This is the fifty-first 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

Today I received a phone call in my office at approximately 9:20 a.m. from an individual who identified himself as a faculty member in the College of Education. A rough paraphrase of the conversation, leaving out some of it, follows:

Caller: Had been reading the coverage on the blog, especially the recent material on [Benoit] Wesly’s contributions to the University. Were you aware of the circumstances of the annual contributions of [Benoit] Wesly? [And I’m thinking, why are you calling me?]

Me: I had heard some information along those lines. Those circumstances are not rare for contributors – relationships are built over long periods of time.

Caller: The contributions came at a net cost to the university. Why don’t you cover that?

Me: You can take a look at every contributor in this fashion. If you have information [on Benoit Wesly] you can sign up and post it.

[The Foundation has only released information to the Board of Governors about Benoit Wesly’s giving history. Absent the giving history of every other contributor to the Foundation this would be difficult, if not impossible, to confirm. How convenient.]

Caller: This [coverage of the story] is not good for the University. Not going to talk about the other things.

Me: We only have parts of the story. We’ve heard the whisper campaign, so we asked for documents. We get resistance, but when we do get documents they show that there is no there there. We are still looking at a charge of $501.86 for documents.

Caller: Well, if you want it go ahead and pay it. [I didn’t think at this point that it would be fruitful to ask for assistance with the cost.]

Education makes money. The Harmon College of Business loses money. Music and Nursing lose money.

Me: And what kind of University are we? What kind of University would we be without them?

Caller: I’m not here to debate. I don’t have the time. You and Bob Yates like to debate. I don’t have the time to go into it.

Me: You brought it up.

Caller: How do you have time as a full professor to do this?

Me: It comes out of my hide. I do this on my own time.

Caller: Are you doing this from your campus computer?

Me: I have a laptop.

Caller: If you’re using your campus computer, that’s a problem. [I’m thinking, are you deaf? Are you calling me from your campus phone? And if so, is that a problem?]

Me: If you think that’s the case, then do something about it.

Caller: I’m done. [hangup]

In case anyone is wondering, I wrote this from my laptop computer.

Next time send someone smarter.

Our previous coverage of the issue:

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)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio, part 2 (October 31, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: where everybody knows your name (October 31, 2009)

Methinks that someone is paying attention! (November 2, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Bond, Stadium Bond (November 4, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: where everybody knows your name, part 2 (November 4, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: I heard it on the radio, part 3 (November 5, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: nothing succeeds like success (November 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your Friday news dump (November 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: nothing exceeds like excess (November 7, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a grade for Accounting 101 (November 7, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law (November 8, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there’s gotta be a contract around here somewhere (November 9, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law, part 2 (November 10, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Garbo speaks! (November 12, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle (November 13, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”? Follow the money and it reveals the timeline (November 14, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: the new president search consulting contract (November 18, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a march on a cold and rainy day (November 18, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: raise their voices (November 19, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: great moments in radio reporting (November 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Oh, my! (December 3, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: It’s simple, really… (December 5, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: I do truly care about the success of our students (December 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: “…a wonderful relationship there we’re really proud of…” (December 7, 2009)

Oh brother, it’s time to convene another panel on blogger ethics… (December 8, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a lesson on how not to attempt damage control (January 26, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a lesson on how not to attempt damage control, part 2 (January 28, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: welcome to the party… (February 1, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: welcome to the party, four months late, part 2 (February 2, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: those people from Denmark, you know, the Dutch (February 3, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a conversation with the Muleskinner (February 6, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a simple question (February 8, 2010)

Find the Non-Employee Game! (February 8, 2010)(NYCMule)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a different choice of phrase would have made it all better (February 11, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: never mind the facts, here’s right wingnut talk radio (February 13, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: and we should give weight to your opinion… (February 18, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: fools for spin (February 20, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: fools rush in… (February 21, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Who’s the more foolish… (February 25, 2010)

Earlier I remarked on FiredUp!‘s report that Roy Blunt had been selected to be part of the House GOP’s “truth squad” monitoring today’s health care summit. The Kansas City Star captured what I think must have been a common reaction to this announcement:

So here’s a truth about that GOP truth squad: It won’t have to look very far to find “mistakes” and “errors” and even “lies” in Obama’s measure.

In fact, I would be very disappointed with Boehner and his truth squad if it didn’t already have all its “true” facts lined up right now, ready to trot out at a moment’s notice on Thursday.

And here’s the pudding that provides the proof of that wise prognostication:

Predigested focus group pablum – makes your blood boil doesn’t it? I’m getting pretty sick of Blunt et al. claiming to speak for Americans, and, in Blunt’s case, Missourians. He certainly doesn’t seem to be listening to me or anyone I know – and most of us definitely belong to both categories. But then again, perhaps Blunt is actually speaking for a very particular species of American – rich ones with skin in the insurance game.

If you don’t know what I mean, just consider the fact that beginning March 10, insurance lobbyists will be throwing three big fundraising bashes for Mr. Blunt – with suggested donations ranging from $1000 to $5000.  Kind of makes learning the truth-squad script worth the effort, doesn’t it?

