• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: Marvin “Bunky” Wright

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): your constituents know what you’re doing to them

27 Tuesday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Chuck Ambrose, Denny Hoskins, HB 253, Marvin "Bunky" Wright, missouri, override, UCM, University of Central Missouri, veto

Not that he cares.

“….the University of Central Missouri and public education and the rest of the State of Missouri could not withstand fulfilling all the responsibilities that you fulfill every day and lose this much support and us sustain the requirements of what it takes to build a future….”

The constituents of Representative Denny Hoskins (r), the Speaker Pro Tem-elect of the Missouri House, know who he sold out for that leadership position.

Dr. Chuck Ambrose, President of the University of Central Missouri, spoke about the impact of a veto override of HB 253 on the institution.

Dr. Chuck Ambrose, President of the University of Central Missouri, speaking in Warrensburg

on the “State of the University” – July 26, 2013.

“….I do think it’s really important to note, that all the things that we are doing, to be as efficient and effective as you’ve been, there is a limit….”

The transcript:

[….]

President Chuck Ambrose, University of Central Missouri: ….But there are storm clouds, right, that, uh, have not left us. Matter of fact, uh, this would be the third consecutive fiscal year that we’ve entered in to thinking about where we are and where we can go. And, and certainly, the consideration, this lists the Senate bill, but now the House bill [HB 253] that will be considered, uh, most likely, uh, in veto session. Uh, at some estimates, could disrupt the state revenue, uh, and this is more the best case, by six hundred million dollars. At worst case, uh, it could disrupt funding for the University of Central Missouri and all of the other state agencies by one point two billion dollars.

Uh, and, I want to give specific appreciation, uh, because we have a strong board, uh, who supports us, uh, and engages in those things that are most important. Uh, but on Friday, uh, our board President, [Marvin] “Bunky” Wright, uh, made certain that both the Senate and House delegates here on our local district knew that the University of Central Missouri and public education and the rest of the State of Missouri could not withstand fulfilling all the responsibilities that you fulfill every day and lose this much support and us sustain the requirements of what it takes to build a future. And, uh, Governor Wright, I, I want to thank you, uh, for that because [applause] I was [inaudible].

And let me just say, he said it in a way that was very clear. Uh, I probably would have batted around a bit. Uh, but, uh, I do think it’s really important to note, that all the things that we are doing, to be as efficient and effective as you’ve been, there is a limit. Uh, and the consideration [veto override vote on HB 253] that’s moving forward here in the next couple weeks and, and happens at September the, uh, eleventh and twelfth in Jefferson City, uh, could be, uh, a, as the Governor [Jay Nixon] has indicated to me, debilitating for the momentum that we have currently if we lose that much revenue.

And, so, uh, needless to say, uh, and, and I would like to, to make this a very firm transition point in our thinking, uh, institutional decision making today, uh, has gotten to be quite simple. Matter of fact, the number of decisions, uh, it takes to drive this institution forward are basically these: How many students do we have? How much are they not, not only how much can they pay, but how much are they willing to pay? How much is the state going to provide us in state appropriations? How much is our health care going to cost? And after those decisions, some of which, which we have no control over whatsoever, how much money do we have left to help us do what we do every day and care for those in our community?….

[….]

Who in their right mind would vote to cripple one of the largest employers and productive public institution in their own district?

Previously:

New Missouri Rule: if the governor governs right of center you can’t call him a “liberal” (July 1, 2013)

Bill signing Kabuki (July 12, 2013)

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): HB 253 – “I’d like to know what your opinion is.” (July 19, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): probably not gonna sustain the Governor’s veto of HB 253 (August 19, 2013)

Sec. of State Jason Kander (D) to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r): You forgot about that Medicaid thing? (August 23, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) to UCM on HB 253: I don’t care, I’d rather be the new Speaker Pro Tem (August 24, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) to UCM on HB 253: I don’t care, I’d rather be the new Speaker Pro Tem

24 Saturday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Chuck Ambrose, Denny Hoskins, HB 253, Jay Nixon, Marvin "Bunky" Wright, missouri, UCM, University of Central Missouri, veto

Yesterday morning Representative Denny Hoskins (r) appeared with Senator David Pearce (r) before the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors meeting on campus in Warrensburg. The effect of a veto override of HB 253 was the main subject of the conversation.  

And, we may have an idea of the latest whip count.

“….Um, you know, my personal opinion on, on 253, currently I, I do not believe the votes are there for a override of the Governor veto. Uh, could that change? Yes, it could change….”

The transcript:

[….]

