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

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

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

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

[….]

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

Subject: request for information under RSMo 610

I am requesting the following information under RSMo 610:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

[….]

[….]

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

Subject: Re: request for information under RSMo 610

[….]

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

Sincerely,

[….]

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

[….]11/5/2009 3:21 PM >>>

[….]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

[….]

And we got this response and an attached spreadsheet:

[….]

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

Subject: Re: request for information under RSMo 610

[….]

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

Sincerely,

[….]

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

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

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

[….]

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

subject: Request for Information

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

I would like to request the following information:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[….]

[….]

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

subject: Re: Request for Information

[….]

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

Sincerely,

[….]

Custodian of Records

[….]

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

subject: Re: Request for Information

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

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

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

The law intends that public, governmental actions be transparent:

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

[….]

[….]

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

subject: Re: Request for Information

[….]

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

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

Sincerely,

[….]

Custodian of Records

[emphasis in original provided by the sender]

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

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

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

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

Our previous coverage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

“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)

This is the twenty-third 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

Uh, that grade would be “epic fail.”

We have made a total of three Missouri Sunshine Law requests to try and ascertain the dates of required payments made as outlined in the contract (pdf) between D&H Media (KOKO Radio) and the University of Central Missouri. Well, we think it’s the university.

The parties to the contract. Just who is “the Central Missouri State University Sports Network”?

As far as we can tell, we haven’t received the information on the actual dates of all of those payments yet.

Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the contract between D&H Media and “the Central Missouri State University Sports Network”.

Paragraph 12 of the contract requires D&H Media to pay $15,000 divided equally among four quarterly payments for a “broadcast right fee”. Okay, so what actual entity gets those payments? Because the [last] annual (2008) NCAA “report on the revenues, expenses and capital expenditures of the institution’s athletics department” doesn’t report any such revenues:

….10. Broadcast, Television, Radio, and Internet Rights. [$] 0

Include institutional revenue received directly for radio and television broadcasts, Internet and e-commerce rights received through institution-negotiated contracts….

[emphasis added]

Okay, so what did we get with out third request?

[….]

date: Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:46 PM

subject: Re: Request for information – RSMo 610

[….]

Pursuant to your request of October 30, 2009, wherein you ask for copies of all documents, including but not limited to – copies of all checks, documents showing all individual payment amounts, and documents showing the date received for all  individual payments in reference to the 2005 contract to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events between  D&H Media and the University and to the document provided to you by the University on October 23, 2009 in response to your October 19, 2009 request titled “KOKO Revenues”, in the category of “Compensation Remitted to UCM”, [and] in the subcategory titled, “UCM Advertising Sales Collections” for the amount of:

1.  $29,000 as  indicated for 2009

2.  $29,380 as indicated for 2008

3.  $27,100 as indicated for 2007

4.  $24,300 as indicated for 2006

5.  $23,100 as indicated for 2005

our search resulted in the documents contained in the attached .pdf file.

Sincerely,

[….]

[emphasis in orginal]

Somebody corrected our grammar with the [and]. That was very thoughtful.

So, we got a number of documents (pdf), but we can’t figure out when payments were made. We guess they can’t either. That’s the “epic fail” part. Note: the first page of this document is one we received after our second request.

A question: If you don’t differentiate between the general fund accounts and ancillary accounts from the university which commission ads and then you mix those in the calculation of the distribution of the gross ad receipts, isn’t that an accounting nightmare? Just asking.

This is good accounting practice? We seriously need a forensic auditor.

Like we said, “epic fail”.

So much for transparency.

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 Agre
ement”?: your Friday news dump (November 6, 2009)

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

This is the twenty-second 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’ve been curious about rumors and a perception of hostility toward Aaron Podolefsky on the part of some in athletics and some of their supporters. Knowing of significant expenditures for replacement bleacher seats (pdf) in the Multipurpose Building and the implementation of a new student fee that generated significant income for the athletics budget and the inherent substantive support that indicates, all occurring under Aaron Podolefsky’s direction, we started asking about the specifics of the athletic budget. Previously we received a budget summary (pdf) of athletics expenditures from FY 2006 to FY 2010.

[….]

date: Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:03 PM

subject: Request for Information – RSMo 610

This is a request for the following under RSMo 610:

1. A copy of the latest annual Equity in Athletics report filed with the Department of Education.

2. A copy of the latest annual NCAA Financial Reporting Form (“report on the revenues, expenses and capital expenditures of the institution’s athletics department”) as submitted by the University.

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

Thank you.

[….]

[emphasis added]

We received the following reply:

[….]

date: Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM

subject: Re: Request for Information – RSMo 610

{….]

The cost of producing the requested information in your November 2, 2009, e-mail is $16.80.  Please advise if you wish to receive this information.  If so, it will be made available to you upon receipt of payment.

Sincerely,

[….]

We paid the $16.80 and this is part of what we got:

Name of Reporting Institution: University of Central Missouri

Information for the Reporting Year: 2008

[….]

Revenue/Expense Summary

1. Ticket Sales  [$] 90,410

Include revenue received for sales of admissions to athletics events. Include ticket sales to the public, faculty, and students, and money received for shipping and handling of tickets. Do not include ticket sales for conference and national tournaments that are pass-through transactions. Report amounts in excess of a ticket’s face value paid by ticket purchasers (for example, to obtain preferential seating) in category 4 (Contributions).

2. Student Fees [$] 461,380

Include student fees assessed and restricted for support of intercollegiate athletics.

3. Guarantees [$] 20,500

Include revenue received from participation in away games

4. Contributions [$] 493,613

Include amounts received directly from individuals, corporations, associations, foundations, clubs or other organizations that are designated, restricted or unrestricted by the donor for the operation of the athletics program. Report amounts paid in excess of a ticket’s value. Contributions shall include cash, marketable securities and in-kind contributions. In-kind contributions may include dealer-provided automobiles (market value of the use of a car), apparel and soft-drink products for use by staff and teams. Do not report pledges until funds are allocated. Report gifts and merchandise from corporate sponsorship agreements in Category 12 (Royalties, Licensing, Advertisement and Sponsorship).