Day three of filing produced 7 more filings. Propelling our overall total all the way to 436.

The 7 who filed include two incumbents (Ryan McKenna, D-SD22 and Barney Joe Fisher, R-HD125). Also filing were Libertarian Steve Mosbacher of Manchester in the 2nd Congressional District. Former State Senator John Cauthorn of Mexico filed in HD21 (a district shaped like a giant on a tiny riding lawnmower), a seat opened by the terming out of Republican Steve Hobbs. 2008 Democratic candidate Kelly Schultz is running again in the 21st. Libertarian Teddy Fleck bounces back from his 2008 Lt. Gubernatorial campaign to run in the 140th. Democrat Simon Joe Boyer of Irondale filed in the 152nd. Boyer is probably making his first run since 2002 (unless Simon Joe Boyer and Joe Boyer are different people in Irondale) and the other Democratic candidate for this seat is Shane Van Steenis of Eminence, who also ran in 2002. And a the 7th filing was a Republican filing for Circuit Court Judge.

When it comes to the party candidate gap (233 to 177 now) being hyped by Lloyd Smith, it’s worth keeping in mind that Republicans have 9 candidates to succeed Kit Bond, 8 to succeed Roy Blunt, and close to 40 contested primaries (including 30 for open Republican seats). The fact that there’s 0 Democratic candidates against Todd Akin, Sam Graves or Blaine Luetkemeyer doesn’t hurt the Republican numerical advantage of 25 to 8 in Congressional races.

So, of course they have more candidates, because a lot of Republican seats are open and officeholders are trying to move up the ladder.

The Over/under for the number of Friday filers should be around 10. I think that a few more random people should show up and it’s a Friday. The only big bump in filers I see in the next week or so is when the five Congress members who haven’t filed get the chance to visit Jeff City. As for the state offices, I think there’s only one other Incumbent who hasn’t filed and is probably seeking re-election.

…The fool, or the fool who follows him?

This is the fiftieth 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

As reported in today’s print edition of the Muleskinner, the student newspaper at the University of Central Missouri, on February 25th in open session the University’s Board of Governors unanimously approved the content of a letter to be sent to Benoit Wesly concerning their opinion of the on air radio comments by Greg Hassler:

February 24, 2010

Mr. Benoit Wesly

[….]

Dear Mr. Wesly:

The Board of Governors is responsible for the governance of the University of Central Missouri, and in that capacity has enacted rules, regulations, and policies that clearly specify that discrimination is forbidden at the University. The Board reviewed the matter of the statement attributed to the radio announcer and does not believe the content of the statement was discriminatory, nor was it intended to be discriminatory.  The [text obscured] has been advised that Mr. Hassler made a public statement thereafter, stating that he meant nothing discriminatory and apologized for any controversy caused by his comments….

….Mr. Hassler is not an employee of the University of Central Missouri and is not authorized to issue any statement on behalf of the University. It is indeed unfortunate that what was apparently an innocent comment has been blown out of proportion. The Board takes claims of discrimination very seriously, but it would appear that the remarks were not of any negative impact upon this university, and frankly drew no attention or comment whatsoever until following the orchestrated release of your first communication and subsequent communications about the statement.

The Board is regretful that you have chosen to to take the word of whoever is providing you information over the efforts of the Board and Board President to rationally review this situation. We thank you for your past contributions to the University. It is unfortunate that you have further chosen to withdraw future support of this institution and its students. You certainly have the right to your opinion to do so, and you have exercised that right because you disagree with the Board. This matter is deemed to be closed. We will find a way to keep the institution and its students from being disadvantaged.

Sincerely,

s/

Weldon Brady, Secretary

UCM Board of Governors

“…Mr. Hassler is not an employee of the University of Central Missouri and is not authorized to issue any statement on behalf of the University…”

Uh, his radio station (he’s a minority owner) has an exclusive ten year contract [pdf] with the University to broadcast its sporting events. And he’s certainly a ubiquitous presence in the University’s athletic program publicity.

“…has been advised that Mr. Hassler made a public statement thereafter, stating that he meant nothing discriminatory and apologized for any controversy caused by his comments…”

Here’s the on air “apology” from December 10, 2009:

…Greg Hassler: …But there’s another blogger out there that has taken some things that I have said, eh, out of context and has spun them around and at, attacked me on blogs, calling me a racist, a bigot, which I’m not. They’ve also called me anti-Semitic, which I’m not. I love all people of all religions, I do. I’m not anti-Semitic.

other voice: I would agree with that.

Greg Hassler: You know what I am?

other voice: What are you?

Greg Hassler: I’m a big Mules and Jennies basketball fan, [laughter] that’s what I am….

…Hassler told The Kansas City Star that his remark “was spun out of context” and he apologized on the air in December.

“I said that is not what I meant,” Hassler said. “I have nothing against anybody at all. I am not anti-Semitic.

“Did I actually say I was sorry? No, but I think that could be considered an apology. The whole thing is just silly…”

Ah, yes, a silly non-apology apology. That would work for a governing board, I’m sure.

“…The Board is regretful that you have chosen to to take the word of whoever is providing you information over the efforts of the Board and Board President to rationally review this situation…”

That’s a recurring theme. Not too concerned about the comment, but certainly are concerned about the exposure.

