Settlement: U-M's police chief agreed in November to resign after 12-month sick leave
University of Michigan Police Chief Ken Magee signed an agreement in November to resign after 12 months of sick leave that started on Oct. 27, 2010, according to the document sent to AnnArbor.com by his attorney.
The agreement - which contains a confidentiality clause - was released "in response to speculation about the reason for his leave," according to a release from Nicholas Roumel, who represents Magee.
However, questions were raised at a Board of Regents meeting about whether Magee was on leave because he was sick or due to an internal investigation.
"He emphatically denies that there was ever any investigation," Roumel wrote, "and notes that the University has also made numerous public statements confirming this fact."
According to the settlement, Magee was not to perform any duties after Oct. 27, "and upon the presentation of appropriate medical evidence consistent with University policy will be placed on sick leave."
That sick leave was to last for 6 months at full time pay and 6 months at half-time. His pay was $182,070, according to a U-M salary report from fall 2010.
After the leave, according to the report, "Magee agrees that he will resign from the University."
The agreement was signed by Hank Baier, associate vice president for facilities and operations.
Magee was entitled to 21 months of salary, including the sick leave, according to the agreement. The remainder is to be paid as a lump sum at the time of his resignation or January 2012. It also says he's entitled to payment for vacation hours, which were not totaled in the document.
Both U-M and Magee agreed that neither side would disparage each other.
The agreement was released on Monday as U-M complied with Freedom of Information Act requests from at least two parties, Roumel said.
"We knew from the beginning that the agreement was FOIA-able and would be released eventually," Roumel wrote in response to an email from AnnArbor.com. "So it’s no longer confidential, and that clause is now moot.
"While we would have preferred it to remain confidential, now that it is public, we hope that the release of the settlement agreement will dispel false speculation that there was an investigation into alleged wrongdoing."
Roumel would not disclose the reason for the sick leave. He declined further comment.
“We’ve said from the beginning that there was not an investigation," said U-M spokesperson Rick Fitzgerald.
He said Magee’s position will remain posted at least until July and possible longer. He said it’s his understanding Magee will not be rehired for the position.
Magee was hired in November 2008, and he was on medical leave less than 2 years later. That raised questions about whether he was eligible for the extended leave, due to university policy that required employees to have 2 years on staff before being eligible for the 12-month leave with half of that time at full pay.
Meanwhile, Magee filed an application with the county to register the business name Ann Arbor Magic at 255 E. Liberty St. That store is now open.
According to Roumel, Magee plans to open a sports memorabilia shop in downtown Ann Arbor.
Read the settlement
Paula Gardner is news director of AnnArbor.com. She can be reached at 734-623-2586. AnnArbor.com news producer Cindy Heflin contributed to this report.
Comments
wizdum
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 3:06 a.m.
I am unconvinced by Roumel's statements on behalf of his client. It sounds like so much spin, and the annarbor.com article provided irrefutable evidence that Magee was NOT eligible for sick pay. Hey Nick, I stopped believing in fairytales a long time ago.
UtrespassM
Thu, Jun 23, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.
When I got today's new paper, I first thought that Ken Magee was dead before read the article. People here always talk about laws and rules. Don't anyone know , at the U, there are no administrators care about these. If you do want to follow the laws and rules, you will be put in "sick leave", lose you job, to lose you life. We just had a wonderful HR person suddenly died two weeks ago.
bunnyabbot
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 3:37 p.m.
I'm really annoyed with a2.com for several reasons. First off my 3 posts on this article yesterday were not posted at all. While posts to other articles were. my comment, which contains replys to comments of others is this. the U is no angel, here or other places, the big wonderful land grabbing U should need no protective from a non disparaging clause. Perhaps if they agreed to drop it then Magee would be able to clear his name? Commenters here think there was a cover up. Perhaps the real cover up is not evident, perhaps all the attention on Magee is completely off base and a nice distraction from the real person/people in the wrong? Magee emphatically denies that there was ever any investigation. Perhaps becasue there was never one, because he didn't do anything wrong, he didn't break any law and wouldn't let anyone get out of having done so? imho people just want a dirty story, there is always one, just not the ones people think they want
justified
Tue, Jun 28, 2011 : 1:14 p.m.
Sorry Hit submit by accident. Should have said I have seen enough oh him already.
justified
Tue, Jun 28, 2011 : 1:11 p.m.
