By Doug Cosper
Boulder Planet

August 5, 1998

State legislators and CU regents are questioning the university's ability to keep track of how much school time its professors spend on personal, for-profit work.

At the center of the controversy is a documentary film co-produced by University of Colorado journalism professor Michael Tracey that features an interview with John and Patsy Ramsey.

In violation of regents' rules, Tracey did not complete the paperwork designed to track the university time he spent making the film.

The subject of the film, which takes the media to task for its coverage of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, is not at issue because it falls solidly within Tracey's field of study, everyone interviewed for this story agreed.

But the school's inability to say how much of Tracey's salaried time was spent on the film, from which he and his partners hope to profit personally, has raised some eyebrows at the state Capitol.

"If (professors) are going to spend X weeks on a project, higher education should be able to account for that," said State Sen. Jim Rizzuto, the longest-running member of the Joint Budget Committee. The committee is the legislative body that allocates the state budget, including funds for colleges and universities.

"That would be something I would be more than interested in bringing up at our next budget session in September," said Rizzuto, who co-sponsored a bill in 1994 that increased accountability standards: for state faculty sabbaticals. "This at least raises the question, that unless you have some accountability standards, it's eventually going to come up as a problem."

Joint Budget Committee Chairman Tony Grampsas called the issue an "accountability problem" and said: it's "the last thing CU needs in a tight budgetary season."

"I'm surprised the dean wouldn't be more cautious with that," said Grampsas, a Republican representative from Evergreen. "The budget's going to be stretched next year. The university doesn't want to be sitting here fighting another allegation that it is not paying attention to the details. That's people's jobs, for Christ's sake.

"Accountability is going to be at the core of a lot of questions asked next year again. The public is concerned about it," he added.

Tracey and Wick Rowland, dean of CU's School of Journalism and Mass Communication, acknowledged the paperwork omission. But both passionately defended the documentary project as a prime example of what university professors should be doing.

Honor system

CU allows, even encourages, its full-time faculty to spend up to one-sixth of their time and energy on consultation or research projects related to, but outside of, their regular university duties. Regents' rules allow professors to continue to collect their regular state salaries while being paid for that outside work.

"The point of the one-sixth rule is to keep professors involved in the community and real world and bring that experience back to the classroom," said Fort Collins Regent Guy Kelley. In establishing : the rules, the Board of Regents resolved, "... that public office not be used for private gain, and that there be complete public confidence in the integrity of the university."

Regents' rules require professors to inform their deans or department chairs before they undertake outside work for pay, said Todd Gleeson, CU associate vice chancellor for academic affairs. The professor is required to complete an "application for approval of additional remuneration." No further formal accounting is required.

"It's fundamentally an honor system," Gleeson said.

The one-page remuneration form "is the only paper trail that I am aware of," to track time spent on outside work, Gleeson said. The form asks professors to describe proposed projects, how much time they intend to spend on them, and what university facilities would be used.

The one-sixth rule is common in universities across the United States, said Robert Kreiser, spokesman for the American Association of University Professors, a Washington, D.C., group dedicated to defending principles of academic freedom, tenure and professional ethics. And CU's method of tracking how much time is spent for outside pay is not unusual.

"It's generally lax, across the country," Kreiser said. "The main concern is that people don't get so involved in what they're doing as to compromise their carrying out of their normal academic duties. The problem comes up when people tend to take advantage of the laxity, or it is a high- profile case like (Tracey's)," he said.

Kreiser said the issue has seldom been raised with the AAUP, but added, "We're seeing a lot of intrusions by legislators who believe that academic administrators are not enforcing the rules strictly enough."

Work now, ask later

Tracey said of the approval form, "I didn't know it existed. There are so many bloody forms at CU." He added he was only "vaguely aware" of the one-sixth rule. Tracey pointed out that although he had hoped to make money on the documentary, so far, "I've not seen a dime."

Great Britain's Channel 4 paid about £200,000 ($320,000) for a 60-minute version of the documentary that aired there last month, Tracey said. That money, combined with proceeds of a local broadcast scheduled for Wednesday, Aug. 5, on KUSA Channel 9, only covered the costs of production. Tracey said he has received about $10,000 in expenses for the project, mostly spent for travel to London, where the piece was edited. If he is going to profit on the Ramsey film, he said, it will be through a hoped-for American network sale and a subsequent book advance.

"I wish I had made some bloody money. It's cost me a lot. It's been an absolute nightmare," Tracey : said of the project. Tracey receives a salary of $80,941 from CU for a nine-month contract, according to the university.

Like most full professors in the journalism school, he teaches two classes a semester. Last spring semester, during which he said he put in the most time on the project, Tracey taught one undergraduate class of about 30 students with the aid of a teacher's assistant, and one graduate seminar of four students.

Boulder Regent Bob Sievers, who also is a CU professor of chemistry, said both professor and dean share responsibility for the approval form's completion.

