Just received word that the new director of RSU’s Bit by Bit therapeutic horseback riding program has called at least one of the horse owners who has allowed gratis use of her horses for the program in addition to being a program volunteer (and who also happens to have been one of the more vocal critics of the recent issues with Bit by Bit) and told her that her horses will no longer be needed for the  program. She’s on her way to get her horses now.

This leads to some questions:

• With the exit of trained, “old hand” mounts, how many horses are trained and ready to work with classes set to start soon?
• What does Bit by Bit view as the proper ratio of horses:students for the program?
• Was every horse lender who dared utter a word against RSU and/or has criticized the program of late told his or her horse(s) isn’t/aren’t needed?
• Is refusing a gift of horse use from generous people the best response to the situation, and for what purpose was it done?
• Is this an attempt to silence calls for greater openness and accountability from within the program by excluding critics from Bit by Bit?
• Will RSU, in fact, be changing the program to the Little by Little therapeutic stickhorse riding program?

Discuss…

UPDATE: The Claremore Progress reports that RSU has hired a new full-time therapeutic riding instructor, Elizabeth Capalbo, for the Bit by Bit program. Her credentials, like Ms. England’s, look great. But as I said with the announcement of Ms. England, the hiring of great personnel does nothing to change bad behavior of the past, and if nothing changes in the way Bit by Bit is administered by RSU execs, these great staffers will soon be facing the same frustrations and asking the same questions that led to the recent departures of Milliman, Switala, and Hart. Here’s hoping the someone, somewhere learned something. We continue to share our deep concern about those who have given so much of themselves to make Bit by Bit what is it, only to have their service and dedication discarded so shabbily. (On a side note, and this goes far beyond RSU, I have recently become somewhat concerned at the notion of doing a “nation-wide search” as a means of recruiting talent. Nothing about being from far away gives anyone more or less skill in certain areas. It simply makes them from far away. It’s not wrong to look broadly, but if it is used as a maneuver to neglect and/overlook genuine talent in your own backyard, something’s not right. And let’s not forget that when brother Joe Wiley departed RSU for greener pastures in Tennessee, the transition was too delicate to wait on a nationwide (or, heck, multicounty) search. Dr. Rice was designated very quickly. Just my opinion, which may or may not be worth exactly what you paid for it.)

[Original Post Below]

I have a wicked head cold and work is busier than busy, so I don’t have time to give many details, but I can make a few quick updates.

Megan Hart has also resigned from RSU’s Bit by Bit program. It appears she will be allowed to work out her notice (but seriously, how could she not, there’s no one left). It appears Ms. English will have a very clean slate when she arrives.

There’s been another firing resignation in another department at RSU. I’ll add more as I am able.

You Welchites, don’t forget the Welch Public Schools Enrichment Banquet tonight at 6:30. I’ll be there, head cold and all.

Most recently in what is becoming the RSU saga revisited, Pam Switala has resigned from her position as equine manager of the Bit by Bit therapeutic horseback riding program at Rogers State University. You may remember Switala’s being interviewed by New’s on 6’s Tara Vreeland about 11 days ago.

What led to Switala’s departure? Several allegations are swirling, and the WynnBlog has not yet confirmed all the circumstances surrounding her departure, but I’ll keep searching for the truth.

Also, those of you concerned with the continuation of the Bit by Bit program need to keep a couple of things in mind. First, what is to become of the horses that are committed to the program contingent upon Switala’s caring for them? Such contingencies do exist. Second, know that your concern about Bit by Bit and your calls and emails to those in power are beginning to make a difference. Be intrepid until you see the changes you know are needed to make Bit by Bit the program it is supposed to be–and that the Bit by Bit students need it to be.

More to come when I am able.

News on 6’s Tara Vreeland did a story on RSU’s Bit by Bit issues on tonight’s 6 p.m. broadcast. Here’s the video.

Here’s KOTV’s web story.

Your opinion?

The WynnBlog originally reported, August 28, 2008, on the wrongful termination lawsuit filed against RSU by former Bit by Bit director Jana Walstrom, in this post.

