After two months on the job, we’re told men’s basketball coach Eran Ganot still does not have what the University of Hawaii calls a “fully executed contract.”

If you have been following the eight-month drama surrounding the dismissal of his predecessor, coach Gib Arnold, you are probably not surprised for any of a number of reasons.

In looking at the Ganot contract delay, the optimist hopes that, due to the expensive lessons being learned from the Arnold fiasco, UH has been thoughtfully combing and re-combing every nook and cranny of the deal to make sure there are no more potential $1.4 million trap doors lurking behind the not-so-fine print.

Though why such an examination should require even a fraction of the time is baffling, say some in the legal community. After all, Ganot was introduced at a campus press conference April 9, where it was said that a contract was to be produced “soon.”

The pessimist might suggest that UH has learned nothing from the misadventures of failing to commit the initial Arnold agreement to paper in 2010, the one that 15 months later led to the head-scratching 2011 deal currently under the microscope in a grievance procedure and lawsuit.

Either way the lack of a completed contract for Ganot is hardly the confidence-inspiring example UH needs at the moment. 

Then, of course, there is the realist who, after many years of watching what unfolds in Manoa, has come to shrug shoulders, roll the eyes and say, “well, that’s UH. What do you expect?”

What indeed? In UH’s lawsuit filed Wednesday, the school basically called into question a key provision of its own contract with Arnold. “Under well-established Hawaii case law, a liquidated damages clause that constitutes a penalty will not be enforced,” the suit asserts. 

The argument set forth in the lawsuit makes you wonder why such a curious clause on liquidated damages was ever included in the first place — or how it could have passed review before execution.

The lawsuit asserted the “liquidated damages provision” in Arnold’s contract “acts like a penalty and is therefore unenforceable as a matter of law” by noting, for example, that “if UH terminated Arnold without cause at the beginning of the agreement, the clause would penalize Arnold inasmuch as, instead of being paid what ‘remains’ on the agreement, he would only be paid what he has earned.”

Additionally, “In comparison, if UH terminated Arnold without cause on the back end of the agreement, the clause wrongly penalizes UH by requiring it to pay Arnold twice for a job he did once,” the lawsuit stated.

While this case prepares to go to court, we’re told that UH and Ganot — their no longer “new” coach — awhile ago agreed on the elements of the contract but that “T’s” must be crossed and “I’s” dotted and so on. Or, that not everybody has signed off on it. Or that…

A UH official did, however, note, almost gleefully, this week, “It has moved a couple of pegs forward in the last two weeks.”

Reach Ferd Lewis at flewis@staradvertiser.com or 529-4820.