McGeary resignation: UA contract details, officers deny embezzlement in Utah

Note: This is the second of three stories examining the issues and facts surrounding the resignation of Lone Peak football coach Tony McGeary.
As detailed in the Herald article published on March 1, a group of parents submitted a 42-page document to Alpine School District officials specifying 28 counts of alleged misconduct by McGeary.
In addition to the camp-related compensation issues that were the focus of the previous article, another significant dispute involved the existence and administration of an apparel contract with Universal Athletics, doing business as UnderArmour.
“Having a contract is not against the law,” said Alpine School District spokesman Rhonda Bromley.
However, after last year’s investigation of Louis Wong and the Timpview football program, ASD officials decided to review all existing contracts and to consider revising their policies about handling them.
The review was made, and any questionable provisions of those contracts were brought to the attention of the coaches and administrators involved.
District officials also decided that from that point forward, all contracts would need to be reviewed and approved by Rob Smith, assistant superintendent for business services.
Bromley said that some of the existing contracts were renegotiated to eliminate the questionable provisions and then submitted to Smith, who subsequently approved them.
However, that was not the case with the Lone Peak football contract.
In a series of emails dated Feb. 9, 2012, McGeary told Pat Weber, his contact at Universal Athletics, that he had to get approval from his administration to sign a contract.
The message does not state but does imply that there were some problems with obtaining such approval.
McGeary and Weber agreed to tear up the existing contract, rendering it void, and to proceed with a “handshake agreement” just using the previous signed contract “as reference.”
The complaint made by Dan McDonald said that McGeary “represented to all the players and their parents that there was, in fact, an Under Armour “contract” and that players would not be allowed to set foot on the field unless they were wearing Under Armour cleats, gloves, etc.”
There are other parents who agreed that this was their understanding, but others in attendance at the same meeting have alternate opinions about how the message was interpreted.
Tom Watkins said the material presented at the meeting resulted in a dilemma for his family. His son is a running back, and Watkins said that UnderArmour did not offer a shoe designed for that specific position.
Watkins said he didn’t have any problem with any other UnderArmour purchases, but did go to McGeary to discuss his concerns about the shoes.
The father said McGeary responded that if there were one or two kids who didn’t wear UA apparel it wouldn’t be a problem, but any more than that might be.
Watkins said his family felt pressured to honor the agreement and support the coach, so they purchased new shoes as well as the rest of the clothing.
However, his son was dissatisfied with the shoes and stopped wearing them a game or two into the season, reverting to his old ones without any repercussions.
Parent Todd McChesney said, “No one was punished for not purchasing UnderArmour products. Some kids still wore Nike and other brands of paraphernalia.”
Howard Hannemann was among those who chose not to purchase any UnderArmour gear.
“This is something that was highly encouraged but still wasn’t mandatory,” he said. “My brother and I already had a bunch of stuff from previous sons being in the program and we didn’t buy anything.”
Several parents were able to produce pictures of multiple players in games wearing other brands of clothing and equipment.
Another financial issue implied in the complaint documents is that McGeary used football program funds for personal expenses.
The term “embezzlement” does not appear in those documents, but has been used on news broadcasts and in the halls of the school.
When properly used, the term means the fraudulent appropriation of funds or property entrusted to your care but actually owned by someone else.
There is no evidence that McGeary ever used any money from either the football program fund or the football booster club fund for non-program expenses.
In fact, booster club treasurer Mike Hall said extensive efforts were made to make sure that the coach was never directly involved in any financial transactions.
Hall explained that two years ago the booster club account was handled independently from the school. He kept all the records, provided copies to the school and even filed a tax return for the organization.
A year ago, a change in District policy brought the booster fund on campus, where the program fund had always been.
Since then, the student finance secretary has received all funds for deposit, and disbursements have been made by the school accounts specialist using checks with appropriate signatures.
These facts have been confirmed both by school and District employees.
Although McGeary and his wife Brenda, also an employee of the school, have been involved with ordering various items in connection with the football program, neither of them have ever had access to any funds, before or after the change in policy.
“I can confidently tell you there was no money embezzled,” Hall said. “We kept Tony completely out of the process so that this kind of thing would not come up and have a chance of catching him by surprise.”
Hall’s statements were echoed by Jill Walton, who managed all purchases for the stadium snack bar. She checked out a credit card from the school accounts specialist to use for supplies, and returned it once the purchases were made.