The Scott Hiring Process = Not Good News For UCLA

by Nestor on Jul 30, 2007 4:54 AM PDT in Football Comment 31 comments

IMHO the focus of the story from the Eric Scott scandal needs to be shifted from what happened during his fifth arrest to what actually happened during the process he was hired into Dorrell’s staff.

We will let the legal process play out wrt to Scott’s current troubles. However, we really need to get a definitive answer on how a man with 4 arrests and 2 convictions was hired into the UCLA staff without the head coach or the administrators at Morgan Center not knowing about.

A posted one of the recent Dohn Q&A below which reports that Dorrell knew about Eric’s Scott’s "difficult background with gang violence," but did not know about the arrests. Again to me that doesn’t really jive. You’d think a coach who has let himself hyped to be an individual who relishes bureaucratic tasks and a detailed oriented CEO type, would exercise his due diligence and make sure to do a through background check knowing that his latest assistant to be had a "difficult background with gang violence." Then how couldn’t he have not known about his prior arrests?

It just doesn’t make any sense. Dohn also had this exchange in the Part III of his Q&A posts from the weekend:

1.Did Scott lie on his application to UCLA about his misdemeanor convictions, as it appears he did based on your reports?? If so, why has he not been dismissed??
2. What did Dorrell know about Scott's arrests and convictions and when did he know it?? Dorrell said he knew something about Scott's prior incidents, so if he did was Dorrell involved in any way in Scott's deception in the application process in order to get Scott hired??
First, I don’t know if he lied in his application. My guess is he did not because most job applications ask if a person has been convicted of a felony, and he was not. His are misdemeanors.
Second, I believe Dorrell found out about Scott’s prior arrests when a reporter called the school to ask for a comment about it.

Well I don’t really care about most applications. I care about the forms that Scott had to fill out in order to get on the UCLA payroll. And I also care about exactly what Dorrell did to thoroughly vet his "difficult background with gang violence." Dohn’s posts are interesting speculation, but they are not satisfactory explanation in terms of how an individual like Scott made into Dorrell’s staff without Dorrell or the UCLA administrators not knowing about his prior arrests.

Oh and one another thing. I have heard another argument that we should lay off Dorrell and give him the benefit of the doubt, given he also took a chance on Eric Bienemy, who also had a checkered past (DUI related issues). That argument doesn’t fly. There are two crucial differences between EB’s situation around EB’s hiring process and the one wrt to Eric Scott. EB’s prior record was fairly public. We all knew about. And by "we" I mean fans who follow UCLA sports day to day via various websites. We all knew Dorrell was taking a chance. Some were not totally comfortable with it. But at least it was public knowledge. In this case apparently now Dorrell and UCLA administrators claim that they didn’t know about Scott’s prior legal troubles. So that is a huge difference.

Secondly, EB had already built up a track record as college assistant coach. Scott had absolutely no such experience. He was an "intern" at the UCLA football program but that was it. He had no experience as a big time college assistant coach. So by all accounts it looks like Dorrell made desperation hire by bringing in a high school assistant coach, just so he could reel in some recruits from the inner city, without really looking too much into Scott’s background even though he knew Scott had "difficult background with gang violence."

So any way you look at it at the hiring process of Eric Scott is exposing Dorrell as an incompetent and clueless CEO, who despite all the hype is not really paying attention to the details of his program. Any way you look at it, this is not good news for the UCLA football program.

UPDATE - N:Looks like Morgan Center is working hard to pass the buck and point fingers at other UCLA department over this Scott fiasco:

The UC Police Department uses a fingerprinting program and notifies the campus human resources department. In the case of Eric Scott, any information is then passed to the the athletic department's human resources person.
Sources are telling me there was a breakdown in the process before it reached athletics.

Keep digging Brian. Your posts are only leading to more questions. As said in the comment thread, who goofed? We got to know. And we still don't have any good answer. Just a lot of finger pointing and passing the buck, so typical of Dorrell era at UCLA.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

As Jim Healey would say (yet again)

Who goofed?...I've got to know!

by bluegold on Jul 30, 2007 8:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The saddest part about this

and the reason it is so disturbing, is that Scott's job was to work with young kids. Kids who need good role models.

