Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

Whoa - UND Student Senate Non-Confidence Vote


UNDBIZ

Recommended Posts

Response:

 

To the UND Campus Community:

 

We have received a number of questions concerning a campus-wide email that was distributed earlier today by Student Body President Tanner Franklin, requesting that recipients read and sign a petition concerning a proposed vote of No Confidence in members of UND’s administration.

 

To clarify for those who have asked about the email, this message was not sent by UND administration. I would like each of you to know that the allegations in the email are unfounded, and that we strongly support student voices in the work of the University.  The Student Senate is holding a meeting, mentioned in the email, at 8:00 p.m. in the Memorial Ballroom.  I and other members of the administration plan to attend and speak. All members of the public are also welcome to attend.

 

Robert Kelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have any data, but wouldn't you think many of the students who take over 4 years to graduate do so because they've changed majors, and not from some lack of effort by only taking 12 credits a semester?

 

There is a 0% chance UND would suggest such a move if it wouldn't raise revenues, and raising revenues means more debt for students. No matter how they frame it, it's a bad deal for students.

 

Answer me this - if a student is taking 12 credits now, how does this motivate them to take 15? If they aren't taking 15 credits when those extra 3 are free, why would they pay MORE to take them?

It might not cost them more to take 15 credits instead of 12.  The Sicatoka quotes earlier in this thread:

 

In the draft proposal document, three different tuition increase options are laid out, two of which would decrease the charge per credit hour but increase when the flat rate kicks in to 15 credits and lower the cap to 18.

 

I don't know what the numbers are, but if the charge per credit hour is lower, then it might be a wash to go to 15 credits instead of 12.  Or at least it shouldn't cost 25% more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never said to avian ally fire someone but this is my time with no questions asked

Fire Kelley please

The gobc is on it rest assured.

If the petition numbers increase accordingly, I can't say I would be all that upset. That itself, in my mind, implicitly states perhaps a change should be made. In terms of athletics, it would be beneficial; however, this is a much bigger issue. Academics and the finances of UND students and future UND students are the focus here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have any data, but wouldn't you think many of the students who take over 4 years to graduate do so because they've changed majors, and not from some lack of effort by only taking 12 credits a semester?

 

There is a 0% chance UND would suggest such a move if it wouldn't raise revenues, and raising revenues means more debt for students. No matter how they frame it, it's a bad deal for students.

 

Answer me this - if a student is taking 12 credits now, how does this motivate them to take 15? If they aren't taking 15 credits when those extra 3 are free, why would they pay MORE to take them?

 

 

It might not cost them more to take 15 credits instead of 12.  The Sicatoka quotes earlier in this thread:

 

 

 

 

I don't know what the numbers are, but if the charge per credit hour is lower, then it might be a wash to go to 15 credits instead of 12.  Or at least it shouldn't cost 25% more.

 

Based on the figures from the Herald article quoted above, the two new plans that have figures quotes it will be at least 10 percent more expensive to take 15 credits, and 12 to 30 percent more if you have the initiative to take 18 credits.  (and no figures are given if you dare to take more than 18 credits under the news system).  The student that can graduate in four years will pay substantially more under either of the new plans.  This definitely puts the screws to the students.  It creates higher tuition for any student taking more than 12 credits per semester.

 

Admittedly, the Herald article uses the flawed logic of the administration and compares someone graduating in five years under the current plan with some graduating in four years to show "savings", while neglecting to mention that the savings are even greater for someone graduating in four years under the current tuition plan.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something needs to be done with regard to tuition increases.  This model isn't sustainable.  Follow the money trail, it leads to Sallie Mae and her collection agencies.  

That and there's just too much of a personnel infrastructure to support.  Nationally, enrollment is dipping and people are weaning themselves off of the previously limitless Sallie Mae teet.  A system such as UND"s needs quite a volume of students coming in each year to sustain it.  I haven't looked at UND's #'s lately but it wouldn't surprise me if these things had something to do with the tuition proposals.  My brother's an English prof at a college in the Chicago area.  The college is trying to find was to limit itself regarding tenured profs.  They're hiring more adjuncts, etc.  Of course, there are just as many administrators as there ever were. They are the ones making the decisions and they are protecting their own backsides at the expense of the instructors.  Cull 25% of the administrative bloat at UND and tuition could remain the same for a long time, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like there's enough of a "hostile and abusive" atmosphere there.  Thank heavens the nickname and logo aren't there adding to it.  What, pray, would people do then?  If this is the thing that helps get Kelley out the door sooner rather than later, it's been Heaven sent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious to what Kelley did that the studends feel he should be fired.  If it is because of the nickname, that's dumb.  If it's because of tuition, welcom to the world of things costing more!!  I am not here to defend Kelley, but there has to be other legitimate reasons.

Kelley and his team of surrogates put out a very deceptive tuition plan and they were trying to keep it covered up.  Tanner Franklin got wind of it and leaked it to the Heraldo.  Then Kelley had the unmitigated gall to stop by the student government offices and casually suggest that they not do that in the future.  If that isn't a threat, I don't know what is.

 

The students are also concerned about how the post Bruce Smith transition at Aerospace will be handled, in light of what happened with EERC several months ago.  Aerospace is one of the more successful schools on campus, but I think Kelley wants to hire a fair-haired boy that he can control and, through him, micromanage the school.  I think that would be a grave mistake and so do a lot of people on campus, especially students.

 

I for one am sick and tired of Kelley's "non-leadership" leadership style.  He never wants to get his fingernails dirty on anything.  He runs and hides behind his surrogates (many of whom are listed on the petition) whenever something controversial goes down and then he comes in afterwards and says "Yep, the buck stops with me!".  Yeah and pigs started flying in Iowa this morning. :silly:

 

I urge everyone to sign the petition in support of the Student Senate.  It is quite amazing that a bunch of 18-23 year olds have to do this instead of the so-called mature adults at the SBHE.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like the student body president needs to start showing up at meetings he's invited to where some of these things have been discussed instead of claiming the administration is trying to hide things. But I guess that isn't as exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest:

http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/education/3724115-updated-und-student-senate-votes-table-resolution-no-confidence-until-sunday

 

Kind of damning on the resolution's author/student senate president:

But Kelley and Reesor both alleged UND Student Body President Tanner Franklin, who spearheaded the resolution, had not been present for several opportunities to discuss the tuition models and had in fact turned down personal invitations to meet one-on-one. ...
Staff Senate President Sharley Kurtz and University Senate Chairwoman Melissa Gjellstad said both of their respective groups were against the vote of no-confidence. Gjellstad said Franklin hasn’t attended several meetings where he could have expressed his issues with the tuition models, including the university’s Senate Executive Committee.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...