Failing To Ask The Tough Questions

by Nestor on Jul 31, 2007 4:42 AM PDT in Football

Dohn is working overtime these days to give us one side of the story. The UCLA side of the story. In his latest report Dohn gives us Scott's attorney's version of the story:

Milton Grimes said he conducted his own investigation over the weekend, and will present evidence in hopes of convincing the district attorney's office to not file charges.

Scott is on paid administrative leave after his arrest by the LosAngeles Sheriff's Department last week on suspicion of alleged felony burglary.

"We anticipate before the end of the week this will be cleared up," Grimes said. "We talked to the neighbors. This kid wasn't involved in any crime. This should not be challenged in the courts."

Grimes said Scott, wearing a UCLA sweatshirt and shower shoes, was in the car, parked "two doors down" because of crowded parking on that part of Pioneer Boulevard, while he waited for two others, Jesus DeAlba and Timothy Williams, both of whom were also arrested.

Well there you have it guys. Mr. Grimes is doing his own investigation. So that should tell us everything we need to know. Obviously Mr. Grime's own "investigation" will be enough for number of Dorrell supporters, lot of whom are the same people who have mocked Pete Carroll in the past for saying how the Trojans were looking into things and would handle matters internally when his players name showed up on the police blotter.

Dohn's article also mentions how there was "a breakdown" in the vetting process of Scott's background check before the info reached the athletic center, essentially fingering the UCLA Police Department and the campus human resources department, for failing to pull up the records of Scott's arrest. However, as M noted in the comment section yesterday to date no one has really pursued the answers to the following germane questions.

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

I'd like to see satisfactory answers to those questions as well. Because right now from all appearances it looks like someone is working hard to sweep this under the rug. That is not going to work. If we never hear any satisfactory responses to what Dorrell knew and when did he know it, the current stain on his program is going to be permanent.

UPDATE -N: OC Register has bit more on how the background check works at UCLA:

At UCLA, criminal conviction records for job candidates in what are deemed critical positions are obtained through fingerprint checks conducted by the UCLA police department — they check with the state Department of Justice as well as the FBI, for convictions in other states.

The check also might include a verification of an applicant's identity and educational degree, a review of DMV records, government security clearance and drug testing, as required by law. Only designated human resources professionals on campus have access to and are able to review criminal offender histories.

Scott, who is on a paid administrative leave, has yet to be charged in the latest incident. The L.A. Sheriff's Department continues to investigate and has been unable to determine who was living at the house where Scott and two other men were arrested.

What police said was a large quantity of marijuana was found at the house, and a handgun was recovered outside. The gun was not registered to Scott or Timothy Williams or Jesus DeAlba, who also were arrested on suspicion of residential burglary.

Thats's somewhat helpful. But we still need to find out exactly what Scott disclosed to UCLA during his hiring process and whether KD exercised due diligence inquiring from Scott re. prior records given that he was aware of Scott's difficult past.

GO BRUINS.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

i wouldn't commit a crime like

burglary in "Shower Shoes"

Is Eric Scott innocent...YES

Innocent till proven guilty.

I personally hate the fact that because you made mistakes as a young man(Scott is now 32 I think) that you are not allowed to get a chance to redeem youself in our society.

In our society if you steal a car at 19 years old and go to prison, then when you get out of prison you can do everything in your power for the next 10 years of your life ( get a degree,volunteer to do things in your comuunity IF they let you) and people will look at an application and all they'll see is.....

Ex-Convict Felony Grand Theft Auto.

This is just an example of what can happen to somebody but, this rarely happens!!

Rarely the Ex-Convict does all those positive things I stated Mainly because it is very difficult to turn your life around if you've already headed down that path.

You have no money.

No one will give you a job.

You live in the same bad area that lead you to a life of crime.

Eric Scott may have overcome what many people see as a viscous cycle that our society has created.

If he is truly innocent I hope that if he is no longer employed by the UCLA Bruins that he doesn't fall back to his younger days when he was arrested.

If he is innocent I hope he continues to help many fatherless/poor/inner city youth in high schools in the LA area.

If he is Giulty I hope he learns from his mistakes and doesn't continue to make them.

thats my 2 cents on the situation.

GO Bruins!!

by uclabruins05 @ Bruins Nation on Jul 31, 2007 6:18 AM PDT reply actions

I dont think

anyone is arguing that Eric Scott shouldn't have a job with his record of multiple arrests and convictions.

What I want to know is whether he was less than truthful when he was going through his hiring process?

I would have had no problem if Eric held down a job at a lower profile institution and showed that he could stay out of trouble for years, before being given a chance at UCLA.

UCLA shouldn't be the place where people with shady record come to rehab their lives.

by bluestreet on Jul 31, 2007 6:37 AM PDT up reply actions

totally agree

but i have a question for you.

if he is innocent would you keep him? if so/not why?

by uclabruins05 @ Bruins Nation on Jul 31, 2007 6:45 AM PDT up reply actions

For me

Its not the issue whether he is innocent re. his 5th arrest. My concern is what happened when he was hired at UCLA?

