Big news in the wind

[The Sicatoka]

A little math here folks:

- Harmeson is an attorney (as well as VP) and knows the law

- Harmeson says he's legally prevented from discussing Buning's LoA

- Buning is a public employee at a public institution in an open records state

- Performance reviews of Buning are being made public by the press (as they are open record)

- Yet, Harmeson maintains he can not discuss the matter at this time.

So why can't Harmeson talk about why the LoA?

Well, there are some employment related matters that can not be included in an open record (and thus public discussions). Paragraph 4 is the one that applies to NDUS employees.

Curiouser and curiouser.

And now Kupchella says he's prevented from discussing Buning's LoA. Not surprised.

For those of you who didn't follow the link the first time:

Personnel records other than personnel records that relate to an individual in attendance at the agency or institution and employed as a result of his or her status as a student are public records open to inspection by the public.

However, pursuant to N.D.C.C. Section 44-04-18.1, employee medical and employee assistance program records are confidential and may not be placed in an employee's personnel file and may not be released without the written consent of the employee or as otherwise provided by law.

That's what I can find as about the only reason Kupchella and Harmeson would take the "no discussion" stance.

As far as blaming the VPGA for this, he did a standard practice (360 review) and has to deal with the findings. Why blame him for doing his job?

[Matt]

As far as blaming the VPGA for this, he did a standard practice (360 review) and has to deal with the findings. Why blame him for doing his job?

It's not very standard if he's the only AD on record at UND to have one. If that's me I'm awfully pissed off.

[PCM]

It's not very standard if he's the only AD on record at UND to have one. If that's me I'm awfully pissed off.

He might be the only AD, but he's not the only person in a high position to have a 360 evaluation. Why should ADs be exempt?

[Matt]

He might be the only AD, but he's not the only person in a high position to have a 360 evaluation. Why should ADs be exempt?

None of them should be exempt. That's the point. Every manager in my company has one, including myself, and it's in their file. Where's Roger Thomas' and Gino's? Applied regularly, 360's are a useful way to get honest feedback. If it is applied irregularly, it looks as though it is a tool to steamroll somebody out; and in the wrong hands, that's exactly what they can do.

[The Sicatoka]

"Surveys are a regular, normal part of the enterprise here," Kupchella said. "We did one a few years ago on the dean of the school of medicine (H. David Wilson). We did one last year on Robert Boyd (vice president of student and outreach services).

H. David Wilson was 360 reviewed and is Dean of Medicine today.

Robert Boyd was 360 reviewed and is Vice President today.

Tom Buning was 360 reviewed and ....

Why review at all?

"By law and policy of the state board, we have to do a review every year," Kupchella told the Herald. "But every few years, we do a more comprehensive one, and that is without anything dictating the need for anything special."

[The Sicatoka]

A dismissal (not even an LoA) with no reason given? We need to know all about this! Where's Mike McFeely? Let's face it: This name is probably more recognized regionally than UND's on-leave AD! Details! Stories! Page One, 72 point font headlines!

PCM:

Would you be available to teach "What goes around comes around 101" for a certain television General Manager?

[/cynicism]

OK, now that that's over, I'm guessing KVLY's GM did what needed to be done (or he wouldn't have done it and possibly put ratings in jeopardy). Let the man do his job.

[Matt]

H. David Wilson was 360 reviewed and is Dean of Medicine today.

Robert Boyd was 360 reviewed and is Vice President today.

Tom Buning was 360 reviewed and ....

Why review at all?

I notice there isn't one example of an athletic department employee listed prior to Buning. Is he the first? With all the coaches and admin folk in supervisory roles, there has to be one 360 filed prior to Buning. If even one can be referenced, then Buning can't say he's being treated differently than both his predecessors and other department personnel. If he's the only one, then why has the athletic dept been exempt prior to Buning?

[Cratter]

I notice there isn't one example of an athletic department employee listed prior to Buning. Is he the first?

Does it matter? No.

Someone has to always be the first. Now if UND does a 360 review of an AD down the future your answer will be answered of "Yes there already was an AD with a 360 review." But again does not matter who was first. There had been no need for one until this point for the AD.

At first "DIinFargo" thought the review system was that way for only one employee. I pointed out it was the first time the public has heard about it.

Now somehow it is suppose to matter if it was an AD's first time? Like Sicatoka said was the AD suppose to be exempt, because after all was it the Dean of Medicine's first 360 review? Wait...who cares. It adds nothing except to distract from the real point.

