82SiouxGuy

Here is your claim that they had email and voting problems. And claiming that some (more than one) said they got a second email. None of these claims came from anyone else. As pointed out above, you were the one that made the claim, and you didn't actually read what you thought you read. Here you are changing your story and trying to cover your tracks. The question was asked whether anyone got a second vote. You were the one that jumped from that question to claiming that they had received a second vote.

These were the 2 emails you saw before the Herald got involved. So far there are ABSOLUTELY NO REPORTS of people actually getting 2 chances to vote. You are creating a rumor.

Selling newspapers is also equal to creating website visits for newspapers. Newspapers run on advertising revenue. That means ads in the printed versions and ads on websites. That revenue has been much greater than the revenue from actually selling papers for quite a while. So the term "selling newspapers" means getting people to read the stories, in the paper or online, and therefore getting views for the advertising.

The original goal was $50k. They dropped it after the attorney said they needed $10k to get the lawsuit started, and when they only had about $3k pledged with a few days to go. I'm sure the attorney is still looking for $50k.

They didn't have a full membership vote on it as far as I know. Instead, the full membership passed a policy giving the Executive Committee the ability to enact policies without a full membership vote, policies like the Native American nickname policy. Then the Executive Committee passed the Native American nickname policy again. All of this was done before the settlement agreement, or was in the works and was finished shortly after the settlement. The full membership passed the policy even though they knew that this was what UND was suing about. So the membership was aware that they were supporting the Native American nickname policy by giving the Executive Committee the extra power.

The only chance UND had was to make a deal. Even if they won the lawsuit, which was very questionable, the NCAA had already corrected the issue UND was suing over and had passed the same Native American name policy again. The only question is if there was something else that they would have accepted in trade for the time extension. The answer is probably no, just because they knew that the chances of Standing Rock changing their policy were slim. That was discussed at the time of the settlement, with several people saying that Standing Rock wouldn't ever support UND using the name. But if UND hadn't signed the settlement they probably would have had to drop the name in 2008 or go on the "naughty list".

The schools that were able to keep their names got support from their local tribes by 2006, which was the deadline to appeal. UND did not get approval from any tribes before that deadline. Through the settlement, UND got an extension until 11/30/2010 to get tribal approval. UND was the only school to get an extension. You normally have to give something to get something when making a deal. It would appear that UND got the time extension in return for having to get 2 tribes approval. Spirit Lake gave approval in 2009, which was 3 years after the original deadline. Without the settlement, that approval wouldn't have been considered by the NCAA. I'm not a big fan of Stenehjem either, but he didn't have a lot of ammunition to work with by the time they got to the settlement.

I can't believe that you are so paranoid. Projects are put on bid for a reason, and someone reporting information legally (remember we have open records laws in North Dakota) isn't going to get in the way unless the person making the decision is petty and vindictive. Being petty and vindictive while making decisions on public projects is a good way to get in trouble. Of course, if that is your normal state of mind then you probably think that everyone reacts the same way.

The budget was done before the Legislature met last spring. It was built on an estimate of what they thought they would get from the Legislature. The Legislature was more conservative than originally planned because the price of oil kept going down. Schools also didn't plan to have the Legislature limit tuition hikes to 2.5%. The article said that a 3.7% increase would have covered the shortfall. And you really don't know how many students are going to be enrolled until they actually enroll, so they are just estimating whenever they make a budget. There are 2 ways to fix the problem. Either increase revenues in some way, or decrease expenses. Most likely solution is a combination of the 2. The total budget for UND is more than $500 million, the budget for the general fund and tuition is a little under $200 million. A budget done in November and December of 2014 being off a few percent a year later is not out of the ordinary.

I talked about the EERC, the total budget of UND, and the general fund and tuition budget of UND. None of those have anything to do with the athletic department (other than the fact that the athletic budget is a very small part of the total budget). The athletic department budget is approximately $21,000,000 and the budgets I discussed are several hundred million. I mentioned the practice facility because it is the only project that comes to mind that we know has been delayed. The Medical school is in progress, that's a $124 million project. The addition and remodeling of the law school is complete. The remodeling and addition to the Wilkerson Dining facility is completed or close. The new facility attached to the Aviation School is in progress. They just completed a parking lot project on 6th Avenue North. It sure sounds like they are delaying a lot of large projects, doesn't it? Project proposals are often delayed while financing issues are worked out. It happens in business and it happens in government. If you and your buddy haven't figured that out then maybe he shouldn't be in business. For instance, I was talking to someone I know at a local plumbing and HVAC company. They have several projects they are waiting for, projects that they are sure they are getting the bid on but haven't gotten a go ahead. They had hoped to start on the projects this fall, but now they don't know if they will start until spring. We didn't go into specifics, but I don't think that any of them are at UND. You don't have to name the company, but it would give you some credibility if you named a project. And even if you did name the company, I really doubt that doing so on a sports forum is going to do anything to that company's chances of doing business with UND.

You still haven't given any proof of anything that has actually been cancelled, or even delayed. Everyone knows that the 2nd phase of the practice facility is delayed as they wait for fundraising. We also know that the EERC has an ongoing deficit of $1-2,000,000 that they have been working on for a couple of years. That would be a significant part of the $5,000,000. Beyond that they are developing plans on how to approach the shortfall. As was mentioned in the article, part of the problem was that the budget was developed before the legislature met. The legislature limited the tuition increase to 2.5%. An increase of 3.7% would have covered another large chunk of the shortfall. You are trying to claim that there is a huge budget problem at UND, and that they were hiding it. The problem isn't nearly as big as you claim and hasn't been hidden by anyone.

This is a budget shortfall. The money they expect to take in during this fiscal year is less than the amount of money they expect to spend during this fiscal year if they spend the amounts that are in the budget. They have 9 months to fix the problem. This doesn't mean that they owe someone $5 million right now. This isn't what you have been claiming. Much of your claims have been about money not being paid. As others have said, the University has specific time frames written into law about when bills are paid. This potential shortfall could result in projects being delayed or cancelled, but bills are being paid. For a little bit of reference, the total UND budget for 2016 is $534,865,646. A $5,000,000 shortfall is less than 1%. If someone makes $50,000 per year, this is like having a $500 shortfall. You make some relatively minor adjustments to the budget, or find a way to make a little more money, and the problem goes away. The UND budget for general fund and tuition is $186,822,805, so the $5 million would be a little over 2.67% of that figure, which compares to a deficit of $1,300 on a $50,000 salary. A problem, yes. A major issue, not so much. And as Cratter noted above, and was noted in the article, UND made this known to the proper authorities last spring. This wasn't hidden from anyone.

http://www.undsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=204812886

Only if they are a member of a different Native American tribe, preferably from a northern climate.

I'm pretty sure that the courts have already ruled that the members of the Sioux tribe do not have standing to sue over the University of North Dakota sports nickname. They tried that one time before and the case was dismissed. It's unlikely that they have magically gained standing in the last 3 years.

11 am starts are a Big 10 thing, not a Minnesota thing. They have been for many years. I don't know where it started for sure, but I know that they have been doing it since ABC was broadcasting the conference games in the 60's or 70's. ABC wanted it so they could have college football starting at 12 noon on the east coast, and then they had a contract with one of the other conferences (I think it was either Pac 10 or Southwest Conference) to start at 3 pm Eastern. It gave ABC a draw to pull in viewers at the beginning of the adult viewing day (right after the cartoons) and keep them. The Big Ten Network keeps the start time for the same reason. They have name schools playing at 12 noon and then they have additional games later in the day. The Big Ten Network sets the times for most of those games and decides who plays at 11 am, who plays at 2:30 pm (instead of 2 like before) and then they usually have an evening game.

It has already been suggested to the appropriate people.

A little clarification from the Small Business Administration, https://www.sba.gov/blogs/difference-between-trade-name-and-trademark-and-why-you-cant-overlook-either. Remember, the former mayor owns the trade names, not the trademarks. Therefore his rights are not unlimited. He does not control the names for all uses, he controls them as trade names for real estate companies. Seems like a lot of work to accomplish nothing.

The lease extension was part of the agreement to share cost of the new turf. It wasn't a revision of that lease contract or a separate contract. It was only a minor part of the language, so it probably didn't get a separate mention. But the agreement was to cover the first 10 years of the new turf. I don't know if the replacement of the turf after 1 year made any difference in that agreement.

I'm pretty sure that the lease was extended when the new turf was put in. UND wanted to extend it since they put a significant amount of money into the turf. I think the lease was extended out to 10 years from when it was installed.

That was the plan. JLG did it as a part of the process UND went through in moving to Division I. As you can see from the pictures, and is mentioned in the text, the outdoor layout as it is pictured will not fit on the property with the practice facility. This is just a concept, so a retractable stadium may or may not stay in the plans. UND is in the process of updating the long term master plan as a part of the North Dakota University System planning process. I believe that the goal is to have the NDUS plans updated by April 1, 2016, but that may not need to include all specifics. And as always, plans can change.

The long term facility plan has a stadium on the site of Memorial Stadium. There were links on this site that have been shared multiple times. One of the architectural firms also had them on their web site. It would probably be somewhere between 5 and 25 years before it would happen. The lease for the Alerus Center has about 7 years left on it.

Why not? I'm sure that everyone has a couple of hundred million dollars laying around and can donate some of it to build the stadium.

Click on the dot or star in front of the title and it will go to the first unread post, as long as you are logged into the system.