Questions For The "Dorrellian" CEO

by Nestor on Jul 27, 2007 3:37 PM PDT in Football Comment 36 comments

So let's start this post with a little flashback on couple of old stories. I will go back to February of 2003 when ESPN's Ivan Maisel wrote this glowing piece on the incoming UCLA head coach:

'Dorrellian' back in style in Westwood

By Ivan Maisel
ESPN.com

LOS ANGELES -- When Karl Dorrell played wide receiver at UCLA in the mid-1980s, the coaches created an adjective to describe a player who did everything, from pulling on his socks to executing his assignments, with the precision of a diamond cutter.

"Dorrellian," recalled Homer Smith, the offensive coordinator of those teams. "He was a very exacting player. If you did your job really well, it was Dorrellian."

Aaaah. So what exactly is Dorrell's job as the head coach of UCLA football? Well after more than four years a huge chunk of Bruin Nation is still not sure. So we went to an outside observer. Allow me to share this observation from Sunday Morning Quarterback (SMQ), perhaps the most astute college football commentators in the world of college blogsphere. Quoting Lonnie White from the Trojan Times SMQ made the following observation on KD in his season preview on UCLA:

Spring practice won't start for UCLA until April 5, but already Norvell is expected to free up Dorrell for the bureaucratic tasks he apparently relishes - writes Lonnie White of the L.A. Times: "Getting Norvell to run the offense is a big step in the right direction because Dorrell wants to be more of a CEO type of head coach. Last season, he took on a lot of coaching responsibility when Svoboda faltered as O.C. " Norvell makes UCLA the first I-A program in the country with a black coach in each its top three positions, but certainly they're more concerned with having a pair of competent coordinators at the same time, for a change.

Yeap. That's right.

Dorrell relishes the role of a CEO coach who doesn't really want to deal with the play calling on the field so he can seemingly focus on various tasks off the field (may be remembering people's birthdays).

Well since he apparently relishes the bureaucratic tasks, you'd think he would get the simple task of taking care of the details of hiring process of some of his most important assistant coaches during the off season.

So what does a standard hiring process at UCLA involve? Well, if you apply for a job at UCLA it seems like you do have to fill out the information on "Criminal History":

Thanks to a resourceful reader who emailed us those screen shots. You can click on the image to see the whole page, which is about 4 or 5 pages into online application on the UCLA official site. If you can't make it out, here is the question under the section titled "criminal history" in a UCLA job application:

Have you ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor offense by any court in California?

Seems a pretty straight forward question to answer. So now here are our questions for the CEO head coach (if you have more you can think of please share them in the comment thread):

What did Karl Dorrell know (as reported in the LA Times) about Eric Scott's prior criminal record when he hired him in his UCLA coaching staff?

Did he or anyone in his staff know about Eric Scott's prior convictions while they were completing Scott's hiring process at UCLA?

Did Eric Scott disclose the information on his prior arrests on any standard UCLA application form when he was filling out the paper work to finalize the details of his hire as the UCLA WR coach?

Those are serious questions IMO.

I think it is reasonable to expect that any professional-run organization, institution, and especially a place like UCLA would run background checks on every professional employee. It is also reasonable to infer IMO that in any serious work place if an employee lied on his or her job application about such matters, he or she would get terminated.

In the case of Dorrell's football program (where Dorrell has projected the image of a CEO who loves making sure that the bureaucratic tasks are well taken care of) I imagine it is reasonable for us to expect that the CEO would make sure that his employees are taking the task of filling out these forms seriously. Especially for an employee like Eric Scott, whose past Dorrell was aware of (as he admitted per the LA Times). Hey ... that would be "The Dorrellian" thing to do!

So if turns out that Scott lied in his application, I would expect that Dorrell who has been hyped for running a clean program would terminate his employment. On the other hand if Dorrell knew about Scott's prior arrests or if Scott disclosed that information during the hiring process, it is going to be the CEO of the UCLA football program, who will have some explaining to do.

I think the CEO of the UCLA football program owes the alums, students and greater UCLA community some answers.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

What a f'ing joke

"the bureaucratic tasks he apparently relishes"

WTF does that mean? I've never heard of a head FB coach being fond of "bureaucratic tasks."

This is our head coach folks.

by Ajax on Jul 27, 2007 3:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

WTF does that mean?

This is what it means:

All tasks requiring football knowledge is delegated to assistants. That way, if the team falters he could blame an assistant and can his ass.

If the team does well, he goes in front of the camera and takes all the credit.

Even if the team doesn't do well he goes in front of the camera and proclaims: I have brought UCLA footbal back to national prominence.

by bluegold on Jul 27, 2007 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good God!

