Julie Couch editorial 4/13/06
April 13th, 2006 at 5:38 pm (Stillwater NewsPress)
http://www.stwnewspress.com/column_disp.php?id=19
Letter to the editor, by John Bryant
February 18th, 2006 at 7:23 pm (Stillwater NewsPress)
The following letter to the editor was published in the Stillwater News Press, February 18, 2006.
An Open Letter to Mr. T. Boone Pickens
Dear Mr. Pickens,
Both of my parents graduated from OAMC/Oklahoma State University, as did I. My father served on the faculty of OAMC/OSU from 1942 until his untimely death in 1968. I returned to Stillwater and the OSU faculty in 1977, serving as a school head here for almost a decade before rejoining the teaching faculty. I retired from the active faculty in 2000. In total, my immediate family has been very closely associated with OAMC/OSU from 1927 until the present time: almost 80 years. Despite that history, I would not presume to speak for the OSU Old Guard or anyone else; however, I do believe that my blood is about as Orange as anyone’s.
Unlike many recent letters mentioning your name, I do not write to besmirch you, your career, reputation or your legacy. Quite the reverse: I am a real and true fan of T. Boone Pickens. I became a fan some years ago, after reading your first autobiography, Boone (1987). Of course, like any other autobiography, Boone told the story from your own viewpoint. Nevertheless, I came away thoroughly impressed by a young Holdenville kid of modest means who garnered almost uncountable success through hard work and the application of an unusually creative mind. The fact that your success came in an already mature industry, dominated by giant corporations, rather than in an infant but burgeoning industry (Gates and Turner), speaks clearly to your own unparalleled achievements. I was and continue to be very proud of the fact that you graduated from OSU. I became even prouder when you gave so generously to the OSU Geology Department that now bears your name. Bravo and Well Done! And thank you for putting academics first in your generosity to our university.
It must be bewildering and saddening for you to see the negative responses of so many of the OSU Community to your truly unprecedented generosity. It is hard to imagine that someone who gives almost a third of a BILLION dollars to a university could become a target of such continuing anger and vituperation. It must be startling to find ones self a laughing stock and a target of highly uncomplimentary editorial cartoons in the student newspaper and – internationally – on the internet, after setting such an excellent example of gratitude to your alma mater. You cannot but wonder “What in the world has gone wrong here?”
What has gone wrong, Mr. Pickens, is that you (and OSU) have been astoundingly poorly served by President Schmidly and his administration. Dr. Schmidly and his minions have been literally bullying and threatening many defenseless elderly citizens of Stillwater. They have used tactics that have been rarely seen in this country (I hope) and remind many of us of the horror stories of Occupied Europe. Dr. Schmidly, his hand-picked assistants and incompetent consultants have been successfully forcing innocent citizens out of their homes and costing them substantial portions of their life savings, using very unethical tactics…. all in your name, Mr. Pickens. Perhaps some of the early miss-steps of the current OSU administration could be forgiven in their excitement and gratitude at your unprecedented largess. However, the utter lack of integrity and the unethical bullying behavior of this administration continue to this very day. It is policy, led by a man who has stated publicly that he does not care about “process,” only about “results.”
Upon his arrival at OSU, Dr. Schmidly instituted an administrative bloodbath, the likes of which this institution had never seen. Highly regarded Vice Presidents and Deans were fired wholesale and replaced with hand-picked people whose first loyalty was to Dr. Schmidly, not to Oklahoma State University. Far more than any other, in this administration, the Buck Stops at the Top.
The bungling of Dr. Schmidly and his regime in this entire affair is seriously damaging your legacy! Your generosity, like that of Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford, should be publicly celebrated for generations into the future, not publicly ridiculed.
Mr. Pickens, you have never tolerated this startling lack of competence in your business affairs. Why tolerate it now?
John H. Bryant
{Moderator’s note: I do not know why the Stillwater Newpress sometimes fails to put all the published letters to the editor online. However, John Bryant had sent this letter to me earlier and I told him I would wait until it was published and then include the link on the website. I have emailed the newspress several times to ask why some letters were not included online and have never gotten an answer.
Since this is one of several that have not appeared online with the Newpress Website, I will put it on this site for those of you who do not subscribe to the Stillwater NewPress.}
Post a Comment
Re: Chamber briefed
December 18th, 2005 at 1:59 pm (Stillwater NewsPress)
This morning I read in the Stillwater Newspress an article entitled “Chamber briefed on local issues”. A couple items jumped out at me.
