Notable Omission by President Fitts

[nawlinspete]

Despite all the lovey/dovey that Commissioner Aresco and Dickson directed toward each other the most significant observation is that:

President Fitts in his remarks said that he looked forward to a long and rewarding relationship with Commissioner Aresco.
President Fitts DID NOT SAY "WITH RICK DICKSON."

As a Philadelphia attorney we can be 100% sure President Fitts knew exactly what he said. We can be confident that it was not an accidental omission.

With Dickson's usual eyes down, awkward stance (fidgeting and leaning on a counter), unkempt dress, lack of a tie, and his pacifier water bottle, and with Dickson completely ignoring the reporter's question about scheduling President Fitts saw in person what a zero Dickson is as a person and a communicator.

[DrBox]

I don't recall the specifics, but there was an occasion about a month ago where Fitts could have given public support to Dickson, but didn't. This makes at least 2. Excellent.

[winwave]

Good point about the fact that RD did avoid answering the scheduling question.

[jonathanjoseph]

I'm usually the first to read into such things and I didn't see that as any intentional omission on the part of Fitts.

Believe me, I wish I saw any sign that Fitts was going to make that move, but I see no evidence yet that Fitts has any intention of rocking the boat. I'm still of the opinion that Dickson has lifetime employment and will leave under his own terms, as disgusting as that may be.

[Fred Dowler]

I'm usually the first to read into such things and I didn't see that as any intentional omission on the part of Fitts.

Believe me, I wish I saw any sign that Fitts was going to make that move, but I see no evidence yet that Fitts has any intention of rocking the boat. I'm still of the opinion that Dickson has lifetime employment and will leave under his own terms, as disgusting as that may be.

If the talk about revenues is valid at all then the TU higher powers -- as opposed to the average fan on the street -- are probably thinking "Dickson's the man."

[golfnut69]

I'm usually the first to read into such things and I didn't see that as any intentional omission on the part of Fitts.

Believe me, I wish I saw any sign that Fitts was going to make that move, but I see no evidence yet that Fitts has any intention of rocking the boat. I'm still of the opinion that Dickson has lifetime employment and will leave under his own terms, as disgusting as that may be.

If the talk about revenues is valid at all then the TU higher powers -- as opposed to the average fan on the street -- are probably thinking "Dickson's the man."

I think Fitts will make a change but it will be after this academic year is completed... that said, James Carville for AD... and as Sports Info Director & Promotions..Jerry Springer !!!....now that will be an announcement that will get some attention !!!

[jonathanjoseph]

I'm usually the first to read into such things and I didn't see that as any intentional omission on the part of Fitts.

Believe me, I wish I saw any sign that Fitts was going to make that move, but I see no evidence yet that Fitts has any intention of rocking the boat. I'm still of the opinion that Dickson has lifetime employment and will leave under his own terms, as disgusting as that may be.

If the talk about revenues is valid at all then the TU higher powers -- as opposed to the average fan on the street -- are probably thinking "Dickson's the man."

Well, that may or may not be true, but that's an amateurish viewpoint. The revenue increase is already close to capped out before the stadium is completed and we're still far below peers and far below where we need to be.

[wave97]

I'm usually the first to read into such things and I didn't see that as any intentional omission on the part of Fitts.

Believe me, I wish I saw any sign that Fitts was going to make that move, but I see no evidence yet that Fitts has any intention of rocking the boat. I'm still of the opinion that Dickson has lifetime employment and will leave under his own terms, as disgusting as that may be.

If the talk about revenues is valid at all then the TU higher powers -- as opposed to the average fan on the street -- are probably thinking "Dickson's the man."

Well, that may or may not be true, but that's an amateurish viewpoint. The revenue increase is already close to capped out before the stadium is completed and we're still far below peers and far below where we need to be.

+1
Compare gross revenue to other privates.

[Fred Dowler]

I'm usually the first to read into such things and I didn't see that as any intentional omission on the part of Fitts.

Believe me, I wish I saw any sign that Fitts was going to make that move, but I see no evidence yet that Fitts has any intention of rocking the boat. I'm still of the opinion that Dickson has lifetime employment and will leave under his own terms, as disgusting as that may be.

If the talk about revenues is valid at all then the TU higher powers -- as opposed to the average fan on the street -- are probably thinking "Dickson's the man."

Well, that may or may not be true, but that's an amateurish viewpoint. The revenue increase is already close to capped out before the stadium is completed and we're still far below peers and far below where we need to be.

