Under socialism, the producers pay for the non-producers. Apparently, at Langston University, the responsible thinking persons pay for the brain-dead losers.

In a story on NewOK.com, it is reported that because some skull-full-of-jello fired a gun on the Langston University campus, rules are being changed to improve safety on campus. The changes?

• a safety hot line,
• hiring more police officers, and
• a random apartment search policy.

Absolutely none of the above measures will do anything to make campus safer. A safety hotline (isn’t that 911) and more police may help clean up after someone’s been shot. And the random apartment search is ludicrous in a free society. But I’m sure everyone feels better now that there’s a new policy.

And to illustrate how maligned guns are in this society (instead of the morons who accidentally fire them (by the way, guns do not go off accidentally unless they are seriously damaged)), just pretend that, because they found some crack or meth or weed on campus, university officials decide there will now be random apartment searches. See the disparity?

Students, time to move off campus where you can legally have a gun for protection (kept out of reach of idiots who “accidentally” fire them) and where you are safe from your “protectors” searching through your personal effects to make sure you don’t have a gun (or maybe eventually a Bible, or maybe pen and paper, Winston). This is just an example of how the government will erode your rights for your own good if you will let them. Sure, we’ll help you afford college. Sure, you can live on campus. Oh, but wait, you cannot defend yourself with a gun if someone attacks you. But, it’ll be OK because we have an emergency hotline you can call and get one of our many police officers to mop up the blood. Oh, and we’ll be pilfering through your things on a regular basis. We’ll only need this phone hotline until we get the telescreens installed. Now don’t you feel safe?

I’ll be interested to see if the many who have been writhing in anguish over eavesdropping on terrorists will make a peep about this.

P.S. Anyone who’s ever tried to get an open record from a university is probably laughing (if it didn’t hurt so much) at this whole situation. One must move heaven and earth to have access to documents that are public by law, yet the university regularly tramples students’ 2nd and 5th Amendment rights with no outcry. I think I’m gonna be sick.

A little birdie tells me strange things are afoot at RSU this week. Post details in the comments if you have them.

I’ll share more as I am able to confirm.

I am amazed at the tone of the stories about Sarah Palin’s hacked email account. The Breitbart story leads:

Hackers broke into the Yahoo! e-mail account that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin used for official business as Alaska’s governor, revealing as evidence a few inconsequential personal messages she has received since John McCain selected her as his running mate. (emphasis added)

The reports continue to claim that Palin used her private email account for official business, but no one has any proof of that. Even using the hacked email, which wouldn’t stand up anywhere, they have not been able to show she conducted official business. She and those she corresponds with do not make a quorum of anything. It is possible privately to be friends with persons whom one knows professionally. Frankly, it’s not state business to discuss the things Palin purportedly discussed in her private emails. In fact, had she had the exchanges on her state account, one can reasonably assume Palin’s critics would be shouting that she was abusing public resources for non-official business.

Additionally, anyone who knows me knows that I am a huge supporter of open government. As someone who will likely be using the Open Records Act and Freedom of Information Act, I fully appreciate state emails being public records. However, Open Records and Freedom of Information don’t entitle citizens to EVERY communication government officials make. We do not record every call made on government-owned telephone lines. We do not hire transcriptionists to follow government officials around and record their every utterance. And, we do not even presume to allege that the public has access to conversations public officials might have made on their own private telephone, including cell phones, or the records thereof – even if they were talking to an “official” or conducting “official business.”

And finally, I find it striking that liberals, who find the right to unchecked abortion hiding somewhere in the emanations of penumbras of the right to privacy in the Constitution, think it’s just peachy keen that Palin’s email was hacked, and also hope that it might prove she’s unworthy of higher office. Where’s her right to privacy, you hypocrites?

Let’s call thid what it is: the latest red herring in an attempt to concoct something – anything – against Sarah Palin. Here’s a tip for all you libtards out there: she doesn’t agree with you on anything politically! Criticize her on those issues…unless you’re scared te public might actually support her positions rather than your liberal tripe. But lay off the smears.

