"A Gentleman's Agreement"?: there ought to be a law

Tags

Aaron Podolefsky, meta, missouri, Missouri Sunshine Law, University of Central Missouri

This is the twenty-fourth 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

There is a law. In Missouri the so-called “Missouri Sunshine Law” (RSMo 610) is about open public records and is designed to promote transparency and accountability when it comes to public entities.

In the process we address our requests for information of the University of Central Missouri to their designated “Custodian of Records”.

One of the curious issues we had heard about prompted questions concerning the bond for the football stadium. We made a request for documents:

[….]

Sent: Fri, October 30, 2009 3:07:49 PM

Subject: request for information under RSMo 610

I am requesting the following information under RSMo 610:

1) A copy of the original bond document(s) for Audrey Walton Stadium.

2) A copy of any subsequent bond document(s) for Audrey Walton Stadium.

3) The list of names of the current holders of each of the “luxury suites” (individuals or entities who have made payments as required to hold such suites).

4) Document(s) showing the amounts and dates of each payment for each luxury suite from 1995 to present.

5) Document(s) showing the amounts, payments, and dates of payments toward the bond(s) and/or other University account(s) from the luxury suite payments from 1995 to present referred to in (4) above.

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

Thank you

[….]

[….]

Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 11:53:38 AM

Subject: Re: request for information under RSMo 610

[….]

The cost for researching and producing the requested information in your October 30, 2009, e-mail is $501.86. Please advise if you wish to receive this information. If so, it will be made available to you upon receipt of payment.

Sincerely,

[….]

Okay. That’s pricey. We asked for an explanation of the costs:

[….]11/5/2009 3:21 PM >>>

[….]

Thank you for your response of November 4, 2009 to my October 30, 2009 request under RSMo 610. Concerning the following, please provide an explanation/breakdown of the estimated clerical/copying costs for each of the five portions of the original request below (for the total estimated charges of $501.86 you provided in your response):

1) A copy of the original bond document(s)for Audrey Walton Stadium.

2) A copy of any subsequent bond document(s) for Audrey Walton Stadium.

3) The list of names of the current holders of each of the “luxury suites” (individuals or entities who have made payments as required to hold such suites).

4) Document(s) showing the amounts and dates of each payment for each luxury suite from 1995 to present.

5) Document(s) showing the amounts, payments, and dates of payments toward the bond(s) and/or other University account(s) from the luxury suite payments from 1995 to present referred to in (4) above.

Thank you

[….]

And we got this response and an attached spreadsheet:

[….]

Sent: Thu, November 5, 2009 4:07:32 PM

Subject: Re: request for information under RSMo 610

[….]

As shown in the attached document, fulfilling your “request” of October 30, 2009, requires much more than copying documents. The cost for fulfilling this request is $501.86. Please advise if you wish to receive this information. If so, it will be made available to you after receipt of payment.

Sincerely,

[….]

Notice that we didn’t get the specific breakdown of the costs associated with each of the distinct portions of the request. I mean, really, how much does it take to copy the bond documents. Or provide us with a list of the luxury suite holders?

Yeah, we’re gonna try to get the information from this piece of the puzzle. It may take us a little while, but we’ll get the information.

A response to a Missouri Sunshine Law request can tell you a lot if you ask the right questions, even if you don’t get a direct answer. Witness this exchange about a closed Board of Governors meeting in December 2008:

[….]

date: Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM

subject: Request for Information

I noted that the Board of Governors gave no reason for its decision.

I would like to request the following information:

1. Are the minutes for the October 2, 2009 Board of Governors meeting available?

2. Any and all motion language concerning the renewal of Dr. Aaron Podolefsky’s contract at December 2008 board meeting(s).

3. The vote totals on the motion(s) in December 2008.

4. The specific vote of each member of the Board of Governors on the motion(s) in December 2008.

5. Applicable minutes, if available, for December 2008.

Thank you.

[….]

[….]

date: Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:38 AM

subject: Re: Request for Information

[….]

I am responding to your request of October 14, 2009, where your ask for (1) the minutes of the October 2, 2009 and December 2008 Board of Governors Closed Sessions; and (2) “any and all motion language. . . vote totals. . . [and] specific vote of each member of the Board of Governors” pertaining to the renewal of Dr. Podolfesky’s contract during the December 2008 Closed Session. Under the Missouri Sunshine Law, the minutes of the Closed Sessions are not subject to disclosure. Additionally, there were no reportable actions taken under the Missouri Sunshine Law during the December 2008 meeting.

Sincerely,

[….]

Custodian of Records

[….]

date: Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:10 PM

subject: Re: Request for Information

As regards any December 2008 closed-session meeting(s) of the Board of Governors and pursuant to RSMo § 610 et seq, please provide copies of all records comprising, reflecting or referencing each motion made during that meeting. In addition, for each motion identified, include (1) the identity of the person who made the motion, (2) the identity of the person who seconded the motion, (3) the results of each vote on the motion, (4) the identity of each person who voted on the motion, and (5) how each person voted.

“610.21(3) Hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting of particular employees by a public governmental body when personal information about the employee is discussed or recorded. However, any vote on a final decision, when taken by a public governmental body, to hire, fire, promote or discipline an employee of a public governmental body shall be made available with a record of how each member voted to the public within seventy-two hours of the close of the meeting where such action occurs; provided, however, that any employee so affected shall be entitled to prompt notice of such decision during the seventy-two-hour period before such decision is made available to the public. As used in this subdivision, the term “personal information” means information relating to the performance or merit of individual employees”

Is it the assertion of the Board of Governors that a contract extension vote is “personal information…relating to the performance or merit of individual employees”?

The law intends that public, governmental actions be transparent:

610.022(4). Nothing in sections 610.010 to 610.028 shall be construed as to require a public governmental body to hold a closed meeting, record or vote to discuss or act upon any matter. 610.22(5) Public records shall be presumed to be open unless otherwise
exempt pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

[….]

[….]

date: Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:31 AM

subject: Re: Request for Information

[….]

Chapter 610.21(3) of the Missouri Sunshine Law states “Except to the extent disclosure is otherwise required by law, a public governmental body is authorized to close meetings, records and votes, to the extent they relate to the following: . . .Hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting of particular employees by a public governmental body when personal information about the employee is discussed or recorded. However, any vote on a final decision, when taken by a public governmental body, to hire, fire, promote or discipline an employee of a public governmental body shall be made available with a record of how each member voted to the public within seventy-two hours of the close of the meeting where such action occurs; provided, however, that any employee so affected shall be entitled to prompt notice of such decision during the seventy-two-hour period before such decision is made available to the public. . .”

There was no vote(s) taken on any final action during the Board of Governors’ December 5, 2008, Closed Session; therefore, there is no reportable action.

Sincerely,

[….]

Custodian of Records

[emphasis in original provided by the sender]

We suspected such. They had a vote, but they won’t tell us what it is because they think it wasn’t “final”. They told us that in the last e-mail of the series, don’t you think?

Coupled with the contact with then Faculty Senate President Jack Rogers late in 2007 (initiated by a single board member) inquiring about reactions to buying out the president’s contract, is it any wonder that Aaron Podolefsky entertained inquiries from other institutions? He has been bludgeoned in private and public (we’ve heard this first hand) for “looking for jobs elsewhere” – something which is the norm for upper level administrators in higher education.

The public silence of the board about their actions on Aaron Podolefsky’s contract during the previous two years serves a useful purpose. It encourages a woeful ignorance of current and past reality from individuals in the community when they write letters to the editor of the local paper – this one just from the previous week.

That appears to serve the purpose(s) of the four member majority of the board quite well, don’t you think?

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)