http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-11...-loh-blogs

Quote:Maryland announced on Nov. 19, 2012, that it would depart the Atlantic Coast Conference after 60 years and join the Big Ten, effective in July 2014. It, as school officials predicted, led to fans expressing sadness and anger over losing popular ACC-related traditions such as facing rivals Duke, North Carolina and Virginia.

The public relations campaign was meant to help turn the tide in favor of the move. It included hiring a corporate communications consultant to help shape the message and also working to prevent news of the negotiations from getting out before the move was imminent.

"So far, this is unfolding just as we expected," Brian Ullmann, the university's assistant vice president for marketing and communications, wrote in an email to deputy athletic director Nathan Pine on Nov. 18, one day after negotiations on the impending move were disclosed in the media. "We knew that in the absence of our messaging during this initial stage, most fans would react emotionally and negatively. That has occurred and clearly the message boards and comments sections skew heavily negative. Several of us placed comments on boards and media sites last night to help balance it out."

Ullmann also wrote that the school planned to "engage professional assistance in helping to drop positive messages into the blogs, comments and message board sites. I will arrange for this service today."

Many of the emails discussing the PR strategy copied top Maryland administrators such as president Wallace Loh and athletic director Kevin Anderson. The school routinely circulated emails chronicling and commenting on stories, blogs and tweets about the Big Ten move. Consultants also reached out to certain media members, either criticizing them for negative commentary or praising them for supporting the move.

Lee Zeidman, the corporate communications consultant who helped Maryland draft letters and talking points, said Wednesday that it is "standard operating procedure" in the business world to weigh in directly on message boards. "There are special PR agencies who work in the digital space who bombard blogs and newspaper sites where no one puts their name," Zeidman said.

(02-09-2014 07:01 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 06:46 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 06:07 PM)Dasville Wrote:  http://www.myeasternshoremd.com/news/ken...963f4.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/camp..._blog.html

Yep, I saw this as well. So, if I read these correctly, the University of Maryland can enter into a Big Ten non-disclosure agreement drawn up in Illinois on behalf of the State of Maryland? It is the State of Maryland defending this case correct? Does Wallace Loh's signature = the State of Maryland?

The agreement was drawn up in Illinois because that's where the Big Ten is headquartered.

The University of Maryland entered the agreement on behalf of itself and its affiliates, which presumably means the State of Maryland.

As a general rule, I don't think a governmental unit can bind a state government to an agreement it signs with a another party. At least that's how it works in regards to municipal bond issues.

http://chestertownspy.org/2012/11/21/um-...-exit-acc/

Quote:COLLEGE PARK – The deal the Big 10 conference offered the University of Maryland to leave the ACC is so lucrative that Maryland will pay an unprecedented $50 million exit fee if it is forced to, a university spokesman said Tuesday.

When Notre Dame joined the ACC in September, conference presidents voted 10-2 to raise ACC exit fees to three times the conference’s total operating budget — about $50 million this year. Maryland is expected to try to reduce the fee through negotiations with the conference.

“It’s possible we pay,” Brian S. Ullmann, Maryland’s assistant vice president for communications, said of the exit fee. “We took that into account and we were still far, far ahead.”

Last year, Big 10 members each received $24 million from the conference, except for first-year member Nebraska. Maryland received about $17 million from the ACC last year.

(02-09-2014 07:50 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 07:01 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 06:46 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 06:07 PM)Dasville Wrote:  http://www.myeasternshoremd.com/news/ken...963f4.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/camp..._blog.html

Yep, I saw this as well. So, if I read these correctly, the University of Maryland can enter into a Big Ten non-disclosure agreement drawn up in Illinois on behalf of the State of Maryland? It is the State of Maryland defending this case correct? Does Wallace Loh's signature = the State of Maryland?

The agreement was drawn up in Illinois because that's where the Big Ten is headquartered.

The University of Maryland entered the agreement on behalf of itself and its affiliates, which presumably means the State of Maryland.

As a general rule, I don't think a governmental unit can bind a state government to an agreement it signs with a another party. At least that's how it works in regards to municipal bond issues.

Thanks! I was just wondering if the State of Maryland could payoff the University of Maryland's debt!

(02-09-2014 05:56 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Is Loh directing the defense or is Gansler? Serious question. Loh was "hired" for this. Who is calling the shots in this, Loh or Gansler?

Either way, the Board of Regents approved the move.

I think the most interesting thing is that the confidentiality agreement allowed all the Maryland Trustees to be informed on October 2, however Loh and Kirwan kept them out of the loop until they called a meeting and gave them only the weekend to know about the deal. Kirwan had already decided to move forward with the deal without their approval according to his emails. Interesting.