"The faculty member has the responsibility to report outside activities and ask permission in advance, and the dean has a responsibility to remind people to observe the policy. You're supposed to obtain permission before you do it, not do it and ask permission later," he said.

'I have no idea'

Dean Rowland said he advised his faculty to request written approval for paid outside work. He added that he believed "the responsibility for filling them out and determining whether they should do that falls with the faculty member."

In Tracey's case, he said, "He told me about (the Ramsey project). As I understand it, it's part of his scholarly work." Rowland said he had not viewed the documentary.

"(Professor Tracey's) behavior is not different in this respect than the vast number of my faculty members," Rowland said. "I don't know exactly what projects people are working on at any particular time."

Asked if Tracey crossed the line set by the one-sixth rule, Rowland, said, "I have no idea." But he said he was comfortable with the amount of time the professor spent working on it on the university's clock. He said he had no indication that Tracey was neglecting his teaching and other: regular university duties.

He defended the documentary project as "right down the pipe" of Tracey's academic specialty as a critic of U.S. media, and he pointed out that interpreting the one-sixth rule is not a simple task.

"My impression is that during this time he has worked far more than 40 hours a week at his collective duties: research, teaching and service. So if you're calculating his time under the one- sixth rule, you could be overlooking the amount of extra time he's putting into his regular duties as well as his extra duties," Rowland said. "How do you divide that up? No one keeps a clock on that."

Rowland said he believed questions of adherence to policy "detract us from the central issue, which is the quality of the press coverage of the Ramsey case and the critiques thereof."

Regents rule

Sievers acknowledged the importance of faculty outside work.

"I would rather see people being very active and out in the world and trying to do things, as long as they are getting their job done." But he had harsh words to describe the Tracey project's violation of policy, which he attributed to "sloppy deanship."

"I think we should scrupulously observe that policy. It gives everyone a black eye when a few people don't do what they're supposed to do," Sievers said. He added, "That dean's going to get a piece of my mind."

Littleton Regent Norwood Robb said he believed CU policy is sufficient to protect against abuses of the one-sixth rule.

"I think the board is precise on the policy," Robb said. If Dean Rowland doesn't know how much time was spent on Tracey's project, "He probably needs to look at how he's running his school."

Regent Kelley agreed.

"Absolutely they should be required to follow regents' rules. I would hope that the dean would look into it and make sure the time spent and the remuneration received fall within the policies of the university."

Rowland said accountability relies on more than just university policy.

"Accountability to the public in the university comes in many forms. It includes the quality of the teaching in the classroom and the merits of the research and creative work, as well as the value of the service that the faculty member renders to their profession and the community. And most of those things are measured in an informal way, on a day-to-day basis, in the ongoing professional practice of the faculty member," Rowland said.

The system's real checks and balances are found in "the quality of education the students are receiving and the quality of the discourse and public debate that the faculty member's research engenders."

'I've got nothing to hide'

Tracey said he did not know how much university time he spent on the project.

"A lot," he estimated. "It was a very complex project. I've been working 80 hours a week" on both the film and his regular CU duties. He pointed out that much of that work occurred in the summer and outside of his CU contract.

Tracey was quick to defend his work and his right to profit personally from it.

"I believe with a passion that this project is absolutely of the essence of what I do as a professor," he said. As for any profits he might earn from the project, he said, "If that's a problem for anyone, it's not a problem for me, and it's certainly not a problem for CU."

He lashed out at those who have speculated that, "We're going to make millions. That's absolute bulls--t," he said. The film was not made primarily for profit, he said.

"What I was trying to do was to use this documentary to stimulate the debate about what was happening to American journalism. That's my reason for doing this," he insisted.

He decried profiteering from the Christmas 1996 murder of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey, especially by those in the media whom he called the "Ramsey Stage Army," who "have made a living on every minuscule detail of the Ramsey story." It was ironic, he said, that those journalists were among the first to criticize him for attempting to profit on the Ramsey story.

In reply to a suggestion that he contribute any future profits from the film to the university or a local charity dedicated to helping the victims of child abuse, he shot back, "No way. You're crazy. Did (Thomas) Cech give his Nobel Prize?"

Gleeson said Tracey likely faces no serious disciplinary action for failing to complete the approval form.

"Similar breaches usually result in a sit-down talk with the dean or a written commentary on the evaluation," Gleeson said.

Tracey said he will complete the application for the project's approval retroactively.

"Yeah, sure. I've got nothing to hide," he said.

"If nothing else," he said of the project, "a lot more people know of CU now than they did before."

The documentary is slated to air, commercial-free, at 8 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 5, on KUSA Channel 9. Tracey is scheduled to discuss the film with local journalists, including members of the "Ramsey Stage Army," following the broadcast.

Some people claim the spider web is PROOF that the window WAS NOT AN ENTRY FOR AN INTRUDER!!

THAT IS FALSE!!!


