[NDIrish]

And that is why i am saying the university is responsible.  He was a university employee, not Kellys - he didn't interview and hire him and negotiate a salary.  ND was responsible for his safety.  There should have been a safety team in place to cover all university employee activities.  Maybe they have a safety team or group and they weren't doing their job or maybe they didn't have one at all.  But it is the universities responsibility, starting with the Athletic Director and going up from there - they were the ones would should be blamed, not Kelly. 

...  But do you think he looked at the weather and said hey its 45 mph winds and those are only rated for 25, lets not send them up there?  No that should be someone elses job.  

I do not know enough about what happened to have an opinion on this case overall, but I do know enough about how Universities work to know that what you are describing is misleading. 

UND being responsible for his safety means that individual people in supervisory roles are responsible - it does not mean that some faceless, non-human entity is responsible. And in a practical sense, it doesn't mean that the University President (or the like) is responsible for day to day, in the moment decisions. 

The employee's direct supervisor and the supervisory chain would be responsible. Kelly was likely not the former, but certainly part of the latter. He also was likely the most senior link in the supervisory chain on the scene in the moment, and as such he would likely bear the largest share of responsibility for any immediate decisions made, or not made. 

Now I have no idea how obvious the situation was at the time, or how well UND has trained Kelly about his supervisory responsibility, how well UND has ensured that the a proper safety review and analysis is in place, etc. But it is meaningless to say it is the University's responsibility and not Kelly's because Kelly was the relevant representative of the university at the time.

i can understand and appreciate your point. ironically, i believe the AD was actually there when this happened, but that is not the normal.  I believe that a part of the punishment could have been thrown at kelly, but i don't believe it is right to say it is his fault that this event happened.  And i partially went off more here then i should have because i recently got into with a guy who was calling kelly a murderer for this exact event.  I did not mean to describe this as a faceless entity being responsible for all this, but rather people in charge to regularly go over safety procedures, give recommendations due to weather on the days activities and make sure everyone is generally acting safe.  Much like at my office, whenever we have to do a daily activity we are reminded of the risks and how to act safely.  I think my main point was people who were just throwing this at kelly because he was there and because they don't like him.  I think that if kelly saw it and ignored it, or the kid tried to leave and kelly said no, or even told the kid from the beginning to get up there, then he has direct responsibility for the event.  But in all likelihood, he never interacted with the kid and if he never saw it,then he is far from a heartless murderer.

[NDIrish]

And that is why i am saying the university is responsible.  He was a university employee, not Kellys - he didn't interview and hire him and negotiate a salary.  ND was responsible for his safety.  There should have been a safety team in place to cover all university employee activities.  Maybe they have a safety team or group and they weren't doing their job or maybe they didn't have one at all.  But it is the universities responsibility, starting with the Athletic Director and going up from there - they were the ones would should be blamed, not Kelly. 

...  But do you think he looked at the weather and said hey its 45 mph winds and those are only rated for 25, lets not send them up there?  No that should be someone elses job.  

I do not know enough about what happened to have an opinion on this case overall, but I do know enough about how Universities work to know that what you are describing is misleading. 

UND being responsible for his safety means that individual people in supervisory roles are responsible - it does not mean that some faceless, non-human entity is responsible. And in a practical sense, it doesn't mean that the University President (or the like) is responsible for day to day, in the moment decisions. 

The employee's direct supervisor and the supervisory chain would be responsible. Kelly was likely not the former, but certainly part of the latter. He also was likely the most senior link in the supervisory chain on the scene in the moment, and as such he would likely bear the largest share of responsibility for any immediate decisions made, or not made. 

Now I have no idea how obvious the situation was at the time, or how well UND has trained Kelly about his supervisory responsibility, how well UND has ensured that the a proper safety review and analysis is in place, etc. But it is meaningless to say it is the University's responsibility and not Kelly's because Kelly was the relevant representative of the university at the time.

i can understand and appreciate your point. ironically, i believe the AD was actually there when this happened, but that is not the normal.  I believe that a part of the punishment could have been thrown at kelly, but i don't believe it is right to say it is his fault that this event happened.  And i partially went off more here then i should have because i recently got into with a guy who was calling kelly a murderer for this exact event.  I did not mean to describe this as a faceless entity being responsible for all this, but rather people in charge to regularly go over safety procedures, give recommendations due to weather on the days activities and make sure everyone is generally acting safe.  Much like at my office, whenever we have to do a daily activity we are reminded of the risks and how to act safely.  I think my main point was people who were just throwing this at kelly because he was there and because they don't like him.  I think that if kelly saw it and ignored it, or the kid tried to leave and kelly said no, or even told the kid from the beginning to get up there, then he has direct responsibility for the event.  But in all likelihood, he never interacted with the kid and if he never saw it,then he is far from a heartless murderer.