Why the Scott case bothers me (us)
by tasser10 on Aug 13, 2007 8:57 AM PDT
Email
PrintFrom the diaries. GO BRUINS. -N
Although this issue has been discussed at length and ad nauseum, there are still people who come on this site asking us why we don't just let it go. They feel that with the charges against Eric Scott being dropped, the story should go away.
First, let me make one thing clear: I am EXTREMELY HAPPY that the charges were dropped! Not only because it saves UCLA further embarrassment but also because no one should be charged with a crime if they have done nothing wrong.
The issue for me and others here, however, revolves around the hiring process and the amount of information divulged (or withheld) throughout that process. We are no longer talking about Eric Scott's fifth arrest, it is now irrelevant and he has been cleared of all charges.
Here are the facts we know and what has been said in the media:
1. Karl Dorrell said that he knew about some of Eric Scott's trouble past but not about the convictions.
2. Dan Guerrero said that he knew nothing about Eric Scott's past record.
3. Eric Scott was arrested four times and convicted three times of misdemeanors.
4. This was not brought up by the background check that was performed.
Here are the things we do NOT know:
1. What did Eric Scott disclose on his application?
2. Was he required to disclose information about his record? (our research showed that he was, but we do not know what application he actually filled out)
3. How much did Karl Dorrell in fact know about Scott's record?
4. How much of that information did Dorrell disclose to Guerrero?
The whole argument of giving Scott a second chance would be accepted by people here IF it was stated as such from the beginning. However, it was publicly stated that no one knew about his record, hence there is no second chance to be offered. We are left with many questions and feel that our claim of a clean program may be in jeopardy. The following chart, which I have used several times in previous comments, describes my personal thinking (and may prove that I am a nerd):
Obviously, if Eric Scott lied on his application, he should be fired. That probably did not happen since he is still employed, but we cannot be sure. I see only one path to redemption, the path of ignorance and incompetence. All others stink of U$C-style cover-ups. And that is what bothers me and others who have high moral standards for UCLA.
ps: if Eric Scott had white, purple or green colored skin, I would still feel the same way.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Tree charts
Honestly
It may not be 100% perfect or scientific, but it graphically lays out the questions which deserve answers and the implications depending on those answers.
Unfortunately, as I have stated elsewhere, I doubt we will ever get these answers now.
One point worth mentioning
It was reported a witness saw 3 men force their way into the house (which would've meant Scott was one of them), not 2, which contradicts Scott's version of the story. Why this witness became "unavailable" we'll probably never know.
NO WITNESS = NO CASE = CHARGES DROPPED = SUC-STYLE COVERUP
Another question worth answering: How does Scott, who despite his checkered past is given a golden opportunity to coach at UCLA, come to the decision that hanging around a 23-year-old felon midday midweek, doing what would at best be described as suspicious activity, would be a wise course of action?
Scott may not be guilty, but his decision-making capability shouldn't be let off the hook.
by godblesstyus95 on Aug 13, 2007 10:02 AM PDT reply actions
Sould say
by godblesstyus95 on Aug 13, 2007 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions
A very succinct summarization chart
And I agree: ignorance and incompetence is our best case scenario. We are reduced to hoping for ignorance and incompetence, as opposed to the other explanations.
Only thing I would change about the chart
by godblesstyus95 on Aug 13, 2007 11:17 AM PDT reply actions
All this won't matter
Anyone who disagrees with them must be a racist.
So even though the chart is a logical progression, it will be ineffective to the Kool-Aid drinkers. It needs another branch at each spot to "Dorrell is innocent of everything and anyone who says he isn't is a trOJan racist."
Let'em
Anyone who supports Karl Dorrell because he is black is just as racist as anyone who doesn't support him for the same reason.
And then there are the other Dorrellistas. For example, here is our buddy Whazup's logic:
1. It WASN'T KD's fault that we were 12-13 our first two years.
2. KD deserves ALL the credit for our 10-2 season.
3. We have underachieved because we weren't able to recruit good talent.
4. With the good talent that KD has recruited, we will be great in 2009-2010.
5. KD's system hasn't worked because we haven't had the right assistants.
6. The assistants that KD has hired are going to be great.
Yada yada yada...
According to Marc Dellins UCLA SID
- He disputes Svoboda's mother in law's story and says IT DID NOT HAPPEN. No word yet from the mother in law
- Eric Scott DID NOT FILL OUT ANY APPLICATION. He said no coaches do (which is contrary to what UCLA HR told us). FWIW.
- He could not say if Eric Scott was EVER asked about his arrest and conviction record, whether in interviews or otherwise, due to privacy laws.
- He could not say what the results of the UCLA PD background check were due to privacy laws.
- He says Dorrell never contradicted himself in statements to the press. He said Dorrell only knew of Scott's hard life background NOT his arrests or convictions. That contradicts the LAT's report. I told him that and he said, Dorrell never knew and that report was incorrect. I have an email into Chris Foster who co-wrote the report in which he reported Dorrell said he knew of Scotts priors.
And to play devil's advocate, allow me to say:
I have interviewed at a number of law firms, and I think the first time I ever filled out an actual application witht he actual convictions question was with my current firm. Most other places just required me to provide a resume.
Then again, I work at a firm with former DAs, so that may have had something to do with it.
Also, under CA law, a person's employment records IS given privacy protection. Such records can typically only be produced in an investigation if there is a pending court action that calls those records into question (i.e. wrongful termination suit, etc.). Thus, Dellins is not just blowing smoke on that.
Also, there are special procedural rules you have to follow to even subpoena such records, as the employee is given additional opportunity to challegne any subpoenas to obtain their personnel files.
FYI.
MIM
Why aren't the principals saying anything?
How in the world would Mr. Dellins have first hand knowledge about what might have been text-messaged to Coach Swoboda and when? Why not let Mr. Dorrell speak for himself on this issue, too?
Misdemeanors and Job Applications
Anways, having um...gotten in trouble with the law before, and having ONE misdemeanor on my record, job applications have serveral ways of asking about your criminal history.
Some say "Have you even been convicted of a crime?"
".....convicted of a crime in CA?"
".....convicted of a felony?"
Obviously, ES would have had to answer yes to the first two if he didn't lie on the job app. he "could have" filled out. But, if only the felony question was on the job app. then he would answer no, just as truthfully as I do.
UCLA PD probably only checked for felony arrests for Scott....maybe.
Just my 2 cents.
yes
I don't know what UCLA's procedure is but the last couple of places I've applied to have only asked for felonies, and those places were involved in the national defense sector.
UCLA's procedure
Now again we are not sure whether Scott filled out that actual application.
But I kind of find hard to believe given UCLA bureaucrats' love for red tape that ES didn't have to fill out any application forms. Whatever.
The chart
That's only one assumption
I would have ended your post with "We'll never know until one of them fesses up" and left it at that.
Likely scenario
Bill
Sounds plausible
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
