Mr. Carlos Mayans, Mayor
THE CITY OF WICHITA
City Hall
455 N. Main
Wichita, KS 67202
RE: DROP KICK THE EAGLE
Dear Carlos,
The following Position Paper will serve to respond to the
previous KU monopolistic controlled Board of Regents and the
Eagle's KU scribblers 20 year on-going campaign to damage WSU's
student enrollment and thereby this community, as it relates to WSU
being seen as a traditional university offering a traditional
college experience, including a football team. If WSU is not to be
relegated to little more than a large junior college, this
injustice to WSU and this community, caused by the Board of Regents
opposite treatment of K-State vis-a-vis WSU in 1986, needs to be
corrected so that WSU can be seen again to be a traditional
university with a football team, a marching band, homecoming
experiences and get-togethers, floats, parades, and events, like
our competitive universities have, to regain the some 9000 students
we have now lost vis-a-vis K-State since 1986. Many of these lost
students are without question Wichita students who want a
traditional college experience, and while it would be cheaper to
stay home, their folks can not preclude the desire for a
traditional college experience, which students then vote with their
feet and go on to KU and K-State, to the detriment of our
university and this community.
Hopefully, this attempt to solve our student loss problem, by
reinstating football – the suspension of which caused the problem
in the first instance – will not become an issue with the
university, and the administration will recognize that a few
athletic scholarships for football can solve their festering
student loss problem that has not been solved for the last 20
years, and specifically has not been solved by this administration
during its tenure for the last 7 years.
I. INTRODUCTION
This Position Paper is also being provided to the City
Council, County Commission, and copied to selected community
leaders, primarily for the reason that the Knight-Ridder Eagle is
perceived to constitute monopolistic control of the local press, by
reason of its size alone. Having no effective access to the
Knight-Ridder Eagle, to issue opinions contrary to the Knight-
Ridder Eagle, the alternative is to provide our view to community
authorities, and try to reach some additional selected community
leaders, in the hope that misrepresentations of fact, and false
reason, by the Eagle, can be corrected. It is altogether obvious
that the KU scribblers for the Eagle, who did not attend the
football committee task force meetings or subcommittee meetings
some 10 years ago in 1997, or consider the issues studied and
analyzed therein for some 3 to 4 months, are nevertheless willing
to issue their KU biased and prejudiced opinions, that if followed
would continue the injustice perpetrated upon WSU and this
community. While the Shocker Black & Golds group does not have the
ability to provide this Position Paper to the community at large,
it is our hope that those community representatives and community
leaders we have been able to provide the Position Paper to, will
consider the matters and determine to verbally support in the
community, your leadership and efforts to solve the student loss
problem at WSU, by reinstating football at WSU, the lack of which
has been the cause of not only the loss of students, but the
failure of growth of the student body for the last 20 years.
In order to more fully understand the root cause of the loss
of student problem at WSU, and the present continuing damaging
attempts by the KU scribblers at the Eagle, it is informative to
first look at the prior history and initial cause of the problem,
the suspension of football at WSU.
II. HISTORY OF THE LOSS OF STUDENT PROBLEM AT WSU
A. INTRODUCTION - ENTRY INTO THE STATE SYSTEM
On July 1, 1964, WSU entered into the Kansas Board of Regent
system. The story of the history of WSU's incorporation into the
State Regent system, is told by a little black book published by
Melvin H. Witrogen in 1979 and 1980, and published by The Board of
Trustees of Wichita State University in 1984. This story is
replete with the opposition of KU, and the KU monopolistic
controlled Board of Regents. It is little known, but the first
injustice and insult WSU was required to submit to as part of the
price of incorporation into the State Regent system, was that
president Harry Corbin whose committed advocacy helped, along with
Senator Paul R. Wunsch, shepherd WSU into the State system, was
required to resign as a condition precedence to our entry. This
requirement, was so that KU could place its own selection of the
president of WSU in position to allow their control of WSU. In
addition, initially by the bill that brought WSU into the State
system as an associate of KU, the president of WSU reported first
directly to the KU chancellor, who then made recommendations for
WSU to the Board of Regents, which Board was monopolistic
controlled by KU alumni members. I believe we were in the State
system some 3 years before a bill was introduced and passed to
change the procedure, so that WSU then reported directly to the
Board of Regents, rather than as an associate of KU through the KU
chancellor. Without question, the KU folks did not want WSU to be
brought into the State system of higher education, as WSU would
then be another competitor for the state higher education budget,
and they did all that they could to preclude WSU's incorporation.
However, knowing they were losing the issue to preclude WSU, they
cut the best deal they could get, which was control over WSU, both
directly through the president of WSU so that they could control
his pleading of the case for his institution to the Board of
Regents, and also the Board of Regents itself through their on-
going monopolistic control of the Board. The result was from 1964
and our entry into the State System et seq. to 1995, 35 additional
years of KU monopolistic control of the Board, averaging 4.453
members on a 9 member Board for the 35 years, and corresponding
inequitable treatment of WSU.
B. STUDENT FEE EXAMPLE OF INEQUITABLE TREATMENT
OF WSU BY THE KU BOARD OF REGENTS
Prior to the suspension of WSU football in 1986, the
minutes of the Board of Regents dated February 15, 1985, state in
part as follows:
"APPROVE BRAMLAGE COLISEUM BUDGET - KSU. It
was [Sic.,moved] by Mr. Brandeberry and
seconded by Mr. Becker (Both Mr. Brandeberry
and Mr. Becker are K.S.U. alumni) upon the
recommendation of President Duane Acker, the
Facilities Committee concurring, that Kansas
State University be authorized to continue
with the planning for a 16,000 seat
multipurpose Fred Bramlage Coliseum Building
at an approximate cost of $16,145,000;
$7,000,000 of which is through revenue bonds
to be issued by the Board of Regents upon the
securing of legislative authority,
approximately $7,145,000 through private gifts
and contributions, and $2,000,000 through the
Department of Athletics. The revenue bonds
are to be secured by students fees while the
KSU Foundation shall secure all other
revenues." (Emphasis added).
Please note the $7,000,000 is being borrowed through the State,
with the full faith and credit of the State securing the loan, and
that it is student fees that will pay off $7,000,000 worth of
revenue bonds for a basketball arena.
Three months later – AND TELLINGLY STILL PRIOR TO THE
DECISION TO SUSPEND FOOTBALL AT WSU – the minutes of the Board of
Regents on May 17, 1985, of the Fiscal Affairs Committee, state in
part:
"WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY COMPREHENSIVE FEE
SCHEDULE AMENDMENTS. It was moved by Mr.
Brandeberry and seconded by Mr. Becker that
the Fiscal Affairs Committee recommend to the
Board of Regents approval of the following
amendments to its Comprehensive Fee Schedule:
...
b) Increase the Student Fee from $8.20 per
credit hour to $10.04 per credit hour, that
increase to be phased in over three years, as
shown below, to provide increase revenue for
sports other than football and men's
basketball."
Whether or not this was the independent decision of the Board of
Regents, or was in part the desire of the KU Board of Regents
controlled president of WSU, makes little difference. What is
clear, is that the Board of Regents in the Wichita State example
would not allow student fees increases to be used to support
football – when in fact there was a need for additional moneys for
WSU football at the time – or men's basketball, which didn't need
any help; whereas in the Kansas State example student fee's were
authorized to debt service $7,000,000 worth of State revenue bonds
for basketball facilities.
C. THE WSU LOSS OF STUDENTS PROBLEM
CAUSED BY THE KU BOARD OF REGENTS
By the following year, 1986, the Board of Regents was hiring
President Wefald and charging him with responsibility to stop the
precipitous loss of students and to emphasis football, while at the
same time the decision was being made – not in a vacuum, as
explained below – as it appeared to the public, by President
Armstrong, to suspend football at W.S.U.
Jumping forward to March of 1998, in a position paper of
examples of inequitable treatment of WSU, requested by Senators
Barbara Lawrence and Pat Ranson, in support of their Senate Bill to
de-pack the Board of Regents, subsequently provided to the entire
legislature, we were writing:
When football was dropped at W.S.U. in 1986,
W.S.U was within about 400 students of K-
State. While W.S.U. has seen its student
enrollment decrease 13.6% since President
Armstrong (with I believe B.O.R. involvement)
suspended football in 1986, K-State, during
the same time period, has seen its student
enrollment increase 13.5%. In 1986, whereas
W.S.U. had 16,843 students, by comparison K-
State had 17,285, a difference of 442
students. By 1995, W.S.U. had 14,558
students, whereas by comparison K-State had
19,544, a difference of approximately 5,000
students. Without question, as a result of
dropping football, W.S.U. lost some 3000 to
5000 students, although the Board of Regents
will deny it to their graves.
"Was the Board of Regents profoundly concerned
with the precipitous loss of students at
W.S.U. after football was dropped, as they
were with the precipitous loss of students at
K-State when they determined to emphasis
football at K-State? Not hardly! No,
instead, they determined to preclude football
ever having the possibility of being
reinstated as a Division I-A program, by
determining to tear down Cessna stadium, a
stadium worth in the neighborhood of
$30,000,000 to this community, if required to
be built from scratch. Moreover, the Board of
Regents designates W.S.U. as an urban
university, by which label the Regents mean to
justify that W.S.U. is not to be a traditional
university, and should not attract traditional
undergraduate students. Accordingly, the
Regents see no reason why W.S.U. should have a
Division I-A football program to attract
traditional students. This insidious
treatment of W.S.U. by the K.U. alumni Regents
is wholly unjust, and is consonance only as a
result of a K.U. packed Board of Regents."
(Emphasis added).
The current 2006 student population numbers are 14,298 at WSU,
and 23,151 at K-State. We are now down some 9000 students vis-a-
vis the 442 delta difference where we were in 1986, when the exact
opposite policies were applied to K-State and WSU, resulting in the
exact opposite results, with K-State turning around its precipitous
bleeding of students and our gaining students about to pass K-
State, to our continued bleeding of students notwithstanding we
have bought over 1000 students by giving them scholarships funded
by the Mill-Levy.
D. EAGLE COLLUSION AND INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESS
OF SUSPENSION OF WSU FOOTBALL
From the very first, the Eagle without any study or analysis,
agreed to support the process of suspension of football at WSU,
prior to any such announcement. As was admitted by the Eagle
representatives, before president Warren Armstrong determined to
suspend the WSU football program in 1986, he went to the paper and
requested the paper's support upon his announcement suspending
football. The Eagle was quick to oblige, without any community
input. Having received the paper's support, president Armstrong
then announced he was suspending football, and the Eagle followed
with an editorial supporting his announcement. No substantive
community involvement occurred, prior to the announcement, and the
Eagle felt no obligation to the community to trial balloon the
issue, or otherwise study the issue itself, prior to supporting
president Armstrong's announcement.
E. THE KU BOARD OF REGENTS' DECISION TO
TEAR DOWN CESSNA STADIUM
There can be no doubt that it was the KU Board of Regents who
determined to tear down Cessna stadium. On April 30th 1993, in an
interview with the WSU Sunflower paper, Mr. Stanley Koplik the
executive director of the Board and Regents at the time, discussed
a WSU plan to raise $7 million to build an athletic department
office building, and $4.1 million to build an indoor practice
facility, with the article further stating:
"The plan also includes repairs to Cessna
Stadium. For this project, the university was
given permission to raise $1.7 million.
Stanley Koplik, executive director of the
regents, said the board was assured the plans
would not provide for reinstating varsity
football. `The stadium needs repaired,' Koplik
said, `or it needs torn down.' Either way,
Koplik said, money will be needed." (Emphasis
added).
Please note that in order to obtain permission, for the plan
to raise private money, from the K.U. packed B.O.R. who would not
provide any State moneys for the purpose, we had to assure
the B.O.R. that there would be no attempt to bring back football,
and even prior to suspension of football, the B.O.R. would not
allow us to raise student fees in support of football. And, Mr.
Koplik and the B.O.R. only had legal authority to accept a gift or
deny it, not preclude it ab initio. This interview was reported on
April 30th, 1993, the last two months of President Armstrong's
tenure, and two months prior to President Hughes taking office on
July 1, 1993. It is clear, that at this juncture the real agenda
of the Board of Regents was not only to preclude reinstating
varsity football as a matter of policy, but to additionally tear
down Cessna Stadium, to physically preclude any possibility of
reinstating Division I-A football in the future.
It is also apparent, that the decision to tear down Cessna
Stadium was made, not by President Hughes – as Stanley Koplik's
statement was some 3 months prior to the hiring of president Hughes
– but by the Board of Regents, and clearly prior the President
Hughes taking office on July 1, 1993, and probably prior to the
hiring of President Hughes, and as a condition of that hiring.
The assertions just made, are not simply assertions, but were
fundamentally reported by the Wichita Eagle in an interview with
Dr. Hughes, at the time of his selection as President of W.S.U.
(Eagle, July 2, 1993).
F. THE KU BOARD OF REGENTS' DECISION TO
PRECLUDE VARSITY FOOTBALL AT WSU
When president Hughes was interviewing with the KU Board of
Regents for the position, he was asked by the KU Board of Regents
his position concerning reinstating football at WSU. The State and
the Board of Regents do not fund athletics at our higher
educational institutions. The Board of Regents had no justifiable
jurisdiction, or any other valid basis for attempting to commit a
candidate for the presidency of W.S.U., to a position not to
reinstate football at W.S.U.
