This is the fourteenth 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

Prompted to delve deeper into the University of Central Missouri’s contractual relationship with a local radio station by the on air comments of one of the radio station’s principals, we’ve had quite an interesting journey.

Still, more than two weeks after those remarks were broadcast, the University remains silent.

We asked for a copy of the contract and the University provided it on October 16, 2009:

Paragraphs 12 and 13 from the 2005 contract [pdf] between the University and D&H media (KOKO radio) for the exclusive rights to broadcast university athletic events.

…12. KOKO/KWKJ shall pay CMSU a broadcast right fee of Fifteen Thousand and/no Dollars ($15,000.00) on a quarterly basis. Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty and no/100 Dollars ($3,750.00) shall be due to CMSU from KOKO/KWKJ on September 30th, December 31st, March 31st, and June 30th of each contract year. KOKO/KWKJ also will bill CMSU monthly for any phone charges incurred during the transmission of any games broadcast as outlined in No. 1 of this agreement.

13. KOKO/KWKJ will sell advertising time and will provide twenty-five per cent (25%) of the gross advertising revenue to CMSU. KOKO/KWKJ and CMSU shall review and reconcile the gross advertising sales information in a meeting prior to June 15th of each contract year. At that time, KOKO/KWKJ and CMSU shall divide the gross advertising revenue, with seventy-five  per cent (75%) of gross advertising revenue of CMSU sports radio broadcasts to KOKO/KWKJ and twenty-five per cent (25%) to CMSU…

We’re still trying to get some answers about the amounts and dates of payments that are required by the contract.

And we’re still curious about the University’s response that Board of Governors’ authorization to sign the multi-year contract was not required.

On Thursday afternoon we received a reply to our second Missouri Sunshine Law request concerning the Paragraph 12 and Paragraph 13 revenues in the contract:

[….]Date: Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Subject: Re: Request for information – RSMo-610

[….]In response to your request of October 25, 2009, for “communications concerning the scheduling, agenda, and actions of any meetings concerning compliance with paragraph 13 of the contract…,” no such written communications exist.  In response to your request for the “dates and amounts of those payments since the inception of the [KOKO/UCM] contract,” attached is a spreadsheet listing the dates payments were made and the amounts received.

 

[….]

>>>[….]10/25/2009 8:22 AM >>>

Under RSMo 610 I am requesting the following information:

Concerning the following payments as required of the May 2005 contract to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events between D&H Media and the University.

1. Under Paragraph 13 of the contract, any record of payments and communications about those payments, including, but not limited to, the specific dates and amounts for each payment made in compliance with paragraph 13.

On October 19, 2009 I specifically requested:

“…Under Paragraph 13 it is stated that the parties to the contract are required to meet annually to “review and reconcile the gross

advertising sales information.” Is it the assertion of the University, as indicated by the response to my original request, that no further

communications have taken place concerning compliance with Paragraph 13?

If the meetings(s) took place, this is a request for communication(s) concerning the scheduling, agenda, and actions of any meetings concerning compliance with paragraph 13 of the contract….”

2. Under Paragraph 12 of the contract, any record of the quarterly payments and communications about those payments, including, but not limited to, the specific dates and amounts for each payment made in compliance with paragraph 12.

On October 19, 2009 I specifically requested:

“…Under Paragraph 12 KOKO is required to make quarterly payments to the University. This is a request for the dates and amounts of those payments since the inception of the contract.”

Thank you….

[emphasis added]

Note that our request “…1. Under Paragraph 13 of the contract, any record of payments and communications about those payments, including, but not limited to, the specific dates and amounts for each payment made in compliance with paragraph 13….” was ignored.

The following information was provided in a spreadsheet attached in response to our inquiry for records concerning payments and dates of those payments in compliance with Paragraph 12 of the contract:

KOKO Giving History 05 to present (file name)

700022652

KOKO KWKJ

2005 09/03/04 3,750.00 2005M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK Check

2005 11/12/04 2,750.00 2005M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK Check

2005 12/13/04 750.00 2005M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK Check

2005 04/06/05 3,750.00 2005M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 3439

2006 10/05/05 1,601.00 2006M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 3827

2006 12/30/05 3,750.00 2006M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 4021

2006 03/28/06 3,750.00 2006M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 4222

2007 10/05/06 1,789.00 2007M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 4623

2007 12/14/06 3,526.96 2007M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 4773

2007 03/28/07 3,750.00 2007M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 5002

2008 11/09/07 291.51 2008M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 5483

2008 01/14/08 3,250.00 2008M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 5638

2008 04/17/08 3,536.00 2007M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 5862

2009 11/21/08 2,062.00 2009M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 6382

2009 04/07/09 3,750.00 2009M Mule Train Project Underwriting N CK 6693

The quarterly payments in compliance with Paragraph 12 of the contract [pdf] should each be in the amount of $3,750.00 and should be on or before September 30th, December 31st, March 31st, and June 30th. In that context this spreadsheet, provided by the University makes no sense.

We have no idea what “Mule Train Project Underwriting” is.

We don’t know which fund the reported payments were deposited in. We didn’t ask. We might do so at some point in the future.

Yesterday afternoon, in yet another attempt to get the dates and individual amounts of the annual 25% gross advertising revenue payments due the University as required by Paragraph 13 of the contract, we sent the following Missouri Sunshine Law request:

….date: Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:08 PM

subject: Request for information – RSMo 610

Under RSMo 610 I am requesting the following information:

1. In reference to the 2005 contract to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events between  D&H Media and the University and to the document provided to me by the University on October 23, 2009 in response to my October 19, 2009 request titled “KOKO Revenues”, in the category “Compensation Remitted to UCM”, in the subcategory titled, “UCM Advertisin
g Sales Collections” for the amount of $29,000 as indicated for 2009.

a. Provide a copy 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.