Representative Denny Hoskins (r) : ….And I want to commend UCM [University of Central Missouri], uh, professors, staff, Board of Governors that, uh, we are a, a shining star, uh, among the state universities. And a lot of the different things that we’re doing, um, are models for a lot of the other state schools. And so I’m going to commend, uh, the Board of Governors and professors and staff on that.

And one of those items that, that, uh, President Obama talked about was the Senate Bill 381. We did have the [inaudible] Nixon come in and sign that bill earlier this year.  Uh, it really, that’s, uh, a great bill, a great law that’s , will go into effect August twenty-eighth. And so I want to commend the University for supporting us on that. As well as, uh, commend the House sponsor and as well the Senate sponsor, as that gone through to create that fund in order to further the innovation campus.

Um, in other news, and before I turn it over to Senator [David] Pearce [r], uh, we did have the Speaker Pro Tem election this past, uh,  weekend and I’m glad to report that I am the new Speaker Pro Tem of the Missouri State House of Representatives. So that is the number two leadership spot in the Missouri State House of Representatives. I’m excited about, uh, the opportunity that will afford me for, to help out UCM as well as, uh, 54th District and the State of Missouri. So, I’m transitioning into that new role, uh, in leadership and therefore I, I will be giving up my, uh, chairmanship of the Appropriations for Economic Development and, [inaudible] five other ones on there, Department of Revenue, Department of Insurance, Department of Labor, and, uh, MoDOT. So, it’s, uh, kind of a transition period for us as we lead up to veto session on September eleventh….

[….]

Chuck Ambrose, President, University of Central Missouri: ….and, of course, this has been in, in, very, uh, specific spotlight across the state, uh, both from the Governor and the legislature going into veto section, session. I think, uh, for us, just specifically focusing that on the impact on the University of Central Missouri. We’re, we’re at a point where we’re educating the most students, graduating the most students, maintaining a high level of performance, and done everything, uh, as diligent as we possibly can to be good stewards of our resources.  Um, and, uh, [Senator] David {Pearce], as you mentioned the, the funding formula, and this appropriation cycle, even though we got an appropriations increase, uh, it did not meet the requirements of just our MOSER mandate, uh, to keep up with our retirement. And, uh, as best as we understand it, uh, the range of potential, uh, negative impact on general revenue could range from six hundred million dollars, uh, kind of in a best case, uh, to maybe as much as one point two billion [dollars], uh, in a worst case. And then of course anywhere, as you know as appropriators, anywhere in that kind of loss of revenue would, would mean, as the Governor said, the very difficult, uh, time that even thinking about running state government they way we’re currently running it. Certainly, we continue to be more efficient. Um, but, with his tack of maintaining the state’s triple A bond rating by, uh, putting the withhold, uh, in place currently, at two hundred thousand dollars a month [for UCM] and a projected two and a half million dollar loss off, uh, appropriations in this fiscal year, uh, without passing significant costs on students, which we know one of the best things that we collectively have done together is hold our increases in costs down, uh, it would be catastrophic for the University of Central Missouri. And there would be no way for us to meet this fiscal challenge, uh, without reducing workforce, uh, or significant, and when I say significant, it would be major double digit tuition increases passed on to our students. And we all know that they simply just can’t afford it. Uh, and we’ve heard from, you know, all of the public sector, and, of course, K-12 has been very direct in its impact with resolutions from board, you know, school boards and, uh, but we would ask, uh, especially at a time when we are trying to, to run as a, as high performers to meet the state’s needs, and as you said, trying to, to create the, the future from here, uh, it, it would not just slow our momentum, uh, it, it would take it away from us. Um, so, I, I would like to just ask, you know, where is it, uh, what you would suggest for us to do, uh, to underlie its impact not just on Central Missouri and our students, uh, but across the state, uh, across education, uh, and, and certainly, uh, within scarce resources? Uh, and if we look across the border to our west, there’s no demonstration that, that that tax experiment done, has done anything to, to strengthen, uh, resources to, to put into, to teaching. So, I, I just ask, what can we do, where are we, uh, and, uh?

Representative Denny Hoskins (r): I get, I guess, uh, the first question I have, I know that we ended up with four hundred million dollar surplus over, um, this past fiscal year and the Governor decided to withhold that. So, had the board taken any position on asking the Governor to release the withholds?

Chuck Ambrose, President, University of Central Missouri: Well, we talked to the Governor about releasing the withhold.

Representative Denny Hoskins (r): Great.