His criminal past doesn't bug me so much, he should get second chances, and I hope he can find a great job. However, his second chance shouldn't necessarily be working with impressionable young kids in a football program which is trying to clean up its image.

by rfirpo on Jul 30, 2007 8:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Confirmed: Scott REQUIRED to answer question

We called Morgan Center this morning who forwarded us on to UCLA Human Resources who confirmed that Eric Scott was required to fill out the application for employment before being hired and that the application asked him if he had ever been convicted of a misdemeanor. There you have it. Questions have to be answered now.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 30, 2007 10:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You have to diary that!

by bluestreet on Jul 30, 2007 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dohn is reporting exactly the opposite of that.

Looks like the HR department doesn't have a clue what their own procedure is.

by McCloskey on Jul 30, 2007 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dohn's post is a little fishy

He says coaches are not required to fill out the same form. But that doesn't make sense.

Is he saying UCLA coaches are not subjected to the same requirements that any other UC emplyee is subjected to, even though their wages are being paid by the UC?

by bluestreet on Jul 30, 2007 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

DD

It was a good faith effort, but you can't just ask one HR person hypotheticals and say you've got the answer confirmed. It's a good thing you aren't a reporter...

by Chick Hearn on Jul 30, 2007 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can say the same thing ...

about the actual reporters.

At least DD is pushing the envelope while the rest are waiting to be spoonfed by whatever is coming out of Morgan center.

I read Dohn's post. It still doesn't provide a good explanation.

by bluestreet on Jul 30, 2007 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What??

I asked a department employee, who I then asked to get confirmation from her superior. That employee, and her superior, had NO AGENDA. They stated exactly that EVERY COACH had to fill out that application.

Who does Dohn get "confirmation" from? UCLA Athletics ... do they have an agenda?? You bet. And as others have pointed out, Dohn's post doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Dohn, by the way, asked because I posted those questions on his blog. And you still want only "reporters" to ask the questions?? Give me a break.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 30, 2007 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What this tells me is something different

there is something not above board about all this. If UCLA does a background check for misdemeanor convictions, as Guerrero said they did, then why don't they ask the applicant?? If it matters so much that they pay a service to find out, then why is their policy being circumvented??

Let me ask this ... how has Dohn proved what he reported is true?? Answer: He hasn't. He just took the word of someone at Morgan Center. Yeah and they dont have a motive for responding the way they did.

Bottom line: Dohn's report and UCLA's handling of this question has only clouded the issue. I don't know who to believe.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 30, 2007 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you really want to know

why don't you file a freedom of information request demanding all documents including andy policies and procedures that pertain to the hiring and firing of any employee of the University including the athletic department. You can also demand a copy of Scott's employment application but they might have grounds of confidentiality to deny the request for that document.

by Mrtravlear on Jul 30, 2007 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jim Healey

It is a tragedy that the younger members of BN lack the history of tuning into 710 at 5:30PM for the best 30 minutes of radio on any level, for any man. The women could not relate IMO, but Jim was strictly for the guys.

Not sure who made the "who goofed? I got to know" but it may have been Leonard Tose, who then earned to label from someone, "Leonard Tose has, uh, lost it".

KD knew or ignored the evidence with EScott so he could hire a recruiter 'ala EB, regardless of arrest and/or conviction background. My concern is why EScott was allowed to intern at UCLA at all without preparing the school and fan base for his background. If we all know, then depending on what it is, we can accept it. But hiding it is another matter....
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Jul 30, 2007 11:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The "who goofed" comment ..

that Healey played over and over was made by Howard Cosell. I don't remember the context of the remark.

by Mrtravlear on Jul 30, 2007 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Howard Cosell

Of course. Thanks. That was the beauty of the stream of quotes... take them out of context and they made me laugh, because Healey always knew when to drop them into his story lines. My wife and I would be in the car and I am laughing for 30 minutes and she would look at me like I was loony!!
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Jul 30, 2007 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

IMO, don't speak for women!

Maybe the women you know can't relate to Jim Healey but some of us were actually raised listening to his radio show as we drove in the car with our grandfathers, dads and brothers. BTW some of us (and by "us" I mean me) knew whose voice was behind "who goofed..." And, believe it or not, some of us can even hit a fastball, drive a golf ball straight and far down the fairway and can even comprehend the complexities of the West Coast offense. All this plus - before you start generalizing about our appearance and sexual preference - we are the kind of women who know how to apply make up, walk in high heels and look good when we wear a bikini.