2. In reference to the 2005 contract to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events between  D&H Media and the University and to the document provided to me by the University on October 23, 2009 in response to my October 19, 2009 request titled “KOKO Revenues”, in the category “Compensation Remitted to UCM”, in the subcategory titled, “UCM Advertising Sales Collections” for the amount of $29,380 as indicated for 2008.

a. Provide a copy 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.

3. In reference to the 2005 contract to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events between  D&H Media and the University and to the document provided to me by the University on October 23, 2009 in response to my October 19, 2009 request titled “KOKO Revenues”, in the category “Compensation Remitted to UCM”, in the subcategory titled, “UCM Advertising Sales Collections” for the amount of $27,100 as indicated for 2007.

a. Provide a copy 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.

4. In reference to the 2005 contract to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events between  D&H Media and the University and to the document provided to me by the University on October 23, 2009 in response to my October 19, 2009 request titled “KOKO Revenues”, in the category “Compensation Remitted to UCM”, in the subcategory titled, “UCM Advertising Sales Collections” for the amount of $24,300 as indicated for 2006.

a. Provide a copy 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.

5. In reference to the 2005 contract to broadcast intercollegiate athletic events between  D&H Media and the University and to the document provided to me by the University on October 23, 2009 in response to my October 19, 2009 request titled “KOKO Revenues”, in the category “Compensation Remitted to UCM”, in the subcategory titled, “UCM Advertising Sales Collections” for the amount of $23,100 as indicated for 2005.

a. Provide a copy 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.

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

Thank you…

Maybe the third time is the charm.

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)

Yesterday the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal prominently featured an item on its editorial page previously published in the Springfield News-Leader:

10/29/2009 1:01:00 PM

Sun not shining

Editorial

Some public bodies across Missouri … are wrongly handling the way they retreat into closed meetings…

Ah, a paean to accountability when it comes to public business.

Then, today, the Daily Star-Journal ran a rare signed editorial by the publisher, William James:

10/30/2009 7:23:00 AM

The bottom line

Editorial

In today’s issue there is an AP story regarding the University of Central Missouri president and comments of treatment of his family by our community; his outstanding accomplishments and how well liked he is by a majority of tenured professors; and the unfairness of not having his contract renewed…

…They have voted not to renew President Podolefsky’s contract. They have no obligation to explain their votes to this newspaper, university staff or the general public. While I don’t necessarily agree with this policy in its entirety, it is simply the bottom line.

– Wm. James

Well Mr. James, maybe you’d think differently if you actually filed a few more Missouri Sunshine Law requests instead of listening to someone else’s whispered conventional wisdom about what masquerades as acceptable public policy.

Irony impairment indeed.

Also in today’s edition, front page above the fold, was an Associated Press article on the Aaron Podolefsky story – quoting me, apparently from the interview I did with KSHB-TV.

Another irony. It’s a difficult and convoluted process to get permission from the Associated Press to quote myself from their article quoting something I wrote here. You’ll just have to settle for the original:

….Michael Bersin: I think that’s really the issue, is that people are mystified by this….

….Michael Bersin: And, the,  the point is that it shouldn’t be a mystery. Because we’re the university community, the entire university community is owed an explanation by this board….

Our previous coverage of the non-renewal of the contract of University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky:  

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)

This is the twelfth 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

Yesterday we received a copy of a memo outlining the history of the McClain Will and Trust. We first covered the will in “A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: let’s not get cut out of the will.

…Memorandum:

DATE: October 23, 2009

TO: Mr. Dan Power, President, UCM Foundation Board (and members)

Mr. Richard Phillips, President, UCM Board of Governors (and members)

Mr. Joe Kremer, Executive Director, UCM Foundation

Mr. Michael Lucas, UCM Internal Auditor

FROM: Dr. Aaron Podolefsky, President s/

RE: Exit Memo #1: Update regarding Morrow-Garrison and the McClain Funds

Charge to the University Auditor

Charge to the Foundation Board

I will be producing exit memoranda for the appropriate parties over the course of the next months. This one concerns the use of McClain gift funds as a match for the renovation of the Morrow-Garrison complex….

…Prior to my arrival in July 2005, President Patton submitted a request to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE) and thus the State of Missouri for the renovation of the Morrow-Garrison complex. The cost of the renovation was projected to be $15,500,000; $13,500,000 was to come from State funds and $2,000,000 of which was to come from a university match, i.e., the Regina Myers McClain gift funds. When I arrived on campus, I was led to believe that the funds were an estate gift from Mrs. McClain to the Department of Health and Human Performance (HHP) and, as such, appropriate for this use. (As part of my duties, I lobbied for over two years for the approval of these state funds. After they were approved and the projects underway, 14 MOHELA projects were halted due to lack of funds. I, with others, was successful in having these funds reinstated. UCM was one of only four of these 14 projects to be fully funded.)

After the State funds became available and planning for the renovation had begun, Vice President Paul Page mentioned off hand to me that the funds were actually given to the Nutrition program. I asked to see the documents. In reading Mrs. McClain’s Will and learning of the history of litigation over the estate, it became clear that the gift was given to “establish a department of nutrition.” Good stewardship and the law require that gifts to the university be used as the donor intended.

