House Bill to Save the Sioux Passes 65 to 28.

[ksixpack]

Hockey would be affected if the Big 10 Hockey conference comes to fruition, UND could be blacklisted by Minnesota and Wisconsin if things aren't resolved with the NCAA. Other schools could also take similar stances.

Personally I've always thought UND should keep the name but I don't think this is the way it should be done.

Hockey would not be affected by the Big 10 conference for many reasons. First and foremost the Big 10 would be made up of only 6 schools which leaves a huge scheduling void so it has been talked about that if this does indeed happen, they would have an interlocking schedule with the WCHA to fill out the schedule. Even withouth the interlocking WCHA schedule, Minnesota and Wisconsin would still schedule UND when possible...a couple of pinheads in the administrations of Wisconsin and Minnesota have made this an issue for other sports but the hockey people would never let these rivalries die. Ask Lou Nanne...ask Tom Reid...ask Don Lucia... they will tell you the same thing. The Big 10 league is less than a 50/50 proposition so again we are dealing with hypothetical issues here that are not likely to come into play. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a merry Christmas....

[SIOUXPR]

Elliot Glassheim's remarks show him to be a dutiful public servant. He is entitled to his opinion and his vote. We, as free citizens, are free to comment, to wit I say the gentleman sounds like the mouthpiece of the university professors. In fact, his arguments echo the false allegations of a divided campus; the waste of energy and money; "we almost lost two university presidents over the issue." etc. . . . This issue needn't be never ending. The anti-name crowd, who are in the distinct minority, could drop their fight to lose the name. They could stand idly on the sidelines. They could stop making speeches filled with hateful, baseless, accusations of loss to the University. Which athletes decided not to attend UND because of the name? What opportunities have been lost? UND has record enrollment and massive fundraising. Professor salaries are skyrocketing. Where is this divisive damage opined by Mr. Glassheim?

No, he is nothing but the braying mouthpiece echoing long-discredited anti-Sioux name filth. It is HE, and his friends in the upper reaches of the Univeristy staff, who have perpetuated the divisions. He is free to say what he wants. I am free to comment as I see fit. But I am so very tired of eharing how the sky will fall on UND everytime there is movement in a positive direction to keep the Sioux name. I am sure the Herald will soon publish Letter #342 from Erich Longie. I am sure that Kelley et al will speak about the "difficulties" which the name causes. I am sure the Herald editorial board will find a way to extend and elaborate upon Mr. Glassheim's dire predictions of woe. I am sure a few random poly sci professors will be trotted out to support the party line. I am sure all of this will happen. Mr. Glassheim's position is being proven to be more and more in the minority. And his ten-year old anti-name tripe deserves the collective raspberries of the name-supporting community (read: almost everybody else in North Dakota).

Again, you choose to ignore the the Constitutional argument in his claim. That is very telling of the type of ignorance being shown on this board. Take off your blinders and read the constitution.

[Chewey]

Hockey would not be affected by the Big 10 conference for many reasons. First and foremost the Big 10 would be made up of only 6 schools which leaves a huge scheduling void so it has been talked about that if this does indeed happen, they would have an interlocking schedule with the WCHA to fill out the schedule. Even withouth the interlocking WCHA schedule, Minnesota and Wisconsin would still schedule UND when possible...a couple of pinheads in the administrations of Wisconsin and Minnesota have made this an issue for other sports but the hockey people would never let these rivalries die. Ask Lou Nanne...ask Tom Reid...ask Don Lucia... they will tell you the same thing. The Big 10 league is less than a 50/50 proposition so again we are dealing with hypothetical issues here that are not likely to come into play. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a merry Christmas....

And the reason it will not happen concerning hockey is $$$$$$$$$$$$$. I guess even the PC pinheads know that "principles" can be eschewed where good money is to be made.

