Just sent an e-mail to Mark Story, LHL.
Hi Mark, I hope you are doing well these days.
Today I am writing about my concerns for UK Athletics, UKAA and the UK Board of Trustees, and I’m wondering if you or one of your colleagues sees potential cause for an investigation.
Lately there’s been a lot of discussion about JMI’s role in the NIL process, and more particularly, JMI’s familial connections with the UK Athletic Department. In addition, the University just survived a contractual showdown with Mark Stoops, after he agreed to waive his right to be paid his entire contract within 60 days of termination.
These issues resolve around the nucleus of Mitch Barnhart and his staff, and the UK Board of Trustees. I think there are a number of questions that are begging answers:
-Did the UK Board of Trustees ratify Stoops’s contract with its absurd 60-day payout of his entire contract? That was an arrangement that seemed to be completely unique in the world of college sports. That provision alone hamstrung UK and limited its choices while Stoops was employed. UK has an entire Athletic Department, an entire legal department and a Board of Trustees – did anyone advocate for UK’s interests in negotiating the contract with Stoops? To me, the inclusion of the 60 day buyout was, at best, gross negligence by all those who agreed to it; perhaps worse. The 60 day payment period was completely untethered to industry standards. Barnhart and the BoT both need to be investigated for this. It would go a long way if a few Trustees would answer some of these questions.
-UK’s contract with JMI is troublesome for at least two reasons:
(1) as your colleagues have reported, the UK-JMI deal seems to be unique in that it limits NIL opportunities for student athletes, whereas other schools impose no such limitation.
-Did the BoT examine this arrangement?
-Did it ratify UK’s contract with JMI?
-Did the BoT consider whether the JMI contract puts UK at a competitive disadvantage against other schools?
-Since JMI’s primary duty is to maximize profits, is there not an inherent conflict of interest with the success of UK Athletics ? Obviously, the less that JMI has to pay student-athletes, the more money it makes.
-JMI has no direct interest in the success of UK’s athletic teams; its goal is to make money.
-Did anyone on the Board consider these issues?
(2) I understand that one of Barnhart’s top-ranking colleagues, Rachel Newman Baker, is married to Brandon Baker, a JMI Executive. This is patent nepotism and an inherent conflict of interest. Such matters can be overcome, provided that disclosure is made and examined by the governing Board, the BoT. Did the Board even review this relationship, and why and how did it conclude that the relationship is proper? The public deserves to know.
(3) A fifteen year contract with JMI seems much longer than industry standard. Has anyone questioned this? Why did Barnhart agree to such a long obligation? Again, did the Board review and approve it?
(4) Barnhart originally said in 2010 that he planned to retire within the next year. He’s hinted at it several times since then, but has now been AD for 23 years. Is there a reason he’s now so dug in? Whether or not there is actual impropriety, there certainly is the appearance of it. UK is a public university and the taxpayers deserve answers to these questions.
Thank you for indulging me. Whether or not the problem is impropriety or gross negligence, the public needs answers to these questions, and more. I sincerely hope that you and/or your colleagues search for answers to some of these questions.
(pretty messed up, though)
