That’s nice, but nobody said they didn’t, in their own way.

9/24/2009 10:09:00 AM

UCM faculty leaders say Senate not behind petition

….”With very serious financial issues facing our institution, we have a much greater issue to tackle than that of contractual discussions between the university president and the UCM Board of Governors,” Dr. Brian J. Hughes said. “With this in mind, our collective minds and energies should be focused on faculty teaching, service and research, and how those three topics impact the students and institution that we serve during these tough financial times….”

….The faculty members who informed The Daily Star-Journal of the petition delivered to the Board of Governors did not say they represented the Faculty Senate. They did say they sought signatures only from tenured faculty….

This is the thirty-sixth 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

On December 2, 2009 several “stakeholder” groups reported on their meetings with the presidential search consultant for the General Faculty Meeting held in the Union. After describing their meeting, members of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee answered questions from faculty:

…First faculty question:…My other question is this. You issued, or under the guise of the executive committee, we were informed by groupwise [e-mail] message that issues of higher administration is really something we faculty should not be involved in. And I’m wondering why did the executive committee decide to participate in this, given the fact that what we should be concerned with, this is what you told us. You told us, the executive committee, that we should be concerned with issues in the classroom. Why did you meet with him in the first place, given the message you sent out earlier this semester?

First executive committee member: But I don’t think I sent that message out [crosstalk]…

First faculty question: No. It was on [crosstalk]…

First executive committee member: …I think that’s they way you want it. If you want to translate that way [….] there’s nothing I can do about that.

First faculty question: Well, then why didn’t you ever clear up that message?

Second executive committee member: Why I, I’m under the assumption there was nothing to clear up. I know that you had a, uh, a beef with a quote that I put in the newspaper and [….] and [….]. Uh, I understood that to, uh, to be a problem that you had addressed to us at earlier Faculty Senate meeting. Um, I didn’t have a problem with my quote. I didn’t have a problem with the statement that I put in there. Uh, up to this point I’ve received zero e-mails from people outside my department with any problems or concerns. So, if silence gives consent and then here we are. So, I, I don’t know what I’m supposed to do at that point.

Yes.

Second faculty question: Um, well there are a lot of different issues going on. The, I think the concern in the local paper when the three individuals from the Faculty Senate executive council made quotes about whether or not faculty should be involved in the evaluation of the President and the continuation of his contract. The concerns raised were that those three individuals, uh, were represent, we’re making statements that were representing the Faculty Senate, so…

First executive committee member: The [garbled], the statements made were misquoted by the way. It’s simply the fact that the Faculty Senate was not the maker or the driving factor behind that motion, which was indicated by the Muleskinner….

….Second faculty question:….I’d be surprised at, at this point in time that those three individuals had represented themselves in that manner still maintain that that was a good representation of the Faculty Senate. And were speaking as if you represented the Faculty Senate. To my knowledge you did that.

Second executive committee member: Well, well, we in fact do represent the, uh, Faculty Senate as the executive committee. We were voted on by our representatives from our college. And we were asked to serve in that capacity and we have. Um, our quote, or my quote in the paper was in reaction to, uh, an ad hoc committee, uh, for, uh, statements they had put out throughout groupwise and the local media. And there was concerns from individuals addressed to me as though this was a, uh, speech or publication put out on behalf of the Faculty Senate. And it was interpreted by people in the community, uh, neighbors of mine had asked, uh, people on the street would ask me, uh, so, this is the Faculty Senate speaking? This ad hoc committee? And, in fact, I was not aware of any ad hoc committee, uh, within the Faculty Senate. So there was confusion and therefore we wanted to put out, uh, any potential fire that this caused.

Second faculty question: You’re, you’re still, I don’t think you’re getting the point.

Second executive committee member: What point am I not getting?

Second faculty question: You represented, at least the people that read the article believe, you represented yourselves in such a way that you were spokespersons for Faculty Senate. Now…

Second executive committee member: We are.

Second faculty question: Hold on a second. You can represent yourself as individuals. You can go I’m just representing myself and speaking as a Faculty Senator. You have every prerogative in the world to do that. However, what you did was you spoke out and made statements against that ad hoc committee and you did it in such a way that you represented, at least you claimed to represent, the Faculty Senate. Now, if the reporter reported it wrong, that’s fine. You have every right to represent yourself as a member on the Faculty Senate. What you did not do is, is, is that you represented yourself as if you were speaking for the Faculty Senate. That’s the problem….

….Second executive committee member: And, and, just to, just to, uh, reiterate [….] what you had said earlier, and, um, I don’t want to say that, um, I, I’m speaking on the committee here, but I truly deeply care about faculty governance. If people interpreted a quote in the newspaper, I don’t care about faculty governance, uh, they’re wrong. And to hear fellow senators and fellow faculty members say that we don’t care about faculty governance. And saying then why did we bother showing up to this meeting? We showed up to this meeting because we truly and deeply care about this institution and primarily the students that we serve. One thing that I really want to reiterate to the two gentlemen that asked questions here, is yes, I do truly care about the success of our students. And, and we as faculty members, that is why I went to this meeting as I felt honored to be invited, to go to this meeting, to give direct input to the board members who were there and to discuss with Ken [the presidential search consultant], uh, about his plans for this search. And, and to hear, uh, from you, and from others that we don’t care about faculty governance truly, I, I’m hurt by that….

Since we all care about students you’d probably think it would be a really good idea if someone would survey students to find out some of their their opinions. Somebody else did, too. Today we received the recent results of a survey on student engagement:

Survey on Student Engagement at UCM

Hello, we are students presently enrolled in IGEN 3224, Critical Thinking. We are preparing problem-solution presentation on how to increase student knowledge, voice, and involvement in administrative action here at the University of Centra
l Missouri (UCM) and would like to ask you a few questions in those regards. We are not promoting any course of action; we are simply interested in your opinions. There are no risks involved with this survey which are greater than those of everyday life. The information provided to us will be entirely anonymous and none of your personal information will be recorded. If you would be interested in helping us collect data for our project, and are 18 years or older, please fill out the attached survey.

Thank you for your time and cooperation. [….]