….You are several thousand miles away from Warrensburg while I am fifty miles away yet you have information I do not have….

….I remain curious in trying to understand how and why a person or persons would share this with you….

….you know, this Wesly guy who lives in Denmark, this, you know, he’s Dutch, lives in Denmark. How does he even hear about this from a little radio station in Warrensburg, Missouri….?

Which fool is leading?

Shining the light of day on anti-Semitism can get uncomfortable, especially when one is on the receiving end of the public scrutiny.

“…We will find a way to keep the institution and its students from being disadvantaged….”

The immediate resignation of the board members who approved such a disingenuous letter would be a good start in achieving that shared goal.

Apparently the Board’s opinion doesn’t hold complete sway in the community. There was a letter to the editor in yesterday’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

….What is difficult to understand is why the board tolerated Hassler’s attacks. They certainly did not need Hassler to help them select a new president. So what, really, was Hassler’s role?

My personal perspective is that the board and Hassler have a hidden agenda. Some day that will all come out.

An agenda? Really?

And which fool is leading? Greg Hassler or the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors?

…Who’s the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?

Our previous coverage of the issue:

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)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio, part 2 (October 31, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: where everybody knows your name (October 31, 2009)

Methinks that someone is paying attention! (November 2, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Bond, Stadium Bond (November 4, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: where everybody knows your name, part 2 (November 4, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: I heard it on the radio, part 3 (November 5, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: nothing succeeds like success (November 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your Friday news dump (November 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: nothing exceeds like excess (November 7, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a grade for Accounting 101 (November 7, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law (November 8, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there’s gotta be a contract around here somewhere (November 9, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law, part 2 (November 10, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Garbo speaks! (November 12, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle (November 13, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”? Follow the money and it reveals the timeline (November 14, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: the new president search consulting contract (November 18, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a march on a cold and rainy day (November 18, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: raise their voices (November 19, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: great moments in radio reporting (November 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Oh, my! (December 3, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: It’s simple, really… (December 5, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: I do truly care about the success of our students (December 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: “…a wonderful relationship there we’re really proud of…” (December 7, 2009)

Oh brother, it’s time to convene another panel on blogger ethics… (December 8, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a lesson on how not to attempt damage control (January 26, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a lesson on how not to attempt damage control, part 2 (January 28, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: welcome to the party… (February 1, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: welcome to the party, four months late, part 2 (February 2, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: those people from Denmark, you know, the Dutch (February 3, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a conversation with the Muleskinner (February 6, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a simple question (February 8, 2010)

Find the Non-Employee Game! (February 8, 2010)(NYCMule)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a different choice of phrase would have made it all better (February 11, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: never mind the facts, here’s right wingnut talk radio (February 13, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: and we should give weight to your opinion… (February 18, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: fools for spin (February 20, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: fools rush in… (February 21, 2010)

For those who want to follow today’s Health Care Summit while it is happening, the Sunlight Foundation is simultaneously matching  the rhetoric with information about the speaker’s health industry campaign donors, etc.

Think Progress offers a Viewer’s Guide to the Bipartisan Health Care Summit, in case you want the nitty-gritty on the narrative.

Via FiredUp! we learn that Roy “Pants-on-Fire” Blunt has been selected to head-up the GOP truth squad monitoring the summit. Says it all, doesn’t it?

Still More

Here’s a list of attendees.

And yet more

Ezra Klein is doing great job refuting GOP talking points in his live-blogging.

More and More

The Huffington Post offers analysis from assorted cognoscenti.

Okay, it’s late and I am admittedly fit for nothing serious, but when I came across this TPM review of the new Michele Bachmann comic, a crudely drawn electric bulb lit up in the psychic balloon that is always floating above my head just in case I get an idea. The latest issue of the Bachmann comic series is filled with actual statements about gays made by Bachmann, the current Queen of Crazy Republicanland – and, while tragic, they’re also a scream. Earlier issues emphasize her other pseudo-political preoccupations to equal effect.

Starting from the premise that ridicule is the best way to neutralize folks who are both obscene and absurd, wouldn’t it be just loverly if somebody put out a series of comic books about some of our Missouri crazies? Wouldn’t you buy titles like, say,  Calamity Jane Cunningham Hunts the Disappearing Constitution, Cynthia Davis at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, Todd Akin’s Fantastic American History,The Godfather Blunt, or Strange Climate Science with Blaine Luetkemeyer? There are almost unlimited possibilities.  

Alternatively, following the example of baseball cards, one could just print the most outrageous statements made by our fringewing celebs on collectible cards – or maybe put together a flash card game where one would have to guess who said what. So much of what these folks say manages to be so appalling and yet so amusingly fantastical at the same time that I can’t understand why some enterprising soul hasn’t already done something along these lines – perhaps, as a handy campaign aid?

The final vote total was 406 to 19 and every member of the Missouri delegation voted for this except two.

Todd Akin voted against this and Roy Blunt didn’t show up today, coincidentally.

Wonder how Roy Blunt would vote on cloture for the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act (HR 4626).