This is the forty-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

Everybody is getting into the act now that other media are actually covering this story. And by everybody we mean those ubiquitous commenters on-line (with some really interesting repetitious themes) and in letters to the editor. In today’s Warrensburg Daily Star Journal there were two letters to the editor. One, titled “UCM donor will be missed” and another, titled “Donor will not be missed” [with a broken link]. Let’s take a look at the second letter, from the dead trees edition of the paper:

I read the Jan. 28 Muleskinner articles regarding Benoit Wesly being disturbed over the alleged, anti-Semitic comment.

I must say that I feel that this is much ado about nothing….I do not see any reference to anti-Semitism in the comment.

Possibly Mr. Wesly is not privy to the first amendment, contained within the bill of rights, regarding freedom of speech. Or possibly he feels that his donations to UCM give him the authority to usurp this amendment….

….The proper way to withdraw his support would be to do it quietly, not with the fanfare he has generated….

….Our friends at Missouri Valley College need to be watching this closely. Mr. Wesly could decide to try and place pressure on them if they do something which would cause them to fall from his favor….

Uh, Missouri Valley College is a private institution. It is not governed by this article in the Missouri Constitution:

Missouri Constitution

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

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

Greg Hassler, with a continued, and very public, association with the University of Central Missouri, stated on the air:

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

Marion Woods: Uh, huh.

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

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

Marion Woods: Yep.

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

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

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

Marion Woods: Oh, okay.

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

[emphasis added]

So, the thing that got Greg Hassler, an individual with a clear association with the University, “started” with his upset was that the president of the University of Central Missouri, who is Jewish, did not decorate a tree on state property for sectarian purposes, which would have violated the establishment clause, and which was actually cut down five years before he got here. Greg Hassler injected religion into this. Those are his words. According to our letter writer, it’s no big deal?

….The proper way to withdraw his support would be to do it quietly, not with the fanfare he has generated….

What, Greg Hassler can say what he did (yes, he can) and how dare Benoit Wesly say anything about it in public? Only Greg Hassler can say what he wants in public? No one else?

If our letter writer had been paying attention he would have known that Benoit Wesly made inquiries about the situation months ago, originally out of the public eye (If it weren’t for that pesky Missouri Sunshine Law we wouldn’t know that part). The Board of Governors didn’t address the situation.

So, the simple question for our letter writer, who appears to be outraged by Benoit Wesly’s reaction, do you think what Greg Hassler said was accurate and appropriate? Just asking.

It’s so inconvenient when anyone shines light on any unpleasantness. Instead, we should all clap louder.

Our previous coverage of the issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’ve listened to and read the remarks of some who contend that Ben Wesly’s actions toward UCM have been extreme, unwarranted and, most importantly, misplaced.

These folks claim that Wesly’s beef is (or least should be) with Greg Hassler, and not with the University.

Indeed, the crux of their argument is this: The remarks that proved upsetting to Mr. Wesly were uttered by someone who isn’t even employed by the University. (Or, as one alleged NewspaperMan described it in what could be the most ill-conceived and least objective headline of all time, Hassler’s relationship to UCM amounts to that of “non-employee.”)

With a shrug and a dismissive wave, adherents to this illogic say in so many words, “Hey, Greg Hassler isn’t the University of Central Missouri. He neither speaks for us nor does he in any way reflect our beliefs and (and this is the REALLY important part coming up next…) this fact is so clear as to be patently obvious.”

If this thinking is correct and there is no way any reasonable person could mistakenly imagine that Greg Hassler has been or currently is an active (and vocal, no less) participant in the UCM community, then a simple conclusion follows:

The University owes no apology to Mr. Wesly.

Mr. Wesly should reinstate his investments in the institution.

Mr. Wesly should take up his case personally and solely with Mr. Hassler.

Mr. Wesly should man-up and be a lot less sensitive.*

*Although outside the scope of this discussion, it’s worth noting that a substantial number of those who subscribe to this theory frequently buttress their case with the following non sequitur: There’s no sense in arguing the relative offensiveness of Hassler’s remarks because those criteria are purely subjective and consensus impossible.

This is, for the record, untrue and untrue, but that’s another discussion…

However, in the great cause of Science, we are prepared to test the theory that no reasonable person would or could mistake Greg Hassler (aka, RadioMan) for someone who is meaningfully associated with the University of Central Missouri.

Enough yacking… On with the game!

Here’s how it works:

1. You will be shown a photo that appears or has appeared in an official UCM publication;

2. In each photo, several individuals will be respectively identified by a letter (A, B, C, etc.);

3. Your job is to correctly identify the Non-Employee(s) of UCM.

4. Good luck!

Number 1 is easy, just to get you started. Here we go…

Not too hard, right? I hope you didn’t just automatically choose the man wearing the necktie. In this case, he actually is an employee. Try not to let clothing fool you!

