Howe: I Was Just Thinking…How Does This End Up for Gary Barta?

RobHowe said:
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?
Click to expand...

There was a similar story with Ferentz. The way I interpreted each of these notes: the coaches were dealing with an individual who was difficult, but each of them was also a professional in the "people" business. They knew that regardless of difficulties, the appropriate thing to do is to express your appreciation for the other person's efforts. You catch more flies with honey, after all (although you can also catch a lot with bulls***).
 
RobHowe said:
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.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with your last sentence...but I would modify slightly from "different leadership" to simply "leadership"...because the athletic dept doesn't currently have any....
 
SpiderRico said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is often the result when you put a salesman in the driver's seat. Guys are really good at making other people want to hand over their money to you but when it comes to the crappy side of business -- operations, policies and protocols, documentation, legalities, dotting "i's" and crossing "t's" -- not so much.
 
CP87 said:
There was a similar story with Ferentz. The way I interpreted each of these notes: the coaches were dealing with an individual who was difficult, but each of them was also a professional in the "people" business. They knew that regardless of difficulties, the appropriate thing to do is to express your appreciation for the other person's efforts. You catch more flies with honey, after all (although you can also catch a lot with bulls***).
Click to expand...

I know both of those guys professionally and would not doubt that was their intent. KF sends a lot of positive notes to people. Brands is a motivator.
 
I'm not sure if the column's innuendo is that GarBar should / could be fired but I can't believe Kirk Ferentz would EVER allow anyone to uproot his money tree.
 
SpiderRico said:
I certainly agree with your last sentence...but I would modify slightly from "different leadership" to simply "leadership"...because the athletic dept doesn't currently have any....
Click to expand...

Fair point based on this case. I think Gary has done good things for the department as well, but I can't speak to his abilities as a leader overall. And, as I said, I don't know how his leadership will be viewed moving forward as a result of this verdict.
 

I did see that. That's a bad look for Meyer. I don't think it changes anything in this case. I also wonder how Patrick got a copy of that letter.
 
JonDMiller said:
Jane was pretty much universally 'not liked' by everyone I know in media...and several folks I know on the inside at Iowa.
Click to expand...

I believe it. She was also asked if she'd be open to returning to the U of I in some capacity. She was open to it but then mentioned all the people that don't seem to like her. Yeah, her returning to Iowa doesn't seem like such a great idea.
 
SpiderRico said:
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.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you know a lot of inside info. Did she really apply for 25 positions? Or is that hyperbole? How many of those happened while she was Associate AD?
 
thetrza said:
I am confused, the thread title has your name and I didn't know whether to read it in my own voice, then the message has Rob in the third person. Like Robe How says Rob Howe was just thinking.....

This has me all confused. But I am not mad about it.
Click to expand...

Yeah that Rob-in-the-third-person stuff has "nagged" at me for a couple months now.
 
RobHowe said:
How often have I written that way in the last couple of months? I honestly can't remember but I don't recall it be many times, if at all.
Click to expand...

I've always assumed Jon makes an original post about it somewhere referencing one of your articles, then you--and Jon will never be able to admit this :)--do the actual heavy work of posting it!
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
I've always assumed Jon makes an original post about it somewhere referencing one of your articles, then you--and Jon will never be able to admit this :)--do the actual heavy work of posting it!
Click to expand...

Oh, now I see what you guys are talking about now.

I use that lead paragraph for the front page, social media links, etc. It's just so people know what the story or column is about because some folks complained when I just posted a link in the OP. They want a summary of the column/article.

Believe me, I was just fine just posting the link by itself in the OP.
 
RobHowe said:
Oh, now I see what you guys are talking about now.

I use that lead paragraph for the front page, social media links, etc. It's just so people know what the story or column is about because some folks complained when I just posted a link in the OP. They want a summary of the column/article.

Believe me, I was just fine just posting the link by itself in the OP.
Click to expand...

Hawkeyebob62 never took offense :)
 
RobHowe said:
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.
Click to expand...
And I assume if the University had better evidence to rebut her claims they would have presented it. The testimony of the coaches was irrelevant as Meyer was not disciplined or fired after the incidents they are claiming occurred with their facility design and construction. It was just embarrassing to have people of the integrity of Ferentz and Brands testify in this trial.
 
Pretty simple- either Barta consulted with Hr or he didn't. If he didn't fire him. If he did fire the head of HR. If things were documented it would of never happened period.
 
thawks1 said:
Pretty simple- either Barta consulted with Hr or he didn't. If he didn't fire him. If he did fire the head of HR. If things were documented it would of never happened period.
Click to expand...
Well HR said they were consulted and there was an investigation so what more do you want? What things are you referring to? As Rob said,there is a lot of rumor and not a lot of fact. The jury rendered it's verdict, Iowa lost and at least part of that is definitely Barta's fault. I agree he needs to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top