Survey on Student Engagement at UCM

My Major:

Are you a TRADITIONAL (18-24) student or a NON-TRADITONAL STUDENT (24+)? (Please circle one (1))

Academic Year based upon credits earned (Please Circle One (1))

Freshman        Sophomore     Junior     Senior

Number of respondents: 212

Traditional:183

Non-Traditional: 29

Graduate Student: 2

Upperclassmen: 134

Underclassmen: 76

Please circle the number which represents your level of agreement as indicated by the scale below:

1. I have knowledge about the policies, actions, and general state of affairs at UCM.

Strongly Disagree 10

Disagree 80

Agree 109

Strongly Agree 12

57% in Agreement

2. Students have the right to know about important decisions being made at the university.

Strongly Disagree 5

Disagree 6

Agree 83

Strongly Agree 117

95% in Agreement

3. Students at UCM have an adequate voice.

Strongly Disagree 9

Disagree 62

Agree 126

Strongly Agree 13

66% in Agreement

4. Students should have input about who becomes the next president of UCM.

Strongly Disagree 7

Disagree 34

Agree 107

Strongly Agree 64

81% in Agreement

5. I would join an organization (Facebook group, student coalition, etc.) to fight for the student right to know.

Strongly Disagree 5

Disagree 74

Agree 100

Strongly Agree 33

63% in Agreement

6. A voting student representative should be on the UCM Board of Governors.

Strongly Disagree 2

Disagree 18

Agree 116

Strongly Agree 67

91% in Agreement

7. I would sign a petition to the Board of Governors saying I believe that students should be informed on all Board deliberations.

Strongly Disagree 0

Disagree 28

Agree 117

Strongly Agree 67

87% in Agreement

[formatted to include frequencies]

Hmm. A voting student member of the Board of Governors. Pretty soon faculty would want the same thing. And we couldn’t have that, could we?

And now, for the punch line. An emeritus faculty member spoke at the General Faculty Meeting on December 2, 2009 of his group’s meeting with the presidential search consultant:

Emeritus faculty member: I’m not sure at this point whether we’re all on the same planet. Okay? What I heard about all these other meetings is totally different than what we did.

The executive committee of the Emeriti Association of this university was asked to meet with, then we didn’t know who.  But we met with the President of the Board of Governors and another member of the Board of Governors and the individual who had been already chosen to be the head of the search….

….The president of the board says here’s what we’re looking for and read this litany of things describing, supposedly, what the board had agreed on as what the board was going to be looking for in a president. By that time, I was mad. I was very upset. And so were some others. Because we were being told, hey it’s a done deal, here it is, this, this is what it’s gonna be.

It reminded me of probably something that happened about the time they elected the president or two before Dr. Diemer. [laughter] Central Missouri State Teachers College. [laughter] Who’s students are coming from a very small group of counties. And this individual was to be steeped in the ethics and the history and everything of this university….

….But the general consensus of our group, as we went around responding to questions, was there were a few things we didn’t want. And, uh, what was described did not match what we felt we should be getting….

…You have a considerable task ahead of you, especially if you have to start with what we heard. And I pointed out to the president of the board what he said and what I heard might be two different things. But I also reminded him that this university at one time was what he described. But, today, it is an international university. Not serving just a few counties….

The kind of provincialism described is an insult to the provinces. “….Podolefsky’s supporters say he ran afoul of a small-town, old-boy network whose social lives revolve around UCM sporting events….” You think?

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)

This is the thirty-fifth 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

This…

Greg Hassler: …The University of Central Missouri. End of an era.

Marion Woods: Uh, huh.

Greg Hassler: Aaron Podolefsky. Out. We’ve talked about it for a long time….

….The, the thing that really upset me, that kind of got [garbled] going originally was, for years there was a Christmas tree lit at Selmo Park. Remember that?

Marion Woods: Yep.

Greg Hassler: Drive by. He stopped that. I mean I think every religion should be able to celebrate, uh, in their own way, but, I mean we do live in Warrensburg, Missouri. This is America. You know. Let’s bring that back. How ’bout that?

Marion Woods: Wasn’t that the Christmas tree at the quadrangle?

Greg Hassler: No, there was also one at Selmo Park.

Marion Woods: Oh, okay.

Gregg Hassler: In the, in the yard, area there, so. I mean, I don’t know, it’s jus… It, it was a bad fit from the get go. It’s, it’s over…

…is not compatible with this:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

In case anyone was wondering, the University of Central Missouri is a state institution. Let’s spell it out – the view that anyone should put up a sectarian symbol on state property isn’t exactly endorsed by the Missouri Constitution.

Shortly after the remarks above were made in a radio broadcast, Benoit Wesly, a benefactor of the institution asked the President of the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors what they were going to do about it. The issue wasn’t addressed at the October 29, 2009 board meeting, as it was assured to be in the reply.

So, earlier this week, we asked if there was further correspondence on the issue among the same parties:

[….] date: Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:27 PM

subject:Request for information – 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 by Benoit Wesly subsequent to October 25, 2009.

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 yesterday afternoon:

[….] date: Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:48 PM

subject: Re: Request for information – RSMo 610

[….]

Pursuant to  your request of December 1, 2009, in which you request 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 by Benoit Wesly subsequent to October 25, 2009; 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, attached are two .pdf files containing these communications.

Sincerely,

[….]

A letter was sent by Edward Baker, a member of the board, to Benoit Wesly on November 9, 2009:

[….]

November 9, 2009

[….]

Dear Mr. Wesly,

I know you only through your history of generosity to the University of Central Missouri and your moving graduation address in May of 2008. Your contributions to the university have been greatly appreciated.

Being on the Board of Governors, I have been made aware of your concerns regarding our decision not to extend the contract of President Podolefsky and the allegations that anti-Semitism played some role in this determination. I have served on the board since April of 2007 and have never heard any board member or anyone else for that matter, refer to President Podolefsky’s religious beliefs in any context, derogatory or otherwise. It has simply not been a topic.

As for the implication that members of the board harbor prejudices of this nature that would influence their actions, I am deeply offended. My wife and I are partners in a hotel company whose principal owners are Jewish. We have worked closely with these people for 24 years and consider them family. To have rumors and innuendo suggest that we would embrace the bias suggested on the internet saddens and appalls us.

Furthermore, had I been in a situation where others were engaged in this behavior, I would not have tolerated it. The comments by the radio personality were inappropriate, and I voiced my disapproval upon learning about the incident. However, this man has no connection to the board and his comments should have no reflection on the members of the Board of Governors.