---

Answers to Number 1:

A. Shawn Jones, Associate A.D. External Operations

B. Greg Hassler, Non-Employee

C. Bob Jackson, Promotions Coordinator/Web Manager

---

Ready for Number 2? Begin…

I know; this one’s a bit tougher, right? Everyone is dressed the same, save poor “Mr. A” who seems to have missed the khaki Dockers memo. The boys are even sporting what appears to be the official shirt of the actual Mules coaching staff.

“Mr. B” is demonstrating textbook ball-handling technique, but that doesn’t indicate much.

“Mr. C” is holding an official headgear so daintily that one wonders if it’s perhaps the first time he’s touched such a thing, or whether he might have just discovered that someone had recently perpetrated the timeless “football-helmet-as-toilet” gag. Telling? Let’s see…

---

Answers to Number 2:

A. Bob Jackson, Promotions Coordinator/Web Manager

B. Shawn Jones, Associate A.D. External Operations

C. Greg Hassler, Non-Employee

D. Joe Moore, Faculty Member, UCM Department of Communication

---

Okay, you’re catching on, so we’ll make it a bit tougher. Number 3…

Boy, there sure is a lot here to take in!

For one thing, they’ve posed in front of that pesky Tower thing. Maybe that’s what a press box looks like in Denmark, but not in America. Plus, they did the old switcheroo with the helmets (“Fool me once…,” says Mr. C), and someone clearly dropped the ball in forgetting to bring the ball. Also, the empty-handed have adopted a more masculine “at-ease” position. That, or the photographer has been granted a free kick.

And damn it all to hell… Mr. B got the pants right this time, but forgot to bring his official shirt.

Good for you if you noticed that there is an additional person in this photo. But most importantly, were you able to name who among them is a UCM outsider?

---

Answers to Number 3:

A. Joe Moore, Faculty Member, UCM Department of Communication

B. Bob Jackson, Promotions Coordinator/Web Manager

C. Greg Hassler, Non-Employee

D. Shawn Jones, Associate A.D. External Operations

E. James Sales, Non-Employee*

*Award yourself an extra point if you knew that James Sales is simultaneously a non-employee of UCM and an employee of Greg Hassler.

---

This final one is a real puzzler. Number 4…

How was that? A bit tougher, I expect, And there were some obfuscating bits, like the page heading, “Mules Support Staff,” which sort of implies that the people whose pictures appear under the heading are members of the staff. By now you’ve started to catch on and guessed correctly that some are and others aren’t.

Hopefully you’ve remembered not to base your choices on any official-looking articles of clothing. If not, you struggled with this one, for sure.

You might have noticed that Greg Hassler isn’t on this page. Good eye, and no, it wasn’t an oversight on our part. Because if you look closely, somewhere in this picture, you will find RadioMan’s accomplice, or RadioRobin.

---

Answers to Number 4:

A. John Hicklin, Academic Coordinator for Student Athletes

B. John Culp, Program Development and Retention Coodinator

C. Marion “Woody” Woods, Non-Employee*

*Give yourself an extra point if you knew that “Woody” is both a non-employee of UCM and an employee of Greg Hassler.

**You get double bonus if you knew that “Woody” works as Hassler’s On-Air Toadie.

---

Results

Please calculate your score (one point per correct identification, plus whatever bonus points you earned) and enter it into our database by commenting on this post. We will tabulate the results next Monday and begin statistical analysis in the Spring.

Thank you for participating!

This is the forty-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

On Thursday I was contacted by the Muleskinner, the student newspaper at the University of Central Missouri and asked if I would sit down for an interview with them to talk about people’s differing perceptions of the tree statement broadcast on KOKO radio by Greg Hassler in October. I told the reporter I would have to think about it. I did and I called him back to set up our meeting. We sat down for a conversation on Friday morning. The transcript:

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner:…It seems like a lot of people, I’m positive you’ve read the comments ’cause I saw your blog, so, a lot of people in our area don’t grasp the anti-Semitic component of what he said.

Michael Bersin: Um, hm.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Why can some people take that in an anti-Semitic way? Um, I guess, depending on your point of view it probably seems, probably like, you know, the giant Christmas tree in the center of the room for, to pull a bad example I guess, given the circumstances, but it’s there. You know, some people might look at it and, oh yeah, you’ve got a big plant and some people will, it’s a Christmas tree. Well, why, why would, I guess, yourself, Mr. Wesly see that in ant-Semitic way where, obviously, Mr. Hassler doesn’t see anything in it.

Michael Bersin: Well, well I don’t know if he doesn’t see anything in it, [cross talk] first.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Okay.

Michael Bersin: Uh, and, and I’ll get to that. One of the, the things, first, that you need to first consider is the Missouri Constitution has the strongest establishment clause of almost any other state constitution. It’s actually in two places, uh, one in the Bill of Rights and one under education. And the language is very explicit. Uh, and it’s been in there for a long time, it’s not something new.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Um, hm.

Michael Bersin: The University of Central Missouri is a state institution. So, have you heard the recording of it, the audio? Of what he said?

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: I haven’t heard the audio. I’ve seen transcripts….