Update: As I read Ann Coulter’s column this week, I discovered she said virtually the same thing as me (feather in my cap!):

That’s exactly what happens to most Democratic ideas — as soon as they are said out loud, normal people react with revulsion, so Democrats learn to pretend they never said them: I was NOT comparing Palin to a pig! I did not play the race card! I did not say I would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions!

In what has almost become its signature characteristic, Rogers State University has been named as a defendant in yet another wrongful termination lawsuit. The latest suit, filed August 21, 2008, in Rogers County District Court, names RSU (i.e., the O.U. Regents), Dr. Linda Andrews, and Dr. Larry Minks as defendants. The plaintiff is Jana Walstrom, a former RSU employee, who alleges that, after she questioned what she suspected was misappropriation of certain funds, she was terminated. Specifically, Walstrom alleges she contacted Minks because $6,500.00 of funds budgeted for the Bit-by-Bit program were spent by another non-Bit-by-Bit-related department.

Thrilled that an astute employee would notify university administration of potential misappropriation of university funds, Minks thanked Walstrom for discovering and reporting the irregularity. Walstrom was promoted, and those responsible for the misdeeds were fired and prosecuted. Oops, slipped into a perfect dream world there for a second. The first two sentences of this paragraph, in addition to being thoroughly out of character for RSU, are total fiction.

Here’s what really happened, according to Walstrom’s petition: Two days after reporting the issue to Minks, she was fired by Minks and Andrews. She was also told by Minks and Andrews that if she did not sign a statement that she was resigning voluntarily she would not be paid for services performed. She signed the document under duress. Further, Minks and Andrews attempted to have her sign a “general release and settlement statement” (geez, do RSU administrators carry these things in their pockets?)

…attempting to release RSU and all employees, including Defendants Minks and Andrews, from all claims and attempting to have Plaintiff agree to a gag order which is unenforceable and void under law, including the Oklahoma Open Records Act, which abhors secrecy in government. The documents would have secreted the unlawful conduct of Minks and Andrews. The document further attempted to limit Plaintiff’s rights by attempting to have Plaintiff agree that “she will not disparage or make adverse public statements against the university or any of its directors, officers or employees.” Such document further specifically prohibited Plaintiff from cooperating with any party, in any lawsuit against the university including testifying as a witness against the university.

Yes, that’s all in bold print. The emphasis was added by me. Now go back and read it again. It’s that important.

Once again, we have very familiar allegations made by a former RSU staffer. It’s just eerie how similar this story is to the many that have come before. The WynnBlog will follow this case and bring you periodic reports.

Click here to see the PDF of Walstrom’s full petition.

Information has been whispered for some time now. What we knew was that officials from the U.S. Dept. of Education (DOE) visited Rogers State University in Claremore in February 2008 to conduct an on-site review of RSU’s federal grant programs, which receive over $8.3 million in federal funds. On-site review personnel interviewed more than 30 individuals at RSU in its investigation.

The WynnBlog is now in possession of a copy of the DOE’s preliminary report that was sent to RSU President Joe Wiley and President-Designate Larry Rice, March 19, 2008. This is the report that precipitated the rapid departures of Sheree Hukill (co-defendant with Joe Wiley and the O.U. Regents in a wrongful termination lawsuit by Marilyn McClain Goff) and Penny Pricer. RSU had an opportunity to respond, and as I understand it, DOE will issue a final report at some point. I will provide both RSU’s response and DOE’s final report as soon as I can. As for now, here is the DOE’s preliminary report.

Friends, it’s not pretty. It appears that all the worst things that many of us have heard about RSU are, in fact, true. The DOE report notes:

Ed Pacchetti, Deputy Director, Office of Postsecondary Education Program Oversight Staff and Jeffrey Lunardi, Program Analyst, Office of Postsecondary Education Program Oversight Staff, conducted an on-site review of the Rogers State University (RSU) Federal TRIO grant programs from February 25-29. 2008. The review took place on the campus of Rogers Siale University in Claremore, Oklahoma.

Mr. Pacchetti and Mr. Lunardi interviewed a total of 36 employees and students from the Rogers State University Administration, the RSU TRIO program administration, four current TRIO grant programs, and one former program. In addition to conducting these interviews, Mr. Pacchetti and Mr. Lunardi reviewed student, programmatic, and fiscal records from all five of the TRIO grant programs under review. Fiscal records were requested and reviewed from September I, 2006 through December 31, 2007.

***

…the TRIO Department is also marked by incredibly high personnel turnover, multiple internal reorganizations, and what many TRIO staff members consider to be a generally intimidating work environment. lnterviews and program files suggest that these negative characteristics have hampered student services and led to cost misallocations over the past year.

Forty different people have worked in the RSU TRIO Department (the Department) since the beginning of 2006. Nineteen of these 40 employees (47.5%) have either retired. left the program, or had their employment terminated. In addition to this substantial rate of employee turnover, the TRIO Department utilized four different organintional structures during the same time period. It should be noted that due to inconsistent documentation, it is difficult to ascertain exactly when these changes occurred and how they affected the organization and student service delivery. (emphasis added)

The report also includes details about:

• RSU’s organizational and personnel changes to the grant programs without the DOE’s notification or consent (including a complex timeline chart detailing all the staff changes)
• the fact that Penny Pricer was unqualified for the position she held and her hiring process was frought with conflicts of interest
• Penny Pricer’s salary not being in compliance with university policy, including details about whether university officials were forthright about the issue
• misallocated payroll funds (with more charts)
• misallocated training and staff development funds
• Upward Bound activities not even being conducted in the Fall semester of 2007: “There is no documentation to suggest that any Upward Bound students received tutoring, counseling, or mentoring from August of 2007 until January 8, 2008.” (includes another handy chart)

In conclusion, the report states:

Project Directors do not have direct control over their project budgets. which is cause for great concern. In a meeting with tbe Executive Director [Sheree Hukill] on Friday, February 29, she made it clear that she has control over all final purchase and budgetary decisions Additionally, none of the Project Directors could provide an estimate of how much money was In theIr budget at the time of their interviews. This represents a lack of sufficient managerial control by the TRIO Project Directors over the federal funds that they utilize.

Turnover has been so rapid during the last two years that even the Executive Director has trouble maintaining an up-to-date chart of employees and their positions, as evidenced by the inconsistent documentation provided to the Program Oversight Staff and the incorrect organizational leadership information submitted to TRIO Program Officer Crystal Wheeler during the week of our on-site review. An example of the frequent changes in organizational leadership is Ms. Penny Pricer. Since her start date on February 12, 2007, approximately 13 months ago, she has held the position of Project Director for four different TRIO programs at one time or another, including being the Director of the Educational Talent Search Program on two separate occasions.

We believe that the RSU TRIO programs will be more effective, provide better services, and help larger numbers of eligible students under different leadership. This belief, combined with the misallocation of Federal funds, substantial employee turnover and reorganization, low employee morale, an environment of fear for many current RSU TRIO employees, and the seven findings detailed in this report, leads the Program Oversight Staff to recommend that Rogers State University thoroughly examine the current leadership of its TRIO programs and take all necessary actions to rectify the current situation. Rogers State University has already lost their Upward Bound Math and Science Program under the current leadership and services for the remaining TRIO Programs have suffered. Quality leadership will be critical to the future success of the RSU TRIO programs and the students that they serve. (emphasis added)

The WynnBlog has contacted RSU’s spokesperson for comment, but as of this post, we have received no reply. We will add RSU’s response if and when we receive it.

Over the last few years, I have become a friend of John Wylie, publisher and editor of the Oologah Lake Leader (not to be confused with Joe Wiley, president of RSU and FHU and often-recipient of the WynnBlog’s insightful, poignant, and dead-on criticisms). Wylie, of the Leader, produces the finest local paper I have ever seen. It’s the only newspaper to which I subscribe, and I can’t even bring myself to use it to start the charcoal in the summer (for that purpose I buy a Sunday Whirled a couple times a summer). My friendship with Wylie is an odd-couple relationship of sorts, as John is a loyal Democrat and I am a conservative/libertarian. We, though, have some joint interests and values that are much greater than our differences. These have to do especially with open records; freedom of speech, press, and religion; transparency in government; accountability of office-holders; basic fairness, etc.