The question is where do the TU higher powers think that revenue needs to be and/or how much effort/sacrifice that they feel comfortable making in order for revenue to be at a much higher level. How much do they really care about where TU stands relative to other programs? Is the dominant mindset still a very parochial one, as in "we're making more money now (though of course, with the boutique facilties and small fan following, still not really very much in a relative sense) than before...hooray!!" or is it different, as in "we have to be able compete vigorously and have on-field success at the highest level" and also highly concerned with where TU stands relative to other programs?"

[jonathanjoseph]

I'm usually the first to read into such things and I didn't see that as any intentional omission on the part of Fitts.

Believe me, I wish I saw any sign that Fitts was going to make that move, but I see no evidence yet that Fitts has any intention of rocking the boat. I'm still of the opinion that Dickson has lifetime employment and will leave under his own terms, as disgusting as that may be.

If the talk about revenues is valid at all then the TU higher powers -- as opposed to the average fan on the street -- are probably thinking "Dickson's the man."

Well, that may or may not be true, but that's an amateurish viewpoint. The revenue increase is already close to capped out before the stadium is completed and we're still far below peers and far below where we need to be.

The question is where do the TU higher powers think that revenue needs to be and/or how much effort/sacrifice that they feel comfortable making in order for revenue to be at a much higher level. How much do they really care about where TU stands relative to other programs? Is the dominant mindset still a very parochial one, as in "we're making more money now (though of course, with the boutique facilties and small fan following, still not really very much in a relative sense) than before...hooray!!" or is it different, as in "we have to be able compete vigorously and have on-field success at the highest level" and also highly concerned with where TU stands relative to other programs?"

Well right. It's great that there is more revenue, but more revenue compared to what?

[wave97]

If CJ & Company can produce a fast & violent brand of football that is centered on talent from metro New Orleans & combined with the right "State of Tulane" PR campaign - things will change quickly.
Stadium expansion yada yada yada....

[DfromCT]

This "omission" is much ado about nothing. The "event" was Aresco coming to Tulane to meet Fitts for the first time since he became President, and also the first time since Tulane officially became a AAC member. Frankly, I am more concerned that he (Aresco) came so late, and that he hardly mentioned Tulane at the AAC Media Day activities.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see RD getting terminated anytime short of next May. And it could be a few years from now when he retires. I'd rather the University suck it up, honor him for getting us through Katrina and the aftermath, and push him out the door. As hard as that would be to accept, at least he'd be gone.

[Enviro5609]

This "omission" is much ado about nothing. The "event" was Aresco coming to Tulane to meet Fitts for the first time since he became President, and also the first time since Tulane officially became a AAC member. Frankly, I am more concerned that he (Aresco) came so late, and that he hardly mentioned Tulane at the AAC Media Day activities.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see RD getting terminated anytime short of next May. And it could be a few years from now when he retires. I'd rather the University suck it up, honor him for getting us through Katrina and the aftermath, and push him out the door. As hard as that would be to accept, at least he'd be gone.

If hes truly removed from day to day AD operations with the addition of the COO at Wilson, then that's probably what will happen. He'll be kept on in a mostly ceremonial role, because its more trouble than its worth to spend the political capital to have him removed. As much as us here don't like him, he has his backers. He'll be allowed to wind his career down gracefully without much in the way of authority going forward. Anyone with experience in corporate politics should find this rather familiar.

For those who are big TV watchers, think Chief Burrell from the wire. Ineffective at his job, can't get much done, but has a lot of suction with those in high places, and brings a certain political force to the table. For pragmatic reasons, he'll be kept on in name while the real decisions are made behind the scenes.

[OUG]

This "omission" is much ado about nothing. The "event" was Aresco coming to Tulane to meet Fitts for the first time since he became President, and also the first time since Tulane officially became a AAC member. Frankly, I am more concerned that he (Aresco) came so late, and that he hardly mentioned Tulane at the AAC Media Day activities.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see RD getting terminated anytime short of next May. And it could be a few years from now when he retires. I'd rather the University suck it up, honor him for getting us through Katrina and the aftermath, and push him out the door. As hard as that would be to accept, at least he'd be gone.

If hes truly removed from day to day AD operations with the addition of the COO at Wilson, then that's probably what will happen. He'll be kept on in a mostly ceremonial role, because its more trouble than its worth to spend the political capital to have him removed. As much as us here don't like him, he has his backers. He'll be allowed to wind his career down gracefully without much in the way of authority going forward. Anyone with experience in corporate politics should find this rather familiar.