…Michael Bersin: Right. Uh, so the, I’ve been here for twenty years. And when people have put up seasonal decorations, that’s what they call them. The institution or anybody associated with the institution, when they put up seasonal decorations, didn’t call anything a specific sectarian holiday decoration because they’re not supposed to. Because of the Missouri Constitution and this is a state institution.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Okay.

Michael Bersin: So, people who say, well, there’s always been this thing out here and they interpret it as a sectarian symbol are clearly ignorant of the history of the state, the Constitution, and they way that the, the institution itself dealt with it.

Uh, now this is something that’s striking, getting back to the perception, whether it’s, uh, anti-Semitic or not. In one of the first communications that Richard Phillips, the President of the Board of Governors, in the early exchanges between him and Ben Wesly, which we got through Sunshine, Missouri Sunshine Law request, one of the first, one of the questions that Richard Phillips asked is, “How did you find out about this?” And Ben Wesly, uh, I’d have to go back and look, but it’s sort of, his response was along the lines of, “What does it matter?”

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Um, hm.

Michael Bersin: Now, in his recent radio broadcast, uh, most recent radio broadcast that we put a transcript up, Richard, uh, excuse me, um, Greg Hassler, in his radio broadcast raised that point. He said, how did, how did Ben Wesly find out about this? And my question is, if Hassler has no problem with what he said, then what does it matter that anybody else heard it, read about it, or found out about it? That tells me that he knew the meaning of what he said, if he’s complaining that other people are finding out about it. Because if you don’t think that your statement will have that kind of impact then you shouldn’t really care who hears it, or who, who reads it.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Now [crosstalk]…

Michael Bersin: Now, on top of that, what I find fascinating, too, is, there’s a majority owner of the radio station. Has anybody asked the majority owner of the radio station whether this is the view of the radio station? Or how they feel about that comment, on the air, of the station that they own?

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: You know, I have a question for you about that, I mean, there may be, yes there’s controversy, but it is essentially rural Missouri and is a rural Missouri radio station. Um, they’re not getting the negative feedback they’d get in the, in a community that, a larger community that would have more Jewish people, more people that would point out that that, that comment at, if not anti-Semitic, is definitely narrow minded [inaudible] sectarian view.

Michael Bersin: Well, well that, that’s actually insulting to a small rural community to say that. You don’t want to label, uh, you know, an entire community as ignorant. Uh, that’s actually really sad to do that. Uh, that’s really sad to do that.

But, you know, this really isn’t about, um, Hassler. He can spew what he wants.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Um, hm.

Michael Bersin: Uh, the real problem is the Board of Governors of the university. Uh, they tell us, you know, they tell us, um, by the way they’ve reacted to this, uh, a lot about themselves. And when this first happened, one of the things I said was, I don’t know which is worse, that he said it, that people make excuses for it, or that the university community, now largely, has remained silent. And whatever anybody says, is, he has very clear strong association with the institution.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Well, obviously he does and I guess you have been involved in the, the battle to get access to a lot of those records that are being.

Michael Bersin: And, and there’s a lot more to this story, you know, on, on all kinds of levels. Um, this is just one part of it, uh.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: This, this story is limited and, and I know that there’s so much more to explore here.

Michael Bersin: Right.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: But this is limited to just why is a comment such as Hassler’s anti-Semitic? You know, we’re, and where is [crosstalk]…

Michael Bersin: We, we can really just dissect it. [crosstalk]

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: And where is that line [crosstalk]…

Michael Bersin: Well.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: …between boorish, a boorish behavior and ill thought out comment [inaudible]?

Michael Bersin: Well, well [crosstalk]…

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: And that’s [crosstalk]…

Michael Bersin: …the whole thing about it is it’s really, uh [crosstalk]…

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: …’cause obviously people don’t understand.

Michael Bersin: The idea that you, you, you start, you’re problem with somebody starts because they didn’t put a sectarian religious symbol up in their res, uh, in front of their residence, which is state property, which the Missouri Constitution says in no way, shape or form should any public money ever be used, period….

….Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: So, the problem starting with…

Michael Bersin: …with the statement is saying that, one, he said his problem with Aaron Podolefsky started when he didn’t put up a sectarian religious symbol on the grounds of his residence which is state property, which on the face of it, that’s what the Constitution of Missouri says you don’t do. Nobody can tell somebody to put up a sectarian symbol on state property, or hold them accountable in some fashion because they didn’t do it. It’s ridiculous on its face.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Um, hm.

Michael Bersin: And then to say, well. This is Warrensburg, Missouri, this is America.

I’ve lived here twenty years. Um, I’m American. To somehow say that because I don’t put up a sectarian religious symbol on state property makes me an outsider in my own country, in the community that I live in, and that I’ve lived in for twenty years? How do you think I would take it?

On top of that, Ben Wesly has walked away. Aaron and Ronnie Podolefsky will be leaving here. I have to remain here. But at least I [now] know more about the community I live in and the institution that I’ve been teaching at for the past twenty years.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: So, is this providing a, a more negative view towards the community for yourself, or possibly for other [crosstalk] people, [crosstalk] or?

