Candidates for UND President

[The Sicatoka]

The latest:

http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=65477

Be sure to read the comments associated with that story. They're a hoot!

[The Walrus]

If the committee had followed the SBoHE requirement of submitting 3 names, we would have had

Kelley with 15 of 16 votes

Smith with 10 of 16 votes and

Long with 9 of 16 votes.

submitted to the SHoHE to choose from.

from The Walrus post.

If the SBoHE had gone with Long we would have a president who only got support from a little over half of the committee. As it stands now we will have a man with nearly unanimous support. I can live with that.

The only problem I have is the required 12 vote 2/3 majority qualification....

If 10 people can agree on two canidates, then it only took 5 people ( less than 1/3 majority) to pass on the one canidate. I am not saying that this happened, but if there was a academic aligenace of 4-5 committe members...?

Have those 4-5 possibly selected our next President......

Think about it....... ?

Two Canidates should have been confirmed to the State Board...imo

[dagies]

I am of 2 minds on this. Goetz and Paulson are on the committee as well as the state board, so they obviously signed off on this arrangement I would think. In that respect, it doesn't bother me greatly.

On the other hand, if one candidate was so superior to the others there should be no risk in supplying the additional names because the board would probably see the reason for the committee's high ranking of the top candidate anyway.

However, go into any business setting. If 3 people interview a candidate and 2 of them like and 1 dislikes that candidate, they're probably not going to get hired.

I'm not greatly concerned that there was a travesty here, but I wonder if it couldn't have been handled more politically acceptable.

[The Sicatoka]

The only problem I have is the required 12 vote 2/3 majority qualification....

It's not even 2/3, it's 3/4: You needed 12 of 16 votes to move forward.

I remember the GF Herald story on the committee imposing that upon itself, but I'll have to go and find the details as to why they did it.

EDIT: I can't find that story, but I do recall that there was a reason that the committee set that criteria (and I'm probably wrong but I believe it said Tim O'Keefe pushed for it).

[The Walrus]

It's not even 2/3, it's 3/4: You needed 12 of 16 votes to move forward.

I remember the GF Herald story on the committee imposing that upon itself, but I'll have to go and find the details as to why they did it.

EDIT: I can't find that story, but I do recall that there was a reason that the committee set that criteria (and I'm probably wrong but I believe it said Tim O'Keefe pushed for it).

It is possible that a aligance of 4-5 could have elected this President......?

This committee really painted themselfs in a corner, either by accident or by design.

[sIoUxPeRsTiTiOuS]

It is possible that a aligance of 4-5 could have elected this President......?

This committee really painted themselfs in a corner, either by accident or by design.

Hmmmm.....that's interesting. I think Walrus is on to something in regards to the 4-5 theory, which is all it would take. Tim O'Keefe pushing for something like that makes you wonder. What type of personal politics and agendas were really involved in this process here? IMO, O'Keefe, Paulsen, Goetz = . Something about this whole deal has stunk from the beginning.

Since there are open records laws for virtually everything involving the university system of North Dakota, I wonder why the committee is immune to it. I would be very interested to see who did not vote for Smith and Elbert. If nothing else, I would like to see justifications from those people on why they felt these two internal candidates were not "qualified". I think the public in general would like to see this. Maybe it would help make everyone really "understand" the situation.

[UND92,96]

Hmmmm.....that's interesting. I think Walrus is on to something in regards to the 4-5 theory, which is all it would take. Tim O'Keefe pushing for something like that makes you wonder. What type of personal politics and agendas were really involved in this process here? IMO, O'Keefe, Paulsen, Goetz = . Something about this whole deal has stunk from the beginning.

Since there are open records laws for virtually everything involving the university system of North Dakota, I wonder why the committee is immune to it. I would be very interested to see who did not vote for Smith and Elbert. If nothing else, I would like to see justifications from those people on why they felt these two internal candidates were not "qualified". I think the public in general would like to see this. Maybe it would help make everyone really "understand" the situation.

I agree that Walrus brings up a very interesting point. I would be very hesitant to believe that O'Keefe was behind any sort of anti-Smith or anti-Elbert agenda, however. He strikes me as more of a so-called "good old boy" (and I mean that in a positive sense) who would be supportive of "UND guys," which clearly Smith and Elbert are.

[sIoUxPeRsTiTiOuS]

I agree that Walrus brings up a very interesting point. I would be very hesitant to believe that O'Keefe was behind any sort of anti-Smith or anti-Elbert agenda, however. He strikes me as more of a so-called "good old boy" (and I mean that in a positive sense) who would be supportive of "UND guys," which clearly Smith and Elbert are.

I respectfully disagree. I hope I'm wrong, but my gut tells me otherwise.

[The Sicatoka]

Tim O'Keefe pushing for something like that makes you wonder.

Like I said, I'm not sure; I'm trusting a sometimes faulty recall.

Tim O'Keefe would be the guy who I would expect to figuratively "step in front of a bullet" to protect UND. He's a hockey letterman; he's umpteenth generation UND; he's Executive VP of the Alumni Association. And he's a guy who scolded Buning in the infamous "Buning letter" saying the "old boy network" is his friends and neighbors and fellow alumni. (Sorry Tim, you write it it gets remembered.)

If (I said if) my recall is accurate and he pushed for 75% approval to go to the next phase there's a good reason for it.

Personally, I'd be more willing to subscribe to a notion that various forces for good pushed for "12 of 16" to keep various forces for we'll just say "not good" (cough-JQP-cough what? ) at the ND SBoHE from picking the weakest of the forwarded candidates in the even that two good and one so-so (or something like that) were forwarded by a simple majority (8 of 16) vote.

In a way, the committee, made up of folks with strong UND ties (O'Keefe, Burgum, Clayburgh), kept control (or the ability to make a bad decision for UND) away from the ND SBoHE in case there's some other agenda by someone at that level.

[sIoUxPeRsTiTiOuS]

Like I said, I'm not sure; I'm trusting a sometimes faulty recall.

Tim O'Keefe would be the guy who I would expect to figuratively "step in front of a bullet" to protect UND. He's a hockey letterman; he's umpteenth generation UND; he's Executive VP of the Alumni Association. And he's a guy who scolded Buning in the infamous "Buning letter" saying the "old boy network" is his friends and neighbors and fellow alumni. (Sorry Tim, you write it it gets remembered.)

If (I said if) my recall is accurate and he pushed for 75% approval to go to the next phase there's a good reason for it.

Personally, I'd be more willing to subscribe to a notion that various forces for good pushed for "12 of 16" to keep various forces for we'll just say "not good" (cough-JQP-cough what? ) at the ND SBoHE from picking the weakest of the forwarded candidates in the even that two good and one so-so (or something like that) were forwarded by a simple majority (8 of 16) vote.

In a way, the committee, made up of folks with strong UND ties (O'Keefe, Burgum, Clayburgh), kept control (or the ability to make a bad decision for UND) away from the ND SBoHE in case there's some other agenda by someone at that level.

There is no doubt in my mind that Tim O'Keefe has the best interests of UND Hockey in mind, and would go to the umpteenth degree to ensure its well-being. That, I do not doubt.

[Sioux-per Fan]

I used to have complete faith in Mr. O'Keefe, however he has not backed some individuals in the past with strong UND ties, such as Jeff Bowen and Rob Bollinger, so who really knows what his agenda may or may not be?

[mikejm]

I used to have complete faith in Mr. O'Keefe, however he has not backed some individuals in the past with strong UND ties, such as Jeff Bowen and Rob Bollinger, so who really knows what his agenda may or may not be?

Even if this is the case, I think questioning O'Keefe's "loyalty" based on those two names is suspect, at best.

[Sioux-per Fan]

Even if this is the case, I think questioning O'Keefe's "loyalty" based on those two names is suspect, at best.

Never will question his loyality.

Just wonder how much influence he has, He bleeds green just maybe a different shade from some others?

[jimdahl]

Whenever a non-UND person is chosen for a UND job, there are whispers here of secret cabals and conspiracies with nefarious anti-UND motives. I've never understood what those suspect motives are supposed to be (Tony paid off the KGB to blackmail O'Keefe to persuade five other administrators to pick a pretty qualified guy instead of the UND guy?)

Looking at who's on it, I would guess that each person on the committee voted for who they thought would be best for UND. That different people have different opinions on who's best isn't a surprise, and doesn't lead me to suspect anyone's motives. Differing opinions are probably attributable to (1) them having information we don't, and (2) different people placing different weights on each attribute (e.g. experience at a national D-I university weighed more heavily than UND ties, in contrast to some fans thinking the latter more significant).

Of course, it's an attitude like this that keeps me from getting invited to the secret conspiracy meetings.

[UND-1]

Never will question his loyality.

Just wonder how much influence he has, He bleeds green just maybe a different shade from some others?

I don't question his loyalty to UND or to Hockey, just to the rest of the Athletic Department. There are more sports than hockey and now that they are all D1, they better start to figure out how to get the big ones going in the right direction.

[The Sicatoka]

.... Tony paid off the KGB to blackmail O'Keefe to persuade five other administrators to pick a pretty qualified guy instead of the UND guy ...

I knew it!

... they better start to figure out how to get the big ones going in the right direction.

There's some heavy lifting to be done (in FB, in BB) right now, you bet, but the groups that wanted the DI move need to be putting a shoulder to it right now (and not worry about hockey being DI already). You don't build up by tearing something else down.

[The Walrus]

Whenever a non-UND person is chosen for a UND job, there are whispers here of secret cabals and conspiracies with nefarious anti-UND motives. I've never understood what those suspect motives are supposed to be (Tony paid off the KGB to blackmail O'Keefe to persuade five other administrators to pick a pretty qualified guy instead of the UND guy?)

Looking at who's on it, I would guess that each person on the committee voted for who they thought would be best for UND. That different people have different opinions on who's best isn't a surprise, and doesn't lead me to suspect anyone's motives. Differing opinions are probably attributable to (1) them having information we don't, and (2) different people placing different weights on each attribute (e.g. experience at a national D-I university weighed more heavily than UND ties, in contrast to some fans thinking the latter more significant).

Of course, it's an attitude like this that keeps me from getting invited to the secret conspiracy meetings.

Jim,

I was just pointing out what I believe to be one of several flaws in the system.

I do not think there was a conspiracy to elect the New President.

Flaw #1 -Would be the 3/4 majority vote, this in essence worked against the committee and allowed the the perception at least the 3-5 people could control swing votes.

Flaw #2 - By way of this majority vote, This committee is hiring their own boss so to speak, with only Dr Kelley going forward it is highly unlikely they will vote down this canidate, but the State Board's choice is only yes or no, or re-open, so a power to play so to speak by the search committee, again poor perception.

To believe that the members of this search committee have not formed allegiances to protect their own interests sort to speak, I believe is a bit navie. Why would they be any different then us as fans and supporters that back the person we think it best for the job, and get our friends to do the same. There were alot of interests at UND that were not respresented, by the search committee, but this flaw maybe always be unavoidable.

I guess I just expected more from a committee of high educational professionals then to paint themselfs into this corner of critism. Forwarding at least 2 individuals to the State Board so they could truly make the final decision would have erased alot of this unanswered speculation....IMO

Congratulations and Good Luck to Dr. Kelley!

[jimdahl]

I do not think there was a conspiracy to elect the New President.

Sorry to ruffle your whiskers, Walrus. You are of course right, you didn't say that. Part of my reaction was to an ongoing theme that some of the comments reminded me of, but that you didn't say. The real point I was trying to make was...

To believe that the members of this search committee have not formed allegiances to protect their own interests sort to speak, I believe is a bit navie. Why would they be any different then us as fans and supporters that back the person we think it best for the job, and get our friends to do the same. There were alot of interests at UND that were not respresented, by the search committee, but this flaw maybe always be unavoidable.

I agree that various parties were likely seeking different outcomes and almost certainly did some behind-the-scenes counting and comparing of votes. However, the point I wanted to make is that though different people may have been seeking different outcomes, each is trying to work toward what they think is the best interest of UND (with a dash of self-interest on the side). They just have different ideas what's best.

[The Walrus]

I agree that various parties were likely seeking different outcomes and almost certainly did some behind-the-scenes counting and comparing of votes. However, the point I wanted to make is that though different people may have been seeking different outcomes, each is trying to work toward what they think is the best interest of UND (with a dash of self-interest on the side). They just have different ideas what's best.

Well spoken, well said....you the man!

[dlsiouxfan]

I knew it!

There's some heavy lifting to be done (in FB, in BB) right now, you bet, but the groups that wanted the DI move need to be putting a shoulder to it right now (and not worry about hockey being DI already). You don't build up by tearing something else down.

Tell that to the hockey people. There are those within the athletic department and who will do whatever it takes to keep hockey in it's number one spot, even if that means going out of their way to hold down other sports. Promised money and other resources gets diverted from other sports to hockey all of the time. The idea that O'Keefe would work behind the scenes to squash a Bruce Smith presidency isn't all that unrealistic.

[Shawn-O]

While the means wasn't, and never will be perfect, I think we arrived at a great outcome with Dr. Kelley (assuming the SBoHE rubber stamps this). But what happens if Kelley declines the offer? I see this as a remote possibility due to the foolish little covert operation being run to recruit Ruud.

[DamStrait]

Whenever a non-UND person is chosen for a UND job, there are whispers here of secret cabals and conspiracies with nefarious anti-UND motives. I've never understood what those suspect motives are supposed to be (Tony paid off the KGB to blackmail O'Keefe to persuade five other administrators to pick a pretty qualified guy instead of the UND guy?)

Looking at who's on it, I would guess that each person on the committee voted for who they thought would be best for UND. That different people have different opinions on who's best isn't a surprise, and doesn't lead me to suspect anyone's motives. Differing opinions are probably attributable to (1) them having information we don't, and (2) different people placing different weights on each attribute (e.g. experience at a national D-I university weighed more heavily than UND ties, in contrast to some fans thinking the latter more significant).

Of course, it's an attitude like this that keeps me from getting invited to the secret conspiracy meetings.

Have you ever thought of starting your own website dedicated to UND athletics? Insight like yours ought not go without opportunity of exposure. Jk, it's hard not to sound like a suck-up when I type this, but this may be the single best post on this site ever. IMHO, the conspiracy angle is far, far, far, far, far overplayed and has gotten unbelievably OLD! Honest to pete, can't we give that tired old saw a rest? Please! Thank you

[sIoUxPeRsTiTiOuS]

Have you ever thought of starting your own website dedicated to UND athletics? Insight like yours ought not go without opportunity of exposure. Jk, it's hard not to sound like a suck-up when I type this, but this may be the single best post on this site ever. IMHO, the conspiracy angle is far, far, far, far, far overplayed and has gotten unbelievably OLD! Honest to pete, can't we give that tired old saw a rest? Please! Thank you

As much as either or both of you might suspect, I have never just pondered and come up with a random thought, and then decided to try force it as fact on the general public on this message board, especially when it regards the integrity of administration of this fine institution's many different entities and factions. I really don't think Walrus has ever done that either. Those thoughts are strictly based on the opinions of individual posters who choose to come here and opine in regards to the University of North Dakota, right or wrong, which is the basis and foundation of this site, or so I thought. I have no problem admitting that I have been wrong in the past, and have no doubt that I will be wrong in the future. However, I do not feel like I am in the wrong at this juncture for stating my opinion on this matter in a way that apparently have some accusing me of being a "conspiracy theorist". An opinion that is based on conversations that I have had with people close to the situation. Relating the comment about Tony buying the KGB to my thoughts is insulting to me, but again you are free to choose your words as you deem necessary on this forum with the obvious exception of violation of certain standards that have been discussed at length in the past.

It is my opinion that the committee botched this process. I also think that a vast majority of the general public feel slighted by how this committee handled the selection process. As an earlier poster stated, I think a lot of the backlash could have been prevented by simply forwarding the 3 candidates for the SBoHE to decide on. If and when they had ultimately decided that Kelley was their choice, then I think acceptance would have come much easier by everyone involved, including the opinions of the general public. I believe that personal politics and agendas played out and were the reason that this unfortunate instance occurred. In addition to that, we have two Deans of two major colleges on campus who are both alums of UND that have egg on their face. What will they do next? I really hope that we don't lose both of these men because of how the committee handled the procedure. A committee that was handpicked and selected based on the notion that they have UND's best interests in mind. That would be tragic for UND in the present and in the future.

Having said that, if Kelley is named the next president I will have no doubt that he is qualified and I will wish him nothing but the best of luck leading UND into the realm of D1 athletics. He has some very tough decisions to make in the very near future.

[jimdahl]

However, I do not feel like I am in the wrong at this juncture for stating my opinion on this matter in a way that apparently have some accusing me of being a "conspiracy theorist". An opinion that is based on conversations that I have had with people close to the situation. Relating the comment about Tony buying the KGB to my thoughts is insulting to me, but again you are free to choose your words as you deem necessary on this forum with the obvious exception of violation of certain standards that have been discussed at length in the past.

You seem to be having about the same reaction Walrus did, so I think my response to Walrus is probably equally applicable. I seem to have erred in my criticism of theories of conspiracies (which are more about level of organization than motive) because it seems to be distracting from what was meant to be my primary point, motives--

I agree that various parties were likely seeking different outcomes and almost certainly did some behind-the-scenes counting and comparing of votes. However, the point I wanted to make is that though different people may have been seeking different outcomes, each is trying to work toward what they think is the best interest of UND (with a dash of self-interest on the side). They just have different ideas what's best.

[The Sicatoka]

... forwarding the 3 candidates for the SBoHE to decide on.

Here I come with my conspiracy theory, or opinion, your choice:

I believe the committed put "12 of 16" in place so no weak candidates would be passed along to the ND SBoHE.

On the committee John Q. Paulsen was one vote out of 16.

On the state board John Q. Paulsen is board president and is one vote of nine? (Fewer?)

And another vote is board VP Ritchie Smith. Quite honestly: I don't trust those two to be looking out for UND (given their past dealings in the Chapman-Potts matter or the violation of the open meetings laws regarding NDSU-Fargo-Fargodome).

By only passing along one name, a name that 15 of 16 committee members could go along with, they've taken away the ability of the ND SBoHE to pick the weakest name (arguably in this case Johnson, as she didn't even warrant a pass along vote).

Did the committee not do as requested and not pass 3 names? Undeniably.

Did the committee grab some power in the process? More than arguably.

Do I trust a committee made up of

- the UND Alumni Association Executive VP

- a member of the UND Alumni Board of Directors

- someone from GF who had served on the State Board in the past

- a UND grad from GF who is active on the state board

- the UND Student Body President

- the UND budget director

- four UND faculty members

- the UND Law dean

- a UND Med associate dean

- a former UND athlete and businessman

more than I trust the ND SBoHE under JQ Paulsen's "guidance" to make this decision. Yes.

Most of us didn't want Paulsen anywhere near the nickname negotiations, yet you'd let him arguably make "his pick" off of a "pick one of x" list for UND president? Seriously?