Connect with us

Missouri

Missouri State president responds to federal lawsuit over ‘vulgar’ incident at Utah Tech

Published

on

Missouri State president responds to federal lawsuit over ‘vulgar’ incident at Utah Tech


The new president of Missouri State University was accused in a federal lawsuit filed Thursday of arranging vegetables in the shape of a penis and testicles on the front porch of a cabinet-level coworker during his time as president of Utah Tech University.

As part of the apparent practical joke, Williams left a note referring to the display of two eggplant and one zucchini − referred to as a “zuweenie” − but signed with the name of three of university colleagues, rather than his own.

Th falsely named colleagues — Rebecca Broadbent, Jared Rasband and Hazel Sainsbury — filed the lawsuit Thursday against former president Richard “Biff” Williams along with Utah Tech, members of Williams’ former leadership team, as well as higher education officials and institutions in Utah.

At the time of the November 2023 incident, Broadbent was general counsel, Rasband was senior associate general counsel, and Sainsbury was director of equity compliance and Title IX coordinator. Broadbent, who reportedly directly to Williams, and Rasband were also involved in enforcing nondiscrimination and harassment laws at Utah Tech.

Advertisement

They alleged in the suit that the incident was part of a toxic, hostile and “poison well” work environment.

Williams was president of Utah Tech from mid-2014 through January 2024. He resigned less than two months after the vegetable incident, saying he wanted to pursue career advancement elsewhere.

In an email Saturday, Williams provided a response to the lawsuit and media coverage of the incident toward the end of his presidency at Utah Tech.

“While I was there, I initiated what I intended to be a humorous gesture toward a member of our staff,” he wrote.

Advertisement

“I have since come to realize that the prank was not appropriate. This was a mistake. I regret my lapse in judgment and I accept this as a learning moment.”

He added: “This incident is now included in a lawsuit that was shared with the media. I apologize for the undue attention this has brought to the university.”

Williams said his statement was prompted by recent media coverage. A lengthy story was published Friday by the Salt Lake Tribune.

“This experience continues to remind me how important it is to always strive to foster a campus environment that is safe and welcoming to all students, faculty and staff,” he wrote.

Advertisement

The MSU Board of Governors issued a statement Saturday that they were aware of the lawsuit. The board said it “continues to have confidence in President Williams’ ability to lead Missouri State University. We are committed to working alongside him to ensure that the university is a safe and welcoming environment to all students, faculty and staff.

The News-Leader asked the university if the board was aware of the incident and subsequent investigation as part of the hiring process.

Williams was one of three publicly named finalists for the job and emerged as the unanimous choice to serve as the 12th president and succeed the institution’s longtime leader, Clif Smart.

Missouri State has not provided an answer and said Williams will not be available for an interview.

They allege the following in a 42-page lawsuit:

Advertisement
  • Utah Tech openly flouted the protections of Title IX and plaintiffs faced resistance, intimidation, harassment and retaliation from the university’s top leaders as they worked to establish an environment free or harassment and discrimination;
  • Then-president Williams was involved in the practical joke, which they described as sexual and obscene, at the home of a university vice president;
  • A “sham” investigation was completed, as part of a cover-up, by the university’s governing bodies, the Utah System of Higher Education, the Utah Board of Higher Education; and the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education;
  • The incident and subsequent investigation undermined the plaintiffs and the work they were doing in Title IX and equity compliance.

The lawsuit alleged that on Nov. 8., 2023, Williams left a display of vegetables shaped as male genitalia — including a long zucchini referred to as a “zuweenie — on the front porch of a university vice president who was recovering from a vasectomy that day.

In a printed note left with the display, was attributed to Broadbent, Rasband and Sainsbury — two of the names were misspelled — without their knowledge or consent.

Williams, who did not broadly acknowledge that he left the display in the days following the surgery, reportedly told his chief of staff about the gift before he dropped it off, adding he thought it would trigger a laugh.

The university vice president did not immediately know who left the display and messaged colleagues at Utah Tech with a photo of the display along with RING doorbell footage showing a man − later identified as Williams − with a hoodie cinched up to disguise his face making the delivery.

According to the suit, the image and the note falsely signed by the three university officials was widely shared among top officials and others.

Advertisement

The day after the display was left, Williams allegedly showed the images of the display and note to his chief of staff and admitted he left the vegetables. However, the chief of staff did not report the incident to the expected channels on campus.