The minutes of the KU controlled Board of Regents show that
President Hughes was hired entirely by the process of closed
Executive Session, in which policy matters are legally precluded
from discussion, and which policy matters are required, if at all,
to be discussed in open public session. Accordingly, it was
illegal to discuss policy matters such as whether or not W.S.U.
should have a football program, pursuant to the Kansas Open
Meetings Act. However, then candidate Dr. Hughes determined it
would be in his best interest to commit to the KU Board of Regents
not to reinstate football at W.S.U. He made this commitment to the
K.U. regents, while he was interviewing for the position, before he
was on the campus, and before he could have possibly instituted any
reasoned study or analysis of the issue.
Notwithstanding this illegal process, the assertions just
made, are not simply assertions, but were fundamentally reported by
the Wichita Eagle in an interview with Dr. Hughes, his first day in
office on the campus, July 1, 1993, President Hughes gave an
interview to the Eagle which appeared in the July 2, 1993 issue,
stating in pertinent part:
"Neither I nor the Board of Regents have any
interest in reinstating football at W.S.U."
This was a policy issue that could not legally be discussed in
closed executive session. Clearly, as a condition of employment,
the K.U. alumni on the Board of Regents committed President Hughes
illegally in closed Executive Session, not to reinstate football at
W.S.U. The K.U. folks simply believe that it is not in K.U.'s best
interest for W.S.U. to have a football team. K.U. is able to
attract more traditional students from Wichita, to the detriment of
W.S.U., who wish to go to a university with traditional sports
including football. This is yet another clear example of the
insidious and unjust manipulations that occurred on the Board of
Regents when it was the Board was allowed to be monopolized by one
institution. Power corrupts and majority power absolutely
corrupts, which condition took the Shocker Black & Golds two years
worth of effort to get a bill passed through the legislature, to
legally preclude more than 3 alumni members of any one institution
at any one time on the 9 member Board of Regents.
At the time of Eugene Hughes' appointment, us folks in the
Wichita area who have lived in this community for our entire lives,
and who are alums of W.S.U., found ourselves in a position of
having a president essentially appointed by the University of
Kansas, who came from northern Arizona and committed to the regents
representing the University of Kansas, before he was even on the
campus and prior to any study of the issue, not to reinstate
football at W.S.U., under any circumstances.
G. IMPLEMENTING THE KU BOARD OF REGENTS'
DECISION TO TEAR DOWN CESSNA STADIUM
In keeping with the Executive Director of the Board of
Regents, Stanley Koplik's April 30th 1993 statement that the stadium
needed to be torn down, thereafter Dr. Hughes petitioned the State
Board of Regents for approval of the plan to tear down the steel
super-structure of the 30,000 seat stadium, to revert it to its
original cement capacity of approximately 10,000 seats. And, not
surprisingly, the State Board of Regents then approved this
request, which was instituted by the Board of Regents in the first
instance. It was not enough for the University of Kansas
representatives on the regents to commit the current President of
W.S.U. to not reinstate football, but rather it was necessary from
these folks' view, to tear down the football facility, so as to
preclude any possibility in the future of reinstating football at
W.S.U. K.U. folks simply do not like the competition.
H. THE LEGISLATIVE FIGHTS TO SAVE
CESSNA STADIUM & DE-PACK THE BOARD OF REGENTS
When the KU controlled Board of Regents attempted to tear down
Cessna stadium, we testified in the House Ways and Means committee
hearings, against KU alums and Board of Regents testimony, to
initially get the language removed from the bill that would have
authorized tear down of the stadium the following Monday.
Thereafter, we had to fight for three months against the university
and the Board or Regents attempts to get the language put back into
a bill to tear down the stadium. Ultimately, the legislature
advised president Hughes to go back to the community and solve the
problem. President Hughes then set up a Cessna stadium committee,
and the stadium was subsequently renovated and saved at a cost of
$3.2 million, as opposed to the $26 million initially contended by
the university.
At the time of president Hughes' public announcement that the
university would renovate Cessna stadium, he further announced he
was going to appoint a football committee the first of the
following month, and that he would bring back football at whatever
level the community would support, including Division 1A.
Thereafter, when the KU controlled Board of Regents attempted
to preclude our football committee from even considering Division
1A football in 1997, it became clear we would have to de-pack KU's
monopolistic control of the Board, if WSU was ever going to have a
chance to grow into its potential on any issue, without the
permission of KU. That is why we spent two years getting S.B. 345
passed to preclude any one university from having more than 3
members on the 9 member Board at any one time. We are sure you
will recall the battle we had in the legislature to accomplish S.B.
345, as one of the 91 supporting votes in the House was yours.
Thank you kindly.
I. K.U. ALLEN FIELD HOUSE RENOVATION EXAMPLE
While in 1993 the K.U. alumni on the B.O.R. would not allow
W.S.U. to raise private money for athletic facilities without a
commitment to make no attempt to reinstate varsity football, and
were further in the process of their plan to tear down Cessna
Stadium, they were by the following year authorizing $850,000 from
the Kansas Special Capital Improvements Fund, for Allen Field House
renovation for K.U. Actual Expenditures for FY 1994, contained on
page A-14 of the Kansas Legislature, 1995-1996 Appropriations
Report, are listed as $850,849, with $72,882 listed as approved
expenditures for FY 1995, for a total of $923,731 of State money
for Allen Field House renovation. In short, the K.U. alumni
regents' policy was to spend State moneys for K.U. athletic
facilities renovation, while precluding W.S.U. from even raising
private money for athletic facilities without promising not to
reinstate varsity football. The shear audacity of the K.U. folks
in the exercise of the raw power of the Board of Regents says more
about their willingness to corrupt the regents system and the State
money controlled by the regents to the benefit of their University,
than it even does about these specific insidious acts and fact
circumstances. And, as long as the legislature continued a system
that allowed for a packed Board of Regents, the system continued to
be corrupted and the injustice continued to occur.
J. THE 1981 BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS
In 1981, WSU played KU in the NCAA basketball regional in the
battle of New Orleans. WSU won. However, two games prior to that
game, Steve Morgan of the NCAA, who was in my law school class at
KU and was a rabid KU sports fan and undergraduate, determined the
WSU Ozell Jones case and determined Ozell, WSU's 7' center, to be
immediately ineligible, which resulted in his inability to play
against KU two games later. WSU won anyway, but it cost WSU the
next game against LSU and a trip to the final four. Further, Ozell
was required to transfer to another school, or lose a years
eligibility. Ozell's and WSU's sin was that Ozell's high school,
Long Beach Poly Tech., that recruited Ozell to play basketball for
the school, a prep high school for Cal. Tech. and M.I.T. type
universities, included Ozell's gym class grade, as did 95 percent
of the high schools in the United States, as part of his overall
grade average that made him eligible, but did not include the gum
class grades for the rest of the school because it would have
lowered their overall grade averages needed to get into Cal. Tech.
etc. But Steve Morgan was just doing his alma mater duty for KU.
In the end with Antoine Carr, Cliff Livingston, Jeff Jones, Randy
Smithson and the rest of the shockers, WSU won without Ozell. This
year Bradley's 7' center was declared ineligible for a number of
early games, apparently relating to money not gym class grades, and
he was not made ineligible for the rest of the season, or post
season, or required to transfer or lose a years eligibility.
K. THE 1982 WSU FOOTBALL VICTORY AT KU
As I recall, the last time W.S.U. played K.U. at K.U., in
football, was 1982. I was there. W.S.U. won. Many of the K.U.
folks leaving the game physically exhibited that they were
absolutely livid. Notwithstanding the excellent job accomplished
by Willie Jefferies, our football coach -- we were 8 and 3 that
year -- the following year our president, Warren Armstrong, and
athletic director – then Lew Perkins, KU's present athletic
director (perhaps he later called in his marker after going to the
University of Connecticut and upgrading football there from
Division 1AA to Division 1A ) – refused to extend his contract one
year, resulting in his leaving for other employment. However, K.U.
football has turned around somewhat since they lost to W.S.U., I
believe in part because of the loss to W.S.U. and its affect upon
K.U.'s efforts to build a more quality football program. Fair
competition works. And, it works to the benefit of all
competitors. But there is no question in this writer's mind, that
the 1981 battle of New Orleans WSU basketball victory over KU, and
particularly the following year's 1982 WSU football victory over KU
at KU, through KU alums influence, played a part in the KU Board of
Regents decision to suspend WSU's football program.
L. WSU's UNJUST AND INEQUITABLE TREATMENT
IN THE STATE REGENTS SYSTEM
FOR THE STATE'S EDUCATION MONEYS
Although the following information from a position paper I
provided to community leaders on January 23rd 1996, is dated, and
can and should be updated, I suspect the substance is presently
little changed:
In FY ‘95, KU received a little over $600 million dollars, or
50 percent of the total state regents budget of a some $1.2
billion, which was 1/6th of the total state budget. K-State
received 25 percent, and WSU 9.6 percent. With then five of the
nine Board of Regent members KU alums, was there any surprise that
when they set down to divide a 1.2 billion budget, 50 percent of
said funds were provided to their alma mater KU, which information
helped convince the legislature to de-pack the Board of Regents, 31
-9 in the Senate, the 9 being KU alums, and 91 of 125 in the House.
In the FY ‘95 budget, the regents spent: per capita full time
equivalent student at WSU, $10,902.12; for K-State $17,831.60; and
KU $23,973.92. In terms of credit hour production per dollar
spent, in 1995 WSU had 2.689 times more credit hours production per
dollar spent than did KU without its medical school. Also in 1995,
WSU had 1.769 times more credit hour production per dollar spent,
than did K-State. These statistics alone, said much about the
equity with which WSU was then treated by the KU alums on the Board
of Regents.
M. LIBRARY ISSUE EXAMPLE OF INEQUITABLE TREATMENT
OF WSU BY THE KU BOARD OF REGENTS
In the FY 1992 - FY 1995 time frame, the Board of Regents
sought and received Legislative approval to expend $18,000,000
appropriated from the Kansas Special Capital Improvements Fund to
"rebuild Hoch Auditorium, which was destroyed by fire on June 15,
1991", for instructional and library facilities. (See p.2-58 of
the Kansas Legislature 1992-1993 Appropriations Report). If memory
serves, this Taj Mahal opulent construction with terrazzo marble
floors, vaulted ceilings, and marble walls, which could have been
built to serve the same purpose for half the cost, eventually cost
some $26 million before it was completed. In addition, the Board
of Regents sought and received from the same 1992 Legislature,
approval to expend $18,000,000 appropriated $12,400,000 from the
Kansas Special Capital Improvements Fund, and $5,600,000 from the
FY 1996 Educational Building Fund, for renovation and expansion of
Farrell Library at K.S.U. (See p.2-52 of the Kansas Legislature
1992-1993 Appropriations Report). During this same four year time
period, the KU Board of Regents approved expenditures from the
Kansas Special Capital Improvements Fund for W.S.U. in the amount
of $150,000, for McKinley Hall ventilation improvements. (See p.
A-13 of the Kansas Legislature 1992-1993 Appropriations Report).
Moreover, an additional $3,800,000 was approved for K.U.'s Hoch
Auditorium from the FY '96 Educational Building Fund.
W.S.U. had had urgent library needs also. In the WSU FY 1997
submitted legislative budget, WSU requested $160,000 from the
library system enhancement fund, which fund I believe was then some
$7 million dollars. Although W.S.U. was a state school and it was
the state's responsibility, not the Wichita City 1.5 W.S.U. mill
levy's responsibility, in 1995 $40,000 was appropriated from the
mill levy for purposes of library enhancement. W.S.U. had also
initiated a campaign to raise $1,000,000 in private money for the
library, because of needs that had not been funded by the Board of
Regents. We were after all a state institution, and it was the
obligation of the State Board of Regents to properly fund W.S.U.'s
library needs. But while we were leaning on the City mill levy for
library support that properly should have been funded by the Board
of Regents, and struggling with capital campaigns for library
support, in part to cover the increasing costs of periodicals and
books, K.U. and K-State were expending 18 million dollars each of
state funds for in essence, expansion of their library facilities.
Of course these facts are consistent with prior examples and
treatment, and did not shock us, given the then K.U. packed Board
of Regents. Until the legislature changed the system to preclude
packing of the Board of Regents, W.S.U. did not even have the
possibility of receiving any thing close to equity and justice in
the regents system, and still is not treated with equity,
notwithstanding Sedgwick County pays more taxes to the state than
any other county.
During this same time period, it is instructive to note, in FY
‘94 and FY ‘95, KU received $923,731 in state funds for renovation
of the Allen Field House athletic facility. WSU could only obtain
chump change of $160,000 for its library needs and had to try to
raise an addition $1,000,000 in private money, while KU and K-
State were each getting $18 million for their library needs, and
the KU folks on the Board of Regents were giving KU 5.8 times as
much money as WSU received for its library needs, just for
renovation of KU's basketball athletic facility.
Since 1964 and WSU's KU opposed entry into the state system,
to my knowledge, the Board of Regents has not built a single new
building for WSU. I suspect we are not treated much differently
today, but I will attempt to obtain by open records requests the
current regents budgets for KU, K-State, and WSU, and update the
analysis, as time permits.
N. SEARCH COMMITTEE EXAMPLE OF INEQUITABLE TREATMENT
OF WSU BY THE KU BOARD OF REGENTS
Dr. Gene Hughes announced his retirement as of Dec.31 '98.
The Board of Regents then appointed a Search Committee to select
five candidates to submit, "unordered" (as if it made a
difference), to the B.O.R. The Chairman of the Search Committee,
appointed by the B.O.R., or in the alternative, by Dr. Steve Jordan
Executive Director of the Board, was Frank Sabatini. Dr. Jordan
was a KU professor appointed to the Board as Executive Director by
the KU alums on the Board of Regents, who upon his resignation as
Executive Director, returned to his position as professor at KU.
