This is the forty-eighth 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

The student newspaper at the University of Central Missouri, the Muleskinner, published the following unsigned lead editorial in its February 18, 2010 edition (page 4, voices, and yes, we asked):

Board Of Governors’ Secret Selection Process Wrong For University

UCM’s Board of Governors isn’t totally inept – it can still spin the truth and fib fairly well.

The Board decided on Feb. 4 that the presidential search would be conducted in secret. Board President Richard Phillips sent a letter to the campus community stating that candidates would be reluctant to apply to UCM if the names of our applicants were made public because they expected retribution from the candidates’ current employers….

….This decision obviously stems from the Board’s reaction to UCM President Aaron Podolefsky’s having an interview or two over the years.

The Board fails to realize that very few Boards of Governors or Regents are as vindictive and petty as they are….

….The only possible reasons for conducting the presidential search in secret are:

1) The Board actively plans to violate the law in hiring a candidate.

2) The Board already has its choice for president and the search is just a sham.

3) The Board realizes that they will be unable to secure viable candidates of an equal or greater caliber than the president they just threw away like last night’s leftovers.

4) The Board has no confidence in itself and is running scared of potential controversy….

….It is time the Board of Governors starts working in the best interests of the University instead of acting like a high school clique.

It is important to note that Aaron Podolefsky only started interviewing for other positions after Richard Phillips made an inquiry of then Faculty Senate President Jack Rogers in late 2007 about possible faculty reaction to the Board buying out the president’s contract.

Coincidentally, we filled some Missouri Sunshine Law requests.

From: Michael Bersin [….]

Date: Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:22 AM

Subject: Request for information – RSMo 610

Under RSMo 610 I am requesting the following:

1. In the period from December 1, 2009 to this date – any communications or documents sent or received by the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors or any member of the Board of Governors concerning the giving or gift history of Benoit Wesly to the CMSU/UCM Foundation.

2. In the period from December 1, 2009 to this date – any communications or documents sent or received by the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors or any member of the Board of Governors concerning the giving or gift history of any other individual to the CMSU/UCM Foundation.

Under RSMo 610.026 I am requesting a waiver of any copying fee since this request is “in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the public governmental body and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.”

Thank you. [….]

We received the following somewhat testy reply:

[….]

To: Michael Bersin [….]

Date: Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Subject: Re: Request for information – RSMo 610

[….]

On February 17, 2010, you made a request for records under the Missouri Sunshine Law and asked for a waiver of fees since  you viewed the request to be in the public’s interest.  Be advised that this fee is being waived not because it is in the public’s best interest, but because the cost of providing the documents to you is very minimal (70 cents).

The requested information is available and may be picked up from my office in ADM 202.  I will leave it in an envelope at the front desk.

[….]

Custodian of Records [….]

[emphasis in original]

Okay. We still think it’s in the public’s interest to know what a public entity is doing.

Does this mean we’re going to get back the $87.75 we paid for one page?

This is the start of what we got for the seventy cents we didn’t have to pay – an e-mail addressed to Joseph Kremer, Chief Development Officer and Executive Director of the UCM Foundation:

[….]1/28/2010 10:32 AM [….]

I have had a request from the Board to obtain information from the Foundation concerning the history of Mr. Ben Wesly’s giving to UCM. Please advise if and when this information can be provided. Thank you. [….]

Now, we have to ask, why would the Board of Governors want to know the details of Benoit Wesly’s giving to the University of Central Missouri Foundation?

Speaking of spin, a letter to the editor written by an individual appeared in the February 8th edition of the local paper, the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

…If we allow this European to hold UCM hostage over this perceived derogatory comment, then we are throwing our sense of right and wrong under the bus in order to continue to receive his favor. If his gifts came with strings attached then those strings should have been identified prior to his giving, and our accepting them. I feel that his gifts come at too high a price. Possibly we should rename the Maastricht Friendship Tower, and call it the Wesley Hostage Tower….

Or, we could spell Benoit Wesly’s last name correctly and call it a draw. Wait, who else keeps spelling Benoit Wesly’s last name incorrectly?

Back to the Board’s request for information. Joe Kremer replied:

[….] 1/28/2010 5:38 PM [….]

After consultation with Dale Zank, president of the UCM Foundation Board of Directors, we have asked our legal counsel, Stinson, Morrison, Hacker LLP, to weigh in on the request. We are sensitive to the issuance of donor information to any outside individual or agency, and feel it appropriate not to respond until counsel has had an opportunity to present their opinion.

Respectfully [….]

Another e-mail to members of the Board of Governors explains:

[….]

To:  Richard Philips; [….] Wright, Marvin

Date: 1/29/2010 3:19 PM

Subject: Fwd: Release of Donor Information

CC: Setser, Henry

Please see the response to the inquiry/request for information pertaining to Ben Wesly’s giving.