Fact: UND has a review of one of their employees saying he is/was doing a poor job.

What do most organizations do with people with poor reviews? If they have the balls they fire them or move them to another position. Glad UND is probably going to do one.

Trust me Bunning has no legal grounds for anything aka a lawsuit. UND is doing everything very textbook. Debate about it all you want. Not talking to the media, 360 reviews to make sure it was in writing, and the list goes on.

[Goon]

Does it matter? No.

Someone has to always be the first. Now if UND does a 360 review of an AD down the future your answer will be answered of "Yes there already was an AD with a 360 review." But again does not matter who was first. There had been no need for one until this point for the AD.

At first "DIinFargo" thought the review system was that way for only one employee. I pointed out it was the first time the public has heard about it.

Now somehow it is suppose to matter if it was an AD's first time? Like Sicatoka said was the AD suppose to be exempt, because after all was it the Dean of Medicine's first 360 review? Wait...who cares. It adds nothing except to distract from the real point.

Fact: UND has a review of one of their employees saying he is/was doing a poor job.

What do most organizations do with people with poor reviews? If they have the balls they fire them or move them to another position. Glad UND is probably going to do one.

Trust me Bunning has no legal grounds for anything aka a lawsuit. UND is doing everything very textbook. Debate about it all you want. Not talking to the media, 360 reviews to make sure it was in writing, and the list goes on.

Cratter I think your right and I don't think this is making UND look bad, if there is an employee that is bad he needs to go.

[so.cal.sioux]

Cratter I think your right and I don't think this is making UND look bad, if there is an employee that is bad he needs to go.

In my mind, all this does not matter.

Buning's job performance was not where is should have been. He was let go and should have been.

Let's move on! I guess it is tough to do when we have no idea what is happening exactly.

[Bison Dan]

Cratter I think your right and I don't think this is making UND look bad, if there is an employee that is bad he needs to go.

So you don't think the public views UND is a bad light over this? From what I've heard from UND alumni and people in general there are two takes. Either UND administration is very weak and petty and Buning is being treated unfairly or Buning is a bum and should go but the administration went about it the wrong way and it opened up UND for criticism. Either way it's a poor reflection on UND.

[Goon]

So you don't think the public views UND is a bad light over this? From what I've heard from UND alumni and people in general there are two takes. Either UND administration is very weak and petty and Buning is being treated unfairly or Buning is a bum and should go but the administration went about it the wrong way and it opened up UND for criticism. Either way it's a poor reflection on UND.

Nothing is as bad as the press NDSU got over their AD and his indiscretion in Nebraska.

[Stromer]

So you don't think the public views UND is a bad light over this? From what I've heard from UND alumni and people in general there are two takes. Either UND administration is very weak and petty and Buning is being treated unfairly or Buning is a bum and should go but the administration went about it the wrong way and it opened up UND for criticism. Either way it's a poor reflection on UND.

I usually disagree with everything you say but this post is totally true. Both of those views are prevelant and both reflect badly on UND. And no matter how much some Sioux fans will try to make this a pissing match about ndsu, we need to focus on our own problems and stop freaking out whenever a bison fan comes on this board (gabe excluded).

[Cratter]

Lets call it "bad publicity." Generally there should be bad things that come out of it right? But I don't see how this is going to negativly affect UND, other than verbal slander.

I don't think we will see any objective differences at UND; mainly because people have short memories (hence people are pointing out NDSU's "bad publicity" in the past like when their AD got caught in Nebraska doing "homosexual things" and was caught by the cops but like I said I forget the details).

I think UND athletic events attendance will be the same. I don't see any UND recruits not going to UND because of this. I don't think potential UND students are going to go to a different school because of this. The only slight negative might be potential future AD's at UND, but believe me there will be no shortage of applicants that want to be the Athletic Director at UND who can and will do an excellent job.

I don't see any ojective negatives at UND long term for this. Maybe its just me.

I will take those "negatives" any day due to this, than any possible long term damage (which would take way longer to repair) to UND caused by a lame duck athletic director.

But again that's just me.

[Goon]

And to the others UND is fine, so administration hired a person that didn't work out, UND rep is still in hand and most of us could care less if the Bison fans respect UND. Really, honestly!!!

If Bunning is the problem he has to go... Its a fact of life that sometimes the wrong person is hired and must be let go.

[Cratter]

I've heard from UND alumni...