[Goon]

Elliot Glassheim's remarks show him to be a dutiful public servant. He is entitled to his opinion and his vote. We, as free citizens, are free to comment, to wit I say the gentleman sounds like the mouthpiece of the university professors. In fact, his arguments echo the false allegations of a divided campus; the waste of energy and money; "we almost lost two university presidents over the issue." etc. . . . This issue needn't be never ending. The anti-name crowd, who are in the distinct minority, could drop their fight to lose the name. They could stand idly on the sidelines. They could stop making speeches filled with hateful, baseless, accusations of loss to the University. Which athletes decided not to attend UND because of the name? What opportunities have been lost? UND has record enrollment and massive fundraising. Professor salaries are skyrocketing. Where is this divisive damage opined by Mr. Glassheim?

No, he is nothing but the braying mouthpiece echoing long-discredited anti-Sioux name filth. It is HE, and his friends in the upper reaches of the Univeristy staff, who have perpetuated the divisions. He is free to say what he wants. I am free to comment as I see fit. But I am so very tired of eharing how the sky will fall on UND everytime there is movement in a positive direction to keep the Sioux name. I am sure the Herald will soon publish Letter #342 from Erich Longie. I am sure that Kelley et al will speak about the "difficulties" which the name causes. I am sure the Herald editorial board will find a way to extend and elaborate upon Mr. Glassheim's dire predictions of woe. I am sure a few random poly sci professors will be trotted out to support the party line. I am sure all of this will happen. Mr. Glassheim's position is being proven to be more and more in the minority. And his ten-year old anti-name tripe deserves the collective raspberries of the name-supporting community (read: almost everybody else in North Dakota).

Well said sir, personally, I think Elliot Glassheim is a bumbling buffoon and proof we need to have term limits in the North Dakota legislature as well. Elliot

[star2city]

Great post, it's amazing how many people on this board and in the ND legislature are either blind or willfully ignorant to the North Dakota Constitution. Post after post talking about what the sanctions will mean and whether UND can or cannot host a postseason game. I've got news for everyone, It doesn't matter what the sanctions will mean! The State Supreme Court has already ruled in Spirit Lake v. SBHE that the SBHE has the Constitutional Authority to retire the nickname. The Attorney General has also issued an opinion stating that the North Dakota Constitution

[Goon]

Again, you choose to ignore the the Constitutional argument in his claim. That is very telling of the type of ignorance being shown on this board. Take off your blinders and read the constitution.

Why don't post the link to the constitution so others can read it since you're such a self professed constitutional scholar.

[STS]

Great post, it's amazing how many people on this board and in the ND legislature are either blind or willfully ignorant to the North Dakota Constitution. Post after post talking about what the sanctions will mean and whether UND can or cannot host a postseason game. I've got news for everyone, It doesn't matter what the sanctions will mean! The State Supreme Court has already ruled in Spirit Lake v. SBHE that the SBHE has the Constitutional Authority to retire the nickname. The Attorney General has also issued an opinion stating that the North Dakota Constitution

[Cratter]

a bigger concern is the response we may get from other schools or other conferences. UND has already seen some schools and a conference say we won't play you.

Do you have any quotes or facts for that?

Wisconsin said they wouldn't play us, but then they played us in womens basketball not very long ago. So they were lying apparently?

This No home playoff games, only affects football that that would be rare.

I say screw it stand on principle, and keep the name!!

Pass the legislation....

Then work on getting the other tribe to comply (got more time), and BOOM all good again in Fighting Sioux Land.

[Fetch]

Again, you choose to ignore the the Constitutional argument in his claim. That is very telling of the type of ignorance being shown on this board. Take off your blinders and read the constitution.

that could still be a hurdle - but not a end to keeping the name - we are finally getting the attention of the whole State & most are figuring out what has (or hasn't) taken place so far & still so many just want to find ways to give up ? ? ?

