Affidavit outlines events leading up to coach's firing

For a printer-friendly version, click here.\nAffidavit and Waiver of Robert Montgomery Knight filed Oct. 3 with the Indiana Court of Appeals.\nComes now ROBERT MONTGOMERY KNIGHT, and after first being duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and says:\n1. I am the ROBERT MONTGOMERY KNIGHT who originally contracted with the Trustees of Indiana University in 1972, and who agreed via written extension on June 27, 1982 to provide my services as coach of the Indiana University Men's Basketball Team.\n2. At all times prior to the execution of the June 27, 1982 contract, which was an extension of my original contract of 1972, it was made clear to me that the only way that I could be terminated from my position pursuant to paragraph 9 of that contract would be if a majority of the Trustees of Indiana University would vote in favor of my termination.\n3. At no time after June 27, 1982 did I agree to allow the assignment or delegation of that authority to anyone, including any single individual who might be serving or designated as the President of Indiana University.\n4. I was never advised by the Trustees of Indiana University that there was any assignment or delegation of authority voted upon on September 11, 1987 that may have affected my rights under my contract with the Trustees of Indiana University.\n5. In September of 1989, my contract was extended and there was never any mention by the Trustees of Indiana University that they had assigned or delegated their power, under paragraph 9, to terminate my contract with the Trustees of Indiana University to any other individual.\n6. Had I, at any time between June 28, 1982 and September 10, 2000, been asked if I would agree to any assignment or delegation of the provisions of paragraph 9 of my contract with the Trustees of Indiana University, I would have refused.\n7. On or about Friday, May 12, 2000, I spoke to Myles Brand, discussed my status as basketball coach of the Mens' Basketball Team at Indiana University, and thereafter, Brand indicated that he would recommend to the Trustees of Indiana University that I would be suspended for one game and be fined $10,000.00.\n8. On May 14, 2000, I was contacted by Myles Brand, who advised me that the Trustees of Indiana University had met in executive session and had voted to instruct him to impose different conditions other than those that he and I had discussed and in fact agreed upon. More specifically, he indicated that the Trustees had voted and that I was to be suspended for 3 games, fined the sum of $30,000 and be placed on something he termed to be "zero tolerance."\n9. I suggested to him that a three game suspension seemed unreasonable, and his entire demeanor changed. "Are you going to resign then?" he asked eagerly. He seemed disappointed when I said that I would not.\n10. Between May 14, 2000 and September 8, 2000, I spoke with Terry Clapacs and Christopher Simpson and asked them for an explanation and clarification of the concept of "zero tolerance." Both said they couldn't explain it to me.\n11. At approximately 10:30 p.m. on September 8, 2000, I had a telephone conversation with Myles Brand, during which he asked me to postpone a long-planned trip that was scheduled to begin the morning of September 9, 2000.\n12. To the best of my recollection at this time, Brand's specific words during our telephone conversation of September 8, 2000 were:\n"I am going to have (or 'I am having') a meeting with the Trustees tomorrow and I want to phone you after that."\n13. It has been brought to my attention that Myles Brand told the Trustees of Indiana University that I violated his "zero tolerance" rules, claiming that I had told him "that I couldn't sit at home on September 9, 2000 because (I) had plane tickets and a long-planned fishing trip in Canada an "instant of gross insubordination."\nThis is false and misleading. Myles Brand never told me that the Trustees of Indiana University wanted me to appear before them at their special meeting, nor did he advise me that my physical presence in Bloomington was necessary for the Trustees of Indiana University. He merely said that he wanted me available to take a phone call after he had a meeting with the Trustees. I was never informed that the Trustees of Indiana University wanted me to appear before them, nor at any time was I given an opportunity to address the allegations that is now evident were discussed behind closed doors on September 9, 2000.\n14. After he told me that he wanted to call me after he had his meeting with the Trustees of Indiana University, I informed Myles Brand that I could be reached by telephone while I was out of town. I explained that there were other people who had long before incurred expenses and made adjustments to their schedule to meet with me during his trip. I assured him I would be available by phone should he need to communicate with me. Had Myles Brand told me that my presence was necessary because the Trustees of Indiana University wanted to meet with me to discuss my employment, I would have provided him with a different answer.