After being pressured by The Register-Guard and questioned by University faculty, administrators released a written version of a previously undocumented $17,250 report on the Athletic Department on Thursday.
Such reports are standard except that these findings, presented in November 2006, were delivered orally to University President Dave Frohnmayer and Athletic Director Bill Moos instead of as the contractually required written document.
Frohnmayer hired former Stanford Athletic Director Ted Leland to conduct a University of Oregon Athletic Department review.
The written version, dated Feb. 27, is a 3 1/2 page document summarizing the research and reporting process, department strengths and department weaknesses. The report is also riddled with grammatical errors and word choice mistakes, such as, “The Pac 10 Conference has benefited from Oregon’s presents but the receptacle is also true.”
Besides the fact there was no paperwork to show for a $17,250 charge to the Athletic Department, there has been some additional controversy surrounding the report.
Because Moos announced his resignation to the University Athletic Department shortly after Leland delivered the oral report, some speculated that the report could be related to Moos’ resignation.
Frohnmayer said the report was received after Moos’ resignation notification, and it had nothing to do with Moos’ swift departure or the $2 million buyout of his contract. He said Leland’s advice assisted the committee’s decisions about a replacement.
The secrecy surrounding the report is one of the main questions in the situation.
Few people knew about the report, although Frohnmayer discussed it with the University Senate in January. Faculty at that meeting questioned the lack of a written document. When the report’s existence was “leaked” to a Register-Guard reporter, the newspaper insisted that Frohnmayer provide details.
Frohnmayer said there is nothing to hide.
“Dave Frohnmayer spoke with the editorial board at The Register-Guard and they asked if there could be a written version provided,” said University spokesman Phil Weiler. “The President has agreed to have that oral report reduced to writing.”
That was more than a month ago. Frohnmayer said that Leland’s travels and subsequent illness caused the delay. The report was finally released Thursday afternoon.
Frohnmayer said he first requested the oral report to check on the progress of the department and project a path to future success. He also said he never expected to receive the report in written form, and that the fee for the report was “typical” given the amount of work that Leland put in.
Both Frohnmayer and Moos knew of Leland through previous work, and Frohnmayer said he had seen examples of Leland’s work while serving on the NCAA’s Board of Directors.
“He’s very well-known and regarded in collegiate athletic circles,” he said.
Among the Athletic Department’s strengths, Leland’s findings cited core values, good people, program image and athletic facility construction.
The report contains a letter from Leland to Frohnmayer in which Leland praises the program’s achievements.
“The program is well positioned to move forward and continue to ensure that students athletics have a great experience that the program operates with integrity … and that the program has a balanced budget and at the same time is nationally competitive.”
Leland’s list of department weaknesses was about half as long, and noted the uncertainty surrounding McArthur Court renovation/replacement construction, budget issues and administrative momentum.
Leland all but flat-out told the department to renovate Mac Court or build a new arena: “It is imperative that the university move forward quickly … The previous ‘false starts’ regarding the future of the arena undermines confidence in the department’s ability to move forward in this much needed challenge.”
“The department faces significant financial challenges in large part because it is probably ‘maxed out’ in its major revenue streams … Business as usual will not solve the challenges facing the department financially,” according to the report. Leland suggested developing a new strategic financial plan.
Despite stating that the department “has developed a organizational ethic and a public image that emphasizes fun, innovation and even edginess,” Leland also found “The department has lost credibility with some of its significant donors.” He recommended reestablishing those essential relationships.
Similarly, Leland wrote “the Department leadership must ‘regain’ the positive momentum and become, again, proactive as opposed to reactive.”
Leland’s report will inform oncoming decisions, Frohnmayer said.
“This was more in the nature of a coaching report,” said Frohnmayer. “The report is very straightforward… It tells us what our immediate needs are for the future.”
Contact the higher education reporter at [email protected]