Worst Leadership Imaginable - Apathy has been prevalent - But it's NOT OVER

[star2city]

Who was it again that so eloquently brought up the idea of a Referendum & then we will know how the people in Sioux County really feel - this needs to be pushed now (?) or wait as a ace in the hole (?) - I want permission to Quote him ? ? ? ***

I see that as where were going unless the NCAA & SBOHE comes to their senses

Thank GOD & to the House Members who voted YES - May the Senate have the same wisdom & courage

Shame on the Grand Forks Reps.& media & SBOHE & UND ADMIN. that showed their lack of real knowledge or stubborn PC attitudes

This is not over & should have been allowed to go forward in as positive of a way as possible before the deadline & shame on you for not fighting to the end - You are not even close to the majority on this

If so many of you would have not let us down, the past couple of years, the Legislature would not have had to step in & clip your wings

Email / Write or call your Senators

*** NOTE the only house member that wrote back to me (email) was Kaldor & he was still stuck on the idea that Standing Rock does not have referendums & we cannot force them to vote - WE KNOW THAT ! But a State wide Referendum would show how Standing Rock / Sioux County really feels

On a referendum (at Standing Rock and statewide), was this the post? Statewide Referendum

With the 65-28 vote, the measure is veto-proof in the House, should Dalrymple decide to veto the bill.

The vote was also almost down straight partisan lines, so contrary to what the moderators want discussed on this forum, the keep-the-nickname alive forces are Republican almost without exception.

Since the Republicans dominate the Senate, 35-12, it is hard to imagine this bill not becoming law regardless of whether Dalrymple signs it.

[Fetch]

Thank You Star2city

(Star2City his quote)

Instead of the legislature passing the bills that have been proposed, which would have some potentially very negative effects on the NCAA-UND relationship, I'd like the legislature to go down another path:

- Place the Sioux name as the perpetual nickname of UND on the ballot, so all ND voters have a say.

- Since Sioux County is essentially the Standing Rock reservation, the votes of Sioux County would be a de facto Standing Rock vote.

- If the vote in both Sioux County and North Dakota affirms the nickname, the AG would be required to petition the NCAA for the reinstatement of the Fighting Sioux name, as all requirements of the NCAA would then have been met. The NCAA would have to fold based on this type of democratic action.

If the legislature doesn't impose a statewide vote, the same measure could be put in place by gaining voters signature for an initiative.

If the principles of our representative democracy are properly used, the tyranny of PC politics can and will be defeated.

[Fetch]

who has the Link to the State Senators emails ?

[SIOUXPR]

Why don't post the link to the constitution so others can read it since you're such a self professed constitutional scholar.

Here you go professor, It wasn't to hard to find.

Article 8, Section 6 of the North Dakota State Constitution

1. A board of higher education, to be officially known as the state board of higher

education, is hereby created for the control and administration of the following state

educational institutions, to wit:

a. The state university and school of mines, at Grand Forks, with their substations.

6.b. The said state board of higher education shall have full authority over the

institutions under its control with the right, among its other powers, to prescribe,

limit, or modify the courses offered at the several institutions. In furtherance of

its powers, the state board of higher education shall have the power to delegate

to its employees details of the administration of the institutions under its control.

The said state board of higher education shall have full authority to organize or

reorganize within constitutional and statutory limitations, the work of each

institution under its control, and do each and everything necessary and proper

for the efficient and economic administration of said state educational

institutions.

[Fetch]

SiouxPR

that kind of stuff just could be what so may in the Legislature don't like

Who you doing PR for ?

[SIOUXPR]

The legislature has all types of authority over the SBoHE regarding state institutions: like operating and capital budgets. The SBoHE makes recommendations, but the legislature has final say. The Legislature is a higher authority than the SBoHE.

The Attorney General may have had questions about the act, but the AG has to fight to uphold the law. Only someone with standing (potentially Standing Rock) or the NCAA can sue North Dakota to kill this law.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The constitution gives the SBHE full authority over the state's higher ed institutions. The legislature provides the money, that's it. They have no control over what it is used for. The decision to retire the nickname is fully protected by the SBHE's constitutional authority. It's a distinct and unique separation of powers that creates essentially a fourth branch of government in the SBHE.