Does anybody believe that Dr. Jordan had anything other than KU's
interest in mind during the execution of his position as Executive
Director of the Board? Mr. Sabatini is a Topeka lawyer/banker, who
left the Board of Regents on Dec. 31'95. Mr. Sabatini is a K.U.
alumnus. Query: do you suspect it would be possible, should
Chancellor Hemingway resign, and a search committee be appointed by
the B.O.R., that the Chairman of the search committee appointed by
the B.O.R. would be a graduate of W.S.U? Not hardly!
Not only was a K.U. graduate the Chairman of the W.S.U. Search
Committee, but Dr. Jordan, KU professor appointed by the KU Board
of Regents, was also co-chairman of the committee, as well as other
K.U. graduates appointed to the committee, to assure that the one
candidate who would be the next President of W.S.U., was one of the
five "candidates" for the position, submitted to the Board of
Regents to be selected by the majority K.U. alumni regent members.
And, Dr. Jordan had advised me personally, that he would
affirmatively seek and request individuals to apply for the
position. No doubt, Dr. Jordan and Mr. Sabatini saw to it that the
K.U. selection for president would not only apply, but would be one
of the finalist submitted for the K.U. regents to select. In
short, I suspected the entire selection process to be an
intellectually dishonest and sham procedure. Moreover, Mr.
Sabatini did not live in Wichita, and it could not have been
convenient for him to chair the Search Committee. It was however,
important to the K.U. folks, that the next President of W.S.U. be
selected by K.U., and beholden to the K.U. folks on the Board of
Regents. As I said in a position paper to the community at the
time of the selection committee:
"Of course, this K.U. selected individual will
be an outsider with no prior relationship with
W.S.U., and as such will feel obligated to the
K.U. interest, rather than pleading the case
for what is best for W.S.U. – which in fact
is his job and ethical obligation, as he
represents W.S.U. in the regent system.
Moreover, the new president will have been
made obligated on policy matters, during the
closed "executive sessions" of the Board of
Regents selection process, contra, in my
opinion, to the clear language and intent of
the Kansas Open Meetings Act, if the past
process is followed." (Emphasis added).
If in fact president Beggs was committed by the KU Board of
Regents not to bring back football at WSU, at the time of his
selection as president, any such commitment was illegal, and of no
legal or moral force or effect, and president Beggs should not now
consider himself bound by any such illegal agreement. Moreover,
the 6 KU alums then on the Board of Regents, are no longer on the
Board of Regents, and no longer around to require president Beggs
to follow their dictates, or subject WSU to their adverse
decisions, thanks I might add, to the Shocker Black & Golds efforts
to legally by statute de-pack the KU controlled Board of Regents.
III. THE DUPLICITOUS EAGLE'S CONTINUING
CURRENT ANTI-WSU CAMPAIGN
The Eagle KU scribblers substantively care not about the loss
of students at WSU, and the lack of growth of students at WSU, like
every other university and college in the state over the last 20
years since 1986 and the KU Board of Regents "suspending" WSU's
football program. The Eagle KU scribblers care not because these
students end up voting with their feet as WSU can not provide a
traditional college experience without a football team, home
coming, etc., and end up going to KU and K-State, thereby assuring
primarily the KU folks that there will be no growth of WSU – and
directly more corresponding growth of KU – and therefore less
competition for the state education dollar.
The duplicitous intellectually dishonest Eagle has no problem
chiding WSU for its lack of a football team, and its continual loss
of students, as long as the two are not related and football is not
discussed as the cause and reason for the loss of students.
On Sunday, December 19th, 2004, page 1B, in an article entitled
"Enrollment dip sparks WSU cuts", the Eagle evidenced great relish
in reporting a WSU $750,000 cut from its budget due to a 4 percent
enrollment drop, a loss of 598 students from the previous year down
to 14,298 for the fall semester.
Again, on Saturday, January 15th, 2005, the Eagle continued its
concern for student loss at WSU with an article entitled "WSU
enrollment lags; late fees are waived", as enrollment had only
reached 11,500 as of Thursday in the enrollment process.
In Vol. 110 Issue 39 of the WSU's student newspaper the
Sunflower, it is reported that the WSU Foundation had begin raising
money for student scholarships on July 1, 2004 with a goal to raise
$35 million by July 2007, and that the Foundation had already
raised $20 million. Obviously, the university has been about the
process of buying students with scholarship money, for the reason
that the university is continuing to bleed students because the
administration refuses to acknowledge the cause of the loss of
students, and so if they can't attract students and grow additional
students, their solution is to beg money to buy students with. And
further, to use Mill-Levy money to buy students with. Although, on
subsequent advertisements soliciting money for the Foundation's
campaign, the representations are that they are soliciting money
for both student scholarships, and for the faculty. They do not
say how much or what percent of the money will actually go for
student scholarships, and what percentage the faculty will obtain.
And least we forget, the faculty are state employees, paid by the
state. If the administration wants more money for faculty, besides
what is taken from the Mill-Levy, why don't they ask the state to
provide the money. I'm sure they can conger up rationale that the
money is needed to keep highly qualified professors, and that the
state should meet these needs.
By Monday, September 26th, 2005, the Eagle's cartoonist,
Crowson exhibited his cartoon contest winner, entitled "This must
be the longest time out in history", showing in Crowson's cartoon,
a K-State wildcat kicking a football to a jay hawk, with a WSU
shocker holding his head in both hands with a sad face, looking out
of a window at the KU / K-State football activity. In short, when
there was no current issue in the public about the return of
football at WSU, the Eagle was more than willing to solicit
captions, and then in effect scold and chide WSU supporters, and to
provide a chilling factor to prospective WSU college students in
the community, for WSU not having a football team.
But since the football and loss of students matters were
unrelated in the KU scribblers collective minds on the editorial
board of the Eagle, four days later on September 30th, 2005, the
editorial board chided the university in an editorial opinion
entitled "Why does WSU enrollment keep dropping?", saying:
"Clearly, WSU can and does compete well in
certain areas. But WSU's overall enrollment
has dipped for three years running, in
contrast to its sister regents institutions.
There is no arguing with some of the reasons
WSU officials cite for the decline, including
post-Sept. 11 losses of foreign and part-time
students. But how much longer will those
reasons explain it all?" (Emphasis added).
It was just fine for the profound concern of the KU scribblers
Eagle editorial board, for the loss of students at WSU, when
football was not a public issue.
By October 9th, 2005, p. 1D, the Eagle wrote a friendly article
concerning the return of football at Cowley County Junior College,
the only Junior College in the state without a current football
program, entitled "Football dream is alive at Cowley", saying in
part:
"For the first time since he became Cowley's
president in 1987, Pat McAtee can
realistically envision football returning to
the school. ‘It certainly gets discussed now
more than it has,' he said. ‘I don't think
there's any question football adds an
atmosphere that just doesn't exist without
football.' ...
"Cowley softball coach Ed Hargrove played
football at Cowley for two seasons in the
1960s and was an assistant coach for three
seasons in the 1970's .... Still, few expected
the board to drop the program in 1983. ‘I
think the whole thing was set up, honestly,'
Hargrove said. ‘There were four board members
from Windfield, and they all voted for ending
the program. The two from Ark City voted
against it.'
‘People were outraged. There was another
special board session held in the library, and
the place was packed. The board meetings were
held on Monday then, and everyone referred to
the one where they dropped football as the
‘Monday Night Massacre.' We had some big time
boosters who have never come back.'....
Said president McAtee: ‘You add a lot of
students with football,' he said. ....
"Still, the lack of football leaves a gaping
hole for Cowley. No one knows that better
than Butler basketball coach Randy Smithson,
who played basketball at Cowley when it had
football and just finished four years as
Cowley's head coach. ‘There's just an instant
enthusiasm on the campus because of football,'
Smithson said. ‘Plus, it's great for our
guys. On fall weekends, they have something
to do besides get in trouble.' ....
Cowley athletic director Tom Saia said ‘a week
never goes by when the subject of football
doesn't come up.' .... ‘I know there are a lot
of people who not only want football back,
they're still angry it ever left. So who
knows? I just tell everyone who asks, ‘Never
say never.'" (Emphasis added)
So, it's just fine if Cowley County should bring back
football, for the KU scribblers at the Eagle, but they campaign
against any attempt to reinstate football at WSU, prior to knowing
about any possibility of funding or having studied the matter; for
the obvious reason that Cowley County football will not cause any
loss of students for KU, but if WSU were again seen as a
traditional university with a football program, marching band,
homecoming, and football games in the fall, many hometown Wichita
and Wichita area students would go to WSU in such magnitude as to
impact the number of students going to KU, as many of whom come
from Wichita, and competition with their alma mater is not to be
allowed. The hypocrisy of the KU scribblers on the Eagle's
editorial board reeks.
Some three months later, on Thursday, January 19th , 2006,
Mayor Carlos Mayans spoke to a Wichita Chamber sunrise scrambler,
raised the issue of WSU football, and stated he believed it was now
time to bring back football at WSU. Did the Eagle respond the next
day with the news? No, rather the KU scribblers on the Eagle with
their newspaper monopoly, reacted with all the grace and agility of
a herd of bull elephants surprised by a single lion, who
collectively think they are cornered on the open planes, and for 10
days remained publicly silent. The mayor of the city makes a major
policy statement at a Chamber meeting, thereby clearly making NEWS,
and the Eagle with its monopoly, supposedly a NEWS paper, does not
print the statement in the next morning's paper. Now why is it do
you suspect that is so? The answer is that the lack of initial
response of the Eagle exhibits a bias and prejudice against the
policy statement; notwithstanding that even if they object to the
policy statement, it is NEWS, and if the Eagle were truly a
properly functioning newspaper, it should have published the
mayor's policy statement the next day.
No, it took 10 days, while gymnastically trying to figure out
rationale to put down any such evil heresy thought they clearly
deemed detrimental to their alma mater's interest, to search their
achieves and to conger up fundamentally flawed rationale, by which
to respond to the mayor's policy statement. So began the Eagle's
latest anti-WSU campaign.
What the Eagle has managed to accomplish, is to exhibit that
they are bias and prejudice against positions and issues they do
not agree with, and will simply intellectually dishonestly refuse
to print even NEWS, when it is they disagree with the news. They
exhibit they use the paper as a weapon to spoon feeds us only what
it is they want us to believe, to influence public opinion, and
mold the world in their own fashion. If they were not a local
monopoly, we probably wouldn't object as much, but they do not
deserve the public trust, as they are more concerned with their
bigoted views than they are with the truth and publishing the truth
pursuant to the Rules of Journalistic Ethics, which they do not
read, do not comply with, and pay no attention to. Nor did Randy
Scholfield even have a current copy of the Rules of Journalistic
Ethics, when I provided him a copy and asked him for an up-dated
current copy of the Rules.
A. THE EAGLE'S SPECIFIC ATTACK AGAINST FOOTBALL
ONLY AT WSU
By Sunday, January 29th, 2006, in a fundamentally flawed
article entitled "Cost of Football at WSU Would be Prohibitive",
published in the sports section page 2D, identified as by the
"Eagle staff", but in all probability by and on behalf of the Eagle
editorial board, the Eagle posit the question concerning WSU
football: "What would it take for WSU to start it up again?", and
contended the answer was: "A monetary miracle and more.",
thereafter presenting misleading information in support of its
campaign to stop any consideration of reinstatement of WSU
football, prior to substantive studies, analysis, and inquiries, by
community leaders.
In factual response, the Shocker Black & Golds would offer the
following:
Initially, the title of the article: "Cost of football at WSU
would be prohibitive", is to be read in light of the articles
claim: "The annual football budget would be almost $1.5 million..."
We strongly suspect there is not a Division 1A football program in
the country today, that is run on a budget of only $1.5 million
dollars, which can be verified by current NCAA publications.
In a 1995 NCAA funded and published study, entitled "Revenues
and Expenses, of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics
Programs", with 89 of 108 Division 1A universities reporting, the
average 1995 football expenses, for every thing attributed to
football, was $4,098,000 which represented a 1.7 percent increase
over the 1993 average football expense. And this is for 89
universities all across the U.S. involving all major conferences,
which major conferences and universities substantially askew the
average upwards.
In 1995, the mean average of the 48 universities spending
$4,000,000 or less, was $2,583,000. At the same rate of simple
increase assumed over the last 10 years to the present year, the
averages would have accrued to $4,446,330 and $2,802,555
respectively. With the scholarships funded by a slot on the Mil-
Levy in the amount of $1,250,000 WSU could have a mean average
football program similar to 48 other Division 1A universities for
the remaining amount of $1,550,000. This amount would be
equivalent to 10,000 season tickets sold at $155.00 per season
ticket. And this would not include however much money the community
is willing to pledge as a fund for football, just to bring back
football.
Also in 1995, of the 89 universities reporting, 58 or 65
percent reported operating profits for all sports, excluding
institutional support, in the average amount of $4,651,000. 30
universities or 34 percent, reported operating deficits, excluding
institutional support, in the average amount of $1,607,000. One
university reporting break-even. Including institutional support,
the numbers are 77 universities reporting total operating profits,
and 12 universities showing total operating deficits, with 1
showing a deficit of less than $600,000 and 5 showing deficits less
than $300,000. And some of these losses may be attributed to short
term expenses in investments in facilities etc., that for
accounting purposes is attributed to the sports program in total.
Obviously, the same schools do not lose every year, and overall the
programs are maintained.