5. Compensation and Benefits Provided by a Third party. [$] 0

Include all amounts provided by a third party and contractually guaranteed by the institution, but not included on the institution?s W-2 (e.g., car stipend, country club membership, entertainment allowance, clothing allowance, speaking fees, housing allowance, compensation from camps, radio income, television income, and shoe and apparel income). This should equal Expense Categories 20 and 22 combined.

6. Direct State or Other Government Support. [$] 0

Include state, municipal, federal and other government appropriations made in support of the operations of intercollegiate athletics. This amount includes funding specifically earmarked to the athletics department by government agencies for which the institution has no discretion to reallocate. Any state or other government support appropriated to the university, for which the university determines the dollar allocation to the athletics department shall be reported in Direct Institutional Support (item 7).

7. Direct Institutional Support. [$] 5,397,758

Include value of institutional resources for the current operations of intercollegiate athletics, as well as all unrestricted funds allocated to the athletics department by the university (e.g., state funds, tuition, tuition waivers and transfers). Also include Federal Work Study support for student workers employed by athletics.

8. Indirect Facilities and Administrative Support. [$] 529,940

Include value of facilities and services provided by the institution not charged to athletics. This support may include an allocation for institutional administrative cost, facilities and maintenance, grounds and field maintenance, security, risk management, utilities, depreciation and debt service. If your institution does not currently track indirect institutional support, consult your business office for a reasonable allocation. If counted here, include offsetting expenditure equal in value in Expense Category 32 (Indirect Facilities and Administrative Support).

9. NCAA/Conference Distributions including all tournament revenues. [$] 123,148

Include revenue received from participation in bowl games, tournaments and all NCAA distributions. This category includes amounts received for direct participation or through a sharing arrangement with an athletics conference, including shares of conference television agreements. If known by sport, report as such. Include any payments received from the NCAA for hosting a championship (permissible to include in Revenue Not Related to Specific Teams).

10. Broadcast, Television, Radio, and Internet Rights. [$] 0

Include institutional revenue received directly for radio and television broadcasts, Internet and e-commerce rights received through institution-negotiated contracts.

11. Program Sales, Concessions, Novelty Sales, and Parking. [$] 9,924

Include revenue of game programs, novelties, food or other concessions, and parking revenues. Revenue from sales of game program advertising is to be included in Revenue Category 12 (Royalties, Licensing, Advertisements and Sponsorships).

12. Royalties, Licensing, Advertisements and Sponsorships. [$] 76,848

Include all revenue from corporate sponsorships, licensing, sales of advertisements, trademarks and royalties. An allocation will be necessary to distinguish revenues generated by athletics versus the university if payments are combined. Include the value of in-kind products and services provided as part of the sponsorship (e.g., equipment, apparel, soft drinks, water and isotonic products).

13. Sports Camp Revenues. [$] 16,532

Include amounts received by the athletics department for sports-camps and clinics.

14. Endowment and Investment Income. [$] 20,093

Include endowment spending policy distribution and other investment income in support of the athletics department. These categories include only restricted investment and endowment income for the operations of intercollegiate athletics; institutional allocations
of income from unrestricted endowments qualify as “Direct Institutional Support”.

15. Other. [$] 19,198

As a guide, please limit this to no more than 5% of total revenues and attempt to reclassify amounts greater than 5% to the appropriate category(ies) above to bring the category to less than 5% of the total revenue. If the number is greater than 5%, please provide the top three categories and amounts in the comments section below.

16. Subtotal Operation Revenue. [$] 7,259,344

Expenses

17. Athletic Student Aid. [$] 1,947,209

Include the total amount of athletically related student aid awarded, including summer school and tuition discounts and waivers (including aid given to student-athletes who have exhausted their eligibility or who are inactive due to medical reasons). Athletics aid awarded to non-athletes (student-managers, graduate assistants, trainers) should be reported as Expenses Not Related to Specific Teams. It is permissible to report only dollars in the Expenses Not Related to Specific Teams row as long as you have reported non-zero entries for Equivalencies, Number of Students, and Dollars (all 3 required) for at least one sport.

18. Guarantees. [$] 0

Include amounts paid to visiting participating institutions.

19. Coaching Salaries, Benefits, and Bonuses Paid by the University and Related Entities. [$] 1,312,776

Include gross salaries, bonuses and benefits provided to head and assistant coaches, which includes all gross wages, benefits and bonuses attributable to coaching that would be reportable on university and related entities (e.g., foundations, booster clubs) W-2 and 1099 forms (e.g., car stipend, country club membership, entertainment allowance, clothing allowance, speaking fees, housing allowance, supplemental retirement allowance, compensation from camps, radio income, television income, tuition remission, earned deferred compensation benefits). Place any payment made to previous coaches to satisfy a contractual agreement for coaching in Category 23 (Severance Payments).

20. Coaching Other Compensation and Benefits Paid by a Third Party. [$] 0

Include all compensation paid to the coaching staff by a third party and contractually guaranteed by the institution, but not included on the institution?s W-2 (e.g., car stipend, country club membership, entertainment allowance, clothing allowance, speaking fees, housing allowance, compensation from camps, radio income, television income, shoe and apparel income). Expense Categories 20 and 22 combined should equal Revenue Category 5 (Compensation and Benefits Provided by a Third Party).

21. Support Staff/Administrative Salaries, Benefits and Bonuses Paid by the University and Related Entities. [$] 876,033

Include gross salaries, bonuses and benefits paid to administrative staff (i.e., football secretary, sport-specific  trainer) that would be reportable on university and related entities (e.g., foundations, booster clubs) W-2 and 1099 forms (e.g., car stipend, country club membership, entertainment allowance, clothing allowance, speaking fees, housing allowance, supplemental retirement allowance, compensation from camps, radio income, television income, tuition remission, earned deferred compensation benefits). Staff members responsible for the gender-specific athletics department, but not a specific sport (i.e., director of men?s athletics), will have their compensation figures reported as Expenses Not Related to Specific Teams fields. Athletics department staff members who assist both men?s and women?s teams (sports information director, academic advisor) will be reported as Not Allocated by Gender column.

