Recent Comments
Freeing up space for us to play the Big 10 or SEC teams when we get the invites to those conferences after we make the playoffs?
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."
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.
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.
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.
Baine is finishing Roc's term as a BOV member, not as rector. A new rector will be voted on this week
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.
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
I don't necessarily agree here. If section D required that, then it should say it explicitly.
And subsequently announcing that he isnt stepping down after being fired is some theater
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.
Potentially also that moving to change longstanding BOV bylaws on term limits isn't in tech's best interests
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 🤷♂️
Igotthatreference.gif
Leg
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 A reason 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 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."?
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
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 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)
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.
I'm simply referring to Guitarman's statement that he was asked to resign before the removal process.
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.
Its not a resignation request though
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.