This NCAA Revenues and Expenses Division 1A publication, has
a latest version published based upon the latest available 2002-03
data with statistics going back to 1985, the year before WSU
suspended football. The complete analysis I provided you and
president Beggs on February 10th 2006. For purposes of this
position paper, I am including a truncated portion of Tables and
comments, as follows:
DIVISION I-A FOOTBALL ... CHART, P.34: The football top chart
exhibits that revenues have increased every year since 1985 through
and including 2003. Since we suspended football in 1986, it
appears we did so precisely at the wrong time as revenues were
entering a long period of sustained growth up to the present latest
revenue numbers available for 2003. While expenses in fact
increased from 1989 to 1993, they did so only gradually, at a rate
substantially less than the rate of increase in revenues, through
the year 2003.
... Accordingly, football in 2003 was about 3 times more
profitable than even Division I-A basketball across the division.
TABLE 3.7: This Football Revenues Table exhibits that for
the bottom 30 percent of Division I-A universities, revenues are
greater than $680,000 and less than $4,540,000. For the lowest 10
percent, 11.7 universities percentile-wise, revenues were more than
$680,000 and less than $1,950,000 with an average of $1,315,000.
TABLE 3.14: This Football Total Expenses Table exhibits
that for the bottom 30 percent of Division I-A universities,
expenses are greater than $1,830,000 and less than $4,480,000.
For the lowest 10 percent, 11.7 universities, expenses were more
than $1,830,000 and less than $3,030,000 with an average of
$2,430,000.
Comparing TABLE 3.14 with TABLE 3.7, for the lowest 10 percent
of the Division I-A universities, again, 11.7 universities, the
average loss would be $1,115,000 for the year 2003. But all
universities have no Mill-Levy to pay for the scholarships. And
state lotteries only affect 5 universities in the SEC and 2 in the
ACC. At WSU, the cost of the Tuition would be, for both 85
football scholarships and 85 women's Title IX scholarships,
$1,250,000, $960,000 for football. Therefore, the loss for the
lowest 10 percent, 11.7 universities, of Division I-A in the amount
of $1,115,000 would be only a slight loss of $155,000 for WSU. But
WSU would also have tuition for 85 Title IX scholarships paid for
by the Mill-Levy.
TABLE 3.24: This Table for Football Operating Profits and
Deficits for Division I-A, exhibits when compared to Table 3.18,
8.4 schools in each 10 percentile for profits, as it includes 5
break even schools, and 3.3 schools in each 10 percentile for
deficits. Accordingly, 8.4 schools had profits between zero and
$210,000; 16.8 schools had profits up to $900,000; and the other
67.2 schools had profits in excess of $900,000 up to a maximum of
$38,010,000. Also, 3.3 schools showed deficits of less than
$75,000; 3.3 schools show deficits between $75,000 and $230,000;
3.3 schools show deficits between $230,000 and $350,000; 3.3
schools show deficits between $350,000 and $970,000; and 3.3
schools show deficits between $970,000 and $1,190,000; for a total
of 16.5 schools showing deficits of less than $1,190,000. None of
these schools had a Mill-Levy to pay tuition cost in the amount of
$1,250,000 for both 85 football scholarships and 85 Title IX
scholarships.
TABLE 3.29: This Table for 2003 Total Revenues and
Expenses by Sport for Division I-A, illustrates that for 19 Men's
sports, only Football, Basketball, and Ice Hockey are profitable,
and that no Women's sport is profitable.
By use of the Mil-Levy slot of $1,250,000 which is equivalent
to a $25 million endowment fund invested at 5 percent annually,
bringing back football at WSU to solve our student loss problem, is
not that difficult of a decision. Further, by doing so, we would
receive a bonus of tuition accountability money for each new
student, WSU as a traditional university with a football program
would attract.
If the Eagle was not bigoted in its anti-WSU athletic views,
it would not present rationale that the cost of football at WSU
would be prohibitive at an annual budget of $1.5 million, when all
other NCAA Division 1A schools have football budgets greater than
$1.5 million, and football is not prohibitive for them, as we
believe no Division 1A University has suspended football since Long
Beach State the year following WSU suspension. Which suspension
was in fact not a suspension, but simply rather President Warren
Armstrong – at what in probability was accomplished at the
direction of the KU Board of Regents – trading our football team to
the Board of Regents, in exchange for 3 doctorate degrees in
engineering that we had tried to obtain for 20 years from the then
KU monopolistic controlled Board of Regents. The KU controlled
Board had not previously agreed to allow any additional doctorate
degrees at WSU other than one preexisting doctorate degree in
Logopedics, but because of their then desire to emphasize football
at K-State and "suspend" football at WSU, finally determined to
trade 3 engineering doctorate degrees in exchange for WSU's
football team.
At the time of WSU's entry into the state regent system, the
KU controlled Board of Regents initially tried to take the word
"University" out of the bill to bring WSU into the state system.
Sidney Brick argued for the University:
"Our community would oppose the bill as amended."
Mr. Brick told the Committee at a hearing also attended
by Chairman Reed of the State Regents. "We believe the
bill should give some direction to the State Board of
Regents to maintain a university in Wichita – not a
branch, not an extension center or something less than
the university it is today." (Note: this included the
university's football team)
"Contrary to some opinion," Mr. Brick stated,
"Wichita is not a distressed economic area. We are not
just looking for tax relief."
In asking the Committee to give "some direction" to
the Board of Regents, Mr. Brick said, "The climate (read
KU's control of the Board) is such, gentlemen, that we
feel we're entitled to such direction." The amendments,
he said, "would be construed [by the KU Board of Regents]
to make something less out of Wichita University than a
university." ¹³ On this basis, he said, the voters of
Wichita would reject a referendum to allow the state to
take in the University." (Emphasis added). (See "An Act
of Faith, p.22-23).
So the word university was put back into the bill, and the KU
controlled Board of Regents was not given authority to make WSU
something less than a traditional university.
However, what the KU controlled Board could not accomplish
directly, they accomplished indirectly, by trading us 3 doctorate
degrees in engineering for our football team, thereby creating a
loss of student problem for WSU, thereafter justifying less moneys
for WSU, and no state moneys for new capital improvements at WSU.
In fact, the state has not built a single new building on the WSU
campus in 42 years, since WSU's admission into the state system in
1964, while building multiple new buildings at KU and K-State. The
entire WSU campus was built by this community. It is this
community's university given to the state as a traditional
university with a football program. If this community wants now to
reestablish the university as a traditional university with a
football program, what business is it of the KU scribblers on the
Eagle editorial board, or otherwise the legitimate interest of KU.
If the voters of Wichita had been told in 1964 that WSU could
come into the state system, but they could not have a football
team, the voters would have never agreed, and would have rejected
going into the state system.
It is now time to correct the injustice that the KU controlled
Board of Regents accomplished in 1986 in suspending our football
team, resulting presently in the loss of some 9000 students
compared to the K-State / WSU delta difference of 442 students in
1986, which loss has accrued to the great detriment to WSU. This
insidious KU interference in the affairs of WSU, now de-packed from
the Board of Regents, needs also from the KU scribblers at the
Eagle to be ignored. Their bigoted KU allegiance and conflict of
interest disqualifies them from any reasoned view concerning WSU
issues they deem to be not in the best interest of KU.
The Eagle's staff next postulates the question and gives the
answer, thus:
"What would it take for WSU to start it up
again? A monetary miracle and more."
But the Eagle doesn't have to guess at what it would take, they can
just bother to read the above cited latest NCAA REVENUES AND
EXPENSES DIVISION 1A publication with the latest available
statistics going back to 1985, and the data cited above; which
publication was cited to Randy Scholfield. But reading and
analyzing a 134 page empirical document with voluminous data is
hard work. It's much easier to rely upon your own professed
expertise, and just allege it would take: "A monetary miracle and
more". And particularly is that so when the NCAA's data exhibits
conclusions opposite to your predisposed bigoted view that you want
to foster on the public.
There were 108 Division 1A teams listed in the NCAA football
official 1995 college football records book, that maintain Division
1A football programs, and there are 117 today some 11 years later,
all of which exist with annual budgets in excess of $1.5 million,
as cited above. Assuming it takes "A monetary miracle" to support
a Division 1A football program, at the level of $1.5 million, how
is it does the Eagle explain how 117 Division 1A universities can
accomplish 117 monetary miracles annually on a continuing basis,
but WSU can not? Are we the only university that is not allowed to
sell season tickets to support a football program? Are we the only
community in America that is not allowed by the KU interest to
support American football? In 1986 there was some 240,000 populous
in Sedgwick County. Now the populous is in excess of 400,000.
This is a population increase of 66.7 percent greater than we had
20 years ago. We now have a much larger base from which to
potentially sell tickets. Even at the time of the football
committee, a February 24th 1998 Marketing Analysis presented to the
committee, identified the market population metro area of Wichita,
as 476,400. If factored at the same ratio as 66.7 percent
increase, the current market metro Wichita area population would be
603,600.
This last season KU charged $225 for a regular season football
ticket. If we sold 20,000 season tickets, contingent upon WSU
determining to bring back football at the Division 1A level, for
$150 for a regular season ticket, we would raise $3,000,000. If we
put the football and even title IX scholarships on a slot of
increase of $1,250,000 on the WSU Mil-Levy, we could presently have
a middle of the WAC (Western Athletic Conference), or mean average
of 48 universities cited above, competitive Division 1A football
program in the amount of $4,250,000. And this would be without any
contributions at all, from folks willing to support the process of
bringing back football to WSU.
And, there is no question that if we were admitted to the WAC,
or some similar conference, or even as an independent competing
against Wyoming, Colorado State, The Air Force Academy, New Mexico,
UTEP, Rice, Tulsa, SMU, and Texas Christian, as well as other
similar teams, that we would be able to generate sufficient
interest to support the program with ticket sales. Not only that,
but we would in the process generate significant hotel, restaurant,
and shopping economic impact to the city on weekends that visiting
teams would be playing WSU in football. This economic impact would
include not only just the teams, but also folks from the general
area of south central and southwestern Kansas that would drive into
Wichita for the games. Half the Air Force Base would probably
attend the game with The Air Force Academy.
Next, the article argues:
"First, let's be clear that WSU president Don
Beggs and athletic director Jim Schaus have
said in the past that reviving football is not
a priority, that growing and enriching the
programs they have is No. 1."
In fact, some week and a half prior to Jim Schaus' statement
quoted in the Eagle on October 23rd 2005, on October 12th the Shocker
Black and Golds had a meeting with Don Beggs in which he advised
that he intended to seek contributions from major donors for
funding football in 2006. I do not believe Don Beggs was
duplicitous in his comments at our meeting, rather, I believe Jim
Schaus was speaking on his own authority, without knowledge of Don
Beggs true intentions. That is precisely why we wrote our October
31st 2005 cease and desist letter to Don Beggs concerning Jim
Schaus' negative public statements having a chilling effect upon
Beggs and our attempts to obtain pledges towards reinstatement of
football. You were provided a copy of that letter at our meeting
on January 18th 2006.
Also, at our meeting with Don Beggs on October 12th, president
Beggs advised us that he had other folks in the community that
wanted WSU to start up a women's soccer team, but that he thought
it was more important to have quality than quantity. To our
knowledge, Don Beggs has not made any public statement that:
"reviving football is not a priority" as contended by the "Eagle
staff". Rather, we suspect that statement as attributed to Don
Beggs, was taken out of the context of responding to the issue of
a women's soccer team, and not in the context of discussion of WSU
football.
Next, the article by the language:
"realize that WSU would also have to start up
three women's sports ... to meet Title IX
requirements." (Emphasis added),
simply evidences a lack of knowledge of the Title IX law itself,
and the recent Bush administration's new clarification of the
regulations interpreting Title IX. You were provided my September
5th 2005 letter to Don Beggs with attachments, at our January 18th
meeting. Presently, an online survey evidencing the WSU's women's
sports program "fully and effectively" accommodates the interests
of female students, is sufficient to meet Title IX regulations. We
accordingly, are not required to "realize" that WSU "would also
have to start up three women's sports" in order to meet "Title IX
requirements", as falsely contended by the "Eagle staff". And, the
Ledger-Enquirer article we copied and attached to our letter, was
written by Emma Burgin, a Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
writer, the company that then owned the Eagle, and which article it
must be assumed the "Eagle staff" had access to with very little
effort.
In fairness, I have to admit that Don Beggs has advised that
he is uninterested in accomplishing a survey, and that he would
also require women sports additions. And, I do not know whether
Don Beggs has in mind any other independent source as available to
fund any such women's sports additions.
Next we are told that the WSU football committee "was told"
that it would cost $11 million to simply start up the four sports.
i.e., football and three women's sports. I was on the football
committee, and the Bill Carr bought and paid for opinion in advance,
to support Bill Belknap's task from the Board of Regents to preclude
any discussion of Division 1A football at all by the committee,
dealt with estimated costs, including the track and facilities now
renovated, over a five year period, not one year, and for Division
1AA, not Division 1A.
In fact, the then athletic director, Bill Belknap, falsely
contended, without any evidence and as just his visceral opinion,
that it would cost $40 million to bring back football at the
Division 1A level. This visceral opinion should be compared to his
$26 million opinion to renovate Cessna stadium, that ultimately cost
$3.2 million. Kirk Seminoff advises that this $11 million
information was obtained from the Bill Carr report. As I say, the
Bill Carr report was a report, bought and paid for by Bill Belknap,
was intellectually dishonest, and was obtained precisely because the
committee did not believe Bill Belknap; and he believed he needed
to posture an "independent" opinion, from his personal friend Bill
Carr. And, of course, Bill Belknap was tasked by the KU controlled
Board of Regents who allowed the committee to finally meet after 4
months of waiting, only upon the condition that the committee could
not even discuss, let-a-lone recommend to the then President Gene
Hughes, to reinstate Division 1A football at WSU. But the committee
refused to be bullied, and the issues were won against the athletic
director. We fully discussed Division 1A football, and in the end
the committee rejected the Bill Carr report and voted 14 to 3 and
recommended that the President forthwith start the process of
raising the money to reinstate Division 1A football at WSU.
At this point in the process, President Hughes who had publicly
advised on TV and the radio underneath the west side of Cessna
stadium on August 19th 1996, that he would bring back football at
WSU at whatever level the community would support, had his hands
tied by the KU controlled Board of Regents, and he could do nothing.
It is firmly believed by this writer, that as a result of not being
allowed by the KU controlled Board of Regents to run his own
independent of the state athletic department, Gene Hughes announced
his "retirement", moved to Flagstaff Arizona, and some six months
later took another University President job. It was precisely
because of these events, that our Shocker Black & Golds group
determined that if WSU was ever going to be allowed by KU to develop
and reach its potential on any substantive issue, it would be
necessary to legally de-pack the Board of Regents to preclude KU's
monopolistic control of the Board for then some 35 plus years. I
say 35 plus years, as our study only went back to 1964 when WSU came
into the state system, during which time KU had averaged 4.453
members on a 9 member Board, and WSU had had a total of only 5 WSU
grads appointed to the Board over the 35 year period, Emporia State
only 4, Pittsburg State only 3, and Fort Hays State only 2.
Next, the "Eagle staff" advises on the basis of the Bill Carr
report rejected by the committee, that the:
"97' committee was also told that there was
little interest from corporate backers and
high-dollar donors to bring back football,
especially at the Division I-AA level, where
WSU would almost certainly have to compete."
(Emphasis added).
In the first instance, the Bill Carr report was limited to
Division 1AA. The "Eagle staff" assertion that Bill Carr found a
lack of interest "especially at the Division I-AA level", implies
Bill Carr accomplished surveys regarding Division 1A, which Division
1A he advised was not the purpose of his report. Nor is it believed
Bill Belknap allowed Bill Carr to inquire about interest in Division
1A, and no such surveys were presented to the committee.
There was however a December 1997 APEC committee study entitled
: "WSU Football Reinstatement Survey Individual Survey", which asked
question # 17, thus:
Do you have any specific comments related to
the potential reinstatement of the WSU football
program that might help the University with its
evaluation?"
To which a sampling of answers received, is as follows:
WSU football would have a tremendous positive
impact on the morale of WSU students, WSU
Alumni, the Wichita Metropolitan area and south
central Kansas.
When I worked at WSU I attended games
regularly. Something was lost from the
University experience for students when they
lost football.
I wish it had never been eliminated in the
first place.
Must be division 1A!!
Elimination of football as part of WSU's
growth was a mistake for many reasons. We have
lost many students who would have attended WSU
through their band affiliations. No real
homecoming programs are offered. What we did
have was the spirit of pride in the university.
A good concept would be Division 1A Football
which is possible. Let us not be Mickey Mouse
about this.
I love WSU. We want football 1A.
Let's do it!!!
Go Shocks - Bring football back!!!
It was criminal to ever end it!!! It has
killed the university and the spirit on
campus!! Bring it back!!!
We definitely would be interested, and would
purchase tickets for individual games.
Should never have cut the program.
I would love to see football back at WSU. My
family used to have season tickets and we would
buy them again. That I am sure of. I truly
commend you all for trying so hard to get the
team brought back!!!! Thanks.
I personally feel a football team would be an
asset to WSU and the community as a whole. I
can't believe it was ever dissolved in the
first place. I attended WSU 25+ years ago when
we did have football. There was spirit and
student closeness, more so than my children &
their peers tell me about on campus these days.
This city deserves a division I football
program!
I would like to see a serious commitment to
a good program.
Wichita needs WSU football again.
I would love to see WSU football and would
make time to watch.
I would really love to see it return. It was
a big shame that it was dropped in the first
place. I would be happy to support the move as
much as I can.
Just do it.
Need to hire a competent ad and staff.
The reinstatement of WSU football is long
overdue. Too many very talented football
players from this city go to other colleges
because football is not available here.
I have a lot of friends who enjoy football
and it's always better live. I truly believe
it will help the economic value of Wichita &
WSU. It will bring more students in from out
of state and their families.
I would not be involved with this sport till
I get my kids into college which will be about
10 years. But I do like the idea that the
program will be there when my kids get to
college age, because that's where they will
probably go.
Quit fooling around with KU interference & get
Division 1 football back here!
I strongly want Division 1 football.
Go for it!!
You've got to have football at any major
university.
Yes, I will support this all the way as it is
time we had it back.
Mr. Mayor, the above comments from the Wichita general tax
paying public received by our APEC committee 10 years ago, I submit
are just as valid today, and are similar to the spontaneous applause
across the room that met your statement at the chamber sunrise
scramble on January 19th.
The committee was told other additional things by Bill Carr,
some of which were courtesy of Bill Belknap through Bill Carr, and
all of which were intellectually dishonestly directed by Bill
Belknap, and limited to Division 1AA football, not Division 1A that
the committee ultimately voted for 14 to 3, in spite of Bill
Belknap's strident attempts to constrain consideration by the
committee, to request President Hughes to proceed with.
Says the Carr report introduction:
"Ladies and Gentlemen: This report entitled
‘Considerations for Athletics Program
Enhancement at Wichita State University' has
been prepared in accordance with our agreement
dated June 19, 1997. The purpose of the report
is to provide objective information essential
to the development of recommendations from the
Athletics Program Enhancement Committee (APEC)
to President Eugene Hughes regarding the
advisability of adding a nationally competitive
I-AA football program and appropriate women's
sports within a five year time frame at WSU."
(Emphasis added).
In short, the Carr study was limited to Division 1AA football.
Also, the committee was provided numerous studies and
information from sources other than Bill Belknap and Bill Carr, from
which to consider and make their final determination. This included
a study of NCAA rules and regulations for reinstating Division 1A
football, and other NCAA statical studies. Because Bill Belknap was
instructed to precluded any discussion of Division 1A football, does
not mean that the committee agreed. In fact, Belknap's attempts
were rejected by the committee, and except for a KU professor
assigned to Wichita in the health professions department, and two
other women working for her, the other 14 members of the committee
voted to reinstate Division 1A football, not Division 1AA. Division
1AA as an on going program was a losing proposition for our
committee, with some 80 percent of the Division 1AA schools annually
posting some deficit, although probably not the same school every
year.
Finally, the "Eagle staff" negatively carps:
"Another thing to keep in mind: The Levitt
Athletic Complex renovation and expansion in
2003 did not take into account another 125
athletes being there on a daily basis...."
This issue was specifically considered at the time of the expansion,
including the thought process of sizing the vertical columns of the
expansion to later accommodate an additional floor for office space
for football and Title IX coaches. Whether this analysis was
accomplished or not is presently unknown. However, at our first
meeting with President Beggs on July 8th 2004, he advised us that
he had identified the supporters and money necessary for a athletic
facilities building for football to be located at the south end of
the football field. So the Eagle's negative carping should not be
an issue.
As a final comment, I would just say that the Eagle was on the
wrong side of history when we saved Cessna stadium. I specific
wrote a position paper: "To: City Council, County Commission,
President Hughes, and Selected Community Leaders", exposing Myrne
Roe's editorial for the Eagle dated November 09, 1995 Entitled
"Stadium" as in large measure factually incorrect and fundamentally
flawed. If the KU scribblers at the Eagle had got their way, and
Cessna stadium had been torn down: we wouldn't have Cessna stadium
for the community today; the $26 million Koch Arena project would
not have occurred; phase IV of the Eck baseball stadium would not
have happened; the probability is that then neither would have
Howard Wilkins Sr. contributed the money for the women's softball
stadium; we would have lost even more students than we presently
have; and the "Eagle staff", who can't find a single positive thing
to say about potentially bringing back WSU football, would have a
whole lot less presently to write about, as WSU sports would have
probably degenerated to the poor community college level, along with
the university. But then, we are sure such circumstances would
serve their KU interests just fine.
Notwithstanding its knee jerk campaign and opposition to even
any consideration of reinstating football at WSU, on February 6,
2006, the KU scribblers at the Eagle were proud to announce a new
$31 million KU football facility adjacent to Memorial Stadium,
quoting Tom Kivisto, a former KU basketball player, thus:
"‘Basketball will always be excellent at KU,'
said Kivisto, who is president and CEO of a
Tulsa-based energy service company and donated
$10 million to the project. ‘But the other
sports will never reach the heights they can
without a winning football program.' (Emphasis
added).
Further, the KU administration has said that they view the project
as a good investment in the university. Do the KU scribblers
protest new athletic facilities for KU? Not hardly! But any
thought of reinstating football for WSU is to be argued against ab
initio with the full force of the Eagle, without waiting for any
analysis or study by community authorities, or consideration of
potential funding sources, and without any study by the Eagle.
By Monday, February 20th, 2006, the KU scribblers on the Eagle
editorial board had recovered from their shock to publish in their
own name, an opinion editorial for the board by KU graduate Randy
Scholfield, rather than just having an anonymous opinion editorial,
"Eagle staff" article, placed in the sports section of the paper.
The title of the opinion editorial was: "PUNT, Mayans needs new
vision."
We should first advise that Randy Scholfield is an Iowa
undergraduate and received his graduate degree from KU. Please note
that to my knowledge, the Eagle has never taken any position
opposing any athletic endeavor of KU, or any other issue for which
they deemed was in KU's interest. Accordingly, we say drop kick the
Eagle KU scribblers. And, of course, the Knight Ridder Eagle, at
least from and after the Eagle buying out the Beacon and gaining a
monopoly as the only local paper of circulation, is no longer a home
town paper with WSU's interest at heart.
a. Discussion With Randy Scholfield
I had a fairly extensive cordial phone discussion with Randy
on the 21st in which he advised his information came from a prior
Eagle editorial by the Eagle staff, i.e., entitled: "Cost of
football at WSU would be prohibitive", Sunday 29th January ‘06; and
upon background from WSU's athletic director, Jim Schaus. So there
you have it. The president is telling our group in four meetings
over a period of some year and a half, that he will bring back
Division IA football if he can determine how to fund the
scholarships; that he has the contributors and moneys identified for
a football facility for offices and locker rooms to be located at
the south end of the stadium; and that he will seek contributions
committed over 4 years from major donors for funding football in
2006. But presently he is making no public statements, and at least
initially allowed his athletic director to falsely provide facts and
information to dissuade the Eagle from supporting the process in
motion.
b. President Beggs Position?
Whatever is president Beggs position, we will know when you
have your first meeting with president Beggs, which I hope will
occur sooner rather than later, as I feel presently constrained in
pleading the case, until such time as Don Beggs takes a position.
And, as I say, that will not occur until you have your first meeting
with president Beggs, assuming that he doesn't then continue to
straddle the fence, but will take a position with respect to what
are the "reasonable" conditions upon which he will agree to
reinstate Div. IA football at WSU.
c. The Eagle is on the Wrong Side of History Again
The Eagle was on the wrong side of history when we saved Cessna
stadium for the community, precisely because they felt they were
doing the universities bidding and what KU and the university wanted
them to do, which was to convince the public to allow president
Hughes to tear down the stadium, which decision came from the then
KU monopolistic controlled Board of Regents, who wanted to preclude
football from ever coming back to WSU. But when we beat Hughes in
the legislature, and Hughes determined to turn around, the Eagle was
left with egg on its KU scribblers face. Had we not saved Cessna
stadium, and got Hughes to agree to allow phase IV of the Eck
baseball stadium, probably Howard Wilkins Sr. would not have come
forward with the moneys for the girls softball stadium, and the
major moneys for renovating the roundhouse to Koch Arena clearly
would not have been forthcoming, as Charles Koch said at the
announcement of his $6,000,000 gift, that he was "now convinced that
the university was headed in the right direction". When they were
attempting to tear down Cessna stadium, they were not headed in the
right direction. Had KU's attempt torn down Cessna stadium, the
festering loss of student problem would have become an epidemic, and
WSU would presently be no more than a large junior college, not the
university – including its football team – that we agreed to allow
to go into the state system.
d. Who Anointed the Eagle with Authority to Determine
Whether or not our Community should Expend
its Gift Funds to Solve the 20 Year Epidemic
Festering Loss of Students Problem at WSU?
Says the Eagle in the KU scribbler Punt editorial:
"Mayans needs to be pushed back – way back – on
this misguided idea. ....
"Who made Mayans WSU's athletic director?" ....
"Besides, this is WSU's decision, not the
mayor's" ....
"Mayans should quit playing armchair
quarterback and find a more realistic goal to
get behind."
On November 9th, 1995, when the Eagle didn't like our attempt
to save Cessna stadium for the community and wanted it torn down,
Myrne Roe for the Editorial Board, subjectively attacked us as "a
hand full of football fanatics" (we were not then seeking the return
of football, only to maintain the stadium for the community), and
further instructed:
"The Wichita City Council and Sedgwick County
Commission may have a say in how the money they
have designated for use by WSU is spent."
(Emphasis added).
