Hockey Randomness

[dodint]

Joel Knew.

[nocera]

[King Colby]

Yeah that piece of crap has no business being on the cup

[MR25]

[shmenguin]

Kane probably did it.

[nocera]

[Jim]

There is no reason to retain HR records for more than 7 years after an employee terminates.

Did this employee terminate more than 7 years ago?

[MR25]

"Deleting would leave a digital trail" is the operative phrase there I think.

[NTP66]

There are no legal reasons. In practice, not many are actively purging data.

[King Colby]

Was cheveldayoff spared due to not lying

[MR25]

I'd also assume Rick would've confirmed other employees who left at that time had visible profiles or would've seen that those records weren't kept digitally before reporting this.

If he can't see Aldrich's record at all, then there's likely something fishy there.

[nocera]

Was cheveldayoff spared due to not lying

After meeting today in person with Winnipeg Jets General Manager, Kevin Cheveldayoff, the National Hockey League has concluded that Cheveldayoff was not responsible for the improper decisions made by the Chicago Blackhawks related to the Brad Aldrich matter in 2010, which decisions resulted in the Club’s delayed and inadequate response to a report of serious, inappropriate conduct as between Aldrich and Blackhawks’ prospect, Kyle Beach.

“While on some level, it would be easiest to paint everyone with any association to this terrible matter with the same broad brush, I believe that fundamental fairness requires a more in-depth analysis of the role of each person,” said Commissioner Gary Bettman. “Kevin Cheveldayoff was not a member of the Blackhawks senior leadership team in 2010, and I cannot, therefore, assign to him responsibility for the Club’s actions, or inactions. He provided a full account of his degree of involvement in the matter, which was limited exclusively to his attendance at a single meeting, and I found him to be extremely forthcoming and credible in our discussion.”

As the Jenner & Block Report, subsequent review by the League this week, and today’s interview with Cheveldayoff make clear, Cheveldayoff’s participation at the May 23, 2010, meeting involving senior leaders from the Blackhawks’ management team was extremely limited in scope and substance. In fact, in the course of the investigation, most of the participants in the May 23 meeting did not initially recall that Cheveldayoff was even present.

As an Assistant General Manager at the time, Cheveldayoff, who reported directly to Stan Bowman, was the lowest ranking Club official in the room, and his position included no oversight responsibilities over the Club’s coaching staff. He was among the last to be included in the meeting; he was learning of the subject matter for the first time in the presence of his boss (then-GM Stan Bowman), his boss’ boss (then-CEO John McDonough) and the Head Coach (Joel Quenneville), who was Brad Aldrich’s direct superior; he had limited familiarity with the personnel involved; and he was essentially an observer to the discussion of possible next steps, which discussion, apparently, ended with Cheveldayoff believing that the matter was going to be investigated.

Cheveldayoff’s role within the Blackhawks’ organization at the time not only left him without authority to make appropriate organizational decisions relating to this matter, but as importantly, he was not thereafter even in a position to have sufficient information to assess whether or not the matter was being adequately addressed by the Blackhawks. In short, Cheveldayoff was not a participant in either the formulation or execution of the Club’s response.

Given these findings, the NHL has determined that Kevin Cheveldayoff should not be subject to discipline in the Brad Aldrich matter.

https://media.nhl.com/public/news/15348

[mikey]

My company purges paper and digital records after X time. Every company should have a written data retention policy, especially those in sensitive fields/industries. Unless I'm misunderstanding, that tweet doesn't strike me as anything particularly odd...

[NTP66]

If it was paperwork, I could see them purging it after 7 years. But digital? Still don't know many companies that do unless they're hard up on storage. This is just from the people I know - and yes, it's a common topic in IS.

[dodint]

My law firm has a data retention policy and it's just me.

Mainly it's because I want to digitize absolutely everything I can and don't want a stack of completed paper files in my office for years.

[mikey]

Generally speaking, in the industry that I work in, there is zero practical benefit to retaining paper/digital records beyond regulatory requirements. The downside of keeping them beyond that is that they are subject to discovery (or whatever) in any piece of litigation...

So it's basically all risk, no reward.

[Jim]

There are no legal reasons. In practice, not many are actively purging data.

Unless you updated your server(s). We got new hardware about a year ago so everything 10 years old is 100% gone (8 years technically). older than 7 years at that time didn't get pulled over, and the old hardware is trash so the digital "deleted, but not really" aspect does not apply.

(Note: this wasn't HR data as I am not HR, but just saying how it is plausible)

[dodint]

Yeah but what is your tape backup rotation scheme?
It's Tower of Hanoi, isn't it?

[NTP66]

Tape backup? Wait a second... I could be easily convinced that the government still backs up to tape.

[dodint]

I have destroyed tapes but have yet to see them in action.
My only knowledge of the various schemes comes from having to study them for CISSP, CEH, Sec+, etc. It has always felt anachronistic.

[MR25]

FWIW my employer maintains employment records indefinitely.

As I said, I feel like Rick wouldn't have reported this if it weren't against the norm for the Blackhawks.

[willeyeam]

I feel like this is a story if it's the only one they've gotten rid of. Do we know if all records from that long ago are gone?

[MR25]

We, as the public, don't. But Rick sounded like he was going to release this last night but needed to dig deeper to ensure there was something there before he reported it. I don't think he would've said it if it was SOP.

[willeyeam]

So then I guess we'll see. Or we can keep giving these sht heads the benefit of the doubt for some reason

[MR25]

FWIW heres the tweet from last night:



His next tweet was the file news.