Oologah is the birthplace of Will Rogers, and we all know he said all he knew is what he read in the papers. Sadly, if our knowledge was limited to what is printed in today’s papers, we’d all be miserably ignorant and uninformed (about everything but celebrity underwear and reality show winners, that is). Wylie’s Leader is the exception. A weekly, the Leader publishes real news of import to the readers it serves. Small but mighty, the Leader is proof that quality journalism peppered with sharp editorializing are needed, desired, and welcomed by 21st Century readers.

Wylie’s expertise in hardball investigative journalism (he is late of the Kansas City Star where his beat included KC’s organized crime world) is not lost on folks outside the boundaries of Rogers County, either. You may recall I reported that Wylie’s exposé, “The $40 Billion Scam,” detailing the rip off that asbestos litigation in America has become was published by Reader’s Digest (January 2007). That story got him the attention of the folks at New York’s Manhattan Institute, who then contacted him to do a follow up for them.

And, I am happy to report that the report has been released today. Wylie Communications, Inc. of Oologah (the principals of which are John and Faith Wylie, both of the Leader) provided the principal research, writing, and graphics for the in-depth, year-long project. In a national conference call announcing the report, Wylie said,

“The more I have dug into the asbestos litigation industry, the more shocked I am by the unconscionable greed and chicanery.”

The 32-page report unveils the asbestos litigation industry, which imposes

“staggering costs, causing $70 billion in direct losses, bankrupting 80 companies…(and threatening) the very integrity of the legal system itself.”

No one is saying that there are not some genuine asbestos-related heath problems out there. It’s obvious there is. The problem is that lawyers have grown wealthy while their clients with legitimate asbestos-related illnesses have received little compensation, and in some cases they have gotten nothing.

While I have previously shared my belief that 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name (having known a lawyer or two in my day), attorneys can be agents of truth and justice. Other can be real jerks, seeing nothing but dollar signs and constantly valuating a person’s injuries, the expected judgment amount, and their percentage of it, plus expenses. Those who fit the money-grubbing, sleazy stereotype make it hard on the good ones (and I am told there are one or two out there, though they seem to be like the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot, more often heard about than actually experienced). And, I’m not opposed to attorneys and other professions receiving payment for their services; however, it is plain from Wylie’s detailed research that many if not most of the lawyers in the asbestos litigation industry (Did you catch that? It’s an industry!) have gotten rich on the backs and – sometimes dead bodies – of their clients.

Reading at times like a Grisham novel (remember The King of Torts?), this report from the Manhattan Institute shows us just what the current state of the American judicial system can spiral into when it refuses to police itself. And, it is an Oklahoman, the editor of a weekly newspaper from a small community in Rogers County, John Wylie who pulls back the curtain on the mass tort system in America in a big way. You should take a long, hard look.

For Further Reading:

• The Manhattan Institute Report, “Asbestos” in HTML
• The Manhattan Institute Report, “Asbestos” in PDF
• LegalNewsline post regarding “Asbestos”
• The previous Reader’s Digest story, “The $40 Billion Scam” in HTML
• The previous Reader’s Digest Story, “The $40 Billion Scam” in PDF
• The Manhattan Institute website
• The Wylie Communications website (with links to the MI and RD works)
• The Oologah Lake Leader

I have made a few posts updating the most recent wrongful termination case against Wiley and Company at RSU. Due to the interest in the story, I have synthesized everything regarding the case on one new page. It also contains links to the court documents, which are public documents. The federal courts have great access, but they charge a fee per page. Just thought I might save some folks the cash.

Check it out here.

You may have noticed a lack of posts over the last week. Jeane and I were on our first vacation in about four years. We met some friends for a week in Branson, which I have not visited since I graduated ninth grade and went to see Ray Stevens with the Wyricks (Ray’s theater is now the RFD-TV Theater).

The bulk of the week was spent lying around like third base, which we needed. We stayed at the Big Cedar Wilderness Club (a time-share next to the Big Cedar Lodge). The accommodations were beautiful, we got to use all the Big Cedar amenities, and we got a great deal renting it from an owner.

