An attorney for Gib Arnold took sharp issue with Manoa Chancellor Robert Bley-Vroman’s assertion the University of Hawaii was correct in its decision to fire the men’s basketball coach in October without cause.

"I think that we made the right decision, that I made the right decision," Bley-Vroman told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser’s editorial board Tuesday. Firing without cause was "the sensible thing to do at that time," Bley-Vroman said.

But James Bickerton, Arnold’s attorney in matters dealing with UH, said, "Bley-Vroman has no business holding the position (chancellor) that he is holding. He has shown a lack of competence to operate at this level."

Bickerton said, "It is apparent that he ordered the termination of Gib Arnold without actually reading the contract or making sure someone else had."

Asked if he had reviewed the contract before announcing Arnold’s dismissal Oct. 28, Bley-Vroman declined to answer Tuesday.

"The fact that he avoided answering the question is very telling," Bickerton said. "Up until now, Gib and I have been very circumspect in our public comments and have simply urged everyone to read the contract. To distract from his own failures, Bley-Vroman has repeatedly made personal attacks on Gib Arnold."

Arnold last month filed a grievance through his union, the HGEA, charging a violation of his employment agreement and said he is seeking more than $1.4 million he claims the school owes him under terms of the 2011 contract.

The issue is said to be in the second stage of a possible four-stage procedure that could ultimately go to arbitration in several months.

Bley-Vroman and UH’s attorney in this matter, William McCorriston, have refuted the claim. Bley-Vroman told the Star-Advertiser, "Gib and his attorney interpret that contract in a way that I did not believe we intended when we wrote that contract. Right now it is all in the hands of the lawyers to try to figure out how we can show what the contract was supposed to mean."

Bickerton said, "UH made no mistake in entering into the contract. It was in their interests to do so because it gave them a low-cost buyout if they wanted an early buyout. The fact that late buyouts were more expensive was fully known to the officials who negotiated that contract. It was what they wanted. Bley-Vroman should have consulted with the officials (Virginia Hinshaw and Jim Donovan) who signed the contract."

Bley-Vroman said, "I hate this term ‘without cause.’ It sounds like you have no reason for it. What it means is that the contract permits you to let someone go without having to defend that reason against what would be, no doubt, in Gib’s case, numerous lawsuits."

Bley-Vroman said, "Let me put it this way, I think that we ought to prevail in this."

At issue in the contract is a clause that spells out the liquidated damages in the "without cause" termination. It is believed to be unique among contracts of coaches at UH.

Whether UH owes Arnold upward of $1.4 million — payment equal to what the coach already accrued under his contract, a period of 3 1/2 years — as the coach has claimed, comes down to more than simply the wording of one termination provision in the agreement, McCorriston has said.

"That’s his interpretation of the contract," McCorriston said previously. "We don’t read it that way. But even if he were correct, the contract has many provisions. That’s just one of them. In paragraphs 1B, 1C and 1A … there are permanent obligations for him to comply with NCAA rules and protocols, to make sure his (basketball) program complies with those rules and protocols. And certainly if the allegations by the NCAA are proven, that would be a breach of contract, which would have to be considered in the parameters of what, if anything, is owed to Coach Arnold."

In the 1B section of Arnold’s contract, it states in part: "Coach … shall cooperate fully in any investigation of possible NCAA violations conducted or authorized by the university or the NCAA at any time."

In January the NCAA alleged seven violations of its rules by Arnold and the UH basketball program. They included three allegations classified as Level I, the most severe of four levels.

UH and Arnold have 90 days from the receipt of the Jan. 30 notice to contest the charges.

Bickerton said, "His (Bley-Vroman’s) lack of big league ability has also shown by him prejudging allegations on which there still hasn’t been a hearing yet."

The Star-Advertiser’s Dave Reardon contributed to this report.