Tech's best interests, thus justifying his removal.
"I won't resign"
"It wasn't an ask"
End of discussion
Yeah... Asking for resignations is never really an ask. It's an opportunity to avoid being fired and making a mess in a public setting.
I'm just a simple country ass pocket, but to me this reads ambiguously enough and Spanberger's letter is vague enough that both sides could use them to prove their case.
On one hand, she did state A reason in her letter.
On the other hand, it could be argued she didn't exactly state THE reason.
I mean, do you take "You're going to jail for breaking the law" at face value? Or are you going to fight that like hell until it's "You're going to jail for trafficking narcotics."?
Those aren't the same things though. We have laws and procedures that spell out when you go to jail, and those are different from the laws and procedures that control removing a member of the BoV. To send me to jail you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I did something that violated the law. That requires a trial and enough evidence to convince a jury. To remove a member of the BoV for cause, the governor has to decide that your conduct is worthy of removal. It specifies in the law that the governor alone gets to make that determination.
That seems like the whole enchilada right there.
Exactly. And the first sentence of part D states that she has to publicly lay out said reasons. The question is does her stating her reasons in general satisfy that. I'm not arguing it does or doesn't. I'm just saying if I was a lawyer arguing for him, I would argue that the law is too vague for her letter to satisfy that stipulation. And if I was arguing for the governor, I would argue that it did and the second sentence of part D you highlighted makes their argument moot anyway. I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it's an argument. I'm just saying they left enough unsaid in the law to give way to different interpretations.
A man who has put decades of service to this Institution is not all of a sudden going to do things unethical just doesn't pass the smell test.
The Governor ran on a platform that she wasn't going to meddle in University business. It was part of her platform, period. I didn't agree with what happened at UVA, but this reeks of an eye for an eye political wise.
The Governor owes the Virginia Tech community a response.
It looks unusual for sure, but I'm waiting for the facts to come out. SOMETHING happened that got the governor's attention, we don't know at all what that was.
Plenty of people have a history of doing both great service but also doing unethical things on the side. The two are hardly mutually exclusive.
Not only that, but people who care deeply can justify unethical decisions because of the depths of their commitments. "X is bad, so it's worth bending or breaking some rules to avoid X," is a tale as old as time.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is the saying here I believe.
Was hoping someone else would say it so I didn't have to but here it is.
Roc was making multiple unilateral decisions without going through the proper processes/procedures that are required of both him as the Rector and of the BOV in general. Worked out great as it related to the athletics side, but that is not his only job in his position.
The final straw was that he was attempting to skirt standard procedure for electing a new university president in an attempt to have one appointed before July 1st. There are a handful of Youngkin appointees whose terms are up on 6/30 so the goal was to have them around to elect Sand's replacement before they were replaced by Spanberger appointees. The only way to make that happen in time was to skip several steps that the state requires of its universities. It was a clear violation of his roles and responsibilities. From my understanding, it is almost impossible to make a hire like this in under 4 months and he was trying to do it in less than 3.
There was also a lot of pressure from other BOV members on both sides of the political aisle who did not like how the Sands retirement was handled (Roc expedited that as well) and how much power Roc believed that he had. There were several who were threatening to step down if action wasn't taken.
Obviously I am not naive enough to say that there wasn't some part of political motivation here but anyone who is saying this is just Spanberger trying to replace a Youngkin guy with her own apointee is way off base.
As usual, LA knows what's up. A massive shitstorm was coming.
Sauces.
You guys are such fuckin' beauties. Beauties with the sauces.
That seems to be in direct conflict with the response letter in which two new appointees were added to the search committee, no?
Adding the governor's selected members does not eliminate all the problems that were going on behind the scenes.
Adding some folks to a committee doesn't mean they weren't fast tracking things and skipping steps. Also, regardless of who's on the search committee, if they push the vote to before new members are officially added, they still wouldn't get a vote in the actual decision, right? Not sure it's in conflict at all.
I read the letter to imply that wasn't the case, but I'm just reading the response, obviously that speaks to one side only.
That's why the Governor should be obligated to provide more reasoning behind the decision.
