CSNbbs

No Home On Campus For ETSU Football Reunion

Published: February 08, 2009
» 5 Comments | Post a Comment

Ray Parlier and Jerry Robertson thought it would be easy. They would choose a date on the calendar and find an appropriate venue on the East Tennessee State University campus. Everything else would fall into place.

But it wasn’t easy. Nothing has fallen into place. And Parlier and Robertson, key members of the Buc Football and Friends Foundation, an organization dedicated to the restoration of the ETSU football program, say they are frustrated.

They wonder why a proposal their non-profit group submitted nearly five months in advance to host its annual reunion meeting June 6 on the ETSU campus was recently denied by the university.

“We thought it would be good to go back,” said Robertson, a resident of Johnson City, Tenn. Robertson, the BFFF president, was an athletic trainer at ETSU for 38 years.

The upcoming Buc Football and Friends Foundation reunion will honor successful ETSU football teams from 1962 and 1996, as well as unite former Buccaneer football players and ETSU alumni in celebrating the 40-year anniversary of the Bucs’ revered 1969 squad that finished 10-0-1 and defeated a Terry Bradshaw-led Louisiana Tech team in the Grantland Rice Bowl.

In addition, the BFFF’s meeting is expected to feature Mike Smith, a former record-setting linebacker for ETSU and current head coach of the Atlanta Falcons, as guest speaker.

Had the group’s reunion been held at East Tennessee State as Parlier and Robertson originally hoped, it would have marked Smith’s first scheduled appearance on ETSU’s campus since he was named 2008 NFL Coach of the Year by the Associated Press on Jan. 4.

Parlier said the BFFF’s reunion is still on – the organization tentatively plans to hold its meeting June 6 at the Holiday Inn in Johnson City – and he expects tickets for the reunion to sell out.

But Parlier and Robertson are disappointed they will not be able to bring Buccaneer football back to ETSU for just one day.

East Tennessee State disbanded its football program in 2003, citing financial difficulties and an annual deficit of more than $1 million.

“I don’t think we got any consideration,” said Parlier, a resident of Kingsport, Tenn. Parlier graduated from ETSU in 1973 and is a BFFF board member. He served as athletic director at Furman University before opening a restaurant in Bristol, Va.

“We’re all alumni,” Parlier said. “But once they found out who we were, I don’t think they gave us any legitimate consideration.”

First run

Parlier said he represented the Buc Football and Friends Foundation at ETSU on Jan. 7, when he applied for use of a ballroom located inside the D.P. Culp University Center, a multipurpose venue based on the school’s campus.

Parlier said he met with Lisa Blackburn, facilities reservationist for the Culp Center, and inquired about using the ballroom June 6 as a venue for the BFFF’s annual reunion meeting.

Parlier said he was informed the date was open, and he said his organization was able to pay all costs involved with renting the ballroom in advance.

“[Blackburn] told me she had to get permission from her supervisor,” Parlier said.

Blackburn’s supervisor is Jacqueline Mullins, director of operations for the Culp Center. She is the wife of ETSU athletic director Dave Mullins, who was AD when ETSU ended its football program.

Jacqueline Mullins stated there were no discussions between herself or members of the Culp Center’s reservation committee with either Dave Mullins or anyone from ETSU’s athletic department concerning the BFFF’s proposal to use the ballroom.

“Absolutely not,” she said.

According to Parlier, more than two weeks passed before he was informed by Blackburn in late January the BFFF’s application to use the Culp Center had been denied. Parlier said he dealt exclusively with Blackburn throughout the process. But he also stated Blackburn told him on several occasions that issues concerning the BFFF’s proposal would have to be moved up the chain of command to Jacqueline Mullins.

“She and I discussed the event after my initial conversations with [Parlier] when he came to see me,” Blackburn said. “I did discuss his request with her. But beyond that, she wasn’t alerted to every little detail. … If I have questions or concerns about particular reservations, I do bring them up with her immediately.”

Jacqueline Mullins stated the BFFF’s application was turned down because ETSU is renovating its kitchen from May 11 to June 19. She said that since the organization was attempting to hold a banquet-style event during the renovation period, Aramark – a national food-service company who has an exclusive contract with ETSU – would be unable to serve food for the BFFF’s meeting.

But Parlier said he was informed by Blackburn in late January that the university would be hosting other on-campus events in early June – the same time period the BFFF sought to rent the ballroom – and that those functions would have food catered by Aramark.

According to Jacqueline Mullins, the events will be small-sized ones supported by ETSU. Groups will receive box-lunch type meal provided by Aramark and transported from King College, a school located in Bristol, Tenn., about 23 miles from the ETSU campus.

