Duck AD Rob Mullens paid Taggart’s assistant $60K to leave after DUI

That’s about 0.15 Gottfredsons, 0.005 Helfriches, or enough to pay a NTTF for a year and a half. Ryan Thorburn has the scoop in the RG here:

Oregon paid former football assistant coach David Reaves a total of $63,750 in compensation for his brief employment as Willie Taggart’s co-offensive coordinator and tight ends coach.

Reaves, who resigned Feb. 3 after being arrested on DUII and other charges, received $3,750 for 26 hours of work, plus a payment of $60,000, according to UO documents obtained by The Register-Guard through a public records request. …

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Duck AD Rob Mullens paid Taggart’s assistant $60K to leave after DUI

  1. UO Ethics? says:

    Speaking of football coach, it looks like he gave a scholarship to his own son and also the son of one of his assistant coaches. Is this standard practice at UO?

  2. New Year Cat says:

    I imagine many classified staff members would love to be paid, say, $10,000 or $20,000 severance if fired for cause or forced to resign due to their own wrongdoing. What the heck is wrong with UO that we can let 75 teaching staff go in part due to “lack of funds”, but cough up these kinds of monies to make administrators and coaches go away? Disgusting. This stuff should not be in their contracts (unless you want to put it in the SEIU or UA contracts….).

    • dui bonus says:

      That’s the spiralling labor costs that admin keeps referring to, for our athletic faculty.

  3. Leporillo says:

    Rather than using outdated Helfrich’s or Gottfried’s, maybe we can introduce a new metric in honor of the 10% tuition bump. I’m naming it a Schillbump, and it equals $1,200. (Tuition and Fees Based on enrollment of 15 credits per term (45 credits per year); does not include matriculation fee (see below) $11,931. Therefore this “cover your ass” disgraceful $63K buyout will cost 53.5 Schillbumps.

  4. $2,452/hr says:

    $63,750/26 hours = $2,452/hr. This has to be a new record! Assuming Schill makes about $1 million a year and works about 2,000 hours/yr, the UO President is only making about $500/hr. How unfair, the board should do another big tuition boost to give him a big raise, obviously.

    • UO Matters says:

      I’m hoping you are not going to make a public records request for the emails, but from what I’ve seen Schill is working about 80 hours a week, or ~4000 a year – and pretty effectively too.

      • Sun Tzu says:

        Hey UOM, has your grey matter gotten a bit too spongy? Your cheerleading for Schill is getting a bit tiresome. How can you support a guy who 1) continues to fund the politically motivated cluster hires; 2) publicly condemns a law school colleague before collecting all pertinent information (and then claims to be open-minded); 3) allows Phil Knight to build a completely unneeded huge new program that will drain millions from existing programs; 4) has done nothing to support arts, music, humanities and social sciences programs; 5) approves of the firing of 75 essential NTTF; 6) Is balancing the university budget on the backs of the students, again; 7) has permitted athletics to continue to run roughshod over university principles and values; and 8) is moving forward with significant budget cuts while simultaneously spending huge sums on pet projects (e.g., 1 & 3 above)? What deal did you cut with Schill? Go easy on him and the General Counsel office will stop harassing you? Why did you switch sides? To make your Senate President position easier? So much for speaking truth to power. Was it worth selling out? After many years of providing an essential service to our community, UOM has become irrelevant. What a disappointment.

        • uomatters says:

          Thanks for this list – mind if I ask what you have done for UO lately?

          • Dog says:

            Hey that’s not even a top 10 list, surely you can think of two more things.

            Here is a response, take it with the usual dog filter:

            1) Agreed that some cluster hires seem to have been arbitrarily chosen, but some are legitimate hires in strategic new areas with emergent funding so it is not fair to condemn them all. And Schill inherited them

            2) Yes, number 2 is a complete clusterfuck all around

            3) The effect of the Knight campus is not close to predictable. Certainly there is no intent to suck resources from existing programs and I seriously doubt this will happen.

            4) While the UO before Schill and the State, etc, don’t support Jack so laying this on Schill is again unfair.

            5) I don’t know what an “essential” faculty member is – I am definitely not one, but again, I think this is not Schill to Blame and there is still no transparancy over this issue.

            6) But we have been doing that for along time

            7) Agreed that the athletics situation has not improved through Schill and he should be disappointed in that

            8) Not yet proven at all

            I am not a particular Schill Fan, but I am a fan of fair and unbiased judgement

            • Sun Tzu says:

              Hey dog, good comments. “Fair and unbiased” is oftentimes an individual judgement, open to alternative interpretation. As a scientist you understand this intuitively. Obviously one can always question one or more items on my list. It was not meant to be all inclusive or even a list of the most important decisions. Its point was only to illustrate that the UO continues to head downward academically and our current president is doing little to nothing to stop the slide. Sadly, a few of his more publicized decisions have, in the view of both the Academy and the general public, added glide wax to the UO skis.

            • Dog says:

              Oh I completely agree that the UO has not reversed its academic downslide – it could even be accelearting

          • Sun Tzu says:

            Nice try UO. My contribution or lack thereof is not the issue. The question remains why do you continue to praise our president when he is making one bad decision after another? This is the first president you have made nice-nice too and it comes when you are Senate President. The coincidence is suspicious so please explain your sudden change in behavior towards an administrator who, like all the others, is taking the big bucks while doing nothing to improve the academic environment. Maybe he is waiting for that $800K bonus in his contract to kick in after 5 years?