Not sure I understand your question
Adding people to the committee was just a superficial move when he was running an end around to the entire process. Really it was just a rather weak CYA type of move making it seem like he was not motivated by politics and personal preferences
Because their replacements sure as hell were not going to vote for Youngkin to be hired as university president.
If that rumor is true, then Rocovich was right to be fired. And that's not a political statement, either. He has no university leadership experience, which is exactly what Virginia Tech needs right now, strong university leadership.
Was there a push for Youngkin to be the new president? I hadn't heard that anywhere.
Likely no one outside of a few people under NDAs would even know the identities of any potential candidates or people who have been encouraged to apply...
This is the most perfect say everything without saying anything post I have ever seen. This post should automatically confer you a J.D. Work of art.
Youngkin wants the job. Whether he was going to be a serious candidate or not, that much I do not know.
Putting the politics aside, he has zero career background in education at any level. That's a huge gap for any candidate that i would want under consideration for this role.
Yeah he would be a disaster
It's the next step, battlefield, arena (not sure right word here), having political appointments either former or even active elected officials be appointed the president of colleges, or their high up aids. 6 Florida schools have had this done. In Idaho, Indiana and Texas there have been massive overhauls to college boards, removing facility, alumni and student reps.
It's a rumor I've seen pop up in multiple places, both online and in the office. But like VTGuitarMan says, the only people who really know likely have NDAs.
Even if he doesn't, the shenanigans at UVA plus the perceived rush to push out Sands and hire a replacement before the board turnover makes it smell fishy. And that isn't taking into account any behind the scenes info that may exist
It was listed on Reddit for all the truth behind that. I posted above, I might not like Spanberger but Youngkin is completely unqualified to be the President of the New River Valley Community College let alone VT.
Has no University Leadership. Okay - but most folks in education have no real experience, or couldn't cut it in the real world. Youngkin's resume is about as impressive as you can get...
1) CEO of The Carlyle Group on of the Largest Asset Managers in the world with almost a $500BB of AUM.
2) Former Governor of Virginia with $800BB of annual GDP
Please, no. Don't start this nonsense
Being successful leader in both the Public and Private Sector = Nonsense. Got it. Good to know.
You might as well just read the room here and not go down this path. Offset your downvote. I'm in no position to determine who is qualified for the job, but it's not unprecedented for former CEOs or Governors even to subsequently lead colleges and universities. But as neutral as many claim to be, a lot of opinions here are obviously very biased toward a certain side. You will be outright dismissed for even trying to take this route.
It isn't about sides. Getting picked for a job where you appointed the people who do the picking is downright masturbatory and certainly not in the best interests of the university, no matter how qualified you might be.
I think a lot of people are also taking rumors and running with it. Youngkin may have been mentioned as a candidate, but that's a lot different than one man was unilaterally bypassing the Board and trying to hire him. Either way the full Board would have to vote on any candidate before they are appointed.
You may want to look a little deeper into Youngkin's tenure at Carlyle.
I'll say this. If he was named President that would be my last donation to VT.
I'll say this as well, the two names that I've heard who one person thinks are the most likely candidates to be the next rector are Youngkin appointees and allies.
I have no problem with Youngkin appointees and allies serving on the BoV and potentially as Rector. I have objections to the theoretical appointment of an unqualified person as President. Regardless if you liked Sands or not, he had the educational background and experience for the position.
As do I. I was making that point to dispel this idea that it was purely a political move by Spanberger to get a left leaning BOV member appointed to Rector
Thank you LA, for providing this insight and putting a lot of the rumors to bed.
Jim Miller will be the next Rector will be voted on today. As I said above, he is a right-leaning Youngkin apointee
Dont care about the political affiliation as long as the new rector follows the by-laws, doesn't try an end-around on the president search, and has the best interest of VT in mind.
And that is the way it should be.
Its likely that most people hold your position.
I think LA pointed that out to sort of address some of the sentiment above that this might have been a political move. Love our governor or hate her, if her reason for the removal is true then she did a great job working to protect the University we all love.
Correct on all fronts.
I think Mr. Miller will do a fine job as rector. He has chaired the Finance and Resource Management committee and has always run efficient and productive meetings. He has a strong analytical mind, looks for new opportunities to push forward. I look forward to working with him (I was re-elected to my role on the BOV so I'll serve for another year).
congratulations/condolences as appropriate
When I was first elected as Senate president last year, "congratudolences" was the common phrase. Still applicable.
