The Sicatoka

I love how this has jammed up everyone involved politically. Governor Hoeven appears to have been a willing conduit to skirt the spirit and intent of the open meetings laws. AG Stenjhem is all but being called a liar in some quarters (see above post). John Q. Paulson and Ritchie Smith come off looking like they're on the North Dakota State University Board of Higher Education, not the Board of Higher Education for the State of ND. The rest of state, and especially representatives in the Legislature from the rest of the state, probably won't look too kindly on that. The rest of the ND SBoHE looks like a bunch of led by the nose lemmings. The declared opponent for the AG is already stumping political on this one. (It's fresh meat; why not?) And now various factions in the Legislature are involved and are jammed up in various ways. The toughest spot? Republicans: They can't howl too loudly about the SBoHE and it's questionable recent operations w/o damaging their own (Hoeven, the conduit for this) along the way. And who caused all of this? Gee, I'm not sure; I guess it's "selective memory" © IowaBison. This could make for great comedy come this Legislative session.

I wish everyone would get their stories on this straight. Last night on Fox News at 9 in Fargo they interviewed John Q. Paulson. Paulson claims Chapman never asked for any of it (no raise, no housing improvements, no "Potts gone" ultimatum). Yet, Chapman does admit to asking for some of that (with a case of "selective memory" © IowaBison) when interviewed (or is the term 'deposed'?) by the AG. Paulson and Chapman better compare notes again. Their story is crossing each other up, and is on the verge of calling the ND AG a liar*. * Not a wise move.

What in blue heaven does GF sales tax revenue have to do with UND's Athletic budget? I mean, I thought anti-UND fans always said the economy in Las Vegas is all that mattered to UND Athletic revenues. And no one has answered my question about how "payoff" on athletic facilities are accounted in the various budgeting procedures at various schools.

Anybody heard anything more on that?

Yup, like Sex and Age, Relationship, Households by Type, Housing Occupancy, Housing Tenure. PCM got it right: From a true outsider's POV, the only differences between the cities is population, seventy-five miles, and a Hooter's.

(sighs) (shakes head) This again?

Back to budgets, the point of this thread I guess: How do the varioius schools (in question here) account for construction, and interest, and debt payments, on various athletic facilities? Do the schools all account the same way? Do some account for payments on athletic facilities in the athletic budget and others in the "general facilities" budget of the school?

Pot calling Kettle, Pot calling Kettle, over. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTab...=&-_lang=en

Besided the "don't cares" NDSU quietly has to deal with not being the only game in town (F-M). Concordia is a very quiet giant in the F-M area (many powerful supporters and alumni) and MSU-Moorhead, well, at least they try.

Insert smug comment here about watching the Gophers play for one but seeing STL 2005 #1 pick TJ Oshie win it.

From the ND AG: Seems like 10 of 11 presidents were willing to follow Potts under a "strong system". Would those 10 want to follow a bad leader?

Given that this is less than a month after announcement, specific answers are not yet available. UND plans to do this as a marathon, not a sprint. Patience. But, since it is the burning question, let's get the answers from the man who would never move UND to DI.

Based on?

The Argus does match UND's DI Report. The OPE has a different accounting mechanism on their form than most schools use. Based on UND's report hockey (M/W) expenses were $3,917,735 (and revenues were $4,432,811).

Sing it Toby.

"Good evening, what can I tell you?" http://www.fightingsioux.com/sports/whocke...RELEASE_ID=4963 "That's the news, and I am outta here!".

Mid-June 2006: In a most amazing turn, he seemed rather unperplexed and quite on guard (save some "selective memory" © IowaBison) when it came to talking to the State Attorney General.

There appears to have been strongarming going on, but on whom by whom may be in question. Indeed.

There seemed to be a lot going on (people talking to people about seemingly the same subject again and again), yet, fortunately for those involved, the open meetings law (specifically "quarum") was not broken. But still, eight pages of exploratory examination just to say "no law was broken" seems like a lot. Why'd the AG make such an explicit effort to document all the conversation and goings-on of a non-violation?

" ... this elaborate plan to force Chancellor Potts to resign ... " Dr. Chapman doesn't recall such a conversation, but it sure seems, from reading that AG opinion, like Paulson, Smith, and even Gov. Hoeven, were working for Dr. Chapman (and what Dr. Chapman doesn't recall that he might have left, as an impression to some, as a demand for his staying). Wherever did all of these notions and impressions of plans and demands come from?

Dr. Chapman must need a vacation and rest. His memory and recollection seems much worse than the others.

"For the purposes of this opinion ... "? " ... of this opinion ..."? What the heck does that mean?

Do we want a university system that includes a Medical School and a Law School? It costs more money per student to run those.