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.