1. Rex Horning (president of Stillwater National Bank, also a member of the OSU Foundation Board of Govenors and the OSU Board of Trustees). Mr. Horning is chair of the Long Range Task Force for the Chamber of Commerce. He said in the Chamber board meeting held thursday, that capacity for business and expansion has been identified as a priority. The city’s LIMITED inventory of AVAILABE sites, if not addressed, will SLOW ECONOMY GROWTH and JOB CREATION.
Yet, it is Mr. Horning who is so adamently supporting OSU’s acquisition of MORE property in Stillwater, when they already have 24,674 acres. Much of that is vacant. And there are ongoing “negotiations” for property by OSU BESIDES the property North of the current campus, south of campus, and east of campus. OSU pays NO property taxes on property owned in Stillwater, to the City of Stillwater . It seems there is a contradition here. One speaks to the chamber and one as OSU foundation/trustee boards. Is there a confilict of interest?
2. Dr. Walter Swanson (superintendent of Stillwater Public Schools) told the board that the Stillwater Public School district experienced a seven percent rate of growth in assessed valuation as a result of a strong Stillwater eonomy. BUT because of the state’s funding formula, not all of the tax revenue growth will benefit the district. He continued, that even though state funding is not adequate, Stillwater has been able to maintain its commitment to quality education.
…….Because? I may be wrong, but wonder if that is due to high property taxes for the citizens of Stillwater. The city will be losing property taxes from apprpoximately 410 properties. At various meetings concerning the school, Dr. Swanson has stated that the loss of revenue, due to the OSU acquisitions will cause little hardship to the Stillwater Schools. It has also been stated that OSU will make up the difference for the loss, which remains to be seen.
1 Comment
Post a Comment
Bad news for the schools
December 15th, 2005 at 10:00 am (Stillwater NewsPress)
Oklahoma State University’s expansion plans would reduce Stillwater schools’ revenue and bonding capacity and lead to a hike in property taxes, Board of Education members were told Tuesday.
“Bad news for the schools.” Linda C. Lang, Stillwater NewsPress Dec 14, 2005.
Post a Comment
Letter to Editor - Food for thought
December 9th, 2005 at 11:53 am (Stillwater NewsPress)
TBP is still somewhat “{angry (edited)}at the relatively incompetent pussy-footing by the folks at OSU; he prefers to proceed with the overwhelming use of force, when you have it.”
They need to look to the OSU Foundation and its principle donor(s). The OSUF says on its webpage, “The Foundation is a separate and distinct legal entity from Oklahoma State University.” It is not under the control of the Regents. Neither SCEO&P Schmidly, nor any of his VPs, serve on the Board of Governors or Trustees of OSU Foundation.
AG suggested a striking analogy to me: OSU’s administration is to Pickens and the OSU Foundation essentially what the Taliban (and the insurgents in Iraq) are to bin Laden and al-Qaida.
Excerpts from “Food for thought.” Robert Radford, Letter to the Editor. Stillwater NewsPress. Dec 9, 2005
2 Comments
-
Trude Coonrad Naff said,
December 9, 2005 at 3:10 pm
The OSUF’s “Gift Acceptance Policy” states, among other things:
Gifts that may expose the Foundation or University to adverse publicity, require expenditures beyond their resources, or involve them in unexpected responsibilities because of their source, conditions, or purposes will be referred to the President and CEO of the OSU Foundation. This individual may withhold approval of acceptance, pending a review.
Enough said…………
-
Marion Agnew said,
December 9, 2005 at 11:15 pm
The OSU PR machine is in high gear.
OSU released a statement today about the dedication of the Devon laboratory at the T. Boone Pickens School of Geology. Every time the Geology Department is mentioned, it’s called the TPB S of G (http://osu.okstate.edu/news/devon_huffer.htm). And it’s mentioned a lot. Between the stadium and the Geology Department, Pickens has his name in a good share of the OSU press releases.
Meanwhile, the OSU Foundation announced in mid-October that a distinguished alumnus, T. Boone Pickens, was named a winner of the Horatio Alger award (http://www.osuf.org/pickens_alger.htm). The link is on the Foundation’s home page, placed at the right for easy access (sometimes it’s the front page). By the way, this award has no relationship to OSU — OSU is just promoting the award and its recipient.
