LOGAN — No policies were violated when firing former Utah State University senior woman administrator Amy Crosbie, says a grievance committee. However, it did express concerns with Crosbie’s termination.
On Aug. 6, Crosbie filed a grievance with USU alleging it violated its policies by terminating her employment. A hearing was heard Oct. 23-24 with the grievance committee, which is overseen by Human Resources and made up of three staff employees appointed by the USU Staff Employee Association (SEA) president. The chair of the committee was from the employee group that the complainant belongs to and was named by the USU SEA president.
“No member of the committee may be in the same department or have a conflict of interest to any party of the grievance,” USU’s grievance policy states.
USU’s Provost, Executive Vice President Larry Smith, received the report from the committee on Nov. 6. About a week and a half later, Smith issued a written decision to Crosbie, upholding the committee’s unanimous decision.
“In its written summary and determination, the Committee expressed concern with Ms. Crosbie’s termination, but ultimately found that Diana Sabau and USU did not violate the relevant University policies by terminating Ms. Crosbie’s employment.”
Per the policy, Smith had the option to ratify the committee’s decision, return for reconsideration or clarification, or reject the decision with stated reasons.
Smith stated in the written determination that he agreed with the committee and denied Crosbie’s grievance.
“I have given it serious consideration,” Smith wrote. “I concur with the Committee’s unanimous finding and conclusion that ‘Diana Sabau (respondent) was within her right to terminate Amy Crosbie’ and that ‘USU did not violate the policy.'”
In July, Crosbie, who was the Executive Associate Athletics Director for Internal Affairs and Senior Woman Administrator at USU for the past five years, was unexpectedly terminated.
When asked if Crosbie’s termination was related to other recent athletic department terminations tied to alleged Title IX noncompliance of university policies, and the terminations days before of head coach Blake Anderson and Deputy Athletic Director Jerry Bovee, USU declined to provide further comment. In September, Bovee responded to claims made in the Department of Justice report. The report condemned Bovee — who was fired by USU in July, along with former football head coach Blake Anderson, senior woman administrator Amy Crosbie and director of player development Austin Albrecht — saying he failed to properly report the 2023 incident and adhere to USU policy in disciplining the player who was arrested.
The details of Crosbie’s termination remain unknown after filing numerous public records.
USU recently granted a partial denial of Crosbie’s grievance report, only to provide the final decision, but no other details, citing “Under GRAMA, the final opinion made by a governmental entity in an administrative proceeding is a public record.” However, it also stated in the denial portion, “other records responsive to your request that are not the final opinion are not public. Utah Code §63G-2-301(2)(c). Access to these records is accordingly denied.”
Cache Valley Daily has submitted several public record requests related to Crosbie’s termination, but up to this point, all have been denied for one reason or another.
Specifically, in July, Cache Valley Daily filed a request asking for records related to “disciplinary action for any of the following for failure to report a Title IX-related incident or incident of sexual misconduct or domestic violence: Blake Anderson, Jerry Bovee, Austin Albrecht, Amy Crosbie.”
USU denied this request citing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) and that “reports with the Office of Equity, without the appropriate written consent, educational records that contain identifying information directly related to a student are restricted from disclosure under (FERPA).” That decision resulted in any relevant records from the Office of Equity also being withheld from public disclosure.
The July denial went on to say that our request was not specific enough and failed to identify what we meant by “any records of disciplinary action.”