Bunnyabbot, no offense but you come off as blindly defending something/someone you don't know without any facts. Guess we'll have to wait to see which one of us is right. I am sure Magee would love to tell you his side of the story or how he almost single handedly takes down drug lords or anything else that you wish to hear. I for one have seen as much ato see of him.
bunnyabbot
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 3:59 p.m.
@justified, so you have worked with him or the people involved? in what way, please explain, otherwise you just come off as someone posting negatively without a shread of proof.
justified
Thu, Jun 23, 2011 : 12:06 p.m.
Bunnyabbot, you ever think that maybe someone actually has information regarding things that have occurred? That someone may have worked with people involved? That someone can sign up and post to whatever article they choose? I don't know why you want to think that the u is the only one in the wrong here but I have as much right to comment on this article as you do. Have you worked with the him? Spoke to anyone he has worked with? Get back to me when you have.
bunnyabbot
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 9:58 p.m.
frankly justified, for someone who joined in order to post on this article that tells me a lot, along with several other posters who joined as well just to do so. Your little story line makes a good dead end side bar, but it distracts from what the really bigger issue is.
bunnyabbot
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 9:46 p.m.
personally cash I would love to see the high and mighty M have a scandal like this, but only with the truth :P
bunnyabbot
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 9:38 p.m.
hopefully cash the truth will come out one day, and on that day maybe you will see how very WRONG Doug Smith was, who fed him the rumors knowing he'd run with it, how very wrong you are now to have sided with him based on rumor and how very true it is that nothing happened in Pittsfield (and why there was no report to speak of) and how very true it is when it is said that there was never any investigation (nor need for one). you are very correct though stating that the U would like to cover thier hide, perhaps you don't see that regarding Magee though they are hanging him out to dry in order to do it. funny how many posts have been deleted yet the posts remain up that are based on rumors.
Cathie
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 1:40 p.m.
In the Agreement, "University personnel records will PROVIDE that Mr Magee is eligible for rehire..."circumspect.
Roadman
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 2:12 a.m.
What I found as disappointing is that the Board of Regents meeting coverage by annarbor.com only mentioned alleged "inappropriate behavior" in Prof. Douglas Smith's address to the Board. That could mean virtually anything. e.g. failure to yield at a stop sign, disorderly conduct in a public place etc. Nothing was mentioned about allegations of sexual harassment or misconduct. It was only the Michigan Daily that had the journalistic integrity and diligence to cite the sexual nature of the allegations from Prof. Smith and follow up with an attempted interview with Pres. Coleman the next day; the Michigan Daily continued to accurately report the sexual nature of the allegations against Magee when Smith appeared before the Board in February. The allegation by Trespass a few hours ago above that the Chief of the Pittsfield Township Police Department claimed no contemporaneous reports were created involving the allegations about Magee also is very intriguing as is the silence and "no comment" quotes directed by university officials to the press. Magee's silence also begs the question of what really occurred; a firm and unequivocal public statement by Magee of the nitty-gritty details would likely make this story go away, but his silence and the silence of university officials continue to allow suspicions to linger.
bunnyabbot
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
perhaps a firm and unequivocal public statement by magee of the nitty gritty details would disparage the U?
Kal
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 1:32 a.m.
Magee wasn't working for the U for that long and it doesn't seem he had any contract that needed to be bought out. If he was guilty of misconduct the U could have easily fired him. Sure, he could have gotten a lawyer and sued but instead, he got a lawyer and a big settlement. In exchange for what? A "will not disparage" clause that is doing a pretty good job of keeping him quiet. That works out pretty well for the administration at the U, who can sit back and watch the rumors of misconduct swirl around, knowing that if Magee says anything in response about what really happened he stands to lose a lot of money. This doesn't sound like a case of employee misconduct to me. They wouldn't pay him to be quiet about his own misconduct.
bunnyabbot
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 3:42 p.m.
@justified, really how do you know they weren't...why would they need the non disparge clause then?
justified
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 2:28 a.m.
I wouldn't bet that they wouldn't. The u wasn't in the wrong on this one.
The Watchman
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 12:57 a.m.
That Nick Roumel, he can sure write a settlement contract can't he!
Basic Bob
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 12:51 a.m.