It is unfortunate that this accusation has been inserted into the contract renewal decision. Negative attention is drawn to the university once again, impeding a smooth transition for both UCM and President Podolefsky. The board was very careful to take every possible measure to allow Podolefsky to pursue other career opportunities. We all wish him the best in his future endeavors.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further with you, should you still have concerns.

Sincerely,

s/

Edward L. Baker

We sympathize with being victimized by impertinent people on the Internets pointing out uncomfortable things. Oh, wait.

“…The comments by the radio personality were inappropriate, and I voiced my disapproval upon learning about the incident. However, this man has no connection to the board…” Really?

Benoit Wesly replied on November 16, 2009:

[….]

Maastricht, November 16, 2009

[….]

Dear Mr. Baker,

I did receive your letter dated November 9, 2009 for which I thank you.

I am impressed that you send me this letter in your capacity being a member of the Board of Governors of that fascinating ins
titute. I am very grateful that you took the time to send me this letter and it makes it clear to me, that there seems to be some confusion.

In my letter of October 21, addressed to Mr. Richard Philips, President of the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors, I requested information regarding a text of a radio interview between Mr. Greg Hassler and Mrs. Marion Woods with the possibility of a so-called anti-Semitic undertone. I received on October 23 an e-mail letter from Mr. Richard Philips, which was followed up by my letter of October 26, 2009. Mr. Richard Philips promised to bring the issue to the attention of your board meeting on October 29 and he will get back to me any action taken. So far I have not heard from the President of your board.

To make it clear; I am not interfering in the decision not to extend Mr. Aaron Podolefsky’s contract. I respect your opinion and I do not want to deal with this matter, as I feel to be an outsider. Mr. Greg Hassler, who works for a company that has a close business relationship with the university, made a statement as earlier indicated. Secondly he indicated in a later stadium that he is not familiar with the word anti-Semitic. I do not believe that Central should co-operate with such a person, but I will wait till I hear the outcome of the investigation I requested.

Before the Second World War 6 million Jews had friends with all types of religions. After the war those friends were still living, so you do not need to be offended at all.

Once again thank you very much for your letter and I hope to meet you in case I will return on campus.

Awaiting the reply of the President of the Board of Governors I remain with my best personal regards,

s/

Benoit Wesly

[….]

On November 23, 2009, Benoit Wesly wrote the President of the Board of Governors, in part:

[….]

Maastricht, November 25, 2009

[….]

Dear Mr. Philips,

I would like to draw your attention to the following.

[….]

I am deeply shocked and disappointed with the behavior of the Board of Governors. I wrote you twice a letter dated October 22 and October 26, 2009. In your letter dated October 23, 2009 you promised me to contact me with a response. So far I have not heard from you since then. [….]

Sincerely yours,

s/

Benoit Wesly

On December 2, 2009 the President of the Board of Governors replied:

December 2, 2009

[….]

Dear Mr. Wesley:

Thank you for the opportunity to visit with you over the telephone the morning of December 1, and again on December 2, 2009. I am extremely pleased to talk with you as we continue to resolve some of the concerns you have and that the twenty five year relationship between you and our University will continue.

I was saddened in learning of the events that have taken place with your family and have a deeper sense of appreciation and understanding for your concerns.

As I stated to you during our visits, I have spent a great deal of time talking with a variety of folks to examine these issues. I am sorry if you felt I was neglecting you but I wanted to continue to review these matters before reporting to you and I had been told you were out of your home country and did not want to interrupt you on your trip. I felt it would be better to visit with you after you had returned home. During our recent telephone conversations I believe you understand I was not neglecting you, I would not neglect anyone.

One of the recent findings during previous visits with folks is that the Star of David that appeared on a faculty member’s door and referenced, in a blog, was done so by a Jewish faculty member. You also had determine that was the case and we both agreed it was most inappropriate.

After our morning conversation on December 1, I rearranged my schedule and again drove to Warrensburg to continue my visits with people who are in leadership positions in the community and on campus. I also visited with the radio personality we spoke about and informed him of your concern. I am convinced this person did not mean to hurt anyone. What is clear to me in this case is that, words that may be spoken by an individual in what they may think is an innocent manor may be hurtful to others and raising the level of awareness in these matters for all concerned can be a positive outcome of this issue.

I will continue to speak with the appropriate individuals in this matter and will get back to you by December 15, 2009.

You remain a trusted and honored friend of our University and I greatly appreciate your time in talking about these issues. It is clear to me we share many of the same values and beliefs in cultivating a positive learning environment for our University that is based on mutual respect for all people. Please be assured that our Board has tremendous respect and gratitude for the partnership between you and our University.

Sincerely;

Richard Phillips

[document as provided by the University, unsigned and on plain paper]

“…most inappropriate…” Did anybody bother to talk with that individual? Just asking.

“…After our morning conversation on December 1, I rearranged my schedule and again drove to Warrensburg to continue my visits with people who are in leadership positions in the community and on campus…” And just who would that be? Just asking.

We wonder if they get it. We understand that the board of Governors may address the radio broadcast at their December 11, 2009 meeting. We plan on being there.

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)

This is the thirty-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

Students organized a march today which started at 10:00 a.m., moving from the Administration Building to the president’s residence at Selmo Park, to show their support for University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky. Approximately twenty-five individuals (including students, faculty, and community members) braved the cold rain to attend the event.

Deleta Williams, a former member of the Board of Governors (who was in the minority in the 4-3 vote to renew Aaron Podolefsky’s contract and who, as then board president, was apprised by letter early in 2008 about an approach to faculty initiated by another board member), attended the march and spoke in front of the Administration Building:

…out in the public making that known. I also appreciate the local people that have attended today. And one, again, thank you very much. Personally I, I’m very committed to the idea that President Podolefsky has done an excellent job at this University. And as was just said earlier about all the challenges that we meet, or have, right now, is not the time to be changing the administration. And so I am happy to be here today and to participate with all of you.

Former Board of Governors member Dee Hudson, who chaired the search when Aaron Podolefsky was selected as president, also spoke at the Administration Building:

…I’m here to support the University in that when I was on the board we worked very hard to move the University forward. And I think many good things happened. I look to the construction that’s going on right now in a time of budget crunch and yet we are busy building here. I look at the, the image of the University. We wanted very much to become a world class institution and we have now been listed in different magazines and places where they tend to rate universities. And we’ve been very successful in that….

