The Columbia Spectator is an independent paper, meaning going to the board of trustees would accomplish nothing. What he did was erred his employer — something that will now follow him wherever he goes, hopefully.

My apologies -I had you confused with Bwog staff.

No, mockfrog uses no artificial substances or sock puppetry in any of his commments.

My observations of the sorority cum MB of the Spec were first hand, bones and all.

Posted by go [REDACTED] : #5 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:20 PM
take down the evil empire!

Posted by anti-revolutionary again : #9 (in reply to #6) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:33 PM
“As you are most likely aware, a recent proposal to create an MB-wide forum to critically assess the role of existing management positions, to more strictly define position responsibilities, and entertain proposed structural adjustments has been interpreted as a conspiracy against the current Corporate Board, who invoked executive privilege and the threat of dismissal in an attempt to quash all effort to create such a forum.”

I would expect nothing less from the CB if a meeting was held behind their backs to plan what ended up looking like a coup – even if that wasn’t what was originally intended, their proposal was so poorly handled that the CB told them they would not accept such hostile advances. Kudos!

Also, what [REDACTED] did is illegal (and just dumb – it’s not [REDACTED] property). That’s gotta count for something.

Posted by Dumb Spec : #10 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM
1)Assuming [REDACTED]‘s statement is true, they didn’t force him to sign a “work-for-hire” contract for developing the website?

2) Yeah, threatening a whole bunch of quasi-journalists with dreams of ferreting out malfeasance and providing a voice for the people. Heavy handed attempts to squash criticism always go down well!

3) Go drama! I look forward to reading coverage of all this in the Spec. “Spec on Spec: Crisis on Broadway”, and of course, since they’re self-important, with a 100pt headline and a whitewash on the Corporate machinations.

Posted by [REDACTED] : #13 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:45 PM
is the man, anyone who says he isn’t is a CB plant

Posted by Yes : #14 (in reply to #13) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:48 PM
He’s tremendously talented, but that doesn’t excuse criminal asshattery.

Posted by Thoughts : #15 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:59 PM
What’s wrong with a little Corporate Criticism? I think of this whole little Spec-tacle as a shareholder’s revolt. Of course, Spectator’s a private company, so this revolutionary movement is destined to fail. Unless [REDACTED] knows a good lawyer. And/or turns it into a free speech argument (calling Prezbo…)

If by some miracle [REDACTED] is within his rights to pull his content, then good for him. Unfortunately, methinks the powers-that-be that keep Spectator afloat will release the hounds on him.

Posted by yay [REDACTED]! : #19 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:11 PM
he seems like a better person than any of those resume-padders who call themselves the spec board

Posted by … : #25 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:46 PM
i say it’s [REDACTED]‘s fault for getting involved with an organization that has not only a managing board but also a corporate boards.

i mean come on, how could you possibly invest energy into an organization that is so obviously top heavy.

moral of the story: if you invest significant time or energy into any group that has an “executive board” or a “corporate board” you will wish you hadn’t.

Posted by good : #27 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:57 PM
for [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. power-hungry spec execs need a reality check.

Posted by Hrm : #36 (in reply to #35) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Once again, I’d like to point out that this conflict arose from an effort by [REDACTED] and other editors to EXPAND the CB for next year, not abolish it.

Posted by umm : #33 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:15 PM
does [REDACTED] know that no one reads the spec?

i didn’t even know they had a website until right now.

Posted by bc2010 : #34 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:19 PM
[REDACTED] sucks!!! go [REDACTED]!

Posted by Even : #35 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM
though shutting down the websites is not the best course of action (and coul be illegal), [REDACTED] is clearly the one with his screwed on right. Fuck the CB, they shouldn’t exist.

Posted by Hrm : #36 (in reply to #35) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Once again, I’d like to point out that this conflict arose from an effort by [REDACTED] and other editors to EXPAND the CB for next year, not abolish it.

Posted by Spec person : #39 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:10 PM
MB is all the editors, no idea what the CB is, not the student though.

and Turkeyshoot is basically applying for positions (Associates, Deputies, Editors).

and isn’t [REDACTED] dating [REDACTED]? so.. doesn’t that make this really awkward?

Posted by Hey bwog, : #41 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Why does this letter merit publication? A fellow student-run media outlet is going through a hard time. How would you feel if your dirty laundry was exposed for the entire Columbia student body to (potentially) read?

Spec, like every campus publication, has its problems. And maybe its reputation isn’t great. But (most of) the members on MB are good editors and great people who don’t deserve the shit that both [REDACTED]‘s actions and BWOG’s gossiping are subjecting them to. Lay off.

And to the thoughtful individual who thought it would be a good idea to forward this letter to BWOG, you’re acting no better than the people you’re seeking to hurt.

Posted by yeahh!! : #43 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:19 PM
yeahhhh [REDACTED]!

Posted by go [REDACTED]! : #44 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:19 PM
the CB’s actions were way off-base, in addition to being unconstitutional. i’m glad [REDACTED] had the balls to do something about it. i just hope that the reason he did this does not get lost in all the drama over him doing it.

Posted by Well, : #45 (in reply to #41) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Considering your website is down, people would be suspicious if the Spec went all Baghdad Bob and said, nope, everything is all right, nothing to see here.

Also, that letter was drafted for public consumption. Isn’t journalism built on leaks? Besides, a Managing Board member thought it was important enough to send to Bwog. And the issue seems to be not the Managing Board, but the Corporate Board. I don’t see how publishing this letter adversely affects the good editors and good people, considering that this [REDACTED] fellow is bearing the brunt of this whole thing, and I guess the Exec people too.

Posted by Badass [REDACTED] : #46 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:38 PM
So, basically [REDACTED] is holding the website hostage?

Badass.

Posted by Rumors. : #67 (in reply to #39) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM
No, [REDACTED] is not dating [REDACTED].

Seriously? This thread is just a ton of rumors. Hopefully Spec will break the news themselves with actual facts on Monday.

Posted by Grow up : #68 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 1:39 AM
[REDACTED] and supporters. You’re like 4 year olds who are having a destructive fit because you didn’t get what you want right away. Is taking Spec offline how you demonstrate your journalistic integrity? No, just your tantrum. Good luck MB with your pre-schoolers!

Posted by Reality, much? : #82 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 8:21 AM
“Idiot”is a good start.

Do you people know there’s a real world out there? Do you get the difference between even bad management and actual crime?

Whatever the corporate board may have done right or wrong, they aren’t some oppressive government denying people their human rights. Or even some bunch of fat cat corporate bosses giving themselves billion dollar bonuses. They’re college students doing their best or slacking off or making bad calls or good calls or whatever usual range of stuff people in those positions do.

What [REDACTED] did though is ACTUALLY ILLEGAL – even in the unreal world of a university. Look it up. Ask a lawyer. (So incidentally whoever put his letter up on this blog just blew any chance he might have had of finding a way to keep it quiet that he’s probably committed a crime. Nice friend!) And he didn’t just hurt the women in charge of spec. He hurt every spec writer ever who counts on having their work accessible. He hurt spec’s relationship with its advertisers. He took a stand that it’s okay to suppress a newspaper if you have minor disagreements over how it should be run and lose an argument with your bosses.

And he’s some kind of hero standing up to The Man?

Grow up folks.

Posted by Hrm : #84 (in reply to #83) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 9:31 AM
I’m not sure about physical property, but there’s a federal judicial precedent that when someone develops intellectual property under the auspices of/for the use of a volunteer organization (whether the person paid or not), he/she surrenders rights to it. And you’d be hard pressed to prove Spec’s Web site wasn’t designed for Spec. (I am trying and failing to find literature online about the precedent, but I know I’ve seen it mentioned before.)

My guess is that [REDACTED] did not know this. Or maybe he just didn’t care.

Posted by [REDACTED[ : #103 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 10:00 PM
I can personally attest to the fact that the entire organization is disgustingly managed. This was one of the many reasons I resigned as [REDACTED]‘s co-editor last April after acting as Online Editor for an entire year and a half.

Thank god for some sense. Spectator: maybe you’ll learn to embrace innovation and not stomp it out now? I doubt you’ll be finding any digital talent on this campus for quite a while.

Posted by mockfrog : #104 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 10:06 PM How ironic – and to think that [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] were an item last year when they staged a similar coup against the former Online Editor.

Posted by Hrm : #114 (in reply to #112) · reply · track
October 19, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Whatever your or [REDACTED]‘s objections may be with the oversight of the paper, what exactly is “BS” about pointing out that it is criminal behavior to steal things that don’t belong to you? How is that not proof positive of how desperate and “far in the hole” he had become? What other laws am I entitled to break when I’m angry at my boss?

Being a halfway decent leader (or even a pretty good one) can’t always stop someone who is dead set on having his way from kicking up shit or doing harm to the company. Power struggles happen even in well-managed organizations, it’s just that in most cases the players are mature enough to sort them out internally. Evidently Mr. [REDACTED] does not fit this description.

If, as [REDACTED] argues, Spectator should be run more like a company, perhaps [REDACTED] should have notified the board of trustees of his concerns, not acted like a damned, petulant fool and dragged an organization he theoretically cares about through the mud.

Posted by [REDACTED] : #115 · reply · track
October 19, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Just a bit of a “fun fact.”

The work that [REDACTED] [REDACTED] completed for the Spectator (including extensive research, management of a small staff, and testing) would cost well over $50,000 in the professional world. However, seeing as the majority of staff members with the company are unpaid, he most definitely offered this work free of charge.

Additionally, as an online editor I was never asked to sign a single document.

You can contact him at moyehoist@aol.com, just as his comment is tagged.

I’m sure you can imagine how defensive parents can get of their children. I’ve asked him not to comment, but parents just say the darndest things!

And I take offense to your claim that my time “sucked” there. I had the chance to work with an extremely talented staff, worked to successfully complete a number of innovative projects, and immensely enjoyed much of my time with the company save a few individuals.

In fact, it deeply pains me to see these events unfolding in this manner as the Spectator was a part of my life every day for a fair period of time.

Finally, I suppose that appending my name to each of my comments demonstrates a strong sense of professionalism and personal accountability. This is an issue I take very seriously. I take offense to your comment and I’d suggest you double check your claims next time.

Ms. Chelak, sorry that your time there sucked, but you’re not there anymore. Let it be, lest you want your statements to come off to the Columbia community as unprofessional and bitter.