|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
People SearchFind an individual who either played a sport or was a member of a support group. Search by last name by clicking on the first letter of the person's last name.
Dr. E. "T-Joe" Savoie
Home:
Work:
Home Phone: -- Ex-officio member, Ragin’ Cajuns Athletic Foundation, 2009, 2010. LeBlanc to lead Savoie’s UL transition team Former Blanco commissioner of administration starts Monday Marsha Sills As the new governor’s administration is sworn into office, outgoing Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s commissioner of administration, Jerry Luke LeBlanc, will start a new job Monday, as well. “He’ll be addressing those items that were in the institutional review, setting up work groups with the university and community people to dig further into those recommendations and see if we can come up with some practical implementation strategies,” Savoie said. Savoie will take office in June but is still acting as the state’s commissioner of higher education with an upcoming legislative session not far down the road. Outgoing UL president of 34 years, Ray Authement, announced his retirement in April. His monthly salary as transition coordinator will be comparable to his current salary, Savoie said. As the state’s commissioner of administration, LeBlanc’s salary was $204,401, according to the state. He’ll average about $1,700 a month during his five-month term as coordinator, according to Savoie, who couldn’t offer further details on salary information for LeBlanc on Friday. Because Savoie and Authement both have full-time jobs, a coordinator was needed to help assist them in the transition, Savoie said. “Neither one of us can devote appropriate attention to the transition, although we’re having very good conversations,” Savoie said. “We need someone on the ground working on transition issues on a regular basis.” LeBlanc will start on campus Monday but, as of Friday, said he didn’t know where his office would be. That’s one of the small details that will be worked out after he begins, he said. His duties will include organizing groups to address the institutional review’s recommendations. The review written by James Fisher, the consultant hired to find Authement’s replacement, includes more than 30 recommendations from change in hiring policies to criticism of funding in the athletic department and its conference status. The groups will also examine the issues that come up during public discussion during the search process, LeBlanc said. “There are a number of areas that we’ll be discussing in the coming months with the current administration and faculty about what’s best for the university and the community and moving UL forward,” he said. Community members will also be involved in discussions, LeBlanc said. It’s the first time within the system that a coordinator has been hired to assist a new president through a transition, according to Tisdell, but the practice isn’t uncommon, LeBlanc said. “What we found in doing the research so far is this is a trend that’s going on across the country where you have transition teams,” he said. “It’s not a matter of the incoming president takes the keys from the outgoing president, and it’s business as usual. Many major universities have used this structure to have the most beneficial and positive transition. We’re looking forward to the opportunity.” LeBlanc will be on campus through the transition, and maybe even after Savoie moves into Martin Hall. “We’ve talked about various possibilities,” Savoie said. He wouldn’t comment further, but one of the recommendations in the review included the hiring of a vice president of finance. The university now has two assistant vice presidents – one oversees business services; the other, financial services. LeBlanc served as Blanco’s commissioner of administration, essentially the state’s chief administrative, operations and financial officer since 2004. Prior to that, he chaired both the House appropriations committee and the joint legislative budget committee for eight years. Since 1989, he had represented Lafayette’s District 45 in the House of Representatives. LeBlanc is also a graduate of UL, earning his bachelor’s degree in management in 1980. Daily Adversiser January 12, 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * New UL president feels football is a key Joshua Parrott BATON ROUGE – The UL System Board of Supervisors unanimously voted Thursday for Joseph Savoie to return to his alma mater and become the school’s sixth president. Question: What are some of your connections to UL’s athletic department? Answer: (UL athletic director) David Walker and I started work at the university on the same day in 1978. We were both in Student Affairs. We became quick friends. I have a great deal of respect for his administrative abilities. When David is in charge of something, he always makes it work. He’s one of those go-to guys. When you have an issue that’s challenging and needs special talent, you go to David Walker and he gets it done. A: Just like any other area, you should make sure you have the best people responsible for the program. You need to support them and expect them to perform. If you’re going to have an athletic director, then you need for him to be the director of athletics. The university should try to provide adequate resources, policy and direction that can help them to succeed. Q: In six years under coach Rickey Bustle, UL football is a combined 26-44 with one winning season. Two days after the Cajuns recently finished a 3-9 season, Walker released a statement affirming the school’s commitment to Bustle, whose current contract runs through Jan. 31, 2011. In your mind, what’s the current state of UL football? A: I don’t think it’s fair for me to comment on that. That’s Mr. Walker’s responsibility, and I haven’t had the chance to discuss that with him. His opinion would be the guiding opinion. But you’re also talking to a (former UL) student from the early- to mid-’70s, and I think it was two or three years before we won any games. I’ve seen the ups and downs of the program over the years. It’s more fun to be up than down. But it’s important because the fanbase is so important to the financial viability of the program. Support often depends on the record. And when the team is doing well you have a great turnout, and when they’re not (successful) you don’t. And so that affects your ability to improve because you don’t have the resources. If you’re going to compete you ought to be competitive. Q: In your mind, is a 3-9 record good enough for the UL football program? A: That’s not a fair judgment for me to make because I don’t know any of the details or background. I’ll be dependent on Mr. Walker’s advice in that regard. Q: How do you think UL should deal with improving the visibility and financial issues within the athletic department? A: I think marketing is real important. You have to build a good, solid donor base. You have to have significant ticket sales. You have to put a quality product on the court or on the field. You need to be free of indiscretions and run a clean program, a program people can respect. And you need to be competitive to build that base. Some of that is resources, and that’s where donors come into play. The gravy is ticket sales. Q: What do you think about the newly formed Ragin’ Cajun Athletic Board, a foundation whose primary goal will be raising outside funding for the program? A: I’m not familiar with that, but I do think that’s a good focus. I think it’s a very good idea. I remember back when Toby Warren was the athletic director. He was very successful in generating a lot of community support. I remember going to the rallies and ticket sale campaigns. It was an exciting time. People were engaged. They felt good about their participation. They were very successful. I think that’s important for a variety of ways, not only for the financial support, but also for the enthusiasm that you can generate. I’ve had the opportunity here to work somewhat with the (LSU) Tiger Athletic Foundation, and I’ve seen how they’ve used that fund-raising organization to supplement funds to support athletics. The meteoric rise of LSU athletics, I think, is connected significantly to the success of the Tiger Athletic Foundation. So I think it’s a great idea, and I’m glad to see (UL) doing it. Q: How would you describe your vision for how UL’s athletic department can improve? A: There’s always room (for improvement). If you’re not moving forward, you’re falling behind. There are some very successful and strong programs – baseball, softball. Basketball is going through kind of a regrowing, maturing phase, but they’ve consistently had a high quality there. Football has been more inconsistent. There are some excellent programs. The girls basketball team last year had a wonderful season. With a new coach (Errol Rogers) I think there’s a lot of potential there and a bright future. I think it’s important if you’re going to have a team that the team ought to have the resources to be competitive. At the same time, if you put in the resources, then you ought to expect a competitive performance. Q: How important is it to have a football program people can rally behind? A: Football, in a financing model, is the most important ingredient (to a successful athletic department). Basketball can come close, and sometimes generate a small profit. But football feeds everything else. You can be lucky enough to be in a successful, long-standing conference with huge TV contracts. You don’t necessarily have to be very good, but you’re going to have plenty of resources because football’s going to generate that, and that can pay for everything else. But if you’re not, then you’ve got to be as successful as you can. Football drives the rest of the sports. It’s the one (sport) that can generate fanbase, produce revenues. It’s the one that can get the lucrative TV contracts. It’s the one that has the largest-guaranteed payments. Football is central to being able to fund everything else. Q: What’s your response to people who argue that UL lacks the resources to regularly compete for a conference championship, especially in football? A: I think there’s some validity to that, and in some ways I have to accept some responsibility for that. The Board of Regents has a policy that limits the amount of state dollars that can go to supporting athletics. We developed that policy about 10 years or so ago when there was significant criticism in the legislature on spending for athletics. That’s when money was much tighter. So we put in place a fairly restrictive cap on the use of state dollars to support athletics. We’ve recently loosened that up this past year. The universities made a viable case that it might have been a good idea 10 years ago, but that we had been starving them for years, so we loosened up a little bit. We’re continuing to review that policy to make sure that we’re providing a responsible level of state support. Now the other side of that is that, there’s expectation that you’ll generate private support as well. But if you want to have a good library, then you need to make sure that you have an adequate collection of journals and magazines and books and access to databases. If you want to have a viable athletic program, you need to make sure that you have resources necessary to get good coaches, competitive students and attractive facilities. If you’re going to have athletics then you need to have a quality program. If you’re going to compete, you need to be competitive. Q: How will the state’s new funding formulas, which eliminate the cap on athletic spending, have an impact on the UL athletic department? Will some of the concerns be alleviated? A: Well, it should. It gives you a larger base to start with, and on that base you build game guarantees, fund-raising, ticket sales and you can get to a more competitive budget level. You can always point to examples that have better resources, but our responsibility in the use of the public’s dollars is to make sure that we have a total view of what everyone is doing. Unfortunately, those are very difficult numbers to gather. The NCAA has been working for the last three years, and we’ve been working with them, and I think this upcoming year they’re going to release their first comprehensive analysis of athletic expenditures. That will be very helpful in guiding policy. Then we’ll know what the market is and how to be competitive in the market. The truth is athletic programs very seldom break even. Depending on who’s counting, anywhere from 10 to 18 athletic departments in America break even or make money. Now we happen to have within 50 miles of us one of the most successful athletic programs in the country (LSU), and people assume that that’s the norm. But it’s not. It’s a rare exception. It has a lot to do with long-term, lucrative TV contracts with the SEC, and it has a lot to do with the Tiger Athletic Foundation generating that success. People who say athletics should pay for themselves don’t understand the financing of athletics. Hardly any programs break even or pay for themselves. Q: How do you think UL’s athletic program can carry the success of its spring sports into the fall sports, notably football? A: Like anything else, you have to analyze where you are and try to be truthful with where you are. You have to build strategies to improve where you are. You have to be insistent on reaching those expectations. I’m a strong believer in performance and accountability. You have to set goals, and either you get there or you don’t. And if you don’t get there, you sometimes have to make changes to get there. Daily Advertiser, December 9, 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * University system makes choice a unanimous one Marsha Sills Joseph Savoie, commissioner of higher education, who began his career at UL will return to the university as its sixth president this summer. The board couldn’t pass up the “opportunity” to appoint Savoie, whose credentials “would be the envy of any other state,” said board member Paul Aucoin, who also served on the search committee. Savoie will take office following the spring semester, when UL President Ray Authement steps down from leading the university after 34 years of service. Savoie had been open about his uncertainty of whether or not the job was for him during his candidacy. “Professionally, both jobs are equally challenging and exciting,” he said after the announcement. “I think the tilting point for me was family considerations.” He and his wife have two children with the youngest still in high school. The family lives in Lafayette with Savoie commuting daily to his offices in the Claiborne Building in Baton Rouge. Savoie’s annual salary will be $350,000, above the $316,782 currently paid to Authement. However, details of Savoie’s contract will be worked out by UL System President Sally Clausen and board Chair Jimmy Long Sr. and board Vice-Chair Elsie Burkhalter. Savoie is the state’s higher education commissioner, a position he’s held since 1996. He’s expected to move into Martin Hall after the spring semester, likely June 30, 2008, according to Board Chair Jimmy Long. Prior to that, he worked for 18 years for the university serving on Authement’s president’s council as vice president of university advancement from 1992 to 1996. Because of his long history with the university and ties to Lafayette, including the Blanco family, some opposed his candidacy saying someone with more experience outside the university and state was needed for UL’s future. Board member Russell Mosely asked Savoie to respond to the criticism, which Mosely called the “elephant in the room.” “I’ve been gone from the university 12 years now,” Savoie said. “I have had less interaction with that campus during that time compared to other campuses in the state by nature of the job.” He then listed his credentials with national organizations such as the State Higher Education Executive Officers, which named him their chairman this year; his work on national policy making boards; and his appointment to the Southern Regional Education Board. The experience doesn’t amount to a “myopic candidate,” he said. Rather, Savoie’s mix of national and state experience make him the ideal candidate, said board member Andre Coudrain. Coudrain said he’s served on eight searches and three others as a student member. “We’ve had strong local candidates in some searches and strong national candidates in others,” Coudrain said. “We have the best of both worlds in Dr. Savoie.” The board interviewed each of the three finalists before moving into deliberations at 5 p.m. An hour later, the board emerged and made a motion in favor of Savoie. Savoie and his wife, Gail were walked in the room to a round of applause from the crowd gathered for the meeting. “I suppose that’s good news,” Savoie joked before taking his seat before the board. During his interview Savoie said he’d tackle the recommendations made in the institutional review of the university with the help of an administrative team that reflects the diversity of the community it serves. That team would include a vice president of finance, a position recommended to be filled in the institutional review conducted as part of the search. Currently, two assistant vice presidents – one over finance and the other over business services – handle the university’s financial business. Part of the transition will mean acclimating the community on-campus and off to a new leader. Savoie said he expects there to be some “angst” at first as folks become accustomed to the change. Having the community involved in those discussions to help form the goals for the university’s future will help “quell that angst because people will have a common vision in mind,” he said. The university’s physical needs, from deferred maintenance to outdated equipment for faculty and researchers, should be addressed, as well, Savoie said. The university is currently one of three four-year Doctoral II institutions in the state. LSU is the only four-year Doctoral I institution in Louisiana. The universities are ranked by the number of post-baccalaureate degrees awarded. Does Savoie think it’s possible that UL should become the state’s next Doctoral I institution? asked student Board member Olinda Ricard on behalf of a UL student. “I don’t think we should position the university as a competitor with anyone other than ourselves. …The university’s competition is its own deficiencies and we need to concentrate on working on those,” Savoie said. Authement announced his retirement in late April and requested that he stay in his position through the spring semester to hand his grandson, Phillip his diploma at May commencement. Authement served as the university’s interim president in 1973 and was named president in 1974. Board member Winfred Sibille acknowledged Authement’s “lifetime of service” to the university during the meeting. Ricard also acknowledged the experience of Landry, who’s an “asset” to the university and the opinions of those in the community who attended the meetings and sent in comments to the board, she said. “I very much value your input and acknowledge all you’ve presented to us,” Ricard said. Landry told the board he’d do a lot of talking, but more listening with “those who believe in the university and those who have a stake in it” as he formed his plan for UL. During his interview, Landry assured the board that he’d have a report on the recommendations made in the institutional review within his first three months in office. Key issues in the review, in his opinion, included, the university’s landlocked issue, tuition, deferred maintenance, and athletics. The review included some 36 recommendations for the new president to consider. Consultants visited the campus, interviewed faculty, staff, students, community members and reviewed departments and budgets. Some recommendations caught finalist, Stanley, a retired U.S. Marine Corps major general, by surprise. He admitted one recommendation that the university reconsider its Division 1-A football status caused the “hair on the back of my neck” to rise. To address such issues raised in the review, Stanley, too, would have developed an executive team to begin the process of assessing the university’s needs. Stanley said the university needs to reorganize the office of Alumni Affairs to focus on fundraising. The review found that only 8 percent of alumni give back to the university. A capital campaign to respond to the deferred maintenance issue son campus should be underway “now, not yesterday” and is something that shouldn’t wait for the new president, Stanley said. It was not the first time that the board had heard from the candidates. A majority of board members were present for the interviews last month with the five semifinalists. Landry had the Faculty Senate’s backing because of his academic and research experience, according to Meriwether. “He’s been a faculty member,” Meriwether said while waiting for the board to return with its decision. “He’s been a thesis director, doctoral dissertation director, a department head, research director, vice president of research, vice president of academic affairs. Everything I’ve seen him do, I’ve seen him do it well.” Landry is an asset that the university needs, but Savoie’s experience as commissioner of higher education offered a broader range of experience compared to the other candidates, said Jimmy Long, board chairman. “Dr. Landry is an outstanding person,” Long said. “We really hope he stays where he is and can be part of the team with Dr. Savoie.” Photo Galleries: Click below for photo gallery at Search Committee Meeting, courtesy Daily Advertiser, Dec. 7, 2007 http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=DG&Dato * * * * * * * * * *
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