[….]

Joseph Kremer 1/29/2010 2:57 PM [….]

The Foundation’s legal counsel, Stinson, Morrison, Hecker LLP, recommends that all donor information be kept confidential. Their interpretation of the law is that we have the ability to keep such giving history private.

We feel that were it to be known that the Foundation releases such information to outside agencies or individuals, we would experience a chilling effect on our ability to solicit and secure future gifts.

The giving information regarding the Tower referenced in the article (“the 1997 article in UCM’s Alumni Today said his gift was more than $300,000”) is public information, and can be thought of as accurate.

Dale Zank, president of the Foundation Board, will be calling Weldon Brady to discuss with him our position.

Thanks. [….]

Joe Kremer

Chief Development Officer

Executive Director, UCM Foundation [….]

Weldon Brady, a member of the Board of Governors, wrote a letter to Joe Kremer:

February 1, 2010

Mr. Joe Kremer

University Director & Chief

  Development Officer

University of central Missouri

ADM 201

Warrensburg, Missouri 64093

Dear Joe:

In reviewing my e-mails over the weekend, I first learned of the request of fellow Board of Governor member Marvin Wright for donor information and must say I was surprised by your response.  I presume your reference to me in your response is because of my liaison to the Foundation, which in and of itself seems to confirm, of course, the affiliation between the university and the Foundation.

In order that I may be prepared to answer any questions that may arise regarding this issue, would you please afford me the following information:

1. Is it your legal counsel’s specific opinion  that the information requested be denied Mr. Wright and/or UCM’s Board of Governors, or is it a general recommendation that all donor information be confidential.

2. Is it your opinion that Mr. Wright or the university is “an individual or outside agency?”

3. If I were to make a similar request as past president and emeriti Foundation Board member, would that request be denied. Further, if a Foundation Board officer and/or Foundation Board member made a similar request, would it be denied?

4. Is it your position and the opinion of the legal counsel that the Missouri Sunshine Law does not apply to the Foundation?

Thank you Joe for your prompt response to these questions.

Sincerely,

s/

Weldon Brady, Secretary

Board of Governors

Cc: UCM Board of Governors

Dale Zank, UCM Foundation Board President

Dr. Aaron Podolefsky, University President

[emphasis in original]

Evidently somebody changed their mind, but they didn’t do so in writing. We got the list.

We received no other communications or documents concerning other donors in response to this Missouri Sunshine Law request.

As of March 1, 2010 Joe Kremer has accepted a position elsewhere and will no longer be working for the University or the Foundation.

Well, we do know that the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors are subject to the Missouri Sunshine Law. Kind of explains one of the practical aspects of Joe Kremers’s position, doesn’t it? If the University and the Foundation are one and the same, we’re going to request some information we’re interested in from the Foundation.

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)

The wealthy have always been more equal than the rest of us, even when the Republic was still a babe and even in the aftermath of FDR. But it’s far worse these last thirty years. You’ve bitched and moaned, am I right? that we need elections funded by public dollars and small donors. You’ve ranted and ground your teeth that any legislator who wants to can leave Congress and immediately triple his salary working as a lobbyist. Until recently, getting an indifferent Congress to fix those problems–impossible as that seemed–were all (all?!) we would have needed to do to make the commoners equal … sort of, anyway … to the moneyed interests. But now SCOTUS has ruled that corporations may waltz in and purchase any election that takes their fancy. Now that the Court has upped the ante for even getting dealt a hand of cards in this country’s democracy, the citizenry won’t be in the game at all unless we can ante up. And the only way to do that is with a Constitutional amendment to rein in corporate spending in our elections.

Rep. Donna Edwards has proposed a bill to start that process, and Free Speech for PEOPLE.org is organizing a national campaign to support her.

Friday morning, I called Rep. Lacy Clay’s office to ask whether Clay is aware and supportive of Rep. Edwards’ proposed amendment. Not yet, it seems. Or at least, Britney in his office is not. She said she’d look into it and get back to me. A few more phone calls (202-224-6154) might make Clay aware more quickly. Other Missouri representatives need to be asked the same question. (You can get their phone numbers here.)

Actually, Lawrence Lessig, writing for The Nation about “How to get our democracy back” would tell me I’m dreaming if I think Congress is going to initiate the absolutely crucial Constitutional amendment. He might mention that Roberts et. al. have effectively granted Big Business the right to blast out of the water any legislator that doesn’t cozy up to it, and to support that claim Lessig could point to what Edwards herself said: namely that she worries that corporations will spend money attacking her in her own district for even presuming to offer an amendment. She’s doing it anyway, but then she’s one of the brave ones.

But Lessig does lay out what he thinks needs to be done. He has this vision:

What would the reform the Congress needs be? At its core, a change that restores institutional integrity. A change that rekindles a reason for America to believe in the central institution of its democracy by removing the dependency that now defines the Fundraising Congress. Two changes would make that removal complete. Achieving just one would have made Obama the most important president in a hundred years.

That one–and first–would be to enact an idea proposed by a Republican (Teddy Roosevelt) a century ago: citizen-funded elections. America won’t believe in Congress, and Congress won’t deliver on reform, whether from the right or the left, until Congress is no longer dependent upon conservative-with-a-small-c interests–meaning those in the hire of the status quo, keen to protect the status quo against change. So long as the norms support a system in which members sell out for the purpose of raising funds to get re-elected, citizens will continue to believe that money buys results in Congress. So long as citizens believe that, it will.

Citizen-funded elections could come in a number of forms. The most likely is the current bill sponsored in the House by Democrat John Larson and Republican Walter Jones, in the Senate by Democrats Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter. That bill is a hybrid between traditional public funding and small-dollar donations. Under this Fair Elections Now Act (which, by the way, is just about the dumbest moniker for the statute possible, at least if the sponsors hope to avoid Supreme Court invalidation), candidates could opt in to a system that would give them, after clearing certain hurdles, substantial resources to run a campaign. Candidates would also be free to raise as much money as they want in contributions maxed at $100 per citizen.

The only certain effect of this first change would be to make it difficult to believe that money buys any results in Congress. A second change would make that belief impossible: banning any member of Congress from working in any lobbying or consulting capacity in Washington for seven years after his or her term. Part of the economy of influence that corrupts our government today is that Capitol Hill has become, as Representative Jim Cooper put it, a “farm league for K Street.” But K Street will lose interest after seven years, and fewer in Congress would think of their career the way my law students think about life after law school–six to eight years making around $180,000, and then doubling or tripling that as a partner, where “partnership” for members of Congress means a comfortable position on K Street.

Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, I thought these changes alone would be enough at least to get reform started. But the clear signal of the Roberts Court is that any reform designed to muck about with whatever wealth wants is constitutionally suspect. And while it would take an enormous leap to rewrite constitutional law to make the Fair Elections Now Act unconstitutional, Citizens United demonstrates that the Court is in a jumping mood. And more ominously, the market for influence that that decision will produce may well overwhelm any positive effect that Fair Elections produces.

This fact has led some, including now me, to believe that reform needs people who can walk and chew gum at the same time. Without doubt, we need to push the Fair Elections Now Act. But we also need to begin the process to change the Constitution to assure that reform can survive the Roberts Court. That constitutional change should focus on the core underlying problem: institutional independence. The economy of influence that grips Washington has destroyed Congress’s independence. Congress needs the power to restore it, by both funding elections to secure independence and protecting the context within which elections occur so that the public sees that integrity.

No amendment would come from this Congress, of course. But the framers left open a path to amendment that doesn’t require the approval of Congress–a convention, which must be convened if two-thirds of the states apply for it. Interestingly (politically) those applications need not agree on the purpose of the convention. Some might see the overturning of Citizens United. Others might want a balanced budget amendment. The only requirement is that two-thirds apply, and then begins the drama of an unscripted national convention to debate questions of fundamental law.

Many fear a convention, worrying that our democracy can’t process constitutional innovation well. I don’t share that fear, but in any case, any proposed amendment still needs thirty-eight states to ratify it. There are easily twelve solid blue states in America and twelve solid red states. No one should fear that change would be too easy.

No doubt constitutional amendments are politically impossible–just as wresting a republic from the grip of a monarchy, or abolishing slavery or segregation, or electing Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama was “politically impossible.” But conventional minds are always wrong about pivot moments in a nation’s history. Obama promised this was such a moment. The past year may prove that he let it slip from his hand.

For this, democracy pivots. It will either spin to restore integrity or it will spin further out of control. Whether it will is no longer a choice. Our only choice is how.

Okay, suppose Lessig is right and it turns out that Congress finds the idea of promoting a constitutional amendment to rein in corporate spending just to-o-o plebian to contemplate. Suppose a Constitutional convention does turn out to be our only alternative. Bet on it that if Missouri voted in favor of one, it wouldn’t be for the purpose of overturning Citizens United. It would be for the purpose of “urging Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.” Sen. Schmitt, R-Glendale, is already sponsoring SCR 36. Think he wouldn’t do backflips at a chance to make that one a reality? Or maybe Republican mouths would water over a chance to “Reaffirm Missouri’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment”. Sen. Jim Lembke, R-some other galaxy, has sponsored SCR 34 and already has seven co-sponsors: Jane Cunningham, District 7; Scott Rupp, District 2; Chuck Purgason, District 33; Rob Mayer, District 25; Gary Nodler, District 32; Eric Schmitt, District 15; and Bill Stouffer, District 21. See? That’s eight full out nuts–more than a third of their party’s number in the Senate–who would be on board without a backward glance. Throw in a few Democrats who’d like to see Citizens United overturned and some Republicans who’d be bound to straggle in and vote for it: voila, the Missouri Senate votes for a Constitutional convention. And the senate is the sane chamber in our legislature. It would be voting ditto for what the House had already passed.

