Attorney Wants Meeting Postponed : SDSU AD Hill Scheduled to Talk to Day This Morning

A meeting between San Diego State President Thomas Day and Athletic Director Mary Alice Hill is scheduled for 10 this morning at the president’s office. Hill confirmed the meeting has been scheduled, and a university source added that it is quite likely some major decision will be reached today.

Will Hill be fired today? Will she be reassigned to another postion in the university? Will she return to work in her position as athletic director Friday?

But as of late Wednesday night, one of Hill’s new attorneys, J. Stacey Sullivan, said he had been trying to contact Day to request a two- to three-day postponement of the meeting.

“We need time to examine this difficult and unpleasant situation and to try to work a solution to this problem,” Sullivan said. “I hope Day postpones the meeting and thereby takes no action at that time, if he was contemplating that. It’s a matter of real importance to all parties concerned and I think that Mary is entitled to that extra time.”

Sullivan said he would try to reach Day early this morning before the scheduled meeting.

Early Wednesday evening, Hill retained two new attorneys, Sullivan and Mike Litman of the Law Firm of Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley and Casey. Sullivan and Litman will accompany Hill to the meeting if it is not postponed. They have advised her not to comment.

Hill had been represented by William Woods of William F. Woods, P.C. Lawyers, who she dismissed Tuesday morning.

Today’s scheduled meeting comes one day before Hill’s vacation is due to end. Hill was ordered to take a two-week vacation by Day after she fired three employees and severed ties with Regions West marketing company July 24. Hours later, the three employees were reinstated by Day and the contract with Regions West was reported not to be severed.

While Hill has been on vacation, the university has been conducting a financial audit of the athletic department. It also has been investigating the personnel moves made July 24 by Hill.

As has been their pattern, neither Day nor Bill Erickson, vice president for business and financial affairs, would comment Wednesday on the status of the audit or on anything else. Day was in Los Angeles Wednesday on another matter, according to Rick Moore, manager of the SDSU news service.

Without much public comment lately, there has been a lot of speculation. Much of it concerns the future of Hill as SDSU athletic director.

“She is history,” said Frank Arnoff, a former SDSU assistant athletic director for internal affairs who was released in August, 1984, when his position was abolished by the university. Arnoff reported directly to Hill when he worked at SDSU. Wednesday, Arnoff said he got his information by talking to people in the administration.

“They will release her or reassign her,” Arnoff said. “No way they will they have her back as athletic director. Day just wants to make sure all the I’s are dotted and T’s are crossed.”

Arnoff stayed at SDSU through December, 1984 to handle preparations for the Cabrillo basketball tournament, but he is no longer with the university.

“I felt a commitment to Bill Erickson to stay on until the Cabrillo,” Arnoff said.

He did not feel a commitment to Hill.

“She would never look me straight in the eye,” Arnoff said.

Arnoff is not alone in voicing that opinion.

“Mary Hill is a non-communicator,” said Ed Franz, coach of the gymnastics team that was cut last spring. “Rather than communicate with me about the women’s gymnastics program, she would resort to a written memo. It left me with an empty feeling.”

Said SDSU women’s basketball Coach Earnest Riggins: “Mary hired me and I had a lot of confidence in her ability to do the job.

“I’m hoping that she’s around, but it seems to be touch and go right now. . . . I’ll say she was definitely in our corner (women’s basketball). I was always able to get her when I needed to see her.”

People in powerful positions have allies and foes, and therefore receive mixed reviews about how they did their jobs. Hill is no exception.

Said Arnoff: “Day assumed Mary was more of a manager than she was. He assumed a lot. He had no idea how inept she was. Day didn’t listen to administrative people who knew about Mary’s ineptness.

“Day has a fixation that Mary was a manager. That was the furthest thing from the truth for anyone who knew the day-to-day operations.”

Aside from her work at SDSU, Hill’s management background included serving as associate athletic director for women’s sports at Colorado State. Her contract was not renewed after three years in that position.

However, she sued the university on grounds that the 1975 termination had violated her First Amendment freedom of speech rights because she had spoken repeatedly and strongly for women’s sports. A Colorado jury concurred with Hill and awarded her $65,000 in damages in 1977.

A.R. Chamberlain, president of Colorado State at the time of Hill’s lawsuit, discussed the situation.

“I never went to her classroom, but at the time, some of the allegations against her were that she didn’t always show up for class or she came unprepared or that she used the classroom for political reasons.

“She was stating her perception of grievances toward female athletics in the classroom.”

Chamberlain said Hill was “a personable, aggressive and goal-seeking person who made use of the faculty grievance system at Colorado State.”

Hill was unemployed for more than a year after leaving Colorado State. She was hired as track coach by SDSU in 1976. In 1979, she was named associate athletic director and placed in charge of non-revenue sports. She was named acting athletic director July 9, 1983, and named the permanent athletic director Jan. 1, 1984.

Said Aztec basketball Coach Smokey Gaines: “When Tom Day made Mary athletic director, he had a meeting with all the coaches and told us to support her. If they’re my boss(es), I’ll work for them. I respect Mary, and no one can say I shortchanged her.”

Said Salvadore Freitas, a booster club member: “I can’t believe she would invent accusations. . . . Maybe it got to a point now where we’ll get rid of one instead of 12. It will set the program back if they fire Mary.”

One opinion, seems to recur frequently. Many believe Hill has not been given the authority she needs to run the athletic program.

“Coaches in general feel she doesn’t have the authority she needs to run the program,” Franz said. “She’s an athletic director with no real authority or autonomy to run a program the way she thinks it should be run. Mary and other athletic directors (at SDSU) have no true authority to run an athletic program when they are controlled by so many boards.”

Franz was referring to the finance board and scope board (an investigative group composed of three university vice presidents and the faculty representative) which make up the Intercollegiate Athletic Authority.