Month: January 2004

Seagull Musings for January 25, 2004

An article in the Jan. 15 edition of the Springfield News Leader reported that “The education credentials of Larry Cockrum, the school’s dean of administration and director of its Keeter Center for Character Education, were called into question last fall by C of O, (College of the Ozarks), biology professor Jonathan Davis.” What really caught the Ole Seagull’s attention however was what immediately followed, “Davis was suspended in December for the spring semester and will not be offered a contract renewal for next year.”

“Surely that must be a misprint,” he thought but alas, and to his disappointment, it wasn’t. The article went on to report that “Virginia Fry, the school’s attorney, said earlier that if Davis had done things properly and reported what he learned to his division chair, he’d likely still be working at the school.” Well Virginia there might be a Santa Claus but, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, given the apparent facts of this situation, short of Davis backing off, even Santa couldn’t have kept Davis in his position.

What had Davis “learned?”According to the article, Larry Cockrum, C of O’s dean of administration and, the school’s director of its Keeter Center for Character Education, had received a Ph.D. in 1991, from Crescent City Christian College. The article went on to point out that the “college” was being operated out of a residence, that “investigators from Texas and Louisiana have said the degrees from Crescent City were fraudulent,” that “the school is no longer operating,” and that “C of O still lists Cockrum as having a Ph.D. in its most recent academic catalog.”

From the Ole Seagull’s point of view, here’s where it gets interesting, in a sad sort of way. It appears that C of O knew about the Cockrum’s “sham” Ph.D. when they hired him. William Todd, former C of O administrator and board member was reported to have said, “everyone on the board was aware of Cockrum’s degree when they hired him in 1992, but ‘It didn’t matter at the time. … We didn’t consider it that important.’

Why didn’t it matter at the time? Why didn’t they consider it that important? In an email received from C of O’s attorney, Virginia Fry, she said, “During this process, the credentials of the candidate are reviewed and, if necessary, questions are asked. Since you may be wondering about Dean Cockrum, the position that he applied for initially at the college was Dean of Students. The position required only a master’s degree. The Ph.D. has not been required for any position that he has held at the college.”

No Virginia, an Ole Seagull would respectfully disagree. The position required more than a masters degree, it required a person with a character consistent with the qualities that the college’s “Five Fold Mission” program seeks to impart to its students. If it doesn’t start with its faculty where does it start?

The fact of the matter is that it appears, whether required or not, Cockrum submitted an employment application holding himself out as having a Ph.D. that, given the circumstances under which it was received, no reasonable person, let alone a college trained professional with a masters degree, could reasonably consider legitimate. It also appears, in spite of what he knew or should have known that for over a period of 13 plus years Cockrum has compounded the situation by holding himself out as a Ph.D.

Unfortunately, the situation only gets worse. It appears that “everyone on the board was aware of Cockrum’s degree when they hired him in 1992, but “It didn’t matter at the time” because they didn’t consider it that important. Yet, knowing what they knew about the way Cockrum obtained his Ph.D. the college administration not only hired him and holds him out to the public, students, accrediting associations, and potential donors as a Ph.D. but, in an oxymoron turn of events, made him the director of the colleges Keeter Center for Character Education.

How does the process that the college has followed relating to the hiring of Cockrum, holding him out as a Ph.D., and its “firing” of Davis for the way he exposed what appears to be a “living lie,” illustrate the application of C of O’s “Five Fold Mission?” (Academic Goal, Vocational Goal, Spiritual Goal, Patriotic Goal and Cultural Goal) Exactly where did either the actions of Cockrum or the college, in this situation, help “provide a sound education,” …”promote a strong work ethic,” encourage “the development of good character and values” or demonstrate an “adherence to high personal standards?” Sadly, from an Ole Seagull’s perspective the answers, in order, are “it doesn’t” and “nowhere.”

An “Inducement” is defined as “a motive or consideration that leads one to action.”Exhibit 6 of the “Branson Landing Tax Increment Financing Plan” indicates that up to $33 million dollars of Branson Landing Project funds could be used to “induce prospective Retail and Hotel Anchors” to commit to the project.

One such potential “Hotel Anchor,” conditioned their participation upon “receiving at least $10,000,000 in direct Sales Tax TIF Bond Proceeds or other similar inducement and entering a long-term subordinated land lease with the City of Branson at a minimum cost.”That’s sure a way to “lead one to action,” pay them $10 million dollars up front to take the desired action.The Ole Seagull would bet that there are a lot of businesses, theatres, hotels, etc. that would have loved to been “induced” like that when they started their businesses in Branson.

There is also another way to “lead one to action.”It is called “incentives.”As used in the case of Branson Landing, an “Incentive” could be defined as, “the expectation of a reward, that induces action or motivates effort.”What a difference it would have been if the potential “Hotel Anchor” mentioned above had conditioned their participation upon “receiving $10 million dollars in tax revenues only if their business produced $15 million in tax revenues first and, in addition, taken as a whole, the tax revenues from the Branson Landing Project were sufficient to pay the projects indebtedness.

In the first case it’s a one sided situation.They get their “inducement” up front, merely by coming to the Branson Landing Project.In the second case, the “incentive situation,” they have to get it “the old fashioned way, earn it.”If the Ole Seagull understands the process, it appears that the “incentive” case scenario is being used for the Branson Landing Project inducements. Let’s take a look.

“Gotcha Outdoor Outfitters,” GOO, approaches the city about the possibility of building a $50 million dollar outdoor retail facility in Branson Landing.The city of Branson determines that GOO would make a great anchor and decides, as an inducement, to give GOO the opportunity to earn $10 million dollars in incentives.At this point the city hasn’t given GOO one penney.

In a “bond legalese” thing, $10 million dollars of the $50 million that GOO is going to invest in Branson Landing is also used to simultaneously “purchase,” what the Ole Seagull will call, “Incentive Bonds” from the City of Branson.At this point GOO gets the Incentive Bonds from the city, giving it the opportunity to earn up to $10 million dollars in incentives, is investing $50 million dollars in a facility in the Branson Landing Project, and the city hasn’t given GOO one penney.

It is important to note that the Incentive Bonds are “subordinate” to, what the Ole Seagull will call, the “Non Incentive” Branson Landing Bonds.In terms of priority, tax revenues from the Branson Landing Project will first be used to pay off the Non Incentive Bonds.Then, whatever tax revenues that are left may be used to pay off the Incentive Bonds.If there is insufficient revenues to pay the debt on the Non Incentive Bonds the Incentive Bonds will not get paid.

In addition, there will be performance and revenue incentive criteria that the holders of the Incentive Bonds must meet before they would receive payment.This criterion would be business specific, subject to negotiation, and would change from business to business depending on their perceived value to the overall project and other factors.The one thing that would not change however is the fact that it is another condition that the Incentive Bond holders must meet prior to receiving payment on their bonds.

In a nut shell, two things must happen before “Gotcha Outdoor Outfitters,” GOO, receives one penney in incentives from the City.First, the Branson Landing Project must generate enough tax revenue to pay the indebtedness on the Non Incentive Bonds.Second, the holders of the Incentive Bonds, in this case GOO, must meet the specific performance and revenue incentive criterion that they agreed to.If both do not happen, the Incentive Bond holders do not get paid.If both do happen, then GOO receives the $10 million dollars and the incentive process has worked.

“Could the incentive process be prostituted?”Of course it could but, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, the citizens and businesses of Branson are best served if the process is honored.It will either result in obtaining the sincere interest and commitment of the “world class” anchors that will be critical for the success of the Branson Landing Project or demonstrate their lack of interest and commitment.Either way, assuming appropriate action by city officials, the Branson wins.