As an attorney, my advice to WSU/OSU is ...
- Thread starter Cougsocal
- Start date
If that made the difference, of course I would agree. But more likely the bylaws are in the same English prose we use way out here on the frontier and the judge doesn’t just go weak in the knees because he sees a New York address below the attorney’s signature.
well given that there's a ton of disagreement from those that have read it in the media--I myself have not, btw--seems there is room for interpretation.
Well the PAC12 agreed with WSU and OSU until just those 2 were left.
"Oregon State and Washington State filed supporting exhibits that included a letter from the Pac-12's general counsel to Colorado in July that informed them explicitly that effective immediately "CU no longer has the right to vote on any matter before the Board." I
There are a couple of clauses that are written in a way that could be interpreted differently, if you choose to do so.
For example: "No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024; provided, that if any member does deliver a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024..."
In the italicized clause, does that mean that the notice is before 8-1-24, or that the withdrawal is before 8-1-24? Some UW people are claiming it refers to the withdrawal. I would argue that the wording of the opening clause makes clear that it applies to the notice itself...not to the withdrawal. In this case, the word "to" is meaningful. In plain English, "withdrawal" would not be to the conference. "Notice of withdrawal" would be.
Things like "notice" are also undefined. I've also heard that UW and UO are claiming that they have not delivered notice. Apparently because it wasn't written on letterhead and signed saying "we quit." I would argue that the bylaws don't require formal notice, and that since they've publicly announced their departure and had press conferences welcoming them to their new conference...they've given notice. There's also support for that in other portions of the bylaws, which dictate that things should be discussed and resolved informally as much as possible, and should only follow formal processes when informal ones don't work.
The items that are questions really seem to be splitting hairs - if you follow the plain English of the bylaws, the intent seems to be pretty clear, and would leave WSU and OSU as the only votes, and give them the decision on whether the other 10 get anything.
I don't think the Pac-12 is really disagreeing with the underlying point...but they're trying to get the full 12 to vote on operating matters, which appears to be wrong. In the end, I think the conference office would be better off keeping the 10 out of the vote...because they have zero incentive to see the conference continue. They want to lay everyone off, liquidate the assets, and split them 12 ways. WSU and OSU are the only ones even slightly incentivized to not do that.
Fairly ordinary interpretation question. My only quibble is that thousands of lawyers who don't practice on Wall Street understand and litigate these issues routinely. I'll bet some of them even practice in Whitman County.
If the bylaw is the only issue, sure. I think there are going to be more issues. Just a hunch.
Still not feeling the necessity that a silk stocking, East Coast firm handle the matter.
Actually, there is a huge difference on who you hire. Huge. My wife, who is not an attorney, but is a Director on the HR side, works for the largest law firm in the state of Washington, (with over 1,000 attorney's) and one of the largest in the U.S. Even though their rate is significantly higher than the average firm.....you don't want to mess with them. We're talking non-criminal clients and cases. They have the largest, and/or the best clients in the country, if not the world, and there's a reason why.
For something like this, hiring big guns is exponentially worth the extra expense.
If you have to overpay for pretentious representation, we have pretentious firms here.
But seriously, a major research university should be more sophisticated than to think they require some sort of East Coast expertise to deal with this ordinary, organizational bylaws dispute--assuming there even is a dispute.
No one is saying it doesn't matter who you hire. We have big guns here. And there are big guns all up and down the West Coast too.
You're not paying for jack squat. And uw chose to leave. There are consequences for doing so.
And you're whining like a toy poodle.
You seem to be forgetting that I think you should win. And I’m a citizen of Washington. Born and bred here actually.
Hiring NY counsel seems reflective of an inferiority complex.
What if we decide to go after FOX,ESPN and potentially the Big12 and BIG? Not saying that’s happening but discovery and public records requests may open that door up.
Do you have a theory you think discovery might support? Antitrust? Something else?
And finally we get to the end game of all the silliness -,just another condescending pompous ass of a mutt.
I don't really like acting as if the State of Washington is Hooterville. I live here. I practice law here. They aren't smarter in New York than we are.
HH, I think you miss the point. When your goal is to make it absolutely clear that you don't care who you p*ss off, you bring in a hired gun from outside the territory. Someone unlikely to have any ties whatsoever to the local power structure. The PAC and its tributaries can't really be judged in terms of influence on the west coast. So your choices were essentially Chicago or New York. This was an "up yours" move in more ways than one. And in a battle like this, shock and awe play a role. No WA, OR or even CA firm would produce the shock and awe factor like a big gun from out of territory. They did not find these guys by accident. Somebody referred them, and competence was not the only desired characteristic being sought.
Fox and ESPN aren’t public entities and don’t have public records. Probably same is true for Big 12 and Big 10
Many agencies in general - and WSU in particular - regularly hire outside agents that are from “there.” Architects, engineers, attorneys, etc…there’s a perception that they’re better in Portland than in Spokane, better in Seattle than portland, better in San Francisco than Seattle, better in Chicago than San Francisco, and the best are from New York. Bids can fail just based on the impression that a spokane firm can’t be as good as a Seattle one.
It’s basically a pure legal question. What is the outcome based on facts that are largely undisputed?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Semi OT: Feel good story related to the upcoming Superb Owl Tomorrow
- Latest: KRUSTYtheCOUG
-
-
