October 2017 Announcement

[bison73]

11 minutes ago, Milford torgerson said:

How normal is this type of arrangement?

Its normal when they want you gone and they are pushing you out the door.

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

Who needs a golden parachute when a kelly green one will do just fine.

[gfhockey]

It’s normal when they don’t want secrets in the media I suppose or aka “disparaging” remarks

[shep]

Had he been a FCS coach of a losing team but with a long term K, he'd have gotten a ton more.

Bring on the new guy. Kennedy is entitled to have someone of his choosing

[UNDBIZ]

22 minutes ago, bang said:

It’s ridiculous to think if you put 9 years into a job, you get your tenth years salary for nothing. If this is the normal government payout practice our civil servant checkbooks are out of control more than I thought. Did Kelley receive the same payout? 

It's somewhat common in higher education, more so in the last 2 years in ND as they've been trying to get people to retire early in order to avoid larger layoffs. For the rest of state government it would be much smaller or nothing at all. Kelley retired "on his own" before the state budget cuts so no, he didn't receive a buyout. 

[Kab]

This is just another Bruce Gjovig scenario 

Bruce retired but was asked to

kennedy is nothing but a politician looking out for himself

we need a North Dakotan looking out for the university and not themselve 

 

[UNDBIZ]

1 minute ago, Kab said:

This is just another Bruce Gjovig scenario 

Bruce retired but was asked to

kennedy is nothing but a politician looking out for himself

we need a North Dakotan looking out for the university and not themselve 

 

Am I missing something? Kennedy's legacy is directly tied to the success of what he does at UND. 

[bang]

Just now, UNDBIZ said:

It's somewhat common in higher education, more so in the last 2 years in ND as they've been trying to get people to retire early in order to avoid larger layoffs. For the rest of state government it would be much smaller or nothing at all. Kelley retired "on his own" before the budget problems so no, he didn't receive a buyout. 

I didn’t think he did. Still find it fascinating that if you want to fire somebody you need to pay them. Baffles me. If you fire somebody and you take the right steps. Legal action shouldn’t hurt you. Yes lawyers cost money. Yet it costs both sides money. 

[Kab]

A good leader shouldn’t be worried about a legacy 

sounds like Obama , all he was worried about was his legacy

you see where that got us

[bang]

5 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

Am I missing something? Kennedy's legacy is directly tied to the success of what he does at UND. 

Correct he’s been put in charge and he can carry on with how he sees fit. I don’t see anything wrong with what he’s doing. Not yet anyway. 

[AJS]

12 hours ago, UNDBIZ said:

While I believe Faison was encouraged to retire, I find it interesting how the Forum "reporters" are constantly trying to please Bresciani and ndsu while the Herald reporters are constantly looking for new ways to sh*t on UND and its admin.

Schlossman is a lost cause, it begins and ends with Women's hockey. He'll take any shot he can at Kennedy for as long as he's at the Herald. What happened right away when Kennedy was named President that Miller and the Herald staff flipped a lid over? I remember Kennedy was on a tour of ND and said he'd answer questions when he got back or something like that. Don't remember the exact circumstance, but Kennedy and the Herald didn't get off on the right foot.

Schlossman is pretty much unbearable when it comes to anything non - Men's college hockey.  

[bang]

Just now, Kab said:

A good leader shouldn’t be worried about a legacy 

sounds like Obama , all he was worried about was his legacy

you see where that got us

Obama never had the balls to fire anybody. 

[Kab]

He is in charge

but at least have the guts to say this is what I am doing and why

dont hire a firm to tell him why or ask people to retire and then have those employeesto say they were asked to retire 

[UNDBIZ]

4 minutes ago, Kab said:

A good leader shouldn’t be worried about a legacy 

sounds like Obama , all he was worried about was his legacy

you see where that got us

This is not the site for politics. 

As for what good leaders care about, its their legacy, whether they explicitly state it or not. 

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

4 minutes ago, bang said:

I didn’t think he did. Still find it fascinating that if you want to fire somebody you need to pay them. Baffles me. If you fire somebody and you take the right steps. Legal action shouldn’t hurt you. Yes lawyers cost money. Yet it costs both sides money. 

Litigation is an expensive distraction and a very public pain in the butt that could drag on for years.

And some lawyers work on contingency, so it's not necessarily true that it's costing both sides the same. 

Buyouts are money well spent; how much depends on how much there is to fear - even if the employer thinks they did everything right. When the employee is older, age discrimination creeps in and that's no picnic for employers to defend either.

Cash for silence. Couldn't be any simpler than that.

[SWSiouxMN]

1 hour ago, hky said:

For a whole extra year?    Paid through Jan., 2019, and health benefits for 6 months after that?

I should be more specific.  People think he shouldn't be paid for the rest of the year. 

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

Women's hockey fans should look away, because the best part of the whole thing is that the buyout - whatever it ends up being - is probably coming right out of the money saved by trimming the athletic department.

Probably couldn't afford two AD salaries any other way.

And I suspect the next guy gets a bump.

[jdub27]

7 minutes ago, Kab said:

Dont hire a firm to tell him why or ask people to retire and then have those employeesto say they were asked to retire 

The firm was hired, retained and did reviews for many departments before they did the athletics review. 

This whole thing amounts to splitting hairs. However the Herald feels slighted because Kennedy won't give them the answers they want, continues to be somewhat vague when answering their questions and not agreeing with they terms they use. Because of that, they are going to continue to push their angle, which comes off much harsher than reality. Another stupid thing turned into something much bigger than it actually is. This is getting old. 

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

1 minute ago, jdub27 said:

The firm was hired, retained and did reviews for many departments before they did the athletics review. 

This whole thing amounts to splitting hairs. However the Herald feels slighted because Kennedy won't give them the answers they want, continues to be somewhat vague when answering their questions and not agreeing with they terms they use. Because of that, they are going to continue to push their angle, which comes off much harsher than reality. Another stupid thing turned into something much bigger than it actually is. This is getting old. 

One thing that won't get much older is the Herald. Have you picked up a copy of that thing lately? Paper carriers need to weigh it down with rocks so it doesn't blow off the porch.

[bang]

1 minute ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

Litigation is an expensive distraction and a very public pain in the butt that could drag on for years.

And some lawyers work on contingency, so it's not necessarily true that it's costing both sides the same. 

Buyouts are money well spent; how much depends on how much there is to fear - even if the employer thinks they did everything right. When the employee is older, age discrimination creeps in and that's no picnic for employers to defend either.

Cash for silence. Couldn't be any simpler than that.

There’s always money spent on both sides. Either it’s the lawyers or the plaintiffs opposite of the defendants. The problem with lawyers is they get too many free rides. They walk in demand a settlement and make a mint. Not enough people stand up to these bozos. I’ve got a work comp case going with a lawyer down the street from us. They have a crappy case. He knows it and keeps dragging it out. I felt if we caved on this one he’d be all over every scrape and nic til he retired. My way of thought is if it’s obvious do a buyout, but there’s nothing wrong with Throwing out a piece of the puzzle that doesn’t fit 

[jdub27]

9 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

Women's hockey fans should look away, because the best part of the whole thing is that the buyout - whatever it ends up being - is probably coming right out of the money saved by trimming the athletic department.

Probably couldn't afford two AD salaries any other way.

And I suspect the next guy gets a bump.

Women's hockey cost over $2 million/year, can hire a lot of AD's for that money. 

And for how unhappy people apparently are with the outgoing guy, there shouldn't be much complaining to spend more to get someone who they think is better. Part of the reasons for the cuts were to free up money to reinvest in the remaining programs. It wouldn't be a surprise at all if the next guy gets more money. 

[UNDvince97-01]

Faison was forced out. Pretty obvious. Not sure how it could be seen otherwise given the variables.

[UND-FB-FAN]

1 hour ago, UNDvince97-01 said:

Faison was forced out. Pretty obvious. Not sure how it could be seen otherwise given the variables.

Correct 

[SiouxTupa]

It sounds like a double standard to me. People in the fb forum are calling out Tom and Brad for not asking tough questions. Here, they're saying the same guys are on a witch hunt asking bad questions. Reporters will ask as many questions as necessary to craft stories that solicit subscriptions/ads/clicks. When they get cryptic answers, they'll keep digging via open records request or outside sources.

Regardless of the circumstances, the timing of the athletic dept review was a bit suspect. Maybe Brian revealed his retirement a few months ago and they needed the review as part of succession planning. Either way, as others have said it's not a bad time to change ADs, nor is it a bad time for Brian to retire.

[geaux_sioux]

9 minutes ago, SiouxTupa said:

It sounds like a double standard to me. People in the fb forum are calling out Tom and Brad for not asking tough questions. Here, they're saying the same guys are on a witch hunt asking bad questions. Reporters will ask as many questions as necessary to craft stories that solicit subscriptions/ads/clicks. When they get cryptic answers, they'll keep digging via open records request or outside sources.

Regardless of the circumstances, the timing of the athletic dept review was a bit suspect. Maybe Brian revealed his retirement a few months ago and they needed the review as part of succession planning. Either way, as others have said it's not a bad time to change ADs, nor is it a bad time for Brian to retire.

It’s like the comments 60 minutes gets on their stories. Liberals say they run a right wing slanted story and on the exact same story conservatives will accuse them of sympathizing with the left wing.