First off, a lot of people on this board are UND alumni (or better yet a shareholder as they have a very vested interest in UND as they might work for the university; I believe PCM does).

there are two takes. Either UND administration is very weak and petty and Buning is being treated unfairly

This part is likely wrong. (althought there is a slight truth in everything)

Buning is a bum and should go but the administration went about it the wrong way and it opened up UND for criticism.

I think this is right for the majority, but I don't think UND went at it the wrong way. It just appears to be the wrong way, because of legality issues (of which The Sicatoka is trying to point out on multiple occassions). The thing it is just the media interpreting it the wrong way because they are mad they can't have all the facts yet until the thing is settled. Only "wrong way" was not deciding what to do with Bunning before letting it be known to others.

[iramurphy]

And to the others UND is fine, so administration hired a person that didn't work out, UND rep is still in hand and most of us could care less if the Bison fans respect UND. Really, honestly!!!

If Bunning is the problem he has to go... Its a fact of life that sometimes the wrong person is hired and must be let go.

None of this issue has anything to do with NDSU past or present. We need to take care of our own problems. It won't hurt FB recruiting nor athletics but it looks bad and the way it has played out leaves UND open to legitimate criticsim. Leave NDSU out of it. It reminds me of the parent whose kid gets in trouble and rather than dealing with their own problem child they are asking "what about the other kids?".

[petey23]

Lets straighten out a couple things here.

It was the former athletic director who tried to grab an undercover officers privates in a park in Omaha.

[tony]

Wow.

[Matt]

Trust me Bunning has no legal grounds for anything aka a lawsuit. UND is doing everything very textbook. Debate about it all you want. Not talking to the media, 360 reviews to make sure it was in writing, and the list goes on.

My company's legal department disagrees with you. The very reason every manager, not just this one or that one, or in this department or that, get's one, is so a disgruntled employee can't win a claim the policy is unfair. That's why I have to evaluate all my reps in a uniform manner as well. Further, one would think a bad 360 evaluation is far from the only thing a contract (as opposed to employee at will) would need to get fired. 360's are anonymous after all! A rep can literally say anything about their manager. Now, a bad 360, combined with accompanying other documented poor performance reviews becomes a solid case. I suppose this would indicate a lack of consensus on this issue in employment law. Or it may also be the difference in dealing with contract vs at will employees.

I'm glad you are so confident that you can write there is "no legal grounds for anything aka a lawsuit". I just haven't seen enough documentation yet to be confident either way.

[The Sicatoka]

Is the 360 the only reason?

Given Kupchella (and Harmeson before) are saying the law precludes them from discussing the issue publicly, and that everything in a public employee's record is public except for medical and medically related issues, clearly, we do not know everything there is to know.

[Siouxmama]

And to the others UND is fine, so administration hired a person that didn't work out, UND rep is still in hand and most of us could care less if the Bison fans respect UND. Really, honestly!!!

If Bunning is the problem he has to go... Its a fact of life that sometimes the wrong person is hired and must be let go.

It's also a fact that this happens more than we care to think about. I'm not saying just at UND, it happens everywhere. I am a business owner, and have been in the position to let someone go after they started their job...and their true colors come through.

[Sioux-cia]

I don't know how Buning has done in his role as AD. If he's not done a good job and there's no indication that he can do a good job, he should be let go.

I do know that members of this forum were royally po'd that a 'UND' family member was not hired as AD. I do know that when Buning hired the current women's hockey coach a SS.com member was screaming for his termination. I do know information has been posted here that according to KEH's post should not have been made public until the University released the info. For example, a private email sent by Lennon to Martinsen was posted almost verbatim on this sports forum the same day it was sent out.

I can only speculate on this one but I truly believe that since the day he signed on as UND's AD, Buning's days were numbered.

[UND92,96]

I'm listening to the coaches' show right now, and Coach Lennon mentioned how disappointed he was in the lack of marketing for the football program coming into the season. No names were mentioned, of course, but I think we know where the blame ultimately must be placed for that mistake.

[Cratter]

I'm listening to the coaches' show right now, and Coach Lennon mentioned how disappointed he was in the lack of marketing for the football program coming into the season. No names were mentioned, of course, but I think we know where the blame ultimately must be placed for that mistake.

Another reason he was able to balance the budget, but as Shawn-O points out there is more to an athletic budget than break even points....

It's an interesting argument. For me, it's up to the leadership philosophy of the university. Is an athletic department a stand-alone enterprise that should thrive or die on it's own economic merits, or is it more of an investment that yields returns to the university in other areas. You can make a case for either.

I think we know where the largest University in the Dakotas stands.