Candidates for UND President

[The Sicatoka]

... allowed the the perception at least the 3-5 people could control swing votes.

Given a group of 16 people, I bet I could put together a cadre of five who'd be against Gandhi, Jesus Christ, or even Zach Parise.

So how'd Kelley get through?

[mikejm]

It is my opinion that the committee botched this process. I think a lot of the backlash could have been prevented by simply forwarding the 3 candidates for the SBoHE to decide on.

I'll take a contrarian position and say the committee did its job admirably by forwarding but one name. I'd just as soon have the next UND president chosen by a group of people whose first loyalty seems to be to UND and not some nebulous idea like the SBoHE.

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.

Have you ever applied for a job and not been hired? Did you have egg on your face because of that? This is an immature slant on something that happens often in the real world. Everyone who applied for the presidency knew they were going to be up against a lot of competition. They, for the most part, thought their own chances for hire were great, otherwise why go through the process. But to think someone is going to leave UND because they didn't get the job seems an obtuse projection. Is Hameson cleaning out his office?

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.

I, too, hope UND doesn't lose a couple deans. But they might have been on their way out anyway. If they were contented, in fact complacent in their current positions, would they have applied for the presidency? People come and go in academia and business all the time. Sometimes they leave because they feel snubbed; sometimes they don't get along with their co-workers; sometimes they leave just because they want a new challenge.

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.

The next UND president has much more important fish to fry than leading the university into DI athletics.

[sIoUxPeRsTiTiOuS]

I'll take a contrarian position and say the committee did its job admirably by forwarding but one name. I'd just as soon have the next UND president chosen by a group of people whose first loyalty seems to be to UND and not some nebulous idea like the SBoHE.

Have you ever applied for a job and not been hired? Did you have egg on your face because of that? This is an immature slant on something that happens often in the real world. Everyone who applied for the presidency knew they were going to be up against a lot of competition. They, for the most part, thought their own chances for hire were great, otherwise why go through the process. But to think someone is going to leave UND because they didn't get the job seems an obtuse projection. Is Hameson cleaning out his office?

I, too, hope UND doesn't lose a couple deans. But they might have been on their way out anyway. If they were contented, in fact complacent in their current positions, would they have applied for the presidency? People come and go in academia and business all the time. Sometimes they leave because they feel snubbed; sometimes they don't get along with their co-workers; sometimes they leave just because they want a new challenge.

The next UND president has much more important fish to fry than leading the university into DI athletics.

I have to admit, I do not know how to set up the quotes format like you have done. *embarrassed* Instead, I have listed my responses in order by number. You will have to forgive me.

1. Again, while I do have questions as to who would have more interest in UND's well-being, the problem is that the committee was supposed to forward THREE candidates. That didn't happen. Your reasoning for the criteria used by the committee leads me to the problem in the first place.

2. It happens in academia and business all the time. Some people are looking to move up to their dream job, which was the case for Bruce Smith and Dean Elbert. When they don't get the opportunity they have applied for, they sometimes feel compelled to look elsewhere because they feel they have reached their ceiling within ther current organization. Others are just happy where they are at professionally and never apply for positions like this. More power to them. Maybe "egg on their face" was a bad choice of words, but you get the point. By the way, I could only wish Harmeson was cleaning out his office. I'm not really sure I would quit my job if I were him either. What exactly does he do? I know in the past he was always listed as an instructor for Business Law classes at UND and never actually taught it.

3. Again, if the process was handled properly, I don't think this option would be as available to Smith and Elbert. Apparently I would hate to see these two go more than you would. I don't share the same "oh well" view that you have.

4. Stated poorly again. You are right, there are other things that need addressing besides athletics. However, you are kidding yourself if those things aren't directly related to the success of the athletic department during the transition. I think research, academics, enrollment and athletics are all tied together in terms of relative success during this period.

[The Sicatoka]

Call in a marker here, make a phone call there, and what do you get?

You get the Voting from the January 28 meeting of the President selection committee.

(A note: Johnson didn't even get voted on to move forward.)

3 "worthless" (meaning each voted to pass every candidate along) members*:

Fisher - Probably first time interviewing anyone of this level

Munski - A genuinely nice guy; a candidate would need a big flaw to get a no

Paulsen - Gee, he wanted *all* of the names forwarded to the board *he* controls ....

3 members voted for just Kelley and Smith:

Espegard - an active State Board member (UND grad from GF)

O'Keefe - so much for the "Hockey is anti-Smith" conspiracy theory

Stewart - another letterwinner votes for a letterwinner

3 members voted only for Kelley:

Brekke - UND's Budget Director

Burgum - the Alumni Board's representative (and a guy who's made a lot of money)

Clayburgh - a former State Board member from Grand Forks

2 members voted "outside only" (meaning just Kelley and Long):

LeBel - the committee chair

Olson - long-time Education school (a Chester Fritz scholar)

2 members voted all but Elbert:

Lindquist-Mala - the rep of the American Indian population of the state

Pitts - associate dean of UND Med (Fargo campus)

3 more members voted "everyone but":

Paukert (GF community rep) voted for everyone but Long.

Lindseth (Nursing Dean) voted for everyone but Kelley.

Yearwood (IT Dept.) voted for everyone but Smith.

The male board members (10) picked:

Kelley 10, Smith 7, Long 6, Elbert 4

The female board members (6) picked:

Kelley 5, Smith 3, Long 3, Elbert 2

Any other ways folks would like me to "slice and dice" the numbers?

* Let's examine the voting if these three "gimmes" weren't considered:

With 16 voting members:

Kelley 15 (94%)

Smith 10 (63%)

Long 9 (56%)

Elbert 6 (38%)

Removing the 3 members who vote for everybody, based on "of 13":

Kelley 12 (92%)

Smith 7 (54%)

Long 6 (46%)

Elbert 3 (23%)

[GeauxSioux]

Overall, I believe the committee did a good job. I was pulling for Bruce Smith to get the job, but obviously that didn't work out. I go back to my post here where Kelley was the obvious choice of the committee. Why leave it to the SBoHE to pick someone else, such as Long who only got 9 votes of 16?

The whole argument as to whether there was a group voting as a bloc doesn't hold water with me. Looking at who was on the committee, I just can't see it happening. I don't believe that they would be up to such shenanigans.

Kelley was one of only two of the candidates initially to get the 3/4 straw vote and was the only one to get the 3/4's vote of the final five candidates. Looks like the committee was being consistent I am hopeful that the SBoHE confirms him next week and Dr. Kelley accepts the position. moving the University of North Dakota forward.

Edit: Oops, I didn't see The Sicatoka's analysis prior to posting.

Edited February 1, 2008 by GeauxSioux

[Stromer]

From some convos I heard recently, there was some concerns about the personality of Elbert, or should I say lack of an agressive one. That was probably his downfall. I was pulling for the UND crew and am dissapointed, but I will support Kelley if he is named. I don't like the committee grabbing power, but I can see a concern over the makeup of the state board. I would rather just take Kelley then bring Long along and have them pick her instead. I also hope we don't see the deans leave their posts. I know in some parts of culture leaving is the thing to do if you don't get what you applied for. I think it has to do with the perceived stigma of being rejected by your own company or corporation.

[UND Fan]

Call in a marker here, make a phone call there, and what do you get?

You get the Voting from the January 28 meeting of the President selection committee.

(A note: Johnson didn't even get voted on to move forward.)

3 "worthless" (meaning each voted to pass every candidate along) members*:

Fisher - Probably first time interviewing anyone of this level

Munski - A genuinely nice guy; a candidate would need a big flaw to get a no

Paulsen - Gee, he wanted *all* of the names forwarded to the board *he* controls ....

3 members voted for just Kelley and Smith:

Espegard - an active State Board member (UND grad from GF)

O'Keefe - so much for the "Hockey is anti-Smith" conspiracy theory

Stewart - another letterwinner votes for a letterwinner

3 members voted only for Kelley:

Brekke - UND's Budget Director

Burgum - the Alumni Board's representative (and a guy who's made a lot of money)

Clayburgh - a former State Board member from Grand Forks

2 members voted "outside only" (meaning just Kelley and Long):

LeBel - the committee chair

Olson - long-time Education school (a Chester Fritz scholar)

2 members voted all but Elbert:

Lindquist-Mala - the rep of the American Indian population of the state

Pitts - associate dean of UND Med (Fargo campus)

3 more members voted "everyone but":

Paukert (GF community rep) voted for everyone but Long.

Lindseth (Nursing Dean) voted for everyone but Kelley.

Yearwood (IT Dept.) voted for everyone but Smith.

The male board members (10) picked:

Kelley 10, Smith 7, Long 6, Elbert 4

The female board members (6) picked:

Kelley 5, Smith 3, Long 3, Elbert 2

Any other ways folks would like me to "slice and dice" the numbers?

* Let's examine the voting if these three "gimmes" weren't considered:

With 16 voting members:

Kelley 15 (94%)

Smith 10 (63%)

Long 9 (56%)

Elbert 6 (38%)

Removing the 3 members who vote for everybody, based on "of 13":

Kelley 12 (92%)

Smith 7 (54%)

Long 6 (46%)

Elbert 3 (23%)

Thanks for your "investigative report" - it answers many questions!

Personally, I was hoping that Smith would be our next president but I am very comfortable that the committee did a good job. They felt only one person warranted consideration so that was their recommendation. I am fine with that!

[hermit]

It took three days to find theser numbers? I knew these numbers Tuesday morning at 8:00 AM.

[siouxyeahyeah]

I'm not really sure I would quit my job if I were him either. What exactly does he do? I know in the past he was always listed as an instructor for Business Law classes at UND and never actually taught it.

Harmeson taught BLaw for at least double digit years. He was also the Associate Dean of the B. School with Dennis Elbert. Personally, I would hate to see him clean out his office. He does infinite more good for UND than most people realize, and with Kupchella coming in and being an "outsider" I don't think our school would have made much progress without the likes of Harmeson, Boyd, and other local boys helping out in upper administration.

[GeauxSioux]

Petition calls for top three president candidates

A letter accompanying the petition states:

"By forwarding only one name, the search committee has usurped the selection duties of the Board of Higher Education. By deciding that a 75 percent majority was needed to forward a name to the board, the process seemed to be flawed and establishes a dangerous precedent. It is almost impossible for 12 of 16 people to come to an agreement on anything."

and yet they did.

[MplsBison]

I don't get the petition.

I think the SDoHE is going to give it to Kelley on Mon. anyway, rendering the petition moot.

[The Sicatoka]

It took three days to find theser numbers? I knew these numbers Tuesday morning at 8:00 AM.

I was silly enough to expect to find them in the Herald for a day or two before I started looking.

[GeauxSioux]

I just watched a WDAZ news report online from what I'm assuming was last night. In the story they had Paulsen on the phone saying that he wishes that the search committee had forwarded more than one name to the SBoHE. How can you be on the committee and distance yourself from the action of that committee? If there was a concern wouldn't you have voiced it prior to the end result? It wasn't as if it wasn't known publicly that the committee was only going to forward names of people that met the 3/4 threshold. I don't think this will be completed by Tuesday.

[The Sicatoka]

I think I agree with Mike Jacobs:

The committee's decision only highlighted what observers have understood for a long time. The UND campus is divided. There's anxiety, defensiveness and jealousy aplenty on the campus.

These conditions have flourished because the past two presidents, despite their efforts, haven't inspired the campus to a sense of common purpose.

Another way of expressing this dilemma is to say there are many agendas at UND, some of them hidden.

Now I think I need to go and shower.

[GeauxSioux]

Maybe we will have a president this week afterall...Motion to interview more candidates for UND president fails

The North Dakota Board of Higher Education today voted down a motion to interview all three UND presidential candidates who received a simple majority vote from the university's search committee.

At the beginning of today's meeting in Grand Forks to interview Robert O. Kelley to be UND's next president, board member Pam Kostelecky made a motion to interview all three candidates who received the UND committee's simple majority vote.

[MplsBison]

Looks like Kelley got it.

[The Walrus]

Looks like Kelley got it.

Dr Kelley offered......Needs two days.....?

http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/i...mp;section=News

[UND Fan]

Higher Ed Board offers UND president job to Kelley; Kelley says he needs a couple of days to consider offer

The above is the headline on the Herald's website. His needing a couple of days to think about the offer is a little concerning!

[The Sicatoka]

Dr Kelley offered......Needs two days.....?

His needing a couple of days to think about the offer is a little concerning!

If you were him and had read this board, and the Herald, wouldn't you take a pause to consider what you'd be getting in to?

[jimdahl]

If you were him and had read this board, and the Herald, wouldn't you take a pause to consider what you'd be getting in to?

He claims that the petition and attempt to draft Ruud has nothing to do with it.

Kelley decided before coming to campus that he could not accept the UND job without a few more days of consideration, he said.

Kelley said his decision to delay was not prompted by public discontent the past week over a search committee’s decision to forward only his name for the presidency, despite being tasked with recommending three finalists.

“The integrity of the process has given me no pause,” he said.

However, that was one topic of discussion during a half-hour meeting between Kelley and Goetz after the board had settled on offering him the job and just prior to the board announcement of the offer, Goetz said.

I've been been on both sides of hiring quite a few times, though have absolutely no familiarity with this industry. At least in my areas it's almost always understood that you don't respond to an offer for at least a day. Frankly, I'd be more surprised by the candidate who didn't take a day or two, especially at a chief executive level (and particularly in this case when all the details of the offer and negotiations are immediately public information).

[roper1313]

I'm guessing that Kelley is having an attorney look through all of the language in the offer from SBoHE. IMO, this is a non issue and if all the i's and t's are dotted and crossed he'll sign within the next 24 hours.

At this level of employment/compensation you need to look it over even if you really don't want to.

edit: misspelled Kelley's name.

[UND92,96]

This article makes it sound likely Kelley will accept the job.

[GeauxSioux]

Kelley says he's excited about moving forward, but won't commit to UND just yet

Doesn't Dr. Kelley know that today is national signing day?

Kelley met with more than 25 people on the UND campus Tuesday in a series of meetings that ran from before 8 a.m. until after 6 p.m. Some issues he wanted to learn more about, Kelley said, are the financial plans surrounding UND's five-year transition to NCAA Division I athletics and issues related to UND's medical school and its family practice residency programs.

Kelley's meetings Tuesday included student government leaders and members of the student ambassadors program; medical school Dean H. David Wilson, who was out of town during Kelley's previous visit; and Betty Ralston and Steve Brekke, UND's co-acting athletic directors.

[GeauxSioux]

Since this is the thread that Jacob's editorial regarding UND campus being divided, I thought it fair to post Kupchella's response...... Kupchella: Publisher unfairly criticized UND

Without providing any basis whatsoever, Jacobs claimed that the UND campus is “divided.” The closest thing to supporting evidence in the first column was the following line: “. . . observers [unnamed] have understood for a long time . . . the . . . campus is divided.”

In a subsequent column, the headline poses the question, “Who says the UND community is divided?”, implying that some basis for the earlier claim would now be forthcoming (Page 2D, Feb. 10). Instead, Jacobs answers the question with . . . well, I (Mike Jacobs) do. He went on to imply that his standing to say so comes from his status as a supportive alumnus.

“I heard a faculty member quoted as suggesting that alumni voices shouldn't be heeded because many of us wouldn't have been admitted under the university's new standards.”

More nonsense. Although I once heard an alumnus joke about how glad he was to have gotten into the medical school when he did, I challenge the editor to produce even one faculty or staff member who doesn't understand clearly that every alumnus of UND has a perpetual stake in the affairs of the university.

[mikejm]

Mike Jacobs' purpose seems to be increasingly focused merely on pot-stirring. He offers little in the way of factual information to support his claims, and worse, posits no constructive solutions to the "problems" he, with his omniscient powers, gleans on campus or in the community.