The suit argued Williams and others should have recognized the gravity of falsely signing the names of other university officials, including two female administrators with responsibilities for ensuring Title IX compliance.

In the suit, plaintiffs alleged the “zuweenie” incident was part of a pattern.

They allege that for at least four years, there were posts to a quote board in a public break room on campus that containing obscene and vulgar sexual comments with names attributed.

The plaintiffs said concerns raised about this quote wall was minimized by Williams and others, creating a hostile work environment.

Advertisement

Sainsbury, who is Black, said the university sought to leverage her race to enhance its image in marketing videos and in meetings with athletes, freshmen and their families. She served as a central figure in a rebranding effort for the university in 2022, when it changed its name from Dixie State University.

She alleged in the suit that despite using her voice and image in the videos distributed nationally, she faced a pattern of marginalization and her input was either not sought or wanted in key matters pertaining to her role.

The plaintiffs said they experienced verbal threats, physical intimidation and harassment from university officials, which made it harder to ensure Utah Tech employees and students complied with nondiscrimination and harassment laws and policies.

Sainsbury said her work was undermined in other ways. For example, deans were involved in a “Title IX mocking party,” where she was given gag gifts including the “Title IX for Dummies” book.

In the suit, Sainsbury said the university failed to protect or support her when a high-ranking official was upset with the outcome of his case.

Advertisement

(This story was updated to include new information).



Source link

Missouri

Missouri Supreme Court reviews airport property tax deduction

Published

on

Missouri Supreme Court reviews airport property tax deduction


Summary:
  • Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments on constitutionality of airport property tax valuation statute.
  • Case involves valuation of Marriott hotel at Kansas City International Airport.
  • Platte County assessor argues statute creates special tax advantage for airport properties.
  • Missouri State Tax Commission reduced hotel’s valuation from $13.45 million to about $6.14 million.

The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments Feb. 10 in a case challenging how a hotel at Kansas City International Airport was valued for property tax purposes and whether a state statute allowing deductions for airport property improvements is constitutional.

The dispute centers on the valuation of the Marriott Hotel located at Kansas City International Airport and whether a provision in Section 137.115.1 of state law improperly reduces the taxable value of certain airport properties.

At issue is a challenge by the Platte County assessor and the Park Hill School District to a decision by the Missouri State Tax Commission that resulted in a lower valuation for the 2016 tax year.

Advertisement

The assessor was represented during arguments by Stephen E. Magers, an attorney for Platte County in Platte City; Grady Hotel Investments was represented by Peter A. Corsale of McCarthy, Leonard & Kaemmerer in Town & Country.

Magers argued the statute effectively creates a special class of property that receives favorable tax treatment.

“This case concerns a truly novel item of the Missouri statutes,” he said. “It stands alone as the only statute within the entirety of the Missouri framework that gives a certain set of taxpayers a tax advantage of having real property located within an airport receive a deduction for new construction and improvements.”

The property at issue is a Marriott hotel located on land owned by Kansas City within the boundaries of Kansas City International Airport. The city leases the land to a private operator.

In 2015, Grady Hotel Investments purchased the prior operator’s interest in the property for about $8.5 million. As part of the transaction, Grady entered into an amended lease and concession agreement with the city and committed to making capital improvements to repair and renovate the property.

Advertisement

For the 2016 tax year, the Platte County assessor valued Grady’s interest in the hotel at approximately $13.45 million. After the county board of equalization upheld that valuation, Grady appealed to the Missouri State Tax Commission.

The commission initially set the hotel’s assessed value at zero using the “bonus value” methodology for leasehold interests, but the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District later reversed that ruling and remanded the case. On remand, the commission ultimately determined the hotel’s “true value in money” was about $6.14 million. The commission reached that figure after deducting the value of personal property included in the purchase and approximately $1.2 million in costs paid toward new construction and improvements made after 2008, as permitted under Section 137.115.1.

Magers argued that the statute operates as an unconstitutional tax break for properties located within airport boundaries.

“At its core, what the statute does is create a special kind of property that receives a reduction to its value based on new construction and improvements spent toward such possessory interests in real property,” said Magers.

He also said the provision treats airport properties differently from other commercial properties.

Advertisement

“A homeowner doesn’t get a reduction to their value when they get a new roof on their property,” he said. “But for property that is located within an airport boundary that undertakes new construction or improvements, there is a deduction to that value that the statute mandates.”

