http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2006/09/more_messages_the_anderson_fil.php
Denver "WESTWORD"
More Messages: The Anderson File
Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:18:50 AM
Former University of Colorado-Boulder professor Adrienne Anderson says she wants the case of her 2005 dismissal
from the school to be heard in "the court of public opinion." But thus far, a significant number of local media outlets
have shown little interest in her story, despite the legitimate news value of several fresh developments.
Anderson has a reputation for being difficult -- which explains why a March 2005 Message column about her was
headlined "The Pain." Still, CU's February 2005 decision not to reappoint her as an enviornmental-studies instructor
after eleven years with the university was troubling. After all, the move took place in the wake of complaints about the
muckraking activities in which she and her students engaged from a pair of powerful state officials: Doug Benevento,
the onetime executive director of Colorado's Department of Public Health and Environment, and Rick O'Donnell, a
Republican congressional candidate who formerly served as the Colorado Commission on Higher Education's top dog.
For more than a year, Anderson has been fighting for reinstatement, and in March, her appeal was heard by a panel of
CU's privilege and tenure committee, whose members unanimously supported her position. However, Phil DiStefano,
CU's interim chancellor at the time, rejected the panel's recommendation.
This information was dispensed at a September 19 press conference staged by CU's chapter of the American
Association of University Professors. The organization also called for an investigation of CU over its handling of the
Anderson matter. But these developments garnered little media attention. According to Anderson, no TV or radio
stations tackled the subject. Moreover, newspaper coverage was far from sweeping, and unsurprisingly, Anderson has
problems with much of it.
Anderson gives a thumbs-up to the lengthy opus turned out by Silver & Gold Record, an internal CU publication.
However, size alone wasn't enough to turn her head. The Colorado Daily published a sizable article, but Anderson
grumbles that "they omitted the fact that the AAUP called for an investigation of CU" and didn't give her a chance to
respond to DiStefano's claim that she hadn't filed her original grievance within sixty days of learning she wouldn't be
reappointed, as required by school policy; she says she asked for and received a sixty-day extension after breaking
her leg. She's even less happy with the Denver Post's much smaller offering, which left out more details. As for the
Rocky Mountain News and the Boulder Daily Camera, they ignored the event entirely.
Given that the Rocky celebrated in its editorial pages when Anderson was sacked, its disinterest in the press
conference is no surprise. The Camera's decision seems harder to explain -- but not to Anderson. She believes that
the Scripps papers -- and the Post by association -- have essentially turned against her because of her revelations in
regard to a mid-'90s settlement involving cleanup at the Lowry Landfill. The Denver dailies were listed as de minimis, or
small, parties to the pact, which is outlined in this 2001 Westword feature. "Records show that the Scripps newspaper
conglomerate is in on the dirty deals to try and undermine my rights," Anderson asserts, "and their bias, omissions,
disortions, defamation and reporting, or lack of reporting, reflect that."
Whether that's true or not, CU's decision to ignore its own panel's recommendation about Anderson, and a national
organization's call for an investigation of a school currently at well-publicized war with another prof, Ward Churchill,
deserved more ink than it got.
But as it is, the topic hasn't received a wide hearing in the court of public opinion. And unless Anderson takes things to
another kind of court, that may not change. -- Michael Roberts
Category: More Messages
1 Comments:
Adrienne Anderson says:
For readers who may not understand the pollution liability issue of Denver's two major dailies, and which Westword's
media critic also seems not to fully understand:
The issue over Scripps' Rocky and JOA partner Denver Post isn't over the VOLUME of what they dumped there (which,
agreed, was a relatively small amount, compared to the huge amounts of toxic wastes Coors and others dumped there).
The issue of significance is that the Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post did not pay the so-called "RADIOACTIVE
PREMIUMS" which in 1994 were offered in secret deals by the dump's owner (The City and County of Denver) and
operator (Waste Management, Inc.) . According to these deals, polluters paying the premium would be allowed to pass
liability for their share of a more comprehensive - and expensive - nuclear clean-up onto the public, should higher
remediation be ordered. This is a potentially HUGE LIABILITY for all the parties who did not kick into the radioactive
premium fund. And of course, Lowry's owner/operator certainly would have not offered a RADIOACTIVE PREMIUM to
the site's polluters in the first place if the dump was not radioactive, but which they have publicly attempted to deny.
Eileen Welsome - the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, and author of Westword's "Dirty Secrets" series of
2000 - appreciated the significance of this. Any toxic tort lawyer could also explain that under Superfund law, all parties
- NO MATTER THE VOLUME - are subject to JOINT & SEVERAL LIABILITY. That means they're all potentially on the
hook for future clean-up costs, no matter what or how much they dumped at the site.
That's why the News and Post would not report the hot documents I obtained from EPA files, which revealed the
staggering levels of plutonium and other radionuclides found at the site by DOE-certified labs, including one hired by
Coors and some of the other top polluters themselves. Why would they keep quiet about this? Because they'd be
among those that would have to pay to clean it up. Instead, their readers - the citizens of metro Denver - were left in the
dark, and the hot wastes are now being flushed offsite and dispersed more widely, for Colorado farmers and others to
deal with.
But don't take my word for it. Ask Hugh Kaufman, the EPA whistleblower who wrote the Superfund law, and until the GW
Bush era, served as the U.S. EPA's Hazardous Waste Ombudsman's Chief Investigator. He was astonished at this
cover-up in Colorado, but you didn't read about that in the Denver dailies. He's still at EPA in the Washington
headquarters, and has been there since the Nixon era. Give him a call.
Posted at: September 28, 2006 1:15 PM