"You own the place? And since when does the State of Michigan own the University of Michigan? It doesn't." Au contraire. The University of Michigan was established by the Constitution of Michigan of 1850. The regents are elected to statewide public office, and the president and all of its employees receive their paychecks from the State of Michigan. You may remember numerous cases where City of Ann Arbor laws do not apply because the University land is owned by the State of Michigan. Payment of tuition and fees and tax-deductible gifts from benefactors do not constitute ownership.
lynel
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 9:38 p.m.
Meanwhile, Ken Magee is laughing al the way to the bank.
Roadman
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 9:30 p.m.
Someone needs to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to the Pittsfield Township Police Department where the alleged "inappropriate" conduct originated. They would have less incentive than U-M to be asserting legal privileges against disclosure and to fight the request in court. It would also show any communicatons between Pittsfield Township and U-M that would reveal what U-M really knows about the situation. I can recall when several African-American judges from Detroit were investigated by the Judicial Tenure Commission for taking allegedly inappropriate medical leaves. The politics of the situation here is that no one in government seems to want to folow up on the public's concern that the leave taken by Magee may have been inappropriate.
bunnyabbot
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 4:03 p.m.
@ trespass, RUMORS? this is based on rumors?
justified
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 10:49 a.m.
Where would one go to file a police report from one agency to another? Hmmmm. Probably not ones own pd, or that of the accused.
trespass
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 11:55 p.m.
Rumors of this incident and others were already known in other law enforcement agencies before anything was said at the Regents meeting.
Roadman
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 10:06 p.m.
Additionally, if no documents were generated, one would wonder how U-M may have gotten wind of this incident and also how Professor Smith and so many others seem to have this information. There has to be a paper trail somewhere.
Roadman
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 10:01 p.m.
It would be interesting if such a situation would be handled without any documents being generated by the police agency in question. If there are any questions whatsoever of possible civil, administrative or criminal proceedings that may ensue from the alleged incident, common sense and typical internal operating procedures would dictate that detailed reports be prepared and archived.
trespass
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 9:52 p.m.
I asked the Chief if there were any documents I could FOIA but he says it was all handled verbally so there were no documents.
Laura J
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 6:44 p.m.
I couldn't even bring myself to read the whole article. Is anyone else looking at this.....
trespass
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 6:16 p.m.
Yeah, I was the one who FOIA'd the agreement so they release it to the press today because my FOIA is due today. If they know it is a public document and can be FOIA'd whey to the make me wait three weeks to get the document. It is all about the University playing games with the FOIA law. They won't do anything until they have to. They still claim that all records of any complaints of harrassment against the chief are exempt from FOIA because of Attorney/Client privilege. They don't deny they exist but just that they are exempt. If there was no investigation of such complaints then there should have been.
wizdum
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 2:59 a.m.
How on earth could the U claim attorney client privilege if there was supposedly NO investigation? IMO, certain administrators at the U have PhD's in fibbing.
Joe Kidd
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 8:03 p.m.
The FOIA law has the option of going to the local circuit court if one believes the law is being circumvented. Perhaps that is what the UM is waiting for, to see if anyone will go that way. I believe the law also states if the requester was inappropriately denied info, all legal costs are paid by the other party. Go for it. I do not see how atty/client could stand up to this. See my comment above re HIPAA
Cash
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 6:44 p.m.
trepass, David Jesse had also FOIA'd it. Please email him.
fastfive
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 6:31 p.m.
FOIA the B&F survey from March 2010, maybe there are concerns/complaints that were submitted by people that were in on the "investigation that didn't happen".
SW40
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
First let me say that if Mr. Magee did anything inappropriate that brought dishonor to law enforcement or the University of Michigan he should have been fired immediately. Secondly I support Cash's request for an indepth look into what events occurred that lead to Mr. Magee's dismissal. However I do have to ask of the commenters on this story what is an adequate salary for Mr. Magee. He runs a police department with around 60 officers, a security department that consists of hospital security and housing security with probably another 75 employees (just a guess) and lets face it in a world of the Virginia Tech Massacre and Northern Illinois shooting his job is slightly more important than football coach however no one is complaining about how much money Brady Hoke is getting paid. The University of Michigan draws a fraction of its operating budget from tax dollars but as soon as someone we dislike makes a good salary we want to cry foul. As far as I'm concerned the police officers and nurse and doctors and professors at uofm are all underpaid but hey that alright because Yost needs some new luxury boxes so alumni can watch the hockey team in leather recliners. I Hope we find out what Mr. Magee did and why UofM is trying to cover it up, but lets keep things in perspective hear. The UofM police department is responsible for the safety of our kids while Brady Hoke is responsible for fielding a team of nitwits that can barely spell their name. But hey Jim Tressel is a cheater. If you think I'm kidding go have a conversation with some of the UofM football players and let me know if you think they meet UofM's entrance standards without a little help from the athletic department.
