Time for Mr. Kelley To Lead and Not Follow

[ksixpack]

We can all agree that Mr. Fullerton said that it takes a unanamous vote from all 11 presidents of the Big Sky to kick us out. That is fact, so I propose one question for everyone both sides of the issue.

Wouldn't you think our university president, Mr. Kelly, would be forging partnerships and relationships with these presidents to assure this would not happen?

For God's sake he doesn't need all 10 in his favor, he just needs one! Is he so inept that he can't get one on his side? That is pretty piss poor if you ask me. He obviously doesn't have confidence he can because of his gloom and doom rehtoric. Mr. Kelley has said in the past that the Montana's look forward to the academic partnerships that they could persue. Well pursue them then...let's forge some relationships and partnerships. Our state and this University have a lot going for it so let's get together with these guys and make it happen.

I ask you this...if Tom Clifford was at the helm would our stance with the Big Sky be in peril? He would have at least one if not many of the Big Sky presidents in his favor. It's time for Mr. Kelley to lead and not follow!

[ScottM]

I ask you this...if Tom Clifford was at the helm would our stance with the Big Sky be in peril? He would have at least one if not many of the Big Sky presidents in his favor. It's time for Mr. Kelley to lead and not follow!

I suspect President Clifford would have probably followed the same tacks as Kelley, and done what was in the school's best interests, regardless of his and our devotion to the Sioux name. And Kelley is doing what is required by law, that is rehanging the Sioux moniker around the school's neck and taking those consequences as they appear.

[homer]

We can all agree that Mr. Fullerton said that it takes a unanamous vote from all 11 presidents of the Big Sky to kick us out. That is fact, so I propose one question for everyone both sides of the issue.

Wouldn't you think our university president, Mr. Kelly, would be forging partnerships and relationships with these presidents to assure this would not happen?

For God's sake he doesn't need all 10 in his favor, he just needs one! Is he so inept that he can't get one on his side? That is pretty piss poor if you ask me. He obviously doesn't have confidence he can because of his gloom and doom rehtoric. Mr. Kelley has said in the past that the Montana's look forward to the academic partnerships that they could persue. Well pursue them then...let's forge some relationships and partnerships. Our state and this University have a lot going for it so let's get together with these guys and make it happen.

I ask you this...if Tom Clifford was at the helm would our stance with the Big Sky be in peril? He would have at least one if not many of the Big Sky presidents in his favor. It's time for Mr. Kelley to lead and not follow!

Tom Clifford was never in the same situation as President Kelly. It was much easier at that time to tell the nickname opponents to pound sand cause there were no reprecussions to the NCAA. Tom Clifford had a love for UND, students and athletics but he was never in this same situation as president.

[UND1983]

We can all agree that Mr. Fullerton said that it takes a unanamous vote from all 11 presidents of the Big Sky to kick us out. That is fact, so I propose one question for everyone both sides of the issue.

Wouldn't you think our university president, Mr. Kelly, would be forging partnerships and relationships with these presidents to assure this would not happen?

For God's sake he doesn't need all 10 in his favor, he just needs one! Is he so inept that he can't get one on his side? That is pretty piss poor if you ask me. He obviously doesn't have confidence he can because of his gloom and doom rehtoric. Mr. Kelley has said in the past that the Montana's look forward to the academic partnerships that they could persue. Well pursue them then...let's forge some relationships and partnerships. Our state and this University have a lot going for it so let's get together with these guys and make it happen.

I ask you this...if Tom Clifford was at the helm would our stance with the Big Sky be in peril? He would have at least one if not many of the Big Sky presidents in his favor. It's time for Mr. Kelley to lead and not follow!

So you are saying he would be true leader if he could just muster up one buddy to vote for UND? He would be a true leader if the vote was 10-1 against UND?

Seriously?

[bincitysioux]

I think he did quite a bit of "leading" when he got us into the Big Sky in the first place, as others have tried and failed......................

[Hayduke]

Kelly is compelled to follow the rule of the law and the direction of the SBOHE. I think he's doing very well in a very bad situation.

[ksixpack]

Guys, you are missing the point...in order to be booted from the Big Sky all 10 presidents have to vote us out...remember all 10 voted us in...so Mr. Kelley cannot count on any of the presidents to back him. He should be working behind the scenes to make sure this doesn't happen. Is he? Maybe he is, but you wouldn't know it from his comments. He should be forging relationships and partnerships with the Montana's like he said they wanted to when we were admitted to the conference. For academic reasons alone he should be building enough relationships and partnerships that he could count on these guys to have his back. In order to get voted out 0-10 after being voted in 10-0 would show me that he hasn't done his job and a lack of respect for him in the first place.

[bincitysioux]

So you are hanging your hat on a hung jury?

And I'm not sure that I've seen anything to indicate that we were invited to the conference by a unanimous vote. It takes a unanimous vote to expel a member, but only takes a 2/3 majority to invite a new member. It is entirely possible that when we were invited, only 6 of the 9 Big Sky schools voted for our inclusion, and that was when they were assuming we were bringing USD with.

[Siouxperman8]

Even if we don't get voted out the sactions hurt our programs. Period.

[ksixpack]

So you are hanging your hat on a hung jury?

And I'm not sure that I've seen anything to indicate that we were invited to the conference by a unanimous vote. It takes a unanimous vote to expel a member, but only takes a 2/3 majority to invite a new member. It is entirely possible that when we were invited, only 6 of the 9 Big Sky schools voted for our inclusion, and that was when they were assuming we were bringing USD with.

It was unanimous.

The question is this...is Mr Kelley an effective leader if he can't get even one of the presidents to back us in the Big Sky?

Put all of the other rehtoric on the back burner and take it as a simple question.

[The Sicatoka]

Would you want to be in a club where 10 of the members wanted you out and only one wanted you?

To your question, Dr. Kelley got us into the Big Sky --> Effective.

If Carlson's Folly gets us kicked out, what's Al Carlson?

[LB1]

It was unanimous.

The question is this...is Mr Kelley an effective leader if he can't get even one of the presidents to back us in the Big Sky?

Put all of the other rehtoric on the back burner and take it as a simple question.

The question is this...what is in the best interest of the university?

Put all of the other rhetoric on the back burner and take it as a simple question.

[jdub27]

It was unanimous.

The question is this...is Mr Kelley an effective leader if he can't get even one of the presidents to back us in the Big Sky?

Put all of the other rehtoric on the back burner and take it as a simple question.

You think one president is going to hang himself out on a limb for a school that isn't even a full member rather than show solidarity with the other presidents?

[ksixpack]

The question is this...what is in the best interest of the university?

Put all of the other rhetoric on the back burner and take it as a simple question.

I am sorry to inform you but there will be a vote on June 6th and you and I know it will pass. All 10 of the presidents have to vote us out for us to lose Big Sky membership. Can Kelley lead us to make sure at least one of the presidents has our back?

[The Sicatoka]

If UND is under NCAA sanctions UND Is damaged goods.

Do you accept damaged goods?

You ship them back.

[choyt3]

As far as the Big Sky Conference is concerned, I think we are EFFED, either way the June 6th vote turns out.

[GeauxSioux]

I am sorry to inform you but there will be a vote on June 6th and you and I know it will pass. All 10 of the presidents have to vote us out for us to lose Big Sky membership. Can Kelley lead us to make sure at least one of the presidents has our back?

June 6th... D-day. How appropriate.

If there is a certainty that the vote will pass, why would any of these presidents want to "have our back"?

I'm hopeful that the SBoHE and AG can head off this train wreck.

[82SiouxGuy]

It was unanimous.

The question is this...is Mr Kelley an effective leader if he can't get even one of the presidents to back us in the Big Sky?

Put all of the other rehtoric on the back burner and take it as a simple question.

Getting one of the presidents to back UND wouldn't take a leader, it would take a miracle worker. The Big Sky is a club that has been stable for a long time. They have relationships with each other. And they work in an atmosphere of consensus building. Most decisions are made by a unanimous vote. Once a majority makes up its mind, it is very rare that another would rock the boat. You are expecting Dr. Kelley to go and cull one of the other presidents away from the herd. You want him to find a way to make that president go against the people that they have been working with for years, and plan to work with for years. All for the benefit of the new guy. The chances of that happening are very, very small. And that isn't a practical use of Dr. Kelley's time. He has an entire University to lead. Remember, his job is to lead the University of North Dakota, not lead the presidents of the Big Sky.

[Matt]

No matter where this goes, there is a civil war going on here that will continue to damage the university for years to come. Keep the nickname and, outside of men's hockey, there will be damage to the other athletic programs (hockey scheduling notwithstanding), along with anger and resentment by many fans and alumni. Lose the name, and there will be anger and resentment by another group of fans and alumni.

These are as dark days as I've seen for this proud institution.

[Fetch]

won't happen because he is 100% against the name & they know it

[SooToo]

As far as the Big Sky Conference is concerned, I think we are EFFED, either way the June 6th vote turns out.

Disagree. If the legislation fails --and the threatened constitutional amendment doesn't happen -- I think UND is in. That's certainly been the tone of comments I've heard from Fullerton. (And please tell me you're pessimistic assessment of the Big Sky isn't just another rationalization to keep the nickname.)

At this point, I hope and expect the SBoHE will challenge the constitutionality of the law requiring the nickname that was passed last session. No lawyer, but I would hope/expect they would win. I've got to believe its abundantly clear to most legislators now that maintaining the nickname will have dire consequences, and I can't believe they'd have much enthusiasm to penalize/aggressively oppose this SBoHE move. Rendering the law -- and initiated measure -- moot might encourage the petition drive for a constitutional measure, but it would provide more time for an organized effort to fight it. IIRC, the bar for passage of a consitutional measure is higher (60%?) and there would be additional arguments for keeping the constitution clear of this type of issue.

In any event, there needs to be a well-organized PR campaign -- perhaps partially funded by university backers on this forum -- to educate voters on the repercussions of passage of either of these two measures. Faison, UND coaches and maybe some hockey alumni should be recruited to participate. Most native North Dakotans understand the populist/isolationist leanings that lead many here to say "Hell no!" when told by a large, out-of-state entity that they have to change. But I've got to believe that getting the word out about the crippling consequences of keeping the name would convince a majority of voters to make the right decision. Whether that could happen before June, however, is an open question.

And on a related point: What should Hakstol's standing with the university be if the law he played a significant role is passing ultimately ends up crippling the athletic department in which he is employed?

[ksixpack]

Getting one of the presidents to back UND wouldn't take a leader, it would take a miracle worker. The Big Sky is a club that has been stable for a long time. They have relationships with each other. And they work in an atmosphere of consensus building. Most decisions are made by a unanimous vote. Once a majority makes up its mind, it is very rare that another would rock the boat. You are expecting Dr. Kelley to go and cull one of the other presidents away from the herd. You want him to find a way to make that president go against the people that they have been working with for years, and plan to work with for years. All for the benefit of the new guy. The chances of that happening are very, very small. And that isn't a practical use of Dr. Kelley's time. He has an entire University to lead. Remember, his job is to lead the University of North Dakota, not lead the presidents of the Big Sky.

Really? So retaining entrance in the big sky is not of importantance to UND? Why all the gloom and doom talk from Kelley and Faison...

[choyt3]

Disagree. If the legislation fails --and the threatened constitutional amendment doesn't happen -- I think UND is in. That's certainly been the tone of comments I've heard from Fullerton. (And please tell me you're pessimistic assessment of the Big Sky isn't just another rationalization to keep the nickname.)

In any event, there needs to be a well-organized PR campaign -- perhaps partially funded by university backers on this forum -- to educate voters on the repercussions of passage of either of these two measures. Faison, UND coaches and maybe some hockey alumni should be recruited to participate. Most native North Dakotans understand the populist/isolationist leanings that lead many here to say "Hell no!" when told by a large, out-of-state entity that they have to change. But I've got to believe that getting the word out about the crippling consequences of keeping the name would convince a majority of voters to make the right decision. Whether that could happen before June, however, is an open question.

No, not a rationalization for keeping the nickname. I see the nickname as a red herring. From the very minute that USD announced they were joining the Summit/MVFC, I believe UND's membership in the Big Sky was in serious question. There has NOT been a lot of support coming from the conference's commissioner for UND. This is a controversy that will not merely end with an up or down vote on June 6. Look at the situation in Dartmouth. They are still fighting nearly FORTY YEARS later. It's not an issue that will be going away very soon. It is, however, an easy way to get out of travelling over 600 miles one way for a mid-week basketball game in the middle of winter. Especially after being sold that a situation with USD also joining would be a palatable alternative.

As for the second paragraph I quoted, that is what I've said a couple different places now. The divide and conquer approach will not convince UND fans that do not frequent siouxsports.com to not vote for this referendum. Calling nickname supporters 'sheep', 'ignorant', 'clueless', etc., is not going to work. There are many people that signed the petition that believe that UND should be able to keep their nickname and signed because of that reason only. Even more people will vote in favor on June 6th for the same reason. People in ND don't like to be told what to do, or how to think. That certainly doesn't make them clueless or ignorant. Don't stand there and be pompous about it, telling people how smart you are. Unite and inform them. For the sake of the University.

**this is not directed at any one individual on here.

[82SiouxGuy]

The University will survive as a school without the Big Sky. The Athletic Department will take a major hit without it. And damaging the Athletic Department will take some of the luster away from the school itself. Dr. Kelley has to spend most of his time leading the University, he shouldn't have to spend it trying to work a miracle that you've dreamed up. That isn't a practical use of his time, especially when it is an almost impossible task.

[ksixpack]

No, not a rationalization for keeping the nickname. I see the nickname as a red herring. From the very minute that USD announced they were joining the Summit/MVFC, I believe UND's membership in the Big Sky was in serious question. There has NOT been a lot of support coming from the conference's commissioner for UND. This is a controversy that will not merely end with an up or down vote on June 6. Look at the situation in Dartmouth. They are still fighting nearly FORTY YEARS later. It's not an issue that will be going away very soon. It is, however, an easy way to get out of travelling over 600 miles one way for a mid-week basketball game in the middle of winter. Especially after being sold that a situation with USD also joining would be a palatable alternative.

As for the second paragraph I quoted, that is what I've said a couple different places now. The divide and conquer approach will not convince UND fans that do not frequent siouxsports.com to not vote for this referendum. Calling nickname supporters 'sheep', 'ignorant', 'clueless', etc., is not going to work. There are many people that signed the petition that believe that UND should be able to keep their nickname and signed because of that reason only. Even more people will vote in favor on June 6th for the same reason. People in ND don't like to be told what to do, or how to think. That certainly doesn't make them clueless or ignorant. Don't stand there and be pompous about it, telling people how smart you are. Unite and inform them. For the sake of the University.

**this is not directed at any one individual on here.

I would agree with your assessment of the people of North Dakota...this vote will pass with a resounding yes. It is going to happen so it is time for Mr. Kelley to lead. Those of you that think the Big Sky presidents will vote us out because of this it is time for Kelley to secure their support. Instead of spewing the same old sky is falling mantra how about heading off this train wreck so many of you speak of? You shouldn't rely on SBOHE. You shouldn't rely on a no vote. Both of those scenarios are very unlikely so we know what is going to happen on June 6th. President Kelley needs to step up to the plate and sell the virtues of this great university to spare us from expulsion from the Big Sky...can he do it? Will he do it? Will he go down without a fight?