We also ran around town a bit. We hit the new Branson Landing, which is new and clean…and in large part, Woodland Hills Mall outside. I have been hearing everyone cry for a Branson Landing in Tulsa for the last couple years, and my question is Why? I’m not opposed to river development, but we can do better than the Branson Landing. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice and clean and pretty. The water/fire shows are cool, too. But it was very generic. I saw very few stores that were not part of a chain. We ate at Garfields. We visited Bass Pro, and Lids, and Yankee Candle, and Rockie Mountain Chocolate, and Bath and Body Works, etc. I guess what I am saying is that there wasn’t much Branson to the Branson Landing. You literally could have picked it up and plunked it down in any other city, and nothing would be out of place or not fit in. I’m a little sad we didn’t spend some time exploring the historic parts of the city, and we will next time.

We, of course, did hit Silver Dollar City (and I bought Season passes, which is why we have to make at least one more trip this year). It’s the beginning of their season, so they aren’t open everyday. I had a real Clark Griswold feeling when we pulled up to the park on Wednesday and the sign said “Closed Today.” Fortunately, we made it inside the park on Thursday, without kidnapping a security guard at BB gunpoint.

I hadn’t been since I was a little kid, and it was fun. I mean, let’s be honest, in large part it’s a huge gift shop that they charge admission to, but it’s still cool, and they have their marketing down pat. Jeane loved the glass blowing and we bought a couple very nice pieces. We rode a couple rides, and Jeane picked an oyster which had a size 7 pearl in it! We bought some apple butter, and ate a funnel cake. Just a relaxing day being a Branson tourist. Asleep at the Wheel will be at the Silver Dollar City Amphitheater in September, so that may be when we return.

Around town, we visited the Hollywood Wax museum, which was pretty good. They have some proportion issues with some of their exhibits where the heads are way too huge for the bodies or visa versa. On the other hand, some models were very good.

We also visited the Titanic museum, which was excellent. You get to touch what a real glacier feels like, see many artifacts from the ship, see a scale reproduction of a third-class cabin (which was quite elegant for third-class travel at the time), see a reproduction of the Marconi room, walk up the Grand Staircase, see video from the underwater discovery of the wreckage, tap out Morse Code, sit in a lifeboat, and see how long you can keep your hand in 28-degree water (the temperature of the Ocean that night). It was a great time.

All in all, we had a great time, and it was wonderful to see our friends. I even taught my friend how to make perfect sausage gravy.

But now, we’re back home and back to work. There’s a lot going on for me right now, so the posting may be sporadic for he next week.

And to quickly update some stories the WynnBlog has been following:

While I was gone, comments on the post regarding the latest Joe Wiley lawsuit (Goff v. Huckill, Wiley, et. al.) were very busy. I can also report that last week, President Wiley and President-Designate Rice called a meeting of Huckill’s department and announced that Sheree Huckill and Penny Pricer are resigning. It is also reported that the Department of Education, which was recently on campus to audit the Trio program, has not yet released its report, which will be public, and has asked for further documentation.

As far as the lawsuit itself, court documents since I last reported include a response to RSU’s motion to dismiss for lack or service and failure to state a claim, which includes my affidavit regarding service of President Wiley in the previous Fellman case as an exhibit. Goff contends that service is good and that Wiley and Company have a history of avoiding service. Goff further argues that if service is deemed not to have been perfected, that dismissal is not the proper remedy. RSU has responded asking that the exhibits be stricken and the case dismissed. I’ll update you when there is more, and especially when the judge rules on the motions.

There’s nothing new in the Tywone Parks case that I know of. The next thing down the pike is the issue preliminary hearing on April 29.

And, lastly, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed themselves on their recent decision regarding redaction of personal information from court filings and ending online access to court documents. Bully for them. I’d still look for changes, but they may do a little study of the issue before their next order.

[Update]

Monday, March 17, Freedom of Information Oklahoma awarded the Oklahoma Supreme Court its inaugural Black Hole award for its new rules.

The justices received the award for roadblocking freedom of information by establishing new rules addressing content on the Internet.