But who will elect Rector VTGuitarMan?!
no, I thought we were positioning pieces to elect President VTGuitarMan
Shhhh don't give away my plan...
(kidding, would NOT want to be a university president in this chaotic time)
Thank you for the context.
Seems like the Gov did the right thing after all.
There is definitely political motivation. In the hypothetical world that Earle-Sears won the governorship, this doesn't happen. Primarily because Rocovich would likely not need to rush to get Youngkin people through. And even if he was skirting procedures, Earle-Sears likely would not have cared if it was politically aligned. And alternatively, if the prior governor and appointees were of the same party as Spanberger, she likely overlooks the skirting of procedures if it ends up with a politically aligned result.
Here, we're definitely in a scenario where the appointees in power were appointed by a prior Governor of a different party, and as such, the Governor has an interest to ensure her political persuasion influences the decision of VT's president. It's just like when any Executive is of a different party of their predecessor. They will replace all prior appointees with appointees that align with their political agenda. It's the way the US government works. It's the reason why SCOTUS judges are slanted 6-3 towards a party, why DOGE was legal, why many vaccines are no longer suggested by the CDC, and why the EPA has unregulated the oil and gas industry. And as the current party in power always says, if you don't like it, take it to the ballot box.
(And my personal belief is one of the reasons that the 2-party system sucks is this constant Executive overhaul. Everything built in either direction gets taken down by the other party, often in spite, cultish opinion, or due to campaign promises to the donor class. Even popular programs are removed because it doesn't favor the current political party. Wake me up when the US has ranked choice voting and there are legitimately 4-5 parties that don't caucus as only two parties.)
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Like I said, there were several BOV members on both sides of the political aisle that were threatening to step down if action wasn't taken. Rocovich's lack of process undermines every other member's authority
Is Hokie Ventures LLC in danger now that Roco is out?
No insider info, just what the BOV has posted for session materials pg453. It has been changed to a non-profit and will apparently be voted on around 4pm today.
Don't we already have two non-profits affiliated with the Athletic Department? Why is a third necessary?
Doesnt this mean we are no longer following the Clemson/Texas Tech model that seem to have been successful?
I don't understand this strategy at all. The model will be universities having for-profit wings that manage revenue athletics. With the IRS recently piercing the veil on NIL collectives and deeming them for-profits, what charitable or educational purpose is this entity going to serve moving forward under 501(c)3 rules? Just seems to really miss the whole point of where things are headed with major college athletics. This isn't going to be able to hide under the guise of non-profit higher education much longer.
Had something to do with how VA handles donations showing up on the balance sheets. Not my area of expertise but that's how I understand it.
That seems silly to me. You can donate money to a for-profit, it's just not tax deductible. That's what is happening to all these NIL collectives now with the IRS determining that they are not valid 501c3's. People can donate but it's not tax deductible, and collectives will likely need to start filing tax returns. I guess having a very strong tax attorney on the board guiding this would have been beneficial, but oh well.
Based on yesterday's reporting, there will be subsidiaries of the 501c3 that classify as LLC's
So, legal money laundering per se? ...
Many, many non-profits have for-profit subsidiaries. Very common.
So, legal money laundering?...
It's not laundering. It's more like keeping money clean, preventing it from needing to be laundered.
The for-profit entities are required to have their own banking/tax system separate from the nonprofit. And money cannot freely flow between the entities.
So, here, the subsidiary would need to raise revenue independently the nonprofit. The advantage is that nonprofit can raise money for employment and make certain payments (e.g., related to facilities) that would be nontaxable, as long as the employment and payments benefit the mission of the nonprofit. The for-profit subsidiaries could raise and pay for anything unrelated to the mission (for example, raise money for NIL payments). And for profit subsidiaries could have shareholders (e.g., if set as an S-Corp).
I know we have THW, but what is the other non-profit within the athletic dept? I won't pretend to understand the exact goal of the creation of this entity, but here is the language from the BOV materials:
What at Clemson has been successful in the last 5ish years? Texas Tech made huge leaps forward in just about every sport but Clemson looks meh in both basketball and football from their pre NIL days.