But now when we are specifically talking about reinstating football
to solve our festering and continuing 20 year loss of students and
failure to grow students problem, the KU scribblers on the Eagle
editorial board are profoundly concerned that the Mayor may have
anything to say about it. It's not the Mayor's business; he needs
to be pushed back; it's a misguided idea; Mayans isn't the athletic
director; it's not his decision; he should quit playing armchair
quarterback; he should find a more realistic goal. In 1995 when the
Eagle wanted the City and County to publicly come out against saving
Cessna Stadium for the community, they were not hesitant to invite
the City and County to have a say in the matter because it was after
all the City's and County's money to designate. Now in 2006, the
fact that we still have a Mill-Levy for the City and County to
designate, and the fact that the Mill-Levy could be used to fund the
athletic scholarships, as it does 1000 plus other scholarships, is
not sufficient. The Mayor should mind his own business. The raw
hypocrisy and gymnastic ability of the KU scribblers at the Eagle
to instruct the community, is simply amazing. It is only the KU
scribblers at the Eagle that without study of NCAA data, and with
their monopolistic control of the community's only paper of
circulation, that should be allowed to "play armchair quarterback".
Anyone wishing to intelligently study the issue, is to be personally
attacked and told to mind his own business.
Who appointed the Eagle to make the falsely asserted position
and decision, that it is the athletic director who has the authority
to make the decision to reinstate football or not. The athletic
director is a hired employee of the university subject to the
directive of the president. He will do what he is told, or he will
find another job. Whether we have a football team or not, is not
the decision of the athletic director or for that matter, the Eagle.
If we determine to reinstate football to solve our continuing
festering bleeding of students problem, Jim Schaus can be the
athletic director and get paid, or he can find other employment if
he doesn't want to manage football. And, even then, I suspect he
would have a hard time finding any other Division I university
without a football team to manage. Does anyone suspect that Jim
Schaus told New Mexico University that Division 1A football was a
losing proposition, when he was interviewing for the A.D. job at New
Mexico early last month?
e. When has Don Beggs Publicly Stated That
He Will Not Reinstate Football At WSU?
Says the Eagle Punt editorial: "[h]e and WSU president Don
Beggs have made it clear on several occasions that reviving football
isn't part of WSU's vision..." Presently, Don Beggs has never said
publicly that he will not reinstate football. Nor has the present
fact situation and circumstances even been substantively discussed
among the proper authorities, so as to allow any reasoned decision
of the issue. Are we to believe Don Beggs has a closed mind and
will not under any criteria allow the return of football at WSU, or
will otherwise state unreasonable criteria so as to preclude the
possibility of return of football at WSU? If so, president Beggs
will have a hard time defending his leadership on the issue. But
I doubt that is president Beggs' intended position, although he at
least initially failed to reign in his athletic director so that a
proper discussion based upon true facts, not intentional
misrepresentations and known falsity, supplied to the scribbling
press intellectually dishonestly on background, can be occasioned
by the proper authorities, including yourself, the City Counsel, the
County Commission, and president Beggs. What we saw initially was
nothing short of a dishonest attempt to spoon feed the scribblers
and sound bite media misinformation, to say it kindly, in an attempt
to poison the public mind, prior to any reasoned discussion and
consideration of the issues by the public's leaders who need to
properly study and consider the issues, prior to substantive
presentation of the issues to the public.
In four meetings with our Shocker Black & Golds group over the
last one and a half years, Don Beggs has always said he will bring
football back if he can find a way to fund the scholarships. On
August 19th 1996, then president Hughes, with television, radio, and
press coverage, underneath the west stands of Cessna stadium,
announced he was going to renovate Cessna stadium, and further said
he would reinstate football at whatever level the community would
support. Of course, the KU Board of Regents would not allow it, so
he announced his "retirement", went home to Flagstaff Arizona, and
within six months took the presidency of another university. I
asked Randy for his cite to any public statement by president Beggs
that he would not bring back football, and he had none, only the
implication of the statement of the athletic director.
f. Repeated Misrepresentations of the Eagle
Says the Eagle Punt editorial:
"It would take $11 million just to start up the
program, according to a 1997 study – more
today, of course. That estimate includes the
cost of three new women's sports that would
have to be added to meet federal Title IX
rules. Add $1.5 million for the annual
budget."
Randy advises that these numbers come from the prior article cited
above. That article was based upon Bill Carr report information,
which was rejected by the 1997 committee, and which personal friend
of Bill Belknap, was hired by Belknap in a bought and paid for
attempt by Belknap to persuade the committee not to consider
Division IA football. I dealt with these representations in detail
above, so will now only say in summary: the Carr report was limited
to Division IAA only; the $11 million figure was over a 5 year
period, not one year; the $11 million figure included $1.5 million
for facilities the first year that have now been renovated,
including a new 8 lane track; that the committee made no
determination that 3 new women's sports would be required by Title
IX law to be added if we returned football to WSU, and neither the
athletic director or the Eagle scribblers can cite any language of
the Title IX law or any regulation of the Department of Education
Office of Civil Rights, that would require any such determination;
and that the $1.5 million number for an annual budget is for
Division IAA, not Division IA, which could be presently accomplished
in the neighborhood of the lower 48 of 117 Division IA universities
for somewhere around the range of $4.25 to $4.5 million annual
budget, with around $1.25 million for scholarships, funded by the
Mill-Levy, and $3.0 million in ticket sales (based upon 20,000
season tickets at $150.00 per season ticket) to run the program
with, independent of the present athletic programs. I provided the
above factual information to Kirk Seminoff because the Sunday 29
January staff article appeared on the second page of the sports
section, in a fairly long phone discussion, so the Eagle knew their
representation of the information from the Carr report rejected by
the committee, was false; but notwithstanding Randy Scholfield again
reprints the falsely represented information as if it was in fact
the truth.
The preamble of the Code of Ethics adopted by the Society of
Professional Journalists, states that the duty of journalists "is
to serve the truth," and that they are "acting on their
Constitutional mandate and freedom to learn and report the facts."
That they believe in "public enlightenment as the forerunner of
justice and in our Constitutional role to seek the truth as part of
the public's right to know the truth." That their responsibilities
"carry obligations that require journalists to perform with
intelligence, objectivity, accuracy and fairness." But when they
are advised that they have previously printed as true facts obtained
on background, that are in fact false, they make no effort to follow
up with their background source, and drive on and reprint in a
second article, the same erroneous assertions presented again as
true facts. The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics
is ignored, and they plead their own opinion, and what they think
will ingratiate themselves with KU and the administration of the
university. Under "ETHICS", the Code states: "[p]olitical
involvement ... should be avoided if it compromises the integrity
of journalists..." I enclose a copy of the Journalists Code of
Ethics for your information and file.
As you know, we already have over 1000 students on scholarships
funded by the Mill-Levy that attract no additional students to the
university. Additional athletic scholarships would stop the bleeding
of students problem, and attract new students to WSU, just as it did
for K-State in 1986 when the Board of Regents hired Jon Wefald and
charged him with stopping the bleeding of students and emphasizing
football, at the same time they traded for our football team,
thereby giving us the same problem they were solving for K-State.
Where now is the Board of Regents profound concern for the loss of
students at WSU over the last 20 years? Where now is president
Beggs' concern for loss of students, and what besides cosmetic
affects funded by our Mill-levy, that will not solve the problem,
does he say he is accomplishing to solve the loss of student
problem?
g. The Athletic Directors On Background Assertion
That: At Most Colleges, Football is a Money Loser –
an Average $1 Million a Year Loss
The athletic directors assertion is an intentional
misrepresentation meant by the athletic director to be applicable
to Division IA universities. The NCAA latest statistics for 2002-03
show that Division IA football, which is the subject matter of our
present determination, is responsible for 70 percent of Division IA
revenues, and Men's Basketball is responsible for 23 percent of
Division IA revenues. All other men's sports, with the exception
of Men's Ice Hockey, which makes a small profit, lose money, and all
women's sports lose money. And, Division IA football is three time
more profitable than Men's Basketball. But for Division IA football
and Men's Basketball, which fund the other sports with the exception
of Men's Ice Hockey, all other men's sports, and all women's sports,
would cease to exists. See page 5, TABLE 3.2a, of the 9 page study
with 22 pages of attached NCAA data and tables, I provided you and
president Beggs on February 10th ‘06.
Since we suspended football in 1986, some 17 universities have
been added to Division IA so that there are now 117, all of which
are required to have a Division IA qualified football program. The
assertion that football is a money loser, is an intellectually
dishonest representation for Division IA, that was an intentional
misrepresentation by the athletic director to attempt to exhibit
chilling factor rationale, to unmeritoriously persuade the public,
and with any degree of thought and the exercise of journalistic
ethics, should not have been published unquestioned by the Eagle.
Says the Journalists Code of Ethics:
"ACCURACY AND OBJECTIVITY: Good faith with the
public is the foundation of all worthy
journalism.
1. Truth is our ultimate goal.
2. Objectivity in reporting the news is
another goal ...
3. There is no excuse for inaccuracies or lack
of thoroughness. ...
6. Partisanship in editorial comment that
knowingly departs from the truth violates
the spirit of American journalism.
"FAIR PLAY:
4. It is the duty of news media to make prompt
and complete correction of their errors."
Rather than to promptly correct the errors in their first news
report by the "Eagle staff" (Brownlee, Scholfield - Seminoff?),
printed on the second page of the sports page, Scholfield reprints
in an editorial opinion for the Board, previous errors they had been
advised of, and further adds additional errors, in furtherance of
his and the Eagle's predisposition. The Journalists Code of Ethics
does not authorize the publishing of false facts, simply because
they appear in an editorial opinion: "Partisanship in editorial
comment that knowingly departs from the truth violates the spirit
of American journalism." Apparently not so for the KU scribblers
at the Eagle.
h. The Athletic Directors On Background Assertion
That: Even Many Staunch WSU football Fans Who Were
Part of the 1997 Study Committee Concluded
That the Numbers Just Didn't Add Up
This statement is a total fabrication spoon feed to the Eagle
scribbler to be fostered upon the unknown public to persuade the
public discourse. The Eagle scribbler's sense of journalistic
ethics and public responsibility for true facts, the self anointed
keepers of the public trust, who are the first to waive the 1st
Amendment in the air and claim the public's right to know, and
therefore their right to know, and who will staunchly defend the
open public records law; will nevertheless accept without question
whatever it is the athletic director is willing to say, as long as
he is providing them information they want to hear and is beneficial
to the case they are predisposed to plead. (See ETHICS: 2.
Political involvement ...; and ACCURACY AND OBJECTIVITY: 6.
Partisanship in editorial comment that knowingly departs from the
truth ... cited above in the Code of Ethics).
I suspect, that the Eagle will pay the price of abuse of the
public trust, as somehow, if a case goes long enough, the truth will
out.
Who were these staunch WSU football fans who were part of the
1997 Study Committee that concluded that the numbers just didn't add
up? It never happened. The athletic director should be required to
name just one. I was on the committee. The voting members of the
committee recommended, by a vote of 14 to 3, that the university
forthwith raise the funds to support bringing back Division IA
football. Of course, the KU monopolistic controlled Board of
Regents would not allow it, president Hughes then "retired", went
back home to Flagstaff, Arizona, and within some six months took
another presidency of another university. Even the 3 women
professors members of the committee, two of which worked for the
third who was a KU professor assigned to WSU's medical related
school, one of which volunteered to me that she would have voted for
football but it would have cost her her job; all advised of their
rationale on their ballot that they would have voted for football
if the money had already been in place, but just didn't feel that
they should vote for reinstatement until the money was in place.
Which position begged the question, as we were advising the
president to raise the funds to bring back Division IA football, so
obviously, if the money was not raised, football would not be
reinstated. In short, the KU professor's lame dissent (not to
mention the wisdom and advisability of her appointment to the
committee) – required to be parroted by her two underlings, so
that in essence she had 3 votes – contra to the vote of the rest of
the committee, was that the cart should come before the horse. As
such, only KU voted against reinstating Division 1A football at WSU.
I have copies of the votes of each member, and I am confident
the athletic director has the original ballots. The athletic
directors assertion "on background" – I don't want to be
responsible for the truth – was an intentionally made, knowingly
false, dissimulation, to say it kindly. There are stronger ways to
say it, but no matter how you say it, it reads out the same.
I. The Audacity of the Athletic Director
to Claim his Leadership and WSU's "Strategy"
is Responsible for the Current Athletic Success
Without: the saving of Cessna stadium, a community asset worth
in excess of $30,000,000 if required to be replace with new
construction; without our convincing president Hughes to allow the
attempt to add phase IV to the Eck baseball stadium – all
accomplished prior to either president Beggs or AD Schaus' coming
to our community; the subsequent funding from Howard Wilkins Sr.
for the women's softball stadium; the round house $26 million
renovation to Koch Arena, made possible said Charles Koch as he now
thought the university was headed in the right direction – the
university was obviously not headed in the right direction when they
were attempting to obtain legislative authority to tear down the
stadium, incidently at the KU controlled Board of Regents request
; there would be a large hole in the ground where renovated Cessna
stadium now stands, phase IV of the baseball stadium would not
exist, and probably neither would the softball stadium, renovated
Koch Arena wouldn't exist, we wouldn't be recruiting the quality of
athletes we are, we would not have had 14 sell out crowds in
basketball, we would probably have lost Gene Stephenson without
phase IV – and almost did anyway on president Beggs and AD Schaus'
watch – , we would have lost significantly more students than we
presently have lost, we would be bleeding students at an even
greater rate than we presently are, and we would be well on our way
to being a large junior college, not the university with a football
team that we agreed to allow to be brought into the state regent
system. In fact, it was our "strategy" that is responsible for the
athletic success that WSU is presently enjoying. Query: what
"leadership" has Jim Schaus provided, that in fact is responsible
for what issue. The truth is that WSU's "strategy" would have
created a large hole in the ground and turned WSU into little more
than a large junior college. Nor does the university have a present
strategy, and "quality not quantity", is a slogan that had nothing
to do with our present success. The audacity of Jim Schaus to claim
his leadership is responsible for the present success when he wasn't
even here when the ground work and reason for the present success
was accomplished, says more about Jim Schaus and his willingness to
posture and present false facts, than it does even about the lack
of substance of his false assertions. Nor would president Beggs
have been able to obtain a substantive dollar for renovation of now
Koch Arena, had Cessna stadium been a hole in the ground when he
arrived on campus.
j. Reinstating Football will be Independent
of the Present WSU Athletic Budget and Sports
If president Beggs has decided against reinstatement – and is
making war surrogately through the scribblers and sound biters –
prior to substantive consideration of the issues with the Mayor,
City Council, and County Commissioners, he has not so publically
stated, and he has not so advised the Mayor, City Council, or the
County Commissioners. The Mayor is one of our elected
representatives. How it is we spend our Mill-Levy gift to the
university each year is his, the City Council, and the County
Commissioners, responsibility. If the university, to the detriment
of the university and this community, refuses to solve the festering
loss of student problem, for some 20 years now, and for 7 years
under president Beggs' watch, and if we wish to use our money to
solve this serious problem, then it is our business. Yes, the
university can reject our efforts and our money, and determine not
to bring back football. But we have a legal right to then say we
will hold the gift in abeyance and put it into a contingency fund
until the present administration changes it mind, or until someone
else replaces the administration. Its our money and we can decide
how we want to spend it. It is also our university that we support
with direct tax dollars to the state, as well as uniquely with our
Mill-Levy money. Not a single new building has been provided by the
state since WSU has been in the state system, and in substance, what
exists on the campus was built by this community. President Beggs
on behalf of our university can accept the gift pursuant to the
constraints we place on the gift, or he can deny the gift and rely
solely upon state money like every other state regents institution
including KU and K-State. We will either work together or we will
not, and if Don Beggs has already made the decision that he will
not, without substantive consideration of the issue with community
leaders, then he needs to come right out and say it plain, not with
machination allow his athletic director to falsely advise the self
perceived KU and administration surrogate Eagle scribblers in an
attempt to persuade the public with false facts.
And the Eagle scribblers: including Phillip Brownlee, in
violation of the Journalists Code of Ethics in numerous respects,
by his Machiavellian exercise, evidencing he is out soliciting
letters in opposition to reinstating football to be thereafter
intellectually dishonestly presented by the Eagle as unsolicited
independent authority supporting the Eagle's position; need to back
off and let the process work its way through substantive discussions
by the proper authorities. There will be time for the Eagle's
profound opinion in the end, when proper discourse has occurred and
true facts can be submitted to the public, though probably not with
the help of the Eagle.
Two days after their "PUNT, Mayans needs a new vision"
editorial, the Eagle contacted the Mayor by phone to discuss his
view and published a Blogatorial under their "Web Log" (as if the
Mayor had contacted the Eagle) on Wednesday, February 22nd , 2006,
stating in part, the following:
"‘The issue is enrollment,' he said. WSU's
enrollment decline since the end of football in
1986 has meant a loss of ‘millions of dollars,'
argued the mayor. A football program, he
contended, could attract students and help keep
them on campus – and would be good for
Wichita's economic development and community
spirit."
"True football is popular – no one's against
it in theory (except the KU Eagle scribblers).
But WSU has studied football pros and cons and
decided against it, for a variety of reasons.
(Patently false). It's doubtful football would
have a major impact on enrollment (Patently
false). And it is WSU's decision to make, not
the mayor's." "The bottom line is cost. Unless
Mayans and football backers can "show us the
money," this idea is a nonstarter. The mayor
said to stay tuned; he's working on funding.
‘I love a challenge,' he said." (Emphasis
added) (Parenthesis added).
The loss of students for 20 years and the lack of growth of
students for 20 years since 1986 and the suspension of football at
WSU, is not a concern for the KU scribblers when it comes to
discussing the cause of the loss of students. Precisely the example
of K-State bleeding students precipitously and WSU gaining students,
and then the Board of Regents emphasizing football at K-State and
suspending football at WSU, with the following resulting opposite
results of K-State gaining and WSU bleeding students, now
accumulating to a difference of some 9000 students, is ignored by
the KU scribblers at the Eagle. Moreover, they ignore the fact that
WSU is the only university or junior college in the state to lose
students in the last 20 years since 1986 and the Board of Regents
suspension of football at WSU. Without any citation to facts of any
kind, the Eagle simply dismisses the cause of the loss of student
problem, by mere use of the words: "its doubtful". Only in the KU
scribblers collective mind is it doubtful. The clear factual
evidence of the experience in this state is precisely to the
contrary. Not only in this state, but nationwide the latest study
accomplished independently for the NCAA, documents a direct
corresponding relationship between schools that have dropped
football and the resulting loss of students. The study: "The
Empirical Effects of Collegiate Athletics: An Interim Report",
accomplished for the NCAA by Robert E. Litan, Jonathan M. Orszag,
and Peter R. Orszag, and published by the NCAA in August of 2003,
exhibits empirically the direct effects of dropping football on
enrollments. Says the report:
"The literature generally finds that athletic
success is associated with increased
applications and enrollment: ... Goff (2000)
finds that dropping football can have
measurable, negative effects on enrollments,
even for second-tier schools." p.11 (Emphasis
added).
The Bibliography of the report lists the Goff (2000) study, thus:
"Goff, Brian, ‘Effects of University Athletics
on the University: A Review and Extension of
Empirical Assessment," Journal of Sport
Management, 2000, volume 14, pages 85-104."
"Empirical" is defined in Webster's dictionary as:
"Relying upon or derived from observation or
experiment. Guided by practical experience and
not theory."
For the KU scribblers bigoted view, without any facts
whatsoever, "its doubtful", football would have a major impact on
enrollment. For the latest NCAA study, of empirical data, there is
a direct measurable relationship between loss of football and loss
of enrollment. This citation and information were provided to the
Eagle, Randy Scholfield, but the Eagle made no attempt to provide
any correction to its contrived factually unfounded opinion. When
the Eagle has no facts to support their predetermined bigoted views
against any unwanted perceived competition for students with their
university; in support of their alma mater, they just use their own
opinion and the words "its doubtful" for support.
"No one is against it in theory.", as long as it is KU football
and as long as it doesn't compete with KU for Wichita Sedgwick
County students. But if it's WSU, "this idea is a nonstarter".
And, we are all to believe it's a nonstarter prior to any study,
analysis, or discussion with community leaders.
The statement:
"But WSU has studied football pros and cons and
decided against it, for a variety of reasons.",
is a bold fabrication, to say it kindly. President Hughes said he
would bring back football at whatever level the community would
support. He finally was allowed by the then 6 KU members of the 9
member Board of Regents, to appoint a committee, after four months
of delay, only upon the condition that the committee could not even
discuss Division 1A football. But the committee ignored the
athletic director's interference resulting from the KU Board of
Regents improper determination and interference, and contrary to the
Eagle's assertion, after some 4 months of substantive study,
analysis, surveys, and meetings, recommended to president Hughes
that he forthwith proceed with raising the money to bring back
Division 1A football. The university did not decide against it.
The KU Board of Regents improperly decided against it, in face of
the fact that the athletic department is supposed to be operated
independent of the state. Nor do the KU scribblers on the Eagle
cite a single one of the "for a variety of reasons". No reason is
cited by the Eagle, for the reason that there were no such reasons,
and that was not the decision and advice of the committee made for
the university at the university's request. When the KU Board of
Regents made the decision not to allow reinstatement of football at
WSU, president Hughes then announced his "retirement", moved back
to Flagstaff, Arizona, and within some 6 months took another
university president job. When the Eagle can't cite reasons to
support their bigoted view, that WSU shouldn't compete with KU for
Wichita Sedgwick County students that want a traditional college
experience, they simply allege that there are a variety of reasons.
But they just can't be bothered with stating any, and all of us
great unwashed folks in the community should just genuflect, swallow
the Eagle's bigoted views, and quietly go away. The Eagle has
spoken, and no one should consider the matter, not even the mayor,
as its not his business, it's the Eagle's business. True, WSU makes
the decision to reinstate football or not. But its our money that
we give to the university, and if want for our university to have
a football program so as to offer a traditional college experience
to our local Wichita Sedgwick County students, so that they can
stay home for college, what business is it of the KU scribblers on
the Eagle editorial board, who have a built in alma mater conflict
of interest?
"Show us the money" cries the KU Eagle editorial board. In
short, the KU scribblers want the money up front demonstrated to the
Eagle, prior to any attempt to reason through the cost involved and
prior to any attempt to fund the program. Obviously, unless a
reasoned analysis resulting in the developing of the funding occurs,
football will not be attempted. If however reasonable funding is
developed, then football should be reinstated if for no other reason
than to solve our loss of students, and failure of growth of
students problem for the last 20 years. There will be plenty of
time for the KU Eagle editorial board carping, when it makes no
difference to the outcome. Until that time the self anointed
decision makes of the Eagle should let the process work its way to
fruition, and do no more than simply "report" what is accomplished.
With their clearly exhibited biased and bigoted views, and built in
conflict of interest, the KU scribblers at the Eagle have
disqualified themselves from having their views considered by the
community.
Again from its "Web Log", Randy Scholfield for the Eagle
editorial board on Sunday, February 26th, 2006, opined:
"Wichita Mayor Carlos Mayans took some deserved
heat for recently including the resurrection of
Wichita State University football among his six
visions for the community. But he also
deserves credit for counting cultural funding
among those priorities." (Emphasis added).
Of course, the heat came from Phillip Brownlee and Randy
Scholfield, and perhaps others Brownlee asked to contribute articles
supporting his and Randy's opinion for the board. It had to be
deserved heat, as it was their heat. And, the pejorative word
resurrection was used to imply that the football program had been
crucified on the cross and buried, and that to bring it back would
be akin to Christ's resurrection. How cute – if not a sacrilege.
And of course, "cultural funding" doesn't compete with KU for
Wichita area students.
The Robert D. Simison's, who lives in Newton, recent Sunday
February 26th, 2006, letter to the editor: "WSU doesn't need
football", is the father of Robert L. Simison, a 1974 graduate of
KU, who was last listed as a Bureau Chief of the Wall Street
Journal. Perhaps Brownlee, as Opinion Editor of the Eagle, is
acquainted with a Wall Street Journal Bureau Chief KU graduate
Robert L. Simison. Perhaps I'm just too suspicious, but the
newspaper connection, and the Simison name connection, are just too
great a coincidence for me to resist the comment. In any case, for
Robert D. Simison, it's just fine that his boy's alma mater KU can
have a football program, but WSU doesn't need football, it has fine
engineering, education, fine arts, and business schools. But I
don't think he means his rationale to say, KU does not have fine
engineering, education, fine arts, and business schools, and
therefore KU needs football.
Larry G. White's recent Monday, February 27th, 2006, letter to
the editor: "Football is not a pressing issue", states for his
reason that Mill-Levy money for WSU should be spent for other public
safety issues, "new fire/rescue stations" and "four brand new, 100-
foot aerial platforms need to be fully staffed by the Wichita Fire
Department", etc. Mr. White also advises that in his opinion WSU
is just a little municipal university that doesn't need football.
It apparently escapes Mr. White, that in 1964 WSU became a state
university, that included a football program. In his mind, WSU is
still just a little municipal university. If Wichita area students
want a traditional university experience with football, he says:
"let them go to KU and K-State." Which is precisely the issue. Why
should Wichita folks have to support KU and K-State with their
taxes, as well as WSU with both state taxes and property taxes, and
then have to send their kids to KU and K-State at additional food
and lodging costs, in order to obtain a traditional university
experience of going to a university with a football program,
homecoming, fall games and events, etc. In 1986 WSU had 442
students less than K-State, some 16,900 students, and was growing
students while K-State was bleeding students precipitously. Now K-
State has some 9000 students more than WSU and WSU is down to some
14,298 students. The KU Board of Regents emphasized football at K-
State, suspended it at WSU, and in the process gave WSU K-State's
bleeding student problem, while gaining a portion of WSU's loss of
student for the last 20 years for them selves. It's long past time
for this injustice to be corrected.
B. WSU PROFESSOR MARK VERMILLION'S
ATTACK AGAINST WSU FOOTBALL
On Tuesday, March 21st ,2006, the Eagle published WSU professor
Mark Vermillion's picture provided article against WSU football.
By way of background, Professor Vermillion teaches sports
administration, and advised he is a K-State undergraduate, WSU
masters graduate in 2001, and will soon finish his PHD degree
through Oklahoma State. Apparently it is just fine for his
undergraduate alma mater K-State to have a football team, but it's
not a good thing for WSU "just now", later, "In the certain time and
place, that will be a good thing..." I asked him upon what basis
it would later be a good thing, and upon what bases it presently
isn't a good thing, but he could not satisfactorily respond. All
he could say was: "If the students didn't have to pay for it, it
would be a good thing."
I ask him why he suggested to his students that they might have
to pay anything for football, and stated that the students were not
going to pay any additional for reinstating football. No one was
suggesting the students should pay anything towards reinstating
football. He responded that: "Well its always a possibility". I
advised that a lot of things are possibilities, but not
probabilities, and we aren't asking the students to pay anything,
and that his argument was just a red herring meant to falsely create
rationale against bringing back football.