I did a follow-up post January 23, 2009, in this post.

With the recent mess at Bit by Bit due to Dr. Ray Brown’s termination of interim director Trista Milliman, I thought the Walstrom case worth revisiting. I’m glad I did, because Walstrom’s case is very much still alive.

Here’s the quick and dirty background. Walstrom filed her suit against RSU, its regents, and Dr. Larry Minks and Ms. Linda Andrews, two RSU administrators (at that time; Minks has departed, Andrews remains) in Rogers County District Court, which is the state court having jurisdiction over RSU, which is located in Claremore, Rogers County, Oklahoma. Walstrom alleged some very serious acts on the part of RSU, through Minks and Andrews, which, if true, should scare anyone from working for RSU ever again. There were also several similarities between Walstrom’s allegations and those made in other suits against RSU and its agents (yes, there have been several).

Back to Walstrom. RSU’s attorneys pulled a maneuver whereby they moved to have the case removed from the state court to federal court. The Rogers County courts have delivered some fairly harsh decisions against RSU in the past, and it’s likely that RSU attorneys view the federal court friendlier to their client. There’s another reason as well. It’s the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

For all practical purposes, the courts interpret this to mean that U.S. states cannot be sued in federal court, for which the term is “sovereign immunity.” This is not absolute, and there are a couple of exceptions. One of these exceptions is if a state gives permission to be sued in federal court, the federal court then has jurisdiction to hear the case. In the Walstrom case, RSU’s attorneys filed a motion to move the case from Rogers County court to the federal courts, the United States Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, based in Tulsa. Once in federal court, RSU’s attorneys then moved to dismiss the case because, they allege, RSU (an arm of the State of Oklahoma) is immune from suits in federal court because of the Eleventh Amendment. Pretty snazzy, huh? Move to go to federal court, then move to dismiss because you’re immune to federal court, and call it a day.

To me, as a non-attorney, is seems preposterous that a party could make the motion to move a case to federal court then claim it hadn’t given permission to be sued in federal court. But the argument has been successful before, which, one assumes, is why it was tried again. But this time, the court reached the same conclusion I did, Judge Eagan ruling that RSU’s motion to move the case to federal court granted Walstrom permission to sue it in federal court, stating:

Plaintiff argues, and the Court agrees, that removal of a case to federal court constitutes an intentional waiver of the RSU’s defense of sovereign immunity. … Therefore, RSU has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and it is not immune to plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim.

Win one for Walstrom.

Because the case was not dismissed, the federal court went on to Walstrom’s claim that her Constitutional rights were violated by Dr. Minks and Ms. Andrews, who were acting under the color of state law, which is referred to as a §1983 claim (after the numbered section in which it appears in the statutes). There is a precise methodology for stating a claim under §1983. In the Walstrom case, the federal court ruled that Walstrom had failed to state a claim, meaning that she did not adequately meet the requirements of a 5-prong test in her allegations. The court’s opinion is that the Walstrom didn’t satisfactorily satisfy the 5-prong test, so her §1983 claim was dismissed.

Win one for RSU.

Since the §1983 claim was the only federal issue of Walstrom’s case, the court then ruled that state court is the best place for the remaining issues, all related to Oklahoma state law, to be decided, thus the federal court declined to exercise jurisdiction over what remains of the case and remanded it back to Rogers Country District Court for further action. So, Walstrom’s case is back in Judge Post’s Claremore court.

Win one for ??? Only time will tell. Rogers County judges have been fairly good at getting to the truth and issuing good opinions. We’ll see if that remains the case. I have every confidence Judge Post will do well. According to OSCN, the parties have agreed on a scheduling order. I’ll try to get by the courthouse this week and see what else has been filed recently.

And that’s all I have to say about that (for now). If you’d like to see the court document I have referenced for this post, it is here. Feel free to comment if you feel I have made an error in my analysis. I’ll be glad to correct mistakes.

And special thanks to the WynnBlog friend who helped me get the court document. You know who you are.