Chuck Ambrose, President, University of Central Missouri: And, uh, and absolutely, uh, and as John Merrigan would put it, [inaudible], right now, uh, with his tack, uh, it is two hundred thousand dollars of, of cash, uh, withheld money which would not take us very long to feel. Uh, and I, I guess the only thing he’s come back with and said, until we get through veto session and know where that’s gonna go that he will continue [withholding]. And if it is overturned his intent would be to keep that [inaudible].

Representative Denny Hoskins (r): There are a lot of different groups out there and, and I know the Governor has, uh, his groups and his talking points, as well as what, uh, he, uh, believes to be a cat, catastrophic, uh, shortfall of revenue. I’m of, I’m of the other opinion. I don’t, I don’t believe that there, I believe that the Governor’s playing political games and, uh, he’s, he’s hitting all the right groups and withholding these funds even though that the money is right there, uh, in order to use. And I disagree with the Governor philosophically as far as what a tax cut would do for the State of Missouri, uh, on a personal side, uh, incremental tax cut of twenty-five percent over the next ten years. And that’s only happens if, uh, revenue, general revenue increase a hundred million dollars [inaudible] each year. So, uh, [inaudible]. Again, that does not happen if general revenue doesn’t, doesn’t increase at least a hundred million dollars. So, philosophically the, the Governor and I have a difference of opinion on, uh, [inaudible]. I know you mentioned Kansas, uh, our, our neighbor to the west. We’ve seen other states such as Tennessee, Oklahoma, uh, Texas. And you know, if you haven’t heard yet Governor Rick Perry is coming to Missouri next week and he’s launched a campaign to try and lure, uh, Missouri businesses to, uh, Texas, the State of Texas. And, um, you know, [inaudible] the low, the low tax state as well as, uh, a state that’s very friendly toward business and, and the economy.

So, I guess, I understand your concerns and many of my colleagues have those same concerns on both sides of the aisle. Uh, I do have, I do share some of those concerns but philosophically I believe that, that those can be overcome and I do not believe in, in the doomsday, uh, projections that, uh, Governor Nixon has, has said. Um, and I’ve gone on record and I said I, I guarantee that if House Bill 253 [veto] was  overridden education would not receive less money next year. We will not fulfill the Governor’s promise. That, that’s kind of where I stand [inaudible]. Senator [David] Pearce and I agree on a lot of things and, uh, we, we have a difference of opinion on, on this issue. So….

[….]

Chuck Ambrose, President, University of Central Missouri: ….Uh, but, you know, I, I, I’m taking the Governor on his word he’s gonna maintain the withhold if his veto is overturned.

Representative Denny Hoskins (r) : This has been a point of contention with the, uh, Missouri General Assembly as well as the Governor’s office. Um, and something will probably get [inaudible] to take to court. Constitutionally the Governor is not supposed to withhold unless the revenue’s not there. But the revenue’s there and [inaudible] he’s still deciding to withhold.

Um, you know, my personal opinion on, on 253, currently I, I do not believe the votes are there for a override of the Governor veto. Uh, could that change? Yes, it could change. I have, uh, been in discussions with, with some of the different groups, education as well as business groups. Uh, in the event that it is not overridden on September eleventh, come together [inaudible] work out a, uh, tax cut as well as, uh, provide adequate funding for education….

[….]

Marvin “Bunky” Wright, President, University of Central Missouri Board of Governors:  ….Uh, the board has discussed at great length this whole situation. You can refer to it as a difference in philosophy, frankly, I don’t care what you refer to it as. Uh, this board has got responsibility of this University. And I’ve seen President Ambrose, the faculty, the staff, everybody cut to the core budgetwise in the last three years. Uh, the last thing we need is a further crunch because of political differences. There isn’t any political difference when it comes to higher education when we’ve got responsibility. And we would ask that the two of you [Rep. Hoskins and Senator Pearce], uh, do not support the position of overriding this veto. I mean, we can’t sit back and wonder who’s right or wrong, because some money’s gonna go by the wayside. And whatever it is is gonna hurt us. So, you know, we would ask you to support this University which is in your district and the people. We think we’re one of the best universities in the state. I happen to think it is the best. A lot of it is due to the help of people like you. And we’re asking you again, and I’d like to go on record for this board as requesting that you support us, uh, in this override session. We appreciate you coming in very much. If you ever have any questions, why, give us a call. We’ll try to answer them.

Representative Denny Hoskins (r): Thank you.

[….]

Philosophically, giving tax breaks to billionaires and millionaires while increasing the burden on seniors and the poor through an added sales tax on their prescription medications is a good thing. Philosophically.

Philosophically, giving tax breaks to billionaires and millionaires while defunding the infrastructure of society and diminishing access to a quality education is a good thing. Philosophically.