A Constitutional convention would be one hair on fire event. Scary. But what choice do we have? We might as well go out with a bang. It’s better than a whimper.

What now passes for piercing logic and consistency in political discourse among right wingnuttia:

Today, in Warrensburg, Missouri – on a car with Kansas plates.

Rah. Sarah Palin 2012. Run, Sarah, run.

From his campaign tour bus, Roy Blunt twitters:

Missourians are enterprising people. We don’t need the govt to create jobs. We’ll create jobs if govt will move over. #RoyBluntBusTour

Before we let Mr. Blunt get away with this, there are a few inconvenient facts that he needs to explain.

As of December 2009, Missouri’s unemployment rate was 9.6%, very close to the highest ever recorded rate of 10.3% in 1983. That miserable statistic, of course, is the result of the deepest national recession since the great depression, brought to us, as all honest economists agree, by the tax and regulation cutting GOP. The lowest unemployment rate recorded in Missouri was 2.3% in 2000, under the liberal Mel Carnahan, during the last years of the liberal Clinton administration.

When Roy’s son, little Matty, ascended to the Missouri statehouse, he along with his Republican legislative enforcers in Jefferson City brought unemployment to highs of 6-8%. Doesn’t actually inspire confidence in Mr. Blunt’s grandiose claims about what he and his anti-government fellow travelers can achieve, does it?

Of course, there’s also the inconvenient fact that government interference in the form of the stimulus, maligned as it is by good old boys like Roy, probably saved our goose – even though it’s still a skinny old bird. The question is whether or not the likes of Roy Blunt, touting their failed economic theology, are the people to fatten the goose back up and give us some of those golden eggs.    

* Communis rixatrix: a common scold, “a species of public nuisance – a troublesome and angry woman who broke the public peace by habitually arguing and quarreling with her neighbours.”

Do you sometimes wonder about the mental state of the fringiest of our Republican legislators?  Consider the following recent examples of shrill and clueless scolding on the part of two of the people elected to represent us:

–At a hearing on anti-abortion legislation, State Senator Jane Cunningham felt it appropriate to ask witness Michelle Trupianio, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood, if she had ever had an abortion. When Trupiano appropriately responded that it was none of Cunningham’s business, Cunningham proceeded to badger her until Senator Matt Bartle “reminded her to allow witnesses to answer the questions asked of them.”

–A couple of weeks ago, Rep. Cynthia Davis rudely and aggressively questioned an African-American witness at a hearing before the House Health Care Committee about the nutrition practices of “your people,” and “your community.” Davis also quizzed the witness about her religious background as if it were relevant, and brought up her own personal opinions about the choices she believes food stamp recipients make.

Both of these women used their relatively powerful positions to bully and belittle people whom they clearly consider to be not only different from themselves, but threatening and inferior. What should have been dispassionate forums to explore issues were perverted into irrelevant personal inquisitions by a couple of two-bit Torquemadas.

All of which came to my mind when I read a recent column by Nick Kristoff in the New York Times. Kristoff described research that suggests that people whom we commonly classify as “liberal” or “conservative” may have significantly different cognitive structures from each other. Research that looked at startle responses and other neurological markers lined up with  earlier research that found that conservatives:

tend to see the world in stark, black-and-white terms, perceive the social order as vulnerable or under attack, tend to make strong distinctions between “us” and “them,” and emphasize order and muscular responses to threats.

Sounds about right, doesn’t it?  The more offensive people like Cunningham and Davis seem, the more they are really playing defense. What this research implies is that they represent extreme degrees of a common neurological bias. When you mix their biological inclination to respond with fear or disgust with simple-minded religious or political ideology, you get holy warriors (jihadists?), bent on running roughshod over all the infidels who don’t see the world just like they do – a conclusion that is not too encouraging for those who believe in rational give-and-take, but it could add an important dimension to theories of persuasion such as, for example, Lakoffian “framing.”

…because you’ve always demonstrated an affinity for accuracy and facts, right?

This is the forty-seventh 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 Greg Hassler, part owner of KOKO radio and erstwhile tree decorating critic, opined on presidential searches at state universities:

…Greg Hassler: …Good morning Woody.

Marion Woods: How-dee.

Greg Hassler: You know, there’s two things.

Marion Woods: Uh, huh.