Previously in this space, I have shared that I have been in a dialogue with Bailey Dabney, publisher of the Claremore Progress, regarding Claremore’s tea party last week and the Progress‘ coverage of it. What I did not share was that Mr. Dabney was gracious enough to invite me to respond on the pages of his paper as a guest columnist, rather than in a letter to the editor. He certainly did not have to do so. And when he received my column, he didn’t have to print it, but he did. You’ll find it on the Op-Ed page of today’s (April 21, 2009) Progress and also online here.

Since my reports on the Claremore tea party and subsequent responses to the Claremore Progress‘ coverage of it, I have had occasion to be in communication with Bailey Dabney, the still relatively new publisher of the paper. I won’t be sharing many of the details of our dialogue, other than to saw it has been cordial, fair, and friendly. I find him a reasonable man. I am also impressed with his level coverage of what he say when he was in attendance at the Oklahoma City tea party. It’s as if he actually got out of his car and walked among those about which he intended to report.

The Tea Party crowd was friendly and lively, with an interesting array of witty and creative signs expressing dissatisfaction with our current national fiscal policies. As an eyewitness to this sizable gathering, I was surprised the way these groups have been portrayed by national media. There was no anti-government, anti-American, or anti-establishment attitude, as one cable news network described them. Taxpayers did want to be heard regarding their distaste for the current fiscal strategy. The tone was civil and friendly as I walked through snapping pictures with my Blackberry. Watching this group actually made me proud to live in a country where this type of civil communication is allowed. I haven’t seen official estimates, but my unofficial estimate puts 5,000 or more American patriots in attendance as our group walked through. By my estimation, this is an example for other protestors to follow.

That’s strikingly different from the report provided by his underlings in regard to Claremore’s event. It’s nice to see a reasoned head at the helm, and I am hopeful that he continues to improve the paper’s reporting and editorial pieces. His staffers should take a page from his book (or should that be paper?).

This is a good sign. I’ve been critical of the Progress many times, but I have to give credit where credit is due. At this rate, they may get me back as a subscriber.

[UPDATE—April 17, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.]

In response to my (and others’) claims that the Claremore Progress’ audio report posted on their site was inaccurate (see original post below), whoever Twitters for the paper as WillRogersPaper just tweeted this:

Some RC folks upset as being characterized as being “angry” while at TEA Party and not in street. Todays Progress

And as proof that participants were demonstrating in the intersection, they offer a link to this twitpic (click for big):

Let’s do a little analysis, shall we? What you see here are not tea party demonstrators protesting in an intersection, though the Progress intends you to think that. You see one man (”Born Free – Taxed to Death”) standing off the curb, though not being a hindrance to traffic, holding his sign. The rest of the people in this picture, which the Progress obviously intends you to interpret as protesters in an intersection, are actually crossing the street at the designated point (i.e., the crosswalk). You see a couple young men transporting signs (obviously not waving them) crossing from east to west, and another group, appearing to be mostly women, crossing from west to east. Notice they all have a raised foot, caught by the camera in the action of walking across the street, at the legal place to do so (presumably after receiving the illuminated “Walk” indication). The woman in the red hoodie holding up her sign is on the sidewalk (notice her height). All in all, a weak attempt to substantiate a fabrication with a misleading picture. Seems the Progress continues to ratify everything people have been saying.

This goes perfectly to my previous point. One can report what actually happened, or because of bias, agenda, or just sloppy journalism, they can report what they want and offer up a clearly mischaracterized picture  as support.

I reassert my previous points: protesters were not demonstrating in the intersection, the demonstrators were certainly not a disturbance to traffic, they were not angry, raving maniacs. It was an orderly demonstration by patriotic Americans, which–judging by the public response as it happened–has significant support. Guess it’s too much to ask that the Claremore Progress get it right, or at least correct the record when they are shown to be wrong.

Oh, and just one question for Progress reporter Krystal Carman, who received photo credit for previous Progress pictures and presumably this one: “Did you cross the street, and if so, where? If you were photographed doing so, would it be fair to accuse you of practicing the craft of alleged journalism (or photography) in the intersection?” Didn’t think so.