Philosophically, holding up the less than erudite Governor of another state making a political visit to poach jobs from your own state as an ideal is a good thing. Philosophically.

….Governor Perry (r) is wasting money traveling to Missouri (paid for by TexasOne) to poach jobs and advocate for a change in Missouri law (HB 253) that would ostensibly (in his opinion) make it more difficult for Texas to poach Missouri jobs? Uh, definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer….

Philosophically, being the new Speaker Pro Tem of the Missouri House is more important than representing the interests of the voters in your district. Philosophically.

If you’re in the right wingnut majority in control of the Missouri General Assembly, that is.

Previously:

New Missouri Rule: if the governor governs right of center you can’t call him a “liberal” (July 1, 2013)

Bill signing Kabuki (July 12, 2013)

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): HB 253 – “I’d like to know what your opinion is.” (July 19, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): probably not gonna sustain the Governor’s veto of HB 253 (August 19, 2013)

Sec. of State Jason Kander (D) to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r): You forgot about that Medicaid thing? (August 23, 2013)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: project much?

01 Monday Mar 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Aaron Podolefsky, Ken Hutchinson, Marvin "Bunky" Wright, missouri, Richard Phillips, University of Central Missouri

This is the fifty-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

February 4, 2008:

….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….

Anyone think that Aaron Podolefsky didn’t know that this “buyout” question was asked in late 2007?

January 15, 2009:

…In October 2008, Podolefsky became one of four finalists vying for the presidential seat at Central Washington University. At the time, Podolefsky stated “It’s not that it’s a better fit. They are an institution very much like us, that’s probably why they are interested in me,” Podolefsky said.

Some at the meeting took this as an indication that Podolefsky wanted to leave. Faculty Senate Vice President Jerry Kangas was one who shared this opinion.

“The president chose to go on that interview. When you choose to go to an interview, you’re choosing to leave in my opinion,” Kangas said.

However, others had reservations about this thinking….

[emphasis added]

February 11, 2010:

….The battle plan to hire a new president has been in the works since December 2008 when Aaron Podolefsky was in the running for the president of Central Washington University.

“Follow Aaron’s path….When Aaron was in the running for the job at Central Washington, we bagan to gear up and say, ‘If he gets a job, where are we? We need to get our processes in place.’ This isn’t something we did in a weekend or in one meeting,” Phillips said….

Except someone on the board was floating the idea of a buyout a year earlier. This mad scramble a year later doesn’t look very good in the adequately planning for contingencies column when it comes to evaluating the board, does it?

Uh, that’s a two year span of events in case you weren’t keeping track.

After the February, 17, 2010 faculty forum on the presidential search we submitted a Missouri Sunshine Law request:

From: Michael Bersin [….]

Date: Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Subject: Request for information – RSMo 610

Under RSMo 610 I am requesting the following:

1. A copy of the confidentiality statement/agreement signed by the members of the presidential search advisory committee.

2. A copy of the “rubric” document created by the presidential search consultant and provided to/or to be provided to the members of the presidential search advisory committee.

3. A copy of the confidentiality statement/agreement pertaining to the presidential search signed by the members of the Board of Governors. Also, If the members of the Board of Governors have signed such a confidentiality statement/agreement, copies of the actual document(s) signed by the members of the Board of Governors.

Under RSMo 610.026 I am requesting a waiver of any copying fee since this request is “in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the public governmental body and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.”

Thank you.[….]

We attended a University of Central Missouri Board of Governors “work session” on December 10, 2009 at  6:00 p.m. where the board discussed the makeup of the presidential search advisory committee:

….Marvin “Bunky” Wright: …To me, something that’s gonna be extremely important for people, and particularly people that are candidates, is confidentiality. We can talk about the makeup of this group as much as we want to, but, you know, it’s gonna end up that I think that we have to have the absolute faith of these people that they are gonna keep everything confidential. Because you can wreck people’s careers by just running off at the mouth. You know that stupid Bunky Wright applied for such and such. You know, it gets back to the institution where I am and it’s goodbye. And it, it, uh, the searches that I’ve been involved in that’s a crucial point [crosstalk].

Ken Hutchinson: I saw it happen.

Marvin “Bunky” Wright: Because a lot of good people won’t apply unless they’re just absolutely certain it’s confidential.

Richard Phillips: Should we [inaudible] put together some little packet of information where if you agree to serve on the committee here’s your responsibility?

Ken Hutchinson: Look, I’d take it a step, yes, that for sure and we’ll, we’ll put that together. But I think that needs to sign a confidentiality statement and it, and turn it in to, uh, to Monica and she has on file that this. And if they don’t want to sign it then we, they don’t have to serve.