[Original Post Below]

Today begins what is known as Sunshine Week. From the Sunshine Week website:

Sunshine Week is a national initiative to open a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include print, broadcast and online news media, civic groups, libraries, non-profits, schools and others interested in the public’s right to know.

Sunshine Week is led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and is funded primarily by a challenge grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation of Miami.

Though spearheaded by journalists, Sunshine Week is about the public’s right to know what its government is doing, and why. Sunshine Week seeks to enlighten and empower people to play an active role in their government at all levels, and to give them access to information that makes their lives better and their communities stronger.

Sunshine Week is a non-partisan initiative whose supporters are conservative, liberal and everything in between.

If you live in Oklahoma, and have been awake the last week, you are sure to have heard by now that the Oklahoma Supreme Court has issued new rules ordering the redaction of some personal information from court filings (which most folks, myself included, don’t object to, though it might be well for us to revisit just what information should be redacted at a later time) and eliminating the availability of court filings online. This was regarded by the WynnBlog, journalists, bloggers, politicians, and even some members of the Supreme Court as huge blow for public records and open government.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Marion Opala did not even vote (for or against) in the new rules decision. Knowing Opala to be a great supporter of First Amendment rights, I wondered why he had not participated. The answer seems to indicate his continued disdain for the rest of the Court:

Five justices voted for the rules. Two agreed with part of the policy and disagreed with the rest. Justice Steven Taylor voted against the new policy and Opala chose not to vote even though he opposes it.

“I decided not to participate in that brouhaha because I’ve been in enough controversies with the court,” Opala said.

(You may remember Opala as the justice who sued the rest of the Supremes because they changed their long-standing rules of order to deny him the position of Chief Justice. He succeeded in the district court, but the federal court, saying it had no power to remedy the situation, remanded the case and ordered the district court to dismiss it with prejudice, and the U.S. Supremes refused to hear Opala’s appeal. I think it goes without saying that there is likely a little tension between Opala and his colleagues.)

Opala was also quoted in the NewsOK article as saying:

“How can you keep public records from public knowledge?”… “I don’t understand how anybody who is a lawyer can say that a government can ration, censor or screen public records from the public. There’s just no way.”

In a NewsOK.com Sunshine Week interview with Oklahoma Attorney Drew Edmondson, with whom I have more than a few differences, the AG stated that he believes the new rules go too far, and that he agrees more with the dissent than the majority opinion. Interestingly, that appears to be an opinion he shares with his brother, Vice Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, James Edmondson, who joined in Justice Yvonne Kauger’s opinion concurring in part (redaction) and dissenting in part (online access). In pertinent part, the article states:

[Bryan Dean, NewsOK staff writer]: Are you troubled by the state Supreme Court’s recent decision to take many court records off the Internet and limit identifying information in court documents?

[Drew Edmondson]: I would tend to agree more with the dissent than the majority. I’ve read the rules that have been handed down. I think some of them are prudent in an effort to avoid identity theft. Some of them may have gone too far. The section which deals with Internet access says at the end that this may be subject to further review, and it doesn’t go into effect until June. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Supreme Court didn’t take a second look at that particular provision. It’s hard to justify a record that is otherwise open that anyone can go down to the courthouse and see not being available on the Internet. I don’t see the rationale for that and I think the court would be well-advised to take another look at it.

The article quoting Opala further states that the Court is welcoming public comment:

The chief justice also is welcoming public comments. Comments can be e-mailed to Michael Evans, the administrative director of the courts, at michael.evans@oscn.net.

So fire up those email clients and let the court know what you think about this drastic new change. But, don’t hold your breath for changes. The article concludes with Opala responding as to whether the Court will actually revisit the rule change:

“It’s difficult to predict. At times, they dig in when there is a public outcry,” he said. “To me, it was shocking that they took the position to begin with. In the face of the First Amendment, there just isn’t any question.”

I know five justices who look pretty tempting as “No” votes on the Oklahoma judiciary retention ballot later this year.

—————————————

For more open records info, visit:

• Freedom of Information Oklahoma
• Sunshine Week Website
• NewsOK.com’s Right to Know Page (lots of great links for Oklahoma)