A conversation meant to be in private is now public, and the record now shows Baylor University's gut reaction was to not fire football coach Art Briles.
The lawyers representing 10 Jane Does against Baylor University proceed with their case that continues to include an increasing number of testimonies from school officials, and specifics the school does not want made public.
Last week in a Waco court, portions of Baylor board of regent member Phil Stewart's testimony, which was taken on Aug. 22, was released.
His testimony re-confirms considerable dissension among board members about how to specifically handle the sexual assault allegations, the internal Title IX investigation conducted by the law firm of Pepper Hamilton, and the future of Briles.
Stewart testified, "I'm talking about there was a straw vote, and he survived that straw vote."
Briles was fired on May 26, 2016. Part of Briles' settlement with the school included a total sum of nearly $18 million.
Prior to his firing, the board met on May 12 with the Pepper Hamilton investigators in a meeting that Stewart said, " ... the presentation was orchestrated, staged to achieved desired results."
Stewart said those results were the firings of Briles, and the dismissals of athletic director Ian McCaw and school President Ken Starr.
Stewart said no notes were allowed to be taken by the board during the presentation by the investigators. However, between the investigator's presentation and the initial straw vote taken by the board, no new information was presented to the voting members.
In that time, school leaders changed their collective mind to fire Briles, but to retain both Starr and McCaw. The latter two eventually resigned.
What's apparent now was that it did not need to fire Briles; while firing Briles may have been justified, it was not essential. Transparency would have saved Baylor many of the headaches it deals with today.
Stewart said he was not privy to any private meetings between certain board members of the firm. He also said once he was aware of the firm's deep ties to Starr, he was uneasy about any potential conflict of interest between the two parties.
In testimony taken and released by Jane Doe's lawyers, Stewart said, "It's difficult for me to express an opinion as to whether or not I believe that a conspiracy existed among either a small group of Regents and/or certain members of the Baylor administration to point a laser at one division within Baylor University upon which to develop the findings that were presented on May 12, 2016.
"I have testified that I do believe that the investigation did not go far enough and determine the role of the administration in the overall process of Title IX issues, which includes the identification and the resolution of _ of handling issues of sexual assault and student misconduct, otherwise defined as prohibited conduct, far enough. I am concerned that there was an effort to protect certain members of the administration."
The person Stewart said he thought the school was trying to protect is former Baylor chief financial officer, Reagan Ramsower.
Stewart said he did not agree with firing Starr, who was "on top of" trying to take care of the school's Title IX issues.
Stewart said he tried to resign from the board in October '16, but was dissuaded from doing so because fellow board members thought it would look bad to the public. He said he was so "disgusted" that he didn't attend any board meetings in 2017.
Also, the school continues to fight the plaintiffs in discovery, and specifically taking the potential testimony of former Baylor Police Chief Jim Doak.
Doak, who retired in 2014, has been alleged to have deliberately covered up and or discouraged sexual assault claims at the school.
In McCaw's testimony for this case taken earlier this year, he referenced a document that "suggested that actually officers were reprimanded by the chief if they investigated sexual assault matters because Baylor did not want them showing up on their records and did not want info that would discourage families from sending their children to the university."
Baylor issued a lengthy response to this story; it focused that on its willingness to share any evidence that specifically pertains to the alleged sexual assaults that occurred between Sept. 1, 2003, and Feb. 28, 2016. It said again that it has implemented 105 new Title IX measures at the school to account for any sexual assault claims at the university to make student safety a priority.
It said in the statement that there should be no attempt to make the Jane Doe cases about Briles, McCaw or Starr, or "after the fact actions by the Board of Regents."
Baylor also said it has a "A large Board in which many different opinions are held and expressed in accordance with the appropriate guidelines and bylaws. This is a sign of good governance. As such, Baylor is not aware of any opinions expressed by Mr. Stewart in his deposition that would affect his status on the Board."
And it added an audio or video recording of the Pepper Hamilton presentation to the board does not exist.
On Aug. 30, Baylor issued a lengthy statement regarding Briles in response to his claims made from a different case that the university scapegoated him.
It said, "he again attempts to skirt responsibility for actions of the football program that he led, the players he recruited and coached, the coaches he managed and the loose discipline he championed."
Aside from the money Baylor paid Briles, the school's chief council, Christopher Holmes, wrote a letter on May 23, 2017 that praised Briles' behavior and actions as it related to the sexual assault claims against Baylor football players.
Holmes wrote, "As you speak with others regarding these issues, you can be assured you may make certain statements without fear of contradiction from Baylor based on the information currently known to us."