For those who are big TV watchers, think Chief Burrell from the wire. Ineffective at his job, can't get much done, but has a lot of suction with those in high places, and brings a certain political force to the table. For pragmatic reasons, he'll be kept on in name while the real decisions are made behind the scenes.

What political capital? If Fitts wants his own guy in, he'll put his own guy in. Fitts' capital is the only capital that matters.

They'll just come up with a compensation/benefits package that is too tempting to say no to, and Dickson will "retire". That's how these things play out.

[Enviro5609]

This "omission" is much ado about nothing. The "event" was Aresco coming to Tulane to meet Fitts for the first time since he became President, and also the first time since Tulane officially became a AAC member. Frankly, I am more concerned that he (Aresco) came so late, and that he hardly mentioned Tulane at the AAC Media Day activities.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see RD getting terminated anytime short of next May. And it could be a few years from now when he retires. I'd rather the University suck it up, honor him for getting us through Katrina and the aftermath, and push him out the door. As hard as that would be to accept, at least he'd be gone.

If hes truly removed from day to day AD operations with the addition of the COO at Wilson, then that's probably what will happen. He'll be kept on in a mostly ceremonial role, because its more trouble than its worth to spend the political capital to have him removed. As much as us here don't like him, he has his backers. He'll be allowed to wind his career down gracefully without much in the way of authority going forward. Anyone with experience in corporate politics should find this rather familiar.

For those who are big TV watchers, think Chief Burrell from the wire. Ineffective at his job, can't get much done, but has a lot of suction with those in high places, and brings a certain political force to the table. For pragmatic reasons, he'll be kept on in name while the real decisions are made behind the scenes.

What political capital? If Fitts wants his own guy in, he'll put his own guy in. Fitts' capital is the only capital that matters.

They'll just come up with a compensation/benefits package that is too tempting to say no to, and Dickson will "retire". That's how these things play out.

Political capital is the pull Dickson has with the board. Lets not pretend it doesn't exist. For Fitts to come in and just fire Dickson-- yes, he could do it he has the authority-- it would cost him in terms of future favors. The next time Fitts comes back to the board with something he wants they'll remember it.

For instance-- without getting too much into national politics-- when a president is elected for the first time, they come in with political capital. What they want as agenda item #1 usually gets done, because they have the mandate and the bully pulpit. But once its spent, its spent. For example, the sitting president made his vision for healthcare priority #1, and he got that-- at great political expense. When he tried to pivot to wall street reform and then cap-and-trade, he got less and less traction, until he ran out of political capital.

Its politics 101. You don't overplay your hand-- just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. You prioritize your agenda based on what you want done at what cost. If Dickson can be kept in a ceremonial role until he retires, and you can get most of what you want without expending the political capital, then you do that. Its a fight not worth having, from Fitt's perspective.

[winwave]

This "omission" is much ado about nothing. The "event" was Aresco coming to Tulane to meet Fitts for the first time since he became President, and also the first time since Tulane officially became a AAC member. Frankly, I am more concerned that he (Aresco) came so late, and that he hardly mentioned Tulane at the AAC Media Day activities.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see RD getting terminated anytime short of next May. And it could be a few years from now when he retires. I'd rather the University suck it up, honor him for getting us through Katrina and the aftermath, and push him out the door. As hard as that would be to accept, at least he'd be gone.

If hes truly removed from day to day AD operations with the addition of the COO at Wilson, then that's probably what will happen. He'll be kept on in a mostly ceremonial role, because its more trouble than its worth to spend the political capital to have him removed. As much as us here don't like him, he has his backers. He'll be allowed to wind his career down gracefully without much in the way of authority going forward. Anyone with experience in corporate politics should find this rather familiar.

For those who are big TV watchers, think Chief Burrell from the wire. Ineffective at his job, can't get much done, but has a lot of suction with those in high places, and brings a certain political force to the table. For pragmatic reasons, he'll be kept on in name while the real decisions are made behind the scenes.

What political capital? If Fitts wants his own guy in, he'll put his own guy in. Fitts' capital is the only capital that matters.

They'll just come up with a compensation/benefits package that is too tempting to say no to, and Dickson will "retire". That's how these things play out.

Political capital is the pull Dickson has with the board. Lets not pretend it doesn't exist. For Fitts to come in and just fire Dickson-- yes, he could do it he has the authority-- it would cost him in terms of future favors. The next time Fitts comes back to the board with something he wants they'll remember it.