Then, of course, there’s the bio of Pickens in the announcement of the Fall Commencement speaker. And the accolades Pickens received from Gary Holder in the Daily Oklahoman story on Sunday.
And the O’Colly has published stories in the past week or so that tout President Schmidly’s wonderful record on academics and diversity.
Why the hard sales pitches? Why is OSU in the business of promoting T. Boone Pickens in the first place? Why is OSU diversity suddenly news? And isn’t it interesting that all of this has ramped up at the same time that work on the Master Plan ramped up, and has intensified at the same time people started objecting?
We might laugh at the Boone State strip — but how far off is Boone State University, anyway?
Post a Comment
Response to OSU latest Press Release
November 26th, 2005 at 4:16 pm (Newspapers/Media/Regents, Stillwater NewsPress)
January, 27, 2006. Originally scheduled for Dec. 2. Presentation of the OSU master plan has been postponed and will now be presented on Jan. 27.
Time has been scheduled at this meeting for a designated spokesman to present concerns of property owners to the Regents.
The Board will VOTE on approval on this date! - not just discuss (Jan. 27)
In the OSU Press release regarding postponing the Master Plan presentation to the board of regents, it seems Mr. Schmidly has just come up with a brilliant idea: that of making sure the community and university family understands “the plan”.
Why didn’t he consider this before he blindsided the City, homeowners and citizens, forcing them to react to revenue loss, streets closings, and the threat of eminent domain. Why has he waited until now to discuss “the plan” with the Stillwater City Manager, Mayor, County commissioner and superintendent of schools?
Mr. Schmidly states that there have been 50 public forums regarding “the plan”. I would like to know how the “public” was informed of these meetings so that they could have attended these forums.
Regarding Stakeholders: Were ALL stakeholders present at the majority of meetings to decide on “the plan”? Were ALL stakeholders aware of “the plan” in its present form? Or did many of them believe “the plan” only included properties south of McElroy, until they read the Stillwater Newspress on Nov. 5, 2005?
Locating the athletic village to the north OR to the west, would keep it directly connected to the current Athletic facilities. Building to the West, would require relocation of research fields. The University is hesitant to move these. However, the University has no reservations about destroying homes north of the campus.
How will the athletic village add more jobs to the economy of Stillwater; more coaches? trainers? maintenance workers? Or what? Do more facilities = more jobs?
If we have $500 million of anticipated construction for academics and athletic facilities over the next decade, it seems to me that the proposed athletic village will consume most of that.
It is interesting that we are finally being told that Mr. Schmidly DOES think about academics, and we are now hearing that there are some facilities related to academia being considered. I do not see any of these academic facilities on the proposed master plan.
I have heard the offer made to the Stillwater schools concerning tax loss. Apparently, OSU offers to compensate Stillwater Schools for three years loss. (Will this be taken from the $400,000.00 that the City of Stillwater gives OSU from our use tax annually?) What about Vo-Tech and other tax loss?
As to the statement that most of the residents in “the plan” area will relocate in Stillwater, think again. Most renters are OSU students who will eventually be forced into University housing. Those living in their homes are talking of possible moves to towns close to their children, many are talking about moving outside the city to smaller communities, and some are planning to move out of the state. Most do not feel they can afford to relocate in Stillwater with the offer they are receiving in “fair market” price; and do not want to incur the increase in taxes due to “the plan”.
Somehow, the term “VOLUNTARY” used so often by OSU, is insulting to the property owner. How is it voluntary when a property owner is intimidated into selling his property for an undervalued price; and if he does not agree to the so-called “fair market” price, he is forced to accept it because of eminent domain? In no way is it voluntary as far as the property owners are concerned.
And the amazing thing to me is that those representing OSU Foundation, and other OSU entities, can actually say with a straight face that they have been “so open” in all of this when so many citizens have perceived it as covert and deceptive.
Ann Williams
8 Comments
-
Anonymous said,
November 26, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Aha, now I am beginning to see the picture. Apparently the OSU Athletic department think our football players are wimps. (I don’t think that at all). Why else does the Athletic dept. think the athletes need an indoor, climate controled practice field? Does that mean we will enclose the stadium (dig deep donors) and schedule games only with teams having controlled temperature facilities? I don’t think so.