What I find interesting is that the agreement covers all confidential information exchanged whether furnished before or after the date of the agreement.

(02-09-2014 08:00 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 05:56 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Is Loh directing the defense or is Gansler? Serious question. Loh was "hired" for this. Who is calling the shots in this, Loh or Gansler?

Either way, the Board of Regents approved the move.

Actually Sea, the Maryland Board didn't approve the move:

From the Chronicle of Higher Ed:

"As Mr. Kirwan prepared for final deliberations with the regents, he wrote to Mr. Shea, apparently looking for advice on how to frame the announcement.

"Jim: An important technical question. Does the BOR 'approve' or 'endorse' the deal. I would opt for the latter language but either can work," Mr. Kirwan said.

Mr. Shea suggested that an endorsement was more appropriate, but deferred to Thomas Faulk, who oversees legal matters for the university, for clarification of the regents' authority.

Mr. Faulk found no statutory provisions requiring the board's approval. However, he did find language allowing campus presidents the authority to "regulate and administer" athletic and student activities.

"Given this specific statutory language and the absence of anything to the contrary," Mr. Faulk wrote, "I vote for 'endorse.'"

Kirwan had already made the decision - the Maryland Board had only two choices - go along or fire Kirwan.

(02-09-2014 08:08 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  What I find interesting is that the agreement covers all confidential information exchanged whether furnished before or after the date of the agreement.

Makes you wonder if the B10 has a confidentially agreement in effect for all the current teams instead of relying on the schools fiduciary duty to the conference.

(02-09-2014 08:20 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 08:08 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  What I find interesting is that the agreement covers all confidential information exchanged whether furnished before or after the date of the agreement.

Makes you wonder if the B10 has a confidentially agreement in effect for all the current teams instead of relying on the schools fiduciary duty to the conference.

Same goes for ACC. Could very well be possible that Maryland furnished to B1G internal ACC financial data that's subject to an informal confidentiality arrangement.

(02-09-2014 08:20 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Makes you wonder if the B10 has a confidentially agreement in effect for all the current teams instead of relying on the schools fiduciary duty to the conference.

Gordon Gee would have told us that by now.

(02-09-2014 08:31 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 08:20 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Makes you wonder if the B10 has a confidentially agreement in effect for all the current teams instead of relying on the schools fiduciary duty to the conference.

Gordon Gee would have told us that by now.

HaHa! He would be near the top of my list of persons to summons.

(02-09-2014 09:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 12:29 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 06:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Subpoenas anyone?

I would like to know why Wallace Loh was soliciting B1G membership on behalf of UMCP before he even got the chance to settle in his new position and examine the financial books and records of UMCP's athletic department.

I would like to know if he was soliciting B1G membership. There is scant evidence to suggest that he was.

But even if it were true, that would only suggest that he is even smarter than people give him credit for - and people already give him a lot of credit for that. In 2010, the survival of the ACC as a power conference was hardly assured. Forums like this were rife with scenarios in which the ACC power teams were going to be poached, relegating us to the minor leagues and torpedoing our chances for a decent media contract.

If that had happened, maybe schools like Carolina and Virginia could have survived (though I'd bet they would first go hat in hand to the B1G looking for a savior). But Maryland could not have survived. Their athletic department was already on life support. The B1G, which had Maryland on its radar for a while, might not have wanted them if every other ACC school was in play.

Evidence doesn't conveniently fall off a tree on to your lap. But there are enough leads for the ACC to pursue during the pre-trial discovery phase. It'll be interesting to discover what actually went down from the time the Big Ten put Maryland (and other ACC schools) on its poach list in 2010(?) to the date Maryland signed the non-disclosure agreement.

Perhaps Loh is smart, but I question his ambitions or lack thereof. His two major accomplishments as a college administrator has been diversifying the University of Washington law school and curbing excessive drinking at the University of Iowa. That's it. Based on those two accomplishments, I don't think he was qualified for the top position at Maryland. I would argue that Wallace Loh was hired to move Maryland to the Big Ten.

I also don't think the ACC was in any danger of dissolving or becoming a 2nd tier conference. The rumors of the departures of Virginia, Carolina and Georgia Tech were started, I believe, by a Maryland blogger named Jeff Erman. Perhaps he was on Maryland's payroll.

(02-09-2014 07:01 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 06:46 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 06:07 PM)Dasville Wrote:  http://www.myeasternshoremd.com/news/ken...963f4.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/camp..._blog.html

Yep, I saw this as well. So, if I read these correctly, the University of Maryland can enter into a Big Ten non-disclosure agreement drawn up in Illinois on behalf of the State of Maryland? It is the State of Maryland defending this case correct? Does Wallace Loh's signature = the State of Maryland?