Michael Bersin: No, what is,  no,  there are, uh lots of great people at this university and in this community. And, oh yeah, they get it.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Does it feel more closed than it did before?

Michael Bersin: No, not at all. What it really is, is, uh, you know, there are people that don’t understand all kinds of things, either through ignorance or whatever, and they’re everywhere. But the real thing here is the university and the Board of Governors should know better.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Um, hm. Now, I have to ask, are you tenured?

Michael Bersin: Oh, yes.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Okay. ‘Cause one thing I think I’ve been just hearing, not [inaudible] on this story, is that there are a number of people that haven’t spoken up because they aren’t tenured. [crosstalk] And they…

Michael Bersin: And, and I understand that, uh, there. There’s a practical aspect on, on a personal level you do feel vulnerable, but on a larger level, if somebody retaliated against a faculty member for speaking out on something even if, if they weren’t tenured, on something that really shouldn’t be, you know, uh, which is not relevant to the, the criteria for, for granting of tenure, uh, generally you should feel, you know, pretty good about it. But, the, the other side of the coin is, people who have tenure and the protections. Uh, what tenure allows, uh, tenure only allows you this, tenure only gives you, uh, the ability to speak out. Uh, what that means is that the university can dismiss a tenured faculty member for cause, but they have to show the cause. The faculty member does not have to prove why they should stay, the university has to prove why they should go.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Okay.

Michael Bersin: And so when a faculty member has tenure there’s protection of, of being able to speak out. And, if you have the ability to speak out, you have the obligation to speak out.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Now, what good [will] come out of this comment and this, uh, this whole issue?

Michael Bersin: Well, shining the light of day on anything is always a good thing.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: I mean, obviously there’s, uh, there’s more interest in what the Board of Governors is doing and how they’re doing it. That might be a good thing. But, specifically, this kind of comment, I was speaking with, uh, Karen…with the Anti-Defamation League about, you know, she sees it as an opportunity to, to open dialogue on these kinds of comments and, and the impacts of that. Um.

Michael Bersin: And, and, uh, this is interesting, uh, when people talk about, uh, understanding it’s really, it’s about empathy. It’s about what you do and say and understanding what kind of impact it has on others. And some people will never get, but the Board of Governors, while on some levels if, if you’ve read their communications, understand that there’s a problem, but I don’t think they quite understand how it affects other people.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Now, one of the comments on our web site said that, you know, the entire conflagration could have been handled with the Board of Governors, a simple investigation and a letter to Hassler saying, you know, we don’t approve of that. Um, is that a reasonable point and could that have happened [crosstalk] when Mr. Wesly first…

Michael Bersin: Well, you know, Hassler can say what he wants.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Right. [cross talk] But the board…

Michael Bersin: Uh, and he, you know, and, uh.  Probably. You know, basically it just takes a, the Board of Governors should have just said, this is not what this university is about. Uh, and then that sends a clear signal to the university community. You know, um, and, and institutions of, you know, higher education institutions, uh, are supposed to be, especially the state, you know, a state institution, are supposed to sort of lead the way. I mean, that’s the reason for the, uh, this university’s existence.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Um, hm. So where do we go from here?

Michael Bersin: I don’t know. Uh, I don’t know. You know, nobody, I don’t think anybody knows.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: [inaudible] I know Mr. Hassler’s a private person, he, well, public figure in the aspect of his radio show, but he’s not an employee of the university. Um, while, yes, he’s a contract in the university, or his radio station does.

Michael Bersin: Have you, have you read the contract? [….] There’s a clause in the contract. The university has approval for on air talent.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Okay. [….] So, then according to that contract the university could say we don’t want you broadcasting our game [crosstalk]. You’re [inaudible] doing the voices for our game.

Michael Bersin: [….]If, if the university so chose.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Right, okay.

Michael Bersin: At least as, as I have read it. I’d have to go review it, again. But I believe that clause is in there. [….]

From the contract [pdf]:

…2. CMSU shall provide the talents and services of the play-by-play and color announcers for all athletic events outlined in No. 1 above…

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Um, so, I understand the, what I, I think, and I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I understand what you’re saying about the comment. How did it make you personally feel? I read somewhere that you, you posted a, a photocopy on your door. Um, that’s a pretty strong statement.

Michael Bersin: I’ve had to, uh, I’ve had to endure all kinds of things, sometimes really small, you know, and you let it go, uh, and larger things my entire life. And that’s part of the thing about understanding other people’s experience. It’s not one thing. It’s something that history says we can’t get away from, and we know it. And you, you don’t, uh, you know, sometimes you put it behind you and you, you know, in the background. But I’ve had to endure, uh, little things and sometimes bigger things my entire life, uh, and for people to tell me it’s not a big deal or it is a big deal, that’s not their decision. That’s my decision.

It’s not something that I can get away from. So depending on somebody’s life history and what they’ve been through, if you’re, if you understand that then you’re not gonna be so quick to diminish they way somebody feels about something. Ben Wesly’s life experiences are very interesting, but so are mine. And so is my family history.