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 1:09 a.m.
Matt Cooper@ "And since when does the State of Michigan own the University of Michigan? It doesn't." I can't figure out if your joking or not. But on the chance your serious you couldn't be more wrong. Of course the state of Michigan owns the University. Thats why the Board of Regents are elected to office on a state wide ballot every November. Every voter in the state of Michigan gets to vote for who will run the University on our behalf.
Matt Cooper
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 9:33 p.m.
You own the place? And since when does the State of Michigan own the University of Michigan? It doesn't.
AACity12
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 8:05 p.m.
The state gives UofM $320 Million dollars per year. That's taxpayer money. I am pretty sure that makes it ours. I don't have to go to school there to claim it mine cause I pay for it. They can go private I they don't want to answer to tax payers. But we'll take out $320 million and our name back.
Joe Kidd
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 7:58 p.m.
I think Craig is fine SmithandWesson. If he pays state taxes, he has a right to voice his opinion on anything the U does that seems over the top. In re to the salary, when you make a salary preposterously high, does it not create a possibility that the person being made wealthy will follow directions that are not appropriate or standard in that occupation? I am not saying this is happening but with ethics in police departments even the perception of unethical behavior is a big problem. And as evidenced by the comments here, there is a strong perception of inappropriate behavior here.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 7:55 p.m.
actually I'm just a registered voter who regularly votes for the duly elected board of regents that runs our University on our behalf. And while I do appreciate your larger point I think too many folks forget that we own the place even if we don't fully fund it. We own the athletic department even though its currently self sustaining. That is my only reminder
SW40
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 7:33 p.m.
Craig, you sound like the rest of the Walmart Wolverines walking into Michigan Stadium on Saturdays, unless you are an alumni, student or employee it isn't your University as shown by their trespass policy by which they could restrict anyone from coming on UofM property. And my point incase you missed it is that just because you love UofM football it doesn't mean you get to decide how much the police chief, football coach, history profesor, secretary or cook in the cafeteria make in salary. But lets face it no one cares how much the secretary or cafeteria cook makes because as a society we all believe we can tell our public safety employees how much money they are worth, as seen in all the articles on this website about police and fire department salary and benefits. Well when your football coach makes as much as about 25 police officers I guess we see where the Universities priorities are and by the way it isn't your university it is the wealthy alumni and athletics boosters. All of the people who look at UofM through rose colored glasses because they grew up walking to UofM games on beautiful fall saturdays 30 years ago need to wake up, you weren't a wolverine then and you aren't now, you are just a guy can't stop cheering for a team that probably wouldn't let you use the bathroom on their bus.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 6:14 p.m.
"The University of Michigan draws a fraction of its operating budget from tax dollars..." It doesn't matter where the money comes from its still "our" university. If a rich benefactor donates enough money to get his/her name on the side of a building they don't own the building. They don't even own the letters that spell their name. No matter where the money comes from the people of the state of Michigan own the institution.
Mark
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.
As a U-M employee, I think this whole affair stinks. I have three friends that have worked close to 20 years each at U-M, and they got RIFF'ed. One was two years from retirement. 90 days pay and goodbye. Meanwhile, the "upper echelon" at the University get gold parachutes. I find the fact that the head of Public safety got paid as much or more than police chiefs at small cities. Seriously, how does U-M rank with regards to Lansing with crime and responsibilities? As for the settlement, something IS fishy, and I hope that a real news organization can get to the bottom of this.
Ellen
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
for heaven's sake, don't use your REAL name!
fastfive
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.