He then advised that the students in his class would be for
football if they didn't have to have their fees raised to help pay
for it. So there you have it. If he hadn't told his students they
would have to pay for it before they voted, they would have voted
for it. Apparently he didn't consider this fact relevant for
purposes of his article. He has 27 students in his class, and the
article says 74 percent, i.e. 20 students did not want their fees
raised for football. Even then, the article says 18.5 percent did
want their fees raised for football. 18.5 percent is 5 students,
so 2 students did not answer the question, obviously for the reason
that they wanted football, but were intimidated by Mark knowing
their answer, and knowing the fact that he was against reinstating
football, and so just didn't vote. It is reasonable to therefore
conclude that at least 7 students, or 26 percent wanted football
reinstated even if it caused their fees to go up.
I asked him why he cited losses by Division 1-AA schools, when
it is we are discussing bringing back Division 1-A football, not
Division 1-AA. He said he was only citing KAKE TV. Of course, the
KAKE TV interview was with Jim Schaus, and his statement with
respect to Division 1-AA, is also irrelevant and just a red herring
thought up as rationale to support not bringing back football.
I advised him that there would be no attempt at
"cannibalization" of other sports at WSU, and that the attempt would
be to fund football independent of all other WSU sports. He said
he just didn't know that would be the case.
I asked him how many students we had in 1986 when K-State was
precipitously losing students and WSU was increasing students, and
he did not know. I advised him WSU had 16,900 and some and K-State
had 17,300 or so and that the difference was 442 students; and that
since the KU Board of Regents "suspended" our football program, and
emphasized football at K-State, his undergraduate alma mater, the
difference was now some 9000 students. He had no comment, or
explanation for why he did not consider the loss of students and the
failure of growth of students in his article, given that ever other
school in the state, junior college and university, have grown in
students since 1986, except WSU, who has lost students that now go
to KU and K-State.
The bottom line for professor Vermillion's article is that it
is irrelevant as based upon false assumptions. He admits that the
students in his class would be for football if they didn't have to
have their fees raised to help pay for it.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the above and forgoing, and for the reasons of our
special circumstances: such as the only university with a Mill-Levy
from which to pay for tuition costs; the flexibility of the Mill-
Levy to provide "Contingency" money to cover unexpected expenses;
the need to solve our student loss problem that has existed as a
result of the suspension of football 20 years ago; the availability
of some $26,000,000 in tuition accountability money the university
would get to keep, associated with regaining the some 9000 student
difference we now have versus what we had with K-State in 1986 when
their football program was ordered to be emphasized to stop the
bleeding of students, and ours was truncated causing the exact same
K-State loss of student problem for WSU; it is submitted that it is
time we quit spending our Mill-Levy moneys on cosmetic campus
statues and capital improvements, that while aesthetic, offer no
ability to solve our student loss problem.
If this festering continuing student loss problem is not solved
presently when there is authority, interest, and support to do so,
in my opinion it never will be, and the university will dissolve in
something akin to a large Junior College and not a University that
this Wichita community agreed to allow to be taken into the state
system. So please keep up your good work.
We are by copy of this position paper to selected leaders in
the community, asking that they consider the matters, and to provide
whatever support to you, and in the community, they deem
appropriate.
Thanks for your leadership,
Shocker Black & Golds,
By:
Fred Marrs
cc: City Council
County Commission
Selected Community Leaders
Plain Text Attachment [ Scan and Save to Computer | Save to Yahoo! Briefcase ]
Date: 19 June '06
TO: Selected Community Leaders;
The City Council;
The County Commission;
WSU Board of Trustees; WSU Foundation Board;
WSU Alumni Association Executive Committee
RE: President Beggs Preemptive
Surreptitious Political Intrigue Campaign
From: Shocker Black & Golds:
Lets see: the Mayor makes a major policy statement at a
Wichita Chamber sunrise Scrambler on January 18th, 2006, and four
months later the president of the university still has not picked
up the phone to say: "Carlos, what is it do you have in mind, and
how is it do you suspect we could fund this interesting idea that
would solve our 20 year old student loss problem, that is clearly
a function of our lack of a football program as it effects our
ability to attract traditional students from the Wichita area?"
No, instead, the president not only does not show leadership
on behalf of the university to find out what possibly could be
accomplished to the great benefit of the university, but rather for
an extended period of months, he buried his head in the
administrative sand of his disk drawer, and refused to return the
Mayor's phone calls.
It appears president Beggs instead of applying his promoted
slogan of "Thinkers, Doers, Movers & Shockers", to the solution of
the loss of student problem, rather, determined to conduct a
preemptive surreptitious political intrigue campaign of opposition,
prior to any discussion with Mayor Mayans. Rather than in the
exercise of leadership on behalf of the university, to take the
opportunity to substantially and rationally discuss the Mayor's
plan with the Mayor, and to then determine the university's course
of action, president Beggs' preemptive surreptitious political
intrigue campaign was designed to: unilaterally circumvent the
Mayor on the City Council; have surrogates falsely disclose factual
information to the press and the media; have surrogates whisper in
the Mayor's ear that he should mind his own business
(notwithstanding the expenditure of our taxpayer's money is the
Mayor and City Council business, and it is not the university's
money until we give the money to the university in the manner the
Mayor, City Council, and County designate); disclose no substantive
information to the student body or consult with the student body;
preclude reasoned debate of the issues; and to win his petrified
inflexible position without reasoned debate, but solely by
political manipulation and control of four or more ill-gotten votes
on the City Council.
At the first of our four meetings with president Beggs some
two years ago now, July 8th, 2004, we advised president Beggs that
we believed it was now time for a public debate on the issue of our
loss of students and the potential return of football, the cause of
our loss of students, with WSU the only state educational
institution with a failure of growth of students, since 1986 and
the Board of Regents decision to suspend football at WSU. In this
meeting that was also attended by Jim Meek of our group, the
discussion was too rapid fire to make notes. But a sample of my
notes made shortly after the meeting on the same day when the
meeting discussion was fresh, show the following:
Beggs is for football and is actively working on it.
The baseball stadium still has a $1.2 million debt due to
be retired by 2007.
He has an upcoming meeting with Carlos Mayans and will
talk to him re football.
I told him Carlos volunteered he would like the City to help
WSU bring back football, I didn't solicit the remark.
He meets with A.D. Schaus on a weekly basis.
He wants to challenge A.D. with another fund raising
project. I.e., what the university can do to lead the
charge for the program.
I advised the president has to provide the leadership.
Told him I was the one who identified $500,000 worth of line
items on the Mil-levy that should not be on the Mil-levy,
but more properly should be funded by the State. But said
you pick and choose. I.e. $ to renovate Cessna stadium.
(This comment related to a presentation I had given to the
City Council at the time of the Cessna stadium renovation,
but that I was using to express the fact that there are
still many items on the Mil-levy that should be funded by
the State, thus freeing up moneys that could be used to
solve our student loss problem).
Faculty honey pots have been taken off the Mil-levy. (Some
perhaps, but certainly not all).
More $ for scholarships – might think about athletic
scholarships.
Talked specifically about the 10 percent freshman class loss
of students as a major problem. He did not deny it. I
obviously put my finger on a sore spot. Cause of loss is
lack of image of a traditional university with a Division IA
football program.
I think the meeting was clearly worth while. We will see
what happens.
P.S. He says tuition waivers have to come by way of State
statute, B.O.R. can't do it unilaterally.
Clearly from our first meeting on July 8th, 2004, two years
ago, president Beggs led us to believe that he was in support of
football, and at subsequent meetings advised he would reinstate
football if we could just show him how to fund the scholarships,
including Title IX scholarships. There were never any comments
that it was too this or too that, or that he had other sports to
consider. The discussions were always specifically about funding
football as a stand alone project, independent of all other
existing sports. And, it was also specifically discussed that one
of the criteria for funding was that there would be no increase to
student fees or costs to students, as required by president Beggs,
to which we heartily agreed.
Now it is president Beggs does all that he can to politically
intrigue and preclude any open public debate, even failing to
substantially advise the students of the issues. We have been left
to try to fill the vacuum of fact by producing position papers to
the community, and by use of a internet site (Coming soon: visit
Alumnishockerblack&golds.com), attempt to make factual information
available to the students who will become alumni like ourselves.
It is after all, their and our university not the university of a
KU selected and approved intervener representative who upon
retirement will likely return to Illinois. And certainly, this
issue should be determined by the community who built the
university, and not unilaterally precluded by one man standing
alone, solely because he happens to occupy an appointed position of
leadership un-voted upon by the taxpayers who's money it is. It is
our money, and if we want for our university, a traditional
university with a traditional football program, so that our
students have an opportunity for a traditional university
experience at lesser food and lodging stay at home costs, it should
not be for one previously KU appointed and we believe previously
committed man on the issue, to preclude.
Why would president Beggs not be willing to look into the
possibility of solving the 20 year old loss of student problem of
WSU, the only state university or community college that has lost
students since 1986 and the B.O.R. suspension of our football
program, at the same time they were emphasizing KSU's football
program? We submit the answer can only be that president Beggs
committed to the KU monopolistic controlled B.O.R. at the time of
his retention as president of WSU in 1998, the year before we were
able to legally de-pack the B.O.R. with a state statute, not to re-
instate football at WSU. Nor we submit does the B.O.R. even have
subject matter jurisdiction over the issue of independently
supported athletic programs, including football. President Beggs
in championing his own personal interest and improper commitment in
order to obtain his position, is not in the best interest of WSU in
solving our 20 year old festering loss of student problem at WSU,
over a 1000 of which occurred on president Beggs watch, which he
effective off set with Mil-levy money buying over a 1000 students
with scholarships. In the spring semester of 1999, when president
Beggs took office on Jan. 1st, 1999, WSU's enrollment was 14,209.
For this last spring semester of Jan. 1st, 2006, our enrollment was
14,229, but more than 1000 students have been bought by president
Beggs with our Mil-levy money. President Beggs has lost over a
1000 students on his 7 year watch, and only breaks even by the
process of using our money to buy students.
President Beggs pretended solution of the expenditure of Mil-
levy moneys for cosmetic signs, ground work, and a new welcoming
center, will not substantively solve our lack of growth of student
problem for the last 20 years. The fundamental problem is not
being addressed or solved by president Beggs or even publically
admitted by the administration. It is axiomatic that if you do not
admit what the root cause of the problem is, you will never solve
the problem.
The next president of WSU will not be selected by KU alums,
but we should not have to wait for a president selected solely by
WSU folks who will stand up and plead the case in the best interest
of WSU. We need to start to solve the festering sore of our loss
of students problem now. If our university is to have any chance
to reach its potential or even grow back to where we were 20 years
ago, we need to solve this loss of student problem, with or without
president Beggs help, and with or without president Beggs
obstruction based upon improper past commitment, and/or unreasoned
present stubbornness and refusal to even properly consider the
issue.
Sadly, president Beggs preemptive surreptitious political
intrigue campaign of opposition, has been to unmeritoriously
corrupt the taxpayer's representatives to his own purpose.
Councilman Bob Marts who initially advised that he was a
football fan, would love to have football back at WSU, and would
vote for it if president Beggs just asked; now apparently is more
interested in maintaining his golf games with president Beggs, than
he is in representing his constituents and solving the WSU 20 year
old now 9000 festering loss of student problem.
Councilman Carl Brewer offers for his support of president
Beggs, at the City Council workshop on Tuesday the 13th of June, in
some manner of convoluted self perceived relevance, his view that
universities shouldn't give out athletic scholarships to black
athletes because black athletes go to universities, and the NBA,
and then the community doesn't give them a job when they finish
playing in the NBA, and "they end up poor". When we went to
college, we and our folks paid our own tuition, and we were only
promised a seat in a class with a professor and the opportunity to
learn sufficiently if we applied ourselves. And, if we passed the
exams for enough credit hours, the university promised to "confer"
upon us our degrees, not "give" us our degrees. No jobs were
promised. Further, minimum rookie salary for the NBA is some half
a million dollars. How any athlete could play in the NBA, let-a-
lone have a career, and come out poor after making millions, is
clearly not the fault or obligation of the university. Nor is the
issue even relevant, but for councilman Carl Brewer, it suffices as
an excuse for his committed vote for president Beggs' position,
prior to substantive discussion of the issues, except with
surrogates for president Beggs. We suspect that if we offered to
only recruit white football players to solve his concern councilman
Brewer would be the first to cry that we were prejudice, or worse.
Councilman and WSU student Paul Gray, in what can only be
described as his view of leadership, evidences his support of
president Beggs position, by: saying he doesn't want to take a
position or get involved in a controversial issue because he is up
for re-election; and by refusing to talk to his constituents on the
issue. Perhaps he should consider: the potential benefit to other
WSU students and the university; his constituents views; why he ran
for the leadership office in the first instance; and whether or not
folks should reelect him if he is unwilling to discuss substantive
issues with his constituents; prior to locking in his mind and
waiting for the vote of the issue in the hope that it will have the
least amount of negative affect upon his ability to be reelected.
President Beggs is a cordial man, and the Shocker Black &
Golds personally like him, but we believe he was just initially
personally misguided and committed by the KU B.O.R. We are only
interested in supporting Mayor Mayans' solving for our community
and our university the root cause of our loss of 9000 students 20
year old festering problem. Hopefully he will have a change of
heart when he finally discusses the matter with Mayor Mayans, but
presently president Beggs is the only man: standing like the great
wall of Hadrian athwart the path of the Scottish hordes; the path
of history; and the return of football to WSU, to reinstate WSU as
a traditional university this community agreed to allow into the
state system; thus refusing to allow the injustice to be corrected,
and the solution to our loss of student problem to obtain. But
then principled reason and logic apparently are not thoughts that
can flow freely upon a pre-committed mind, notwithstanding slogans
like "Thinkers, Doers, Movers & Shockers".
Respectfully submitted,
Shocker Black & Golds
By:
Fred Marrs
Subscribe