This is the fourteenth post in an ongoing series as we file Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo 610) requests and investigate the non-renewal of the contract of University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky. Links to previous coverage are below the fold. BG and MB

Prompted to delve deeper into the University of Central Missouri’s contractual relationship with a local radio station by the on air comments of one of the radio station’s principals, we’ve had quite an interesting journey.

Still, more than two weeks after those remarks were broadcast, the University remains silent.

We asked for a copy of the contract and the University provided it on October 16, 2009:

Paragraphs 12 and 13 from the 2005 contract [pdf] between the University and D&H media (KOKO radio) for the exclusive rights to broadcast university athletic events.

…12. KOKO/KWKJ shall pay CMSU a broadcast right fee of Fifteen Thousand and/no Dollars ($15,000.00) on a quarterly basis. Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty and no/100 Dollars ($3,750.00) shall be due to CMSU from KOKO/KWKJ on September 30th, December 31st, March 31st, and June 30th of each contract year. KOKO/KWKJ also will bill CMSU monthly for any phone charges incurred during the transmission of any games broadcast as outlined in No. 1 of this agreement.

13. KOKO/KWKJ will sell advertising time and will provide twenty-five per cent (25%) of the gross advertising revenue to CMSU. KOKO/KWKJ and CMSU shall review and reconcile the gross advertising sales information in a meeting prior to June 15th of each contract year. At that time, KOKO/KWKJ and CMSU shall divide the gross advertising revenue, with seventy-five  per cent (75%) of gross advertising revenue of CMSU sports radio broadcasts to KOKO/KWKJ and twenty-five per cent (25%) to CMSU…

We’re still trying to get some answers about the amounts and dates of payments that are required by the contract.

And we’re still curious about the University’s response that Board of Governors’ authorization to sign the multi-year contract was not required.

On Thursday afternoon we received a reply to our second Missouri Sunshine Law request concerning the Paragraph 12 and Paragraph 13 revenues in the contract:

[….]Date: Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Subject: Re: Request for information – RSMo-610

[….]In response to your request of October 25, 2009, for “communications concerning the scheduling, agenda, and actions of any meetings concerning compliance with paragraph 13 of the contract…,” no such written communications exist.  In response to your request for the “dates and amounts of those payments since the inception of the [KOKO/UCM] contract,” attached is a spreadsheet listing the dates payments were made and the amounts received.

 

[….]

>>>[….]10/25/2009 8:22 AM >>>

Under RSMo 610 I am requesting the following information:

Concerning the following payments as required of the May 2005 contract to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events between D&H Media and the University.

1. Under Paragraph 13 of the contract, any record of payments and communications about those payments, including, but not limited to, the specific dates and amounts for each payment made in compliance with paragraph 13.

On October 19, 2009 I specifically requested:

“…Under Paragraph 13 it is stated that the parties to the contract are required to meet annually to “review and reconcile the gross

advertising sales information.” Is it the assertion of the University, as indicated by the response to my original request, that no further

communications have taken place concerning compliance with Paragraph 13?

If the meetings(s) took place, this is a request for communication(s) concerning the scheduling, agenda, and actions of any meetings concerning compliance with paragraph 13 of the contract….”

2. Under Paragraph 12 of the contract, any record of the quarterly payments and communications about those payments, including, but not limited to, the specific dates and amounts for each payment made in compliance with paragraph 12.

On October 19, 2009 I specifically requested:

“…Under Paragraph 12 KOKO is required to make quarterly payments to the University. This is a request for the dates and amounts of those payments since the inception of the contract.”

Thank you….

[emphasis added]

Note that our request “…1. Under Paragraph 13 of the contract, any record of payments and communications about those payments, including, but not limited to, the specific dates and amounts for each payment made in compliance with paragraph 13….” was ignored.

