[ad_1]
Oregon State and Washington State took legal action against the Pac-12 and commissioner George Kliavkoff “to confirm the governance structure of the conference, gain access to business information and protect the conference’s assets,” Oregon State said in a statement Friday. Here’s what you need to know:
- Oregon State and Washington State are the two remaining schools in the conference moving forward. Ten of the 12 programs announced their departures for other conferences, starting in 2024, within the last 18 months.
- According to the Pac-12 constitution and bylaws, if a member school gives notice of withdrawal, it immediately ceases to be a member of the Pac-12 Board of Directors, meaning Oregon State and Washington State should now make up the entire Board of Directors membership.
- Both schools requested a temporary restraining order “to prevent the Pac-12 from permitting the departing members of the Pac-12 Board of Directors from meeting and attempting to take any action regarding the status or governance of the conference in ways that preclude OSU and WSU from potentially rebuilding the conference.”
- The actions of the universities were taken to confirm that OSU and WSU are the sole remaining voting members of the Pac-12 Board of Directors.
Next steps
The Pac-12 commissioner recently asked current and former members of the Pac-12 board to meet on Sept. 13 to vote on a “go forward governance approach” for the conference, which Oregon State said is in violation of the Pac-12 constitution and bylaws.
The temporary restraining order sought by OSU and WSU would try to prevent this meeting or similar meetings from taking place and grant both OSU and WSU to make business decisions on behalf of the conference. This would give both schools the option to potentially rebuild the Pac-12.
What this means
An already ugly situation has grown uglier — and more tense. Both Oregon State and Washington State have hinted at their displeasure with the league office, but this is taking that to an entirely different level. The two remaining Pac-12 schools are going scorched earth as they try to retain whatever assets and control they can.
The governance piece is fascinating. I’d wondered whether the departing Pac-12 schools had given written notice of their withdrawals or if their presidents were technically still able to involve themselves in issues of governance, and it turns out that the two remaining schools were worried about exactly that scenario. This is their attempt to stop their peers from controlling assets and money they believe to be theirs — and not letting the schools that are leaving make any major decisions that affect their futures. — Auerbach
Why is this happening?
Oregon State and Washington State are worried that the rest of the Pac-12 will vote to dissolve the league and split the remaining assets up among everyone, as the conference bylaws state. OSU and WSU believe that those 10 departing schools have forfeited those rights and the two of them get to control what’s left over, from future money to Pac-12 Networks value and more.
The complaint notes that after USC, UCLA and Colorado each announced their departures, they were not involved in future board meetings. Therefore, no departing member should be considered a board member. It also claims that Kliavkoff on Aug. 29 asked Schultz, as board chair, to call a board meeting with all 12 schools.
Schultz did not, so Kliavkoff scheduled one himself, which is Sept. 13.
OSU and WSU in their complaint say the 10 departing members have conflicts of interest and are no longer board members. The question is, what is considered a formal notice of withdrawal? Were the Pac-12’s actions in removing USC, UCLA and Colorado from future board meetings enough of a precedent to determine that?
It’s up to the court to decide. — Vannini
What Oregon State, Washington State said
Oregon State called the complaint a “critical step” to “preserving the conference.”
“We owe it to our student-athletes, coaches and fans to do everything in our power to protect the Pac-12 conference and explore all future options,” WSU president and chair of the Pac-12 board of directors Kirk Schulz said. “WSU and OSU are working in lockstep to identify the best path forward. The future of the Pac-12 must be determined by the remaining members, not by those who are leaving.”
OSU president Jayathi Murthy added that the two remaining Pac-12 schools “are stepping forward with urgency to safeguard the integrity of the conference and preserve its legacy on behalf of student-athletes, fans and the conference itself.” She added that the two schools “are linking arms” to preserve regional rivalries.
Much of the complaint hinges on the definition of a formal withdrawal from the conference. For example, the Mountain West requires written notice to all 12 presidents and the league. Asked about the formal process for the Pac-12, Oregon State athletic director Scott Barnes told The Athletic, “the bylaws are clear to us that we have the sole right to govern this conference.”
The two schools also believe holding Pac-12 board meetings without USC and UCLA and then without Colorado was an acknowledgement from the league that departing members are no longer voting members.
“We’ll let the court decide but I do believe it sets precedent, without question,” Barnes said. “We operated that way for months.”
Asked if he’s worried the other 10 members could vote to dissolve the league and split its assets, Barnes replied, “Yes, that would be a concern.”
When asked about the school’s recent meeting with the Mountain West, Barnes called it a productive conversation and said he expects to have conversations in the future, but any determination about a future with the league is far off. That’s because the schools believe complete control of the Pac-12’s assets could provide an environment to keep the league together and add other schools.
How much value there is in those assets is yet to be determined. Having the access and control to figure that out is a basis for the complaint.
“We believe we have an opportunity. We continue to explore it,” Barnes said of rebuilding the conference. “We don’t have all the answers. But we wouldn’t be moving down this path without believing there is an opportunity ahead of us.”
Required reading
(Photo: Kirby Lee / USA Today Sports)
[ad_2]
Source link