This presented a challenge to the entire project. However, after much though, we considered that we could establish a Department of Nutrition and use the McClain funds to renovate space for this new department. Since Nutrition faculty and facilities were already scheduled to be in this building, this was a matter of the architects creating a floor plan (actually reworking already drafted plans) and of identifying “nutrition” space valued at $2,000,000. Thus, the promised match would be provided and the funds would be expended as Mrs. McClain intended.

The HHP department insisted that a proposal for a gift had been written by HHP and that McClain’s gift was to fund that proposal with the funds going to athletic training. We spoke extensively to Dean Sluder and others. No such proposal was found in the Foundation files, and there was no indication that such a proposal was presented to Mrs. McClain. The question, however, was moot since the Will was clear. Even if she had received a proposal, Mrs. McClain’s Will is the guiding document. The department disagreed and was understandably animated given their long-standing misperception of the gift.

In order to be confident in our interpretation, I requested that Interim Legal Counsel Wright provide a written legal opinion. Mr. Wright sought a written opinion from the law firm of Lathrop and Gage of Kansas City. Mr. Wright, as I recall, expended $16,000 of university funds on this letter of opinion. In addition, Mr. Wright charged the university his hourly fee to draft his opinion, following that of Lathrop and Gage. These opinions were clear that the funds must be expended on nutrition. In addition, the opinions ventured into discussion of what constitutes a Department of Nutrition and warned of consequences related to the original lawsuit filed by Mrs. McClain’s daughter in the state of California contesting the university’s receipt of any funds at all. I requested Mr. Wright provide the Dean and department copies of these opinions and he declined, but he did visit with them and report the finding verbally. Based on the requirements of the Will, the administration including the Dean of the College, recommended, and the Board of Governors formally approved, the creation of a Department of Nutrition.

As a side issue, during the planning of the renovation the HHP department expressed a strong desore to move wrestling out of the Morrow-Garrison complex. There was broad-ranging discussion of alternatives for wrestling and how to support its needs. many ideas were explored. One idea, brought by an outside consultant, was to use Morrow-Garrison funds since the relocation was forced by the project and alternate locations were far less costly to construct than space renovation in Morrow-Garrison. This was rejected. Another option discussed with the HHP department and the Foundation Board’s Finance Committee was using McClain funds to “buy” space in the building from wrestling. This too was rejected. Yet another was to use McClain funds to pay salaries of Nutrition faculty, thereby creating a general fund salary savings that could be used for other purposes (akin to creating an endowed chair). While legal, this was rejected as being too removed from the donor’s intent. Although these and other ideas were explored in order to satisfy HHP’s request to remove wrestling, all were deemed inappropriate or too far removed from the original intent and none were approved or implemented. Given the long-term interests of all parties, the decision was made to not include wrestling in the academic building, thus providing more space for academic programs. Athletic Director Hughes proposed the use of the Police Academy space as a temporary measure, which was approved, and Vice President Robert had a study done and preliminary plans drawn for a proper wrestling facility to be attached to the Multipurpose Building.

In sum, McClain funds were allocated to renovate space to establish a Department of Nutrition and to satisfy the promise of a $2,000,000 institutional match for the building renovation. Construction project managers were instructed to specifically account for the use of the McClain funds, as distinct from state construction funds, to ensure their use strictly for the Department of Nutrition. To the best of my knowledge, McClain funds have been allocated only to the construction of space to house a new Department of Nutrition. I have authorized no other expenditures from this account.

Requested Action 1 – The University Auditor shall examine the McClain account and report to me, the Executive Director of the Foundation, and to the Foundation Board on the use of those funds, including payouts to Mrs. McClain’s daughter.

Requested Action 2 – The Foundation Board should review Mrs. McClain’s Will and the two legal opinions noted above and, per its fiduciary responsibility, reaffirm the proper use of these funds

[emphasis in original]

Our previous coverage:

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

Three steps behind, and to the right, part 2 – a microc
osm 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)

This is the eleventh 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

A gift from Benoit Wesly and his family from Maastricht, The Netherlands, the 80-foot-tall Maastricht Friendship Tower [on the campus of the University of Central Missouri] has been a campus landmark since 1998. It was erected as a symbol of international understanding. Inscribed on each side of the tower is a quote from the Jewish Mishnah, “Who is wise? He who learns from every man,” in English, Hebrew, Dutch, and Maastricht Dutch.

Given the recent rhetoric on the local radio station we were curious about the continuing silence from the University. We filled a Missouri Sunshine Law request on Sunday, effective Monday morning:

…date: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Subject:Request for information under 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 concerning statements made on the radio by Greg Hassler.

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 today:

date: Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Subject: Re: Request for information under RSMo 610

….Pursuant to your request of October 25, 2009, requesting “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 concerning statements made on the radio by Greg Hassler; 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,” I am attaching communications and documents that we have identified thus far.  We are continuing to search our records; if additional communications or documents are identified concerning statements made on the radio by Greg Hassler, they will be sent to you in a supplemental e-mail…

We were thinking we would receive copies of communications we’d heard about on the Campus Climate Survey from the President’s Commission on the Status of Women.

We didn’t. We sure did get something else, though.

We got a copy of a letter sent by Benoit Wesly to the President of the Board of Governors:

…Maastricht, October 22, 2009

…Dear Mr. President,

I take this opportunity to address you from Maastricht, The Netherlands, with the following.

By mail I received several times the text of a radio interview between Mr. Greg Hassler and Mrs. Marion Woods. I read the text carefully and I came to my personal conclusion, that this text has a anti-Semitic undertone. Secondly I received also by e-mail a protest sign on the door of a faculty office at the University of Central Missouri, showing a star of David with the word ‘Jude’, symbolizing the holocaust. This protest came from a Jewish faculty member.

I did understand that the radio station has an intensive business relation with the University of Central Missouri, an institution which had and still has my full support. It was a complete shock and still is, that a radio station makes such a horrible statement. I also found out, that the Christmas tree already disappeared during the time Mr. and Mrs. Patton did stay at Selmo Park.

I have the following questions:

Did you or the President of the university started an investigation to clarify the intentions of Mr. Greg Hassler and did you suspend the relationship with this radio station during the investigation. In case the answer is yes, when do you expect the outcome of this investigation and if no, why you have not started this investigation.

The fine reputation of your university is badly damaged by this radio interview. I am awaiting a positive answer, so I do not need to reconsider my relationship which was established 25 years ago with the University of Central Missouri.

Many thanks for your attention in this matter.

Best regards,

s/

Benoit Wesly

We also received a copy of the communication sent in response to Mr. Wesly by the President of the Board of Governors:

October 23, 2009

Mr. Benoit Wesly…

Dear Mr. Wesly:

Thank you for you letter of October 22, 2009 addressing issues at the University of Central Missouri.  You are a trusted and honored friend of the University and I appreciate your interest.

You are several thousand miles away from Warrensburg while I am fifty miles away yet you have information I do not have.  I do not have the text of the radio interview you speak of nor do I have official information on a protest sign.  The administration of our University has not shared that information with me or any other Board Member that I am aware of.  After receiving your message on October 22, I contacted our security staff to see if a complaint had been filed on any activity symbolizing the holocaust.  Nothing has been filed.

I have visited with our General Council on contract issues with the local radio station as this person brought to my attention requests for information on the contract between the University and the radio station.  Again, the University administration has not sent or communicated to the Board any information on this matter.

I am sharing a copy of a note I sent to our Board regarding a conversation I had with a media person in the Kansas City area last week that is self explanatory.  Make no mistake about it, our Board will not nor will our University tolerate any discriminatory act against any group.

I remain curious in trying to understand how and why a person or persons would share this with you when our Board has received nothing from our administration on this matter and why your communication copied the Governor of the State of Missouri when nothing has been sent to our Board.

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.

Thanks again for your interest in our University and for taking the time to share you’re thoughts with me.

Respectfully

Richard Phillips…

cc: Dr. Aaron Podolefsky, President

UCM Board of Governors

Governor State of Missouri, the Honorable Jay Nixon

Monica Huffman

Henry Setser

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.

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)

This is the ninth post in an ongoing series as we file Sunshine 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 & MB

A scoreboard here and a scoreboard there, and pretty soon, you’re talking about serious scoreboard.

One of the rumors we heard about criticism of University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky was that he was being really mean to intercollegiate athletics because he wouldn’t release money they were entitled to from the vendor agreement with a cola company. I know, I know, we never get out of junior high school.

So, back to the vendor agreement, we decided to ask. On October 19th we submitted the following as a Missouri Sunshine law request:

[….]date: Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Subject: Request for information under RSMo 610

This email serves as notice that I am asking for the following under RSMo 610, i.e. the Sunshine Law, the following :

[….]

2. The University vendor agreement with Coca Cola put in place approximately two years ago.

Any requests for athletic funds generated from the Coca Cola agreement by the UCM Athletic Director

Thank  You [….]

Sent: Wed, October 21, 2009 2:28:56 PM

Subject: Re: Request for information under RSMo 610

[….]

Pursuant to your request of October 19, 2009, I am attaching  [….]a copy of UCM’s contract with Coca Cola. [….]In regard to your request for “Any request for athletic funds generated from the Coca Cola agreement…,” UCM’s Athletics does not receive any funds generated from the Coca Cola contract.

Sincerely [….]

Okay, on first read it looks like we sort of blew that question, but when you read the contract, we really didn’t. We didn’t particularly ask if they received funds generated by the contract, we asked if they requested funds generated by the contract.

Looking at Section 5.3 of the 2006 contract, we note that the Foundation got a chunk of change earmarked for scoreboard(s). Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe theatre productions use a scoreboard.

“…UCM’s Athletics does not receive any funds generated from the Coca Cola contract…”

Another point about this allocation to the Foundation. The University President doesn’t control the Foundation. If somebody didn’t get their scoreboard money their beef should be with the Foundation, not the University president.

There’s another interesting clause in Section 14.9:

Translation: Mean people suck. If you’re mean, that’s not going be a good thing for the continuation of this contract.

Do you think that the University of Central Missouri will be contemplating a clause like that in future radio contracts?

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)

The stakes are just as high. Our adventure in trying to get answers continues.

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)

This afternoon we received a response to one of our Missouri Sunshine Law requests concerning any authorization by the Board of Governors for signing the contract to broadcast University of Central Missouri athletic events.

[…]Sent: Fri, October 23, 2009 1:40:35 PM

Subject: Re: Request for information under RSMo610

[…]In response to your request of October 21, 2009, no written authorization was required.

[…]

>>> […] 10/21/2009 2:51 PM >>>

Please provide the following under RSMo 610:

Authorization from the board of governors for the Athletic Director to sign a multi-year contract with KOKO.

If so, did the authorization exist at the time the contract was made, or was it authorized after-the-fact?

[….]

[emphasis added]

We didn’t ask if authorization was required, we asked if there was any authorization.

