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

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

[….]

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

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

[….]

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

[….]

Custodian of Records

The contract:

[….]

October 29, 2009

Mr. Richard Phillips

Chair, Board of Governors

University of Central Missouri

[….]

Re: Management Consulting Agreement

Dear Richard,

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

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

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

[page]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

s/

R. Kenneth Hutchinson

President, Hutchinson Consulting LLC

RKH/clc

Enclosures

[page]

SCHEDULE A

Hutchinson Consulting LLC

And

University of Central Missouri

2010 Presidential Search Timeline

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

November 2009-December 2009

Appoint search consultant

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

Draft and place advertising that incorporates desired leadership credentials.

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

January 2010

Advertising appears for two consecutive weeks.

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

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

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

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

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

February 2010

Conduct Search Forums.

Actively solicit nominations.

Provide agenda to Board of Governors prior to meeting.

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

Appoint Search Advisory Committee and Chair.

[page]

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

March-April 2010

Search Committee meeting with Search Consultant

Report on diversity of candidates

Distill list of candidates

Determine dates for candidate interviews.

Telephone the semifinalists to determine continuing interest and request references.

Conduct reference checks.

Determine off-campus interview site and make appropriate arrangements.

Schedule candidate interviews.

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

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

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

May-June 2010

Interview semi-finalists.

Distill pool to three to five finalists.

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

Schedule candidate interviews, as appropriate.

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

Complete reference checks.

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

Board of Governors negotiates terms with finalists.

Board of Governors appoints and announces new president.

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

[page]

October 29, 2009

CONSULTING AGREEMENT

The Board of Governors of University of Central Missouri

President, University of Central Missouri

Accepted By:

Signature: s/

Name: Richard Phillips

Title: Chair of University of Central Missouri Board of Governors

Date Signed: 11-16-09

CLIENT COPY

[CONSULTANT COPY also provided]

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

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

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

Our previous coverage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law, part 2 (November 10, 20
09)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[….]

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

subject: Request for information – RSMo 610

This is a request for information under RSMo 610:

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your assistance.

[….]

We promptly received the following reply:

[….]

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

subject: Re: Request for information – RSMo 610

[….]

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

[….]

Custodian of Records

[….]

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

Our previous coverage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law

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

Uh, that grade would be “epic fail.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[emphasis added]

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

[….]

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

subject: Re: Request for information – RSMo 610

[….]

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

1.  $29,000 as  indicated for 2009

2.  $29,380 as indicated for 2008

3.  $27,100 as indicated for 2007

4.  $24,300 as indicated for 2006

5.  $23,100 as indicated for 2005

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

Sincerely,

[….]

[emphasis in orginal]

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

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

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

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

Like we said, “epic fail”.

So much for transparency.

Our previous coverage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. News Ranks UCM Among the Best

[….]

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

No, that couldn’t be it.

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

Governor Deleta Williams

Board of Governors

University of Central Missouri

February 4th, 2008

Dear Governor Williams,

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

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

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

   * Vision vs. time –

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

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

   * Stability –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   * Cost –

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

   * Time on campus / accessibility / approachability –

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

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

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

   * Issues of intellectual and administrative freedom –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

Dr. Jack E. Rogers, President

University of Central Missouri Faculty Senate

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

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

Our previous coverage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our previous coverage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: Request for information under RSMo610

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

[…]

>>> […] 10/21/2009 2:51 PM >>>

Please provide the following under RSMo 610:

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

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

[….]

[emphasis added]

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

That’s very interesting, considering the first response:

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

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

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

Subject: Information Request

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

Thank You…

The University’s response:

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

Subject: Re: Information Request

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

Sincerely…

And we asked another question:

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

subject Re: Information Request

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

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

Thank You…

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

[emphasis added]

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

We’ll be asking again.

From the contract:

Paragraph 6:

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

Paragraph 7:

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

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

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

Bids and Contracts Approval Policy 4.1.010

Approved by the Board of Governors on April 18, 2001

I. Purpose

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

II. Policy

The Board of Governors of Central Missouri State University:

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

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

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

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

We’ll keep asking.

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

“Could I get a receipt?”

Our previous coverage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update below

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

[…]date: Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM

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

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

. .”

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

Sincerely [….]

>>>[….] 10/19/2009 7:20 AM >>>

Thank you for your response.

In reading the contract I note:

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

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

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

Thank you [….]

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

>

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

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

> any other communications concerning the contract.

>

> Sincerely, [….]

>

>

>>>> [….] 10/15/2009 10:30 AM >>>

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

>

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

> Central Missouri for coverage of intercollegiate athletics activities

> signed in 2005 (or possibly 2004).

>

> 2. Any and all addenda for said contract.

>

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

> concerning compliance with that contract.

>

[….]

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

KOKO Revenues

2009

UCM Revenues Earned

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

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $80,451

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 20,113

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 35,113

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $5,812

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $29,000

Total UCM Compensation – $34,812

Amount Owed to UCM – $301

2008

UCM Revenues Earned

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

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $81,756

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 20,439

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 35,439

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $7,077

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $29,380

Total UCM Compensation – $36,457

Amount Owed to UCM – ($1,018)

2007

UCM Revenues Earned

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

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $81,566

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 20,392

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 35,392

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $9,066

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $27,100

Total UCM Compensation – $36,166

Amount Owed to UCM – ($775)

2006

UCM Revenues Earned

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

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $78,356

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 19,589

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 34,589

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $9,101

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $24,300

Total UCM Compensation – $33,401

Amount Owed to UCM – $1,188

2005

UCM Revenues Earned

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

Gorss Gross Advertising Sales – $67,081

25% Revenue Share for UCM – 16,770

Total Owed to UCM by KOKO – 31,770

Compensation Remitted to UCM

KOKO – Payments to UCM – $11,000

UCM Advertising Sales Collection – $23,100

Total UCM Compensation – $34,100

Amount Owed to UCM – ($2,330)

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

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

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

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

Update:

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

[….]

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

subject: Re: Request for information RSMo 610

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

>>>[…] 10/23/2009 8:37 AM >>>

This a request for information under RSMo 610.

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

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

Bids and Contracts Approval Policy 4.1.010

Approved by the Board of Governors on April 18, 2001

I. Purpose

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

II. Policy

The Board of Governors of Central Missouri State University:

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

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

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

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

The current policy has even more detail:

Approval of Contracts, Real Estate and Capital Projects Policy

Board of Governors Policy 4.1.010

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

I. Purpose

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

II. Policy

A. Delegation of Authority

The Board of Governors of the University of Central Missouri:

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

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

B. Retention of Authority

The Board of Governors of the University of Central Missouri:

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

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

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

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

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

Approved by the Board of Regents on May 20, 1987

Approved by the Board of Governors on April 18, 2001

Approved by the Board of Governors on February 21, 2007

Formatting updated August 1, 2007

Approved by the Board of Governors on September 17, 2008

[emphasis added]

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