For instance-- without getting too much into national politics-- when a president is elected for the first time, they come in with political capital. What they want as agenda item #1 usually gets done, because they have the mandate and the bully pulpit. But once its spent, its spent. For example, the sitting president made his vision for healthcare priority #1, and he got that-- at great political expense. When he tried to pivot to wall street reform and then cap-and-trade, he got less and less traction, until he ran out of political capital.

Its politics 101. You don't overplay your hand-- just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. You prioritize your agenda based on what you want done at what cost. If Dickson can be kept in a ceremonial role until he retires, and you can get most of what you want without expending the political capital, then you do that. Its a fight not worth having, from Fitt's perspective.

Enviro I agree w/a lot of what you say but there is one huge problem. RD is not being put in a ceremonial position at all. He's still the AD and if big decisions are required to be made he'll be the one making them. I wish it was otherwise but that's the way it is.

[DfromCT]

It just occurred to me that the most appropriate outcome would be for Fitts to simply pink slip Dickson, and he to move "across the street" where there's an opening for a new AD at Loyola.

[JTLiuzza]

It just occurred to me that the most appropriate outcome would be for Fitts to simply pink slip Dickson, and he to move "across the street" where there's an opening for a new AD at Loyola.

ZIIIIING!!!

[golfnut69]

It just occurred to me that the most appropriate outcome would be for Fitts to simply pink slip Dickson, and he to move "across the street" where there's an opening for a new AD at Loyola.

ZIIIIING!!!

DofCT ...c'mon on down....we have a WINNER !!!!!!

[jonathanjoseph]

Good thread, but remarkable for how absurd the content is.

Rick Dickson is, objectively, probably the worst D1A athletic director in modern times, and here we are making suggestions about what hoops we might jump through in the unlikely event that Tulane wants to part ways with him. We've mentioned "honoring" him, giving him additional compensation, expending valuable political capital, etc.

All this for a guy who should resign in shame or, short of that, be swiftly relieved of his duties for cause. This kind of thing just doesn't bode well for the long term health of Tulane University.

[DfromCT]

Good thread, but remarkable for how absurd the content is.

Rick Dickson is, objectively, probably the worst D1A athletic director in modern times, and here we are making suggestions about what hoops we might jump through in the unlikely event that Tulane wants to part ways with him. We've mentioned "honoring" him, giving him additional compensation, expending valuable political capital, etc.

All this for a guy who should resign in shame or, short of that, be swiftly relieved of his duties for cause. This kind of thing just doesn't bode well for the long term health of Tulane University.

We all agree that he should be canned unceremoniously, but unfortunately, he's kind of liked by the board and some donors. I do think he's better suited to the Loyola job than the Tulane AD job, and love the notion of him packing a few boxes and walking across the street!

[mbawavefan12]

I really wish we could find a study comparing recent D1 athletic director's combined record in the two revenue sports. Would be an interesting read. Hell I would just like to see Dickson, don't have the time to complete the research.

[OUG]

This "omission" is much ado about nothing. The "event" was Aresco coming to Tulane to meet Fitts for the first time since he became President, and also the first time since Tulane officially became a AAC member. Frankly, I am more concerned that he (Aresco) came so late, and that he hardly mentioned Tulane at the AAC Media Day activities.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see RD getting terminated anytime short of next May. And it could be a few years from now when he retires. I'd rather the University suck it up, honor him for getting us through Katrina and the aftermath, and push him out the door. As hard as that would be to accept, at least he'd be gone.

If hes truly removed from day to day AD operations with the addition of the COO at Wilson, then that's probably what will happen. He'll be kept on in a mostly ceremonial role, because its more trouble than its worth to spend the political capital to have him removed. As much as us here don't like him, he has his backers. He'll be allowed to wind his career down gracefully without much in the way of authority going forward. Anyone with experience in corporate politics should find this rather familiar.

For those who are big TV watchers, think Chief Burrell from the wire. Ineffective at his job, can't get much done, but has a lot of suction with those in high places, and brings a certain political force to the table. For pragmatic reasons, he'll be kept on in name while the real decisions are made behind the scenes.

What political capital? If Fitts wants his own guy in, he'll put his own guy in. Fitts' capital is the only capital that matters.

They'll just come up with a compensation/benefits package that is too tempting to say no to, and Dickson will "retire". That's how these things play out.

