About the Website
As noted in the introduction, Coingate, although based on original documents and extensive
research, has the goal of engaging a wide audience on issues of considerable
public importance. For those who
want to do their own research, I have provided links to (or the text of) all of the
documents available to me. The only exceptions of importance are the documents
presented at trial by the prosecution and defense– e.g. copies of signed checks, charts, etc. These are, to the best of my knowledge, not
available to the public. Fortunately, my conclusion from reading the
transcripts is that these items would not add anything important to
understanding the trial or the overall story.
About the Author – Background and Perspective
The Origins of the Book/ Opening Biases
Professional Relationship with Noe
I worked with Tom Noe during his entire term as a member of
the Ohio Board of Regents. The Chancellors at the time, Elaine Hairston and Rod
Chu, were both comfortable with senior staff interacting with board members,
so I spoke with Tom directly on a number of occasions, including informally at
the dinners that usually came in between the Board’s committee and full meetings. Later,
with the encouragement of Chu, I worked with Noe on a project to secure greater
federal funding – primarily in the form of earmarks – for our statewide fiber
optic network. We had tried to make progress in this area for some time, but
got nowhere until Noe started to assist. It was important that he had good
connections with both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
It was common for Regents to ask staff to help with problems
in their part of the state, and I can recall Noe doing that twice.
On one occasion, the University of Toledo and Ohio State
were in conflict over the former’s desire to purchase farmland for
pharmaceutical-related crops. Ohio State argued that allowing other
universities to operate farms would be wasteful and duplicative. Noe asked me
to do a background paper on this, but offered no thoughts on what the outcome
should be. My conclusion was entirely in favor of Ohio State on the issue of
farmland – arguing that UT should lease or purchase land only with OSU’s help
or agreement. As was typical for Regents’ staff at the time, I recall that I
asked the two universities to work together. I also added that, given the breadth of the life
sciences area, universities other than Ohio State should obviously be allowed
to undertake research that used plants.
Despite the negative conclusion for UT, Noe said the report was fine and
thanked me without offering any concerns.
On another occasion, when there was a concern about medical
accreditation, Noe asked me to spend the day in Toledo listening to some
outside evaluators talking to local partners and provide a neutral perspective.
He offered no suggestions as to what I should say and seemed pleased with the
short document I produced.
Neither of these interactions was unusual for me or for
other members of the senior staff.
Personal Relationship with Noe
Noe and I were not personal friends before I started the
book. To the best of my knowledge, we were not alone together except for a
brief ride between meetings in Cleveland – I used this time to ask about his
business and how he got into it (a common habit of mine). I did visit his house
in Toledo several times. One visit was for a going away party for a staff member (in
conjunction with a board meeting) and the other visit, with one or two staff colleagues,
on the way to listen to George W. Bush at an appearance at Owens Community
College. At least two of us stayed at the Noes’ house that night – arriving
late and leaving early; no meals or drinks were included. The presidential
appearance wasn’t political, but billed as an announcement of new
administration policies on community colleges (an area of responsibility for
both me and one of my colleagues). There was a reception afterward that included
Department of Education officials, but I don’t recall that anything useful
transpired.
I never visited the Noes’ place in Florida, nor was I ever
invited.
Since starting work on this book, I’ve obviously met with
Noe a number of times and often communicated via phone and email. As a result, it would be fair to say at
this point that we are personal friends, in the sense that we do things that
friends do, e.g. get along well, share information about family and hobbies,
etc.
Reasons for Writing a Book
I was very busy in 2005-6 and didn’t follow events in Toledo
closely. That is to say, although I heard some discussions I didn’t read all of
the stories in the Blade nor did I
read any documents. Some of the people I heard discuss the case were friends of
Noe’s, some were hostile and some neutral. I didn’t speak to anyone who claimed
to be knowledgeable about the coin funds or the technical issues at trial –
accordingly, I never heard anyone argue his guilt or innocence on the specific
issues. I did hear some people, including some who I thought were at least
casual friends of his, criticize his having signed the name of former Regent
Jerry Gordon to checks – I think these people didn’t know the details and
therefore had the impression there was an actual forgery that harmed Gordon, rather than the actuality -- something that affected only Noe's internal
bookkeeping.
I was aware of the federal case and had heard some people
who claimed to be knowledgeable offer opinions – the consensus was that his
guilty plea was appropriate though there was some skepticism about the severity of the sentence.
I left Ohio shortly after the trial and then had only
occasional contact with people in the state. The strong impression I had from
them was that the sentence in the state trial was excessive in the extreme. A couple of the people
who said this were lawyers who had far more knowledge of these issues than I. These
comments were important in forming my initial impression of the case.
Somewhere in this early period I recall being on the list of
those who received emails about his situation. These were originally from
Bernadette Noe and later from Noe’s sister, Beth June. Although there were many
references to the legal situation, notably appeals, I don’t recall that there
was much that was substantive about the central issue of theft from the coin funds.
A few years later, on an extended visit that included a
reunion with a number of friends and colleagues who had also worked with Tom, I
heard for the first time people saying that Tom had actually made money for the
state. Since my vague knowledge of the law included the fact that penalties for
financial crimes scale with the amount lost or stolen, I found this surprising
but didn’t think then about any personal involvement. I was very busy with my
new job.
It wasn’t until after I retired in 2012 that I began to
think of a book. The idea came, I believe in 2013, following another get
together in Ohio. The consensus I heard there, from people I didn’t think of as
being prone to bias, was that Noe had been treated very unfairly in a biased
process in Lucas County. The rough outline I heard of how this had happened sounded
interesting, and I mentioned the idea of a book, because a possible job
opportunity had faded and I was then starting to think of writing as a
post-retirement activity. The general reaction was that the idea was premature
since there were still appeals in process.
The idea of a book returned to me a few years later when the
final appeal was denied. I broached it briefly to Ms. June, but her reaction
was that anything like that should wait until after the clemency request. That
made sense to me, and I again deferred. When the clemency request was denied, I
got in touch with Noe through Ms. June and the process began. I had no
understanding of any kind about the conclusions I would reach, though I did
promise to share drafts in advance of publication (as I have with everyone I’ve
talked to).
Summary
I did not undertake the book because of personal friendship
with Noe or at the suggestion of any other person, though I remembered Noe as a
likable person and an excellent Regent (to be fair, we had quite a few of
those). I did approach the research with the idea that a miscarriage of justice
was possible. But this was strictly related to the sentence. I didn’t know enough to have even begun to reach a conclusion on
guilt or innocence with respect to the management of the coin funds. And I had no idea whether political influence played a role in Noe's securing the investment.
In summary, this book is the result of my hearing credible allegations of impropriety in the area of sentencing. And, if those allegations proved to be true,
the story of how they happened would be an important one.
The Author’s Background
I went to high school in Ohio and after that lived in
France, Washington, D.C., and Boston, where I received bachelor’s and master’s
degrees in history from Boston University. I returned to Ohio to finish a
doctorate in that discipline at Ohio State (1972). My area of focus was Eastern
Europe, and I had a Fulbright scholarship that allowed me to live for a year in
Romania while completing dissertation research.
There being few university jobs in history when I graduated
(almost none in my field), I spent two years as a staff assistant in
the Provost’s office at Ohio State, then eleven years as an Assistant Dean in
the College of Humanities at the same university. In 1985, I went to work at the
Board of Regents, which I left 22 years later in 2007. During most of that time
(from 1990), I was Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (or a similar title).
During the last year, I was Interim Chancellor.
My principal responsibilities at the Board of Regents
included academic program review and approval and various programs designed to
support research. Special projects included a statewide review of doctoral and
professional programs, the creation of the OhioLink system and the
establishment of what was then called the Third Frontier Network – a statewide
fiber optic system. The OhioLink system was a huge success, though primarily
because its initial leader, Tom Sanville, managed it with exceptional
brilliance. The Third Frontier Network later fell victim to politics. The
doctoral and professional review generated substantial opposition – notably in
Toledo and notably from the Blade.
Although we disagreed sharply, I never found the Blade’s coverage or even their editorials to be unfair – I’d love to
have copies of some of their anti-Regents cartoons. In my personal interactions
with the editors I found them to be thoughtful, professional, and cordial. That
was also true of later interactions in the ensuing decade and a half.
Publications
In addition to the dissertation and various academic
articles and papers, I have published several non-fiction books.
The Other Europe was
published by Syracuse University Press in 1988 and remained in print for about
25 years. It has been widely used as a text in various universities such as Stanford and Michigan and was
republished by Barnes and Noble for a more general audience.
The Essential Guide to
Computing was published by Prentice-Hall in 2001 and remained in print for
a dozen years.
A first novel, The
Transylvania Connection, was published by a small press in 2009. It has not
done well, almost certainly because it isn’t very good (I had expected that a
professional editor would sort out the overlapping themes, but there was no
such editor and I unwisely allowed publication to proceed).
A second novel, Killing
Justice, is much better but is self-published and hasn’t been actively
promoted. A third novel, and a follow-on to Killing
Justice called A Riddle, is
recently self-published.
Another computing book, Total
F*ing Magic, has been self-published as an e-book. There is also a website
for this book.
A number of essays on higher education have appeared in
national journals in recent years.
I also have a blog, Balkanology
which can be found at http://pentascale.blogspot.com/
.
Biography/ Autobiography
http://partners-for-writers.blogspot.com