• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

Closed Door BOT Discussion

PokeNer said:
The confusing part about the language is that the Board of Directors determines whether there is a conflict of interest. If the exiting teams are still on the board until they officially notify the conference of their exit, then they most certainly aren't going to vote that they have a conflict.
Click to expand...
That’s what the PAC teams tried to do to WSU/OSU. Court ruled they were conflicted and provided authority to WSU and OSU over conference decisions.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
That a simple answer to me reading the bylaws. It requires a ‘vote’ of 3/4 of member institutions. The only member institutions entitled to ‘vote’ are ones without conflict (ie no announcement to join a separate conference).

Right now there are only 7 potential votes requiring 6 of 7 to exceed 3/4 threshold.

It’s not even difficult language construction IMO.
Click to expand...
Not saying you're wrong just that I'd assume the AD would know the details? At least I'd hope so but may be giving too much credit.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
Not saying you're wrong just that I'd assume the AD would know the details? At least I'd hope so but may be giving too much credit.
Click to expand...
Posturing. But the MWC has the benefit of nearly identical issues having already been decided by a court. Court’s generally rely on precedent (even from other jurisdictions).
 
I’ll believe everything once the dust settles. I’m not confident in the competency of Nevarez, and the likes of Burman to screw this up.

I guess we’ll see…..
 
LanderPoke said:
So does Colorado College get a vote since they have a women's soccer team in the conference?
Click to expand...
No. Look at the bylaws. They created different levels of membership. Hawaii appears to have come on as a ‘member’ when they left the WAC to blow up the project. It was probably a demand that they had to come.

Colorado College was admitted as and is an ‘affiliate member.’ While Hawaii is a ‘member.’
 
It’s pretty interesting to visit our former “mates” message boards and see most don’t want Wyoming as a conference member. USU members would prefer Hawaii over us……
 
LanderPoke said:
If true, that's NOT good
Click to expand...
The law has a way of saying ‘if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.’ A nuance of you’re not a ‘conflicted member’ simply because you didn’t pay the $5000 fee required by the bylaws to exit is unlikely to hold water IMO. Courts apply ‘equitable analysis’ in their rationale. These minor distinctions between PAC language and MWC bylaw language aren’t going to hold water IMO and courts will look at recent prior precedent.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
The law has a way of saying ‘if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.’ A nuance of you’re not a ‘conflicted member’ simply because you didn’t pay the $5000 fee required by the bylaws to exit is unlikely to hold water IMO. Courts apply ‘equitable analysis’ in their rationale. These minor distinctions between PAC language and MWC bylaw language aren’t going to hold water IMO and courts will look at recent prior precedent.
Click to expand...
This.

Most people think signed contracts hold way more power than they actually do.
 
TheRealUW said:
This.

Most people think signed contracts hold way more power than they actually do.
Click to expand...
Signed contracts matter in terms of the entirety of the contract (or 4 corners as we say). But what’s lost on most people is what is called the ‘spirit of the contract’ analysis that courts routinely apply. We don’t take some minor provision and apply it in a way that ends in an absurd result.
 
Question for law types....Could an "understanding" be communicated somehow wherein a seemingly unconflicted member could vote for dissolution and then be invited after the fact?
 
307bball said:
Question for law types....Could an "understanding" be communicated somehow wherein a seemingly unconflicted member could vote for dissolution and then be invited after the fact?
Click to expand...
You’re looking for a definition of the word conflicted. It’s purposely not defined because the drafters couldn’t surmise all ways in which a member might be conflicted. We have plenty of examples of what ‘conflicted’ means by looking at agency and breach of fiduciary duty cases.

If a member was communicating with the PAC saying we will vote to dissolve if you promise to admit us. That is almost clearly a typical breach of fiduciary duty and thus a clear case of conflict IMO.
 
When this whole thing started, the OSU AD Scott Barnes said the blood of the Mountain West was not on the hands of OSU or WSU. Said to look towards USC and UCLA as they initiated it.

Hope somehow this totally backfires and they have to hand their entire war chest to the remaining schools in the MWC. Totally deserved on how they have done this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top