Marvin “Bunky” Wright: You know, it’s not trying to hide from the public or anybody. [crosstalk, several voices: “No”.]

Richard Phillips: But for serving the integrity of the candidates [inaudible]…

Ken Hutchinson: Yeah, good point….

Project much?

And, we did receive a reply to our Missouri Sunshine Law request:

[….]

To: Michael Bersin [….]

CC: Henry Setser [….]

Date: Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Subject: Re: Request for information – RSMo 610

[….]

In response to your request received on 2/18/10, wherein you ask for [….]

please find attached a copy of the Oath of confidentiality that has been or will be signed by all members of the Presidential Search Advisory Committee and the members of the Board of Governors, and the “rubric” document for use in the evaluation of applicant files.  In regard to your request for “signed” copies of the Oath of Confidentiality by both the members of the Presidential Search Advisory Committee and the members of the Board of Governors, these are considered to be the equivalent of personnel records, and are therefore, closed.

Sincerely,

[….]

Custodian of Records

Okay. On December 10, 2009 there was no discussion in the meeting of having members of the Board of Governors sign the confidentiality agreement. To be fair, between that time and their present response they could have decided that that would be a good idea. But, the thought didn’t enter the discussion in that hour long “work session” in December of 2009.

The “Oath of Confidentiality”:

OATH OF CONFIDENTIALITY

I, __________________________, DO SOLEMNLY ACCEPT AND AGREE TO ABIDE BY THIS WRITTEN “OATH OF CONFIDENTIALLY” THAT I WILL NOT DIVULGE ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE IDENTITIES OF CANDIDATES OR PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES TO ANYONE AT ANYTIME DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH OR TO ANYONE AFTER THE PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH CONCLUDES.

________________________________

Signature

___________

Date

All that’s missing is the part where they put you on double secret probation for failing to live up to it.

We asked for:

…1. A copy of the confidentiality statement/agreement signed by the members of the presidential search advisory committee…

…and…

…3. A copy of the confidentiality statement/agreement pertaining to the presidential search signed by the members of the Board of Governors. Also, If the members of the Board of Governors have signed such a confidentiality statement/agreement, copies of the actual document(s) signed by the members of the Board of Governors….

Now, we really weren’t concerned about getting to copies of the actual [signed] statements for the search advisory committee members, but, in fairness, we could see that someone might interpret our request that way if taken in isolation. You would think that someone might get clued in by the second sentence of our request in the section pertaining to the board.

What’s fascinating about the response is the assertion “…these are considered to be the equivalent of personnel records, and are therefore, closed.”

From previous discussions in open meetings we know that the confidentiality agreement/statement exists (and they gave it to us when we asked for it) and we know that members of the presidential search advisory committee won’t be allowed to participate if they haven’t signed it. So, what’s the secret? The color of ink they used to sign it? Or the date?

As for the members of the Board of Governors, we have an assertion that they have or will sign the document, but that we can’t get copies of the actual documents because they are “…the equivalent of personnel records…” Really? The members of the Board of Governors have personnel records? I’d be more convinced if someone could actually find them.

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)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a simple question (February 8, 2010)

Find the Non-Employee Game! (February 8, 2010)(NYCMule)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a different choice of phrase would have made it all better (February 11, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: never mind the facts, here’s right wingnut talk radio (February 13, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: and we should give weight to your opinion… (February 18, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: fools for spin (February 20, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: fools rush in… (February 21, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Who’s the more foolish… (February 25, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a phone call from out of the blue (February 26, 2010)

HASSLER to PHILLIPS Connect-the-Dots Game! (February 27, 2010)(NYCMule)

"A Gentleman's Agreement"?: Garbo speaks!

12 Thursday Nov 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Aaron Podolefsky, Marvin "Bunky" Wright, missouri, Muleskinner, University of Central Missouri

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

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

New Board Members

Appointees look forward to new job, challenges ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our previous coverage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Posts

  • Just here for the ratio
  • Johnson County Democrats – James C. Kirkpatrick Heritage Luncheon – Warrensburg, Missouri – Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D) – March 14, 2026
  • Johnson County Democrats – James C. Kirkpatrick Heritage Luncheon – Warrensburg, Missouri – March 14, 2026
  • Profit!
  • Wait for it….

Recent Comments

Steve Duane Phipps on Profit!
The price we all pay… on “Up, Up and Away……
HB 2075: Who checks?… on Hey Brandon Phelps (r), we hea…
Campaign Finance: a… on Campaign Finance: Working Peop…
The mail pieces have… on Are you certain it wasn’…

Archives

  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,034,095 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...