Article 8, Section 6 of the North Dakota State Constitution

1. A board of higher education, to be officially known as the state board of higher

education, is hereby created for the control and administration of the following state

educational institutions, to wit:

a. The state university and school of mines, at Grand Forks, with their substations.

6.b. The said state board of higher education shall have full authority over the

institutions under its control with the right, among its other powers, to prescribe,

limit, or modify the courses offered at the several institutions. In furtherance of

its powers, the state board of higher education shall have the power to delegate

to its employees details of the administration of the institutions under its control.

The said state board of higher education shall have full authority to organize or

reorganize within constitutional and statutory limitations, the work of each

institution under its control, and do each and everything necessary and proper

for the efficient and economic administration of said state educational

institutions.

[star2city]

who has the Link to the State Senators emails ?

ND Senate

[Fetch]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The constitution gives the SBHE full authority over the state's higher ed institutions. The legislature provides the money, that's it. They have no control over what it is used for. The decision to retire the nickname is fully protected by the SBHE's constitutional authority. It's a distinct and unique separation of powers that creates essentially a fourth branch of government in the SBHE.

Article 8, Section 6 of the North Dakota State Constitution

1. A board of higher education, to be officially known as the state board of higher

education, is hereby created for the control and administration of the following state

educational institutions, to wit:

a. The state university and school of mines, at Grand Forks, with their substations.

6.b. The said state board of higher education shall have full authority over the

institutions under its control with the right, among its other powers, to prescribe,

limit, or modify the courses offered at the several institutions. In furtherance of

its powers, the state board of higher education shall have the power to delegate

to its employees details of the administration of the institutions under its control.

The said state board of higher education shall have full authority to organize or

reorganize within constitutional and statutory limitations, the work of each

institution under its control, and do each and everything necessary and proper

for the efficient and economic administration of said state educational

institutions.

exactly why the next step may be :

Role in the in the initiative and referral process

Article III Section 1 of the North Dakota Constitution guarantees the residents of the state "to propose and enact laws" through an initiative, "approve or reject legislative Acts" through a referral and "recall certain elected officials." There are two types of initiatives: a statutory initiative and a constitutional initiative. The statutory initiative seeks to amend or enact a statute of the North Dakota Century Code, while the constitutional initiative seeks to amend or enact portions of the state constitution. It is the role of the secretary of state to receive and file petitions for referrals and initiatives.

A sponsoring committee is needed to submit the petition for an initiative or referral to the secretary of state. The committee is to be composed of at least 25 or more qualified state voters. A qualified state voter is one who is: at least 18 years of age, a citizen of the United States, a legal resident of the state and a resident of the affected precinct at least 30 days before the election. The final draft of the petition and a completed notarized affidavit of the members of the sponsoring committee must be submitted to the Secretary of State. The final draft must include a ballot title, which is a brief statement that adequately represents the focus of the petition. This ballot title is used by the Secretary of State to submit the petition and affidavits to the state attorney general.

The attorney general and the secretary of state have 5-7 business days to deny or approve the petition on grounds of "style and legal form." Once approved the petition may be circulated for signatures.

Referrals

According the North Dakota law, the required number of signatures to refer state legislation to statewide election must be collected and filed within 90 days after the legislation has been filed with the secretary of state. This 90 day period includes the 5-7 business days taken by the secretary of state and attorney general to approve the petition. The 90 day period ends at midnight of the 90th day. Since the office hours of the secretary of state are limited (at the time of writing the secretary of state's office hours end at 5pm) the sponsoring committee must arrange with the secretary of state's office if petition signatures and a notarized affidavit of the person representing the committee is to be submitted after office hours. The affidavit informs the secretary of state that the required number of signatures for the petition are submitted to the best of the committee representative's knowledge.

If the signatures are approved by the secretary of state, the vote on the specified state legislation will take place on the next statewide election or on a state governor=called special election.

Initiative

The required number of signatures for an initiative to appear on statewide elections must be filed with the secretary of state within one year from the approval of the initiative by the secretary of state. If the special committee wished to see the initiative at a specific statewide election the required number of signatures and the committee representative's notarized affidavit must be submitted no less than 90 days before the scheduled date of that election.

The number of signatures for a statutory initiative is 2% of the state's population, based on the last federal government census. At the time of writing the number of signatures is 12,844. The number of signatures for a constitutional initiative is 4% of the state's population, based on the last federal government census. At the time of writing this figure is 25,688.

Signature review

The secretary of state has 35 days to review the petition's signatures through the use of a representative random sample. Any violations of North Dakota law are reported by the secretary of state to the attorney general for further investigation and prosecution.

Contact Information

Capitol Address:

600 East Boulevard Avenue

Department 108, 1st Floor

Bismarck, ND 58505-0500

Phone: (701) 328-2900

Toll Free Phone: (800) 352-0867

Fax: (701) 328-2992

E-mail: sos@nd.gov

See also

Al Jaeger, Secretary of State for North Dakota

Governor of North Dakota

Lieutenant Governor of North Dakota

Attorney General of North Dakota

North Dakota Constitution

External links

Office of the North Dakota Secretary of State

About the office of the North Dakota Secretary of State

North Dakota Century Code

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Dakota_Secretary_of_State

[star2city]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The constitution gives the SBHE full authority over the state's higher ed institutions. The legislature provides the money, that's it. They have no control over what it is used for. The decision to retire the nickname is fully protected by the SBHE's constitutional authority. It's a distinct and unique separation of powers that creates essentially a fourth branch of government in the SBHE.

Article 8, Section 6 of the North Dakota State Constitution

1. A board of higher education, to be officially known as the state board of higher

education, is hereby created for the control and administration of the following state

educational institutions, to wit:

a. The state university and school of mines, at Grand Forks, with their substations.

6.b. The said state board of higher education shall have full authority over the

institutions under its control with the right, among its other powers, to prescribe,

limit, or modify the courses offered at the several institutions. In furtherance of

its powers, the state board of higher education shall have the power to delegate

to its employees details of the administration of the institutions under its control.

The said state board of higher education shall have full authority to organize or

reorganize within constitutional and statutory limitations, the work of each

institution under its control, and do each and everything necessary and proper

for the efficient and economic administration of said state educational

institutions.

Statuatory limitations: indicates the nickname is fair game.

Since Stenehjem worked closely with the SBoHE and the NCAA, I highly doubt he wants their "effort" to go down in vain. So publicly, Stenehjem feels compelled to protect the SBoHE from embarrassment. It's politics and playing to the media.

[Fetch]

another nail in the coffin of that kind of thinking - cause I have said he(Stenehjem) was part of why were where we are today

& I voted for him - but he has not completely done or stood up 100% in keeping the Sioux Name

Not a reason for him to go away - he was just doing his job & maybe at the time was the best we could hope for (?) - MORE STUFF Folks (rest of the State & Legislative Reps.) are still trying to figure out & correct

[fightingsioux4life]

yeh top 4 seeds lol dont htink we will be that close that soon. by the time we get to a top 4 seed, i think this nickname dispute will be settled and ncaa would want to avoid negative press.

lets be hones here the football program is just a cylinder at this university and HOCKEY is the oil that runs the cylinder. if no hockey (no oil) then the motor blows up.

if u think im wrong, go look at the financial statements. football loses money and hockey covers for it.

Here we go again with the myopic, extremist, "Hockey is ALL that matters and everything else can go to H-E double-hockey sticks" position. While I don't think I can change your mind, I have some questions for you and everyone else that thinks like you:

1) If hockey is all that matters, then why did we move all our other programs to Division I? Hockey would have continued to survive just fine if we had stuck with Division II for all other sports. But now that we have made the choice to move everything else up, we can no longer focus on just one sport and the heck with everything else. We have spent millions of dollars and will spend millions more to move up to Division I and we did it for both basketball and football. If we decide that never hosting another home football playoff game again is not that big of deal, then we should just make football non-scholarship and join the Pioneer League. Because if we go down this path, recruiting top athletes will be next to impossible anyway. Might as well shoot for straight A students and getting beat 50-0 by established FCS powers in "money games". If you are going to lose, lose in style.

2) What will you say when other schools refuse to schedule us because of the name and logo? And please don't give me that whole "They will have to schedule us" crap. Unless it's an NCAA tournament game, they can and will refuse to schedule us. There are other NCAA hockey powers besides us that don't have "offensive" nicknames. Once the Big Ten Hockey Conference happens (and it will now that Penn State is adding hockey), PC schools like Minnesota and Wisconsin will simply schedule other hockey powers and tell us to pound sand you-know-where. I love the hockey match-up with the Gophers and I would like to maintain it even if it's non-conference. And I wouldn't put it past the dictators at the NCAA to "encourage" schools not to schedule us. I love the name and logo, but is it worth all this? At what point does the perfect become the enemy of the good?

3) Does having one big revenue sport mean all the others don't matter? I say absolutely not. Every successful athletic program has one big revenue sport so they can fund everything else. NDSU has football. Duke has basketball. And both of those schools have other successful programs because they have the money to fund them. NDSU has had success in basketball. Duke has had success in lacrosse. Even the University of Florida has had great success in both football and basketball. That, I think, is the ultimate goal of an athletic department, especially since we are now Division I in everything. We should shoot for a wildly successful athletic department in as many sports as possible. That means hockey programs (men and women) that annually contend for national titles, a football team that annually contends for national titles and basketball programs (men and women) that regularly contend for Big Sky titles and NCAA tournament appearances and even pull off some March Madness upsets of their own. That will be the measure of a successful athletic department, not having one main sport and throwing all the others under the bus over a legal dispute with the NCAA.

4) If the ND Legislature really cared about this issue, where were they during the 2007 and 2009 legislative sessions? This is the same, tired old political grandstanding I have come to expect from this backwater, bushleague institution. They could have been proactive about this and made a real difference. Instead, they wait until there is a bad legal settlement in place (I did not like the settlement any more than anybody else) that makes it very difficult to get the NCAA off of our backs and put forth legislation that very well may be unconstitutional under the North Dakota Century Code. To those that would say the legislature can just delete Higher Ed funding if the SBoHE doesn't do as they are told like good little boys, I would ask you this: The ND Supreme Court ruled that the SBoHE has the constitutional authority to require UND to change the nickname and logo. Will the holier-than-thou, self-righteous Legislature cut their funding too? I don't think so, because they can and will respect the rule of law. As will the Attorney General, who has sworn an oath to the Constitution, not the legislative leadership. The Legislature will lose this in the courts, have egg on their faces and make the entire state look bad in the process. And while they do all that, UND will suffer. Again, at what point does the perfect become the enemy of the good?

I have been a Fighting Sioux fan since I was 6 years old. I have went to hockey games for just as long. I think the legal settlement was pure capitulation. But I also am a pragmatist and a realist and I don't want UND to suffer irreversable damage in this fight if the ultimate outcome will be the same or worse. If someone can present a clear and rational legal path to victory against the NCAA cartel, then I might change my mind. But until then, I cannot sanction going down in a blaze of glory just to prove a point.

Flame away all you want, but that's my story and I am sticking to it.

[The Sicatoka]

Here's another one for our legal eagles to ponder regarding authority within the State of ND:

The ND Century Code specifies that campuses in the NDUS, overseen by the ND SBoHE, are "dry".

The ND SBoHE has to live within that.

Who wrote the Century Code?

The ND Legislature.

So let's turn that slighty ...

