Fields in a dream

catman · Post by **catman** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:27 am

Fields/Gamble did the right thing by releasing Kramer but let me get this straight. A leader should be held accountable. Is Field's accountable for:

1. Having an equipment manager molest kids
2. Having a football coach on meth
3. Numerous student-athlete drug and alcohol arrests
4. Horrible relationship with Head Football Coach and staff
5. Pressuring a coach to offer his DII kid a scholarship with our booster funds which led to lawsuit from crazy coach he should've let go on day 1
6. Hiring a volleyball coach to oversee external operations with no experience and more pay than proven fundraisers thereby forcing out a true Bobcat. Then when the coach had learned what Fields is forced him out to the greener pasture.
7. Promoting a staff member who not only received a dui and regularly appeared at events drunk but one that filed bankrupcy using the department's address..... This is a key staff member?
8. Having basketball not football player murder someone
9. Football players that have a drug ring
10. A track coach sleeping with student-athletes
11. Elevating an unqualified female coach over a qualified male coach to coach volleyball. BTW that coach is now kicking our ass as a Griz.

I am tired of typing.

mchammer · Post by **mchammer** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:14 am

Do we need a list of grievances about accountability from an anonymous poster? In this list I see a few matters that involve decisions by Peter Fields. You can agree or disagree with them, but you do so without all of the information needed to make each decision. If you question his judgement or his information, and you are really concerned about MSU athletics, then you should go to the source and say what you have to say.

I can only guess at some of these matters, and I wonder if this person knows as much as he or she thinks, or even the difference between a volleyball coach and a "true bobcat." I wonder who would let Potera go on day 1, keeping in mind that it could not be done anonymously?

Peter Fields inherited a lot of difficult situations. Let's respect that.

Mike Carignan

1BadBobcat · Post by **1BadBobcat** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:25 am

mchammer wrote:Do we need a list of grievances about accountability from an anonymous poster? In this list I see a few matters that involve decisions by Peter Fields. You can agree or disagree with them, but you do so without all of the information needed to make each decision. If you question his judgement or his information, and you are really concerned about MSU athletics, then you should go to the source and say what you have to say.

I can only guess at some of these matters, and I wonder if this person knows as much as he or she thinks, or even the difference between a volleyball coach and a "true bobcat." I wonder who would let Potera go on day 1, keeping in mind that it could not be done anonymously?

Peter Fields inherited a lot of difficult situations. Let's respect that.

Mike Carignan

Post by **rtb** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:29 am

posted by catman, not catmom. Just wanted to clear that up.

1BadBobcat · Post by **1BadBobcat** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:32 am

rtb wrote:posted by catman, not catmom. Just wanted to clear that up.

ooppss!! my bad

My apologies to both catman and catmom!

FTG06' · Post by **FTG06'** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:50 pm

Well said catman. EVERY PERSON WHO CALLS THEMSELF A LEADER SHOULD ALWAYS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. If Fields were in the military, he would have been court-marshalled and sent to Levenworth for what he let happen.

Cat_gld · Post by **Cat_gld** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:53 am

FTG06' wrote:Well said catman. EVERY PERSON WHO CALLS THEMSELF A LEADER SHOULD ALWAYS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. If Fields were in the military, he would have been court-marshalled and sent to Levenworth for what he let happen.

Sounds like a summary judgement to me

Pretty severe one to my way of thinking and probably coming from someone that has no experience in the military or with military justice. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected and extend my sincere apology!

tampa_griz · Post by **tampa_griz** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:59 am

Cat_gld wrote:
FTG06' wrote:Well said catman. EVERY PERSON WHO CALLS THEMSELF A LEADER SHOULD ALWAYS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. If Fields were in the military, he would have been court-marshalled and sent to Levenworth for what he let happen.
Sounds like a summary judgement to me Pretty severe one to my way of thinking and probably coming from someone that has no experience in the military or with military justice. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected and extend my sincere apology!

A commanding officer in charge of delinquent subordinates would not be court-martialed under UCMJ unless he/she gave an illegal order to commence the illegal activity, he/she knew about the illegal activity and did nothing or interfered with the investigation. However, their career could, and probably would, come to end after they were passed over for promotion for the third time.

Cat_gld · Post by **Cat_gld** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:13 am

tampa_griz wrote:
Cat_gld wrote:
FTG06' wrote:Well said catman. EVERY PERSON WHO CALLS THEMSELF A LEADER SHOULD ALWAYS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. If Fields were in the military, he would have been court-marshalled and sent to Levenworth for what he let happen.
Sounds like a summary judgement to me Pretty severe one to my way of thinking and probably coming from someone that has no experience in the military or with military justice. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected and extend my sincere apology!
A commanding officer in charge of delinquent subordinates would not be court-martialed under UCMJ unless he/she gave an illegal order to commence the illegal activity, he/she knew about the illegal activity and did nothing or interfered with the investigation. However, their career could, and probably would, come to end after they were passed over for promotion for the third time.

