Editorial: Taxpayers pick up tab for Olson’s leave

The controversy over Lute Olson’s leave of absence and the mess it created at the University of Arizona should not fade away just because the Hall of Fame basketball coach has returned to work.

As much as we would like to turn the page and cheer for the Wildcats, we think more needs to be investigated in relation to the Olson decision and fallout.

The next time UA Athletic Director Jim Livengood faces the State Board of Regents, he should be asked to explain his decision to grant the 73-year-old Olson a leave under the Federal Family Leave and Medical Act. From what we’ve been told publicly, Olson did not seem to qualify under provisions of the law.

Livengood also should explain publicly if, or why, he instructed Olson not to discuss the leave. The entire episode was swept under the carpet because of the Olson’s insatiable desire for secrecy.

In the end, the leave will cost Arizona taxpayers more than $1 million at a time when the state faces a $1.5 billion budget deficit.

The affair could become more expensive if Assistant Coach Kevin O’Neill, who served as interim coach while Olson was out, sues the university for breach of contract. O’Neill was promised he would succeed Olson when Olson retires. But at a press conference Tuesday, Olson said O’Neill would not return.

By any reasonable assessment, Olson should have been on an unpaid — not paid — leave of absence. The Regents should consider whether the coach should repay taxpayers the money he received while he was gone (he makes $738,000 annually) and reimburse the university the additional salary it paid assistant coach O’Neill (his salary was bumped from $375,000 to $725,000) to fill in as interim coach.

In announcing O’Neill would not be back next season, the UA will be required to buy out O’Neill’s 2008-2009 contract for another $350,000 unless O’Neill takes another job.

Here are the qualifying reasons for a leave of absence at UA under the Federal Family Leave and Medical Act:

The birth of the employee’s child and the care of such newborn child;

The placement of a child with the employee for adoption or foster care;

The care of the employee’s spouse, child or parent who has a serious health condition;

The employee’s own serious health condition that prevents him/her from performing the essential functions of his/her position.

Olson did not qualify under any condition.

Under the university’s guidelines, a “serious health condition” means an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves one of the following: hospital care, a period of incapacity, pregnancy, chronic conditions, a permanent or long-term condition (such as Altzheimer’s or severe stroke) or multiple treatments (such as chemotherapy, radiation, etc).

The coach was given preferential treatment not allotted to other UA employees. Olson announced Nov. 4 he was going on leave, and one month later, he said he was extending it through the season — on the same day he filed for divorce from his second wife, Christine.

“Frankly, even though I realize I’m a public figure, I don’t think I need to go into every nuance of my private life,” Olson said Tuesday. “There were things going on in my life that did create some health issues that I needed time to address. But it was not a health scare.”

If it were not a health scare, and if Olson does not want to explain his decisions to those paying his salary, he should not have been paid. Stress and anxiety from a divorce do not constitute a family-leave emergency. If UA had a note from Olson’s doctor, indicating the stress was disabling, Livengood should have asked for a second opinion.

Many have argued Olson has built up compensatory and vacation time through the years as Arizona’s basketball coach. It’s hard to justify when Olson regularly took off long periods from April to August after March Madness. Under his contract, he’s expected to fulfill his duties no matter how much time it takes. But he’s not supposed to get paid if he does not work.

Many have argued Olson’s effectiveness and position as an unofficial goodwill ambassador for UA puts him in a special category. If he wanted to take time off after 20 seasons, so what? We disagree. He’s a state employee, subject to the same rules as everyone else.

Goodwill ambassador? In the Tuesday press conference, Olson was combative and essentially spat in the face of anyone who questioned him aggressively, underscoring a lack of professionalism and his lack of regard for fans and taxpayers.

Here’s what Olson told the Arizona Daily Star’s Greg Hansen after the sports columnist asked why Olson announced his moves through a Phoenix public relations firm instead of UA’s sports information department. “The good thing is you’re not going to have to talk to me, and I’m not going to have to talk to you,” Olson said to Hansen. “We’re back where we were a few years ago.”

Olson was not on speaking terms with Hansen for years because of the coach’s sensitivity to Hansen’s occasional barbs. Olson seemed to bury the hatchet after his first wife, Bobbi, died from cancer in 2001.

Olson’s comments painted him as petty and vindictive. He callously and repeatedly called Star reporter Bruce Pascoe, who has been covering Olson’s leave and the circumstances behind it, “Columbo,” a reference to the plodding, 1970s TV detective. Pascoe suffered a mild stroke in 2001, but he fully recovered and earned an MBA from the prestigious Thunderbird School of Global Management. He has been reporting on the Wildcats accurately, thoroughly and fairly. Olson should apologize to the reporter for his insensitive remarks.

To us, the matter is an outrage. The state desperately wants to fix a budget deficit, and the university is dealing with a hiring freeze. But the fiscal restraint apparently does not apply to athletic departments.

Livengood will have to justify his hiring of a women’s basketball coach to the Board of Regents. UA women’s coach Joan Bonvicini was fired after last season, with Livengood picking former Kentucky assistant Niya Butts as a replacement. When he goes before the Regents to seek final approval for Butts, they need to press him on circumstances surrounding Olson.

If Olson does not want to repay you, the taxpayers, he should work out an agreement to donate it to a charity of his choice.

The UA is not a privately funded playground for Olson and his scholarship players.

Unsigned editorials represent the opinions of this newspaper. Respond by e-mailing letters@gvnews.com. Comment online at www.gvnews.com.