The Legislature Strikes Back

[fightingsioux4life]

It is pretty clear the lack of intelligence and lack of courage by Espegard as SBoHE president and his support for Shirvani will continue to handicap higher education in North Dakota. It is no surprise that Shirvani's hand picked legal counsel did not address the most serious allegations against Shirvani, his bullying, arrogant and dishonest manner in which he treats his subordinate staff and also how he deals with anyone who questions him. For his legal counsel to claim that all employees of the SBoHE should always be willing to report any vioaltions of policy or law with no fear of their jobs is contrary to what happened to the former legal counsel when he advised against the dinner meetings with an agenda mentioned on the invitations that Shrivani intended to discuss policy and his plans. As a member of my local school board for over 16 years we attend workshops at least twice yearly and among other subjects covered the open meeting laws are reviewed regulary. It is a clear violation of the law to hold a meeting with a quorum to discuss plans and policy. The board may do so by posting public notice of the meeting. The board's former legal counsel tried to advise Shirvani of that fact and backed up his legal opinion with one from the Attorney General's office. That is what the legal counsel is supposed to do and was shortly thereafter forced out. To claim lesser employees have nothing to fear is laughable. If Espegard will throw the former legal counsel (who was respected by his collegues, peers, and college administrators, a N. Dak. native, who had served the board for 20 years and also a Viet nam era vet) under the bus then I don't think anyone in that office is safe. Had Espegard supported the former legal counsel and heeded his advice, this would not be an issue.

What hasn't been reported nor addressed are allegations that Shirvani called Representative Harken "a liar" and refused to answer questions she posed at a committee hearing last August. It is true though that Shirvani isn't the one breaking the law, it is the board under Espegard violating the open meeting law.

It seems clear that the N. Dak. student assn, and the student board member are showing better judgement as they called for a no confidence vote and support this jerk stepping down. For legislators, Loyd Omdahl and Espegard to criticize those students is uncalled for. They are supporting a Chancellor who wsa removed from his job as Dean of the Denver School of Architecture at the U of Colorado for simialr problems with subordinate staff and faculty. He was given a 90% vote of no confidence at his last job. Espegard has other board members show a clear lack of judgement in hiring someone with so much baggage and a clear lack of courage by not dealing with his inapproriate manner and behavior. This problem will not go away until this guy climbs back in his Porche and heads back to California. The credibility of the SBoHE has been lacking since the Chapman fiasco and the Dickinson State scandal. Shirvani seems to have arranged the board to give him the authority to fire our college presidents on short notice. We will not attract and retain quality people if they have to work under the type of administative dictatorship this guy believes in. He has established a behavior pattern inconsistent with good leadership and one that places barriers to productive dialogue and discussion to solve the important issues of Higher Education. Lastly, I believe it was one of the Grafton HS administrators who complained that his plan for Higher Ed didn't involve our states k-12 leaders. That is an egregious error.

Amen! It's obvious that Shirvani wants a bunch of good little fair-haired boys and girls who obey all orders without question. It's obvious he is trying to establish a dictatorship within the NDUS. That won't work in North Dakota. He won't survive the current fiscal year.

[Cratter]

The Board needs to fire him to save their own positions right now.

[82SiouxGuy]

Interesting op-ed from the Grand Forks Herald, http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/259096/group/homepage/. It is in reaction to the bill passed by the North Dakota House that would put an amendment on the ballot to eliminate the SBoHE and replace it with a director appointed by the governor. This is Al Carlson's latest plan.

OUR OPINION: Higher-ed amendment could threaten accreditation

To be accredited, an American college or university must answer to an independent board.

That’s because the amendment would vest full executive power over the schools in a director, who in turn would report to the governor.

But to be accredited, colleges and universities can’t answer to a governor.

Colleges and universities must answer to a board. And not just any board, but an independent and autonomous board.

Accreditation boards will not give accreditation to any institution that reports directly to the governor or anyone else in state government. They demand a buffer, a board like the SBoHE. All NDUS institutions would most likely lose accreditation if the latest House plan passes.

Independent governance is what sets American higher education apart. America’s six regional accrediting agencies recognize it. The U.S. government recognizes it; that’s why schools must be accredited to get federal grants and financial aid.

So all NDUS institutions would probably lose all federal grants, and the students may lose their financial aid.

Al Carlson's plan might not just be to destroy the State Board of Higher Education. It might be to destroy all of higher education in the state.

[watchmaker49]

Interesting op-ed from the Grand Forks Herald, http://www.grandfork...group/homepage/. It is in reaction to the bill passed by the North Dakota House that would put an amendment on the ballot to eliminate the SBoHE and replace it with a director appointed by the governor. This is Al Carlson's latest plan.

Accreditation boards will not give accreditation to any institution that reports directly to the governor or anyone else in state government. They demand a buffer, a board like the SBoHE. All NDUS institutions would most likely lose accreditation if the latest House plan passes.