Corsale countered that the statute does not create a tax exemption but instead establishes a permissible method for valuing certain types of property.

“To me the answer is no. This is a method of valuation,” he said, arguing that the Missouri Constitution gives the legislature authority to determine how property is valued for tax purposes.

Judge Mary R. Russell questioned whether the deduction could potentially reduce a property’s value to zero if improvements continue over time.

“But couldn’t it be, at some point, a perpetual exemption,” she said, noting the statute allows deductions regardless of when improvement costs were incurred.

Advertisement

Corsale said the improvements ultimately revert to the city when the lease ends.

“What we are dealing with is a private company improving public land that eventually reverts back to the public,” he said. “At the conclusion of the lease, the public gets the benefit of whatever money they put into this property.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Missouri

Fact Finders: Can tow trucks run red lights in Missouri?

Published

on

Fact Finders: Can tow trucks run red lights in Missouri?


SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (KY3) – A viewer named Donna asked KY3’s Fact Finders whether it is legal for tow trucks with emergency lights to run through a red light. The answer is yes, but with conditions.

Missouri law states that any wrecker or tow truck may proceed past a red stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as necessary for safe operation.

What the law requires

Three conditions must be met for a tow truck driver to proceed through a red light legally: the driver must be responding to an emergency call, must slow down or stop to confirm the intersection can be crossed safely, and must have at least one lighted lamp displaying a red light visible from 500 feet to the front of the vehicle while also sounding an audible signal such as a siren or bell.

Terry Harden of Terry’s Towing said tow truck drivers can legally be treated the same as other emergency vehicles.

Advertisement

“You really could be treated just like a police car, fire truck, ambulance,” Harden said.

Not every call warrants running a red light

Harden said he uses judgment when deciding whether to exercise that legal right.

“If you call me for a jump start, don’t mean I’m going to run red lights and sirens to get to your jump start,” Harden said.

Dispatchers sometimes instruct drivers to respond quickly to emergency crash scenes, Harden said.

“They want you to be there faster than fast. It says, expedite, expedite. And that’s fine. I will expedite it,” Harden said.

Advertisement

Have a question for Fact Finders? Visit KY3.com, go to the menu, select Fact Finders, and click Contact Fact Finders.

To report a correction or typo, please email digitalnews@ky3.com. Please include the article info in the subject line of the email.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Missouri

Missouri Sportsbook Promos: $5,115 in MO Sports Betting Promos

Published

on

Missouri Sportsbook Promos: ,115 in MO Sports Betting Promos


The best Missouri sportsbook promos are here for new users! Learn more about Missouri sports betting promos available today.

Missouri sportsbook promos offer new bettors up to $5,115 in bonuses now that sports betting live in the Show-Me State. Find out more about the best Missouri sports betting promos you can claim today!

Best Missouri Sportsbook Promos

These MO sports betting sign up bonuses are some of the best sportsbook promos available today, so make sure to sign up as a new user and claim your sports betting promo in Missouri!

Advertisement

BetMGM: $1,500 in Bonus Bets if You Lose

The BetMGM bonus code ROTOSPORTS is one of the highest-valued Missouri sportsbook promos. New users simply bet up to $1,500 as their first wager, and if that bet loses, you get your stake back in the form of bonus bets.

🎁 Bonus Code: ROTOSPORTS
💰 Sign Up Offer: Get up to $1,500 Back in Bonus Bet If You Lose Your First Bet
📊 Terms & Conditions: New Users Only
⏳ Time Limits: Bonus Bets Expire After 7 Days 

DraftKings: Bet $5 Get $200 in Bonus Bets if Your First Bet Wins

The DraftKings promo code is one of the top Missouri sportsbook bonuses we have available. Just for signing up and betting $5, you’ll receive $200 in bonus bets if your first bet wins! I couldn’t think of a better way to start betting with DraftKings. 

🎁 Promo Code: BET NOW
💰 Sign Up Offer: Bet $5 Get $200 in Bonus Bets if Your First Bet Wins
📊 Terms & Conditions: New Users Only
⏳ Time Limits: Bonus Bets Expire After 7 Days 

bet365: Bet $10, Get $365 In Bonus Bets

The bet365 bonus code Missouri bettors can claim is one of the best bang-for-your-buck offers. You can fetch $365 in bonus bets instantly just by placing a first bet of $10! And you don’t have to win your first bet to claim that MO sportsbook bonus, just place the bet and the bonus bets are yours. 