If it isn't obvious by now, I didn't appreciate your comment. I actually cried when Jim Healey passed away.

by UCngLA on Jul 30, 2007 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You'd better be careful

if you keep talking like that a lot of the BN guys are going to ask for your number! You just put "bikini" and "West Coast offense" in the same sentence...I think a lot of guys here started drooling :)

by tasser10 on Jul 31, 2007 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll keep that in mind...

if I am ever looking for a date. :)

by UCngLA on Jul 31, 2007 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

UCLA Employment Application

I agree that Scott's hiring process is of more interest then the alleged incident at hand. Just to clarify what is on the UCLA employment application I went to the UCLA employment center and loked up the actual employment application. I found it here:

https://hr.mycareer.ucla.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?time=1185821907709

I looked at the actual employment application and here are the questions it asks under the section "Criminal History"

Have you ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor offense by any court in California?
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor offense from another state? (Criminal convictions from another State may be considered in evaluating your application).
Have you eveer been convicted of a federal crime, as defined in 42 USC 1320a-7(i) or been excluded from participating in any federal or state healthcare programs?

Now those are on the application that I looked at so it may have been different for Mr. Scott but I suspect not.

by Mrtravlear on Jul 30, 2007 12:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Those are the same questions

N captured on the screenshot from the online form which he posted last Friday.

by bluestreet on Jul 30, 2007 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This sounds like its going to be swept away

under the rug. Dohn's report only states that "someone at UCLA" told him that coaches fill out a different application. Who is this someone? Someone in the AD's office, who's agenda it is to make this go away? Well lets see this different application then!!! Dohn obviously does not have the FACTS. Neither do I, but I called HR, who does not have an agenda, and spoke to 2 people, one a manager, and they gave me the exact opposite answer. I think this is all a load of crap. If there is a different application LETS SEE IT!!!

Why would coaches, who have a much higher profile than a burrito cook in Ackerman, have to fill out a LESS STRINGENT application when it comes to divulging information about prior arrests and convictions?!! Shouldnt it be more stringent?? It should if you believe what Guerrero and Dorrell themselves have said publicly since Scott's latest arrest. They were quick to say they didn't know and that they would review the hiring process. They also do background checks for misdemeanor convictions. So OBVIOUSLY they care about this ... and yet, no one asked the applicant??!! That is effing hard to believe.

This is going to be swept away due to Dohn's weak (sorry that is what it is) followup. Nevertheless, this whole illusion of a "clean program" of Character and Integrity is shattered ... and will be come back to bite Dorrell and Guerrero if Scott spends time on the sidelines. Whatever ... this is just pathetic.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 30, 2007 1:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think it is going to swept away DD

Dohn has been great at times. But he has a lost a lot of credibility with me this summer with his swipes at UCLA fans for celebrating 13-9, his lowered expectations for Dorrell, and his repeating of usual excuses we constantly here from Dorrell supporters.

No matter how hard they try to sweep this under the rug, the question is going to remain what KD knew and when did he know it? And you think opposing coaches will allow this to be swept under the rug?

If they do so other coaches are going to point out how kids at UCLA are being coached by someone who has a criminal record and doesn't exactly have a steller record in terms of credibility.

by bluestreet on Jul 30, 2007 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

good point about other coaches

I was so focussed on our image and reputation I havent thought about other obvious points ... coaches are going to use this against Dorrell. I dont know how much traction they will get but its still a sticking point.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 30, 2007 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh it will get traction

you think people like Pom Pom, Tedford, Stoops et al are just going to sit around?

They are going to paint Dorrell as a big f*cking hypocrite when he talks about a "clean program," while keeping an assistant coach with 4 arrests and 2 convictions on staff.

by bluestreet on Jul 30, 2007 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Someone wanted Scott bad...real bad

The CEO needs to clear this up

by bluegold on Jul 30, 2007 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My Opinion if it Matters

Do you guys honestly think that Morgan Center would have prospective coaches fill out an HR form to hire a coach? Could you imagine Ben Howland having to fill out that form before he got hired? I could, but it seems very unlikely to me. What's more likely is that he was asked those questions in an interview and a background check was run.