And Ben Wesly made some comments about that in some of the early responses with the members of the Board of Governors. And if you read some of the comments or, or some of the written communications from one of the members of the Board of Governors you can see that, it’s one of them actually, one of the communications says, oh, I understand a little more now. Uh, or at least they put that in word, those words out, we don’t really know if they understand or not.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Trying to figure out how to phrase this. Um, with just the vast number of people we have in our country and the, the completely different backgrounds that so many people have, um, you know, be they immigrants [….] how can you avoid offending somebody with any comment.

Michael Bersin: That’s really, uh, uh, an interesting point. Uh, you try to understand it. You, you don’t go after people because of their background, or where they came from, or their religious background. You, you engage people based on the power of their ideas, or, or the, uh, usefulness of their ideas, the intelligence of their ideas, or, their, their actions as, as individuals. You can criticize people for what, how they acted in the public sphere based on what it means to be an American. So, uh, if you’re an American citizen and you’re here and you participate in Democracy and you work and you live and you, you’re productive member of, of society and everything else, uh, yeah you can criticize people for what they do, but, you, you don’t criticize them for their background or their religious background. And you don’t try to impose your own religious views on somebody, at least from the perspective of the state. The state doesn’t do that. And nobody has the right or the ability to do that, to impose that.

Can Greg Hassler put up a Christmas tree at his home? You bet. Can Greg Hassles wear a tee shirt that says Merry Christmas any, anywhere he wants, including on this campus? You bet. [….] What he can’t do is, he can’t say that the president of the University of Central Missouri needs to put up a Christmas tree. Well, he can say that, it’s just that it’s not relevant. I mean, he can say that, it’s just not relevant. And anybody who understands what this institution is would look at it, laugh at it on its face, and say, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: What would an ideal resolution to this be for you?

Michael Bersin: I don’t know. [crosstalk]

Pat Nolan, Muleskinner: Or is there?

Michael Bersin: I don’t know. You know, I’m just one person. I don’t call the shots. Uh, and, and that’s actually the, the interesting thing about it. Uh, you know, it’s just individuals. Uh, I can speak out, but I only speak for myself.

Our previous coverage of the issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stupidity may be inherited, but ignorance is a personal choice.

This is the forty-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

Greg Hassler, the radio announcer and part owner of a radio station who has a thing about a tree, spoke at length on live radio yesterday about his new found larger market media notoriety:

….Greg Hassler: Hey, have you read the paper lately?

Marion Woods: You’re, you’re fired up. [laughter]

Greg Hassler: I, I guess. Have you read any of the papers lately?

Marion Woods: I did.

Greg Hassler: Did you read the Kansas City Star?

Marion Woods: I did. I did, I [inaudible] to see that, as a matter of fact.

Greg Hassler: Well, you know I.

Marion Woods: You were mentioned.

Greg Hassler: I’m kinda getting some [inaudible], I was up, my understanding is the Kansas City Star article that, uh, uh, talks about Wesly pulling a possible donation from the university is gonna be reprinted in the Daily Star Journal today. I haven’t seen.

Marion Woods: You heard that?

Greg Hassler: I heard that maybe today or, or tomorrow it’s, remains to be seen, but, uh.  I, you know, I don’t know, it’s a, uh, it’s unfortunate I think. I mean I, I mean if that’s actually the case that he is pulling that because of, of me that’s, uh, I don’t, you know, I feel bad. [crosstalk]

Marion Woods: [inaudible][crosstalk] responsibility.

Greg Hassler: Uh, yeah, I. You know, my comments that I’ve made I’ve said many times I’m not, I was not anti-Semitic, I’m not anti-Semitic, I mean, um. It’s unfortunate. [crosstalk]

Marion Woods: I can vouch for that. [crosstalk]

Greg Hassler: It’s unfortunate that it, that it’s come to this. It, it’s interesting how, how much media play this has gotten on the Kansas City Star web site. The story was the biggest story of the day. They had over one hundred responses on the web site.

Marion Woods: To that story.

Greg Hassler: [inaudible] They did. And most of them are, are very positive, a lot of them have different. And these are people on, from the outside looking in that also believe that it’s not anti-Semitic, I mean, what’s going on down there? And one guy says I’m not gonna give my money to the university anymore I’m gonna give it to KOKO radio. [laughter] I mean there’s left wing crazies, I mean, there’s all kinds of people out [crosstalk] there, different types of things.

Marion Woods: Oh, yeah.

Greg Hassler: And then last night’s, at eight o’clock, nine-eighty KMBZ news talk out of Kansas City donated a full hour, the Darla Jaye show, a full hour to, uh, to their article.

Marion Woods: Really.