“If we wanted to look to a date in late June to early July, when the renovations are completed, we certainly are open to hosting [the BFFF] then,” she said. “Even next year for their annual meeting.”
“We’re certainly open to doing this when we have the availability in the facility.”

However, Parlier and Robertson stated the BFFF was never offered the opportunity to use Aramark’s scaled-down lunch service.

“That was never an option, and it was never discussed,” Robertson said.

Fallout

Robertson said dining menu options and food service were not a sticking point for the BFFF. According to Robertson, the main reason the organization wanted to hold its reunion on ETSU’s campus was because the BFFF wanted to bring former Buc football players back to the school for which they once played.

Parlier and Robertson said they would have even considered having dinner at an alternate venue after holding their annual reunion meeting at ETSU.

“We were going to have [Atlanta Falcons coach Mike Smith], a guy [who] was successful in the profession, who has gone about as high as you can go,” Robertson said. “We were going to feature three teams. And we were going to try and get as many [players] back as possible, and we thought it would just be good to be on campus.”

In addition, Parlier said he was told by Blackburn in late January the BFFF could not use the Culp Center ballroom because the organization was not an ETSU-backed group.

But, according to building-use policy guidelines established by the Tennessee Board of Regents, non-affiliated groups such as the BFFF are allowed to utilize facilities at public universities in the state of Tennessee. If a request for use is turned down by a school, a group must be offered an alternate venue on a campus.

Keri Tyson, alumni association event coordinator foran Aramark branch that services the University of Tennessee, said any type of group could use the visitor’s center on UT’s campus in Knoxville, Tenn.

“I just check the date and put [it] down,” Tyson said. “We could book anyone.”

Parlier said the possible use of a different venue for the BFFF’s reunion was never offered by Blackburn. He also stated that a follow-up proposal by the BFFF to rent the Memorial Center – once the home field for ETSU football – for the organization’s annual reunion was denied by the Culp Center reservation committee.

According to Jacqueline Mullins, the committee offered Parlier and the BFFF several possible dates to rent the Culp Center’s ballroom that fell outside ETSU’s kitchen renovation period, in an attempt to be accommodating. Mullins said Parlier indicated the dates would not be acceptable.

But Parlier said an offer was never made.

“I’d like to know who [they] offered it to,” Parlier said.

Meanwhile, Robertson said he wondered what it will take to get any type of representation for ETSU football back on the school’s campus.

The 2008 season marked the fifth straight year ETSU’s athletic program has been without the sport. An effort to revive the program in April 2007 failed, following a student vote that opposed an increase in athletic fees which would have been used to support the return of football.

“One would think that the BFFF had leprosy,” Robertson said. “We don’t care who brings the food or how it got there. We weren’t asking for anything special.”

btsmith@bristolnews.com|(276) 645-2569

Sad

After reading the article....you have to ask the question why in the world was the ETSU athletic director's wife involved in the decision to deny 38 year employee Jerry Robertson's request to host Buc football alumni? Read the nepitism policy...

I. General Statement

The nepotism policy is designed to prevent occurrences whereby relatives who are employees of the university are in direct supervisory line with respect to each other. In order to guard against these practices the university prohibits university full, part-time, student or temporary employees who are relatives from being placed within the same line of supervision where one relative is responsible for supervising the job performance or work activity of another relative.

II. Policy

Effective July 1, 1980, no employees who are relatives shall be placed within the same direct line of supervision whereby one relative is responsible for supervising the job performance or work activities of another relative; provided, however, that to the extent possible, this policy shall not be construed to prohibit two or more such relatives from working for the university. For the purposes of this policy, a "relative" means a parent, parent-in-law, child, spouse, brother, foster brother, sister, foster sister, grandparent, grandchild, son-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, or other family member who resides in the same household.
When employees of the university become in violation of subsection (a) as a result of marriage, the violation shall be resolved by means of transfer within the university, transfer to another institution or school, or resignation as may be necessary to remove the violation. If transfer alternatives are available, the employees shall be given the opportunity to select among the available alternatives; provided that if the employees are unable to agree upon any such alternative within sixty days, the University President shall take appropriate action to remove the violation.
In the case of employment relationships which would otherwise violate subsection (a) but which were in effect prior to July 1, 1980, the employment of the employees shall not be affected by this policy, provided that the university takes appropriate action to insure that employees neither initiate nor participate in university decisions involving a direct benefit (retention, promotion, salary, leave, etc.) to a relative.
The university shall apply the foregoing in a non-discriminating manner, and shall insure that the implementation of this policy does not adversely affect employees of one sex over those of the opposite sex.





