Howe: I Was Just Thinking…How Does This End Up for Gary Barta?
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
SteveGarvey1
Well-Known Member
I was listening to the Sports Fanatics on 1460 yesterday and they happened to be interviewing Jane Meyer. One of the guys on the show asked her how she felt about members of the Iowa athletic department testifying against her character. She basically said that she was telling the truth and all of them were lying. If she did allow for the possibility that they were telling a partial truth she called their accusations "petty". I get that the jury decided in her favor, but the fact that she feels only she was telling the truth and all the other people there were lying should at least raise some red flags for people shouldn't it?
Some may feel that the AD staff attempted to smear her but I would wager that those who testified felt they were telling the truth.
Some may feel that the AD staff attempted to smear her but I would wager that those who testified felt they were telling the truth.
Being on the outside looking in when it comes to the he said she said things is just tough. Didn’t all of this start off with her and the field hockey coach originally having a relationship and not disclosing it? So you could say the two of them lying about that is what started Jane’s part of this. If you’ll lie about that who’s to say they aren’t lying about other things? Was any of that discussed during trial? I would think once their relationship was discovered that that should have been it she’s gone. The whole bosses dating underlings is a big deal. I could care less about the gay side of it. There’s an article on ESPN about an assistant AZ track coach and what he did to a student athlete. Not the same thing at all but it’s still a superior fooling around with someone beneath them and that crap just can’t happen. Think about it if they wouldn’t have had a relationship Jane wouldn’t have went all batshit crazy when her GF got fired….
Now this doesn’t excuse Barta he messed up 6 different ways to Sunday too. He shouldn’t have a job now either. The whole things sucks.
RobHowe
Administrator
Thanks for not being mad.
Last edited:
RobHowe
Administrator
They disclosed to human resources that they were having a relationship. HR said it was OK.
Griesbaum did not report to Meyer just like B Ferentz doesn't report to K Ferentz. I'm sure if Terry Brands reports to Tom Brands but I'm guessing he doesn't.
So, Greisbaum and Meyer didn't lie about their relationship. They told HR and other people in the department knew about it.
Gotcha. thanks for setting me strait
Yet, functionally-speaking, Griesbaum did report to Meyer. And that is very relevant to Barta. Disclosing it to HR, but not to Barta may have been legal, but that doesn't make it irrelevant, particularly as Meyer became such a strong advocate for field hockey in comparison with other sports.
Last edited:
RobHowe
Administrator
They did disclose it to HR. And Barta said he heard rumors of the relationship in '11 (after first saying he didn't know until after it was in the media).
From this story: LINK
The university subsequently investigated the program and the relationship between Meyer and Griesbaum, who did not report to Meyer beyond athletic facilities issues, and found no policy violations.
Edited my earlier post to be more clear. There may have been no policy violations, but that doesn't mean that it was irrelevant for her to inform Barta. I suspect that Meyer would have wanted to know if any of her subordinates had significant relationships in the department.
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
Jane was pretty much universally 'not liked' by everyone I know in media...and several folks I know on the inside at Iowa.
RobHowe
Administrator
Meyer and/or Greisbaum checked with HR, who said it was OK. Greisbaum did not report to Meyer outside of facility issues.
HR determined they didn't need to inform Barta, who, again, said he heard rumors in '11. He could have went to HR with his concerns if he had any.
RobHowe
Administrator
SpiderRico
Well-Known Member
This is how I see it....
Jane Meyer was one of many "lifers" at the U of I....we all know how that works....you get hired in a gov't job and it damn near takes an act of God to get them removed. Anyway, that "lifer" mentality seeps in and you figure you can pretty much do anything you want and not get fired....that mentality gets fed even more when you do things that shouldn't be done and yet never get warned, written up, suspended, etc. For example, treating media personnel like little children to be scolded, or being insubordinate in meetings in front of others that your boss supervises, or developing a "silo" around your duties to where you don't take any suggestions from those your work affects (fence distance at the baseball field, artist renderings of the new football facility, wrestling memorabilia in Carver, etc). There isn't a single person I know or have heard from that was involved with her that has anything good whatsoever to say about her. Couple that with the fact that she tried to apply for AD or assistant AD positions 25 TIMES and got rejected every single time and it's pretty apparent that she was an incompetent, insubordinate, entitled employee that treated people like shit.
HOWEVER, that's where leadership needed to take over at some point. Barta should have been counseling her, documenting every negative action that she did, documenting all of the screw ups, and after so many times, she should have simply been fired. Barta's creedo of "Monitor Daily/Evaluate Annually" is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard from someone in leadership in my entire life. Leaders evaluate EVERY SINGLE DAY. If you don't, and you only wait until a year end review to bring stuff up, then you don't deserve to be a leader and, frankly, you deserve shitty employees. And now, because he was either too lazy or too spineless to document his interactions with an employee he supervises, it becomes a he said/she said case and, in this day and age, when it's a white male representing a big organization against a little ol' gay female who "can't even get hired at Home Depot"....well, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how that's going to play out.