Why was there a "breakdown in process"?

What did Dorrell know and when did he know it?

We have hearing too many different stories and as N and others have saying no one has given any straightforward answers.

I find that really troubling.

by bluestreet on Jul 31, 2007 6:49 AM PDT up reply actions

He should be gone

and that's assuming he's innocent. For the following reasons:

He lied on his application. That enough is grounds for dismissal. Or,
He was forthcoming with his past and KD and UCLA knew about it (refuted in the media, but I'm willing to consider it a possibility). If a high profile school like UCLA is taking a chance like this, it better be under the premise that this guy avoid trouble at all costs. Innocent or guilty, this guy is on the job less than a year and he's already arrested. How hard can it be to avoid getting arrested? That's all he had to do. Stay out of trouble. If I'm KD and I took a chance on this guy I'm flat out embarrassed. That alone should prompt me to can this guy.

So there you have it.

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

by godblesstyus95 on Jul 31, 2007 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions

Do you know Eric?

He is indeed innocent until proven guilty, but you also make him out to be this benevolent angel, I assume based on what you read about him in the media. Unless you know him personally, you have no grounds on which to protect him as you do, just as no one here can say that he is guilty of the burglary. Anyway, our beef is not with Eric Scott so much as with the process within the administration which allowed for his record to go unnoticed.

Oh, and it's "vicious" cycle, not viscous. A viscous cycle is gross. :)

by tasser10 on Jul 31, 2007 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions

typing whle eating with one hand

and getting ready for work = typos

I dont protect him at all.

my post is about "due process" I dont know what to think im just waiting to see it play it self out before i make a decision.

but as of now im 70% against Eric Scott.

by uclabruins05 @ Bruins Nation on Jul 31, 2007 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions

Did Scott withhold the truth

during the job application process? If the answer is yes, then he should be gone.

If charges are dropped for his 5th arrest, should UCLA retain Scott? No, he should be gone.

People are not arrested 5 times for no reason. You have to be a certain type of person to be arrested 5 times and convicted twice.

It isn't that hard to find an assistant coach with no arrests and no convictions to be on a UCLA coaching staff. It's so easy, even Lavin could do it. On the other hand, a person with 5 arrests and 2 convictions is a rarity -- and yet, leave to KD to have such a person on his staff.

by bluegold on Jul 31, 2007 7:13 AM PDT reply actions

Brian Dohn

I have to say over last few weeks this guy has lost a lot of credibility in my books. It seems like he is just sitting back and waiting for his UCLA sources to feed him info. His reporting has been lazy and totally one sided. Its appalling to think that he may be the most hardworking of all the reporters covering the UCLA beat. What a bunch of jokes permeate this profession.

by bluestreet on Jul 31, 2007 7:28 AM PDT up reply actions

to be fair...

while he hasn't gotten the answers to the questions we would like answered (Nestor has listed the right questions) it seems unlikely that he hasn't been trying to get more information. Certainly we don't know what efforts he has made to get more details. Given his track record, which is pretty even handed, I doubt that he is simply sitting back on his ass knocking back the cocktails.

As for getting one side, well, it still helps to hear that side and what Scott's lawyer has to say. Again, it's not the information we want, and it doesn't answer the questions that have naturally arisen, but Dohn doesn't have a track record of slobbering over Dorrell, so I think maybe it's a little much to toss Dohn in with the rest of the boobs in the sports beat.

by ucladj89 on Jul 31, 2007 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions

I dunno

Someone who thinks it is unrealistic for UCLA fans to expect Pac-10 championships this year and someone who thinks at a minimum KD should get 6 years, advancing strawman arguments, hasn't been coming across as an even handed reporter these days.

Also, if Dohn is asking those hard questions, I'd like to see the evidence of him asking those hard questions. Forgive me if I don't have any trust in the MSM anymore.

by bluestreet on Jul 31, 2007 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions

Different Question

Regarding the issues related to Eric Scott and not KD's role in this sorted affair, I have a question for the denizens of BN: If the charges are dropped against Eric Scott and it is shown that he did not lie on his application (assuming the failure to "know" about his priors lies elsewhere in the Athletic Dept.) should he come back? If those two issues go away, this is essentially the question should he have been hired in the first place if all we know now was known then?

The issues of what KD knew and what he did this information raise some serious questions about his "CEO" role. I would love to be a fly on the wall in DG's office as he addresses this issue with one of his highest profile employees.

by Bruin77 on Jul 31, 2007 9:26 AM PDT reply actions

My two cents

We covered this a little bit elsewhere, in a different thread, but my position is he should stay.

If ES has been honest throughout and the charges are dropped, then I cannot place any blame on him, whether or not his background is a little sketchy. Honestly, it would be wrong if ES were fired IF he has been honest throughout and the charges are dropped.

Under this scenario, I would focus more on what UCLA and KD knew, when they knew it, and what UCLA's policies are (if any) with respect to the qualifications of coaches and the hiring process.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 31, 2007 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions

I agree to certain extent

If it is shown that ES gave full disclosure during the interview process then ES may be somewhat off the hook.