The University of Maryland is an agency or department of the State of Maryland. Anything it does is therefore treated as state action. It benefits from sovereign immunity to the extent it is not waived by the state tort claims act, but it is also subject to open records laws, since it is a public (governmental) entity.

(02-09-2014 08:08 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  What I find interesting is that the agreement covers all confidential information exchanged whether furnished before or after the date of the agreement.

Quick note: Courts trump NDAs (Non Disclosure Agreements). Either teh information is disclosed (usually protected from the complete record) or the opposing side that wishes to get the NDA information is granted their "version" or their assumptions of what is included in the sought after information. The former can be protected by the courts by limiting access to only those who need it and sealing these records from publication; the latter option is simply a win for the seeker of the information.

The above is a nutshell version and this takes a long time to play out. It is very complicated and detailed, but this is the general effect.

(02-09-2014 10:29 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 09:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 12:29 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 06:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Subpoenas anyone?

I would like to know why Wallace Loh was soliciting B1G membership on behalf of UMCP before he even got the chance to settle in his new position and examine the financial books and records of UMCP's athletic department.

I would like to know if he was soliciting B1G membership. There is scant evidence to suggest that he was.

But even if it were true, that would only suggest that he is even smarter than people give him credit for - and people already give him a lot of credit for that. In 2010, the survival of the ACC as a power conference was hardly assured. Forums like this were rife with scenarios in which the ACC power teams were going to be poached, relegating us to the minor leagues and torpedoing our chances for a decent media contract.

If that had happened, maybe schools like Carolina and Virginia could have survived (though I'd bet they would first go hat in hand to the B1G looking for a savior). But Maryland could not have survived. Their athletic department was already on life support. The B1G, which had Maryland on its radar for a while, might not have wanted them if every other ACC school was in play.

Evidence doesn't conveniently fall off a tree on to your lap. But there are enough leads for the ACC to pursue during the pre-trial discovery phase. It'll be interesting to discover what actually went down from the time the Big Ten put Maryland (and other ACC schools) on its poach list in 2010(?) to the date Maryland signed the non-disclosure agreement.

Perhaps Loh is smart, but I question his ambitions or lack thereof. His two major accomplishments as a college administrator has been diversifying the University of Washington law school and curbing excessive drinking at the University of Iowa. That's it. Based on those two accomplishments, I don't think he was qualified for the top position at Maryland. I would argue that Wallace Loh was hired to move Maryland to the Big Ten.

I also don't think the ACC was in any danger of dissolving or becoming a 2nd tier conference. The rumors of the departures of Virginia, Carolina and Georgia Tech were started, I believe, by a Maryland blogger named Jeff Erman. Perhaps he was on Maryland's payroll.

Wow. Just wow. So you are basically saying that it wasn't Loh who wanted to move Maryland to the B1G, but the Regents. Then why are you casting Loh as the villain? And why did Maryland wait so long to act?

(02-10-2014 09:29 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 10:29 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 09:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 12:29 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 06:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Subpoenas anyone?

I would like to know why Wallace Loh was soliciting B1G membership on behalf of UMCP before he even got the chance to settle in his new position and examine the financial books and records of UMCP's athletic department.

I would like to know if he was soliciting B1G membership. There is scant evidence to suggest that he was.

But even if it were true, that would only suggest that he is even smarter than people give him credit for - and people already give him a lot of credit for that. In 2010, the survival of the ACC as a power conference was hardly assured. Forums like this were rife with scenarios in which the ACC power teams were going to be poached, relegating us to the minor leagues and torpedoing our chances for a decent media contract.

If that had happened, maybe schools like Carolina and Virginia could have survived (though I'd bet they would first go hat in hand to the B1G looking for a savior). But Maryland could not have survived. Their athletic department was already on life support. The B1G, which had Maryland on its radar for a while, might not have wanted them if every other ACC school was in play.

Evidence doesn't conveniently fall off a tree on to your lap. But there are enough leads for the ACC to pursue during the pre-trial discovery phase. It'll be interesting to discover what actually went down from the time the Big Ten put Maryland (and other ACC schools) on its poach list in 2010(?) to the date Maryland signed the non-disclosure agreement.

Perhaps Loh is smart, but I question his ambitions or lack thereof. His two major accomplishments as a college administrator has been diversifying the University of Washington law school and curbing excessive drinking at the University of Iowa. That's it. Based on those two accomplishments, I don't think he was qualified for the top position at Maryland. I would argue that Wallace Loh was hired to move Maryland to the Big Ten.

I also don't think the ACC was in any danger of dissolving or becoming a 2nd tier conference. The rumors of the departures of Virginia, Carolina and Georgia Tech were started, I believe, by a Maryland blogger named Jeff Erman. Perhaps he was on Maryland's payroll.