Greg Hassler: That I’ve always kind of hung my hat on. [crosstalk]

Marion Woods: What’s that? [crosstalk]

Greg Hassler: I’ve always had two theories in life that were always pretty good, Number one, you’re never gonna see a shut out in basketball. [laughter] And number two, if you apply for enough jobs eventually you’re gonna get one.

Marion Woods: Think so?

Greg Hassler: I’ve never seen a shut out in basketball, but Aaron’s rolling, pretty getting close. He’s getting close. Didn’t get the Youngstown State deal.

Marion Woods: Yeah.

Greg Hassler: Buffalo State’s still out there.

Marion Woods: Yup.

Greg Hassler: He applied for Florida Atlantic. Just got that information, uh, late last night.

Marion Woods: Oh, really?

Greg Hassler: With forty-one other people, so, I don’t know. Throwin’ those darts, eventually one sticks on the board.

Marion Woods: Yeah.

Greg Hassler: But then again, maybe not. I also like your story on, uh, the Board of Governors coming out saying that it’s not gonna be a, uh, public search. Smart.

Marion Woods: That’s a great idea.

Greg Hassler: Very smart. You don’t want to, you know, you want to bring a quality guy in. You actually need leadership at this University, it’s been a while. And, uh, you gotta bring a good guy in, a sitting president, not someone, you know, looking for their first gig. And you don’t want to jeopardize their job ’cause, uh, the guy’s gonna, or gal, whoever it is gonna be good. And whoever, wherever they leave is gonna really miss ’em. And you don’t want to get the, the cat out of the bag so to speak.

Marion Woods: Well, they jeopardize the current job.

Greg Hassler: That’s exactly right.

Marion Woods: Yeah.

Greg Hassler: And you don’t want to do that.

Marion Woods: No.

Greg Hassler: How about those games last night?…

Let’s see, expertise and accuracy in dendrochronology. Check.

…The Podolefskys say that after Hassler’s comments became a cause celebre, they checked and found that there had been a cedar tree in the front yard that was decorated with lights in years past at Christmas time, but that it was removed five years before they arrived…

[emphasis added]

Demonstrates superior grasp of the intricacies of international geography. Check.

…you know, this Wesly guy who lives in Denmark, this, you know, he’s Dutch, lives in Denmark….

Pays attention to detail and has a memory like a steel trap. Check.

…It, it was a great show…

(23:24) Darla Jaye: …the guy, the Dutch entrepreneur is, uh, from Holland. Holland is Dutch, sorry about that… (23:28)

With a record like that the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors is bound to offer the presidency to Greg Hassler.

…Greg Hassler: And you don’t want to do that.

Marion Woods: No….

Yeah, they’re right about one thing.

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)

Cold day.  Cold reception.

About 50 St. Louisans braved the cold wind blowing in front of Blue Cross/Anthem/Wellpoint (or whatever it’s called at the moment) building on Wednesday as part of the final push to get health care reform passed by Congress.

Looking up at the ceiling lights in the hundreds of offices, one couldn’t help but get the point.  They really don’t give a shit about sick people.  Row on row of cubicles filled with flunkies who figure out ways to deny paying claims from doctors and hospitals.  The sidewalk and steps going down to a small city park in front of the building are covered in cigarette butts.  Ironic, huh?  I hope those flunkies have good health insurance because they’re going to need it when cancer catches up with them.  Maybe so many of them smoke because they feel guilty knowing they are part of a huge conspiracy to deceive the American people.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius called out Blue Cross of California for paying their CEO’s obscene salaries and raising premiums by up to 39%.  She must have gotten their attention because BC out there in the Golden State (no pun intended) backed off that plan while Sibelius’ department takes a peek at their records.  Nationally, the Blue Cross/Wellpoint conglomerate made $2.7 billion profit in the last quarter of 2009.  And how did they make that money?  By letting people die.

“Bastards” is too kind a word for these creeps.

And the obstructionist Repugs……..

 

President Obama is taking the Repugs up on their demand for public negotiations on health care/insurance reform.  He’s invited them to a summit of sorts on Feb. 24, but now they are stalling again.  Please spare me the theatrics and get your act together – yes, YOU Senator Bond.

One of the chants at the rally yesterday was “If the people lead, the leaders will follow.”  In this case, it’s going to have to be millions of angry people if we’re going to get Harry Reid’s attention (hey, Harry, over here – look up from your notes !)

Those hearty enough to survive a 12 hour van ride to and from DC plus a mile or so of marching, contact Doug at (618) 578-1234  or email DLee4144@aol.com.  Transporation is free.  Motel will run about $50.  Leaving St. Louis early morning on the 23rd, march on the 24th, return home the 25th.  This is the final (I hope) BIG PUSH.  We’ve carried this baby for nine months and survived some pretty scary attempts to abort it (from hypocrites who call themselves “pro-life.”)  Now it’s time to deliver.  YES WE CAN.