That’s very interesting, considering the first response:

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

We’ve made Sunshine Law requests asking who authorized the athletic director to sign the muti-year contract.

Sent: Fri, October 16, 2009 4:12:14 PM

Subject: Information Request

This is a request under RSMo 610 for any record of an authorization by the previous President of the University delegating authority to sign a multi-year contract to the Director of the Athletic Department.

Thank You…

The University’s response:

Sent: Tue, October 20, 2009 11:00:40 AM

Subject: Re: Information Request

…In response to your request of October 16, 2009, our files do not reveal any written authorization by the former university president.

Sincerely…

And we asked another question:

date        Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM

subject Re: Information Request

How about the Board of Governors? Did they authorize a multi-year contract with the radio station?

Thank you for your assistance in filling this request under RSM0 610.

Thank You…

We know that the previous president did not authorize it – now we are waiting for our request on whether the BoG authorized the contract. What we know for certain is that, per University bylaws, the Athletic Director does not have the authority to make such a contract without someone higher up the food chain authorizing him to do so. We will ask what the policy was in 2005, but currently, only the Board of Governors can authorize a multi-year contract.

[emphasis added]

So, why the different responses? If authorization wasn’t required, why did they respond to the first request with “…In response to your request of October 16, 2009, our files do not reveal any written authorization by the former university president…”

We’ll be asking again.

From the contract:

Paragraph 6:

CMSU shall assume the responsibility for all costs associated with the broadcast of all athletic contests called for in this agreement…

Paragraph 7:

CMSU shall be responsible for the cost of all lodging and meals for all personnel making up its broadcast team for its broadcasts. CMSU shall permit said broadcast team to travel with the University party and shall make lodging and meal arrangements for the broadcast team…

Gee, you think that all adds up to $100,000 over ten years?

Consider the operative board policy [pdf] from 2001 when the contract was signed in 2005:

Bids and Contracts Approval Policy 4.1.010

Approved by the Board of Governors on April 18, 2001

I. Purpose

Central Missouri State University follows a competitive bid process to ensure impartiality in awarding contracts and to ensure the best possible use of University funds.

II. Policy

The Board of Governors of Central Missouri State University:

A. Authorizes the University President or designated officials to sign off on routine items bid under $50,000.

B. Requires University officials to report items bid between $50,000 and $100,000.

C. Must approve items bid over $100,000.

Uh, that ten year contract was worth over $100,000.

We’ll keep asking.

This morning we plunked down $87.75 in cash (and got the receipt) for one sealed envelope which contained the results of one of our Missouri Sunshine Law requests concerning the contract between KOKO Radio (D&H Media) and the University of Central Missouri.

“Could I get a receipt?”

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)

Back to our request for information. The sealed envelope contained three sheets of paper.

Update below

A printed copy of the e-mail exchanges pertaining to this Sunshine law request was in the envelope:

[…]date: Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM

subject: Re: Missouri Sunshine Law Request for KOKO radio contract information

[….]In accordance with Section 610.024 1.(1) “.. ..Research time required for fulfilling records requests may be charged at the actual cost of research time. Based on the scope of the request, the public governmental body shall produce the copies using employees of the body that result in the lowest amount of charges for search, research, and duplication time. Prior to producing copies of the requested records, the person requesting the records may request the public governmental body to provide an estimate of the cost to the person requesting the records.

. .”

The cost of compiling a report that responds to your request is $87.75.  The report will be made available to you once payment is remitted.

Sincerely [….]

>>>[….] 10/19/2009 7:20 AM >>>

Thank you for your response.

In reading the contract I note:

1) Under Paragraph 13 it is stated that the parties to the contract are required to meet annually to “review and reconcile the gross advertising sales information.” Is it the assertion of the University, as indicated by the response to my original request, that no further communications have taken place concerning compliance with Paragraph 13?

If the meetings(s) took place, this is a request for communication(s) concerning the scheduling, agenda, and actions of any meetings concerning compliance with paragraph 13 of the contract.

2) Under Paragraph 12 KOKO is required to make quarterly payments to the University. This is a request for the dates and amounts of those payments since the inception of the contract.

Thank you [….]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:46 AM [….]wrote:

>

> Pursuant to your request, I am attaching a copy of the contract between UCM

> and D&H Media, LLC.  There is no addenda to the contract, nor am I aware of

> any other communications concerning the contract.

>

> Sincerely, [….]

>

>

>>>> [….] 10/15/2009 10:30 AM >>>

> This is a request under RSMo 610 for the following information:

>

> 1. The multi-year contract between KOKO radio and the University of

> Central Missouri for coverage of intercollegiate athletics activities

> signed in 2005 (or possibly 2004).

>

> 2. Any and all addenda for said contract.

>

> 3. Any and all communications between KOKO radio and the university

> concerning compliance with that contract.

>

[….]