Perhaps one gets what one expects. Could we analyze just what it is that made our guys play really great football in the 1st 1/2 of the TX. game and the entire TX. Tech game, yet can’t keep that level of play going? Is that due to lack of facilities?
-
Marion Agnew said,
November 26, 2005 at 6:29 pm
“Understanding the plan” is not the same as “thinking the plan is a good idea.”
I understand the plan — and I still think it’s bad. The expansion plan represents extremely poor planning and has been poorly presented. I don’t misunderstand President Schmidly. I disagree with him.
President Schmidly’s condescension about future education efforts and defensiveness about the process to date aren’t helpful. Extremely intelligent and reasonable people can, and do, legitimately think his plan is flawed and that pursuing it would be irresponsible. And we can, and we will, discuss our concerns with the Regents. And they can, and I hope they will, refuse to approve it.
This situation isn’t just a failure to communicate (though it is most certainly that) — it’s a genuine disagreement. He shouldn’t trivialize that by dismissively labeling it a lack of understanding.
-
Roy Blomstrom said,
November 27, 2005 at 8:16 am
That’s a camel, not a cowboy, with its head in the tent. Now the question is whether to accede to its snorting or take it firmly by the nose and lead it back outside.
OSU has, so far, bungled its demographic study, threatened its neighbours with eviction, embarrassed its alumni and scared the small business community. Wonder what’s next on the Master Plan? Spend a little too much time in the sun, I guess, and you start to think that you’re hosting the next Olympics or that finding a twenty dollar bill means you can buy a fifteen hundred dollar suit, or that you’re a cowboy, even, and you have a right to the tent.
What nonsense! How can a university with so much potential think so poorly and behave so badly?
-
Mixer said,
November 27, 2005 at 5:24 pm
Here’s my $64 question: If the plan has yet to be presented to the Board of Regents for approval, then why is OSU already moving forward on it?
Even though they won’t own up to it, Schmidly/Holder/Pickens want the OSU campus to encompass the (rough) footprint between Sixth, Western, Lakeview, and Main/N. Boomer Road. If you live within that area, or own rental property, they’ll be coming after you.
LINK: http://osu.benham.com/DiagramsCharts/2025%20plan%20incl.%20surrounding%20districts%20-%20draft.jpg
-
Craig Buchanan said,
November 28, 2005 at 1:12 am
In my case OSU had done everything up to filing papers at the court house before they officially took the plan to the regents. The lawyer kept telling me that the regents will do what ever OSU recommends, and he was right. The meeting where they agreed to take mine and my neighbors homes got less than 5 minutes of discussion, most of it joking around before the unanimous vote.
OSU knows they will get the rubber stamp from the regents for anything they want. Furthermore, they know that since the courts all have large dealings with OSU they will get what ever they want from the judge. Our only chance is to change the minds of the regents and ask them to do their job of reviewing all the works of OSU. Only time will tell.
-
Ellen Domnick said,
November 28, 2005 at 11:27 pm
in response to OSU comments in the Sunday News Press:
My general impression is that this article represents classic”political-speak” .It did not answer the direct questions asked about the master plan, instead manipulated questions to serve a seemingly politically-motivated action. Nothing antagonises, or creates distrust from citizens, more than the inability to answer direct questions or more likely, the ability to avoid answering questions.Specifically, OSU does not answer satisfactorily the following questions:
On what basis can it compare the success of MAPS in OKC and the Vision 2025 to any future success in Stillwater? Provide proof that success of these programs could be extrapolated.
What facts support the statement that this plan would move OSU into the top 75 schools?
To date, OSU has not publicly announced a specific plan regarding “facilities needs, utilities, trasffic patterns, parking, athletic, student housing, and landscaping.” Provide us with specifics. Concerns about possible closing of Hall of Fame and/or McElroy road are real and must be addressed.
Who was on the OSU stakeholder team of 30 people? Their names should be made public. How were they selected? Are the minutes and dates of the stakeholder team meetings available to the public? Were quorums met at each of these meetings?
Schmidley states that over 50 public meetings were held. This is debatable. Please provide the citizens with proof of the 50 public meeting announcements and the times, dates, and places of these claimed meetings.