What many dont realize... is that a spider takes about AN HOUR to rebuild their web.

AN HOUR!!

https://superbeefy.com/how-long-does-it-...heir-webs/


How Long Does It Take a Spider To Spin a Web and How Do Spiders Maintain Their Webs?
July 1, 2014 by Karen Hill | Filed Under: Animals


 
A traditional looking round web doesn’t take too long to spin, usually about an hour if the spider doesn’t take breaks.

Sounds quick, but building a web is not the hard part, maintaining it is.

After a few days, the web is not only damaged from ensnaring supper but it also has lost most of its stickiness.

A spider does construction renewal, gathering up damaged threads with its front feet while trailing new silk behind.

In this way, a spider continuously keeps its web up and running.


So if an intruder hit the spider web upon entering or exiting, she could have easily repaired the web before law enforcement/people in the house saw the broken web. Assuming the killer left right after murdering JonBenet, the spider had MORE THEN ENOUGH TIME to rebuild it!

The Whites have never spoke to me, never responded to any efforts I have made to meet with them or be in contact.  But they have been in contact with plenty of people who have spoken to me.

The Whites speak to many people - - and they do NOT accuse the Ramseys of any crime, don't speak about their grand jury testimony and don't discuss details of the evidence to many.  I won't pretend to be able to quote them, but I can report what I have seen and heard (notes from those interviews).

Fleet and Priscilla NEVER said the Ramseys had a troubled marriage, they had seen evidence of a loving relationship between John and Patsy, hugs, kisses and caring looks and actions.   

Fleet and Priscilla NEVER said the Ramseys were neglectful or abusive toward their kids - - the truth is they never saw the Ramseys yell at the kids and certainly did NOT see them spank the kids.  The Ramseys were easy-going people, fun to be with and nothing in their time with the Ramseys made the Whites think they were capable of such a crime.

My comment - - I still think the Whites told all that to the police but were pushed by the police who can lie during investigations.  I think the cops assured the Whites that both the BPD and FBI were sure it was the Ramseys - - poor F&P had misjudged their friends - - and advised the Whites they had better accept that and help the police prove it by getting the parents to agree to be tarred and feathered in the interrogation room - - or find themselves suspect.

Sadly, I think the Whites buckled.

   
This is a crime scene photo taken the day JonBenét's body was found.  Note the foliage is trapped under the grate.  Most people believe this, and the disturbance on the window ledge, and the broken spider web (part on ledge and some hanging from the open window) is evidence that someone went in or out that night.

No testimony but impressions by witnesses

"There was nothing bad about Patsy Ramsey.   She was smart, nice, good mom, good wife, good daughter, good sister and intelligent student.  She basically was a wonderful all-around decent human being."

"After the first interview with John and Patsy, they did not fit as anything other than terribly emotionally injured parents.  The way their daughter was killed was consistent with parents who fly into rages and people who would be physically assaultive with their children.  John raised five children without physically disciplining them.  You have to, by necessity, make decisions on what your clients tell you, and your instincts.  I've been wrong on both sides of the question before.  I always reevaluate my clients constantly.  My very strong first impression is that these are not the kind of people who would hurt their child; certainly not in the ways she was savaged.  That faith in them has not wavered."

John's attorney

"After two days with john Ramsey, I knew he could not possibly have done what they say happened to this child.  I believed this with every instinct I had."


(He never moved in that position.)

None of these ever resulted in any evidence being found to support them, but it should be noted what the theories were.

John did it.  He had been sexually abusing her and she was going to tell so.... 

John did it because there was no porn on his computers - - but the posters know he was into that kind of thing.  He HAD traveled to the Netherlands, after all.

Patsy did it.  She caught John molesting JonBenet and took a swing and......     then John and Patsy worked together to cover the whole thing because they needed to save the family.....  and they stayed together until death did them part.

Patsy did it because the dry bed was wet.

Patsy did it because she was about to turn 40.


Patsy did it because she was a very clever psychopath for just a few hours.

Patsy did it because ....   anything you can imagine was used against her by BORG so feel free to ad lib here.  She was like Ma Brady's mother and SHE could be a witch.  She was like Jeff Shapiro's mother and SHE was a Romper Room Lady.  She was like JMK's mother and SHE tried to kill JMK!

Burke did it because JonBenét was snitching a piece of his pineapple at 1 am.  While on some drug that would make that pineapple instantly appear on the other side of her stomach.

The theories are endless, but there is no evidence to support any of them.

In 2014, there was a suggestion that all dogs in Boulder who were licensed might be required to have a DNA test  (I would assume at the owner's expense.)  That way, if someone did not pick up after their dog, the feces might be analyzed so the nasty owner might be held responsible for the doggie doo doo left behind.

Seriously? 

They have hesitated to test evidence in rape and murder cases because of budgetary limits, but the City Council actually considered testing on dog droppings?

Strange but true