Author: While David Harns, publisher of Spartans Illustrated, knows me and can vouch for my bona fides, I am choosing to remain anonymous. I know these are very emotional topics for many, and am well aware of the potential for a social media firestorm that has collateral damage. I am choosing to be nameless to protect those with whom I do business and work with and for.
With Michigan State formally terminating its agreement with football Coach Mel Tucker for cause on Wednesday, I wanted to revisit my earlier discourse regarding the process that the University has undertaken in the context of more recent events, and update some key questions.
Wait…Wasn’t Tucker Already Fired?
No, suspended without pay and given notice, as required in his contract, that the University intended to activate the clauses in his contract that allow them to not only cease his employment, but decline to pay him the remainder of that agreement … the so-called moral turpitude clause.
Tucker responded and, in the judgement of the University, did not provide compelling enough rationale for them to change their minds. He is no longer employed and MSU pretty much did this as quickly as it could under the terms of the agreement.
Why Not Fire Him When Everything Came Out?
Multiple reasons.
First, the above.
Second, the USA Today story represented one side of the story, that of the accuser. Like any accused, Tucker and his counsel deserved the opportunity to defend himself and provide any evidence or context that was missing. He responded earlier this week and chose to make that response public.
Third, MSU knows that this isn’t the end, it’s just the beginning of a lengthy court battle. Like any good leadership team, they are working backwards from expected future events (a high-profile lawsuit by Tucker) and positioning themselves as best they can to defend having to pay him out … or getting a large settlement. Their future case would have probably been even stronger had they waited until the hearing and its inevitable appeals, but that is going to drag out and MSU clearly states in their letter that the outcome of that is immaterial to the basis for the termination … the moral turpitude clause.
Is Tucker’s Reported Conduct Grounds for Termination Under His Contract?
The clause in the contract permitting MSU to terminate him for cause does not require the conviction of a crime. If he merely “engages in any conduct which constitutes moral turpitude which, in the University’s reasonable judgement, would tend to bring public disrespect, contempt, or ridicule on the University,” MSU has grounds to terminate.
In my view, his admitted behavior -- with no real new evidence or context in his response -- is clearly in this category. If I were counsel to MSU, I would spend a good morning in front of a jury sharing newspaper headlines, TV coverage, on-line articles (and the comments), etc … all of which would point to “disrespect, contempt, (and) ridicule on the University.”
Yes, your snarky post on X (Twitter) could end up as evidence in this trial.
I can tell you that I have exercised a clause like this multiple times in my career, negating the contracts (and future obligations) to several senior executives. Never was their conduct as public and negatively impactful on the company than Tucker’s was to MSU. In several of those cases, the behavior was later proven to be criminal, but that had not been decided when we fired them.
In only one instance of a non-criminal case did we later settle, and then for a fraction of what we would have paid had we paid out the agreement.
Which brings us to…
What’s Next?
I’ll try and not be too cynical here, but this is where it gets dirty -- and keep in mind that mine is the perspective of someone defending an organization, not prosecuting for the aggrieved.
To paraphrase Mark Dantonio, “it’s never over.”
You can expect this to remain in the press for years.