Now that's a scenario that I can envision playing out. Peter's image after Kramer's firing is somewhat tarnished. His commanding officer seems to have pulled a real coup, however, and at this point remains unblemished.

FTG06' · Post by **FTG06'** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:50 pm

Cat_gld wrote:
FTG06' wrote:Well said catman. EVERY PERSON WHO CALLS THEMSELF A LEADER SHOULD ALWAYS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. If Fields were in the military, he would have been court-marshalled and sent to Levenworth for what he let happen.
Sounds like a summary judgement to me Pretty severe one to my way of thinking and probably coming from someone that has no experience in the military or with military justice. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected and extend my sincere apology!

I'm active duty there pal.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm

FTG06' wrote:Well said catman. EVERY PERSON WHO CALLS THEMSELF A LEADER SHOULD ALWAYS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. If Fields were in the military, he would have been court-marshalled and sent to Levenworth for what he let happen.

I find this statement more than a wee bit ironic, given some of the things that have happened under the watch of our military leaders and commander in chief in recent years ... especially considering that no big names ended up in Levenworth.

If anything, Fields taking zero blame for any mistakes made by his subordinates is right out of the Pentagon's play book of recent years.

FTG06' · Post by **FTG06'** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:52 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
FTG06' wrote:Well said catman. EVERY PERSON WHO CALLS THEMSELF A LEADER SHOULD ALWAYS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. If Fields were in the military, he would have been court-marshalled and sent to Levenworth for what he let happen.
I find this statement more than a wee bit ironic, given some of the things that have happened under the watch of our military leaders and commander in chief in recent years ... especially considering that no big names ended up in Levenworth.

If anything, Fields taking zero blame for any mistakes made by his subordinates is right out of the Pentagon's play book of recent years.

Some rather serious court marshals have taken place, which resulted in several officers being demoted (after Abu Ghraib).

Military punishment is not something that is intended to be public. It exists purely for the reason that somebody did something wrong and needs to feel the consequences for it. If you don't hear about it, that doesn't mean that it isn't going on. Your statement is a bit generalized (but so was mine I guess, Fields probably would have been demoted and asked to retire).

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:09 am

FTG06' wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
FTG06' wrote:Well said catman. EVERY PERSON WHO CALLS THEMSELF A LEADER SHOULD ALWAYS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. If Fields were in the military, he would have been court-marshalled and sent to Levenworth for what he let happen.
I find this statement more than a wee bit ironic, given some of the things that have happened under the watch of our military leaders and commander in chief in recent years ... especially considering that no big names ended up in Levenworth.

If anything, Fields taking zero blame for any mistakes made by his subordinates is right out of the Pentagon's play book of recent years.
Some rather serious court marshals have taken place, which resulted in several officers being demoted (after Abu Ghraib).

Military punishment is not something that is intended to be public. It exists purely for the reason that somebody did something wrong and needs to feel the consequences for it. If you don't hear about it, that doesn't mean that it isn't going on. Your statement is a bit generalized (but so was mine I guess, Fields probably would have been demoted and asked to retire).

So some low-level officers were demoted ... but the leader of the department (Rumsfeld) just denied any fault, and life went on.

That sounds about like it matches up with the Fields scenario in the minds of most people.

FTG06' · Post by **FTG06'** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:20 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
FTG06' wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
FTG06' wrote:Well said catman. EVERY PERSON WHO CALLS THEMSELF A LEADER SHOULD ALWAYS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. If Fields were in the military, he would have been court-marshalled and sent to Levenworth for what he let happen.
I find this statement more than a wee bit ironic, given some of the things that have happened under the watch of our military leaders and commander in chief in recent years ... especially considering that no big names ended up in Levenworth.

If anything, Fields taking zero blame for any mistakes made by his subordinates is right out of the Pentagon's play book of recent years.
Some rather serious court marshals have taken place, which resulted in several officers being demoted (after Abu Ghraib).

Military punishment is not something that is intended to be public. It exists purely for the reason that somebody did something wrong and needs to feel the consequences for it. If you don't hear about it, that doesn't mean that it isn't going on. Your statement is a bit generalized (but so was mine I guess, Fields probably would have been demoted and asked to retire).
So some low-level officers were demoted ... but the leader of the department (Rumsfeld) just denied any fault, and life went on.

That sounds about like it matches up with the Fields scenario in the minds of most people.

You have absolutely NO understanding of the chain of command. There were full bird colonels and one and two star generals that went up for court marshalls. Most of them got wacked in one way or another (forced out with dishonorable discharge, demotions and cuts in pay etc). The people responsible for the actions of the enlisted personnel were the officers that went up against those court marshals. Donald Rumsfeld is NOT responsible for the shortcomings for those officers who clearly just let things happen in that prison. While the enlisted personnel took a hit for those incidents, so did the officers.

If you ask me, you need to get over your partisan politics junk and look at it from a slightly more objective POV. Then maybe you would be able to make a better comparison between the military and P. Fields' situation.

And btw, this is why I don't frequent BN very often. (spare me the "go ahead and leave" bit, cuz I'll be back)