[End of Update]

[Original Post]

I was on the scene at yesterday’s Claremore tea party. Loyal readers will recall I provided audio reports from the scene throughout the morning demonstration. I did this using a nifty little program called AudioBoo. Lo and behold, today I see that the Claremore Progress has updated its report about the tea party by uploading an audio report using AudioBoo. I wonder where they got that idea? I don’t mind being a trendsetter. But, the Progress is missing the point. The beauty of technology is that it allows one (in this case, me) to do reports from the scene of the action as it happens. It’s a waste of the technology to use it as the Progress has.

What did they do? Well, according to the Progress website:

Progress Managing Editor Randy Cowling and Staff Writer Krystal Carman talk about the event.

Click the play button below to listen to their commentary.

What a joke! Were these people even at the same event I was? Aside from seemingly missing the metaphorical meaning of a tea party, they seem to be awfully concerned with the distraction to traffic. I was at the 11 a.m. event the entire time, and I never once saw anyone in any intersection. There were ROCO sheriff’s deputies on scene who I witnessed showing demonstrators where they could and could not stand (from the sidewalk out). If there were ever anyone in an intersection, the deputies would no doubt have dealt with it. Demonstrators were lining the streets at intersections, but that is not being in an intersection, and they were certainly not a distraction to traffic. In fact, if you listen to my reports from the scene, you will hear lots of honks of support from the allegedly distracted passersby.

Further, I spoke with several people there, and no one was emotionally angry. Sure, people are passionate about where they stand. But it was no hateful crowd ranting and raving. It was a very collegial and good-spirited gathering. Again, if these were raving lunatics, you could have heard that in my reports. Judge for yourself. It’s also shocking to hear the surprise in their voices as they share that the public is allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights without a permit. Maybe the Progress should be required to get a permit to exercise theirs.

And finally, I would challenge the numbers quoted. There were far more than 50 at the 11 a.m. event, and if they’re off by that much once, how many other things are being slanted by this rag? I’ve alleged the Progress‘ bias for a long time, and these two hacks have proved my point. For too long, certain papers (which are rapidly dying) have reported the news after the fact and after it has passed through a less-than-objective filter. And in print, they can use certain verbiage that makes them seem fair. Audio is another thing. You can hear the bias in the Progress‘ audio report. Just give a listen and judge for yourself.

[NOTICE: MUST CREDIT www.tysonwynn.com WHEN USING MY CONTENT. PLEASE SEE CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE.]

I was your man on the scene at the Claremore OK tea party today. I used a nifty little program that allowed me to post audio from the scene via my iphone. (I know this may be a little more geekiness than you need to know, but it uploads to my AudioBoo, which is linked to my Twitter, which is linked to my Facebook (search for me there)). For your listening convenience, here are all of today’s audio reports from the scene.

^Wayland Smalley speaks to the small crowd which gathered before the event began. He didn’t know there were approximately 100 others already demonstrating. (I wasn’t in especially close proximity to Mr. Smalley, so the audio quality isn’t as good as those below.)

^Denise Clinton (no relation), coordinator of the Claremore tea party talks about the event. She also didn’t know how many more were already gathered.

^Interview with demonstrator Steven Knight

^Interview with Sherri Stone, Rogers County GOP Chairman

^Interview with Erin, 16-year-old coordinator of Claremore Homeschool Young Republicans

^Interview with Don James, retired state trooper and tea party participant

^I provide post-tea party wrap up

Pics (Click to Bigify)

And This

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on AudioBoo

We fired up the mics for a new WynnCast tonight, wherein we were joined by Denise Clinton (no relation), coordinator of the Claremore, OK, tax-day TEA party and then Kristin Hoover, also known as The Redneck Diva. Some great President Reagan audio opened the show, and we talked about everything from tea parties to Twitter to tornadoes and trailer parks. Give a listen…

Click Here for WynnCast Goodness