The Boston Bruins announced Thursday the adoption of a series of changes with the goal of strengthening the team’s player-vetting process following the completion of an independent review of the facts and circumstances leading to the signing of Mitchell Miller.
The Bruins signed Miller, who had previously his draft rights relinquished by Arizona for bullying classmate Isaiah Meyer-Crothers in middle school, to an entry-level contract on Nov. 4.
Following criticism of the deal from across the league, the team rescinded the contract just two days later and parted ways with the prospect.
The review, led by former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, concluded Thursday, and included interviews with key Bruins employees and the review of thousands of documents and communications related to the signing of Miller.
Bruins CEO Charlie Jacobs elaborated on the changes in a team-issued statement.
“The steps we are announcing today underscore our organization’s commitment to our values, including our process for vetting future players,” Jacobs said. “These improvements, which the team will begin implementing immediately, will help ensure that we are meeting the high standards our associates, fans and community expect from this great organization.”
The team released the suggestions offered from the Paul, Weiss review in the statement:
• Establish clear written policies for vetting off-ice conduct, including identifying red flags requiring detailed vetting and documented resolution
• Establish clear timetables and responsibilities within the organization to investigate prospects’ community or other off-ice commitments
• Establish centralized documentation of vetting to include reporting on red flags and off-ice issues and ensure such documentation is available to all stakeholders involved in the process
• Establish tracking system to ensure responsibilities for all vetting tasks are clearly assigned and tracked.
• Utilize independent third-party resources to investigate and resolve factual issues when reviewing red flags
• Determine whether there are specific training or rehabilitation programs the prospect should participate in depending on the nature of the red flags
1:00