And a single printed sheet containing the following information (Update: The actual document):

KOKO Revenues

2009

UCM Revenues Earned

4 Quarterly payments of $3,750 – $15,000

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $80,451

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 20,113

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 35,113

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $5,812

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $29,000

Total UCM Compensation – $34,812

Amount Owed to UCM – $301

2008

UCM Revenues Earned

4 Quarterly payments of $3,750 – $15,000

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $81,756

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 20,439

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 35,439

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $7,077

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $29,380

Total UCM Compensation – $36,457

Amount Owed to UCM – ($1,018)

2007

UCM Revenues Earned

4 Quarterly payments of $3,750 – $15,000

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $81,566

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 20,392

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 35,392

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $9,066

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $27,100

Total UCM Compensation – $36,166

Amount Owed to UCM – ($775)

2006

UCM Revenues Earned

4 Quarterly payments of $3,750 – $15,000

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $78,356

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 19,589

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 34,589

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $9,101

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $24,300

Total UCM Compensation – $33,401

Amount Owed to UCM – $1,188

2005

UCM Revenues Earned

4 Quarterly payments of $3,750 – $15,000

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $67,081

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 16,770

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 31,770

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $11,000

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $23,100

Total UCM Compensation – $34,100

Amount Owed to UCM – ($2,330)

“…Under Paragraph 12 KOKO is required to make quarterly payments to the University. This is a request for the dates and amounts of those payments since the inception of the contract…”

Uh, we didn’t get the dates of those payments. We’re gonna ask again.

We’re not accountants, but to paraphrase Senator Al Franken who has done some research, neither are most Americans. When we balance our checkbooks it doesn’t quite look like this.

And we figure that since we already had the information contained in the two sheets of paper documenting our exchanges of e-mail, we were really only paying for the remaining sheet of paper.

Update:

We received an additional response to one of our Sunshine Law requests.

[….]

date: Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM

subject: Re: Request for information RSMo 610

[….]Pursuant to your request of October 23, 2009, attached is a copy BOG Policy 4.1.010 – Bids and Contracts Approval Policy approved by the Board of Governors on April 18, 2001.

>>>[…] 10/23/2009 8:37 AM >>>

This a request for information under RSMo 610.

The Board of Governors policy on bids and contracts dated April 18, 2001.[…]

This is the Board of Governors policy at the time the contract was signed:

Bids and Contracts Approval Policy 4.1.010

Approved by the Board of Governors on April 18, 2001

I. Purpose

Central Missouri State Un
iversity follows a competitive bid process to ensure impartiality in awarding contracts and to ensure the best possible use of University funds.

II. Policy

The Board of Governors of Central Missouri State University:

A. Authorizes the University President or designated officials to sign off on routine items bid under $50,000.

B. Requires University officials to report items bid between $50,000 and $100,000.

C. Must approve items bid over $100,000.

Uh, that ten year contract was worth over $100,000.

The current policy has even more detail:

Approval of Contracts, Real Estate and Capital Projects Policy

Board of Governors Policy 4.1.010

Revised and Approved by the Board of Governors on September 17, 2008

I. Purpose

This policy ensures that the best possible use is made of funds available to the university.

II. Policy

A. Delegation of Authority

The Board of Governors of the University of Central Missouri:

  1. Authorizes the university president to delegate contract and decision-making authority to direct reports within limits set out in position descriptions or by written delegation and to approve short-term (not longer than one calendar year) grants of leasehold interests in university real property.

  2. Directs the university president to adopt university procedures to ensure efficiency and accountability governing bids, contracts, agreements and all commitments of university resources. The University of Central Missouri follows a competitive procurement process to ensure integrity and the best possible use of funds available.

B. Retention of Authority

The Board of Governors of the University of Central Missouri:

  1. Retains authority to purchase, regardless of the source of funding, or sell university real property for the use of the university.

  2. Retains authority to lease real property for use by the university if the lease term exceeds one year and payment exceeds Two Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($200,000), regardless of the source of funding.

  3. Retains authority to approve any agreement to purchase property or services over multiple budget years when at completion of the agreement the total commitment exceeds Two Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($200,000), regardless of the source of funding.

  4. Retains authority to approve demolition or construction of university buildings, regardless of the source of funding.

  5. Retains authority to approve capital projects, major renovations, or significant alterations that were not included in the fiscal year budget approved by the Board of Governors….

Approved by the Board of Regents on May 20, 1987

Approved by the Board of Governors on April 18, 2001

Approved by the Board of Governors on February 21, 2007

Formatting updated August 1, 2007

Approved by the Board of Governors on September 17, 2008

[emphasis added]

“Retains authority” in this policy update probably means that they claimed that same authority in 2005 when the radio contract was signed, don’t you think?

One of the rumors we heard about some individuals’ upset with University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky was over the distribution of funds from the McClain Will and the McClain Trust to the university. We asked for the documents and got them. We also asked for any legal opinions concerning the will – the response was we’re not entitled to look at anything like that, which makes us think that a legal opinion or legal opinions actually do exist.

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)

On October 19, 2009 we asked the following:

…date: Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Subject: Request for information under RSMo 610

…This email serves as notice that I am asking for the following under RSMo 610, i.e. the Sunshine Law, the following :

1. A copy of the McClain Trust/Gift –  original bequest (will)

All legal opinions regarding the trust issued inside or outside the university…

We received the following response on Wednesday:

…Sent: Wed, October 21, 2009 2:28:56 PM

Subject: Re: Request for information under RSMo 610

…Pursuant to your request of October 19, 2009, I am attaching (1) a copy of the McClain Will & Trust…. In regard to your request for “All legal opinions regarding the trust issued inside or outside the university,”  legal opinions are not subject to production under the Missouri Sunshine Law….