Student Nick McDaniels, one of the organizers of the march, spoke at Selmo Park:

…I was told as a student, that it was my duty to question things, by professors. And that’s what this institution has always taught me, to question things and to be active and to never just take  somebody’s word for it. But to, to really educate myself on every issue. But, recently I was told by the Board of Governors that, actually, a member of the Board of Governors that I was to trust them. And that that was, that was, their job was to be, to look out for the best interest of the students. And I, I had such a hard time accepting this and I still can’t. I feel as students we must question them, that’s what this University has taught us, and that’s what we must do in the future. We must question and educate ourselves on the issues. And that’s why we’re here today, to protest the board and them doing what they think is best, and not what the University, what’s best for the University.

Student Derek Wiseman also spoke at Selmo Park:

…We all came today because we feel very strongly about this issue. And we disagree heavily with the board’s decision. And we feel like we deserve reasons for their decision…

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)

“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)

This is the thirtieth 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

We had previously asked for a copy of the contract approved by the Board of Governors during their October 29, 2009 meeting. Yesterday afternoon, we received it:

[….]

date: Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:11 PM

subject: Fwd: Re: Request for information – RSMo 610

[….]

On 11/9/09, I advised you that once all signatures were obtained on the contract with Ken Hutchinson of Hutchinson Consulting, LLC and the contract complete, a copy would be provided to you.  Attached is a copy of the contract.

[….]

Custodian of Records

The contract:

[….]

October 29, 2009

Mr. Richard Phillips

Chair, Board of Governors

University of Central Missouri

[….]

Re: Management Consulting Agreement

Dear Richard,

This will confirm that Hutchinson Consulting LLC (also referred to herein as “Consultant”) offers to represent University of Central Missouri (hereafter referred to as “UCM”) in a consulting engagement to identify and present competent persons as viable candidates for the position of President of University of Central Missouri. This aspect of the consulting engagement will be supported by baker and Associates of Atlanta, Georgia, a nationally recognized executive search firm and specifically Jerry H. Baker. All fees, costs and expenses associated with Baker and Associates and Jerry H. Baker shall be the sole responsibility of Consultant. Search advertisements will include baker and Associates and Hutchinson Consulting LLC. Hutchinson Consulting LLC will also serve as the general human resources consultant on matters related to the search, including the assessment of desired leadership qualities for the next president, and consulting assistance in developing the next president’s compensation program. Hutchinson Consulting LLC shall endeavor to accomplish those items on the attached Schedule A on or about the dates specified on Schedule A, with the understanding that UCM and Hutchinson Consulting may from time to time mutually agree to an adjustment both of items to be accomplished and dates.

Hutchinson Consulting shall also assist with the preparation of performance criteria and performance indicators for communication and evaluation purposes for the new president.

The professional fee for the engagement shall be Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000.00). It will be invoiced to you in three equal installments of Twenty-Six Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Six Dollars and seventy-Seven Cents ($26,666.67). The initial retainer invoice will be submitted not later than five days after signing this agreement. The second invoice in the same amount of the first invoice will be submitted to you sixty-five days after signing this agreement. The last invoice in the same of the first invoice will be submitted to you immediately following UCM’s signing of an Employment Agreement with the new President. Consultant shall assist in the preparation and negotiation of any such Employment Agreement. Consultant is acting as an independent contractor and is not an employee of UCM. Accordingly, UCM shall not exercise control over the method by which Consultant shall perform such work as may be requested by UCM. Both parties acknowledge that Consultant is not an employee for state or federal tax purposes and therefore not subject to tax withholding and any and all associated taxes are the sole responsibility of Consultant.

[page]

In addition to the professional fee, Hutchinson Consulting will bill direct expenses of the assignment on an out-of-pocket basis. These expenses include materials and services, report preparation, reproduction and delivery services, as well as travel (coach airfare only) and interviewing expenses. We make every effort to hold reimbursable expenses to a minimum, and will ask your approval prior to incurring major costs and prior to incurring an individual direct expense in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and cumulative direct expenses in excess of fifteen thousand ($15,000.00).

We are committed to the goal of equal employment opportunity as established by various federal and state laws and regulations and as stated in UCM’s Equal Employment Opportunity Program. As such, we will not discriminate against any individual for employment because of the protected categories in said Equal Employment Opportunity Program.

Because many candidates will expect their candidacy to remain confidential, we ask UCM to refrain from any unauthorized, indiscriminate reference inquiries about candidates. When appropriate, we will inform candidates that an offer may be contingent upon successful completion of reference checks or any other conditions of employment required by UCM. At that time, references will be checked.

At the direction of the Board of Governors, Hutchinson Consulting or Baker and Associates will conduct reference checks on the final candidates, an analysis that will include both telephone reference checks and requesting and receiving written letters of reference.

As you direct, we will provide you and the committee with a status report of all the individuals involved in your search.

We will not initiate contact or otherwise recruit the candidate chosen for President of UCM for a minimum of five years, unless permission is given by the President of the Board of Governors. UCM may terminate this management Consulting Agreement at any time for any reason or for no reason and any and all incurred payments, costs and expenses shall be paid to Consultant up to the date of termination.

If you have any questions regarding our procedures or the terms and conditions outlined in this confirmation letter, please call me. If you are in agreement with these arrangements as stated, please sign both copies of the Consulting Agreement where indicated. Retain the “Client Copy” for your records and forward the “Consultant Copy” to my office.

I look forward to and am delighted to establish this relationship with UCM.

Sincerely,

s/

R. Kenneth Hutchinson

President, Hutchinson Consulting LLC

RKH/clc

Enclosures

[page]

SCHEDULE A

Hutchinson Consulting LLC

And

University of Central Missouri

2010 Presidential Search Timeline

(Timeline can be compressed if desired by the Board of Governors)

November 2009-December 2009

Appoint search consultant

After interviewing members of the Board of Governors (members of the Board of Governors are also referred to herein as the Search Committee or Presidential Search Committee), draft statement of desired leadership qualities for Board approval and possible circulation to UCM constituencies.

Draft and place advertising that incorporates desired leadership credentials.

Approve composition of Search Advisory Committee to the Board of Governors. Optional)

January 2010

Advertising appears for two consecutive weeks.

Search announcement letter is mailed to Governor, State Senator, State Representatives and key friends of UCM.

Search brochure and candidate nomination forms are printed and distributed. (Optional and may be accomplished with UCM facilities)

Search web site is assembled and made public. (Optional and may be accomplished with UCM facilities)

Nominations for members of the Search Advisory Committee are submitted to the Serach Committee Chair.

President Search Forums are scheduled and advertised: Warrensburg, greater Kansas City, Missouri metropolitan areas, select other areas in the UCM catchment area
. (Optional)

February 2010

Conduct Search Forums.

Actively solicit nominations.

Provide agenda to Board of Governors prior to meeting.

Search Committee Chair sends letter to Advisory Committee nominees inviting them to serve on committee.

Appoint Search Advisory Committee and Chair.

[page]

Schedule Search Advisory Committee meeting with Chair of the Presidential Search Committee to charge the committee and provide other search information as appropriate.

March-April 2010

Search Committee meeting with Search Consultant

Report on diversity of candidates

Distill list of candidates

Determine dates for candidate interviews.

Telephone the semifinalists to determine continuing interest and request references.

Conduct reference checks.

Determine off-campus interview site and make appropriate arrangements.

Schedule candidate interviews.

Arrange lodging, meals and travel for search committee and candidates.

Consultant guides Search Committee through preparing interview questions and formatting interview sessions.

Search Advisory Committee schedules meeting to draft interview questions and format interview sessions under guidance of the Consultant.

May-June 2010

Interview semi-finalists.

Distill pool to three to five finalists.

Telephone to determine continued interest and to advise of intensified background checks.

Schedule candidate interviews, as appropriate.

Arrange lodging, meals and travel in preparation of finalist interviews.

Complete reference checks.

Presidential Search Committee receives individual reports of committee members of the Search Advisory Committee.

Board of Governors negotiates terms with finalists.

Board of Governors appoints and announces new president.

New President Appointee and Spouse (if applicable) make campus tour for introductions.

[page]

October 29, 2009

CONSULTING AGREEMENT

The Board of Governors of University of Central Missouri

President, University of Central Missouri

Accepted By:

Signature: s/

Name: Richard Phillips

Title: Chair of University of Central Missouri Board of Governors

Date Signed: 11-16-09

CLIENT COPY

[CONSULTANT COPY also provided]

You can read a copy of the original document here (pdf).

I think I know ten people who won’t invited to be on the “Search Advisory Committee”.

Interesting. It appears that presidential candidates will likely be invited to campus for interviews after the end of the semester – when the majority of students and faculty will be elsewhere. Well, at least the candidates can be given a tour of the luxury boxes. Maybe they can get answers to our questions without paying $501.86.

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)

“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, 20
09)

“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)

In this, the twenty-ninth 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, those of you who have been asking for a timeline finally get what you have been asking for. Links to previous coverage are below the fold. BG and MB

Those of you who have been following this series as we file Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo 610) requests and investigate the non-renewal of the contract of University of Central Missouri (UCM) President Aaron Podolefsky probably have a good idea of what we suspect to be going on there.  However, there have been a couple of calls for us to provide a summary of the story so far.  We’d have posted this sooner, but we had to run it past legal first. We’ve been given the all-clear, so here it is.

The non-renewal of Dr. Podolefsky’s contract seems an utterly bizarre decision, given his numerous accomplishments at UCM: he significantly raised the university’s academic profile, evidenced by setting university records for the highest quality first-year student class, highest graduation rate, and highest job placement rate (96.8%) in the institution’s history. In fall 2008, UCM enrolled the largest first-year class and the largest total enrollment in 15 years.  He also enjoys strong support among the faculty, students and the Warrensburg community.  More than 70% of respondents in a Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal poll said that he should be retained by the university, and more than 80% of respondents voted the same way in a poll in the UCM campus newspaper, the Muleskinner.  In October 2009, a majority (142) of tenured faculty members signed a petition asking the Board of Governors to extend Podolefsky’s contract.  A small minority of faculty expressed opposition to Podolefsky at that time, but most of them were citing factually incorrect information regarding a gift to the university, a vendor agreement with a cola company, or a recent Campus Climate Survey.  Perhaps it’s just coincidence, but so much of the false information being circulated seems to have a common point of origin – one particular college-a college whose dean, again perhaps coincidentally, is alleged to have instructed faculty members not to sign the petition in support of Podolefsky. The way the factors converge here, it really does stretch credulity and defy statistics that it should all be mere coincidence.

We heard a whole bunch of rumors about the possible motivations of the members of the Board of Governors (BoG) so we decided to do a little digging and check the validity of the allegations via a number of Missouri Sunshine Law requests and a re-examination of known events.  What we found was very disturbing, and the lowest common denominator seems always to be the Athletics Program.

Making the UCM Athletics Program live within its budget

Since both President Podolefsky and the BoG refuse to discuss the matter and the BoG won’t reveal their motives, saying only that “sometimes with new BoG members, there is a desire to go in a new direction,” so we are unable to come to a definitive conclusion,  we leave it to our readers to draw their own conclusions about the following:

Prior to Fiscal Year 2008, the UCM Athletics Programs was regularly running annual deficits in excess of $400,000, according to data received via Mo. Sunshine Law requests.  This shortage was reconciled at the end of each fiscal year, with the University general fund making up the difference.  In FY2006, this overspending reached an all-time high; in addition to a healthy $4.4 million base budget, $400,000 in generated funds (ticket sales, concessions, etc.), and Foundation contributions (amount unknown), the University provided two separate infusions of money to Athletics, totaling more than $700,000.  The following year, the general fund adjustment to cover overspending was $415,000.

It would certainly seem that a program regularly running up such deficits does not have a sufficient budget to cover expenses.  Therefore, in FY2008 a new Athletics Fee was added to student tuition, resulting in an increase in funds generated for Athletics that brought the total to over $900,000.  This Athletics Fee was proposed by President Podolefsky.  

Increasing the Athletics budget so substantially ought to have made him a popular figure among those in Athletics and their supporters, right? It might have, except something else happened in FY2008: in spite of the increases, the Athletics Program spent over $6.3 million, again running a deficit, this time spending $112,000 beyond what was budgeted – and this time it was not reconciled from the University general fund.  The following year, the Athletics budget was reduced by $112,000.  In FY2009, Athletics again went over budget by $142,000, and once again the budget was reduced by the corresponding amount.

Those numbers seem to tell a pretty compelling story.  President Podolefsky, perhaps for the first time in the university’s history, made a serious attempt to rein in general fund overspending by the Athletics Program, replacing it, for the first time with a student athletics fee.  Athletics got more money, but they were forced to live with a set budget.  For shame!  