Wow. Just wow. So you are basically saying that it wasn't Loh who wanted to move Maryland to the B1G, but the Regents. Then why are you casting Loh as the villain? And why did Maryland wait so long to act?

Ken, are you suggesting that you don't know Loh works for Kirwan or that Kirwan was involved in the hiring of Loh? Are you saying you don't know how the University of Maryland system works?

If you don't know here is some help: http://www.usmd.edu/regents/bylaws/Secti...II501.html

In most "systems" the individual chancellors or presidents as they may be called work under a system Chancellor or President. The chancellors at NC State and UNC, work with but not for their individual Board of Trustees and work for the System President and Board of Governors.

Ken, your blind, unwavering faith in the University of Maryland leadership despite the mountain of written documentation seems to suggest you are one of Kirwan's paid trolls that are referenced in the emails.

(02-10-2014 06:59 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 08:08 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  What I find interesting is that the agreement covers all confidential information exchanged whether furnished before or after the date of the agreement.

Quick note: Courts trump NDAs (Non Disclosure Agreements). Either teh information is disclosed (usually protected from the complete record) or the opposing side that wishes to get the NDA information is granted their "version" or their assumptions of what is included in the sought after information. The former can be protected by the courts by limiting access to only those who need it and sealing these records from publication; the latter option is simply a win for the seeker of the information.

The above is a nutshell version and this takes a long time to play out. It is very complicated and detailed, but this is the general effect.

If parts of a NDA are leaked by one of the parties in the contract (Maryland in this case) does that weaken the NDA in any way?

The travel subsidy was part of the NDA and that came out. The front loading of the B1G payout to Maryland was part of the NDA and part of those details are just coming out now:

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...g#comments

Quote:Compare that to Maryland, an incoming Big Ten member which will reportedly have its deal front-loaded and receive as much as $32 million from the league next year, and it seems as if Nebraska got a raw deal. But school chancellor Harvey Perlman doesn't see it that way.

“You negotiate from the position you're in,'' Perlman told the paper. “We had a conference that was falling apart.''

Indeed, the Big 12 looked like it might collapse when the Huskers fled to the Big Ten, and Nebraska was tired of that league's Texas focus, anyway. The Big Ten had all the leverage in that situation, offering Nebraska a lifeboat. Maryland, on the other hand, was firmly entrenched in the ACC, which was paying its schools a reported $20 million. The Terrapins also had major financial issues in their athletic department, and they are litigating a $52 million exit penalty from the ACC.

So, I guess my question is, does selective leaking of information in a NDA weaken the strength of a NDA in the courts?

(02-10-2014 06:11 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 06:59 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 08:08 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  What I find interesting is that the agreement covers all confidential information exchanged whether furnished before or after the date of the agreement.

Quick note: Courts trump NDAs (Non Disclosure Agreements). Either teh information is disclosed (usually protected from the complete record) or the opposing side that wishes to get the NDA information is granted their "version" or their assumptions of what is included in the sought after information. The former can be protected by the courts by limiting access to only those who need it and sealing these records from publication; the latter option is simply a win for the seeker of the information.

The above is a nutshell version and this takes a long time to play out. It is very complicated and detailed, but this is the general effect.

If parts of a NDA are leaked by one of the parties in the contract (Maryland in this case) does that weaken the NDA in any way?

The travel subsidy was part of the NDA and that came out. The front loading of the B1G payout to Maryland was part of the NDA and part of those details are just coming out now:

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...g#comments

Quote:Compare that to Maryland, an incoming Big Ten member which will reportedly have its deal front-loaded and receive as much as $32 million from the league next year, and it seems as if Nebraska got a raw deal. But school chancellor Harvey Perlman doesn't see it that way.

“You negotiate from the position you're in,'' Perlman told the paper. “We had a conference that was falling apart.''

Indeed, the Big 12 looked like it might collapse when the Huskers fled to the Big Ten, and Nebraska was tired of that league's Texas focus, anyway. The Big Ten had all the leverage in that situation, offering Nebraska a lifeboat. Maryland, on the other hand, was firmly entrenched in the ACC, which was paying its schools a reported $20 million. The Terrapins also had major financial issues in their athletic department, and they are litigating a $52 million exit penalty from the ACC.

So, I guess my question is, does selective leaking of information in a NDA weaken the strength of a NDA in the courts?

Disclosed information is no longer protected. The party that has been harmed by a disclosure may have an action against the disclosing party.

I the above instance I think that the disclosure was a bipartisan affair. It was common knowledge that UMD was in terrible financial straights and that a typical buy in for the BTN would be phased in as UNL and RU were under contract to do, that disclosing how UMD would buy in needs to be put out to the public..

In the above case, anything else covered by the NDA would still be protected.