Greg Hassler: And they had, they had callers calling in from around. It, it was a great show, uh, we are going to replay that show here on fourteen-fifty KOKO, it’s from an outsider, a third party that knows nothing about the University of Central Missouri, knows nothing about how Aaron Podolefsky did not get his contract renewed by the Board of Governors. Doesn’t know anything about me, doesn’t know anything about Wesly, and her thoughts and her comments on what she read in the newspaper and callers in the Kansas City area. It’s probably gonna be tomorrow once we get that whole show put together. Her producer has e-mailed it, uh, to us. She made a lot of great points and the very first point that she made, she goes, you know, this Wesly guy who lives in Denmark, this, you know, he’s Dutch, lives in Denmark. How does he even hear about this from a little radio station in Warrensburg, Missouri? First, her first point was there’s no way that’s an anti-Semitic comment. It’s just not.

Marion Woods: Yeah.

Greg Hassler: And then, their second point is, how does he hear about that? And she goes I can only assume that, uh, the president, Aaron Podolefsky told him, either played him a recording or told him about it. And, uh, probably not sure if that should even have been done. But, anyway, it’s [crosstalk]…

Marion Woods: That’s only an assumption on her part. [crosstalk]

Greg Hassler: That’s only an assumption on her part, I mean you got, kinda draw the lines [crosstalk]…

Marion Woods: Yeah.

Greg Hassler: …but, you know, two and two together. Uh, but it’s a great show and we, uh, hope to have it on tomorrow, it’ll probably be about forty-five minutes of great radio listening. It involves our area, it involves the university, it involves me, it involves, uh, a lot of, lot of people. [inaudible] And there’s also, there’s a facebook page already started in support called Hassler’s posse, I think that’s what it’s called. [laughter] I just got that this morning. Uh, people understand what’s going on around here.

Marion Woods: Yeah.

Greg Hassler: It’s not me being anti-Semitic.

Marion Woods: Yeah.

Greg Hassler: I’m not the problem. No question about that. The problem’s gonna leave in June. That’s the problem. And it’ll be gone soon, we just have to wait. Okay.

Marion Woods: Sports is next.

Greg Hassler: Mules and Jennies [laughter] basketball tomorrow night….

We’ve got to start somewhere.

1. Dutch people are from The Netherlands. The city of Maastricht (you know, the tower thingy on campus, next to the football stadium) is in the Netherlands. Benoit Wesly is from the Netherlands. Benoit Wesly is Dutch.

2. Denmark is a different country than The Netherlands. They don’t even share a border. People who didn’t sleep through all of their classes tend to know that.

3. KMBZ talk radio probably does not have as wide a listener demographic as some would think. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck?

4. “…It, it was a great show, uh, we are going to replay that show here on fourteen-fifty KOKO, it’s from an outsider, a third party that knows nothing about the University of Central Missouri, knows nothing about how Aaron Podolefsky did not get his contract renewed by the Board of Governors. Doesn’t know anything about me, doesn’t know anything about Wesly, and her thoughts and her comments on what she read in the newspaper and callers in the Kansas City area….”

Because people who don’t know anything or any of the facts always have the best insights on the issues of the day. The republic is further gone than we all thought. We should have seen it coming.

5. “…there’s a facebook page already started in support called Hassler’s posse…”

Someone thought it was a good idea to ask people to join a public group that thinks this is all okay?:

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

Marion Woods: Uh, huh.

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

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

Marion Woods: Yep.

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

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

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

Marion Woods: Oh, okay.

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

That’ll tell us something if it gets a million followers.

6. So, the President of the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors, Richard Phillips, “thought we had the whole thing turned around”. Given the content of this latest radio broadcast, it’d be safe to say that isn’t the case.

7. “…How does he even hear about this from a little radio station in Warrensburg, Missouri?…”

“…And, uh, probably not sure if that should even have been done….”

Uh, if there’s no problem with the content of your October on air statement than you shouldn’t have a problem with people hearing or reading about what you said.

A cautionary tale – you can really develop those essential critical thinking skills if you don’t sleep through your entire school career.

Our previous coverage of the issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the forty-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

Yesterday: “A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: welcome to the party…

Benoit Wesly spells his last name with one “e”. You wouldn’t know that, or evidently, bother to check if you wrote for the Kansas City Star.

Yael T. Abouhalkah, an opinion columnist for the Star, weighed in on the story with an on-line opinion piece: Jewish benefactor’s actions hurt University of Central Missouri

What, from that headline you’d think that the evil Ben Wesly has victimized the university?

Where to start?

“There must be a lot more behind the scenes to the story of why Benoit Wesley pulled the plug on his significant, longtime contributions to the University of Central Missouri…”

No shit, Sherlock. Might I be so presumptuous as to suggest reading the previous forty posts conveniently linked below the fold here?

“…The remarks in question were made by Greg Hassler, part-owner of a radio station that broadcasts UCM sporting events.

Special note: He’s not even paid by the university….”

Special note: the university pays him in meals, lodging, and warm-up suits. Oh, and his radio station has a ten year exclusive contract [pdf] with the university. With, you know, clauses in it. Like payments. And advertising revenue. And sloppy bookkeeping when it comes to advertising revenue.