\n15. It has been brought to my attention that Myles Brand told the Trustees of Indiana University that "there was a continued unwillingness by Coach Knight to work within the 'normal chain of command in the IU's athletics department.'"\nAt no time from May 14, 2000 until September 9, 2000 did any of my contractually stated duties as head basketball coach of the Indiana University Men's Basketball Team require the attention of anyone outside of my office. There never was anything called a "chain of command" that was presented to me or that I agreed to, in abrogation of my written contract, which stated:\n"During the period that Coach is Head Basketball Coach, he shall have approval of all matters associated with Men's Varsity Basketball at Indiana University, including, but not limited to the following:\n(a) Facilities for practices, scheduling of games, exhibitions, tournaments, scrimmages, and related matters;\n(b) Practice time for the Men's Varsity Basketball Team;\n(c) Recommended persons selected as radio and television announcers;\n(d) Selection of staff to include trainer, coaches, secretaries and sports publicist for basketball;\nProvided, however, that no provision in this Agreement concerning Coach's "approval" shall control or apply to situations in which University deems itself required by statutory, contractual or conference or NCAA constraints to act otherwise then as Coach desires."\n16. It has been brought to my attention that Myles Brand told the Trustees of Indiana University that there had been several instances in which I had shown disrespect for Indiana University alumni. Brand apparently told the Trustees that I had informed the university that I had "refused" to participate in previously scheduled varsity club events in Indianapolis, Bloomington, and Chicago. As a matter of fact, I had appeared, or been scheduled to appear, at six functions that year, two of which were Varsity Club functions. After talking with my attorney, I indicated that I would not be attending events in Chicago and Indianapolis. The events identified by Brand were not previously scheduled. I did not show any disrespect for the alumni of Indiana University and I fully complied with the terms of my contract, which were:\n"Coach shall make four (4) speaking engagements per year at University functions. The selection of the specific University functions shall be at Coach's discretion but shall include at least two (2) Varsity Club functions. Should Coach agree in his sole discretion to make more than four (4) speaking engagements during a given year, such agreement shall not constitute a waiver of limitation herein provided."\n17. It has been brought to my attention that Myles Brand told the Trustees of Indiana University that: \n"there has been a lack of cooperation in fulfilling the sanctions handed down on May 15. It is important to note that the coach has agreed to fulfill these obligations but has forced the university to go through a protracted, unpleasant and completely unnecessary process to reach that end."\nThis is false and misleading. My accountant, Bob Shine, and I had at least four discussions with Ms. Dottie Frapwell relating to her suggestions as to how I should pay the $30,000.00 "fine." Her original proposal was not acceptable because it would have effectively doubled the actual amount of the "fine." During these meetings, Mr. Shine, a Certified Public Accountant, tried to explain to Ms. Frapwell that her method of deducting the fine would affect my deferred income account and would have serious tax considerations.\n18. It has been brought to my attention that Myles Brand told the Trustees of Indiana University that there had "been an instance in the recent past in which Coach Knight verbally abused a high-ranking female university official in the presence of other persons."\nI did not "abuse" the person who has apparently since been identified as Dottie Frapwell. As I noted above, Bob Shine and I were having serious, professional discussions with Ms. Frapwell about the "fine" that Myles Brand had announced on May 14, 2000. At a later time, I had a meeting with Ms. Frapwell and another attorney concerning an unrelated matter. When we were completed, I turned to Ms. Frapwell and suggested to her that if she didn't have any additional questions, that I would appreciate it if she would leave my office so that I could finish discussions with the other attorney. I did so without raising my voice and without using any inappropriate language.\n19. It has been brought to my attention that the Trustees of Indiana University are refusing to provide certain information as it relates to their actions during the process leading to the "termination" of my personal services contract with Trustees of Indiana University. Their claims, I have been advised, have been that some of these issues are confidential as they relate to me. At this time, I hereby advise the Court that I waive any and all rights that I may have as to claims of confidentiality that the Trustees of Indiana University may be raising. I am as interested as anyone in discovering the exact conversations held between Myles Brand and the Trustees of Indiana University, not only on September 8 and 9, 2000, but on March 14, 2000, and any other dates that my employment status may have been discussed.\nRobert Montgomery Knight