bison73 Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 Who needs a golden parachute when a kelly green one will do just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfhockey Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 It’s normal when they don’t want secrets in the media I suppose or aka “disparaging” remarks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kab Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bang Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kab Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bang Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJS Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bang Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kab Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWSiouxMN Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bang Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDvince97-01 Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 Faison was forced out. Pretty obvious. Not sure how it could be seen otherwise given the variables. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-FB-FAN Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 1 hour ago, UNDvince97-01 said: Faison was forced out. Pretty obvious. Not sure how it could be seen otherwise given the variables. Correct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxTupa Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaux_sioux Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 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. 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.