And one other thing.....this whole Jane Meyer thing had been brewing for a few years before the trial even started. At that point, where was the President, the Regents, the head of HR in asking questions of Barta regarding documentation? No one thought or bothered to speak up and ask? Honestly, it is a failure of leadership at virtually every layer that is just downright pathetic and should ultimately cost a lot of people their jobs.
In the end, while it sickens me that someone as terrible of a person as Jane Meyer, who treated everyone she came across like shit, or a child, or a moron, is going to be getting several million dollars....the University ultimately got what it deserved based on the leadership, or lackthereof, that it tolerated.
Jane Meyer was one of many "lifers" at the U of I....we all know how that works....you get hired in a gov't job and it damn near takes an act of God to get them removed. Anyway, that "lifer" mentality seeps in and you figure you can pretty much do anything you want and not get fired....that mentality gets fed even more when you do things that shouldn't be done and yet never get warned, written up, suspended, etc. For example, treating media personnel like little children to be scolded, or being insubordinate in meetings in front of others that your boss supervises, or developing a "silo" around your duties to where you don't take any suggestions from those your work affects (fence distance at the baseball field, artist renderings of the new football facility, wrestling memorabilia in Carver, etc). There isn't a single person I know or have heard from that was involved with her that has anything good whatsoever to say about her. Couple that with the fact that she tried to apply for AD or assistant AD positions 25 TIMES and got rejected every single time and it's pretty apparent that she was an incompetent, insubordinate, entitled employee that treated people like shit.
HOWEVER, that's where leadership needed to take over at some point. Barta should have been counseling her, documenting every negative action that she did, documenting all of the screw ups, and after so many times, she should have simply been fired. Barta's creedo of "Monitor Daily/Evaluate Annually" is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard from someone in leadership in my entire life. Leaders evaluate EVERY SINGLE DAY. If you don't, and you only wait until a year end review to bring stuff up, then you don't deserve to be a leader and, frankly, you deserve shitty employees. And now, because he was either too lazy or too spineless to document his interactions with an employee he supervises, it becomes a he said/she said case and, in this day and age, when it's a white male representing a big organization against a little ol' gay female who "can't even get hired at Home Depot"....well, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how that's going to play out.
And one other thing.....this whole Jane Meyer thing had been brewing for a few years before the trial even started. At that point, where was the President, the Regents, the head of HR in asking questions of Barta regarding documentation? No one thought or bothered to speak up and ask? Honestly, it is a failure of leadership at virtually every layer that is just downright pathetic and should ultimately cost a lot of people their jobs.
In the end, while it sickens me that someone as terrible of a person as Jane Meyer, who treated everyone she came across like shit, or a child, or a moron, is going to be getting several million dollars....the University ultimately got what it deserved based on the leadership, or lackthereof, that it tolerated.
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
I do like this summary. I would like to say that I don't agree with everything you wrote, Spider, but overall it makes a lot of sense and is well written. I guess I would only add that I find it strange that GB has been an athletic administrator for a really long time; and, this is the first time, ever, that he has been charged with wrong doing of this scope and nature. Does anyone else find that odd? Seems like a pretty dramatic change in his approach to gender equity.
That's kinda what I took away from it too. There are no good guys here... There's no one to root for here. The sooner it's in the past the better. Hook her GF up with a settlement check so they can get lost. Get rid of Barta and clean house. The faster those things happen so it's in the past the faster it can be moved on from. To me the damage has been done. The stink of the school being found guilty of all that is there and not going away for awhile...
SpiderRico
Well-Known Member
I don't for one second think that Gary Barta discriminated against Jane Meyer because she is a woman or is gay. Nor do I think he reassigned her for being a "whistleblower" or as retaliation for whistleblowing.
But based on his tenure at Iowa, I would say that he lacks the overall leadership needed to run a department. Sure, he can glad-hand with the best of them and make donors feel good. But in the arena of leadership, I think he is piss poor and he ran into a bull-in-a-chinashop in the form of Jane Meyer and didn't know how to handle it. And to make matters worse, he documented absolutely nothing. Jane Meyer had a vendetta and knew that she had a good case based on how public perception is now in regards to discrimination as well as the fact that she knew he hadn't documented a damn thing.
RobHowe
Administrator
There's a small group of people that actually know what really went down over time. I've heard a lot of what you've written but don't know them to be fact. And if they are facts, we don't have any evidence other than what people said. Nothing on record to say she was a bad employee. Just positive reviews.
I went back and read through testimony through media coverage on both sides. It was muddled and further magnified it as a he-said, she-said case. For example, despite what Brands said about Meyer, he sent her a note that she was doing a good job. That came out in trial. I'm guessing the jury looked at that with confusion. Which is it? She was good or bad at her job according to Brands?
I'm not picking on Brands. There seemed to be conflicting testimony elsewhere. That's just an example I could remember.
In the end, regardless of what really is fact or fiction, the verdict is in. Iowa is guilty. It must rebound. As I wrote, it would seem easier to move on with different leadership.