What if the campuses were not dry today and the Legislature passed a "dry campus" law.

What would the ND SBoHE be able to say or do other than live within that law?

I'm trying to sift through all the wheat and chaff in this conversation by asking these questions.

[FargoBison]

Do you have any quotes or facts for that?

Wisconsin said they wouldn't play us, but then they played us in womens basketball not very long ago. So they were lying apparently?

The game happened because UND was taken off the NCAA's list when the lawsuit was settled. Wisconsin and I think Minnesota have policies that say they won't play UND in non conference games for as long as the school is at odds with the NCAA over the nickname.

http://host.madison.com/sports/college/basketball/men/article_015c650a-f296-11df-80f8-001cc4c03286.html

[fightingsioux4life]

Here's another one for our legal eagles to ponder regarding authority within the State of ND:

The ND Century Code specifies that campuses in the NDUS, overseen by the ND SBoHE, are "dry".

The ND SBoHE has to live within that.

Who wrote the Century Code?

The ND Legislature.

So let's turn that slighty ...

What if the campuses were not dry today and the Legislature passed a "dry campus" law.

What would the ND SBoHE be able to say or do other than live within that law?

I'm trying to sift through all the wheat and chaff in this conversation by asking these questions.

I think that if something is in the ND Century Code, that has to be the guiding principle for the ND Legislature, the Executive Branch and all county and municipal governments in the State of North Dakota. The ND Supreme Court is the body that interprets the laws.

If the "dry" provision was not in the Century Code and the Legislature voted to make all campuses dry, then the campuses would be required to "dry out" since there is nothing in the Century Code to prohibit the Legislature from governing that issue. However, in the issue of the nickname and logo, the ND Supreme Court has already ruled that the SBoHE has the authority to tell UND to get rid of the name and logo. I would imagine they used the Century Code as a guidepost to help make this ruling. If the Legislature doesn't like the Century Code as is, they certainly can take appropriate steps to change it. But right now, as far as I can tell, they will have no choice but to adhere to the Century Code whether they like it or not. But I guess the courts will have to figure it out; that is what they get paid to do.

[UND Fan]

ND Senate

jandrist@nd.gov; sdberry@nd.gov; bbowman@nd.gov; raburckhard@nd.gov; rchristmann@nd.gov; dcook@nd.gov; ddever@nd.gov; jdotzenrod@nd.gov; rerbele@nd.gov; tfischer@nd.gov; tflakoll@nd.gov; lfreborg@nd.gov; tgrindberg@nd.gov; jheckaman@nd.gov; dhogue@nd.gov; rholmberg@nd.gov; rkilzer@nd.gov; jklein@nd.gov; kkrebsbach@nd.gov; llaffen@nd.gov; olarsen@nd.gov; galee@nd.gov; jlee@nd.gov; lluick@nd.gov; slyson@nd.gov; rmarcellais@nd.gov; tmathern@nd.gov; joetmiller@nd.gov; pmmurphy@nd.gov; cnelson@nd.gov; dnething@nd.gov; glnodland@nd.gov; doconnell@nd.gov; doehlke@nd.gov; colafson@nd.gov; lrobinson@nd.gov; dgschaible@nd.gov; macschneider@nd.gov; msitte@nd.gov; rsorvaag@nd.gov; bstenehjem@nd.gov; rtaylor@nd.gov; ctriplett@nd.gov; guglem@nd.gov; tmwanzek@nd.gov; rwardner@nd.gov; jwarner@nd.gov

[kvinbe]

What a nightmare!! The house has voted to put UND and its athletic teams back ten years, and now the house is likely to do the same. What a huge waste of time, energy, and resources. Nationally, no matter how you slice it, North Dakota as a state and UND as an institution are going to come across looking bad on this one. It's embarrassing. I was actually looking forward to seeing our athletic teams scheduled to play teams like UMN and Wisconsin (like NDSU already has). Fat chance of that happening now. What a bunch of knuckleheads. Wow!!