The following information was provided in a spreadsheet attached in response to our inquiry for records concerning payments and dates of those payments in compliance with Paragraph 12 of the contract:

KOKO Giving History 05 to present (file name)

700022652

KOKO KWKJ

2005 09/03/04 3,750.00 2005M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK Check

2005 11/12/04 2,750.00 2005M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK Check

2005 12/13/04 750.00 2005M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK Check

2005 04/06/05 3,750.00 2005M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 3439

2006 10/05/05 1,601.00 2006M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 3827

2006 12/30/05 3,750.00 2006M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 4021

2006 03/28/06 3,750.00 2006M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 4222

2007 10/05/06 1,789.00 2007M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 4623

2007 12/14/06 3,526.96 2007M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 4773

2007 03/28/07 3,750.00 2007M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 5002

2008 11/09/07 291.51 2008M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 5483

2008 01/14/08 3,250.00 2008M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 5638

2008 04/17/08 3,536.00 2007M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 5862

2009 11/21/08 2,062.00 2009M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 6382

2009 04/07/09 3,750.00 2009M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 6693

The quarterly payments in compliance with Paragraph 12 of the contract [pdf] should each be in the amount of $3,750.00 and should be on or before September 30th, December 31st, March 31st, and June 30th. In that context this spreadsheet, provided by the University makes no sense.

We have no idea what “Mule Train Project Underwriting” is.

We don’t know which fund the reported payments were deposited in. We didn’t ask. We might do so at some point in the future.

Yesterday afternoon, in yet another attempt to get the dates and individual amounts of the annual 25% gross advertising revenue payments due the University as required by Paragraph 13 of the contract, we sent the following Missouri Sunshine Law request:

….date: Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:08 PM

subject: Request for information – RSMo 610

Under RSMo 610 I am requesting the following information:

1. In reference to the 2005 contract to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events between  D&H Media and the University and to the document provided to me by the University on October 23, 2009 in response to my October 19, 2009 request titled “KOKO Revenues”, in the category “Compensation Remitted to UCM”, in the subcategory titled, “UCM Advertisin
g Sales Collections” for the amount of $29,000 as indicated for 2009.

a. Provide a copy of all documents, including but not limited to – copies of all checks, documents showing all individual payment amounts, and documents showing the date received for all individual payments.

2. In reference to the 2005 contract to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events between  D&H Media and the University and to the document provided to me by the University on October 23, 2009 in response to my October 19, 2009 request titled “KOKO Revenues”, in the category “Compensation Remitted to UCM”, in the subcategory titled, “UCM Advertising Sales Collections” for the amount of $29,380 as indicated for 2008.

a. Provide a copy of all documents, including but not limited to – copies of all checks, documents showing all individual payment amounts, and documents showing the date received for all individual payments.

3. In reference to the 2005 contract to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events between  D&H Media and the University and to the document provided to me by the University on October 23, 2009 in response to my October 19, 2009 request titled “KOKO Revenues”, in the category “Compensation Remitted to UCM”, in the subcategory titled, “UCM Advertising Sales Collections” for the amount of $27,100 as indicated for 2007.

a. Provide a copy of all documents, including but not limited to – copies of all checks, documents showing all individual payment amounts, and documents showing the date received for all individual payments.

4. In reference to the 2005 contract to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events between  D&H Media and the University and to the document provided to me by the University on October 23, 2009 in response to my October 19, 2009 request titled “KOKO Revenues”, in the category “Compensation Remitted to UCM”, in the subcategory titled, “UCM Advertising Sales Collections” for the amount of $24,300 as indicated for 2006.

a. Provide a copy of all documents, including but not limited to – copies of all checks, documents showing all individual payment amounts, and documents showing the date received for all individual payments.

5. In reference to the 2005 contract to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events between  D&H Media and the University and to the document provided to me by the University on October 23, 2009 in response to my October 19, 2009 request titled “KOKO Revenues”, in the category “Compensation Remitted to UCM”, in the subcategory titled, “UCM Advertising Sales Collections” for the amount of $23,100 as indicated for 2005.

a. Provide a copy of all documents, including but not limited to – copies of all checks, documents showing all individual payment amounts, and documents showing the date received for all individual payments.

Please provide an estimate of the cost of the charges for providing this information under RSMo 610.026.

Thank you…

Maybe the third time is the charm.

Our previous coverage:

Three steps behind, and to the right (January 25, 2008)

Three steps behind, and to the right, part 2 – a microcosm of our universe (September 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”? (October 15, 2009) (transcript of a portion of the live radio broadcast)

It wasn’t just about a tree (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: let’s not get cut out of the will (October 22, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: $87.75 will get you one sheet of paper (October 23, 2009)



“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: They’re not playing hardball, they’re playing cat and mouse  (October 23, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a cola and some scoreboards (October 24, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a few more pieces of the puzzle? (October 28, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your silence means consent (October 29, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

(Revised 11/1/09 to fix broken video link)

Rep. Roy Blunt paid a pre-Halloween visit yesterday to Fox News where he hoped to scare the faithful with his take on the House Health Care Bill. Blunt summoned up his personal roster of Halloween horrors: spending tax money on the regular citizens of the United States rather than clients of corporate lobbyists, and doing the job we hired him to do — which often involves mastering complicated legislation – rather than attending fundraising soirees with corporate lobbyists. You can see  the interview here  

After listening to this interview, don’t you wonder why Blunt thinks he can estimate future costs better than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)? Maybe it was his experience as one of the movers and shakers who forced Medicare Part D through the House without a clear assessment of its costs and benefits.

And what’s with Blunt’s surprise that far-reaching reform is complex and lengthy, and that the legislative process results in amendments from the floor? I thought he’d been around for awhile? As Sean at Firedup! notes, lengthy documents didn’t scare him nearly so much in the the past.  

Maybe Blunt is just trying to forestall questions about that elusive Republican alternative health care plan he was charged with developing yea these many months ago. Of course, he tries to make this failure into a feature. As Steven Benen observes:

When pressed on why … Republicans haven’t offered a proposal of their own, GOP leaders will routinely say there are a handful of Republican-backed bills.

This response must have become a reflex for poor Roy by this time — he now spits it out without even being asked. Of course, as Bennen adds:

It’s a fairly shallow cop-out — none of the various GOP plans have been embraced by the caucus and/or its leadership.

Perhaps the reason for all this Republican kvetching about the great, big, bad, hard-to-read health care bill can be found in another observation by Benen:

I suspect part of the problem is that Republicans have noticed that health care reform is … what’s the word …tricky. Can GOP lawmakers come up with a proposal that covers the insured, offers consumer protections insurers don’t like, doesn’t raise taxes, lowers the deficit, and ensures exactly zero government intervention in the free market? It seems unlikely.

It is telling, I think, that of all the goals enumerated by Benen, the only one that Republicans like Blunt rally to fight for is the last, which is arguably the most questionable.  

Yesterday the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal prominently featured an item on its editorial page previously published in the Springfield News-Leader:

10/29/2009 1:01:00 PM

Sun not shining

Editorial

Some public bodies across Missouri … are wrongly handling the way they retreat into closed meetings…

Ah, a paean to accountability when it comes to public business.

Then, today, the Daily Star-Journal ran a rare signed editorial by the publisher, William James:

10/30/2009 7:23:00 AM

The bottom line

Editorial

In today’s issue there is an AP story regarding the University of Central Missouri president and comments of treatment of his family by our community; his outstanding accomplishments and how well liked he is by a majority of tenured professors; and the unfairness of not having his contract renewed…

…They have voted not to renew President Podolefsky’s contract. They have no obligation to explain their votes to this newspaper, university staff or the general public. While I don’t necessarily agree with this policy in its entirety, it is simply the bottom line.

– Wm. James

Well Mr. James, maybe you’d think differently if you actually filed a few more Missouri Sunshine Law requests instead of listening to someone else’s whispered conventional wisdom about what masquerades as acceptable public policy.

Irony impairment indeed.

Also in today’s edition, front page above the fold, was an Associated Press article on the Aaron Podolefsky story – quoting me, apparently from the interview I did with KSHB-TV.

Another irony. It’s a difficult and convoluted process to get permission from the Associated Press to quote myself from their article quoting something I wrote here. You’ll just have to settle for the original:

….Michael Bersin: I think that’s really the issue, is that people are mystified by this….

….Michael Bersin: And, the,  the point is that it shouldn’t be a mystery. Because we’re the university community, the entire university community is owed an explanation by this board….

Our previous coverage of the non-renewal of the contract of University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky:  

Three steps behind, and to the right (January 25, 2008)

Three steps behind, and to the right, part 2 – a microcosm of our universe (September 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”? (October 15, 2009) (transcript of a portion of the live radio broadcast)

It wasn’t just about a tree (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: let’s not get cut out of the will (October 22, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: $87.75 will get you one sheet of paper (October 23, 2009)



“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: They’re not playing hardball, they’re playing cat and mouse  (October 23, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a cola and some scoreboards (October 24, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a few more pieces of the puzzle? (October 28, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your silence means consent (October 29, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Look, I’m not even going to really write a post, but I thought folks might find this as ridiculous/hilarious as I did.

In the link below, local teaparty head nutbag, Bill Hennessy, asks teaparty’ers to pray for the third party, hard right, candidate in the NY-23 special election.  

Does anyone not think these jerks are theocrats?  

http://stlouisteaparty.com/200…

First Claire McCaskill wanted to handcuff the public option; now she wants to trigger it or let states opt out, anything to sideline it.  After all, she says, it isn’t the main course when it comes to health care reform, just one of the little vegetables on the side.  

Remember when McCaskill told the unruly teapartiers at one of her town hall meetings that she didn’t want to have to use her “mom” voice?  Perhaps she needs to call on some more generalized mom skills now and recollect that it is just as important to eat your vegetables as anything else. Otherwise, she could get a lesson in nutrition next election when some of her erstwhile supporters decline to feed the campaign kitty.

Update:  If you want to get an idea about the harm done to health care reform by those quibblers and ditherers like McCaskill whose lack of support weakened the public option, you might be interested in this TPM report.

Attorney General Chris Koster (D?) has definitely decided to pursue an appeal that would negate last year’s court decision keeping CAFOs at least two miles from historic sites. At issue is whether or not buffer zones around state parks and historic sites will be created by the legal precedent of Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce’s ruling in Arrow Rock.

The appeal to negate Joyce’s ruling was filed last fall by Governor Matt Blunt’s DNR–at the behest of big pork–but the current DNR has dropped its interest in the case, as has our new governor. The fact that both have stated that the attorney general is “on his own” in pursuing the appeal leaves Koster without a client in his lawsuit–except for the unacknowledged one: big ag.

He is persisting, he says, because such buffer zones should not be created by court cases but by the (Republican) legislature. As if that’s going to happen. He claims to approve of buffer zones between factory farms and our state’s historic sites, waterways, and state parks and yet goes out of his way to eliminate the only practical chance such sites have of protection from CAFOs. Given his history of carrying water for the Farm Bureau, though, his overnice distinction about how they’ll be created is disingenuous. Just note that seven big ag organizations have filed briefs as intervenors or “friends of the court” in this case.

Let’s hope that his case gets thrown out of court for not having a client.

This is the twelfth post in an ongoing series as we file Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo 610) requests and investigate the non-renewal of the contract of University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky. Links to previous coverage are below the fold. BG and MB

Yesterday we received a copy of a memo outlining the history of the McClain Will and Trust. We first covered the will in “A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: let’s not get cut out of the will.

…Memorandum:

DATE: October 23, 2009

TO: Mr. Dan Power, President, UCM Foundation Board (and members)

Mr. Richard Phillips, President, UCM Board of Governors (and members)

Mr. Joe Kremer, Executive Director, UCM Foundation

Mr. Michael Lucas, UCM Internal Auditor

FROM: Dr. Aaron Podolefsky, President s/

RE: Exit Memo #1: Update regarding Morrow-Garrison and the McClain Funds

Charge to the University Auditor

Charge to the Foundation Board

I will be producing exit memoranda for the appropriate parties over the course of the next months. This one concerns the use of McClain gift funds as a match for the renovation of the Morrow-Garrison complex….

…Prior to my arrival in July 2005, President Patton submitted a request to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE) and thus the State of Missouri for the renovation of the Morrow-Garrison complex. The cost of the renovation was projected to be $15,500,000; $13,500,000 was to come from State funds and $2,000,000 of which was to come from a university match, i.e., the Regina Myers McClain gift funds. When I arrived on campus, I was led to believe that the funds were an estate gift from Mrs. McClain to the Department of Health and Human Performance (HHP) and, as such, appropriate for this use. (As part of my duties, I lobbied for over two years for the approval of these state funds. After they were approved and the projects underway, 14 MOHELA projects were halted due to lack of funds. I, with others, was successful in having these funds reinstated. UCM was one of only four of these 14 projects to be fully funded.)

After the State funds became available and planning for the renovation had begun, Vice President Paul Page mentioned off hand to me that the funds were actually given to the Nutrition program. I asked to see the documents. In reading Mrs. McClain’s Will and learning of the history of litigation over the estate, it became clear that the gift was given to “establish a department of nutrition.” Good stewardship and the law require that gifts to the university be used as the donor intended.

This presented a challenge to the entire project. However, after much though, we considered that we could establish a Department of Nutrition and use the McClain funds to renovate space for this new department. Since Nutrition faculty and facilities were already scheduled to be in this building, this was a matter of the architects creating a floor plan (actually reworking already drafted plans) and of identifying “nutrition” space valued at $2,000,000. Thus, the promised match would be provided and the funds would be expended as Mrs. McClain intended.

The HHP department insisted that a proposal for a gift had been written by HHP and that McClain’s gift was to fund that proposal with the funds going to athletic training. We spoke extensively to Dean Sluder and others. No such proposal was found in the Foundation files, and there was no indication that such a proposal was presented to Mrs. McClain. The question, however, was moot since the Will was clear. Even if she had received a proposal, Mrs. McClain’s Will is the guiding document. The department disagreed and was understandably animated given their long-standing misperception of the gift.

In order to be confident in our interpretation, I requested that Interim Legal Counsel Wright provide a written legal opinion. Mr. Wright sought a written opinion from the law firm of Lathrop and Gage of Kansas City. Mr. Wright, as I recall, expended $16,000 of university funds on this letter of opinion. In addition, Mr. Wright charged the university his hourly fee to draft his opinion, following that of Lathrop and Gage. These opinions were clear that the funds must be expended on nutrition. In addition, the opinions ventured into discussion of what constitutes a Department of Nutrition and warned of consequences related to the original lawsuit filed by Mrs. McClain’s daughter in the state of California contesting the university’s receipt of any funds at all. I requested Mr. Wright provide the Dean and department copies of these opinions and he declined, but he did visit with them and report the finding verbally. Based on the requirements of the Will, the administration including the Dean of the College, recommended, and the Board of Governors formally approved, the creation of a Department of Nutrition.

As a side issue, during the planning of the renovation the HHP department expressed a strong desore to move wrestling out of the Morrow-Garrison complex. There was broad-ranging discussion of alternatives for wrestling and how to support its needs. many ideas were explored. One idea, brought by an outside consultant, was to use Morrow-Garrison funds since the relocation was forced by the project and alternate locations were far less costly to construct than space renovation in Morrow-Garrison. This was rejected. Another option discussed with the HHP department and the Foundation Board’s Finance Committee was using McClain funds to “buy” space in the building from wrestling. This too was rejected. Yet another was to use McClain funds to pay salaries of Nutrition faculty, thereby creating a general fund salary savings that could be used for other purposes (akin to creating an endowed chair). While legal, this was rejected as being too removed from the donor’s intent. Although these and other ideas were explored in order to satisfy HHP’s request to remove wrestling, all were deemed inappropriate or too far removed from the original intent and none were approved or implemented. Given the long-term interests of all parties, the decision was made to not include wrestling in the academic building, thus providing more space for academic programs. Athletic Director Hughes proposed the use of the Police Academy space as a temporary measure, which was approved, and Vice President Robert had a study done and preliminary plans drawn for a proper wrestling facility to be attached to the Multipurpose Building.

