ScottM Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Totally agree. The whole transition away from the nickname was going to be done with respect to the Sioux name, etc. and that just didn't happen. Kelley deserves to get some heat for this. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 BTW I will vote "no" in June. Just to clarify for myself and maybe others, what does the "No" vote do? How is the ballot question going to be laid out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firewall Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 What was the answer? The question was never asked so that's why I'm asking here. What is the law under Freedom of Information/Open Records since this is a public petition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firewall Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 This was my question: "Are the petitions submitted to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname subject to the Open Records Law? Can the public, North Dakota residents, obtain those petitions and be viewed?" It would be interesting to see just who signed and where they are from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Just to clarify for myself and maybe others, what does the "No" vote do? How is the ballot question going to be laid out? I have no idea how the actual ballot will read, my "no" vote meant I'm voting not to keep nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 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. You are possibly correct as to the Carlson/petition situations, but Kelley could have easily have gotten a jump on the "respectful" transition part of the "retirement" prior to those 2 situations. His inability to understand the depth and vastness of how the retirement of the nickname would affect alumni and the people of this state is mind boggling. Leadership in a vacuum is not leadership IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Just to clarify for myself and maybe others, what does the "No" vote do? How is the ballot question going to be laid out? The way I understand ND law is that the petitions stopped the repeal of the original law, so the ballet question will be "Do you support the repeal of the bill mandating the use of the Sioux nickname. In other words, a YES vote gets rid of the name, a NO vote keeps the name. As I said before, good luck getting that explained to some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 So you have heard them say it (insider), but it's difficult for them to say it publically?? Kind like the tree falling in the forest??? Who hears it?? Kudos to "Timmaaaaaaaay"! Least he has stones. To the bolded comment...how has that worked out to date??? I've heard Faison say it on the radio and when speaking to small groups. Not an insider, but he didn't do it in a big public forum. I'm pretty sure that I've heard Kelley say it on the radio also, but not as sure as hearing Faison. And I know that Kelley really liked a UND tie I was wearing at a 2008 homecoming event. It has the geometric logo, the Brien logo and the interlocking ND. He wanted to know if I got it some place locally because he wanted one (I didn't). Plus I've seen both of them wear Fighting Sioux clothing at games. As far as how it has worked out so far, probably about as well as if they had some big public statement. It was a lose-lose situation for both Kelley and Faison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 John Hoeven didn't do any more to "create" the oil reserve than Al Gore did to "create" the internet. Maybe I should have put a behind my quote. I was being sarcastic about both and what John Hoeven was doing at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 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. Agreed that it is a tough transition...I just think if Kelley would have acknowledged what the symbol meant to the University he may have built up a little "credit" during the transition. By not hearing anything from him on it I don't know if he fails to understand the importance of the name to people or just doesn't care. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 You are possibly correct as to the Carlson/petition situations, but Kelley could have easily have gotten a jump on the "respectful" transition part of the "retirement" prior to those 2 situations. His inability to understand the depth and vastness of how the retirement of the nickname would affect alumni and the people of this state is mind boggling. Leadership in a vacuum is not leadership IMO. 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Agreed that it is a tough transition...I just think if Kelley would have acknowledged what the symbol meant to the University he may have built up a little "credit" during the transition. By not hearing anything from him on it I don't know if he fails to understand the importance of the name to people or just doesn't care. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 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. But that's a HUGE PR issue for him...especially among alumni and the people of this state. He knew coming in the nickname had to go as terms were in place, but that's not an excuse to handle it as poorly as he has. Being "clinical" has come across as apathetic and clueless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 But that's a HUGE PR issue for him...especially among alumni and the people of this state. He knew coming in the nickname had to go as terms were in place, but that's not an excuse to handle it as poorly as he has. Being "clinical" has come across as apathetic and clueless. Which explains why he's in academia ... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Which explains why he's in academia ... +1 for you as well. Handing out +1's today like they're Pez! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Which explains why he's in academia ... Good one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.