But wait! There’s more! We learned soon enough that this was not his only sin involving Athletics.  

Naming a new Vice President for University Advancement

In 2007, UCM began a search for a Vice President of University Advancement (VPUA); the person appointed to this position would be in charge of the overall strategic plan to attract and utilize outside donations to the university.  It is common knowledge that Athletic Director Jerry Hughes wanted this position but didn’t make the cut – not because the President didn’t want him, but because the hiring committee didn’t want him in that position.  We are unaware of his personal reaction to being denied the position, but it does not seem coincidental that, on the day that the appointment of Larry Cowan to the VPUA. position was announced, a local radio sports-talk deejay and close associate of the UCM Athletics Director began a campaign of publicly disparaging President Podolefsky, as well as Larry Cowan and Betty Roberts, the V.P. of Admin and Finance who chaired the hiring committee members.  (Perhaps it is coincidence that all three of these people are minorities, but the deejay in question, Greg Hassler, has continued to “misspeak” in his criticism of Podolefsky, recently drawing the ire of one of UCM’s most important and respected donors for anti-Semitic remarks about the UCM President and his family.)  Some months earlier, Mr. Hassler seemed more than happy to take advantage upon learning that the President’s wife intended to provide legal representation for six local female athletes who had accused a Warrensburg High School coach of inappropriate conduct. Mr. Hassler was very successful promoting her actions as controversial and in dividing public opinion regarding both the alleged incident and Ms. Podolefsky’s professional responsibilities.

Paying off the Stadium bond

Limiting excessive spending and spurning the aspirations of the Athletics Director might be damning enough, but President Podolefsky apparently went for a hat-trick in 2007 and committed a third sin:  He insisted that certain funds generated from the UCM Stadium stop being misused.  When the UCM Stadium was replaced, the university had to take out a $4 million bond to cover the costs ($1 million came from a donation).  The 1999 bond agreement states that all funds generated from the rental of the Stadium suites, approximately $44,000 per year, were to be used to pay off the bond.  Originally, rental funds were deposited in the foundation and then returned to the university to cover the bond payment, but several years before Podolefsky’s arrival, this was changed.  According to documents received via Sunshine Law requests, until FY2008 these funds were not used as specified and required in the bond agreement. Besides being in violation of the bond agreement, the $44,000 obviously had to be made up by the general fund.  Given the other fiscal reforms introduced by President Podolefsky in that year, it is reasonable to believe that putting an end to this situation-which had previously, and perhaps improperly, benefited UCM Athletics-was his doing as well.  

A very pro-Athletics Board of Governors

But what does all of this have to do with the UCM Board of Governors?  Quite a bit, the evidence would suggest.  Three of the four BoG members who recently voted not to renew President Podolefsky’s contract were appointed shortly after the UCM Athletics Director did not receive the VPUA position; it is public knowledge that Mr. Hughes accompanied one of them, Weldon Brady, to his swearing-in ceremony in Jefferson City.  All four of the BoG members who voted against renewal cite UCM Athletics as a main tie to the university, and two of them are former UCM football coaches.  Problems between the new BoG members and President Podolefsky must have started right away, since Board member Richard Philips approached Faculty Senate President Jack Rogers in November 2007-less than three months after UCM was first named one of “America’s Best Colleges” by U.S. News & World Report-to ask how the faculty would respond if the Board were to buy out President Podolefsky’s contract.  His response was clearly in the negative.

Another oft-cited rumor around campus is that the BoG voted in December 2008 not to extend Dr. Podolefsky’s contract.  The BoG has thus far refused to deny that the vote occurred, saying only that there was no “reportable” (i.e. final) vote.  Is it any wonder that, beginning last spring, Dr. Podolefsky began to take more seriously his nominations for other Presidential positions?  

I heard it on the radio

More recently, we have the BoG’s actions, or lack thereof, which also seem to demonstrate an inclination to “let things slide” any time the UCM Athletics program is involved.  Board members seem hesitant to act regarding Mr. Hassler’s recent radio statements (cited above).  In response to the letter of complaint from UCM donor Benoit Wesly, Board President Richard Philips promised to take action at following Board meeting on October 29.  We were at that meeting, and we can verify that the matter was not discussed at all, and we have no reason to believe that any action was taken subsequently in closed session, since such discussion or action would not fall under the exclusionary provisions of the Missouri Sunshine Law.  I have personally inquired via email asking Mr. Philips to comment on his failure to address Mr. Wesly’s concerns but I have not received the courtesy of a response to either request.

If that were not insulting enough, Mr. Hassler’s relationship with the university seems as strong as ever; he was subsequently recognized on the field at the UCM football game on October 31 for his sponsorship.

All in the family

Perhaps the most important commonality between the UCM Athletics Director and some members of the Board of Governors is their apparent mutual belief that they should not have to answer to anyone, for any reason.  Four of the BoG members pressed ahead with the vote not to renew President Podolefsky’s contract, in spite of all the clear indicators (cited above) that he is strongly supported by the majority of the UCM and Warrensburg community.  The “path forward” recently announced by the Board, detailing the upcoming presidential search, does not inspire confidence.  There was no Request for Proposal, as is standard in such situations, the faculty were not involved in any way, and the decision was made in closed session to pay $80,000 to a small Missouri firm rather than a national firm to conduct the search.  The firm in question has almost no experience in conducting this kind of search, but apparently they have one important qualification: personal relationships with BoG members.  This is not how such important processes are normally handled.  The trend of bringing in friends of BoG members seemed to be evident even in the selection of at least one of the new Board appointments on November 6 – Marvin “Bunky” Wright.  While it is the Missouri State Governor who makes the appointments, Board members normally make nominations and have some say in who is appointed.

Athletics reigns supreme

So, was Aaron Podolefsky fired (ahem, did not have his contract renewed) over athletics?  We don’t know for certain, but it sure smells like a coup d’état to us.  And is that necessarily a bad thing?  Yes, yes it is.  Not because Athletics shouldn’t have a role at a state university; indeed, one could even call Athletics an important component of the institution.  Based on the introduction of the new fee and several major construction projects in support of athletics, it would seem that President Podolefsky thinks so as well.  Apparently, however, he does not believe that Athletics should be the key driver of the institution and above any reproach.  We agree.  It would seem that the Board of Governors does not.

Who cares?

