Negotiated Settlement?

[ScottM]

What part of "change in public policy" don't you understand? That change obviously wasn't Stenehjem's call to make.

Changes in "public policy" are usually done in a more transparent environment, not under the guise of a "settlement". If the State and/or Board wish to change policy, perhaps they should stop mirroring the NC$$ and allow ND residents their duly given input.

While we're at it, I think the powers that be should change UND's official colors to Pink and Yellow, since they're more fitting.

[PCM]

Changes in "public policy" are usually done in a more transparent environment, not under the guise of a "settlement". If the State and/or Board wish to change policy, perhaps they should stop mirroring the NC$$ and allow ND residents their duly given input.

Residents of North Dakota can always vote their elected leaders out of office if they don't like changes made to public policy. So, by all means, exercise your democratic right to get everyone associated with the settlement voted out of office. But to believe that Stenehjem is the only elected official involved in the policy change is naive.

[ScottM]

Residents of North Dakota can always vote their elected leaders out of office if they don't like changes made to public policy. So, by all means, exercise your democratic right to get everyone associated with the settlement voted out of office. But to believe that Stenehjem is the only elected official involved in the policy change is naive.

No. What's "naive" is to presume that even if the AG and "the powers that be" were all replaced in the next election the settlement might be changed or invalidated. Basically, the train has left the station and there's nothing that can be done without breaching the agreement. Have another drink of the Kool-Aid, since the tribes will never agree to the use of the name/logo regardless of how deeply you pine for it.

[gjw007]

I think having no nickname at all is hands down the best alternative if the Fighting Sioux is retired.

I'm actually in favor of this as well. Of course Dakota is a name of a tribe so it'll be back to step one.

[The Whistler]

Residents of North Dakota can always vote their elected leaders out of office if they don't like changes made to public policy. So, by all means, exercise your democratic right to get everyone associated with the settlement voted out of office. But to believe that Stenehjem is the only elected official involved in the policy change is naive.

This is great, it allows me to nurse my conspiricy theories if I wish to. As much fun as that is I'll stick to assuming incompetence on the part of the Attorney General and the Governor's appointee's.

But as was said the train is out of the station. We cannot get this agreement rescinded. It's likely the tribes won't change their minds. It's gone and the incompetents in Bismarck gave it away.

Changes in "public policy" are usually done in a more transparent environment, not under the guise of a "settlement". If the State and/or Board wish to change policy, perhaps they should stop mirroring the NC$$ and allow ND residents their duly given input.

Great point. Wish I 'd said that.

Dagies said:

Based on what little I have read, it's likely UND would have won this case. But what then. Already the involved parties knew that the NCAA was close or likely to instituting a revised by-law allowing the very process that implemented this policy in the future. So UND would have won, and shortly thereafter the NCAA would be smarter and come back with the same policy, lawfully enacted, and UND would have been up a creek.

First of all winning isn't a small thing. It would certainly have bought us as much time as the Stenejhem surrender bought us. Secondly a well designed case would have us winning the case with prejudice. I talked to an attorney with a far more steller private practice than our AG had. This was his take on the matter.

[gjw007]

I'm well aware of that, but that's not the same thing as polling the general public on whether the settlement with the NCAA is good, bad or somewhere in between. A non-scientific poll of people who frequent this site -- that vast majority of whom strongly favor keeping the name -- doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know.

This statment Friday by Chancellor Bill Goetz is important to understand:

[The Whistler]

The lawsuit was always on a very narrow legal grounds

It should not have been. Incompetence.

[ScottM]

PCM is correct that UND did get something out of it and by fighting, made a point.

And what exactly was this "point"? Sue the NC$$ with all of the hellfire and brimstone a law firm can mount, and then slink away to seek permission from non-litigants that will never be given, or if it is given it can be yanked for any reason? Tell your supporters and donors that UND/the State have a great case and we're going to pursue it for a reasonable time until we decide to cave in?

Of course, "points" and "principles" play well in academia and government when you're using OPM. I think anybody who donated to the litigation fund is due an f'ing refund if this is the result that money bought.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Not an expert here...

Neither am I. So its quite possible we have a case of the blind leading the blind here.

...but I don't think the questions you would like to pose were relevant to this case. I think this case was whether the NCAA had followed their own by-laws in instituting this policy, and UND was likely to win. I doubt those questions you posed would have been allowed, or answered. It would be great to force the NCAA to answer them, but I don't think that was part of the deal.

Hmm. Just as UND, et al would be making the argument that they didn't follow their bylaws, I would guess that the NCAA would be saying that the

DID

follow the bylaws. And as they (the NCAA) have already said that they were responding to complaints (but never said who complained, nor how many complaints were recieved) I think that your lawyers could have asked was how they interpreted their bylaws: i.e., that their bylaws allowed/empowered this particular committee to respond to/adjudicate complaints. And if they said yes, then Pandora's Box is opened.

However, we'll never know the answer to whether such a line of question would have been allowed. Personally, I just thought it would be a natural lead-off question: "So how did you come to the conclusion that UND was hostile and abusive?"

Based on what little I have read, it's likely UND would have won this case. But what then. Already the involved parties knew that the NCAA was close or likely to instituting a revised by-law allowing the very process that implemented this policy in the future. So UND would have won, and shortly thereafter the NCAA would be smarter and come back with the same policy, lawfully enacted, and UND would have been up a creek.

IMHO, its very likely that the NCAA would have submitted ammended bylaws in the event they had lost the (now settled) lawsuit. However, I think it would have been interesting to see the legal and semantic gymnastics they would have gone thru to write a bylaw that said "this tribe, but not that tribe from Mexico" and who and what comprised the namesake exemption. Not to mention the idea that its only native Americans other than Eskimos; but certainly not Scandanavians or Irish.

And of course, your president would have had his day on the floor of the convention.

For those who think the settlement was just as good as the FSU/Utah "agreements": do we know whether the Seminoles and Utes voted within their constitutional requirements? And do we know if FSU and Utah are subject to the "once a SINGLE vote is taken to rescind permission, you must change and you are never allowed to change back no matter what the result of subsequent votes may be" provision that you seemingly agreed to at the University of North Dakota?

(edit) And for that matter, do we know if the Okie Seminoles have an equal voice with the Florida Seminoles in voting up or down on Osceola? Because AFAIK, only the Florida tribe benefits financially from the agreement with FSU.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

...the tribes will never agree to the use of the name/logo regardless of how deeply you pine for it.

To me this seems like an absolute no-brainer. Why would these tribes change their position now when they have been unwilling to do so for the last 15-odd years?

And the three year provision is simply counter-productive. Why would either of these tribes accept whatever your first offer is; or for that matter ANY offer made during the next two years? They know that the closer you get to 2010, the more you'll sweeten the pot.

For that matter, the idea that you need two tribes to continually agree leads me to assume that these tribes will constantly be trying to "one up" each other. "You gave tribe X these conditions: we want all of that, plus we want this much more....."

[bincitysioux]

I tend to agree. I see no reason for UND to put itself into another "debate" about a name/logo, and trying to appease every freakin' interest group under the Sun from the NC$$ to some tribes to PETA to some other college that may have the same name. There's no requirement for a team name, and I see no reason to search for a replacement.

I respectfully disagree. I will not personally wear another UND logo, but I'll continue to support the teams.

Where I disagree is that we should have a new logo so that the younger folks can build their own traditions.

The reason I would be in favor of no nickname if the Fighting Sioux is discontinued is because to me, "retiring" the nickname is alot different than "replacing" it. I hold the Fighting Sioux name in too high of regard to be comfortable with the idea of simply allowing the name and what it means to me and surely countless others to be swept under the rug under the guise of a potential community "Name the University Contest". It is just a nickname, I know, but it means something to me.

If tribal consent cannot be obtained, then "retiring" it rather than "replacing" it would be the only option that would allow the name to still live on in some way, shape, or form. One of the great things about the Fighting Sioux is the fact that it is unique. Well, having no official nickname is also unique. The NCAA and the tribes can take the official nickname from the school if they so choose, but they can't take the passion that I feel for the name away.

The football team is known as the Fighting Sioux, but the offensive line is called the "Hogs". Dale Lennon said on last week's coaches show that he doesn't know how the name got started but it has endured and been passed on for years since the 70's. I want the Fighting Sioux name to endure and be passed on. If some new generic name like the River Rats is adopted, that will not allow Fighting Sioux to endure. The school may not be able to market the name in the future, but the fans, students, and alumni can still carry it on if they are allowed to. I feel that having no official nickname would induce an environment for UND to still be referred to by fans, students, alumni, and the community and state as the Fighting Sioux. Similar to how the Montreal Canadiens are often referred to as the Habs, the Pittsburgh Pirates often called the Bucs, or the Harvard Crimson often referred to as the Cantabs.

Adopting a new name will make our generation the last to know the Fighting Sioux.

[The Sicatoka]

We'll, now we see if the Sioux are as strong as the Seminoles, the Chippewas, and the Utes.

Given what I've seen of their current leadership, they're not.

[Sioux-cia]

I'm depressed and don't have the energy to go look for the guy's name but remember the new member of the SBoHE? He was a former tribal council member who vehemently opposed the Fighting Sioux name and logo. Once he was on the Board, he supported the name and logo. Today, does he support it or oppose it?

This is what we have to look forward to. . . . I'm going back to bed.

[PCM]

What's "naive" is to presume that even if the AG and "the powers that be" were all replaced in the next election the settlement might be changed or invalidated.

Obviously, that wasn't the point.

Basically, the train has left the station and there's nothing that can be done without breaching the agreement. Have another drink of the Kool-Aid, since the tribes will never agree to the use of the name/logo regardless of how deeply you pine for it.

When the AG says that he's optimistic that something positive could come out of negotiations with the tribes, I'll trust the Kool Aid served by someone who's here in the state dealing with the tribes, politics and legal issues every day over someone who isn't.

[PCM]

This is great, it allows me to nurse my conspiricy theories if I wish to.

It has nothing to do with "conspiracy theories." It's how politics work. Public policy changes such as this aren't made in a vacuum.

[PCM]

Let me ask the "battle to the bitter enders" a question: How much money were you willing to contribute to a protracted legal fight? Because it's pretty easy to make such demands when it's on someone else's dime. Were you willing to empty the coffers of your personal fortunes until every possible legal remedy had been exhausted? If not, why not?

Do we know that those who were funding the bulk of the lawsuit didn't put a limit on what they were willing to spend? Do we know whether the expenses were approaching that limit? Because that certainly would make a difference in the state's willingness to cut the best deal it could get.

[The Sicatoka]

Public policy changes ....

We get to see how our public neighbors operate within the realm of mutual interests and public policy. It'll be great to learn who they really are. And then we can operate in kind.

[dagies]

Neither am I. So its quite possible we have a case of the blind leading the blind here.

Your Honor, I'd like to plead guilty to that charge.

[The Sicatoka]

Your Honor, I'd like to plead guilty to that charge.

I am an expert witness because I say I am.

[larsensa]

This entire situation is pathetic. I can't wait to see what issue the NCAA goes after next! What is most upsetting for me in this whole sitaution is that we were bullied by a monopolistic organization. UND is a small school and didn't have the resources to fight the way we all would've liked UND to fight the NCAA! We are one of 1250 that are lining the pockets of the NCAA. Kinda like the Duke Lacrosse players that were accused of rape. If they didn't have the money to pay for the great lawyers they had they probably would've been falsely convicted but they were able to get the best and they got off.

If we were FSU or another one of the big colleges with more alum with deep pockets we would've had a much bigger chunk of cash to spend to go after the NCAA and the outcome may have been different.

[The Sicatoka]

I can't wait to see what issue the NCAA goes after next!

Well, one man has made a guess or two already ....

[Taz Boy]

Let me ask the "battle to the bitter enders" a question: How much money were you willing to contribute to a protracted legal fight? Because it's pretty easy to make such demands when it's on someone else's dime. Were you willing to empty the coffers of your personal fortunes until every possible legal remedy had been exhausted? If not, why not?

Do we know that those who were funding the bulk of the lawsuit didn't put a limit on what they were willing to spend? Do we know whether the expenses were approaching that limit? Because that certainly would make a difference in the state's willingness to cut the best deal it could get.

In my opinion, too much was spent already to get the settlement we are now discussing. I blame the NCAA for that. So, am I glad a settlement was reached that gets the NCAA out of NoDak for a while? You bet. But, I think reasonable people can argue whether or not the terms of the settlement are favorable or unfavorable to UND.

For example, there is no settlement that would have fully satisfied Taz Boy without requiring the NCAA to take out a full page add in every major metro newspaper with the following 48pt text:

"We, the NCAA Executive Committee, were wrong. Wrong to label UND's campus as being hostile and abusive to Native Americans without a shred of evidence. Wrong to lobby members of regional tribes to support similar accusations. Wrong to spend time on nicknames. Wrong to have small animal fetishes. Wrong to allow Minnesota to have a D-I football team. Wrong to be lead by muffinheaded ninnys. Wrong, wrong, WRONG."

Not sure what negotiating tactic I would have used to get that one in there. But, what the hey.

I also don't like the detailed itemization of "what can stay, what can go" for the REA. To me, it's none of the NCAA's bidnaz what the hell is in that building. Shall we now have officials from the NCAA scrub ALL major venues in collegiate athletics for even a hint of "images commonly associated with Native American culture"? What if UND wins a regional game in the REA as host, and then hours later is declared imagery "unclean" and therefore ineligible for tournament play because the opposing team's equipment manager stumbled across a North Dakota State Seal hanging in the storage room? Much better for me would be to simply agree to removing the logo from the ice and main arena signage (electronic or otherwise).

The requirement that UND adopts a new nickname and logo, or goes back on "the list", is concerning as well. Sure, the UND community may very likely pick a new name. But, we shouldn't agree that we have to. Is this a requirement of the other schools dropping their nicknames?

The big picture I think for many folks is that the NCAA implemented a policy that is fundamentally wrong, and they did so in a manner that violated their own processes. The law suit which would have proven this allowed them time to go back and dot "i's" and cross "t's" to make it conform. Sure, they spent some money to defend themselves, but other than that, no penalties/reversals/policy changes of significance. The NCAA machine rolls on unscathed. Meanwhile, UND is on the brink of losing their beloved nickname-- with only a 3yr stay of execution.

Certainly, the financial aspects make this settlement a welcome relief. But, the details read more like a white-glove lecture on approved behavior by the NCAA. Hard to take, that's all.

taz

[The Whistler]

Let me ask the "battle to the bitter enders" a question: How much money were you willing to contribute to a protracted legal fight? Because it's pretty easy to make such demands when it's on someone else's dime. Were you willing to empty the coffers of your personal fortunes until every possible legal remedy had been exhausted? If not, why not?

Clearly spending a million dollars and getting nearly to the starting line speaks volumes to incompetence. If money was the sole object we shouldn't have spent that money.

Do we know that those who were funding the bulk of the lawsuit didn't put a limit on what they were willing to spend? Do we know whether the expenses were approaching that limit? Because that certainly would make a difference in the state's willingness to cut the best deal it could get.

Ah the old debate what we don't know technique.

[PCM]

In my opinion, too much was spent already to get the settlement we are now discussing. I blame the NCAA for that. So, am I glad a settlement was reached that gets the NCAA out of NoDak for a while? You bet. But, I think reasonable people can argue whether or not the terms of the settlement are favorable or unfavorable to UND.

Which is what you did, quite effectively. But to say that North Dakota quit and got nothing isn't reasonable because it's not true.

[PCM]

Ah the old debate what we don't know technique.

The old "pretend to know everything" technique is quite effective, too.