ScottM

Craig Dahl. You know he's always had it in for UND ... especially since his teams generally sucked.

I think the difference is there is an open conflict between the Board's actions, e.g., the settlement agreeement and attendant moniker removal, and the legislation that was passed last summer. If there was no such conflict, I think the Board would have a harder time with its case. In the event of a conflict, especially if they use an economic argument, they will probably have a better shot

You do realize the litigation against the NC$$ was brought on behalf of the people of the state. Now, are you trying to tell me they're going to welch on a deal agreed to by their elected officials? Moreover, if the people of North Dakota were so bent out of shape, why did they allow the process to get to its current state? Where were their elected officials in 2005? Florida and Utah got a great deal, and the poor ol' cornpones in NoDak got shafted because they sat on their hands. *sarcasm

Doubtful. SL doesn't have the NC$$'s money, or much of the law on their side. Then again, litigation can be a real crap shoot.

I can't decide if it's really a form of relativism, political expediency, or just good ol' fashioned hypocrisy.

Apparently, ol' Reed lacks the courage of his convictions to represent his SL clients to the fullest in their federal litigation. I love how he basically ignores the very real threats posed by NC$$ sanctions against UND's athletes while he postures. Sounds like a poster or two around here too ... Can't wait for the next blast from SAB and their FOIA "discoveries"

If you read the cited cases, they are basically treating a settlement like any other agreement that can be enforced like a judgment in the event of a breach. It's not very artful drafting, but they are telling the parties that the case was dismissed pursuant to an agreed settlement, and its terms have the same effect as any other contract. In my own view, they are mixing the extinguishment of contract rules somewhat with their own attempt to say "a deal's a deal", no matter if it's a settlement, agreement or stipulated judgment.

I think your answer lies in Sections 13 and 14 of Davidson. The court takes the position that a settlement agreement is interpreted the same as any other agreement. In the case of ambiguity or confusion normal rules of contract interpretation will apply. In this case, the parties were arguing over whether there was any intent to include SL and/or SR in the terms of the agreement, and there was none from the plain terms of the settlement. Their only role was to effectively approve UND's use of the moniker. As a practical matter, the final judgment signed by Judge Jahnke was an approval of the settlement agreement, not a reduction of a contract to a judgment, such as if one sues for breach of contract. The settlment can be enforced like any other agreement in the event of a breach by any party to it. Accordingly, the odds seem good that if the court elects to treat the settlement agreement as a contract entered into by the State vis a vis the Board, no law or even constitutional referendum can force the state to breach it or modify that agreement.

“I’m glad they did that,” Shaft said. “But had a lot of that happened earlier, we might not be in the position we’re in today.” Understatement of the decade.

Which explains why he's in academia ...

When Kelley came on board, the settlement terms were already in force, and nobody who had a hot clue really expected both SL and SR to give their permission within the parameters of the agreement. I agree Kelley probably did not understand the emotional attachment many people have to the moniker, but I don't think he came on board with an agenda to bury it no matter what. At the very least, his duty is to do what is best for the school, even if he has to be pretty clinical about it and avoid the useless emotional arguments now coming from the "nickname at any cost" crowd.

It's a little tough to transition away from any issue that is still lingering. I know Kelley has talked in the past about a respectful "retirement" of the moniker, but I suspect Clueless Al's legislative grandstanding and the myopic petitions have put that on hold.

Maybe that "pressure" will come when Lucia, Eaves, et. al., tell him we they cannot schedule UND due to some conference and/or school policy drafted by academic eggheads ... give it a couple of years. As long as UND stays on the H&A list winters in NoDak may be "longer and colder" than usual in the future.

The only reason the "traditions" of SL are even broached by the "save the moniker at any cost" crowd is because they serve as a useful touch point to advance their interests. They want to run around REA in their Sioux fan gear, even if it's half full and traditional rivals like Minnesota and Wisconsin cannot or will not play UND. They don't give a rat's ass if home ice, home field and home court advantage during playoffs are subsumed to a moniker. Anybody who thinks Soderstrom, Hennen, et al. care about Indian Country any more today than they did five years ago can now buy a nice bridge I have for sale ... And as a practical matter, this issue is between the state and NC$$. If anybody really wanted SR and SL to be part of this deal, they could have included them in the 2007 settlement. And the North Dakota Supreme Court has about said as much in 2010.

Home ice, home field, home court ... not that any of it really impacts you.

Basically, the holding was that SL had no right to interfere with a contractual arrangement between the state and the NC$$, and it also took apart their attempts at establishing standing without explicitly telling SL "you don't have it". I'd wager the very same analysis will reappear in some respects in the federal litigation SL is waging against the NC$$. I do find it interesting that Pat Morley's firm represented SL in the state action, is missing from the current federal action and represented REA against the petition crowd ...

For that to happen, a Member of Congress has to first raise the issue. Which makes the complete absence of North Dakota's congressional delegation over the past 6-7 years all the more appalling. Remember how quickly the NC$$ backed down from the Members from Florida and Utah when the H&A list came out? And nary a peep from Dorgan, Conrad, Pomeroy or Hoeven ,,, even today, nothing. If the petitioners were really serious about this issue, they'd be pressing their elected officials in DC rather than turning the issue into some complete three-ring circus (or complete cluster f**k).

He lives in his own reality distortion field.

We get it, you don't give a damn about the university or its athletic programs.

Yep, and the Association has the money, credibility and contacts to get the message out.

Some states, and the federal government, allow their supreme court to directly take over a case that involves conflicts between state agencies, branches of government, etc. Not sure about North Dakota though. However, Stenjhem must be wondering how he ended up in the middle of all this mess, when it probably seemed so clear in 2007 what his obligations were and he was just representing the Board and UND in the NC$$ litigation. If North Dakota has a "private attorney general" statute, it may allow a third-party, like the alumni association, to sue on behalf of the school where the state would be the adverse party. The fact neither Carlson's Folly nor the proposed constitutional amendment have private rights of action may neuter the "save the name at any cost to UND" crowd down the road.

I honestly don't see how the situation facing UND could be made any more clear by O'Keefe.

Given the NC$$'s propensity to make examples of people who flout its rules, they probably give the bid and home game to UND against the worst team in history, and then force them to play it on the road.

Precisely, and I do not believe that message has been adequately communicated to voters/potential voters.

Courts have the authority to expedite proceedings, especially on more critical issues. I submit the constitutionality of a statute, and possibly another provision to the state constitution, would qualify for a "fast track". But it all depends on whether the Board summons the gravitas to pull the trigger.