Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins Has at Least One Staunch Defender in Alabama

Zac Parrish

My research indicates that Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins has a habit of treating people badly, in both his personal and business affairs.

On the personal side, perhaps no one has been treated worse than three residents of Alabama--Sherry Carroll Rollins, Ted's ex wife, and their daughters, Sarah and Emma. So it's ironic to note that one of Ted Rollins' most reliable defenders also comes from Alabama. He's Zac Parrish, the managing member of Parrish Building Company in Birmingham and Sherry Rollins' youngest son from her first marriage.

That means Zac Parrish is Ted Rollins' former stepson, and we have learned that Parrish will go to great lengths to defend Ted Rollins' company. Parrish has become a prominent figure in our reporting, mainly because he launched into a profanity-filled tirade when I recently asked him for an interview. But that was not my first communication with him.

I first heard from Parrish last fall after I had reported on a balcony collapse that injured three young people at The Grove apartments near the University of North Texas in Denton. The Grove is the brand name of student-housing facilities that Campus Crest Communities builds and manages.

Communicating with Zac Parrish seems to provide insight into Ted Rollins' thought processes. After all, Zac Parrish was 10 years old when Ted Rollins entered his life and went on to marry his mother. Parrish now is 33, so that means he's had 23 years worth of exposure to the Rollins mindset.

What is that mindset? It seems to be a peculiar mixture of low-regulation, get-out-of-my-way, screw-you capitalism and Soviet-style communism. What do I mean? Let's consider a portion of an e-mail I received from Parrish on September 20, 2011, not long after I had written about the balcony collapse in Denton, Texas:

Roger,
In regards to your "coverage" of campus crest communities' and the balcony incident, a fair reporter would have noted the balcony only had a overall depth of 6". The pictures that are available online show that these are simply for aesthetics. The story, available on CBS' local site, proves that this incident was caused by a group of young college kids acting inappropriately at 3am. The size of the landing area of the balcony is less than the size of the so called victims' shoes. This aesthetic architecture/design has been utilized for centuries. At what point are people held liable for their own actions? I guess there is always someone to blame? If that is the case, where does liability of the local governing agencies(inspections dept) ever kick in. That is never mentioned in your "coverage"! Selective reporting with a political agenda? Seems like it to me, and others. . . .

Parrish makes no mention of the fully functioning door that opened onto the "aesthetic" balcony. He makes no mention that a reasonable person might figure the door and the balcony onto which it opened were meant to be used. And he seems oblivious to the three individuals' injuries, which included a total of 11 broken bones.

How can we sum up Parrish's view on things? It seems to be, "If poor design and shoddy workmanship cause you to sustain severe injuries, that's your tough luck. It's your fault that you got hurt."

Is that the kind of philosophy consumers can expect to encounter when they deal with Parrish Building Company? If so, I would think more than twice about buying a home built by Zac Parrish.

As for Soviet-style communism, I'm sure Zac Parrish would object to having that label affixed to him. But if the shoe fits. . . . Consider this e-mail I received from Parrish on March 28, after he had responded to my interview request with a string of cuss words:

Roger,

This email is to serve as notice to stop any attempt at contacting me. This is also to serve as notice not to write anything about me or involving me. You do not have consent from me to write anything regarding myself or my family. Do not contact me in any form from this point on.

Zac Parrish

What makes Zac Parrish think a journalist needs consent to write about him, or anyone else? Does he support some sort of state-owned press--or at least a less-than-free press? His e-mail had kind of a Soviet feel to me, and I responded with this:

Zac:

For the record, I don't need your consent to write on matters that involve you. You have every right to decline to be interviewed, and I will respect that. But you do not, and will not, control what I write regarding matters of public record--and they do involve you, whether you like it or not.

You've been given every opportunity to comment, and you've declined. That's fine. Now I will move forward with my reporting. If you change your mind in the next few days, I'm still open to an interview--in person or otherwise.

Roger

I figured that was the end of it. But Parrish didn't seem to want to let go. Consider the e-mail exchange that followed:

From: Zac Parrish
To: Roger Shuler

Again,
Roger,

This email, and the previous, is to serve as notice to stop any attempt at contacting me. This is also to serve as notice not to write anything about me or involving me. You do not have consent from me to write anything regarding myself or my family. Do not contact me in any form from this point on.
Your continued efforts to discuss/publish these private matters are rapidly escalating to harassment.

----------------------

From: Roger Shuler
To: Zac Parrish

Again:

For the record, I don't need your consent to write on matters that involve you. You have every right to decline to be interviewed, and I will respect that. But you do not, and will not, control what I write regarding matters of public record . . .


FYI--You might want to educate yourself on the legal term harassment. You clearly don't know what it is.

---------------------

From: Zac Parrish
To: Roger Shuler

For the fourth time(once verbal, 3emails)

---------------------

From: Roger Shuler
To: Zac Parrish

You can send me threats and warnings to infinity, but I've been a reporter for 30 years, and I know what I can and cannot publish under the law. No amount of huffing and puffing from you is going to change that.

I accept that you don't want to be interviewed, and I offered to discontinue this back-and-forth a few hours ago. But you persist in contacting me. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over unless you decide to grant an interview. But my reporting is moving forward either way. I simply will state that you declined to answer questions.

---------------------

From: Zac Parrish
To: Roger Shuler

For the fifth time(once verbal, 4emails)

I was starting to feel like I was back in third grade, so I let it drop. Perhaps Zac Parrish picked up his notion of "media relations" from Ted Rollins. After all, Rollins told me he would be "more than happy" to answer written questions, so I have sent him roughly a dozen sets of questions on topics related to the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case in Alabama. How many questions has he answered? Zero.

In what other ways has Ted Rollins influenced Zac Parrish? I'm not sure, but it seems clear that Parrish considers it his duty to come to his former stepfather's defense.