22. Support Staff/Administrative Other Compensation and Benefits Paid by a Third Party. [$] 0

Include all compensation paid to the support staff by a third party and contractually guaranteed by the institution, but not included on the institution?s W-2 (e.g., car stipend, country club membership, entertainment allowance, clothing allowance, speaking fees, housing allowance, compensation from camps, radio income, television income, shoe and apparel income). Expense Categories 20 and 22 combined should equal Revenue Category 5 (Compensation and Benefits Provided by a Third Party).

23. Severance Payments. [$] 0

Include severance payments and applicable benefits recognized for past coaching and administrative personnel.

24. Recruiting. [$] 134,458

Include transportation, lodging and meals for prospective student-athletes and institutional personnel on official and unofficial visits, telephone call charges, postage and such. Include value of use of institution?s own vehicles or airplanes as well as in-kind value of loaned or contributed transportation.

25. Team Travel [$] 491,684

Include air and ground travel, lodging, meals and incidentals for competition related to preseason, regular season and postseason. Amounts incurred for food and lodging for housing the team before a home game also should be included. Include value of use of the institution?s own vehicles or airplanes as well as in-kind value of donor-provided transportation.

26. Equipment, Uniforms and Supplies. [$] 491,601

Include items that are provided to the teams only. Equipment amounts are those expended from current or operating funds.

27. Game Expenses. [$] 162,985

Include game-day expenses other than travel that are necessary for intercollegiate athletics competition, including officials, security, event staff, ambulance and such.

28. Fund Raising, Marketing and Promotion. [$] 37,966

Include costs associated with fund raising, marketing and promotion for media guides, brochures, recruiting publications and such.

29. Sports Camp Expenses. [$] 0

Include all expenses paid by the athletics department, including non-athletics personnel salaries and benefits, from hosting sports camps and clinics. Athletics personnel salaries and benefits should be reported in Categories 19,20,21 or 22.

30. Direct Facilities, Maintenance, and Rental. [$] 333,753

Include direct facilities costs charged to intercollegiate athletics, including building and grounds maintenance, utilities, rental fees, operating leases, equipment repair and maintenance, and debt service.

31. Spirit Groups [$] 42,200

Include support for spirit groups including bands, cheerleaders, mascots, dancers, etc.

32. Indirect Facilities and Administrative Support. [$] 529,940

Include value of facilities and services provided by the institution not charged to athletics. This support may include an allocation for institutional administrative cost, facilities and maintenance, grounds and field maintenance, security, risk management, utilities, depreciation and debt service. If your institution does not currently track indirect institutional support, consult your business office for a reasonable allocation. If counted here, include offsetting amount equal in value in Revenue in Category 8 (Indirect Facilities and Administrative Support).

33. Medical Expenses and Medical Insurance [$] 330,921

Include medical expenses and medical insurance premiums for student-athletes.

34. Memberships and Dues. [$] 4,400

Include memberships, conference and association dues.

35. Other Operating Expenses. [$] 411,268

Other operating expenses include printing and duplicating, subscriptions, business insurance, telephone, postage, operating and equipment leases, non-team travel and any other operating expense not reported elsewhere. Do not include indirect administration overhead provided by the university (use Category 32) or salaries and benefits (use Categories 19 or 21). Attempt to allocate all expenses to Categories 17 through 34 before using this category. As a guide, please limit this category to 10% of total operating expenses. If the number is greater than 10%, please provide the top three categories and amounts in the comments section below.

36. Total Operating Expenses. [$] 7,107,194

Add Columns 17-35.

[….]

[formatted for presentation]

That’s a signficant amount of institutional support. The student fee alone generated
$461,380. Ticket sales were only $90,410.

We’re curious about this….

….10. Broadcast, Television, Radio, and Internet Rights. [$] 0

Include institutional revenue received directly for radio and television broadcasts, Internet and e-commerce rights received through institution-negotiated contracts….

…given a radio contract (pdf) that states the University is supposed to be paid $15,000 a year for the rights to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events.

As near as we can tell from information provided (pdf) – after 2007 the university was no longer covering overages in the athletic budget from the general fund and was, instead, charging the athletic budget for those overages on their next year’s budget.

That could be called promoting accountability and fiscal restraint.

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)

This is the twenty-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

Your Friday news dump from the office of Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.

Yep, that Marvin “Bunky” Wright was appointed to the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors today by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon. You know, the same Marvin “Bunky” Wright…

UM associate to retire in December

By Amy Brachmann and Elliot Njus

Published Sept. 14, 2007

Kenneth Hutchinson, the UM system vice president for human resources, said he plans to stay professionally active after he leaves the UM system, but still plans to enjoy retirement…

…UM system General Counsel Bunky Wright, who also works at the UM system office, said he and Hutchinson have been friends since childhood.

“I have the greatest respect for him,” Wright said. “He’s just an outstanding person.”

Hutchinson said that although he hopes to do some professional work at a human resources firm he started, he doesn’t want to do too much…

[emphasis added]

…with the childhood friend who just so happens to have recently received an $80,000 contract for the search for a new president at the University of Central Missouri.

No, this is not a story from The Onion, it’s just the same old way of doing business in the State of Missouri. And no, we haven’t received a copy of the contract per our Missouri Sunshine request. Do you think anyone in the Missouri Attorney General’s office would care about that?

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)

This is the twentieth 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

At the end of 2007, with a few new members on the Board of Governors (appointed by then Governor Matt Blunt, a Republican), the President of the Faculty Senate was approached by a member of the board and asked what faculty reaction would be if the board bought out President Aaron Podolefsky’s contract.

What could have happened in 2007 to cause a board member to consider getting rid of the president of the university?:

U.S. News Ranks UCM Among the Best

[….]

WARRENSBURG – 08/17/2007 – President Aaron Podolefsky’s efforts to increase the university’s academic profile are paying off for UCM. The university was just named one of “America’s Best Colleges” by U.S. News & World Report….