But then it makes Dorrell (and possibly DG) look dishonest given their representation that they were not aware of Scott's arrests.

Someone is being dishonest here. We need to know who it is?

Also we need impartial information on what exactly Scott was doing at Norwalk with 2 friends who apparently went into a house with drugs and gun.

by bluestreet on Jul 31, 2007 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm with you

Here's a question: IMO, there is absolutely no reason why all of the facts should not be out in the open right now. Why don't we know, with certainty, which exact application ES filled out, what the questions were on that application, what ES answered to those questions, did KD see the application before ES was hired, did DG see it or know about it, did anyone else at UCLA see the application or know about it, and what are UCLA's policies, if any, toward hiring someone with prior convictions (whether they are felonies or misdemeanors)?

There is NO REASON I can think of why answers to all these questions cannot be made public right this second. This is all stuff that happened in the past.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 31, 2007 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions

Does Scott really know WR coaching

or was he brought in purely to recruit inner city athletes?

5 arrests and 2 convictions just didn't "happen" to an upstanding member of the community.

It was a desperate hire by KD.

Convicts should not be on the sideline as a member of a UCLA coaching staff.

by bluegold on Jul 31, 2007 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions

I am no Dr. Phil fan but...

I heard him say something once that I really believe to be true.

"You either get it or you don't."

I was raised in a neighborhood that, let's say, wasn't the suburbs. I had friends who were killed in gang killings, played Little League with guys who grew up to be drug dealers and had to stop hanging out with childhood friends who chose to date gang bangers when we entered our teens. Now mind you, all of these people had choices. We lived in Los Angeles afterall and not some small impoverished town in the middle of America. We could see that there were plenty of options for everyone of us. We had good schools and plenty of after school activities. Those who took bad paths paid a price and, I am happy to report, many learned from their mistakes and moved on to good lives. I see them often, they are active members of the community. Some are teachers, some are bus drivers, others are parents. Unfortunately, there are a few (probably more than a few) who still can't seem to figure out why the "world is keeping them down." They can't seem to identify their culpability in their own plight, especially in regards to the company they choose to keep.

When you are raised in such an environment understanding who is up to no good is something which can be described as being almost instinctive. It isn't vague, questionable or obscure. You just know and if you choose to hang out with them anyway, you have to suffer the consequences. If you are a willing participant in a crime that is being committed by your companions, then obviously you are guilty. If you had no idea what they were going to do but you knew that they were capable of doing such a thing, then you are guilty by association and for choosing to hang out with thugs. If that is something that someone like Eric Scott hasn't figured out by the age of thirty, then he is someone who would fall into the "just doesn't get it" category.

People who "don't get it" are always crying that it wasn't their fault or that they were somehow in the wrong place at the wrong time. These are the same people who, when they already have two strikes (a reference to the CA justice system) against them, decide to ignore all common sense and hang out anyway with buddies who they know are probably going to get high or will be carrying a gun. Then when something bad goes down and they are caught up in the mess, they will complain that the system is unjust. Now complaining about the system is pointless because it isn't going anywhere. (What good does being correct about unfair system do you when you are sitting in a jail cell or buried six feet under ground?) What is on point is that individuals who want to succeed in life (those who "get it") make sure they aren't putting themselves in jeopardy by hanging out with those who they know are prone to getting into trouble.

I do believe that everyone is capable of changing for the better. However, if you haven't made those changes by the age of thirty, I'm not placing any of my money on you.

...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.

by UCngLA on Jul 31, 2007 10:47 AM PDT reply actions

One of the better posts

I have read on BN. And there have been a lot.

by bluestreet on Jul 31, 2007 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions

Excellent post

If ES is hanging with toughs and trying to change them, he should be a social worker. For the UCLA football staff, he has another job, coach wide receivers! In addition, he is one of many recruiters on the staff. I missed the part about him being hired just to recruit. And, again and again, KD has no business taking a flyer on a guy with this arrest/conviction background when KD is teetering on the brink of self-destruction as the HC at UCLA. It won't take much to push KD out, and yet he keeps doing things (like hire ES in the first place knowing his background) that indicate he is stepping in sxxx and carrying it around.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Jul 31, 2007 2:25 PM PDT reply actions

UCngLA said it!

But I would like to add to that post that part of Karl Dorrell's job is to read people to see "if they get it or not". How can you recruit if you cannot assess character?

I don't care who lied in the application process. I don't care if Eric Scott is innocent or guilty. (well technically untrue, but pretend it for the point I am making here). KD exercised bad judgement giving a position of trust and responsibility to a guy who "doesn't get it" so badly that he would find himself in that situation.

All the questions and investigations cannot erase the fact that Scott was 'dumb enough' to tag along with those guys and Dorrell was 'dumb enough' to hire Scott. Do you want these men to be leading our Bruin athletes?

by UrsaMajor on Jul 31, 2007 4:28 PM PDT reply actions