Is the OSU BOR going to vote on the master plan during the December 2 meeting, (although discussion has been tabled until the January meeting)? OSU did not state that the BORapproval vote itself was going to be postponed.
As Marion Agnew said “I understand the plan, and I still think it’s a bad one.” Remember that few or no questions were allowed in a group format at the informational meetings held to date.
The budget seems in question. OSU states that “we have limited dollars” to buy the property but Cimarron Property spokesman stated that OSU’s goal is to finish all appraisals by March 2006 and have all sales final by June 2006. If the “nearterm” plan is 2-5 years, why is OSU in this rush?
Fair appraisals would not be current market value of a home. They would include
1.adjustmentsfor purchase of a comparable home and property size in today’s dollars
2. forgiveness of any capital gains taxes on sale of the property
3. adjustment for loss of future rental income, or equivalent return on investmentIs an indoor facility necessary in Stillwater, OK? What is the mean temperature for each month? How many OSU students would use the facility?
Please give evidence that an athletic village will have a direct causal effect on recruiting of athletes, and competitive Big 12 teams. On what basis does OSU claim this?
On what basis does OSU claim that “success in athletics generates benefits- national attention, increased donor support, a boost in pride and loyalty? Please explain exactly how the new facilities will support the local economy, create jobs, and increase the number of fans and supporters who come to Stillwater. I assume that the athletic village will be closed for non-student athlete and public use.
Please explain the statement, “some private funds earmarked for this specific purpsoe are available for the initial land purchase, so there will be no impact on our athletic budget.” Please document this funding and how it is earmarked.
The question of closing Hall of Fame road was not answered.
On what basis can OSU state that owners living in the purchase area will “most likely locate elsewhere in Stillwater” and “the school district’s overall tax revenue will be minimized in the long run?”
On what basis does OSU claim a “substantial economic impact over the next 10-15 years generated by more than $500 million in new construction?”
There were a number of claims made by OSU; we must not believe these claims unless they are evidence-based claims. Please continue to write and ask questions.
-
Marion Agnew said,
November 29, 2005 at 10:48 am
Ellen said:
On what basis does OSU claim that “success in athletics generates benefits- national attention, increased donor support, a boost in pride and loyalty?”
Also:
OSU could invest the proposed gift in renovating the library and supporting undergraduate and graduate research experiences. Here’s another question for the Administration.
Please compare and contrast the projected increase in “national attention, increased donor support, and boost in pride and loyalty” from the two proposed investments: in athletics and in academics. In your answer, please relate OSU’s goals to the experiences of other distinguished institutions of higher learning. Specifically, estimate the endowments, influence of alumni, and national attention given to Yale University (alma mater of both contenders for the U.S. presidency in 2004) and OU (losing participant in BCS championship bowls in 2003 and 2004).
OSU deserves better. Why is OU the yardstick? Let OU be an athletics powerhouse. Let’s be Yale.
-
Craig Buchanan said,
November 30, 2005 at 11:21 am
The claim that athletic events will increase the local tax revenue is a popular one. I have found research in the past that has discovered in fact when you count all the expenses (police, EMS, city workers, longer commutes, trash, etc) you actually end up with a net loss for the local community.
I will try and find this research when I get caught up at work and post some of that information here and on my site so when you hear this you can point to credible research that refutes this.
Post a Comment
Vera Long said,
February 11, 2006 at 12:50 am
Here’s a part of a Letter to the Editor by me, Vera Long, which was published in Stillwater Newspress and Stillwater Journal…….
……In announcing five town hall meetings, Gary Shutt, OSU spokesman, said one item is fairly non-negotiable and thet is where OSU plans to construct the athletic village. He stated, “We have made our decision that we are going to continue to build in that core area.”
In other words the thousand people who are being displaced have no choice about their future. Their homes will be bulldozed and the Athletic Village will be built according to the master plan….but it’s not over.
OSU officials have not listened to the voices of the residents who object to this drastic plan. Except for the excellent coverage of the news media to inform people of what’s going on, freedom of speech has been quenched.
When people know the difference between right and wrong but persist in doing wrong, they are evil.
OSU Regents and City Commissioners know this plan is wrong.
They have the choice, the option, the duty and power to refuse to approve this project until OSU revises the plan and leaves the l00-acre community alone. Vera Long, Stillwater, Oklahoma.