Bottom line is that Morgan Center probably has their own procedures for hiring and doing background checks and they obviously didn't work too well when deciding to hire Eric Scott.

The fact that Morgan Center passed you guys on to HR just meant they didn't want to deal with you. The logic of the HR employee, who is probably clueless about Morgan Center procedure, would go something like this: A coach is a UCLA employee - so- all UCLA employees must fill out our form - so - a Wide receivers coach filled out our form.

In reality, this probably isn't the case. If anything DD, you've exposed a flaw in the system, since HR obviously THINKS that coaches fill out their forms. Maybe that will actually happen now as a result of the Scott mess.

Now Dohn is working from a different situation. Yeah, he probably talked to the head Morgan Center employee, who does have an agenda. But if he lied to Dohn and Dohn finds out about it, he's in a position where he could expose that lie to all of us.

Likewise, if Dohn ever misreports facts about UCLA, they could cut off his access and release a statement clearing themselves of whatever he said.

And if you've read enough of Dohn's reports, and even some of his opinions, I think it would be a heinously false accusation to say that he is in Morgan Center's pockets. That would just be a downright nasty lie.

by Chick Hearn on Jul 30, 2007 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Never made that claim

that Dohn lied. Seriously, thats a strong accusation and my post is there for everyone to read. I merely said that I dont know who to believe, the "someone at UCLA" or the HR people I spoke to, who were ADAMANT that all coaches who apply must fill out the forms (incidentally I asked because I posed as a prospective coach who was going to apply for a coaching position!).

You may have a point .. that Morgan Center may believe its in their best interest to not have coaches fill out applications that are too inquisitive ... if they want their guy. But executives at firms and coaches at UCLA DO fill out applications ... legally and image-wise they can't take the risk of not asking.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 30, 2007 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not so fast

I am aware of number of situations where high profile firms, corporations make their high profile hires fill our personnel forms. Its a normal thing to do. In fact I know many firms, organizations, corporations etc make their high profile hires fill out specific set of forms to make sure they are exercising due diligence and not bringing in someone, whose prior record sets of red flags.

I'd expect an institution like UCLA would do the same thing with a prospect employee who was going to be in position paying him a six figure salary and in charge of teaching students (some of them minors).

by bluestreet on Jul 30, 2007 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Simple answer

You may be focusing on the process issue, so forgive me if this oversimplifies things.

But I wouldn't waste too much time (for now) digging into a debate about what various university officials are saying now about the "standard operating procedure" for coaching hires. What matters is what application ES filed out and what it says. So, general practice aside:

Did ES fill out an employment application?
What does it ask, and what answers were given?
Or, assuming, as they probably will, that the Morgan Center objects to releasing the application for privacy/policy reasons, what exact form application did ES fill out.

Another thing I'd like to hear the answer to:

4. To whom was the application submitted, and who reviewed it before the hiring decision was made? KD? DG? Just an HR flunky?

by Menelaus on Jul 30, 2007 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good questions

but I dont think anyone will ask them ... which is why I think this is going away.

Incidentally, this is DumpDorrell (formerly) under my new BN ID (as mentioned in my most recent diary).

Editor, DumpDorrell.com

by BruinCore on Jul 30, 2007 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Morgan Center management system

Notice how this is being managed by the AD so that KD will be protected, as in, "this too shall pass". I understand that inasmuch as this is the year KD wins the PAC-10, beats SC, and wins a BCS bowl. Morgan Center has a lot riding on this going away.

I mentioned elsewhere a few days ago that my SC honk friend was at a school function for alums who give lots of $$ like my friend last week. They are mostly serious about this episode risking UCLA offering KD a 20 year extension. SC wants confidence in the future. They will take losing to UCLA once every 7 years all day long!!
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Jul 30, 2007 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

UCLA. Future football schedule. Attn .AD Guerrero

ND's soccer team will be playing UCLA's this year.
ND just signed a twenty year extension with UM.
I would love for the two AD's at both schools,Bruins & Irish, to get together for a ten (10) year rivalry. What is not to like about this. Two schools that try like the dickens to play by the rules.
Come on let's get this done.
This question on recuits is still intriguing. Who is monitoring the relationships with UCLA & it's recruits in the face of the Scott debacle.

by jim masterson on Jul 30, 2007 5:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs