ND Senate upset at ....

[The Sicatoka]

Seems Sen. Christmann is rather upset at how one particular NDUS school (cough-NDSU-cough) effectively disobeyed legislation (law) the ND Senate passed and did their own thing.

" .... When we see behavior that is unacceptable, we'd make a choice, whether we impose consequences, or whether we go and pick up the pieces and enable them to continue the kind of behavior ... that we did not approve of," Christmann said. "I think we all know what we would do if we were talking about an individual."

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/20...tate/131026.txt

I remember when another NDUS school wasn't allowed to take ownership of a $104 MM hockey arena so it worked within the passed legislation to make it work. That seemed to please the Legislature.

Now this perception of how the NDUS operates (from this experience) will have negative ramifications for all NDUS schools.

[NanoBison]

You want to tell me what exactly was done wrong? According to the article, nothing was. It's all private money.

Besides, I can't take anyone seriously who labels all of NDUS an "Education Cartel". Give me a break.

[The Sicatoka]

You want to tell me what exactly was done wrong? According to the article, nothing was.

Not quite ....

Two years ago, the Legislature's budget bill for North Dakota's university system included a section giving NDSU permission to raise money to build a new building for its business college on the university's campus.

Someone went past "raise money" right to "purchase" and from "on campus" to not.

I could see how that would ruffle lawmakers.

[iramurphy]

Another example of Chapman doing things his way without regard for the rules. Walaker has the same attitude and I don't think it is any coincidence he and Chapman were involved in violating the open meeting rule again. Same with Paulsen. To their credit they want to help their own entities. Unfortunately it isn't their money. I don't see a problem with the purchase of the buildings downtown if it was done with private money. Pretty typical arrogance of our University Administrators and elected officials to not bother keeping the appropriate state officials in the loop. (Maybe it isn't the case and Chapman did all of that with Potts' blessing).

I doubt either of those guys show up at work each day with the idea that they serve the students and taxpayers of the state of N. Dak. or the citizens and taxpayers of the city of Fargo. Those guys tend to serve the people who keep them in power and can expand their power base. They have at their disposal a number of political boosters or Alumni and business people who benefit from their relationship with these power brokers and it becomes mutually beneficial. Then they tend to justify the means by the end result. Chapman has done many good things for NDSU therefore the previous Chancellor and those who thought he should live by the same rules were dupes. That is the reason he and his organization are so much better than anyone else and why the rest of the state wallows in thir own mediocrity.

I could go on but you get the picture. If he is your guy you won't get the point. Many of us do some of the same stuff in our own lives with our customers, our clients, on your church board etc. Hopefully the rest of us stop at breaking the law. That is the big difference in my opinion.

[star2city]

There was at least one rather scathing editorial from Minot about Walaker. The behavior of Chapman, Paulsen, Walaker are only further antagonizing much of central and western ND against eastern ND and more specifically Fargo, Cass County, and NDSU. Although UND's leadership seemingly is not viewed as antagonistically, the whole situation is not exactly beneficial to the university system.

http://www.minotdailynews.com/editorials/a...?articleID=9775

We've heard it all before

Hogwah

That

[star2city]

This Forum editorial cartoon exalting Walaker as a hero probably didn't help smooth things over with the legislature.

[NDSU grad]

There has never been and is currently no ill will toward NDSU from any folks out west. I lived there the majority of my life and still have many friends and relatives back there. You hear the stupid anti-Fargo rhetoric very infrequently, but that never corellates into negative feelings toward NDSU.

[NDSU grad]

About this whole matter. It says explicitly in the article the buildings were bought with private money at a cheaper price than if a building would have been built on campus. I personally think it is generally a good thing when government has limited power. This is a prime example. Thank God the legislature was stripped of some its powers in dealing with the NDUS. Running a large government entity is similar to running a business. Hire good people and let them make decisions.

[The Sicatoka]

Question:

These buildings were cheaper to purchase (downtown) than to build on campus. However, they won't be on the NDSU steam plant system which means their own heating systems (and separate heating costs). And they'll be away from primary campus services (increased travel time for plant services, campus mail, etc.).

What are the long-term costs of ownership of these cheap-to-buy downtown buildings relative to having built (a more costly up front) on-campus facility?

[NanoBison]

Not quite ....

"Not quite" doesn't quite cut it in explaining what was done wrong. It's private money. It's going to cost $3.5 million less than originally thought. So what you're saying is we should have gotten a "permission slip" to purchase the building? Please, we already had permission to "raise funds for construction". If that doesn't imply we are going to build it some way somehow, I think some representative needs to get off his power trip and let NDUS run the Institutions of Higher Education. Permission slip to buy, with private money.... please.

Someone went past "raise money" right to "purchase" and from "on campus" to not.

I could see how that would ruffle lawmakers.

I don't see how, unless they have a god complex where EVERYTHING has to be approved by them, right down to whether Chapman farts or where he does it. I'm going to side with NDSU Grad on this, there should be more limits on the power the ND Legislature wields... Next they'll be wanting to cap taxes on the city of Fargo... oh wait, nevermind, they are already trying to do so.

But here's the point. It's private money. It's not on-campus, therefore not truly State Property. I don't see where the Legislature legally has any say in the matter what-so-ever.

To add to the example you gave of ownership of a $104 million arena; Perhaps instead of taking it up the butt sitting down, you should have fought for it. It's UND's and I don't see what right the Legislature has in saying anything about it. Same thing there. Private money.

Someone needs to tell those in Bismarck to keep there grubby hands out of the University's checkbooks, when those checkbooks are privately funded. Period.

[NanoBison]

Question:

These buildings were cheaper to purchase (downtown) than to build on campus. However, they won't be on the NDSU steam plant system which means their own heating systems (and separate heating costs). And they'll be away from primary campus services (increased travel time for plant services, campus mail, etc.).

What are the long-term costs of ownership of these cheap-to-buy downtown buildings relative to having built (a more costly up front) on-campus facility?

Probably nothing close to the $3.5 million saved by purchasing these structures, I would imagine. Bus service already goes by both buildings. They aren't exactly far from the NDSU Main Campus. Either way, it's not even going to come close to $3.5 million.

[NanoBison]

This Forum editorial cartoon exalting Walaker as a hero probably didn't help smooth things over with the legislature.

I hadn't seen that yet. Thanks for posting it! Walaker, way to represent!!!

You guys need to quite being so afraid of the legislature. The NDUS holds the cards, not them.

Perhaps if you wouldn't coward over every one of their requests UND and the rest of the system (NDUS) could go farther and get even more funding.

But if you're going to stand along someone who labels his own state's higher education system as "a Monster" or "Education Cartel" or "repulsive", perhaps you need to rethink your position on the issue.

[NanoBison]

There was at least one rather scathing editorial from Minot about Walaker. The behavior of Chapman, Paulsen, Walaker are only further antagonizing much of central and western ND against eastern ND and more specifically Fargo, Cass County, and NDSU. Although UND's leadership seemingly is not viewed as antagonistically, the whole situation is not exactly beneficial to the university system.

http://www.minotdailynews.com/editorials/a...?articleID=9775

[GeauxSioux]

I'll play the semi middle-of-the-road here. NDSU tried for 8 years to raise the money to build a new School of Business building and couldn't come up with the necessary money to build it and took the next best thing, a used building. That being said, wouldn't the right thing to do would inform the state what you're plans are? Whether it is private money or not the state has to live the long term ramifications of the decision of people who are thinking short term.

Sica has some very good points regarding the additional costs associated with an existing building, not on campus. I'm sure these buildings are not in such a state that the school can just move in. Add the cost of renovation and probable code upgrades to the additional costs Sica already mentioned and it may not be any cheaper in the long run.

Okay, maybe I'm come down a little closer on the side of the state.

[NanoBison]

It's already been stated that the purchase AND remodeling of the buildings will still be $3.5 million less than if NDSU had just built on campus. I'm sure they'll make them "green" buildings, so they won't be energy hogs, as I'm sure they are now.

I can see where you think notifying the state on the matter would have been of utmost importance, but if they approved raising funds for new construction, that already implies there will be additional costs associated with a new building no matter where or whatever is built. I'm pretty positive in the end, these purchases will cost the state less than a new business building would have, though.

In particular I'm sticking to my guns when I say that I still think the Legislature has TOO MUCH power when it comes to dealing with how the Universities are run. Especially when a majority of individuals in the legislature probably have no clue on how the inner workings of each of the institutions function. It's just like the bickering with travel budgets that's being argued about. $40 million over two years for 11 institutions (~44,000 students) doesn't seem outrageous to me, yet everyone thinks it's out of control. Just give them the money and get out of their way. It's as ridiculous as NDSU having to goto the Legislature and ask permission to goto DI.

I know in some cases many wise people would use the anecdote here of "don't slap the hand that feeds you", however, when you look at the bigger picture and the fact that every dollar given to NDSU and UND in the last couple years has generated 7-9 dollars in return for the State, perhaps that thinking should be reversed... as in the legislature should keep feeding these economic engines (esp. NDSU and UND) and quit trying to micromanage them.

There's too many individuals in the legislature with a God complex that need to be addressed, because they basically are not looking out for the best intentions of North Dakota.

[Siouxman]

The facts of the matter are:

1. NDSU is owned by the State of North Dakota. Whether or not the buildings were purchased with private money is immaterial, as they will require funds to operate and maintain into the future. Unless NDSU has made a commitment or has commitments to fund those buildings with totally private funds in perpetuity, NDSU has made a commitment for the State of North Dakota's future funding without state input.

2. While the ND legislature does not have the oversight currently of the NDUS that it previously had, keep upsetting the wrong people and that can be changed back. Anyone that has half a brain and deals with the political realities should know that you have to cover the bases if you are going to take action that might ruffle some feathers. You need to understand politics, it is all emotion and very little logic. What seems logical does not matter in this arena. On top of all of that you have personal egos and agendas, on all sides of every issue. One of the first casualties in the political arena is truth. And if you disturb the political waters and bruise peoples' egos, it won't matter what the truth is or what the logic is. NDSU needs to learn to work within the system or all NDUS institutions will suffer. Whether the ND legislature thinks they are in charge, or wants to be in charge, or if NDSU thinks they are in charge doesn't matter. Tick people off enough and the legislature will be in charge. They make the rules unless there is a constitutional prohibition that restricts a certain action.

[GeauxSioux]

It's already been stated that the purchase AND remodeling of the buildings will still be $3.5 million less than if NDSU had just built on campus. I'm sure they'll make them "green" buildings, so they won't be energy hogs, as I'm sure they are now.

I can see where you think notifying the state on the matter would have been of utmost importance, but if they approved raising funds for new construction, that already implies there will be additional costs associated with a new building no matter where or whatever is built. I'm pretty positive in the end, these purchases will cost the state less than a new business building would have, though.

In particular I'm sticking to my guns when I say that I still think the Legislature has TOO MUCH power when it comes to dealing with how the Universities are run. Especially when a majority of individuals in the legislature probably have no clue on how the inner workings of each of the institutions function. It's just like the bickering with travel budgets that's being argued about. $40 million over two years for 11 institutions (~44,000 students) doesn't seem outrageous to me, yet everyone thinks it's out of control. Just give them the money and get out of their way. It's as ridiculous as NDSU having to goto the Legislature and ask permission to goto DI.

I know in some cases many wise people would use the anecdote here of "don't slap the hand that feeds you", however, when you look at the bigger picture and the fact that every dollar given to NDSU and UND in the last couple years has generated 7-9 dollars in return for the State, perhaps that thinking should be reversed... as in the legislature should keep feeding these economic engines (esp. NDSU and UND) and quit trying to micromanage them.

There's too many individuals in the legislature with a God complex that need to be addressed, because they basically are not looking out for the best intentions of North Dakota.

Sorry, I missed the part where it says that the savings included the cost of renovation. Did it also include code upgrades? You mention that they will probably make them "green" buildings to save on energy costs. Is this also included in the cost you are stating?

Once again, the State has to look at the long term consequences of decisions made, not the short term fixes.

[The Sicatoka]

In particular I'm sticking to my guns when I say that I still think the Legislature has TOO MUCH power when it comes to dealing with how the Universities are run.

The Legislature is the State.

It is the State of North Dakota University System.

Remember the "Golden Rule": Those with the gold make the rules.

The Legislature has the gold; the Legislature makes the rules. They could very quickly become (are becoming?) fed up with the way the power they gave to the SBHE is being used and decide to take it back. Events like not following their legislation (the law) make that a greater possibility. And that's not good for the system in total.

[biff]

Question:

These buildings were cheaper to purchase (downtown) than to build on campus. However, they won't be on the NDSU steam plant system which means their own heating systems (and separate heating costs). And they'll be away from primary campus services (increased travel time for plant services, campus mail, etc.).

What are the long-term costs of ownership of these cheap-to-buy downtown buildings relative to having built (a more costly up front) on-campus facility?

The steam system is inefficient.

[biff]

Sorry, I missed the part where it says that the savings included the cost of renovation. Did it also include code upgrades? You mention that they will probably make them "green" buildings to save on energy costs. Is this also included in the cost you are stating?

Once again, the State has to look at the long term consequences of decisions made, not the short term fixes.

Nano is correct, purchasing and remodeling the buildings is cheaper than building a new building, and it results in more space while saving 3.5 million. The article didn't mention all of that. Isn't that good business sense for any institution? Some like to dig up dirt, surely you can dig up those facts too.

[Siouxman]

Nano is correct, purchasing and remodeling the buildings is cheaper than building a new building, and it results in more space while saving 3.5 million. The article didn't mention all of that. Isn't that good business sense for any institution? Some like to dig up dirt, surely you can dig up those facts too.

Sorry, but you are missing the point. Buying and remodeling are the upfront costs. The ongoing costs of ownership (maintenance, heating, cooling, repairs, modifications,etc.) go far beyond that. In many cases those costs will outweigh the upfront costs when you do a life cycle evaluation (which happens to be my business). With a new building you may pay more up front, but you can design in many features and items that will reduce operating costs and long run ownership costs. Buying a used vehicle will save you on upfront costs, but cost you more in the long run because of higher maintenance, poorer gas mileage, etc.

So far we have only seen part of the picture, and you cannot make a valid judgement that it is a good deal on that.

[biff]

Sorry, but you are missing the point. Buying and remodeling are the upfront costs. The ongoing costs of ownership (maintenance, heating, cooling, repairs, modifications,etc.) go far beyond that. In many cases those costs will outweigh the upfront costs when you do a life cycle evaluation (which happens to be my business). With a new building you may pay more up front, but you can design in many features and items that will reduce operating costs and long run ownership costs. Buying a used vehicle will save you on upfront costs, but cost you more in the long run because of higher maintenance, poorer gas mileage, etc.

So far we have only seen part of the picture, and you cannot make a valid judgement that it is a good deal on that.

You can't make a good judgement that it isn't.

[Hammersmith]

NDSU/SBoHE response:

NDSU: Plan adhered to law

University spokesman Dave Wahlberg said NDSU did not need legislative approval for the project because the building is not on state property and it

[SOONERbeaSIOUXfan]

Nano is correct, purchasing and remodeling the buildings is cheaper than building a new building, and it results in more space while saving 3.5 million. The article didn't mention all of that. Isn't that good business sense for any institution? Some like to dig up dirt, surely you can dig up those facts too.

I am not certain of this but is it not true that the purchase of this private building downtown will result in no future property taxes as it is now a government owned building? I know in Bismarck, private business has griped about that issue for years because of the State government being housed there. That would be an additional burden on the tax base within the city of Fargo.

[gjw007]

Nano is correct, purchasing and remodeling the buildings is cheaper than building a new building, and it results in more space while saving 3.5 million. The article didn't mention all of that. Isn't that good business sense for any institution? Some like to dig up dirt, surely you can dig up those facts too.

I'd be just a little careful with that statement as there are many variables that could make the renovation extremely expensive. Consider that the building could have been built with asbestos. At the time of the building, it would have been legal but it is illegal now and it is expensive and time consuming to remove given the current laws. I'm not saying this is the case for the building but that there could be hidden factors that may make renovating older buildings much more expensive than expected.

I read the banter with interest but since I live in Maryland, I really don't have a position on this other than noting that costs may sometimes be higher than expected.