We do, and if you’re a taxpayer in Missouri, you should care, too.  A robust state university system is a key driver of our economy and supplies us with the skilled labor and brainpower that drive our state’s future.  Having one of these universities move backwards in order for the institution to play a subservient role an Athletics program benefits no one outside of a small “club.”  Dr. Podolefsky acted in support of a healthy Athletics program, just as he acted successfully to improve institutional quality and bring national attention to UCM.  He put an end to inappropriate institutional habits, but instead of being recognized for it, he was let go the board declined to renew his contract.  So what direction does the Board want to take the university?  We don’t know, but at
least one Board member has questioned the university’s decision to have “moderately selective” enrollment, one of the key factors in the institution’s recent successes.  UCM’s future does not look bright, and it is for this reason that we believe the Board of Governors has failed in their responsibility to provide appropriate stewardship for the university.  

The real path forward

As long as this summary seems, it just scratches the surface of what we’ve uncovered in this investigative series.  We’ll keep digging, but we think there’s enough information here for you to come to your own conclusion.  If you agree with us, what can you do?  Assuming you’re a Missouri resident, or an alum, or just a supporter of the institution, then you’re well within your rights to make your voice heard.  Of course, you could always contact the BoG members themselves, but we don’t think they’re listening, so a better option would be to contact Governor Nixon’s office – the phone number is 573-751-3222, and here is the link to the contact page on the Governor’s official website – since he is the only person in the state with the power to improve the situation by removing Board members.  At this point, we see no other solution.

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)

“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)

This is the twenty-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

From a Gentleman’s Agreement (1947):

“….But I’ve come to see lots of nice people who hate it and deplore it and protest their own innocence, then help it along and wonder why it grows. People who would never beat up a Jew. People who think anti-Semitism is far away in some dark place with low-class morons. That’s the biggest discovery I’ve made. The good people. The nice people….”

The Kansas City Jewish Chronicle came to campus this week to cover the story:

Was anti-Semitism factor in college prexy’s exit?

Written by Rick Hellman, Editor  

Friday, 13 November 2009 12:00

“….It’s not appropriate for me to speculate about Mr. Hassler’s motives,” said Podolefsky. “But I have been asked repeatedly what he has against me and Ronnie, because this has been going on for two and a half years.”

Hassler returned The Chronicle’s request for comment via e-mail, saying:

“First of all let me say that I am not anti-Semitic, I love all people of all religions. I have never stated anything about anyone’s religion on or off the air. People have taken a comment out of context and have spun it for their purpose. All I have done is question the leadership and decisions that were made by the President of UCM … It is unfortunate that people that have never met or talked to me can draw incorrect conclusions about the type of person I am….”

The transcript from October 14th:

Greg Hassler: …The University of Central Missouri. End of an era.

Marion Woods: Uh, huh.

Greg Hassler: Aaron Podolefsky. Out. We’ve talked about it for a long time….

….The, the thing that really upset me, that kind of got [garbled] going originally was, for years there was a Christmas tree lit at Selmo Park. Remember that?

Marion Woods: Yep.

Greg Hassler: Drive by. He stopped that. I mean I think every religion should be able to celebrate, uh, in their own way, but, I mean we do live in Warrensburg, Missouri. This is America. You know. Let’s bring that back. How ’bout that?

Marion Woods: Wasn’t that the Christmas tree at the quadrangle?

Greg Hassler: No, there was also one at Selmo Park.

Marion Woods: Oh, okay.

Gregg Hassler: In the, in the yard, area there, so. I mean, I don’t know, it’s jus… It, it was a bad fit from the get go. It’s, it’s over…

Richard Phillips, the President of the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors was also quoted in the Chronicle story:

….Phillips responded to The Chronicle’s e-mailed inquiry about the matter with this:

“As you should know, discussions with regard to personnel matters of the University are not appropriate for public disclosure. Contrary to the tone and implications of your questions, the University does not discriminate as to anyone on any basis.

“I was appointed to the UCM Board of Governors in February of 2005, a few weeks after Aaron was selected to serve as president. Not once has Aaron’s religion been mentioned in any Board discussion….”

That’s interesting. There’s only one mention in the article about not tolerating people who do.

On October 23, 2009 Richard Phillips wrote in reply to Benoit Wesly:

…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…

As Blue Girl wrote:

…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.

So much for action.

“….But I’ve come to see lots of nice people who hate it and deplore it and protest their own innocence, then help it along and wonder why it grows…”

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)

“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)

This is the twenty-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

The weekly dead trees edition of the student newspaper, the Muleskinner, was on newsstands today. On page 1, above the fold, was a headline story on the two new members of the University’s Board of Governors:

New Board Members

Appointees look forward to new job, challenges ahead

….”I like the institution [UCM] and am very familiar with it,” [Marvin “Bunky”] Wright said…

…When asked what it feels like to be joining the Board soon after the decision had been made not to renew Podolefsky’s contract, Wright was optimistic about the future of the institution.

“I don’t know that there is any controversy,” Wright said. “There’s been a vote taken and the matter is decided. The main thing the Board has to do is move forward with the University….”

Evidently this was spoken without any sense of irony. If a majority (142) of tenured faculty along with student and community expressions of support don’t count for anything as far as “major stakeholder groups” are concerned, then you could see how someone who expresses “familiarity” with the institution would think that there’s no controversy.

I wonder if Mr. Wright thinks the $80,000 contract for a consultant in the upcoming presidential search (we’re still waiting) the board approved without a Request for Proposals or a bid is not controversial because “there’s been a vote taken and the matter is decided.” That’s a pretty narrow view of accountability for a public entity, don’t you think?

Also in the same edition of the Muleskinner was a letter to the editor written by a student:

….A certain KOKO radio commentator has recently made his feelings blatantly known that practicing Jews and their customs are not welcome in Warrensburg community because they may not fall into line with their own traditions. How can we let such people continue to be the voice of UCM? Where are our American values? We must embrace and learn from all cultures and traditions that wish to be a part of us….

….In the end, we must work together to show the world that Warrensburg is a community of acceptance and not half-hearted tolerance…

And, the paper also had an extensive center section on President Aaron Podolefsky with the headline “Podolefsky Past And Present” discussing the University’s “vision for the future” (approved by the board  in 2006), the University’s name change, the campus Master Plan, and the ESCO (energy) project – all projects during the president’s tenure. The paper quoted Podolefsky, referring to faculty:

“Presidents come and go, board members come and go, but faculty make the institution. When people are willing to stand up and step up front like that, that really makes me [feel] good.”