No, that couldn’t be it.

We keep running into the evidence that something happened in 2007. Faculty Senate President Jack Rogers’ February 2008 letter to a different member of the board helps enlighten us a little more about what that might have been:

Governor Deleta Williams

Board of Governors

University of Central Missouri

February 4th, 2008

Dear Governor Williams,

As President of the Faculty Senate, I have chosen to write this letter on behalf of the faculty. It is unfortunate that this duty falls to me, but we feel that the gravity of the situation and the potential for irreparable harm to our university community compels us to speak out in support of our President, Dr. Aaron Podolefsky.

I have been contacted by a member of the UCM Board of Governors. The board member asked me what I thought the faculty’s response would be if an offer was tendered by the Board to “buy out President Podolefsky’s contract.” I immediately asked if such an offer was forthcoming from the Board; and if so, why I was being asked to comment.  The board member stated that ‘no official discussions or conclusions had been reached,’ but that several campus leaders were being asked what they thought the reaction of their respective constituents might be if such an action was proposed. I told the board member that I would need time to consider my response. Pursuant to that conversation, I have been contacted by other leaders of campus units to see if my opinion on the “Podolefsky buy-out” had been solicited.

To be frank, I was both disturbed by the tactic of the query and reluctant to speak for the faculty, as a whole, without first soliciting their input.  My tenure as President of the Faculty Senate has taught me that there is rarely a single response from the faculty on any issue, let alone one given to such potential for controversy. Rather than speak for the faculty, I elected to let them speak for themselves. I wish to make it clear that I make no claim that I speak for every single faculty member. However, given the sensitive nature of the local situation, I decided not to contribute to the climate of speculation by opening a general discussion of the topic. Instead, I posed the board member’s question to several key members of the faculty that experience has taught me reflect a fair representation of the faculty’s perspective on most issues. During that process, several other members of the faculty whom I had not soliciting input from approached me asking if the rumors of a potential “buy-out” were true. They have also shared their perspectives on the impacts of such an offer. To that end, five considerations have been articulated. No inferences should be made regarding their level of importance as a result of the order in which I have chosen to present them.

   * Vision vs. time –

     One of the concerns articulated by the board member was that Dr. Podolefsky’s recasting of the mission and vision of the University is taking much longer than anticipated. This, it was argued, has resulted in confusion and a loss of momentum.

     We do not agree with this analysis. We are of the opinion that we are moving as fast as is constructively possible. Our academic institution is unique and any comparison to a traditional business model would probably prove invalid. We are not a “top down” organization and change dictated from above would be met with significant resistance on the part of our faculty. We are committed to a collective process of identification. As a result, significant change within academe takes time. We have changed the name of the University. We have changed the mission statement; and thus, the core values underpinning our mission have been impacted. We believe in a positive way. However, vetting those changes through a process of shared governance takes time. We appreciate President Podolefsky’s commitment to the process of shared governance and his leadership throughout this much needed process.

   * Stability –

     One key factor identified as critical to our University’s future success, and directly tied to the discussion above, is stable leadership during the recasting of our vision and mission. Changing the senior leadership at this juncture would risk:

         o A loss of support for change from the faculty as they might see the work engaged in over the past two years as wasted effort.

         o A significant blow to faculty moral as they would see their efforts towards change unsupported by the Board since the senior leader responsible for the vision and leadership during the process was “bought out.”

         o A loss of momentum, which is ironically the concern expressed by the board member, as we go through both the hiring process and give the new president time to get adjusted, make his or her own appraisal of the situation, and perhaps map a different direction and vision. This could easily result in an eighteen month to two year delay before the process could begin anew.

         o An increase in confusion, again ironically a concern of the board member. This is directly linked to the argument above. What does the Board deem unacceptable enough to “buy out” the President? Is it his vision and contributions to the process? If the process of shared governance is not moving fast enough and the changes made to this point are unsatisfactory, then what does the Board deem acceptable?

         o This could potential lead to a lack of support for any future attempts to recast the vision and subsequent missions and direction of the university; thus creating stagnation.

         o Finally, we are concerned that this action would send the wrong message to our colleagues. How effective will we be in attracting the “best and the brightest” if we “buy out” our president? Since 2000, I have served under three department chairs, two deans, two interim deans, three provosts, one interim provost twice, and two presidents. My experience on campus is not unusual. I can say that during my tenure as Faculty Senate President, three issues have been central to the vast majority of discussions among the faculty. They are salaries, health care and stability.

   * Cost –

     Obviously there would be direct costs associated with a “buy out” and the subsequent hiring process. Additionally, the indirect costs of the peoplepower expended over the past two years on our recasting efforts would be wasted. There would also be costs associated with a new and improved recasting process.

   * Time on campus / accessibility / approachability –

     Another concern expressed by the board member
was the amount of time that Dr. Podolefsky spends in Jefferson City, Washington, D.C. and travelling to alumni events. It was argued that this isolated him from the faculty and distracted him from the day-to-day activities of the campus.

     We strongly disagree with this position. It is our analysis that Dr. Podolefsky is exactly where we need him to be. The day-to-day affairs of the university should fall to our vice-presidents and the provost. What we need is an advocate at the state and national level voicing our concerns, keeping our budget intact and soliciting additional funding through state and federal grants and set asides. We need a president who seeks out opportunities within our wider community to keep our alumni engaged and giving. With state allocations continually pressuring the viability of our mission, private donations are absolutely critical to our future success. We applaud Dr. Podolefsky for his leadership in these areas. In addition, my contact with the Missouri Association of Faculty Senates indicates that his leadership among the other university presidents has been extremely successful in defeating a number of legislative initiatives that had the potential to seriously impact our ability as a faculty to successfully achieve our mission, and, if passed, had the potential to make it difficult to attract out-of-state faculty colleagues and students.

     With regard to the concerns expressed over his accessibility and approachability, we find no fault with our president. He is committed to the process of shared governance and we have found him to be both engaged and concerned with his faculty.  