You can read the documents for yourself:

April 17, 2001

Page 6 of Last Will and Testament of Regina E. McClain

…If any beneficiary under this Will in any manner, directly or indirectly, contests or attacks this Will or any of its provisions, any share or interest in my estate given to that contesting beneficiary under this Will is revoked and shall be disposed of in the manner provided herein as if that contesting beneficiary had predeceased me without issue…

April 17, 2001

Page 4 of the Regina E. McClain 2001 Declaration of Trust

…The residue of the estate is to be distributed to CENTRAL MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY AT WARRENBURG MISSOURI, to be used to establish a department of nutrition, to the extent funds are available to use excess funds for a scholarship fund for needy students to study the nutrition field…

Page 14 of the Regina E. McClain 2001 Declaration of Trust

….4.15 No-Contest Clause

In the event any beneficiary under this Trust shall, singly or in conjunction with any other person or persons, contest in any court the validity of this Trust or of a deceased Settlor’s last Will or shall seek to obtain an adjudication in in any proceeding in any Court that this trust or any of its provisions or that such Will or any of it is void, or seek otherwise to void, nullify, or set aside this Trust or any of its provisions, then the right of that person to take any interest given to him/her by this Trust shall be determined as it would have been determined had the person predeceased the execution of this Declaration of Trust without surviving issue….

We understand that a nutrition department at the University of Central Missouri got the money.

Well, it’s plain English and it’s set in stone. We’re not attorneys, but according to Senator Al Franken who has done some research, neither are most Americans. It looks to us like the money can only be used for those purposes stated in the Will and Trust, and anyone who is complaining that President Aaron Podolefsky cut them out of the will is crying over an inheritance that they never had a chance of getting.

It ain’t rocket surgery to figure this out.

What started with outrage and disgust over one bigoted comment by a wanna-be shock jock who is really nothing more than a minnow in the great lakes is turning out to be far more than simple bigotry. It’s starting to look like a festering cesspool of cronyism and good-ole-boy back scratching of the first order.

Earlier today:

It wasn’t just about a tree

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)

After hearing the audio of the mid October 2009 remarks made on KOKO radio by Greg Hassler we decided to do some research.

From 2006, then Central Missouri State University, now the University of Central Missouri:

…Greg Hassler is in his sixth season as the sideline reporter and pre and post-game host for Mules broadcasts. He is the Sports Director of flagship stations 1450 KOKO and 98.5 MIKE-FM….

The Associated Press ran a story on a controversial lawsuit and attorney Ronnie Podolefsky,  the spouse of University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky, in January 2008, citing Greg Hassler’s criticism of Ronnie Podolefsky’s participation in the case.

From the Missouri Secretary of State:

Business Name History

Name    Name Type

THE WARRENSBURG COUNTRY CLUB   Legal Non-Profit Corporation – Domestic – Information

Charter Number:         N00001166

Status:         Dissolved

Entity Creation Date:   5/22/1957

State of Business.:     MO

Expiration Date:        Perpetual

Last Annual Report Filed Date:

Last Annual Report Filed:       0

Registered Agent

Agent Name:     GREGORY H. HASSLER

Current Name:  THE WARRENSBURG COUNTRY CLUB

Date   Document

5/22/1957       Creation Filing

12/31/1999      With/Term/Dissolve

Again, from the Missouri Secretary of State, paperwork for a limited liability company was  filed on May 22, 2000:

Business Name History

Name    Name Type

D & H MEDIA, L.L.C.  

LegalLimited Liability Company – Domestic – Information

Charter Number:         LC0039125

Status:         Active

Entity Creation Date:   5/22/2000

State of Business.:     MO

Expiration Date:        12/31/2050

Registered Agent

Agent Name:     VANCE DELOZIER

Organizers

Name:   GREGORY HASSLER

Greg Hassler is listed as one of four initial members of the company. [pdf][link changed – click on the icon to view the document]

FMS

By BroadCasting & Cable Staff — Broadcasting & Cable, 7/9/2000 6:00:00 PM MT

Construction permit for new FM in Warsaw, Mo.

Price: $47,500

Buyer: D & H Media LLC, Warrensburg, Mo. (Vance DeLozier, member/75%

owner; Greg Hassler, member/25% owner); no other broadcast interests

Seller: John B. Mahaffey, Springfield, Mo.; owns/has interest in four

AMs and 11 FMs

Facilities: 98.5 MHz, 3 kW, ant. 261 ft.

Changing Hands

Compiled by Elizabeth A. Rathbun — Broadcasting & Cable, 9/2/2001 6:00:00 PM MT

KOKO Warrensburg, Mo.

Price: $435,000

Buyer: D&H Media LLC, Warrensburg (Loree and Vance Delozier, each 37%

members); no other broadcast interests

Seller: Bick Broadcasting Co., Hannibal, Mo. (James E. Janes,

president); no other broadcast interests. Note: Bick acquired station

for $310,000 in 1999

Facilities: 1450 kHz, 1 kW

Format: AC, news/talk

On October 15, 2009 we requested the contract between the radio station and the university:

date: Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Subject:  Missouri Sunshine Law Request for KOKO radio contract information

…This is a request under RSMo 610 for the following information:

1. The multi-year contract between KOKO radio and the University of Central Missouri for coverage of intercollegiate athletics activities signed in 2005 (or possibly 2004).

2. Any and all addenda for said contract.

3. Any and all communications between KOKO radio and the university concerning compliance with that contract.

We received the following reply:

date: Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Subject:        Re: Missouri Sunshine Law Request for KOKO radio contract information

…Pursuant to your request, I am attaching a copy of the contract between UCM and D&H Media, LLC.  There is no addenda to the contract, nor am I aware of any other communications concerning the

contract…

May 2005 contract for broadcasting intercollegiate sports events between the University of Central Missouri (then Central Missouri State University) and D&H Media (KOKO Radio) [pdf]

Given the rumors we heard about the radio contract, we thought it might be a good idea to confirm or debunk them as warranted. So, in 2005, a few weeks before Aaron Podolefsky became president KOKO and the UCM athletic director signed a contract with a ten year term granting exclusive rights to broadcast UCM sporting events. The contract terms appear favorable to KOKO. You can read ’em yourself.