Political capital is the pull Dickson has with the board. Lets not pretend it doesn't exist. For Fitts to come in and just fire Dickson-- yes, he could do it he has the authority-- it would cost him in terms of future favors. The next time Fitts comes back to the board with something he wants they'll remember it.

For instance-- without getting too much into national politics-- when a president is elected for the first time, they come in with political capital. What they want as agenda item #1 usually gets done, because they have the mandate and the bully pulpit. But once its spent, its spent. For example, the sitting president made his vision for healthcare priority #1, and he got that-- at great political expense. When he tried to pivot to wall street reform and then cap-and-trade, he got less and less traction, until he ran out of political capital.

Its politics 101. You don't overplay your hand-- just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. You prioritize your agenda based on what you want done at what cost. If Dickson can be kept in a ceremonial role until he retires, and you can get most of what you want without expending the political capital, then you do that. Its a fight not worth having, from Fitt's perspective.

Believe me, you don't have to explain the concept of politics or political capital to me.

But that is not how a private university functions. The structure is more like the modern corporation. The relevant stakeholder group (the board) is pretty small here and pretty easy to sway. The whole system is set up for one person -- the President/CEO -- to get exactly what he wants. All power flows from him. You're way overstating the political "pull" that Dickson has independently apart from his capacity in serving the President. The idea that Dickson has "his supporters" is only relevant in so far as he had ONE very meaningful supporter: Scott Cowen.

If Fitts comes to the board and says the following:

"We've looked at the landscape, where are are today. We've come through a lot of turmoil over the past ten years and Rick has served us well in laying a foundation. We have a new conference, and a new stadium. But I think it is time that we begin planning a transition in order to bring in new ideas. I would like to work with Rick on this and would like your support in coming up with an attractive package that will compensate him for his service and allow us to manage this transition in an orderly way, and in the best interests of the university."

... then there is no way he has to expend any "capital" with the board.

The board hired Fitts to run the school as he saw fit. This is not a hands-on operation for them. A corporate board doesn't hire a CEO and then give that guy any stick if he wants to bring in his own CIO that fits with his IT strategy.

I think you're really misunderstanding the politics at play here. The POTUS is a silly comparison to Fitts, and Dickson doesn't have some independent power-base on the board. He isn't General MacArthur.

[jonathanjoseph]

I really wish we could find a study comparing recent D1 athletic director's combined record in the two revenue sports. Would be an interesting read. Hell I would just like to see Dickson, don't have the time to complete the research.

Tulane would absolutely be at or very close to the bottom.

Then you include the other obvious metrics, like athletic department revenue and athletics fundraising and you can bet there would be a slam dunk case that Dickson is the worst in the modern era.

[jonathanjoseph]

Believe me, you don't have to explain the concept of politics or political capital to me.

But that is not how a private university functions. The structure is more like the modern corporation. The relevant stakeholder group (the board) is pretty small here and pretty easy to sway. The whole system is set up for one person -- the President/CEO -- to get exactly what he wants. All power flows from him. You're way overstating the political "pull" that Dickson has independently apart from his capacity in serving the President. The idea that Dickson has "his supporters" is only relevant in so far as he had ONE very meaningful supporter: Scott Cowen.

If Fitts comes to the board and says the following:

"We've looked at the landscape, where are are today. We've come through a lot of turmoil over the past ten years and Rick has served us well in laying a foundation. We have a new conference, and a new stadium. But I think it is time that we begin planning a transition in order to bring in new ideas. I would like to work with Rick on this and would like your support in coming up with an attractive package that will compensate him for his service and allow us to manage this transition in an orderly way, and in the best interests of the university."

... then there is no way he has to expend any "capital" with the board.

The board hired Fitts to run the school as he saw fit. This is not a hands-on operation for them. A corporate board doesn't hire a CEO and then give that guy any stick if he wants to bring in his own CIO that fits with his IT strategy.

I think you're really misunderstanding the politics at play here. The POTUS is a silly comparison to Fitts, and Dickson doesn't have some independent power-base on the board. He isn't General MacArthur.

You are right in theory, but not in practice. The was the Board is structured no political capital or anything else should be required to terminate a member of senior management with an objective track record of being one of the worst at his profession.

The Board pushing back, saying in effect "but we like him anyway" is both immoral and an illegal violation of their duty of care and fiduciary duty. That Enviro is right, that the Board supports Dickson despite results, is the proof that something is seriously screwed up in the governance of Tulane University.

Most interesting, is that I recall reading that Fitts' legal background includes expertise in corporate governance. Fixing that situation might be Fitts biggest battle as President.