   * Issues of intellectual and administrative freedom –

     Several discussions around the local and campus communities have centered on the President’s commitment to both his intellectual and administrative freedom.  

         o Issue 1) His selection for the position of Vice-President for University Development.

           Dr. Podolefsky’s decision to offer the position to one of the candidates forwarded by the committee rather than another internal candidate who was not recommended was the correct decision. To do otherwise would have sent the message that committee work was unimportant and eroded his commitment to shared governance.

         o Issue 2) Mrs. Podolefsky’s decision to pursue legal action against the local school district.

           While the faculty members I discussed this issue with were divided in their opinions regarding the wisdom of Mrs. Podolefsky pursuing this action, they were strongly committed to the principle that to hold the President accountable for the professional choices of Mrs. Podolefsky would be incorrect.  

         o Issue 3) The loss of foundation contributions as a result of issues 1 & 2. The consensus of those involved in the discussion was that anyone who would withhold or threaten to withhold contributions was doing so for the wrong reasons. As a faculty, we are concerned that if the Board used the potential loss of contributions as a justification to “buy out” the President’s contract, it would send the wrong message to our students. In effect, any such action would have the potential to shift the focus of future discussions to questions of whether we can only afford to do the right thing so long as it doesn’t cost too much.

In summary, we are satisfied with both the leadership and the decision-making abilities demonstrated by President Podolefsky. We have found him to be a committed colleague, an effective advocate at the state and national levels, an engaged diplomat to our alumni, and an intelligent and insightful leader. As a result, we wish to express to the members of the Board of Governors that we strongly support his continued tenure as our President.

Further – and I take sole responsibility in making this recommendation – I suggest, given the controversial and locally divisive nature of this situation, that the Board express its public support of the President so that we, as a university community, can confidently refocus our attention on more important issues. I would welcome to opportunity to meet with the Board to discuss the contents of this letter or to answer any questions you may have.

Respectfully submitted,

Dr. Jack E. Rogers, President

University of Central Missouri Faculty Senate

Somebody was unhappy that they didn’t get an administrative job they wanted? Oh, really?

Yep, nothing succeeds like success. Or, maybe the motto of the current majority on the Board of Governors should be: “no good deed should go unpunished.”

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)

This is the nineteenth 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 heard complaints from individuals on campus that the local radio station was not accurate in representing the results of a campus survey and was using those misrepresentations to bludgeon University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky on the air.

We were given a copy of a letter (and an attached analysis) sent in February to the University’s Board of Governors by the President’s Commission on the Status of Women. We understand the board replied with a terse response only indicating that they received the materials submitted by the commission.

The letter:

20th February, 2009

Dear UCM Board of Governors.

The President’s Commission on the Status of Women is in the process of communicating its analysis and recommendations for the UCM Campus Climate Study. The PCSW is deeply concerned about the actions of a local Warrensburg radio station (KOKO) during the analysis and recommendation phase of the study. The station inaccurately reported results of the study and pre-empted a clearly defined, thoughtful process. An analysis of the remarks was conducted by one of our committee members and is attached for reference.

In our opinion, these actions and inaccurate statements were detrimental to our process and the university. We fully support free speech and the exchange of ideas and understand the right of the media to report on the activities of a state-supported university. At the same time, we expect the media to report accurately and act ethically. To this point, the members of the commission understand that KOKO radio is involved in an ongoing business relationship with UCM. The PCSW would like to request a formal response from the board as to why this business relationship is allowed to continue, in light of the public comments made by this station.

We look forward to continuing our efforts to make UCM a better place to work, live and study and appreciate your support.

[….]

It appears that another group of individuals on campus holds a dim view of self-labeled “fair and balanced” media.

The analysis by a member of the commission submitted with the letter to the Board of Governors:

I was concerned about the summary of the climate study that was characterized as “exposing deficiencies in UCM Leadership” by the local radio station.  In fact, since it was a campus climate study, there were few actual questions about leadership.  In addition, there were no questions across both faculty and staff surveys about “senior leadership.”  Rather, there were questions about managers and university leadership in a survey about campus climate overall.  There is not a sense of overall “poor leadership.”

The UCM organizational climate study did not list a top three areas for improvement.  The consultants listed general conclusions/recommendations in no particular order.  In addition, there were actually three surveys:  one was administered to students, another to staff members, and a third to faculty.  While there was some overlap in the three, the questions varied, and the results were not the same across all three surveys.

Some recommendations listed regarding the student surveys (644 responses) were:  reducing racial and sexual discrimination (14% of the female students have experienced sexual discrimination, 27% of non-white students have experienced racial discrimination), improving relations between students and campus/Warrensburg police (55% feel campus police treat them fairly, 43% feel that Warrensburg police treat them fairly), improving connections with academic advisors (58% feel their academic advisors care about them as a person), and improving mechanisms students have for voicing concerns (although 59% agree students have mechanisms to voice their issues).  In addition, 83% were either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with UCM. 83% feel that UCM staff treat them with respect, 85% are satisfied with the education they are receiving, 81% feel valued by their professors.  89% are comfortable interacting with people from different racial backgrounds and 68% socialize with those from different racial backgrounds, and 82% feel safe on campus.

Some recommendations listed regarding the staff surveys (573 responses) were:  improve perception of university administration and its role (66% either very satisfied or satisfied with the job department managers were doing, 47% either very satisfied or satisfied with the job mid-level managers were doing, and  32% either very satisfied or satisfied with the job senior managers were doing) communication between university and staff (39% said they were satisfied with communications at UCM, 31% feel they have adequate methods to voice their issues to the university), clear objectives for recognition and advancement (18% agree university promotions and reclassifications are fair and equitable), and competitive pay (only 24% satisfied).  It should be made clear that staff members were not asked about the university leadership per se.  They were asked about their opinions of “department managers, mid-level managers, and senior management.”  In conversations with some staff members, they took those questions to pertain more to HR (human resources) than to the academic leadership of the university.  In addition, these questions about managers were in the context of a survey about campus climate, particularly in relation to discrimination towards minorities, so it is quite possible that respondents were responding in regards to managers and this particular issue, not overall.  Overall satisfaction is 74%.  In general, staff members were satisfied with their work relationships:  89% agree staff treat faculty with respect, 85% agree staff treat students with respect, 76% felt valued by their colleagues.  They thought of themselves as supportive of minorities, 85% would report an act of discrimination if witnessed, 80% are comfortable interacting with GBLT minorities, 95% are comfortable interacting with racial/ethnic minorities, and 90% feel the university is a safe place to work.  However, concern was expressed about discrimination on campus, particularly gender discrimination (21% had experienced) and job position discrimination (34%).

Some recommendations listed regarding the faculty (319 responses) were: improving communication (48% very satisfied or satisfied, 69% neutral overall), that the university needs to do a better job of managing perceptions/leadership (67% agree or strongly agree that they are satisfied with leadership at the department level, 13% neither agree nor disagree; 57% agree or strongly agree that they are satisfied by the job done by college leadership, 24% neutral; 29% strongly agree or agree that they are satisfied with university leadership, 29% neither agree nor disagree).  However, “leadership” is likely defined differently by different faculty.  Some could also only be thinking of leadership and discrimination issues given the context of the survey.  They could also be thinking of leadership historically and concerns about leadership not staying long.  There are no questions which relate solely to the President of the university and university leadership is comprised of more than just the president.   On the whole, faculty were happy with their work relationships (74.7 very satisfied or satisfied with work relationships; 71% proud to work at UCM, 20% neutral; 71.1% overall are satisfied with their work life at UCM, 16.4% neutral.)  42% of women reported experiencing gender discrimination, 40% of female faculty surveyed reported racial/ethnic di
scrimination, and 20% of male faculty reported racial discrimination.

There is little to support the claim that staff and faculty “feared” to answer the survey honestly.  Of the staff surveyed, 68.4% were completely honest in completing the questionnaire, 29% reported that they were honest in completing the survey “mostly, I have some concerns about confidentiality, and 2.3% reported “not completely, I have concerns about confidentiality.” Of the faculty surveyed, 72.9% were completely honest in completing the questionnaire, 24.1% reported that they were honest in completing the survey “mostly, I have some concerns about confidentiality, and 1.7% reported “not completely, I have concerns about confidentiality.”  There could be concern about naming co-workers in their comments, concerns about online surveys in general, concerns that the results could be used inappropriately by others– we simply do not know.  Having concerns and fearing are hardly the same.

On the whole, the university can improve on many issues, but it would be erroneous to assert from this data that there is a widespread concern about poor leadership on campus.  We can be proud of the overall satisfaction of our students and use these results to move forward to make the campus climate even better.

The commission stated: “…We fully support free speech and the exchange of ideas and understand the right of the media to report on the activities of a state-supported university…” We resemble that remark.

Well, the board was silent then, and it’s publicly silent now.

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)

This is the eighteenth 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

If they were making a decision to spend $80,000 you’d think they’d get a better phone connection. We spoke with a member of the Board of Governors who stated that the record of her vote in favor of awarding a contract to a presidential search firm is in error. More on that later.

We sent in a sunshine request for last week’s closed Board of Governors session after they issued a release stating that they approved a contract with Hutchinson Consulting LLC:

[….]

date: Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:42 PM

subject: Request for information – RSMo 610

This is a request for information under RSMo 610:

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.

2. A copy of any RFP (Request for Proposals) issued by the University or the Board of Governors pertaining to the contract awarded in (1) above.

3. A copy of any bids submitted in competition for the contract awarded in (1) above.

4. The record of the vote and how each board member voted on the contract in (1) above.

Thank you.

[….]

Early the next morning we received a terse reply from the University’s General Counsel. This was unusual because we have been going through the University’s “custodian of records” in making our requests and we have been receiving answers (and refusals) through the same person, though the University’s General Counsel has been copied on all responses to our requests to date.

from: Henry Setser [….]

date: Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:58 AM

subject: Re: Request for information – RSMo 610

Should have a contract today and as you know, this was not subject to bidding.

[….]

Uh, no, we didn’t know, that’s why we asked.

Finally, this afternoon, we got an answer to our request. Sort of.

Still no copy of the contract.

[….]

date: Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:26 PM

subject: Re: Request for information – RSMo 610

[….]

This responds to your request for information, dated November 1, 2009 (5:42 p.m.) and received by me on November 2, 2009.  You requested:

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.  The contract has not been finalized and therefore, is not available.

2. A copy of any RFP (Request for Proposals) issued by the University or the Board of Governors pertaining to the contract awarded in (1) above.  There is no Request for Proposals issued by the University or the Board of Governors pertaining to the contract.

3. A copy of any bids submitted in competition for the contract awarded in (1) above.  There were no bids submitted in competition for the contract.

4. The record of the vote and how each board member voted on the contract in (1) above. During the October 29, 2009, Closed Session, a motion was made and seconded that the Board of Governors authorize a contract with Ken Hutchinson of Hutchinson Consulting Services LLC for presidential search consultant services in the amount of $80,000.  The motion carried with the following roll call vote:

Walter Hicklin aye                            Mary Long aye

Weldon Brady aye                            Deleta Williams aye

Edward Baker aye                            Richard Phillips aye

[emphasis in red in original]

Time out. If you voted to award a contract for $80,000 do you think that maybe you’d have a good idea of what its finalized state was going to be before you voted to approve it? Just asking.

Besides, we were told on Monday morning: “Should have contract today…”

No request for proposals. No bid.

After receiving this response to our Sunshine Law request I called Deleta Williams, a member of the Board of Governors, to ask her about this particular vote. She informed me that there was a bad phone connection and that she believed at the time that there was discussion leading to an adjournment vote. She told me that she will attempt to correct the record of her vote.

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)

This is the seventeenth 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 the Warrensburg Daily-Star Journal (note: this story is not available on-line), September 28, 1995:

The Daily Star-Journal, Warrensburg, MO, Thursday, September 28, 1995 [Sports, page 4]

New Facility Will Be Named Audrey Walton Stadium

Audrey J. Walton, a Versailles woman who provided the lead gift for construction of Central Missouri State University’s new football stadium, will now have her name associated with that facility as the result of action taken yesterday by the university’s Board of Regents….

….”We are pleased to associate Mrs. Walton’s name with a facility that would not have been possible if it weren’t for her generosity,” said Ed Elliott, university president. “Since there were no state funds available for this type of project, we turned to alumni and friends of the university, and we were overwhelmed by their outstanding show of support.”

Walton said she became interested in assisting the university after watching “Sportspage,” a program which airs on KMOS-TV, Central’s public television station, which indicated that the original stadium, built in 1928, needed to be replaced. She called Athletics Director Jerry Hughes, himself a native of Versailles, to find out how she might get involved. Then Hughes and President Elliott made a presentation to her outlining what was needed, and she agreed to make a contribution….

From 2007:

[….]

Date: 10/15/2007 11:01 AM

Subject:  Walton Stadium Bond

[….]

When we met to discuss the “BOG – Annual Debt Service” report, an item that came up was the funding for the Walton Stadium Bond. The 1999 Bond Agreement (legal document for the refinancing) states “all income and revenues derived by the University from the operation of the Stadium Facility including revenues from the Designated Portion of the Student Fee, investment and rental income are to be applied to pay interest on the bonds less current expenses”.

I don’t know why the suite rental income was ever recorded on the Foundation’s books to begin with but it has since the inception of the original bond (1995). The Foundation used to transfer the suite proceeds back to the University but [….] instructed the transfer be discontinued. The suite income is approximately $44,000 annually. I think [….] wanted the suite income to pay for the expenses Athletics was charging to the Foundation.

Since the Walton Stadium operating costs are borne by the General Fund, in my opinion, the Walton Stadium suite income should be directed to the General Fund to be in compliance with the Bond Agreement. Other Walton Stadium income such as football ticket sales, concessions etc are in the Athletics budget (General Fund).

The designated portion of the student fee referenced in paragraph 1 above, is the $1.25 Facilities fee per credit hour. The $1.25 Facilities fee totals approximately $280,000 annually; so you couple the $280,000 With the suite income of $44,000 that basically would cover the annual Walton Stadium bond payment of $329,000. We have always used the $1.25 Facility Fee to pay for the Stadium Bond but have not received the Walton Suite Income for a few years.

Please let me know if you need additional information.

[….]

Well, we thought something happened in 2007. You think the university president fixed that problem? You think that may have upset some people? We understand that the suite income is now going toward the bond payment.

There are some stories in archives from 1994 and 1995 about the stadium and those bonds and the financing of the stadium.

Muleskinner, Thursday,August 25, 1994. [Sports, page 11]

Stadium plans return above projected cost

….The University Board of Regents received bids for construction Aug. 16. However, the lowest bid was $6.5 million, $2.1 million above the university’s budgeted cost of $4.4 million.

Jerry Hughes, Central athletic director, said that university officials will meet with architects to try to cut costs. Highes said that he thought the project would be able to continue without much delay….

Muleskinner, Thursday, December 1, 1994. [Sports, page 9]

New Stadium to vault Central ahead of MIAA

By J.R. Belew

Staff writer

….Thomas Edmunds, senior vice president for business affairs, said the cost of the new structure is $5 million. It is funded by alumni donations and $4 million in bonds….

….”They (the suites) are helping pay for the rest of the stadium by the way we package them,” Hughes said….

Alumni Today, Winter 1995, page 9

Fundraising for stadium continues

….Cost of the new stadium to be built at Vernon Kennedy Field, is $4.4 million. The Foundation has approximately $2 million to be raised for the project….

Muleskinner, Thursday, August 24, 1995. [Sports, page 9]

Stadium almost ready for the first game

By Jean Ann Nichols

Sports Editor

…When complete, the newly constructed stadium will consist of a lower and upper level of metal bleacher seats as well as two levels of luxury suites and a press box….

….The suites, for either eight or 16 people, are furnished with theater seats, televisions, refrigerators and counters. The suites are available to either businesses or private individuals. An eight person suit sells for $50,000 for 10 years and a 16 person suite sells for $100,000.

Edmunds said the suites have sold very well, and only a few remain unsold. The revenue from the suites was used as part of the funding for the stadium….

Muleskinner, Thursday, September 28, 1995. [page 1]

New stadium to be named for Walton

By Darin Sparks

Staff Writer

The Board of Regents unanimously voted to name the new football stadium for Audrey J. Walton of Versailles, Mo., at yesterday’s meeting.

The amount received for the stadium is $5.5 million. Walton is the major donor. The largest single gift was $1 million….

….President Ed Elliott said donations by Walton and others made the stadium possible.

“We are pleased to associate Mrs. Walton’s name with a facility that would not have been possible if it weren’t for her generosity,” he said. “Since there were no state funds available for this type of project, we turned to alumni friends of the university, and we were overwhelmed by their outstanding show of support….

Muleskinner, Thursday, October 19, 1995. [page 1]

Stadium might require general revenue funds

Use of general funds depends of donations collected

by Darin Sparks

Staff Writer

The Audrey J. Walton Stadium at Vernon Kennedy Field has cost an estimated $5.8 million, $4 million of which was raised in bonds that the university has to pay back in 20 years….

….If Central does not receive enough money in donations to pay off the bonds, the payments will be taken from the university’s general funds, Edmunds said.

“You have to pledge something against it,” Edmunds said. “And in this case it is university revenues….”

….Steven Boone, assistant professor of chemistry, said faculty were told that the stadium would be paid for by private donations.

“It is my underst
anding that the funding for the stadium is from donations,” he said.

Joseph Mazza, professor of speech communications….said, to his understanding, the bonds were to be paid off by donations.

“Initially, there was a $1 million pledge from an anonymous source,” he said. “We know who that was now, and because of the time restrainsts for receiving donations, we had to sell bonds to cover the cost of the project….”