I feel a need to weigh in on this matter after reading the settlement and the bullet point that described Mr. Magees success in regard to the improvement in scores relative to the Business and Finance survey that has been conducted over the past several years. Yes, the scores that reflected basic questions such as "I plan on retiring from the UM, I have one person that I trust in the department and I'm happy with my salary and benefits" were positive. These types of question were "soft toss" questions in my opinion designed to elicit positive responses. Now, what is missing, were the individual comments that employees were allowed to write in at the end of the survey. I am extremely confident that if someone were to FOIA these comments from the B&F survey of March 2010, some information detailed in these particular comments from both men and women alike would shed some light as to one of the reasons why Mr. Magee's position was vacated as soon as it was. Mr. Magee and his attorney opened the door with their interpretation of the "improvement of scores", now let's see if the individualzed comments that accompanied the March 2010 survey can be looked at, I don't see why not. I would find it hard to believe that these comments are protected from being FOIA'd.
bunnyabbot
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 10:06 p.m.
@justified, you implied though as "I am extremely confident" that makes it sound like you have inside knowledge to the comments, so please, elaborate on how you would know this
justified
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 6:39 p.m.
An anonymous survey doesn't mean there are no answers, bunnyabbot. They release information regarding the answers to the survey, just not specific individual comments
bunnyabbot
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 3:45 p.m.
how do you know what was on an anonymous survey?
Joe Kidd
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 7:50 p.m.
Better yet, get all the survey results over the years and make sure to ask for non redacted comments.
Cash
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 2:40 p.m.
Steve Pepple, "Comments speculating about the reasons behind Mr. Magee's departure, beyond what has been reported....have been removed" Steve...we do NOT want to speculate. We want to read the whole story!!!! Therein lies the bite. What has been reported opens up a million questions. I think you are aware of that. This was reported by AnnArbor.com: "Smith said during his public comments that he talked to Pittsfield Township Public Safety Director Matt Harshberger and was told Harshberger had a conversation with Magee about inappropriate behavior. Harshberger confirmed this evening he had spoken with Magee about a "situation" with one of his officers, but he said no formal complaint was ever filed. He declined to discuss the situation or any specifics of his conversation with Magee." What "situation"? You reported that much back in January, then stopped reporting any thing about the "situation." It's inane to say that we now can't discuss what the "situation" was. A bit like closing the barn door after the horses are out. We KNOW a local police chief discussed a situation that involved one of his officers with Magee, because that was reported here. We'd like to know what happened. These were both public officials. We know the UM chief was paid a tidy sum not to work. From what was reported we know that's not normal. What's the rest of the story? Are new FOIAs still denied? Anyone in their right mind would wonder.
Cash
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 6:22 p.m.
average joe, If you think that's bad, I agree with snoopdog. :-) I guess none of us like being treated like children...".we have wasted your money but you do not deserve to know why." And "one public law enforcement person talks to another public law enforcement official, but you the taxpayer have no right to know about it." In other words, "Shut up and pay your taxes. You have no right to know anything."
average joe
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 4:12 p.m.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but I 100% agree with cash.
Joe Kidd
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.
Too bad we (Cash) have to go to the Freep to get to the bottom of this. Most surprising is that with so much info that there was misconduct, why the AA.Com has not gone to court to see if the UM is dodging FOIA. Is it not worth the chance there might be something there? If it has gotten to the point where documentation of a personnel matter has become verbal only to avoid FOIA, the legislature needs to amend the law to make sure matters like this are properly documented. As AACity12 points out, our taxes help fund the U and thus we have a right to demand ethical behavior. How do we trust the UM in its efforts to keep the athletic dept clean if this sort of behavior goes on within the administration? It seems as though the U has adopted an attitude that managers never do anything improper.
Bertha Venation
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 1:53 p.m.
Me thinke he doth protest too much. I agree. Something smells very fishy here.
walker101
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 1:20 p.m.
Obvisouly having time to open a store and research vendors and attain accounts throughout the country can be very taxing on your health. But since you are on sick leave (don't you have to be sick) affords him the luxury of moonlighting on the side while being paid a full salary no less the benefits. Sounds like a conflict of interest, I guess I'll call my employer and take a leave of absence or sick time with full pay and pursue another career on their dime. Sounds good to me.
Tim Belcher
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 3:01 p.m.
Good luck with that leave of absence/sick time. But if you do have an employer with those types of benefits (other than the U) let me know so I can apply! Just curious as to how he qualified for this benefit when he clearly did not meet the criteria????