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: “…a wonderful relationship there we’re really proud of…”

…So, so, we developed a situation where now where we’re at, at this point, we receive a rights fee every year. An up front amount of money, uh, that we know we’re gonna get. Then, my self, my staff and the sales staff of the radio station, we sell the advertising together. And we split the advertising where the station gets seventy-five percent, we get twenty-five percent. If I sell to somebody on their list they get the money, the, the person who’s the sales person, so they don’t lose any commissions.

The, the point being is, is we have a situation where we are true partners. We work together, but, but the onus is on them to go out and make the money. Uh, as an institution what I want to do is just get our events on there. But they’re so happy to, to be making the money and to be the home of Central Missouri Athletics and, and we’re so happy to have this great partner. And so it works very well.

And now we have football, men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, some softball games on the air. They let us use their Internet site to carry some, some softball, some volleyball. We have coach’s shows. We have a weekly coach’s show. Uh, they give us advertising now. I mean they literally give it to us, uh, and a chance to promote our upcoming events because we’re truly partners.

Uh, we don’t treat them like, uh, just a member of the media. Um, you know, and, and we share all revenues, we, we trade spreadsheets often. So, it’s a very nice situation.

And, and when you make somebody a partner it’s important when we have that, uh, that gear day that you guys all know and the coaches get their gear in. I make sure that the sports director at the, at the local station, he’s got his new shirt and his new warm ups. And, and if we have a team that is fortunate enough to advance and, and maybe participate in an elite eight or, or win a regional and, and we’re buying rings for the team, you know, I, I go to my, my boss, the athletic director, and say, can, can we get a ring for the sports director, he travels, we’ve got this partnership? And, and those are the kind of things we do. So, we’ve really created a, a wonderful relationship there we’re really proud of….

And, evidently, jewelry.

…But it’s interesting to note that Podolefsky appears to take the incident quite seriously,…

No shit, Sherlock. That would be our second iteration of that colorful expression for those of you keeping score. This has got to be some kind of record for us.

…not realizing it’s one of those occasionally silly things that gets said on the radio…

Yeah, it was never the ugly culmination of a series of broadcast barrages loosed over a lengthy period of time about Aaron Podolefsky and his spouse:

…On Jan. 18, 2008, AP Writer Alan Scher Zagier filed a story headlined “Abuse claims divide small town,” saying Ronnie Podolefsky “has been a particular target in a town long-accustomed to cordial relations with the Central Missouri campus.” He wrote that Hassler’s “on-air broadsides against Podolefsky have fueled the criticism…”

Greg Hassler was doing his live radio broadcast happy dance the day following the released news that the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors were not going to renew Podolefsky’s contract, something Hassler advocated. And Hassler helpfully articulated what got him started in his disdain for the university’s president:

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

Marion Woods: Yep.

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

“…The, the thing that really upset me, that kind of got [garbled] going originally…”

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

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

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

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

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

The University of Central Missouri is a state institution. Let me repeat that, so it sinks in. The University of Central Missouri is a state institution.

For anyone to (incorrectly) assert that an individual should be held accountable for halting the placement of a sectarian symbol on state property in Missouri, and further, to state that that’s what started their “upset” originally with individuals who are Jewish, would indicate stupidity of epic proportions, appalling ignorance, anti-Semitism, or some combination thereof. Helpfully, the Star editorial columnist has eliminated two of the four as possibilities. I feel so much better now, as I’m sure the Podolefskys do, too.

…And it’s a shame that a remark made on a radio station by someone not even paid by the university has led to the loss of millions of dollars in future funding for education at the university.

A shame indeed. And who’s fault is that?

Gentleman’s Agreement (1947

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

But, we repeat ourselves.

Are we all living in a movie starring Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell?

Our previous coverage of the issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…four months late.

In today’s Kansas City Star – they finally covered the story: Radio host’s remarks cost University of Central Missouri a big benefactor

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

The Star published a substantial (for them) story on-line and on page A5 in today’s Kansas City Edition:

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

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

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

Podolefsky said he didn’t think it’s silly…

A source has since confirmed that the following is from a December 10, 2009 radio broadcast:

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

other voice: I would agree with that.

Greg Hassler: You know what I am?

other voice: What are you?

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

As we noted on January 26th:

…The content in the audio [transcript], supposedly from December 10, 2009, is almost a verbatim quote of an e-mail sent by Greg Hassler in response to a reporter from the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle, described in an article published on November 13, 2009…

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

Evidently Ben Wesly doesn’t think so and some at the University didn’t appear to understand that.

Our previous coverage of the issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previously: “A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a lesson on how not to attempt damage control

A source provided us with a copy of an e-mail sent by Ben Wesly on December 23, 2009 to University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky:

From: [….]

To: “UCM President Aaron Podolefsky [….]

Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:55:33 +0100

Subject:

Dear Aaron,

As you may know, over the last couple of weeks I have been in close communication with Mr. Richard Philips, President of the Board of Governors of the University of Central Missouri. I strongly protested against the fact, that the Board tolerates anti-Semitism, which is for me and my family and all the Jews in the world unacceptable.