🎁 Bonus Code: BET NOW
💰 Sign Up Offer: Bet $10, Get $365 in Bonus Bets
📊 Terms & Conditions: Must Claim Within 30 Days of Registering Your Account, Odds of -500 or Greater
⏳ Time Limits: Bonus Bets Expire After 7 Days 

Caesars Sportsbook: $250 Bet Match

The bonus from the Caesars Sportsbook promo code ROTO250BM is simple – just place a first bet of up to $250 and Caesars will match that bet with a bonus credit of equal value. This is one of the more unique MO sports betting bonuses, so make sure to grab it before it changes!

🎁 Promo Code: ROTO250BM
💰 Sign Up Offer: $250 Bet Match
📊 Terms & Conditions: New Users Only, First Bet Only
⏳ Time Limits: Bonus Bets Expire After 30 Days 

FanDuel: Bet $5, Get $100 In Bonus Bets

The FanDuel promo code has a great return on investment that rewards new users with a substantial payout just for betting $5. This is one of the best Missouri sportsbook promos available, so head over and claim the welcome bonus!

Advertisement
🎁 Promo Code: BET NOW
💰 Sign Up Offer: Bet $5, Get $200 In Bonus Bets
📊 Terms & Conditions: New Users Only
⏳ Time Limits: Bonus Bets Expire After 7 Days

Fanatics Sportsbook: 10x$100 Bet Match in FanCash

The Missouri sports betting promo from Fanatics Sportsbook is the best-valued welcome offer available today. Opt in and bet up to $100 each day to receive that a bet match in FanCash once that wager settles. This is one of the best MO betting promos as you can opt in to claim the sign up bonus for your first 10 days of betting!

🎁 Promo Code: BET NOW
💰 Sign Up Offer: 10x$100 Bet Match in FanCash
📊 Terms & Conditions: Must Opt In Every Day, Minimum Odds of -200
⏳ Time Limits: FanCash Expires 365 Days After Issuance

TheScore Bet: Bet $10, Get $100 in Bonus Bets

TheScore Bet is a newcomer to the US, but it brings with it a great Missouri sportsbook sign up bonus! Bet $10 and Get $100 in Bonus Bets instantly with the welcome offer associated with the TheScore Bet promo code. A classic bet-and-get offer, you don’t have to worry about winning your first bet here. Just bet $10 and the $100 bonus is yours!

🎁 Promo Code: BET NOW
💰 Sign Up Offer: Bet $10, Get $100 in Bonus Bets
📊 Terms & Conditions: New Users Only, Former ESPN BET Users Not Eligible
⏳ Time Limits: Bonus Bets Expire After 7 Days

How to Claim Missouri Sports Betting Promos

Claiming Missouri sports betting promos is straightforward and similar across all sportsbooks. Here’s the step-by-step process:

  1. Click one of the BET NOW links on this article.
  2. Create an account by providing your name, email, date of birth, last 4 digits of SSN, and verify your identity.
  3. Make a deposit.
  4. Enter the promo code if necessary.
  5. Place a qualifying first bet.
  6. Receive your bonus!

Most Common Sign-Up Bonuses in Missouri

There are a plethora of sportsbook promos in Missouri, here are the most common types and expected offers:

Bonus Type How It Works Max Value
Bet & Get (Guaranteed bonus) Place a small first bet ($5–$10) → Get bonus bets no matter what. $200–$400
No Sweat First Bet (Insurance) First bet loses → Get refund in bonus bets (up to cap). Wins = keep cash. $1,000–$1,500
Daily Match/No Sweat (Multi-Day) Match or insure a bet each day for 5–15 days. $1,000–$3,000
Deposit Match Deposit X → Get bonus % match (rare at launch due to high playthrough). $500–$1,000
Profit/Odds Boosts Enhanced payouts on select bets. Varies

Tips to Maximize Your MO Sportsbook Promos

While claiming a MO sportsbook promo is simple, getting the maximum value out of that bonus can make the biggest difference. Here’s what I suggest in order to maximize your MO sports betting bonuses:

  1. Sign up for multiple sportsbooks
  2. Shop lines & stack promos
  3. For multi-day offers (like Fanatics), bet the maximum qualifying amount every single day.
  1. Use bonus bets strategically
  2. Read the fine print
  3. Bet responsibly



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending