Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted

I'll definitely take your word for it regarding President Kelly, the interlocking ND, etc., but it's a fact that this breaks the repeal law, which prohibits the adoption and use of any nickname for three years. The settlement agreement specifically requires UND to adopt a new nickname. UND can't comply with both at the same time. Either they break the law and adopt a new nickname or follow the law and breach the settlement.

Part of your argument will depend on what the NCAA accepts as a new or "new" logo and nickname. UND can use the interlocking ND logo and the name "UND or North Dakota" according to the 3 year moratorium because they were implemented and used before that moratorium was put in place. If the NCAA accepts them as new because they are different from the Fighting Sioux name and Brien logo, then that fulfills the settlement agreement. Both sides could be satisfied and the problem solved. Again, the aim of the settlement and the reason for the NCAA policy are to eliminate the use of Native American nicknames and imagery. The NCAA is happy when that is accomplished.
Posted

15-10-11. Authority and general powers of board.

The state board of higher education has full authority over the institutions under its control

with the right to prescribe, limit, or modify the courses offered at the several institutions. In

furtherance of its powers, the board has the power to delegate to its employees details of the

administration of the institutions under its control. The board has authority to organize or

reorganize, within constitutional and statutory limitations, the work of each institution under its

control, and to do everything necessary and proper for the efficient and economical

administration thereof.

I'm just hung up on the "statutory limitations" part.

Part of your argument will depend on what the NCAA accepts as a new or "new" logo and nickname. UND can use the interlocking ND logo and the name "UND or North Dakota" according to the 3 year moratorium because they were implemented and used before that moratorium was put in place. If the NCAA accepts them as new because they are different from the Fighting Sioux name and Brien logo, then that fulfills the settlement agreement. Both sides could be satisfied and the problem solved. Again, the aim of the settlement and the reason for the NCAA policy are to eliminate the use of Native American nicknames and imagery. The NCAA is happy when that is accomplished.

good points.

Posted

15-10-11. ... The board has authority to organize or

reorganize, within constitutional and statutory limitations, the work of each institution under its

control, and to do everything necessary and proper for the efficient and economical

administration thereof.

I'm just hung up on the "statutory limitations" part.

However, the "efficient and economical administration" part may win the day also. How? To put together an independent schedule in football means lots and lots of big dollar guarantees. Doing what is necessary to stay off NCAA sanction make scheduling costs drop dramatically and allows for the potential of post-season home game revenues.

Posted
15-10-11. Authority and general powers of board.

The state board of higher education has full authority over the institutions under its control

with the right to prescribe, limit, or modify the courses offered at the several institutions. In

furtherance of its powers, the board has the power to delegate to its employees details of the

administration of the institutions under its control. The board has authority to organize or

reorganize, within constitutional and statutory limitations, the work of each institution under its

control, and to do everything necessary and proper for the efficient and economical

administration thereof.

This is obviously part of the constitution that "Clueless Al" Carlson either has not read or is pretending doesn't exist. Al Carlson fancies himself as the "Prime Minister" of North Dakota and firmly believes he has control over everything. The Legislature has budgetary authority over the Higher Ed system (and the rest of State Government), but the administrative authority has been put in the hands of the SBHE. This was done to stop the political micromanaging that took place in the system during the early part of statehood. And it is becoming very clear that this provision is more needed than ever.

Posted

This is obviously part of the constitution that "Clueless Al" Carlson either has not read or is pretending doesn't exist. Al Carlson fancies himself as the "Prime Minister" of North Dakota and firmly believes he has control over everything. The Legislature has budgetary authority over the Higher Ed system (and the rest of State Government), but the administrative authority has been put in the hands of the SBHE. This was done to stop the political micromanaging that took place in the system during the early part of statehood. And it is becoming very clear that this provision is more needed than ever.

Clueless Al has nothing to lose and a potential gain. The name has never been important to him whatsoever. The whole goal was to find a way to get the SBoHE into the courtroom to test if he has power over them. If he prevails he wins big. If he loses he is out nothing. This has worked out just as he has hoped it would. Don't think for a minute someone as narcissistic as Clueless Al would not think of this.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

  • Upvote 1
Posted

However, the "efficient and economical administration" part may win the day also. How? To put together an independent schedule in football means lots and lots of big dollar guarantees. Doing what is necessary to stay off NCAA sanction make scheduling costs drop dramatically and allows for the potential of post-season home game revenues.

I think this is the best argument out there. But I question the slippery slope. A lot of the legislature's decisions will affect UND economically.

Posted

Higher ed board mandated to govern state’s campuses

From Grant Shaft....

Regarding the Fighting Sioux issue, our oath requires us to act in the best interest of UND, its athletic program and its student athletes. This means it is our duty as the Board of Higher Education to challenge the constitutionality of a law that damages UND, even if the result of such a challenge may negate a statewide vote.

Those who have carefully examined the arguments presented by both sides of the issue and specifically the NCAA sanctions and what effect they have and will have on UND’s student athletes have concluded that the name and logo must be retired. This group now includes the governor, a significant majority of the Legislature, the attorney general, the Board of Higher Education, UND administration, the UND athletic department and all UND coaches, the UND alumni association, faculty, staff and students. In the coming months, you will hear these groups outline the reasons they believe it is necessary to retire the name and logo.

Those who truly support UND, both its academics and its athletics, will listen carefully to these voices and measure them against those who may have placed their affection for a beloved nickname and logo ahead of the institution itself and its student athletes.

Posted

Mac Schneider letter to Al Carlson ....Carlson mustn’t twist Legislature against itself

Rep. Carlson, I urge you as a leader of this state to join with the majority of our colleagues and virtually everyone who deeply cares about the long-term success of UND in acknowledging the reality of this situation. UND and its student athletes can handle many challenges, but they should not have to fight their elected leaders
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Nice piece by Omdahl: Higher ed’s fate in court

What started out as a quarrel over the Sioux logo has now become a major threat to the authority of the state Board of Higher Education. The Supreme Court decision, whatever it is, will have repercussions for years to come.

With the Legislative Council now hiring attorneys to challenge the authority of the board before the Supreme Court, the Legislature is declaring a full-scale attack on the constitutional jurisdiction of the board. The use of tax money to pay for attorneys when it is not a party in the case may constitute misappropriation of public funds.

The leadership of the House of Representatives is already scouting for new intrusions into the jurisdiction of the board, including threats to abolish the board. The attack has spread to other advocates of politicizing the board.

Some are operating from a seventh-grade understanding of government. The federal constitution may call for three branches of government, but state constitutions have the latitude to configure the functions of government any way the people choose.

The Sioux logo fight has been a stream of endless mistakes. Just about everyone in government is entitled to a little blame. It is now up to the Supreme Court to put an end to this comedy of errors. North Dakota is already the laughing stock of the sports world.
Posted

Several factual errors and omissions need to be cleared up.

1. The legislature intervened and is now a party to this case, so there is not a misappropriation of funds, at least under Mr. Omdahl's theory. Check the Supreme Court website.

2. The North Dakota Constitution specifically establishes three branches of government, regardless of what Mr. Omdahl wants. (The legislative, executive, and judicial branches are coequal branches of government. Article XI, Section 26.) The Supreme Court has specifically stated that the SBHE is a member of the executive branch.

3. The legislature already has control over course of study ("The legislative assembly shall take such other steps as may be necessary to . . . secure a reasonable degree of uniformity in course of study." Art. VIII, Section 4.), the legislature already has a full chapter of laws relating to out-of-state enrollment in NDCC 15-10.1, and many other aspects of higher education.

So Mr. Ohmdal, "some" operate under a "seventh-grade understanding of government" because they borrow the federal government's three branch model of democracy, even though the same is specifically provided for in North Dakota's constitution. Yet, you can cite to literature about the federal government to support your opinion that the state of North Dakota has four branches of government? Funny how that works.

Wow, this isn't the same Lloyd Omdahl that I use to know.

  • Upvote 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...