Source: Tennessee Board of Regents Personnel Policy No. 5:01:02:00; Chapter 789 of the Tennessee Public Acts of 1980 (T.C.A. 8-31-101, et.seq.); Tennessee Board of Regents Personnel Guideline P-090.



It seems to me an investigation needs to commence. This was no way to treat true Buc football players.

This, of course, is old news. And there are those who would say that it is beating a dead horse and let's move on. But, the elimination of ETSU football should be viewed as a "cold case" because the real reason that Paul Stanton and friends eliminated the program is still open to much speculation. Most of us remember that argument of "football losing $1million a year", as if ETSU was the only regional university in the country spending more on football than it was taking in. With relation to the rationale presented for the decision, there have been many incoherent statements made, conflicting propositions put forth, and incongruent actions taken since. It's past time for the university to show, through an independent audit, that it was a legitimate financial decision that has saved the athletic department $1 million a year or some $7 million since 2003. This audit needs to verify how the athletic department is better off financially without football the last seven years than in 2003 and the prior six years with relation to athletic department direct income derived from each team, indirect income (student fees, donations, etc) received by the athletic department, expenditures of each team (salaries, scholarships, travel, facilities, etc), and the athletic department administrative costs. All who have any relationship with ETSU should expect and demand no less. My bet is that such an undertaking would reveal that ETSU could afford football - with, of course, a new (old) formula of spending athletic money on a real (visible) regional university athletic program.

(02-23-2011 05:34 PM)Mister Jennings Wrote: [ -> ]After reading the article....you have to ask the question why in the world was the ETSU athletic director's wife involved in the decision to deny 38 year employee Jerry Robertson's request to host Buc football alumni? Read the nepitism policy...

I. General Statement

The nepotism policy is designed to prevent occurrences whereby relatives who are employees of the university are in direct supervisory line with respect to each other. In order to guard against these practices the university prohibits university full, part-time, student or temporary employees who are relatives from being placed within the same line of supervision where one relative is responsible for supervising the job performance or work activity of another relative.

II. Policy

Effective July 1, 1980, no employees who are relatives shall be placed within the same direct line of supervision whereby one relative is responsible for supervising the job performance or work activities of another relative; provided, however, that to the extent possible, this policy shall not be construed to prohibit two or more such relatives from working for the university. For the purposes of this policy, a "relative" means a parent, parent-in-law, child, spouse, brother, foster brother, sister, foster sister, grandparent, grandchild, son-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, or other family member who resides in the same household.
When employees of the university become in violation of subsection (a) as a result of marriage, the violation shall be resolved by means of transfer within the university, transfer to another institution or school, or resignation as may be necessary to remove the violation. If transfer alternatives are available, the employees shall be given the opportunity to select among the available alternatives; provided that if the employees are unable to agree upon any such alternative within sixty days, the University President shall take appropriate action to remove the violation.
In the case of employment relationships which would otherwise violate subsection (a) but which were in effect prior to July 1, 1980, the employment of the employees shall not be affected by this policy, provided that the university takes appropriate action to insure that employees neither initiate nor participate in university decisions involving a direct benefit (retention, promotion, salary, leave, etc.) to a relative.
The university shall apply the foregoing in a non-discriminating manner, and shall insure that the implementation of this policy does not adversely affect employees of one sex over those of the opposite sex.





Source: Tennessee Board of Regents Personnel Policy No. 5:01:02:00; Chapter 789 of the Tennessee Public Acts of 1980 (T.C.A. 8-31-101, et.seq.); Tennessee Board of Regents Personnel Guideline P-090.



It seems to me an investigation needs to commence. This was no way to treat true Buc football players.

At the time (as she is now retired) her position does not fall within the "same direct line of supervision" as her husband. The Culp Center and all of their staff fall under the division of Student Affairs where Athletics has their own division.

That being said, I do agree that it was a true shame not to have him on campus! It looks like the University would be bending over backwards to make accommodations to ensure that people such as Smith feel welcomed back onto their campus (and that their money is welcome there as well).

I believe that the so-called one million dollars savings or loss or whatever stanton wants to call it, was transferred to the developement of the honors college. This was stantons pet project and he needed the football money to make it viable.

Since the demise of football, student fees have been inacted and raised. These fees have used to pay higher salaries to additional associate athletic directors, the ad, the assistant ad, start the mens soccer program, pay for the more than doubled teams travel budget and partially fund the new non-revenue facilities.

ETSU now has more staff, twice the budget and less student athletes than when they had football.