In sum, McClain funds were allocated to renovate space to establish a Department of Nutrition and to satisfy the promise of a $2,000,000 institutional match for the building renovation. Construction project managers were instructed to specifically account for the use of the McClain funds, as distinct from state construction funds, to ensure their use strictly for the Department of Nutrition. To the best of my knowledge, McClain funds have been allocated only to the construction of space to house a new Department of Nutrition. I have authorized no other expenditures from this account.

Requested Action 1 – The University Auditor shall examine the McClain account and report to me, the Executive Director of the Foundation, and to the Foundation Board on the use of those funds, including payouts to Mrs. McClain’s daughter.

Requested Action 2 – The Foundation Board should review Mrs. McClain’s Will and the two legal opinions noted above and, per its fiduciary responsibility, reaffirm the proper use of these funds

[emphasis in original]

Our previous coverage:

Three steps behind, and to the right (January 25, 2008)

Three steps behind, and to the right, part 2 – a microc
osm of our universe (September 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”? (October 15, 2009) (transcript of a portion of the live radio broadcast)

It wasn’t just about a tree (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: let’s not get cut out of the will (October 22, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: $87.75 will get you one sheet of paper (October 23, 2009)



“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: They’re not playing hardball, they’re playing cat and mouse  (October 23, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a cola and some scoreboards (October 24, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a few more pieces of the puzzle? (October 28, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your silence means consent(October 29, 2009)

This is the eleventh post in an ongoing series as we file Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo 610) requests and investigate the non-renewal of the contract of University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky. Links to previous coverage are below the fold. BG

A gift from Benoit Wesly and his family from Maastricht, The Netherlands, the 80-foot-tall Maastricht Friendship Tower [on the campus of the University of Central Missouri] has been a campus landmark since 1998. It was erected as a symbol of international understanding. Inscribed on each side of the tower is a quote from the Jewish Mishnah, “Who is wise? He who learns from every man,” in English, Hebrew, Dutch, and Maastricht Dutch.

Given the recent rhetoric on the local radio station we were curious about the continuing silence from the University. We filled a Missouri Sunshine Law request on Sunday, effective Monday morning:

…date: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Subject:Request for information under RSMo 610

Under RSMo 610 I am requesting the following information:

1. Any communications or documents sent to the President of the Board of Governors, the members of the Board of Governors, or the President of the University concerning statements made on the radio by Greg Hassler.

2. Any communications or documents in reply to those communications or documents (cited above) by the President of the Board of Governors, the members of the Board of Governors, or the President of the University.

Thank you…

We received the following reply today:

date: Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Subject: Re: Request for information under RSMo 610

….Pursuant to your request of October 25, 2009, requesting “1) Any communications or documents sent to the President of the Board of Governors, the members of the Board of Governors, or the President of the University concerning statements made on the radio by Greg Hassler; and 2) Any communications or documents in reply to those communications or documents (cited above) by the President of the Board of Governors, the members of the Board of Governors, or the President of the University,” I am attaching communications and documents that we have identified thus far.  We are continuing to search our records; if additional communications or documents are identified concerning statements made on the radio by Greg Hassler, they will be sent to you in a supplemental e-mail…

We were thinking we would receive copies of communications we’d heard about on the Campus Climate Survey from the President’s Commission on the Status of Women.

We didn’t. We sure did get something else, though.

We got a copy of a letter sent by Benoit Wesly to the President of the Board of Governors:

…Maastricht, October 22, 2009

…Dear Mr. President,

I take this opportunity to address you from Maastricht, The Netherlands, with the following.