Representative Jim Guest (r) piles on late with a “tenther” bill:

With apologies to Atrios

HB 2176 Enacts the State Authority and Federal Tax Fund Act

Sponsor: Guest, Jim (5) Proposed Effective Date: Emergency Clause

CoSponsor: Gatschenberger, Chuck (13) ……….etal. LR Number: 4772L.01I

Last Action: 02/17/2010 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB2176

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

…In light of the continuing unconstitutional federal expenditures, the state hereby reasserts its authority under the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States…

“Tenther” boilerplate.

…If the general assembly determines the federal government is operating beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers, and is therefor operating unconstitutionally, the general assembly shall disapprove of such actions by the federal government by concurrent resolution adopted by a majority vote of each chamber of the general assembly…

Uh, isn’t that a job for the judiciary? You know, Marbury v. Madison (1803)?

The bulk of the bill bill reads like a delusional declaration of war.

And then, this:

…Section B. Because immediate action is necessary to enable the residents of this state to retain the benefits from tax revenues derived from the people of this state, section A of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace, and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and section A of this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval….

Uh, you might suppose this would be a positive thing, in a delusional and quite selfish way, except for one teeny tiny reality: Missouri gets more in federal spending than it puts out in federal taxes. We’d be royally screwed if California or New York enacted the same bill.

The full text of the bill:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 2176

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GUEST (Sponsor), GATSCHENBERGER, EMERY, STEVENSON, SMITH (150) AND RUESTMAN (Co-sponsors).

4772L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 14, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the State Authority and Federal Tax Fund Act, with an emergency clause.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 14, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 14.100, to read as follows:

           14.100. 1. (1) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “State Authority and Federal Tax Fund Act”.

           (2) In light of the continuing unconstitutional federal expenditures, the state hereby reasserts its authority under the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

           2. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

           (1) “Consumer tax”, any tax imposed by the federal government on any beer, liquor, wine, or similar alcoholic beverage, tobacco, gasoline, or any other consumer goods;

           (2) “Director”, the director of the department of revenue;

           (3) “Excise tax”, any tax that forms a component of the State Highway Account;

           (4) “Federal Tax Fund”, the fund created in this section;

           (5) “Income tax”, any tax imposed by the federal government on incomes from whatever source derived and shall include but not be limited to all income, withholding, payroll, Social Security, Medicare and unemployment taxes;

           (6) “Person”, natural persons, corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, associations, and other legal entities.

           3. (1) There is hereby created in the state treasury the “Federal Tax Fund”, which shall consist of moneys collected under this section. The state treasurer shall be custodian of the fund. In accordance with sections 30.170 and 30.180, the state treasurer shall approve disbursements as provided in this section. Upon appropriation, money in the fund shall be used solely for the administration of this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 33.080 to the contrary, any moneys remaining in the fund at the end of the biennium shall not revert to the credit of the general revenue fund. The state treasurer shall invest moneys in the fund in the same manner as other funds are invested. Any interest and moneys earned on such investments shall be credited to the fund. Moneys accruing to and deposited in the designated funds shall not be part of total state revenues as defined in section 17, article X, Constitution of Missouri, and the expenditure of such revenues shall not be an expense of state government under section 20, article X, Constitution of Missouri.

           (2) All federal tax moneys collected by the state on behalf of the federal government shall be deposited by the director into the federal tax fund. The treasurer shall disburse the funds on a quarterly basis, less any interest earned on the deposits, to the respective appropriate federal recipient.

           4. Any person liable for any federal excise, income, or consumer tax shall remit the tax when due along with the federal taxpayer number to the director for deposit into the federal tax fund. All moneys collected under this subsection shall be transmitted to the director who, as a fiduciary agent, shall credit the funds to the federal tax fund on behalf of the person who remitted the tax. The director shall submit to the Internal Revenue Service the names and tax identification numbers of, and the date on which and amounts deposited by, persons liable for any federal excise, income, or consumer tax so that the Internal Revenue Service can credit the state’s taxpayers for federal tax obligations. Any person liable for any federal excise, income, or consumer tax who fails to forward federal tax moneys to the director shall be subject to penalties assessed under applicable federal or state statutes.

           5. The general assembly, by simple majority vote in both houses, shall determine how the moneys transferred from the federal tax fund to the general fund, including accrued interest, shall be used for the benefit of the people of the state. Such moneys shall be used for the benefit of the people of this state only.

           6. (1) If, as a result of any state action taken under the authority of this section, the federal government denies any matching funds or grants or imposes or mandates any other financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds effecting a financial cost to the state, the state treasurer shall withhold quarterly disbursements as provided in subdivision (3) of this subsection.