Why is it that numbers never add up?

The stadium suites – on the outside, looking in.

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)

As Michael was bolting out the door for rehearsal he called to tell me that he was cited in an article in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

Most tenured faculty favored keeping Podolefsky. Some, including Michael Bersin, seek to connect board members who voted against retention to the athletic department, where they say opposition to Podolefsky is strongest.

Well, they got that right. That is exactly what we are seeking to do. But no one called Michael up and interviewed him, so they got their information by accessing his body of work here.

So we are curious…has anyone at the Star-Journal been filing Sunshine requests, too? The dots are out there to be connected, and whoever connects them first gets the scoop.

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)

This is the fifteenth 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

At the October 29, 2009 University of Central Missouri Board of Governors meeting. From left to right: University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky, Board of Governors President Richard Phillips, board member Walt Hicklin, University Counsel Henry Setser. The empty chairs in the foreground were for board members Deleta Williams and Lawrence Fick, both who did not attend this meeting and who were in the minority in voting to renew President Aaron Podolefsky’s contract almost a month ago.

At 4:45 p.m. in the Friday news dump:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE…

UCM Begins Presidential Search Process

WARRENSBURG, MO (Oct. 30, 2009) – The University of Central Missouri Board of Governors voted Oct. 29 to enter a contract with Ken Hutchinson, president, Hutchinson Consulting LLC, Columbia, to lead the search for the university’s 15th president. The vote was unanimous by those attending the meeting. Hutchinson brings unique qualifications and credentials to the presidential search process, having served 42 years in higher education administration in Missouri, retiring at the end of 2007 as vice president of human resources at the University of Missouri.

An advisor and consultant on previous university presidential searches in Missouri, Hutchinson has extensive experience with regard to executive performance programs. Hutchinson was elected as a Fellow in the National Academy of Human Resources in 2000. In addition to his personal qualifications, he maintains a contractual relationship with the leading national search firm of Jerry H. Baker and Associates, which brings additional expertise and resources to the search process.

The presidential search process, now under way at UCM, will be highly collaborative and involve input from all major stakeholder groups, according to Richard Phillips, president of the UCM Board of Governors. More details on the complete process will be announced soon.

# # #

[emphasis added]

Was there an RFP (request for proposals) or bid process before the awarding of this contract? And what is the cost of the contract? We’ll try asking those questions.

“…The vote was unanimous by those attending the meeting…” Two of the three board members who voted to renew Aaron Podolefsky’s contract were not in attendance.

“…The presidential search process, now under way at UCM, will be highly collaborative and involve input from all major stakeholder groups, according to Richard Phillips, president of the UCM Board of Governors…” I’ll venture a guess of the names of ten faculty members who definitely won’t be appointed to that search committee.

Let’s take a look at some connections:

UM associate to retire in December

By Amy Brachmann and Elliot Njus

Published Sept. 14, 2007

Kenneth Hutchinson, the UM system vice president for human resources, said he plans to stay professionally active after he leaves the UM system, but still plans to enjoy retirement…

…UM system General Counsel Bunky Wright, who also works at the UM system office, said he and Hutchinson have been friends since childhood.

“I have the greatest respect for him,” Wright said. “He’s just an outstanding person.”

Hutchinson said that although he hopes to do some professional work at a human resources firm he started, he doesn’t want to do too much…

[emphasis added]

July 30, 2003

UM approves raise for administrators

by WHITNEY POOL  

The UM Board of Curators approved a 2 percent salary increase for five administrative officials during its executive session Friday.

Vice President for Human Resources Ken Hutchinson, Vice President for Academic Affairs Steve Lehmkuhle, Vice President for Finance and Administration Nikki Krawitz, UM General Counsel Marvin “Bunky” Wright and UM Board Secretary Kathy Miller will be receiving the raise.

[emphasis added]

University of Central Missouri

Board of Governors

Plenary Session Minutes

February 26, 2009

….Mr. Phillips….welcomed and introduced Mr. Henry Setser, UCM’s new General Counsel who will begin full-time employment on March 3, 2009. Mr. Phillips expressed appreciation to Mr. Marvin Wright for his service to UCM as Interim General Counsel….

[emphasis added]

Curators hold public forums

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Jack Rollins

….noticed that no representative from Baker-Parker, Inc. was present at the forum. “Does anyone from Baker plan on attending these forums?” he asked.

Ken Hutchinson, vice president for human resources for the university, assured Combs and others that a representative from Baker would be present at all the forums except the first one…

[emphasis added]

Jerry Baker

President

Mr. Baker has been an executive search consultant since 1976. Prior to establishing the firm in 2007, he was a partner with Baker-Parker, Inc. for 16 years….

[emphasis added]

Where everybody knows your name.

Connections are always interesting.

Let’s take a look at the biographies of the current board members who voted in the 4-3 majority to not renew President Aaron Podolefsky’s contract earlier this month:

Board of Governors

Richard Phillips was named to the Board of Governors in February 2005 and currently serves as the board president….He also worked at UCM as assistant football coach from 1970 to 1972….

Walter “Walt” Hicklin was named to the Board of Governors in June 2007, and currently serves as board vice president.   He retired in 2006 as Vice President emeritus of Student Affairs at the University of Central Missouri after having served the university for 31 years….

Weldon Brady was appointed to the Board of Governors in February 2008, and currently serves as board secretary….[1964] and since that time has been a strong supporter of the university and its athletic teams….

Edward L. Baker was appointed to the Board of Governors in April 2007….A strong supporter of UCM athletics, Baker has been a member of the Mule Train since 2002…

[emphasis added]

Mule Train, Mule Train? Where have I seen that before. Oh, yes, now I remember.

Well, three out of the four board members who voted to not renew Aaron Podolefsky’s contract expressed strong connections in their board biographies to the university’s athletic programs.

Oh, wait, make that four out of four with those strong connections:

….Hicklin joined Central in 1975 as an instructor of mathematics, spent five years as the head football coach and one year a
s head track coach….

[emphasis added]

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)