The Board should have taken a strong position against the radioman and the Athletic Director responsible for the contract with the radio station and should have made a public statement to announce corrective steps. The Board has chosen not to do so.

Please note that I cannot accept the honorable invitation to teach on campus Spring 2010 and that I have canceled immediately my commitment to sponsor the USD 100,000 Maastricht Friendship Award as well as our positive discussions in establishing a memorial for my brother Leon, who was murdered by the Germans.

I have decided, with tears in my eyes, to finish the over the last 20 years built relationship with the university. Each morning I need to face myself in the mirror. Yesterday, today, but also tomorrow.

Wherever you and Ronnie may go, please stay in touch.

Best regards,

Bella and Benoit Wesly

Enclosure: e-mail Mr. Richard Philips dated December 15, 2009

[….]

That didn’t go well.

In today’s edition of the Muleskinner, the University of Central Missouri student newspaper, was a front page article under the byline of Lora Powell on donor Benoit Wesly’s disassociation from the institution. The article relates the initial October radio broadcast and the various communications in that aftermath between Benoit Wesly and individuals at the university. The published edition also carries the full text of the December letter from Wesly to University of Central Missouri Board of Governors President Richard Phillips.

The institution and those associated with the original radio broadcast don’t appear to have the capacity or the desire to admit a mistake or indicate an ability to learn from that mistake. Sadly, that would have probably solved their problem if they had demonstrated such awareness in October. That is the short lesson on how not to attempt damage control.

They’re probably not too concerned about mirrors, either.  

Our previous coverage of the issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This…

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

Marion Woods: Uh, huh.

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

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

Marion Woods: Yep.

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

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

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

Marion Woods: Oh, okay.

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

…is not compatible with this:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

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

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

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

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

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

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

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

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

subject:Request for information – RSMo 610

Under RSMo 610 I am requesting the following information:

1. Any communications or documents sent to the President of the Board of Governors, the members of the Board of Governors, or the President of the University by Benoit Wesly subsequent to October 25, 2009.

2. Any communications or documents in reply to those communications or documents (cited above) by the President of the Board of Governors, the members of the Board of Governors, or the President of the University.

Thank you. [….]

We received the following reply yesterday afternoon:

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

subject: Re: Request for information – RSMo 610

[….]

Pursuant to  your request of December 1, 2009, in which you request 1) Any communications or documents sent to the President of the Board of Governors, the members of the Board of Governors, or the President of the University by Benoit Wesly subsequent to October 25, 2009; and 2) Any communications or documents in reply to those communications or documents (cited above) by the President of the Board of Governors, the members of the Board of Governors, or the President of the University, attached are two .pdf files containing these communications.

Sincerely,

[….]

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

[….]

November 9, 2009

[….]

Dear Mr. Wesly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

s/

Edward L. Baker

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

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

Benoit Wesly replied on November 16, 2009:

[….]

Maastricht, November 16, 2009

[….]

Dear Mr. Baker,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

s/

Benoit Wesly

[….]

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

[….]

Maastricht, November 25, 2009

[….]

Dear Mr. Philips,

I would like to draw your attention to the following.

[….]

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

Sincerely yours,

s/

Benoit Wesly

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

December 2, 2009

[….]

Dear Mr. Wesley:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely;

Richard Phillips

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

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

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

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

Our previous coverage of the issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the thirty-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

On Wednesday, November 17th a letter to the editor signed by seventeen local ministers appeared in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal, apparently in reaction to a radio broadcast and its aftermath:

…In an increasingly diverse and changing community, which challenges all of us to examine our basic commitments to human rights and religious freedom, and in light of recent public conversation and countless private conversations about the role of individual religious faith in the leadership transition at UCM, the clergy of Warrensburg feel compelled to add our voices…

…We, the undersigned clergy of Warrensburg churches, affirm our conviction that our community is and shall continue to be a place where persons of all faiths are welcome…

For others, still, though – qui tacet consentire videtur.

Our previous coverage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From a Gentleman’s Agreement (1947):

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

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

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

Written by Rick Hellman, Editor  

Friday, 13 November 2009 12:00

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

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

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

The transcript from October 14th:

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

Marion Woods: Uh, huh.

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

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

Marion Woods: Yep.

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

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

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

Marion Woods: Oh, okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…We have a Board meeting next week on October 29 and I will bring this matter to the attention of our Board and will get back to you on any action taken.  Please be assured our University will not tolerate discriminatory acts against any group and I will personally look into this matter…

As Blue Girl wrote:

…I attended the Board of Governors meeting. I recorded the Board of Governors meeting. I was there nearly an hour before it started. There was no discussion of the “matter,” the subject was not broached, let alone any action taken. I work for an attorney, so I utilized the resource and asked the obvious question: Is the matter of Hassler’s comments something that they could discuss in closed session? I got a one word response: “No.” Such discussion or action would not fall under the exclusionary provisions of the Missouri Sunshine Law.

The public silence is deafening.

So much for action.

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

Our previous coverage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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