           (2) If the federal government imposes sanctions of any kind on the state for failing to enact legislation called for by federal mandate, the general assembly shall consider the constitutionality of such mandate by concurrent resolution. If the general assembly determines the federal government is operating beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers, and is therefor operating unconstitutionally, the general assembly shall disapprove of such actions by the federal government by concurrent resolution adopted by a majority vote of each chamber of the general assembly, and shall present such concurrent resolution to the state attorney general, who shall send written notice to the state treasurer that the treasurer shall begin withholding disbursements under subdivision (3) of this subsection in accordance with the concurrent resolution of the general assembly. If the federal government denies any matching funds or grants or imposes or mandates any other financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds effecting a financial cost to the state while the general assembly is not in session, the governor shall convene the general assembly in special session for the sole purpose of considering the actions of the federal government under this subdivision.

           (3) Upon the denial of any matching funds or grants or the imposition or mandate of any other financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds effecting a financial cost to the state by the federal government, or upon receiving notice of the general assembly’s determination under subdivision (2) of this subsection, the state treasurer shall withhold from payment all or part of the quarterly disbursement normally disbursed or transferred to the appropriate federal recipient, per occurrence, an amount equal to the total cumulative outstanding amount of the federal denial of matching funds or grants or financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds. The state treasurer shall continue to withhold all or part of the quarterly disbursement or transfer not otherwise disbursed or transferred to the respective appropriate federal recipients until the total cumulative amount withheld from the federal government is equal to the total cumulative outstanding amount of federal denial of matching funds or grants or financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds.

           (4) Per occurrence, when the general assembly has been duly notified in writing by the federal government that the federal government has terminated any denial of any matching funds or grants or any imposition or mandate of any other financial sanctions, penalties, or withholding of funds effecting a financial cost to the state, the state treasurer shall resume disbursements under this section at the end of the calendar quarter immediately following such notice by the federal government.

           7. In compliance with the oath or affirmation clause found in Article VI, Constitution of the United States, the governor, lieutenant governor, members of the general assembly, judges, attorney general, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, director, and all other state officers and employees shall implement this section regardless of any sanctions, threats, court action, or other pressure brought to bear by federal authorities. Any actions by the federal government, its agencies or agents, or the Congress of the United States against any person in this state for compliance with this section shall be considered an action against this state, and this state shall make an appropriate response to cause the action to cease and desist. This state shall take all necessary measures to recover from the federal government, its agencies, or agents, or the Congress of the United States, the reasonable costs of defending the action.

           8. This section shall apply to federal taxes collected after the effective date of this section and, because the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, as provided in Article VI, Constitution of the United States, this section shall be enforced retroactively to repeal any unconstitutional federal mandates that have been imposed on the state.

           Section B. Because immediate action is necessary to enable the residents of this state to retain the benefits from tax revenues derived from the people of this state, section A of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace, and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and section A of this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval.

Separation of powers and stare decisis seem to be mystifying concepts for right wingnut “tenthers” in the Missouri General Assembly.

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, Missouri on March 4, 2008:

[What do you think about the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the reservation of powers to the states?]

I don’t think [garbled] it very much. [laughter] As I think our opinion holds, so what else is new? It’s just, it’s the repetition of uh, of, of the understood fact that the Federal Constitution is a constitution of enumerated powers. The only powers the Federal government has are those given it by the Constitution. And that all the other ones remain with the states. That’s why, you know, I mean the Federal government has branched out into stuff that the framers wouldn’t have thought it had any business being in. But there’s still a lot of fields where the Federal government doesn’t touch, like family law.

Ever think of it? There are no Federal statutes on marriage, on, uh, divorce, on adoption. All that stuff.  So, the Tenth Amendment is just a repetition of what everybody understood the Constitution would be anyway.

[emphasis added]

Yeah, this bill would go over really well with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chad Livengood of the Springfield News-Leader via Twitter:

Rep. Tim Jones can’t believe the legislature can take on the insurance industry but can’t take on “the teachers unions” & school executives. about 9 hours ago from web

Because teacher unions in Missouri have unlimited power and insurance companies don’t?

Yes, this Tim Jones.

Melanie Shouse didn’t plan a memorial service so much as a memorial rally. And the last speaker, Amy Smoucha of Jobs with Justice, delivered a rousing call to action. She spoke about health care reform, but the core of her message could just as well apply to climate legislation, financial reform, or any other progressive cause. I’ve quoted maybe half of her talk below. I recommend watching all of it, both for inspiration and for information.

Smoucha started by likening Melanie’s attitude to Mother Jones’s: “Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.” After describing Melanie as generous and fierce in telling her personal, powerful story, Smoucha emphasized the importance of personal narratives:

“Her story has been so powerful and so compelling and so clear that her life is a beacon helping to guide the movement now throughout the country. So there is going to be a national march–and I didn’t do this, there’s no one in Missouri who did this–there’s going to be a national march that starts this week in Philadelphia. And folks are walking to DC and they’re calling it the Walk to the Finish Line for Melanie. (Applause) And for the most part, the people who are marching are people who, like Melanie, have their own stories–who have lost their loved ones, who themselves are uninsured or suffering with a pre-existing condition or are unable to afford care.