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 12:49 p.m.
"According to the settlement, Magee was not to perform any duties after Oct. 27, "and upon the presentation of appropriate medical evidence consistent with University policy will be placed on sick leave.....That sick leave was to last for 6 months at full time pay and 6 months at half-time. " How does anyone figure out in advance how long one is going to be "sick"? I'm feeling a little under the weather...I think its gonna last a year? As so many others have stated...this stinks. The whole truth is not out there. "We the people" of the state of Michigan were his employers we deserve more information. Whats the difference between the police chief and the head football or basketball coach? When the coach leaves we all know why.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 4 p.m.
You make a valid point. Although a year is a long time for any recovery. The agreed upon year of "sickness" precluded a quicker recovery And the end result of the year long "recovery" is a predetermined resignation. Within the context of this situation there are too many missing pieces.
Epengar
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
"How does anyone figure out in advance how long one is going to be "sick"? There are lots and lots of medical conditions that are covered by sick leave, and that have a pretty reliable recovery time. Lots of surgeries, for instance.
Steve Pepple
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 11:35 a.m.
Comments speculating about the reasons behind Mr. Magee's departure, beyond what has been reported, have been and will be removed.
bunnyabbot
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 3:48 p.m.
that doesn't seem to be the case entirely, you've let plenty of comments go that contain slanderous and non researched items, unless of course this is a blog and not a news site where almost anything goes.
AACity12
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 11:35 a.m.
I reread that and reliezed I had some math wrong. But still. They want to pay this guy out big bucks and expect they can keep it a secret. The UM is a public university and unfortunately he is being paid out with taxpayer money. We want the truth! They are a public university not a private company that gets the luxury of confidentiality. Its time to air the dirty laundry even if it tarnishes the great UofM. Ohio state just did it now it UofM's turn.
Joe Kidd
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.
After Grutter and Gratz v Bollinger resulting in Prop 2, ending shenanigans you would think they would learn. If a public institution ignores the FOIA law, there might someday be some new standards.
Ellen
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 11:43 a.m.
Thanks, Cash!
Cash
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 11:39 a.m.
I've emailed David Jesse at the Freep and asked him to investigate. We'll see if he can find something out for us.
trespass
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 11:37 a.m.
They can't take the truth!
DDOT1962
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 11:12 a.m.
I could not care less what Ken Magee may or may not have done to have ended his tenure as police chief for U-M. I only care that the salary of $182,070/yr. for this position is reduced to a rational level commensurate with the demands of the job. And that the salaries AND benefits of all U-M employees, (adminstration, faculty, support, operations, etc...)are brought in line with reality. The cost of higher education in this country, much like health care, cannot continue to rise at annual rates of double, triple or any multiples of the rate of inflation. That's insanity. Since the largest expense of any university is it's human capital, that's where the economizing has to begin and end. Be a true leader, U-M. Show how you remain a great institution and a fiscally responsible one too.
A2K
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 4:30 p.m.
He may have been grossly overpaid, but MANY UM employees make 20-35% below private-sector pay...how about they get a fair shake while you're at it? In addition, they pay 22% of their healthcare costs - FAR more than most public-sector employees.
jmiranda
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 4:22 a.m.
When you work for a by the book person then life can sometimes be tough if following the rules are not your thing. One way you can get even is for you and you buddies to get on AnnArbor.com and add as many negative postings as you can. Somehow I think that is the case here. The University had no misconduct on McGee, if they did then they would have just fired him for cause and been done with it. Instead they just shoveled a pile of money on him and the only thing he had to do is keep his mouth shut. The real question is just what did the University want to hide so bad that choose this course of action?
bunnyabbot
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 3:53 p.m.
why jmiranda I think you nailed the big fat nail on the head.
John B.
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 12:58 a.m.
I see no one unfamiliar (to me) posting on this thread - except you. All others are long-time contributors.
snoopdog
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 2:56 a.m.
This entire thing smells of rotten meat infested with maggots. It is hard to post anyting without it being deleted because A2.COM kisses the behind of the U of M. Anyone ( at this point) that supports the U of M is an ignorant fool and a chump in my humble opinion ! This town has been turned into a clown, making Tressel look rather special. Good Day
bunnyabbot
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 3:54 p.m.
and kiss they do and although Cash agrees with you would he agree with the truth too? or is he just following the wrong juicy story here?
