Potts Resigns

[DI IN FARGO]

You are totally missing the point in this whole fiasco. For me this is no longer a Chapman vs Potts issue. It's about suppose to be impartial government officials who are putting one person above all others in the same position, about behind closed doors planning to get rid of another government official and a college President who is either a liar or a victim of dementia!

Apparently all the folks in Bismarch are plotting wrongdoings and in the end the poor folks in GF will be the victims. You seem to like to pick the battle but using only the opinions that suit your arguement all the while ignoring anything (fact or opinion) that doesn't. You need to get used to the idea that politics are politics and whether you like it or not or agree with it or not whether its Chapman/Potts or NDSU/UND or interchange the individuals or schools with whatever names you want this stuff has been going on for years and will continue to for years to come. You want to make Chapman out to be the villan when all he's done is whats best for his school. It hasn't taken away anything from any other college or university and yet your ready to beat him down because you don't like the politics. Well thats just too bad NDSU has been getting the shaft in the so called equitable funding issue for a long while now and finally NDSU has someone who's willing to go to bat for us and your afraid it might detract funds from UND? Hell UND supporters should be backing this as well since many of the funds are diverted to schools that piss it away like Mayville or VCSU ect. 11 public colleges and universities in the state of ND is a joke. But this is getting off the topic of the NDUS or SBOHE. You want a change talk to your representative and see where that goes. I for one know that if Chapman was not doing a great job not only for NDSU but for the State he wouldn't have the backing of the governor and that I'm sure as you say Chapps your A$$. To Bad.

[Sioux-cia]

Seriously, DI, you need to buy yourself some Chap Stick and knee pads before you hurt yourself.

[The Sicatoka]

I wish everyone would get their stories on this straight.

Last night on Fox News at 9 in Fargo they interviewed John Q. Paulson. Paulson claims Chapman never asked for any of it (no raise, no housing improvements, no "Potts gone" ultimatum).

Yet, Chapman does admit to asking for some of that (with a case of "selective memory" © IowaBison) when interviewed (or is the term 'deposed'?) by the AG.

This office also heard from several people interviewed for this opinion that, in order to stay at NDSU, Dr. Chapman demanded: 1) higher pay; 2) improved housing; and 3) the removal of Chancellor Potts. This office interviewed Dr. Chapman and asked him specifically whether he made these demands. Dr. Chapman admitted that he made the first two demands, but denied making the third.

Paulson and Chapman better compare notes again. Their story is crossing each other up, and is on the verge of calling the ND AG a liar*.

* Not a wise move.

[Sioux-cia]

I agree. Chapman and Co. better get their dance steps aligned because people who have read the AG's report and his press statements clearly see that there is a definite 'deviation from the truth'. If Chapman admits that he lied to the AG rather to the press, is that perjury?

Hey DI, who did Chapman lie to, the AG or the press?

Are we to believe what Dr. Chapman told the Attorney General or what he's now telling the media. When was he lying; then or now? Without bringing Clinton into the conversation, please, what are your facts?

http://www.ag.nd.gov/documents/2006-O-11.pdf

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/n...te/14989410.htm

[url="http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=132374

[The Sicatoka]

I love how this has jammed up everyone involved politically.

Governor Hoeven appears to have been a willing conduit to skirt the spirit and intent of the open meetings laws.

AG Stenjhem is all but being called a liar in some quarters (see above post).

John Q. Paulson and Ritchie Smith come off looking like they're on the North Dakota State University Board of Higher Education, not the Board of Higher Education for the State of ND. The rest of state, and especially representatives in the Legislature from the rest of the state, probably won't look too kindly on that.

The rest of the ND SBoHE looks like a bunch of led by the nose lemmings.

The declared opponent for the AG is already stumping political on this one. (It's fresh meat; why not?)

And now various factions in the Legislature are involved and are jammed up in various ways. The toughest spot? Republicans: They can't howl too loudly about the SBoHE and it's questionable recent operations w/o damaging their own (Hoeven, the conduit for this) along the way.

And who caused all of this? Gee, I'm not sure; I guess it's "selective memory" © IowaBison.

This could make for great comedy come this Legislative session.

[IowaBison]

What has Hoeven done?

Your conspiracy theory is a stretch.

You think he organized this?

Why?

That makes no sense.

He spoke with other government officials, isn't that part of his job?

He didn't want to lose Chapman. He didn't care for some of Pott's performance. He visited with two members of the SBOHE about it.

Maybe you need to reread the opinion..........

[PCM]

He didn't want to lose Chapman. He didn't care for some of Pott's performance. He visited with two members of the SBOHE about it.

Maybe you need to reread the opinion..........

Maybe you need to re-read what you just wrote.

[The Sicatoka]

John Q. Paulson and Richie Smith stated that no other Board members were aware of their plan to talk to Chancellor Potts in Jamestown and none of the other Board members expressed knowledge of Paulson and Smith

[IowaBison]

Maybe you need to re-read what you just wrote.

Ok, now what?

[YaneA]

Sic:

Note the following narrow parameters of the AG's opinion: "Because the request was received April 25, this office determined whether any meetings were held without prior public notice from January 25 to April 25, 2006."

Potts' resignation did not come until the end of June. Very likely, the AG asked the interviewees to limit their recollections to meetings and non-meetings which occurred only during the January 25-April 25 window. The AG did not determine what went on behind the scenes in the two months immediately preceding Potts' resignation.

[The Sicatoka]

Sic:

Note the following narrow parameters of the AG's opinion: "Because the request was received April 25, this office determined whether any meetings were held without prior public notice from January 25 to April 25, 2006."

Potts' resignation did not come until the end of June. Very likely, the AG asked the interviewees to limit their recollections to meetings and non-meetings which occurred only during the January 25-April 25 window. The AG did not determine what went on behind the scenes in the two months immediately preceding Potts' resignation.

Now why ever (other than the date of request from Heitkamp) would he put such tight box around the dates of interest, and be so 'explicit' that he's doing so? That seems rather rigid and overly formal.

[The Sicatoka]

What's wrong with this picture? (Please correct me if I've got something wrong.)

Potts gets good performance reviews (indicating that nobody on the SBoHE has any major problem with the job he's doing).

After rumors circulate about Potts being fired to appease Chapman, the SBoHE unanimously passes a resolution supporting Potts.

Paulson and Smith, who'd just passed the noted resolution, visit with Hoeven (who'd been in Fargo just days before). Suddenly, after being in Fargo (whom did Hoeven meet with in Fargo?), Hoeven has a problem with Potts' performance. And, now, Potts' leadership is called into question as well.

Suddenly, for reasons that Chapman can't fathom, Potts issues an "it's him or me" ultimatium. Suddenly, Potts is gone.

All that from a meeting between the governor and two board members. Just them.

And yet, somehow, in late March there's this:

Dr. Chapman told her that "if everybody does what they said they would do, he (Potts) will be gone before you (Thigpen)."

Who is this "everybody" Chapman speaks of, and what did they say they would do? And where'd they get the notion? Clearly, by his own recollections to the AG, Chapman had no knowledge ("selective memory" © IowaBison) of 'ultimatums' or 'plans', yet, he made that statement to Thigpen.

[nodakvindy]

Those dates are because you only have 90 days to challenge an illegally closed meeting. I'm pretty sure that was in the opinion.

As for why the Gov would do this, that's easy, voters are in Fargo and he's playing to his base. The guy's an empty suit and his administration has been rife with shady activity, so this fits right in.

It looks like it will be important for Grand Forks to align with the western part of the state to keep the Fargo legislative delegation in check. Otherwise we will be moving precariously close to a Minnesota-like situation where the Twin Cities gets everything, and the outstate fights for the scraps. Look how well that turned out for Duluth and the DECC.

[nodakvindy]

Sic:

Note the following narrow parameters of the AG's opinion: "Because the request was received April 25, this office determined whether any meetings were held without prior public notice from January 25 to April 25, 2006."

Potts' resignation did not come until the end of June. Very likely, the AG asked the interviewees to limit their recollections to meetings and non-meetings which occurred only during the January 25-April 25 window. The AG did not determine what went on behind the scenes in the two months immediately preceding Potts' resignation.

Equally important, the AG was not able to investigate the time period prior to Jan. 25. This whole thing has likely been brewing for quite some time. It will be interesting to see if Heitkamp and Every request another opinion for the period of April 25 until Potts' resignation.

[The Sicatoka]

It will be interesting to see if Heitkamp and Every request another opinion for the period of April 25 until Potts' resignation.

Indeed.

The latest from:

http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=132638

[Bison Dan]

Those dates are because you only have 90 days to challenge an illegally closed meeting. I'm pretty sure that was in the opinion.

As for why the Gov would do this, that's easy, voters are in Fargo and he's playing to his base. The guy's an empty suit and his administration has been rife with shady activity, so this fits right in.

It looks like it will be important for Grand Forks to align with the western part of the state to keep the Fargo legislative delegation in check. Otherwise we will be moving precariously close to a Minnesota-like situation where the Twin Cities gets everything, and the outstate fights for the scraps. Look how well that turned out for Duluth and the DECC.

It's too bad you like to play politics with this. Answer me this - why did the democrats pick two senators that aren't running for reelection to ask for this opinion and carry their water? Fargo already get screwed in the state for monies. Do you really think that Fargo gets all it's income tax and sales tax monies back? Jealously, Jealously Jealously! Too Bad.

[jloos]

The guy's an empty suit and his administration has been rife with shady activity, so this fits right in.

For example? Hoeven has been pretty good for the State. Fargo, Grand Forks and Bismarck all appear to be doing very well under his leadership. I guess I can't say much for the small towns, but I don't think there is anything that can be done to slow the population losses and other problems that go along with less people.

Brudvik has been waiting for a chance to attack Stenehjem and get his name out. On TV he looked worse than Nixon when he debated Kennedy. Their was no substance at all in what he was complaining about. The attorney general was asked for his opinion, and he gave it. It is not his job to "investigate" into the matter unless he was asked.

[nodakvindy]

I'd guess because they are two of the most prominent members of the caucus.

And I think it's laughable to call me out for "playing politics" in light of the obvious behind the scenes shenanigans that lead to Potts' outster.

And as for Fargo getting back it's sales and income tax, why should it. Hard as it is to believe, Fargo is a part of the state of North Dakota. Just as North Dakota gets a bigger per capita share of the federal pie, rural areas do for the state. This helps to support infrastructure in these communities. It's also why you will still have water in 50 years.

Trust me, I'm not jealous of Fargo. I just wants best for the entire state. I can actually see the bigger picture.

[Cratter]

I wish everyone would get their stories on this straight.

Last night on Fox News at 9 in Fargo they interviewed John Q. Paulson. Paulson claims Chapman never asked for any of it (no raise, no housing improvements, no "Potts gone" ultimatum).

Paulson and Chapman better compare notes again. Their story is crossing each other up, and is on the verge of calling the ND AG a liar*.

* Not a wise move.

I saw it too, the old fart, Paulson, blatantly called the North Dakota Attorney General a liar for his statements.

There is no way you can justify the actions of Chapman. Lets hope and pray he doesn't make the NDUS look like any more of a travashamockery.

[The Sicatoka]

And I think it's laughable to call me out for "playing politics" ....

Come on, in light of the bigger picture of this, we're all just amateurs when it comes to playing politics with this.

The real fun will come when the Legislature goes into session.

[IowaBison]

After rumors circulate about Potts being fired to appease Chapman, the SBoHE unanimously passes a resolution supporting Potts.

That is incorrect. The resolution was explicitly worded to demonstrate support of the position of Chancellor, not Potts himself.

[IowaBison]

Suddenly, after being in Fargo (whom did Hoeven meet with in Fargo?), Hoeven has a problem with Potts' performance. And, now, Potts' leadership is called into question as well.

Is this true?

How do you know this?

[PCM]

That is incorrect. The resolution was explicitly worded to demonstrate support of the position of Chancellor, not Potts himself.

I see. It was merely a coincidence that Potts happened to be the chancellor at that particular moment in time.

[IowaBison]

I see. It was merely a coincidence that Potts happened to be the chancellor at that particular moment in time.

?

There were numerous media reports at the time that stated that very fact.

[The Sicatoka]

Is this true?

How do you know this?

Page 2, paragraphs 2 and 4, "OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2006-O-11".