(…..)

So I’ve got some really important news. … Health care reform is not. dead. (audience member: “That’s right.” Applause.) But more than ever we need a disciplined movement and leaders and activists who, just like Melanie did for many years, stay on message, always show up and always be ready to fight. That’s what we need for the next few months. So John Prine has this folk song that I really love, where it’s like ‘blow up your teevees, throw away your papers.’ Blow up your teevees, throw away your papers and just fight for health care reform. Don’t listen to everybody trying to disorganize us. We’re closer to comprehensive health care reform than we’ve ever been in the history of this country. I also want to be very clear. We’re also closer to losing than we’ve been in the history of this fight, and that’s because Congress is stressed  out. They’re afraid of the election and they’re paralyzed because there’s mistrust between the House and the Senate.

At a national level, the president himself is calling them together trying to organize Congress, trying to organize the House and the Senate to come up with a firm plan to get this done, to get comprehensive heath care reform to the president’s desk.

So here’s what our job is. The president’s organizing Congress to … Here’s what we have to do: two things. We have to keep the yes votes in Missouri’s congressional delegation. And we have to poke at the no votes. All … as it comes down to the final moments of this struggle, all the powerful forces–those insurance companies, those for-profit corporations–are going to be trying to peel off votes and turn votes. We have to be vigilant in keeping our Missouri delegation on the side of our families, on the side of comprehensive health care reform. That’s the role that we have. The other thing we have to do is educate and mobilize the public–talk to our friends, talk to our families, talk to our co-workers. I know we’re tired. I know this has been a long fight. But we have to create a huge buzz around: health care reform must get done, a bill must go to the president’s desk

So ask your pastor to pray for the uninsured and for those who are struggling with medical debt at services. Call in to talk shows. And call your congressperson daily until a bill lands on the president’s desk.

Very quickly, the basis for reform is the Senate bill. That bill has to get passed by the House. Then it can go to the president’s desk and become law. We’re one House vote away from health care reform that is the most sweeping legislation that will ever have been passed in this country. In addition, there are some fixes that can be put into a separate bill and can pass through the House and go to the Senate. And all it needs is a simple majority.  (inaudible) So there is a path. There is hope. Don’t let all the naysayers cloud your mind.

What’s in the Senate bill? I’m only gonna tell you that in all the years that I’ve done this and in my three years in this fight, I never expected to get reform as far reaching and comprehensive as what’s in the Senate bill alone. Even before we fix it.”

At 7:30 in the video, Smoucha begins listing what the Senate bill has that she is so proud of. She finishes that list at the beginning of the second video and concludes:

“All of these are things that we have to fight for. And if this bill wouldn’t land on the president’s desk, it would take us years and years and millions of dollars to try to get piece by piece. All of those things are one House vote away from becoming law. One House vote. (…) All of these significant victories have powerful opponents and that’s why this bill has been so fiercely attacked. So Melanie wanted a political rally (inaudible), so the call to action: in her honor and memory, each of us must make passing comprehensive health care reform a daily task until the bill is on the president’s desk. We must call Congress daily. We have to create such a mandate and buzz that Congress reallizes the dire political consequences if they walk away with nothing. If they walk away from this opportunity without a bill, without any changes to our health care system that significantly advance the situation we find ourselves in, then Congress should be afraid to come home. (Applause)

Smoucha listed two events in St. Louis this week and the march from Philly to DC that begins Sunday the 21st and ends on the 24th, the day of Obama’s summit on health care. She urged everyone to sign the lists on the clipboards in the foyer so they could get up to date e-mails about events. Here’s how you can sign up to get the most current information:

Local events are at this site.

The march on DC info is here.

The two local events this week are:

Wednesday, the 17th, at 4:00: a rally outside the Wellpoint offices at 18th and Chestnut. Melanie spoke at two rallies there and tried to speak to Wellpoint officials, who were afraid to let her inside to talk to them. We’re going back a third time on her behalf.

Friday, the 19th, at 11:30: a rally at Shaw Park near S. Brentwood and Bonhomme in Clayton. Activists will build a monument to Melanie and others like her who have suffered at the hands of our broken system. Please bring items for the memorial-pictures, notes, mementos, flowers, and items to honor our loved ones.  NOTE:  You will not get items back.  They will become part of the memorial.

Dress warmly for both of these. They’re outside.

If you can’t make these events, you can still call your congresspeople. Because that is how we can get health care reform.

By the way, John Prine’s song, which has always been one of my favorites too, isn’t actually about health care reform.