So all NDUS institutions would probably lose all federal grants, and the students may lose their financial aid.

Al Carlson's plan might not just be to destroy the State Board of Higher Education. It might be to destroy all of higher education in the state.

Could you explain to me the difference between the Board of Regents that oversee the Minnesota University system and the SBOHE in North Dakota? Is there much difference between the two? Hey when I do not know something I ask someone who is smarter than me on the subject. Hence, why I am asking you.

The Republicans have always wanted to throw the baby out with the bath water though. They have been passing bills that are going to lose in court and cost the tax payers a fortune in legal fees.

[82SiouxGuy]

Could you explain to me the difference between the Board of Regents that oversee the Minnesota University system and the SBOHE in North Dakota? Is there much difference between the two? Hey when I do not know something I ask someone who is smarter than me on the subject. Hence, why I am asking you.

The Republicans have always wanted to throw the baby out with the bath water though. They have been passing bills that are going to lose in court and cost the tax payers a fortune in legal fees.

I haven't spent much time looking at the Board of Regents in Minnesota. I know that they have a little different process to select the Regents. They have a committee run by the legislature that takes applications and makes recommendations. The legislature then elects the Regents. They have one Regent from each Congressional district. They also have 4 at large Regents, one of them has to be a University student at the time they are elected. The Regents are elected to 6 year terms, 4 are elected every 2 years, and it looks like they can be re-elected. The President of the U of M is also the Chancellor for the system. The Board runs kind of similar to the ND SBoHE. They make policy decisions and work on the big picture issues.

The MnSCU system is separate and a little different. They are run by a 15 member Board of Trustees appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. They are responsible for the 2 year colleges and the smaller 4 year schools like Bemidji, a total of 31 institutions. They also are supposed to concentrate on the big picture issues, and they hire the presidents of the various schools. They select the Chancellor. In many ways it looks like this system is a little closer to the ND SBoHE system.

But on the surface it looks like both the MN Board of Regents and the MnSCU Board of Trustees operate quite similar to the ND SBoHE. If you look back, I believe that you will also see that the MN Board of Regents have had their fair share of people questioning them and the decisions they make. It probably comes with the position.

[watchmaker49]

I haven't spent much time looking at the Board of Regents in Minnesota. I know that they have a little different process to select the Regents. They have a committee run by the legislature that takes applications and makes recommendations. The legislature then elects the Regents. They have one Regent from each Congressional district. They also have 4 at large Regents, one of them has to be a University student at the time they are elected. The Regents are elected to 6 year terms, 4 are elected every 2 years, and it looks like they can be re-elected. The President of the U of M is also the Chancellor for the system. The Board runs kind of similar to the ND SBoHE. They make policy decisions and work on the big picture issues.

The MnSCU system is separate and a little different. They are run by a 15 member Board of Trustees appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. They are responsible for the 2 year colleges and the smaller 4 year schools like Bemidji, a total of 31 institutions. They also are supposed to concentrate on the big picture issues, and they hire the presidents of the various schools. They select the Chancellor. In many ways it looks like this system is a little closer to the ND SBoHE system.

But on the surface it looks like both the MN Board of Regents and the MnSCU Board of Trustees operate quite similar to the ND SBoHE. If you look back, I believe that you will also see that the MN Board of Regents have had their fair share of people questioning them and the decisions they make. It probably comes with the position.

Your answer is exactly the reason I asked you. You can take something complicated and break it down into simple explanations. Thank you.

[ScottM]

Interesting op-ed from the Grand Forks Herald, http://www.grandfork...group/homepage/. It is in reaction to the bill passed by the North Dakota House that would put an amendment on the ballot to eliminate the SBoHE and replace it with a director appointed by the governor. This is Al Carlson's latest plan.

Accreditation boards will not give accreditation to any institution that reports directly to the governor or anyone else in state government. They demand a buffer, a board like the SBoHE. All NDUS institutions would most likely lose accreditation if the latest House plan passes.

So all NDUS institutions would probably lose all federal grants, and the students may lose their financial aid.

Al Carlson's plan might not just be to destroy the State Board of Higher Education. It might be to destroy all of higher education in the state.

Clueless Al could care less. He's only interested in his political "career". Everyhing else be damned.

[watchmaker49]

Clueless Al could care less. He's only interested in his political "career". Everyhing else be damned.

Sounds like a Republican.

[jimdahl]

Sounds like a Republican.

Leave the partisan politics out of this please.

[watchmaker49]

Leave the partisan politics out of this please.

But he is a Republican.

[Cratter]

"Republicans want to throw the baby out with the bath water." Politics aren't allowed, especially the broad accusations you make. Don't play with fire.

[ScottM]

If Clueless Al's gambit pays off, the possible loss of accreditation could also impact those of us with degrees from UND, or any other state school. Accreditation is a requirement for a number of professional licensing and certifications as well. And just try getting into a reputable graduate or professional degree program with an unaccredited degree. If the state thinks it has a problem keeping educated people in the state now the "brain drain" would only accelerate.

[watchmaker49]

"Republicans want to throw the baby out with the bath water." Politics aren't allowed, especially the broad accusations you make. Don't play with fire.

Tell me if this is not what they are doing throw? Willing to cost the entire university system accreditation for their own little power grab? Do you understand what a metaphor is? Metaphor: a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in "a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush". Since this is a Republican proposal it is not being political but factual. This entire thread is based on politics so you can not leave politics out of the discussion.

[jimdahl]

At the risk of repeating myself, no partisan politics. Seriously.

[mg2009]

i agree with watchmaker. pointing out that a piece of legislation is being pushed by a particular is no more political than ignoring it in order to be 'not-political'

[Cratter]

You can look up their part affiliations if you want. Doesnt mean you have to post it...and try and turn a topic into political one. Is it hard to just debate and talk about the facts of things nowadays?

[ericpnelson]

I think there is something that needs to be done to change the culture in the university system. I graduated last year with a chemistry bachelor's, so my memory is fresh. The amount of remedial education is astounding. My first year was easier than my high school senior year. The new essential studies curriculum wasn't all that helpful for me. The only thing from my "global culture" credit course, western civilization, that I can imagine using is being the douche who says "that's not accurate" during the movie 300. It is in my belief that a lot of this essential study stuff is to keep butts in classes of certain departments. The remedial classes keep people around for 4 1/2, 5 years. I graduated in 4, and most of my friends are still in school. The 50ish percent dropout rate is atrocious. In my opinion, the fraction of students who take longer than 4 years to graduate is atrocious. I'm probably too cynical, and may need time away to think differently, but I feel a lot of these essential studies and other requirements are hurdles to keep you around rather than prepare you. If they really cared about broadening someone's knowledge base, personal finance classes would be required within the first 2 years so people know how much interest is piling up on those loans that you don't have to pay until you graduate. I have a hard time believing the current system will do that. I may be wrong. It is hard for me to believe though that not some of the opposition to Shivrani is him upsetting the status quo. Maybe he's a jerk to work with too, but I don't think anyone has worked with him long enough to legitimately call for his head based solely on that. Just my opinion.

[82SiouxGuy]

I think there is something that needs to be done to change the culture in the university system. I graduated last year with a chemistry bachelor's, so my memory is fresh. The amount of remedial education is astounding. My first year was easier than my high school senior year. The new essential studies curriculum wasn't all that helpful for me. The only thing from my "global culture" credit course, western civilization, that I can imagine using is being the douche who says "that's not accurate" during the movie 300. It is in my belief that a lot of this essential study stuff is to keep butts in classes of certain departments. The remedial classes keep people around for 4 1/2, 5 years. I graduated in 4, and most of my friends are still in school. The 50ish percent dropout rate is atrocious. In my opinion, the fraction of students who take longer than 4 years to graduate is atrocious. I'm probably too cynical, and may need time away to think differently, but I feel a lot of these essential studies and other requirements are hurdles to keep you around rather than prepare you. If they really cared about broadening someone's knowledge base, personal finance classes would be required within the first 2 years so people know how much interest is piling up on those loans that you don't have to pay until you graduate. I have a hard time believing the current system will do that. I may be wrong. It is hard for me to believe though that not some of the opposition to Shivrani is him upsetting the status quo. Maybe he's a jerk to work with too, but I don't think anyone has worked with him long enough to legitimately call for his head based solely on that. Just my opinion.

University students need to take the broad range of classes for several reasons. One of them is to give people a background in a wider range of topics. College isn't just about learning a trade. It is about exposing people to more ideas and more people. It is about getting them to think about different things, and to think about things differently. And it helps stretch the mind, learning about things that may not be your favorite topic. Letting students focus on just their chosen field would eliminate much of this.

Taking the broad range of subjects also gives people a chance to see things they normally wouldn't learn about, which may spark them to take their education in another direction. I know several people that took a required subject in college that totally changed the direction of their career. They found something that really excited them, something they never would have thought about if they hadn't been exposed to it because of a required class.

Having a broader range of education also helps a lot of people as they get older. Remember, most people change careers many times through their lives. That is careers, not just changing jobs. Having the broader background can help them transfer to the different careers, and help them pick out the different careers. You may not think that Western Civilization is going to help you, and it may not. But something from that class may end up being useful somewhere down the line. Or maybe it's something from a language class. Or sociology. All probably classes that you wouldn't have taken for your major if you weren't forced to take the broad required classes.

College has gotten very expensive, and your idea about personal finance classes would probably help a lot of students. One problem I've seen with students is that they have no idea what they are interested in studying, or they change their mind many times. It might be wise for some students to take time off between high school and college so they can both mature and get a better idea about what they want to do. The problem with this is that many of those would not return to school. Life and money would get in the way. But they would be much more dedicated students and get through school much quicker if they could take the time before they start.

[zonadub]

... It might be wise for some students to take time off between high school and college so they can both mature and get a better idea about what they want to do. The problem with this is that many of those would not return to school. Life and money would get in the way. But they would be much more dedicated students and get through school much quicker if they could take the time before they start.

++++++++++

[The Sicatoka]

If they really cared about broadening someone's knowledge base, personal finance classes would be required within the first 2 years ...

+1

People deal with money every day, but very few have any formal training on how.

[ericpnelson]

Again, I'll be the first to admit my bias. I pretty much couldn't go to grad school because I was so sick of it. I was also a little more scorned to the system when it was suggested by a few professors that it would be very difficult for me to get a good job w/o a graduate degree. I just am worried that there are a lot of systems set up to self perpetuate rather than serve. I don't want anyone to lose their job, but I think there's an expand and justify mentality which detracts from the original intent of a college experience. I mean how hasn't the personal finance idea not been thought of or implemented like 10 years ago?

All that being said, make no mistake, I am very proud of my UND degree. I think I make that evident by being a donor less than a year out of school. I just want to make sure the ol' alma mater has the right priorities set, so future students have at least the same, if not better opportunities than I was afforded.

[Let'sGoHawks!]

The extra courses (UND Essential Studies), are the difference between a 2 year technical school and a 4 year college or university. If you want "just the facts" about a potential career, 2 year is the way to go.

This is just the way it is.

[UNDvince97-01]

University students need to take the broad range of classes for several reasons. One of them is to give people a background in a wider range of topics. College isn't just about learning a trade. It is about exposing people to more ideas and more people. It is about getting them to think about different things, and to think about things differently. And it helps stretch the mind, learning about things that may not be your favorite topic. Letting students focus on just their chosen field would eliminate much of this.

Taking the broad range of subjects also gives people a chance to see things they normally wouldn't learn about, which may spark them to take their education in another direction. I know several people that took a required subject in college that totally changed the direction of their career. They found something that really excited them, something they never would have thought about if they hadn't been exposed to it because of a required class.

Having a broader range of education also helps a lot of people as they get older. Remember, most people change careers many times through their lives. That is careers, not just changing jobs. Having the broader background can help them transfer to the different careers, and help them pick out the different careers. You may not think that Western Civilization is going to help you, and it may not. But something from that class may end up being useful somewhere down the line. Or maybe it's something from a language class. Or sociology. All probably classes that you wouldn't have taken for your major if you weren't forced to take the broad required classes.

College has gotten very expensive, and your idea about personal finance classes would probably help a lot of students. One problem I've seen with students is that they have no idea what they are interested in studying, or they change their mind many times. It might be wise for some students to take time off between high school and college so they can both mature and get a better idea about what they want to do. The problem with this is that many of those would not return to school. Life and money would get in the way. But they would be much more dedicated students and get through school much quicker if they could take the time before they start.

Many of those general studies courses were boring and uninteresting to me in college. Some I simply stayed away from altogether because I wanted nothing to do with them.

Today I am kicking myself for not taking some of those courses that I thought I would despise and am thankful for the ones I took and hated at the time.

There is definitely value there. Some us just come to realize it later than others.

[UNDvince97-01]

I was also a little more scorned to the system when it was suggested by a few professors that it would be very difficult for me to get a good job w/o a graduate degree. I just am worried that there are a lot of systems set up to self perpetuate rather than serve. I don't want anyone to lose their job, but I think there's an expand and justify mentality which detracts from the original intent of a college experience.

Agreed. I experienced that too. It's unfortunate. Some of them try make you feel like you are a failure if you don't go to grad school. Had one professor specifically have that attitude.

[mg2009]

University students need to take the broad range of classes for several reasons. One of them is to give people a background in a wider range of topics. College isn't just about learning a trade. It is about exposing people to more ideas and more people. ...

I took physics as an elective while getting my BA in econ, wound up taking the calculus courses (which i should have anyways, contra my advisors) now i'm almost done with an engineering degree which had never even crossed my mind before my junior year in college. I didn't even know that engineering was a thing coming out of high school. Taking an extra year or two really isn't a big deal, I don't think college is something you should rush, although my route has been far longer than i would wish on anyone who wants to remain sane.

what does concern me are the laughably low admissions standards for the school. I know of at least half a dozen people who have gotten into UND with sub-18's on their act. We let these people in, pack them into giant lecture halls, take their money and kick them out a year and 20 grand poorer. It does a huge disservice to those people and in my opinion detracts from the academic and intellectual culture of the school.