The man enjoys bureaucratic tasks. In fact, he "relishes" them, at least in the words of the LAT writer.

Who the hell relishes bureaucratic tasks?

It's 4:00 p.m. on the West Coast folks. Close enough to martini time to me. I really cannot take much more of this. This week has sucked as far as UCLA sports goes.

Can someone please get Mike Price on the phone and hire him for our head coach? Price just needs to set his standards a little higher when it comes to exotic dancers.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 27, 2007 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is Lonnie White too

who is a Dorrell supporter. So although its not a quote it comes from a reliable source.

Ture, WTF does that mean. I really cannot believe that line. Its mind-boggling. Can you imagine, IMAGINE, the hell Dorrell would get by fans, reporters, administrators, players in SEC or the Big-10 if he said that??? He would be run out of town faster than he could say ... happy birthday, would you like an M&M??

by DumpDorrell on Jul 27, 2007 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What!?!?

Agreed, you don't hear many people "relishing" bureaucratic stuff. This coming from a fairly young head coach sounds even more strange.

If the CEO model is Dorrell/Morgan Center's ideal of a Head Football Coach, what's the point of even bringing in someone with much of a coaching background. With one of the Nation's leading business schools (Anderson) on campus, why not use it to solve the coaching issue - offer the top MBA graduate the head coaching position on a year-to-year basis, or in the spirit of overlapping academic endowed positions, hire a Anderson professor [ex. Joe Bruin, Eli Broad Professor of Business, UCLA-Anderson School of Business; Head Football Coach].

by bruinhoo on Jul 29, 2007 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

one quick point

The note about KD digging office duties was an SMQ observation based on the LAT story. Its a legit one and is enforced by what we have heard from other places about how much KD loves being that CEO type of coach.

by Nestor on Jul 27, 2007 4:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Wow.

Don't most coaches go into coaching ... because they like coaching?

by gilbert on Jul 27, 2007 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

if there was a time

For the Daily Bruin reporters to show they are not Morgan Center lapdogs, this is it. Can you get your former DB buddies to dig deeper into this and find out what exactly entails SOP hiring practices at Ucla? Does that include filling out the above referenced form?

by Nestor on Jul 27, 2007 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I second the motion

this is a real chance for a Bruin reporter to get to the bottom of something that raises a lot of questions ... that Dorrell is not addressing, and in fact avoiding. What is he not telling us?? A young reporter should be salivating at the possibility of breaking this story.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 27, 2007 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If I were still there

If I were still there I'd be all over this.

Rest assured, at the very least, that as you know, some Daily Bruin people read this blog. They know how people feel about this.

I have confidence in the current staff of editors and football writers to put every resource they have on this. Over the summer, the Daily Bruin only prints on Mondays (and a good portion of their staff is gone), so what they can do right now might be limited. But if this somehow drags on into the schoolyear, they will be on top of this.

by gilbert on Jul 27, 2007 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe...

if Dorrell decided to take Scott golfing that day instead of trying to do his job, this could've all been avoided...lol

by redsand514 on Jul 27, 2007 4:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Effing Brilliant Post Nestor!!

That captures is all. There it is for all to see .. Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor?? Scott cannot be hired by the Regents of the UC without filling out that application. The only conclusion I can think of is he LIED. He should be fired immediately on that basis alone if true. End of story. Dorrell has some explaining to do.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 27, 2007 4:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What If...........

UCLA say that the information was checked correctly on the application and ES was upfront and honest about his whole past. Everyone (DG, KD,etc)thought he had some positives and was a good idea to give a second chance to someone and hired him.

What if this whole arrest situation was blown completely out of proportion and absolutely nothing was done wrong or illegal.

Do you reinstate him and everyone moves on or do you terminate/resign anyway and move on.

I'm not advocating anything other than presenting a "what if" situation for conversation.

by artybruin on Jul 27, 2007 5:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

All Great Questions

and, I don't know.

Honestly, I would be inclined to reinstate him. If he was honest on his app, and has otherwise been honest about everything else that we know about, and he is 100% cleared of everything relating to the arrest, then how can we fault ES?

Under that scenario, he has done nothing wrong (nevermind his past, no one, not ES, nor any of us, can erase that). It would absolutely be mean-spirited to fire him under those circumstances. Now, one might argue that UCLA should not hire someone with a spotty past to begin with. Maybe, maybe not. But if UCLA hired ES with eyes wide open, and he is cleared of everything, then the man deserves his job back.

Sort of like Ben Olson deserved to be reinstated as starting QB because ol' Karl said that you cannot lose your job to injury. And then good ol' Karl didn't let Ben play in the Nut Bowl.

Good stuff, arty.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 27, 2007 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you raise an interesting point

under the scenario as you point out ES would have done nothing wrong ... so yes it would be wrong to blame ES. My point isn't about blaming ES it is about setting a policy.

But if Dorrell with Guerrero's blessing hired him then you have a point, it would be mean spirited in a way to suddenly find him unworthy because of some giant and unfortunate mistake that he was the victim of.

Still, this isn't the case.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 27, 2007 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

I was just going with some of arty's "what ifs." As I have stated elsewhere, I fear that ES may be in for some real trouble here.

I think the debate about UCLA's policy--whatever it is--is certainly worthy. UCLA appears to ask about both misdemeanors and felonies on its application. My opinion is, if you ask about something, then the answer should be meaningful to you. In other words, if someone answers, honestly, yes, I've been convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, what then is UCLA's policy, if it has one? Are you automatically disqualified? Does it matter if the convictions were long ago?

I hope that more comes about how UCLA's hiring policy works. It might be eye-opening.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 27, 2007 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

another good point

It would be interesting to know what UCLAs policy is with regard to prior convictions, whatever they are. Surely, in sensitive positions, such as a very public coaching position where youth are involved, the policy must be more stringent but you never know.

My guess is there is some general set of rules but not it's not completely exclusionary.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 27, 2007 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Facts out already that make scenario impossible

Brian Dohn has reported that "many sources" in the administration said UCLA did not know about Scott's priors. LA Times latest reports said Dan Guerrero confirmed that UCLA did not know about Scott's priors.

Dohn and other sources report that Dorrell said he "knew of some issues/incidents" and so Dorrell may have known something but UCLA did not. That raises issues about Dorrell but Dohn was adamant that the institution did not know ... meaning Scott did not inform the institution via the application process.

But in a dream world below the sand where we all stick our heads in, then I would think you would still resign the guy because as a matter of principle he should not have been hired with all his priors and because his priors were spread over a long period of time and were as recent as less than 2 years ago.

I dunno, Walt Disney, what do you think???

by DumpDorrell on Jul 27, 2007 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If they didn't know about his priors

and the question is right there on the application for all to see, then what other conclusion could one reach except that he lied? And if he lied, he should be canned. Immediately.

This mad experiment HAS to end. Football season hasn't even started yet and we're already a joke.

by Tydides on Jul 27, 2007 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the only other possibility

is that he filled out a different application or that he mistakenly filled out the one he did and obviously signed. A mistaken application form would be a crock and Dorrell and Guerrero would not be able to spin that to the public ... you cant make a mistake that big and expect to be believed, especially if you're an ex-con, multiple offender, who just got arrested for the 5th time. I just cant see there being a different application form .. . but you never know.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 27, 2007 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just threw t out there........

for thought. I think UCLA would have said they were aware of his record if he had listed it on his application.

The answer is simple, if he did not list his convictions, then he lied on his app. and should be terminated regardless of the utvome of his arrest.

This reminds me of the Harrick firing in that the violation itself is not what got him fired, it was the repeated lying about the situation when the administration knew the truth.

Trust is everything in this world.

Guys, thanks for jumping in and responding even though the scenario was a little (OK a lot) Disneyland-ish.

by artybruin on Jul 27, 2007 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lets be clear...

I think there are some specifics of the questions being asked that are being glossed over. At the rick of being labeled as "Dorrell apologist", I will attempt to clarify.

A major distinction being missed (hopefully an oversight) is the difference between an arrest and a conviction.

A conviction will show up on a standard background check. I do not find it reasonable to believe that the Morgan Center or Karl Dorrell was unaware of the (2) convictions prior to hiring Eric Scott.

An arrest is not something that normally shows up on a background check. Nor is it asked about on the application above. I believe that the arrests are the new information that Mr. Dorrell and the Morgan Center are claiming they were unaware of prior to this incident.

Lets not assume that anybody lied without looking at all of the facts that we have available. We certainly do not know what went on at the interview with Mr. Scott.

by dicsanch on Jul 27, 2007 5:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Uh...

Scott has a criminal record. He has admitted guilt to separate misdemeanor concealed weapons charges in 1996 and 2005, and a misdemeanor disturbing-the-peace charge in 2002.

by Tydides on Jul 27, 2007 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Facts already out there

Guerrero said UCLA did not know about prior convictions, according to the Daily News.