Moving forward, at least to us, means more Missouri Sunshine Law requests.

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)

“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)

This is the twenty-sixth 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

We were curious about who recommended the appointments of the four University of Central Missouri Board members who voted not to renew President Aaron Podolefsky’s contract. Matt Blunt was Governor of Missouri at the time of these appointments. We sent a Missouri Sunshine Law request to the university’s “Custodian of Records”:

[….]

date:Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:48 PM

subject:Sunshine request

Please provide the following documents under RSMo 610:

The packets of information for appointment to the Board of Governors which include resumes and letters of recommendation for the following members of the University of Central Missouri, previously known as Central Missouri State University:

Weldon Brady

Walter Hickland [sic]

Richard Phillips

Edward Baker

Thank you,

[….]

We received the following reply:

[….]

Sent: Fri, October 23, 2009 2:17:29 PM

Subject: Re: Sunshine request

[….]

Pursuant to your request of October 22, 2009, attached are the appointment letters and resumes of UCM Board members Weldon Brady, Walter Hicklin, Richard Phillips, and Edward Baker as provided by the Governor’s Office.

[….]

Custodian of Records

[….]

We didn’t get letters of reference, but we did get the appointment letters (in the case of Richard Phillips, his commission letter) and resumes. The documents for three of the board members had fax headers at the top of each page.

Fax header from the appointment documentation for Richard Phillips to the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors sent to the university from Governor Matt Blunt’s office in 2005.

Fax header from the appointment documentation for Edward Baker to the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors sent to the university from Governor Matt Blunt’s office in 2007.

Fax header from the appointment documentation for Walter Hicklin to the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors sent to the university from Governor Matt Blunt’s office in 2007.

The documentation for board member Weldon Brady did not have fax headers.

Well, no problem we reasoned, the appointments were made by then Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, so we could probably ask the current governor’s office for copies of any original letters of reference or recommendations for those individuals:

[….]

Date: Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Subject: RE: UCM Sunshine Request

[….]

I have referred your request to our custodian of records, Nikki Loethen. Thanks

[….]

Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:02 PM

[….]

Subject: UCM Sunshine Request

[….] can you either handle this yourself under RSMo 610 or refer me to the proper person to fill this request?

Please provide the following documents under RSMo 610:

The packets of information compiled for appointment to the Board of Governors at the University of Central Missouri (previously known as Central Missouri State University) which include resumes and letters of reference for the following members of the board:

Weldon Brady

Walter Hicklin

Richard Phillips

Edward Baker

Thank you

[….]

So, we waited. And waited.

Think about that. They can’t find the original appointment documents (the historical record!) and all we have access to are faxed copies in the possession of the university.

That could be a problem:

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 109

Public and Business Records

Section 109.210

August 28, 2009

Definitions.

109.210. As used in sections 109.200 to 109.310 the following words and terms have the meanings indicated, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

(1) “Agency”, any department, office, commission, board or other unit of state government or any political or administrative subdivisions created for any purpose under the authorities of or by the state of Missouri;

(2) “Boards”, the local records board;

(3) “Commission”, the state records commission;

(4) “Local record”, any record not a state record;

(5) “Record”, document, book, paper, photograph, map, sound recording or other material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or in connection with the transaction of official business. Library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes, extra copies of documents preserved only for convenience of reference, and stocks of publications and of processed documents are not included within the definition of records as used in sections 109.200 to 109.310, and are hereinafter designated as “nonrecord” materials;

(6) “Secretary”, the secretary of state;

(7) “State record”, any record designated or treated as a state record under state law.

[emphasis added]

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 109

Public and Business Records

Section 109.260

August 28, 2009

Destruction of records and nonrecord materials.

109.260. 1. No record shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of by any agency unless it is determined by the commission or board that the record has no further administrative, legal, fiscal, research or historical value.

2. Nonrecord materials or materials not included within the definition of records as contained in sections 109.200 to 109.310 may, if not otherwise prohibited by law, be destroyed at any time by the agency in possession of such materials with approval of the commission or board. The director of the records management and archives service may formulate advisory procedures and interpretation to guide in the disposition of nonrecord materials.

[emphasis added]

Oopsie.

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 109

Public and Business Records

Section 109.270

August 28, 2009

Records are property of state or local government–not to be damaged or disposed of.

109.270. All records made or received by or under the authority of or coming into the custody, control or possession of state or local officials in the course of their public duties are the property of the state or local government and shall not be mutilated, destroyed, transferred, removed or otherwise damaged or disposed of, in whole or in part, except as provided by law.

[emphasis added]

We understand that another news organization made a similar request to ours, except they asked for the appointment documents for all of the current board members, including those appointed by Governor Bob Holden (previous to Matt Blunt). Our tactical error. But don’t you think it would be ironic if they found the documents from the Bob Holden administration (and,
of course, they have the documents from the current Jay Nixon administration) but they can’t find the documents from the Matt Blunt administration?

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)

“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)

This is the twenty-fifth 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

We had previously asked for the contract the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors “authorized” with Hutchinson LLC for their services in the upcoming presidential search and had been informed twice that the contract wasn’t “in” yet.

We sent a request again on Sunday (effective Monday morning):

[….]

date: Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:37 PM

subject: Request for information – RSMo 610

This is a request for information under RSMo 610:

A copy of the contract with Ken Hutchinson, Hutchinson Consulting LLC for the presidential search approved by the Board of Governors on October 29, 2009.

On November 1, 2009 I requested the following: “1. A copy of the contract with Ken Hutchinson, Hutchinson Consulting LLC for the presidential search approved by the Board of Governors on October 29, 2009.”

On November 4, 2009 I received the following reply: “The contract has not been finalized and therefore, is not available.”

Is the contract now finalized and available? If not, when do you anticipate that it will be?

Thank you for your assistance.

[….]

We promptly received the following reply:

[….]

date: Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:46 AM

subject: Re: Request for information – RSMo 610

[….]

In response to your request, dated 11/8/09 and received on 11/9/09, we anticipate the contract with Ken Hutchinson of Hutchinson Consulting LLC, will be available within the next couple of weeks.  Once all signatures have been obtained and the contract is completed, a copy will be provided to you.

[….]

Custodian of Records

[….]

Okay. Then what was the hurry in “authorizing” this contract for $80,000 on October 29th? Just asking.

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)

“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