By mail I received several times the text of a radio interview between Mr. Greg Hassler and Mrs. Marion Woods. I read the text carefully and I came to my personal conclusion, that this text has a anti-Semitic undertone. Secondly I received also by e-mail a protest sign on the door of a faculty office at the University of Central Missouri, showing a star of David with the word ‘Jude’, symbolizing the holocaust. This protest came from a Jewish faculty member.

I did understand that the radio station has an intensive business relation with the University of Central Missouri, an institution which had and still has my full support. It was a complete shock and still is, that a radio station makes such a horrible statement. I also found out, that the Christmas tree already disappeared during the time Mr. and Mrs. Patton did stay at Selmo Park.

I have the following questions:

Did you or the President of the university started an investigation to clarify the intentions of Mr. Greg Hassler and did you suspend the relationship with this radio station during the investigation. In case the answer is yes, when do you expect the outcome of this investigation and if no, why you have not started this investigation.

The fine reputation of your university is badly damaged by this radio interview. I am awaiting a positive answer, so I do not need to reconsider my relationship which was established 25 years ago with the University of Central Missouri.

Many thanks for your attention in this matter.

Best regards,

s/

Benoit Wesly

We also received a copy of the communication sent in response to Mr. Wesly by the President of the Board of Governors:

October 23, 2009

Mr. Benoit Wesly…

Dear Mr. Wesly:

Thank you for you letter of October 22, 2009 addressing issues at the University of Central Missouri.  You are a trusted and honored friend of the University and I appreciate your interest.

You are several thousand miles away from Warrensburg while I am fifty miles away yet you have information I do not have.  I do not have the text of the radio interview you speak of nor do I have official information on a protest sign.  The administration of our University has not shared that information with me or any other Board Member that I am aware of.  After receiving your message on October 22, I contacted our security staff to see if a complaint had been filed on any activity symbolizing the holocaust.  Nothing has been filed.

I have visited with our General Council on contract issues with the local radio station as this person brought to my attention requests for information on the contract between the University and the radio station.  Again, the University administration has not sent or communicated to the Board any information on this matter.

I am sharing a copy of a note I sent to our Board regarding a conversation I had with a media person in the Kansas City area last week that is self explanatory.  Make no mistake about it, our Board will not nor will our University tolerate any discriminatory act against any group.

I remain curious in trying to understand how and why a person or persons would share this with you when our Board has received nothing from our administration on this matter and why your communication copied the Governor of the State of Missouri when nothing has been sent to our Board.

We have a Board meeting next week on October 29 and I will bring this matter to the attention of our Board and will get back to you on any action taken.  Please be assured our University will not tolerate discriminatory acts against any group and I will personally look into this matter.

Thanks again for your interest in our University and for taking the time to share you’re thoughts with me.

Respectfully

Richard Phillips…

cc: Dr. Aaron Podolefsky, President

UCM Board of Governors

Governor State of Missouri, the Honorable Jay Nixon

Monica Huffman

Henry Setser

I attended the Board of Governors meeting. I recorded the Board of Governors meeting. I was there nearly an hour before it started. There was no discussion of the “matter,” the subject was not broached, let alone any action taken. I work for an attorney, so I utilized the resource and asked the obvious question: Is the matter of Hassler’s comments something that they could discuss in closed session? I got a one word response: “No.” Such discussion or action would not fall under the exclusionary provisions of the Missouri
Sunshine Law.

The public silence is deafening.

Our previous coverage:

Three steps behind, and to the right (January 25, 2008)

Three steps behind, and to the right, part 2 – a microcosm of our universe (September 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”? (October 15, 2009) (transcript of a portion of the live radio broadcast)

It wasn’t just about a tree (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: let’s not get cut out of the will (October 22, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: $87.75 will get you one sheet of paper (October 23, 2009)



“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: They’re not playing hardball, they’re playing cat and mouse  (October 23, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a cola and some scoreboards (October 24, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a few more pieces of the puzzle? (October 28, 2009)