We’ve made Sunshine Law requests asking who authorized the athletic director to sign the muti-year contract.

Sent: Fri, October 16, 2009 4:12:14 PM

Subject: Information Request

This is a request under RSMo 610 for any record of an authorization by the previous President of the University delegating authority to sign a multi-year contract to the Director of the Athletic Department.

Thank You…

The University’s response:

Sent: Tue, October 20, 2009 11:00:40 AM

Subject: Re: Information Request

…In response to your request of October 16, 2009, our files do not reveal any written authorization by the former university president.

Sincerely…

And we asked another question:

date        Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM

subject Re: Information Request

How about the Board of Governors? Did they authorize a multi-year contract with the radio station?

Thank you for your assistance in filling this request under RSM0 610.

Thank You…

We know that the previous president did not authorize it – now we are waiting for our request on whether the BoG authorized the contract. What we know for certain is that, per University bylaws, the Athletic Director does not have the authority to make such a contract without someone higher up the food chain authorizing him to do so. We will ask what the policy was in 2005, but currently, only the Board of Governors can authorize a multi-year contract.

After reading the contract, we followed up with a request on October 19, 2009:

date: Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:20 AM

subject: Re: Missouri Sunshine Law Request for KOKO radio contract information

Thank you for your response.

In reading the contract I note:

1) Under Paragraph 13 it is stated that the parties to the contract are required to meet annually to “review and reconcile the gross advertising sales information.” Is it the assertion of the University, as indicated by the response to my original request, that no further communications have taken place concerning compliance with Paragraph 13?

If the meetings(s) took place, this is a request for communication(s) concerning the scheduling, agenda, and actions of any meetings concerning compliance with paragraph 13 of the contract.

2) Under Paragraph 12 KOKO is required to make quarterly payments to the University. This is a request for the dates and amounts of those payments since the inception of the contract.

Thank you…

We received the following a few hours later:

date: Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Subject: Re: Missouri Sunshine Law Request for KOKO radio contract information

…I am currently looking into your specific requests as outlined below and will be back in touch with you.

Sincerely…

Yesterday we received the following in response to our request:

date: Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Subject: Re: Missouri Sunshine Law Request for KOKO radio contract information

…In accordance with Section 610.024 1.(1) “. . . Research time required for fulfilling records requests may be charged at the actual cost of research time. Based on the scope of the request, the public governmental body shall produce the copies using employees of the body that result in the lowest amount of charges for search, research, and duplication time. Prior to producing copies of the requested records, the person requesting the records may request the public governmental body to provide an estimate of the cost to the person requesting the records.

. .”

The cost of compiling a report that responds to your request is $87.75.  The report will be made available to you once payment is remitted.

Sincerely…

Question. When we asked for the information on October 15th we were told on October 16th that the information didn’t exist. After reading the contract, we asked again on October 19th and were told on today yesterday that the information did exist. We guess we could say we’re making progress.

We’ll ante up and get the information. And we’ll post it here. All for transparency in the public interest.

We received the following in response to our Sunshine Law request about any Board of Governors authorization to sign the contract:

Sent: Tue, October 20, 2009 3:14:24 PM

Subject: Re: Information Request

…Please submit your request relevant to the Missouri Sunshine Law.  Thank you….

>>>XXXXXXX 10/20/2009 1:46 PM >>> [original request as appended in this response e-mail]

How about the Board of Governors? Did they authorize a multi-year contract with the radio station?

Thank you for your assistance in filling this request under RSM0 610.

Thank You…

[emphasis in original request added]

Well, that’s interesting, don’t you think? We asked for the information and we cited RSMo 610. Do you think the authorization came after the fact? Is there anything in writing? We’ll ask that way, too.

If it wasn’t written down, it doesn’t exist.

Selmo Park, the President’s Residence at UCM

“The thing that really upsets me, that kinda got me going originally was, for years, there was a Christmas tree lit at Selmo Park. Remember that?  . . . drive by?  He stopped that.  I mean, I think every religion should be able to celebrate – uh – in their own way, but, I mean this is Warrensburg, Missouri!  This is America!”

On October 14, KOKO radio host and minority-share station owner Greg Hassler could not help himself, he had to crow a little bit about getting Aaron Podolefsky, the University President fired for committing the unforgivable sin of putting academics over athletics at an institution of higher learning. At least that’s an unforgivable sin in the eyes of a failed golf pro turned small-market sports jock.

Hassler was indignant about, of all things, a Christmas tree.

But not just any Christmas tree – he was indignant about a non existent Christmas tree!

The tree Mr. Hassler was so seemingly verklempt about was a live cedar that was on the grounds of Selmo Park, but had not had lights on it since 1999, a good five years before Aaron Podolefsky was hired as University President.

But that isn’t all…the tree was removed from the property because it had gotten so large that it obstructed the view of the residence and there was concern that the roots would cause damage to some of the infrastructure installed on the property…and we understand that it was removed around 2000. The Podolefskys did not take up residence in Selmo Park until July 2005. Quite a trick that he stopped the lighting and drive by considering the tree was gone for years before he got there, don’t you think?

We wonder if Mr. Hassler would like to come clean about his biases, or try again? We’ll be waiting…