I put Football on Dabo being unwilling to effectively use the portal. He finally used it this offseason to bring in 10 players. Prior to that he had only brought in 6 players from 2018-2025. Put way too much of the NIL budget into HS players or retaining lesser players.
That said Clemson has ranked top three in Football NIL in the ACC for the last four years. Miami basically doubles or triples everyone. Clemson is usually second with around $18-$20M so between NIL and revenue share its a $33-$35M Football payment to players.
Basketball though Brownell the last 4 years went from winning 17 or 18 games to 23 to 27 games. Conference play prior to 21-22 they were +/- 1 game of .500. Last four seasons 14, 11, 18, 12 wins. Brownell has made some really solid moves signing talent, especially pulling starters from lesser ACC squads.
Basketball gets $4.5M-$6M in NIL so they trail Duke, UNC, and Miami typically.
100% Dabo hasnt done what needs to be done. But Wendy about their system helped basketball they had tons of donations on the past snd now can openly pay, is that just they have a coach using the money they got him or is it their system?
Texas tech has won like 8 conference titles this year alone. They were in the CFP, are playing right now to try to get to the softball world series final, and have been really good in a number of sports. Clemson was a middle of the road acc team in almost every sport
Texas Tech is spending proportionally way more than almost every Big12 team so if they weren't winning conference titles, they would be underachieving.
Clemson is spending at or near the top of the ACC but isnt significantly more.
As for Texas Tech and softball, they have a Billionaire, Cody Campbell, funding it because his wife was a Texas Tech Softball player.
They have a group of ten to twelve Billionaires, led by Campbell's high school classmate, John Sellers, funding the majority of NIL elsewhere. They were #2 in NIL spending in college football behind Texas. It really is a different animal.
Looking up Cody Campbell and, dang. This is a pretty darn impressive resume he has. Granted, it is Wikipedia, so may not be totally accurate, but anyone accomplishing have of this would be darn impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cody_Campbell_(businessman)
Agree its different which is why I thought it was odd they were paired together. if Clemson is the top at ACC for spending then they are doing it very poor job of it because I think their best finish was men's basketball which was what 4th?
Miami is far and away #1 in the ACC. Estimates are about $40M more than anyone else, mostly focused on football. Not sure they won a single ACC Championship this year although they benefited the most of any school thanks to keeping all the CFP revenue.
Apparently the Kentucky NIL is rocking and rolling with income now. So we probably ought to try and figure out how that one is setup.
I for one am very happy that Miami has still never won an ACC championship in football.
It's set up with a lot of rich people donating to it. That's how it's set up.
We just need to find more rich people that love VT.
An update to the 2nd part of your post, the board passed it by a unanimous vote
Where did you see that? The only reporting I've seen on the athletics meeting is from the Sons and they said that Hokie Ventures was not talked about in the open sessions outside of being mentioned by Danny White. They did mention the video board, lights, and a 3mil upgrade to hallways and the recruiting lobby in Merryman and Jamerson were getting done.
Beat writer from the Roanoke Times had it on Twitter. TSL and David Teel later said it was just a committee vote and that it will go to the full board tomorrow (Tuesday). It's expected to pass
Not the idea of it, just not a true LLC per se. Honestly nothing in the plan will really change with Roc gone, at least in the short term.
It's still all about political alignment, which is clear if Roc was focused on getting Youngkin or a Youngkin appointee in before a certain deadline. If the current governor was Youngkin disciple, does Roc get kicked off the committee or does that hypothetical governor convince people on his side of the aisle that are threating to step down to go along with that process for political expediency. (Political expediency is all the rage these days at the national level, often at the expense of their own personal power, but I'm digressing...)
But I get your point and you're definitely more in the know of the process than I am. My point is that almost everything related to decisions made in an executive capacity are inherently political. And that's true here, even if right-sided appointees were upset with Roc's process. The question is ultimately how did the executive respond, not whether board members politically aligned with Roc were also upset.
But it's possible that what Roc was doing was so egregious that even politically aligned governor's would have to remove him. And unless further details are revealed that show his actions rose to that level, one can only assume Spangberger's decision was political (but rightfully so).