Cash
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 6:17 p.m.
snoop, I agree with you.
Basic Bob
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 1:10 a.m.
This is wrong in so many ways. The person that approved this deal should be fired faster than you can say Jim Tressel.
trespass
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 1:01 a.m.
Note the following clause in the agreement; "Upon execution of this document, Mr. Magee agrees to return to the University, any University property, documents, copies of documents, or other materials in his possession. I wonder what documents he took home? I thnik I will FOIA them. Also note the clause that the University will not contest any claim for unemployment benefits. Thus, he will get unemployment in addition to all this salary.
wizdum
Fri, Jun 24, 2011 : 2:51 a.m.
I thought a person was only entitled to unemployment benefits if they were laid off, not for resigning. I may file a complaint with the appropriate state agent to file my objection to this arrangement. How dare they make such an agreement at the expense of the people of the state of Michigan.
David Cahill
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 12:36 a.m.
Sorry, Roadman, that link doesn't work.
Rod Johnson
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 1:01 p.m.
It's not down, just go to Roadman's link, search for "magee" and it'll turn up.
adam
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 1:10 a.m.
Now why would the Daily take that article down?
Roadman
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 12:46 a.m.
I know, I just checked and the file is currently not available, but the January 20th and February20th editions of this year which cover the Public Commentary period addresses of Douglas Smith can be accessed from the Michigan Daily search engine.
DonBee
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 12:35 a.m.
Your tax dollars (and ever increasing) tuition at work!
David Cahill
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 12:34 a.m.
What was the bombshell that Prof. Smith dropped about Magee's leaving?
Cash
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 11:10 a.m.
Go up to search feature here and search Ken Magee. David Jesse's January 20th article gives us the info.
Roadman
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 12:41 a.m.
See the January 20, 2011 and February 20, 2011 online editions of the Michigan Daily and review the coverage of the Public Commentary period at <a href="http://www.michigandaily.com" rel='nofollow'>www.michigandaily.com</a> where retired Professor Douglas Smith addresses the Board of Regents.
Roadman
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 12:32 a.m.
Oops! That was ex-professor Douglas Smith. Here's a link to the Michigan Daily article from last February: <a href="http://www.michigandaily.com/content/report-%E2%80%99-approves-new-high-definition-scoreboards-and-crisler-arena-renovations?page=0,1" rel='nofollow'>www.michigandaily.com/content/report-%E2%80%99-approves-new-high-definition-scoreboards-and-crisler-arena-renovations?page=0,1</a>
Rob Pollard
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 12:02 a.m.
This is insulting. This guy gets approximately two year's pay for doing nothing after not even two years of work (and as noted in the previous AA.com story, there has never been an explanation of why he qualified for it in the first place). His lawyer Roumel must think people are idiots - "we hope that the release of the settlement agreement will dispel false speculation that there was an investigation into alleged wrongdoing" which is immediately followed with, Roumel would not disclose the reason for the sick leave. Sure, that clears it all up. This is one reason, amongst an unfortunate many, of why I've decided to decline contributing to U of M after many years of doing so. I'm no Stephen Ross, so it won't dent the endowment, but these kind of shenanigans are embarrassing and sad. It's a great university with many great people, but Ken Magee isn't one of them.
Matt Cooper
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 : 9:22 p.m.
"which is immediately followed with, Roumel would not disclose the reason for the sick leave." Medical records are not subject to FOIA, so you will never know what the sick leave was all about, nor should you know. You have no right, nor does anyone else, to know what's in his or anyone elses medical files. And he is under no obligation to disclose such information.
monroe c
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 11:39 p.m.
And now, for his final trick, Ken Magee will make a $182,070/year job disappear!
cook1888
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 10:49 p.m.
This is a classic example of the abuse and waste of taxpayer money. Why would anyone support any kind of tax increase when this goes on. Why do they squander our money? Because they are allowed to with no repercussion. If they claim to have to because of contracts, then no one is watching over the negotiation process. These big salaries are not waranted at any level. There are scads of talented, unemployed people that would work for less.
Mick52
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 10:35 p.m.
No investigation? Perhaps none was needed.
tommy_t
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 9:58 p.m.
Well, he certainly pulled the rabbit out of a hat there.
adam
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 9:54 p.m.
Something smells.