"Neither Guerrero nor coach Karl Dorrell were aware Scott had four prior arrests, including two misdemeanor convictions resulting in 36 months probation, before he was hired. Background checks are administered by a third party, hired by UCLA, and not the athletic department. Sources said that procedure will now be reviewed."

by DumpDorrell on Jul 27, 2007 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

DD

Does that suggest that the portion of the application in N's post was not the one used for ES? I think I am on information-overload here and may have missed something.

I know I am waaaay overdue on my martini. All of this is honestly very depressing.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 27, 2007 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

well that is the core question right now

we don't know what application Scott filled out and signed. It seems like an obvious question to ask but no reporter has asked it. I just cant see an institution as large and public as UCLA using different general application forms for different positions that arent highly technical or highly secretive.

and the answer to the question still leaves open the question of what Dorrell knew and when did he know it.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 27, 2007 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and ...

if the job was highly technical or highly secretive ... or highly public ... you would think the questions would be more personal and more specific, not less so.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 27, 2007 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Arrests...

Please note that the quote you reference as well as the title of the article refer specifically to the arrests and are unclear about whether they knew of the convictions.

Again, there is NO WAY the background check did not pull up the convictions. Anybody on this board who has run background checks will support this.

As a side note, if I had lost siblings to violence, I would consider having protection for myself as well.

by dicsanch on Jul 28, 2007 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you blind?

let me quote it again maybe reading it a second or third time will make it clear, but feel free to try as many times as you like:

"Neither Guerrero nor coach Karl Dorrell were aware Scott had four prior arrests, including two misdemeanor convictions resulting in 36 months probation, before he was hired. Background checks are administered by a third party, hired by UCLA, and not the athletic department. Sources said that procedure will now be reviewed.""

by DumpDorrell on Jul 28, 2007 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

you are now calling Dan Guerrero a liar. Which is fine, but it is out of line if you dont back up such a strong statement with evidence. Dan Guerrero, according to Dohn's article, stated that he, Dorrell, and UCLA did not know about the priors, arrests AND convictions. It would take a huge leap to call him a liar without knowing the facts of the hiring process and what Dorrell and Guerrero knew and when they knew it at this point.

Further, as the article clearly points out, and as anyone who has worked for a large organization can tell you (besides it being common sense), UCLA hired an outside service to do the background check. It is entirely possible, given the myriad jurisdictional systems out there even in California, that the service did not sweep for all jurisdictions or that there was an error in processing. We simply don't know what happened with regard to that part of the hiring process. But to say Guerrero is lying about it is out of line, you have no evidence.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 28, 2007 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

KD and his duties

Please, please gang.... There is an apparent lack of understanding here about what KD likes.

First of all, there is an office with a PC on the desk, phone, and inbox and outbox. KD loves work the items in the inbox, "big picture" items, and finish them so they go in the outbox. His secretary checks constantly to ensure that all is neat and tidy. I imagine that KD's desk is empty and cleaned up all the time. On one wall is a calendar with birthdays of the staff and other admins in Morgan Center. He has these office hours, makes appts for staff to see him, talks on con calls with other UCLA administrators, and coordinates activities like press conferences and the like. When he is gone from the office in the afternoon, he is "wink" out in the field (golfing).

Frankly I am surprised that this group on Bruinsnation is not aware of this style. After all, KD learned it from TD.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Jul 27, 2007 7:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

look closer at the screenshot

There's a no response option box, so it seems that UCLA doesn't require you to self-report that. At the bottom it says *'ed items are required, but I don't see any in that area. Correct me if you see it differently.

In sum, this screenshot does not conclusively show that EScott lied.

by scottbruin on Jul 27, 2007 9:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

true ... but

it could also be that it wont let you go to the next page until you answer yes or no. But it would be troubling if the application asks serious questions that we know there is a background verification for and yet doesn't require a response. But technically we do not know as you point out.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 27, 2007 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Slightly off topic

But did anyone notice that the letters USC appear on the line immediately following the question pertaining to "federal crime"?

Interesting.

"..you've got to abide by the rules sometimes" -Reggie Bush

by godblesstyus95 on Jul 28, 2007 8:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Guerrero and KD

It sounds like KD new some of Scott's past, yet Guerrero knew nothing about any of Scott's past.

If these two comments are true, I'd love to be a fly on the wall the next time these two meet. Heck, maybe Kd wouldn't even make it to the start of the season.

by bornagainbruin on Jul 28, 2007 9:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We're in trouble

KD relishes bureaucracy. If Scott is fired, KD will have to coach the WRs. Sh!t. It's all Scott's fault if we have a bad season, because Karl can't do what he relishes. He'll have to deal with distractions, like, you konw, coaching'n stuff. Sh!t.

by tasser10 on Jul 28, 2007 1:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs