NCAA Wants Documents Sealed

[mksioux]

My question is what about the original document from the Spirit Lake Reservation that said that they approved of the nickname, why is that being recognized? That should be enough.

Because there is another Sioux tribe in North Dakota that opposes it. While the NCAA is obviously making it up as they go along, I do not believe there is another exemption school that has an in-state namesake tribe that opposes the use of the school's nickname. Although that wasn't the criteria when the NCAA started this whole thing, or even when they started the exemption process, it is the distinction they appear to be relying on now.

[sioux7>5]

Because there is another Sioux tribe in North Dakota that opposes it. While the NCAA is obviously making it up as they go along, I do not believe there is another exemption school that has an in-state namesake tribe that opposes the use of the school's nickname. Although that wasn't the criteria when the NCAA started this whole thing, or even when they started the exemption process, it is the distinction they appear to be relying on now.

Does anyone but me think that the NCAA is truly only looking at schools that bring in the most money. FSU brings in a lot of money for the NCAA so they have to be exempt whereas UND does not bring in the same numbers so they are still on the the list.

My other question is that the NCAA said that schools on there list, can not use their jerseys on post season play, but is the BCS Bowl games considered post-season play or is football exempt from this rule.

[siouxfan123]

Does anyone but me think that the NCAA is truly only looking at schools that bring in the most money. FSU brings in a lot of money for the NCAA so they have to be exempt whereas UND does not bring in the same numbers so they are still on the the list.

My other question is that the NCAA said that schools on there list, can not use their jerseys on post season play, but is the BCS Bowl games considered post-season play or is football exempt from this rule.

The BCS is exempt because the BCS is a private organization not affiliated with the NCAA.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

(here)

Because there is another Sioux tribe in North Dakota that opposes it. While the NCAA is obviously making it up as they go along, I do not believe there is another exemption school that has an in-state namesake tribe that opposes the use of the school's nickname. Although that wasn't the criteria when the NCAA started this whole thing, or even when they started the exemption process, it is the distinction they appear to be relying on now.

I agree. Right now a lot of people seem to be relying on the Spirit Lake decsion. IMHO, the NCAA would point to the fact that within the state of North Dakota the majority of people who are designated as members of a recognized tribe of Sioux are against the nickname. Simply put, population and proximity are what differentiates you from the Chips of Central Michigan. (And also what would have differentiated you from Florida State University if the Oklahoma Seminoles actually had objected.)

In another thread (here), I asked if your school would be interested in adopting the nickname "University of North Dakota Spirit Lake Sioux" (or whatever name the Spirit Lake group now uses). Personally, I think this could trump the NCAA and the other North Dakota Sioux tribes.

The BCS is exempt because the BCS is a private organization not affiliated with the NCAA.

This is correct; but the NCAA has "leaned on" the BCS in an attempt to make the BCS either not invite those schools not in compliance, or keep them from showing their nicknames/logos. AFAIK, the BCS has not actually said anything about this issue.

Frankly, it never was much of a concern for Illinois as we are light years away from using "BCS bowl" and "Illini football" in the same sentence.

Edit Correction: it looks like the NCAA has done more than lean on the bowls, they've brought them under this policy. USA Today story from 2005

[GeauxSioux]

State board gets update on NCAA suit, releases no details

North Dakota State Board of Higher Education members met in closed session for more than 90 minutes this morning to receive an update on UND's lawsuit against the NCAAover the Fighting Sioux nickname.

Board President John Paulsen and Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem declined to comment on what was discussed in the closed-door session.

[Chewey]

State board gets update on NCAA suit, releases no details

Any speculation as to what this means?

[PCM]

Any speculation as to what this means?

Sure. I can speculate until the cows come home. It doesn't mean anything, but I can do it.

I'd like to know what this means:

The board authorized Stenehjem to pursue the lawsuit in June, 2006, but has not given substantive direction since then.

If the board is meeting behind closed doors and nobody is talking about what's going on in those sessions, how does the Herald know whether the board has given Stenehjem any "substantive direction"?

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

If the board is meeting behind closed doors and nobody is talking about what's going on in those sessions, how does the Herald know whether the board has given Stenehjem any "substantive direction"?

Simply a guess, but if your state has "open meeting laws" then the agenda, etc. for every board meeting has to be public. If the AG has not appeared before the board since that initial authorization, then the paper might be inferring that effectively he has had carte blanche for the last year to pursue the lawsuit as he sees fit.

[PCM]

Simply a guess, but if your state has "open meeting laws" then the agenda, etc. for every board meeting has to be public. If the AG has not appeared before the board since that initial authorization, then the paper might be inferring that effectively he has had carte blanche for the last year to pursue the lawsuit as he sees fit.

That is not the case, however. The meeting can be closed under state law if certain conditions apply, which they do for this lawsuit. I believe that AG Stenehjem has always or nearly always briefed board members on the case, just as he did in this instance.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

That is not the case, however. The meeting can be closed under state law if certain conditions apply, which they do for this lawsuit. I believe that AG Stenehjem has always or nearly always briefed board members on the case, just as he did in this instance.

Right, I think our group can close the meeting or call it executive session or something like that: but AFAIK they always have to disclose exactly who is in that meeting. They couldn't just pop up six months later and say "remember that executive session we had in March? Yeah, we heard from Warren Buffett back then: snuck him in and out thru the back door..."

But in any case, if its public knowledge that your AG is appearing at most/all of the board meetings then I don't know how the paper can make such a statement-unless they're hearing that info from the AG himself (highly doubtful as it would border on insubordination IMHO) or a member of the board (in which case he/she won't be anonymous forever).

[Chewey]

Right, I think our group can close the meeting or call it executive session or something like that: but AFAIK they always have to disclose exactly who is in that meeting. They couldn't just pop up six months later and say "remember that executive session we had in March? Yeah, we heard from Warren Buffett back then: snuck him in and out thru the back door..."

But in any case, if its public knowledge that your AG is appearing at most/all of the board meetings then I don't know how the paper can make such a statement-unless they're hearing that info from the AG himself (highly doubtful as it would border on insubordination IMHO) or a member of the board (in which case he/she won't be anonymous forever).

I would hope that the new board would have as strong of a spine as the old one. Perhaps settlement terms were thrown around in there. I guess the board is more or less the "client" or one of the clients. Whoever said it was quite right.....all the NC00 has done is empower lunatics. Since the NC00 executive board is full of lunatics, I guess there is some consistency. It would be nice to see exactly who has been deposed, what interrogatories were interposed and what the answers were.

[siouxforeverbaby]

Right, I think our group can close the meeting or call it executive session or something like that: but AFAIK they always have to disclose exactly who is in that meeting. They couldn't just pop up six months later and say "remember that executive session we had in March? Yeah, we heard from Warren Buffett back then: snuck him in and out thru the back door..."

But in any case, if its public knowledge that your AG is appearing at most/all of the board meetings then I don't know how the paper can make such a statement-unless they're hearing that info from the AG himself (highly doubtful as it would border on insubordination IMHO) or a member of the board (in which case he/she won't be anonymous forever).

I don't think in North Dakota, you have to disclose who was at the meeting. Though if you open a meeting and then close it, that has to go on the agenda. If it is a closed meeting to start with, I don't believe that they have to post an agenda. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember from my dealings with our open meeting laws.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

I don't think in North Dakota, you have to disclose who was at the meeting. Though if you open a meeting and then close it, that has to go on the agenda. If it is a closed meeting to start with, I don't believe that they have to post an agenda. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember from my dealings with our open meeting laws.

Silly me, I spent five minutes resarching this, and now I'm more confused than ever. Before today, I thought that all meetings had to be open to start and they always had to go thru the rigamarole of "call to order; old business, new business, adjourn to executive session...". But upon researching this, I think we can actually schedule a closed meeting here. I didn't get far enough into it to confirm, but I think we still have to say why we're closing the meeting (the specific reason as allowed by statute). So if it was closed to discuss "legal matters" that's all we would have to say. In that case I guess we could get away with a semi-undisclosed appearance by our AG.

This is as close as I could find to support....

Sec. 2.02. Public notice of all meetings, whether open or closed to the public, shall be given as follows:

(a) Every public body shall give public notice of the schedule of regular meetings at the beginning of each calendar or fiscal year and shall state the regular dates, times, and places of such meetings. An agenda for each regular meeting shall be posted at the principal office of the public body and at the location where the meeting is to be held at least 48 hours in advance of the holding of the meeting.

And strictly for fun: Who says public employees waste time and money? I'm sure there was a good reason to insert this into the law....

Public body" includes tourism boards and convention or civic center boards located in counties that are contiguous to the Mississippi River with populations of more than 250,000 but less than 300,000.

Yeah, probably someone's brother in law got appointed to some small (or large) tourism bureau and the guy didn't want it to become public knowledge...

[star2city]

UND, NCAA head back to discovery - No Settlement?

The clock is set to run out Sunday on a court order suspending discovery proceedings in UND's lawsuit against the NCAA over the Fighting Sioux nickname.

We have so much confidence in Mr Paulsen representing UND's interests.

North Dakota's State Board of Higher Education authorized the lawsuit in June 2006, with the stipulation that no public funds be used. Board President John Paulsen has said the board's decision to authorize the lawsuit was primarily based on the NCAA's characterization of UND's campus as "hostile and abusive," and should not be read as a standing commitment to the Fighting Sioux nickname.

Paulsen has said a lawsuit victory does not necessarily mean the board will not ultimately choose to retire the nickname. The decision whether to retire or retain the nickname will be made by the state board, Paulsen said, not by UND's president.

[Diggler]

We have so much confidence in Mr Paulsen representing UND's interests.

It could probably be made by NDSU's president though in Paulsen's mind.

[DamStrait]

We have so much confidence in Mr Paulsen representing UND's interests.

And I thought my opinion of Mr. Paulsen could not possibly go any lower...

[mksioux]

Board President John Paulsen has said the board's decision to authorize the lawsuit was primarily based on the NCAA's characterization of UND's campus as "hostile and abusive," and should not be read as a standing commitment to the Fighting Sioux nickname.

That's nonsense. If the Board's position is that it will drop the Sioux nickname if the NCAA simply retracts its characterization of UND being "hostile and abusive", a settlement would have been reached a long time ago.

[Chewey]

And I thought my opinion of Mr. Paulsen could not possibly go any lower...

So what do you all think can be read from Paulsen's comments? Do they mean that there will be an imminent wobbly fest? I don't think the university/state would spend 600K just to go all wobbly at this point but that is just my opinion. What do you think is going on behind closed doors between the AG and the Board and between UND/state and the NC00?

[ScottM]

Unless the Hurled is going to attribute a direct quote to Paulsen, I wouldn't read too much into the story. Moreover, as I recall, the "hostile or abusive" designation was originally a premise of the suit and the state's authorization of it. Imagine some Hurled reporter writing a slanted story. Quelle surprise.

[Sioux-cia]

I'm confused, again. I thought that this lawsuit was NOT about whether UND was 'hostile or abusive' but rather about the NCAA not following their own policies?!?

[Teeder11]

Oh Scott

So you're telling us that if you would have wrote the story you would have been soooo much more objective and fair to all sides involved. You secretly love the Hurled becaused it keeps giving you fresh things to blog about without even trying.

God Bless the Fighting Sioux

Frederick W.

Canmore, Alb.

[The Sicatoka]

What Paulsen said is the simple reality since a December day back in 2000, isn't it?

The decision whether to retire or retain the nickname will be made by the state board, Paulsen said, not by UND's president.

The ND SBoHE took control of the issue that day (from the UND president) and has held it since.

[Chewey]

Oh Scott

So you're telling us that if you would have wrote the story you would have been soooo much more objective and fair to all sides involved. You secretly love the Hurled becaused it keeps giving you fresh things to blog about without even trying.

God Bless the Fighting Sioux

Frederick W.

Canmore, Alb.

It's the Herald's duty to report FACTS in an unbiased way. The job of a news agency is to report FACTS. If the news agency has an opinion element, that's one thing. ScottM is not a news agency but I am sure he or any one of us could still write about this issue with more objectivity than the Herald reporters. Lack of objectivity in reporting just causes people to dig their heels in on the other side and causes people to recognize the Herald for the fish wrap that it is. Its idiocy and lack of relevancy are the only things that are revealed. The only things more nauseating than reading the Herald or listening to the nickname change crowd are listening to Dark Star (force fed upon us here in MN), reading the Gopher section of the Star and Sickle, and listening to Gopher fans at games at Mariucci.

[Teeder11]

It's the Herald's duty to report FACTS in an unbiased way. The job of a news agency is to report FACTS. If the news agency has an opinion element, that's one thing. ScottM is not a news agency but I am sure he or any one of us could still write about this issue with more objectivity than the Herald reporters. Lack of objectivity in reporting just causes people to dig their heels in on the other side and causes people to recognize the Herald for the fish wrap that it is. Its idiocy and lack of relevancy are the only things that are revealed. The only things more nauseating than reading the Herald or listening to the nickname change crowd are listening to Dark Star (force fed upon us here in MN), reading the Gopher section of the Star and Sickle, and listening to Gopher fans at games at Mariucci.

Chewey:

Good points. I stand corrected.

Fred

[siouxforeverbaby]

What Paulsen said is the simple reality since a December day back in 2000, isn't it?

The ND SBoHE took control of the issue that day (from the UND president) and has held it since.

technically, Since the SBoHE is the president's boss I believe that they would have the decision ultimately anyway, it was Kupchella's not making a decision that led them to take over.