If he was truly trying to cut corners and schedules to install a completely unqualified person as President to repay or gather political favors he needed to go.
I appreciate the context.
I'm satisfied with his dismissal
FOIAball is going to have a field day with this. I can't wait to hear who really rect'd who.
I wish I could leg you more than once for this. Since I can't.....
VT Alum!
I had no idea he was an alum until the Sons of Saturday interview. What an interesting guy, I'm glad he seems to be finding success.
Live look at the mods in this thread
Kudos, I'm sure this is "fun"
Saw the thread, thought about everything I know, the things I can say and can't, and just went "well shit." I think folks have generally done a good job minus a few asides. Kudos to TKP, this could have been a complete dumpster fire within 5 minutes, but it wasn't.
The other tkp tale as old as tkp time is a thread being mild and tame and then someone coming in and responding to every 2 day old comments as if it's new and pouring gasoline on the tiniest ember
No nukes yet though!
Gobble gobble is a chump!
Didn't even need him to destroy the second death star /s
boom 💥
The Star Wars prequels are objectively bad movies and are only loved because of nostalgia. The sequel trilogy is as bad, but not worse.
Goated take honestly
+ Rogue One is better than 1-3 and 7-9.
As 04hokie said below, Rogue One is the best Star Wars movie, period. And it's not close. The original trilogy is the best trilogy, but they're not that good of movies. The 3 best Star Wars movies in order are
1) Rogue One
2) The Siege of Mandalore (Clone Wars arc)
3) Attack on Umbara (Clone Wars arc)
Rogue One is by and far the best.
And Andor is even better than Rogue One BUT would not have been great without the foundational platform of Rogue One.
saw the original couple months after it was released. great movie. have seen no prequels or sequels
Same here! Saw all three of the originals in theaters (as they were meant to be seen). The first I saw 9 times in theaters! NEVER watched a single minute of the prequels or sequels and have zero desire to ever do so.
Nah 1 and 3 are actually good. Embrace the Phantom Menaissance. 2 is the hardest to defend here.
The sequel trilogy is total dogshit.
Might need to edit that. Technically the second trilogy is movies 4-6.
I'm referring to them here as prequel trilogy (1-3), original trilogy (4-6), sequel trilogy (7-9)
Rogue One remains the best of them all.
Prequels = bad movies, but good star wars
Sequels = mixed quality movies, but terrible star wars
If you described the prequels to someone who only saw the original trilogy (senate manipulated, fall of the jedi, anakin's path to the dark side), they'd be like "ok yeah that makes sense". If you described the sequels to that same person they'd be like "WTF"
Reading through the following thread below makes me happy I've maybe only ever seen a combined one hour of star wars movies in my life.
Space Balls is the best of all of them.
Who argues that a burger isn't a sandwich? A burger is definitively a sandwich.
Correct take
Correct take
Correct take
Hot dogs are quagmires as it can refer to the meat and the meat and bun at the same time. But either it is an exception to the rule as if some one defines a sandwich I will list a lot of things that no one thinks are sandwiches.
Only if the mashed potatoes are Yukon gold, russets are too starchy for double potato.
correct take
FTFY
104 unread comments? ACTUAL NEWS AND #SAUCES?!
TKP first!
MAYONNAISE!!!!
Question: Are our BOV positions paid positions? I know most board positions in the corporate world are paid for basically just 4 weeks of work a year.
They get an unlimited supply of Hardee's coupons
Really?
I was certain we'd be rolling in something more like Smithfield bacon or Bojangles biscuits.
time are tight, can't afford Smithfield, money is going to football not BoV
I'm confused is this a vent thread now?
For some, yes. LOL. I see a few people making a big stink about it on social media.
Wow, get busy for a while and come back to a slew of 4 star commits and BOV intrigue. I think Chazz, LA and VTG have this all wrapped up nicely.
For those interested if you look through history of blue bloods (and I'm sure many, many other universities with or without football) they have had periodic blowups at this level too. For reasons that are similar to what LAHokie is explaining. People in power take advantage until other people in power take it from them. That's the nature of the pond you swim in.
See 22 comments on this thread; go to check.
Yep, Star Wars movie sequence and Food sub-threads. Perfect!