fs1 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Sioux-cia, when you say "I'm not talking about Buning's job performance. I'm talking about the circus/freak show we're calling his firing", how can you put any responsibility on UND for what it has become? Are they responsible for him pulling the leave of absense out of a hat? If you want to call it a circus/freak show then go ahead, but remember, and that is you and the rest that feel that way, who is responsible for what it has become, Mr Buning and he alone is responsible for it. He could have just walked away but chose not to do that. He alone made it into what it is, and I am sure in his future job search it will come back to haunt him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7NationalTitles Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Sioux-cia, when you say "I'm not talking about Buning's job performance. I'm talking about the circus/freak show we're calling his firing", how can you put any responsibility on UND for what it has become? Are they responsible for him pulling the leave of absense out of a hat? If you want to call it a circus/freak show then go ahead, but remember, and that is you and the rest that feel that way, who is responsible for what it has become, Mr Buning and he alone is responsible for it. He could have just walked away but chose not to do that. He alone made it into what it is, and I am sure in his future job search it will come back to haunt him. A simple timeline if you will so perhaps Sioux-cia can follow or anyone else for that matter..... Step 1) Buning is told before weekend of homecoming that he is going to be let go and he can either be fired or walk away amicably and save himself and UND the embarrassment of dragging this thing out. He's given the weekend to decide. Step 2) Buning takes the weekend and decides that he does not want to be fired and that he also doesn't want to resign and resolve the matter quickly (to review and reflect on a possible lawsuit?). He finds the section in the university system rules/procedures dealing with leave of absences. Buning tells the school he's requesting a four week leave of absence (in order to give himself time to see if he wants to file suit or if he realizes he's got no recourse against the school). Step 3) Speculation begins to run rampant. Varying opinions on message boards. Newspapers digging for public information disclosures. Opinion and other articles written. A circus/freak show ensues as Sioux-cia so elequently puts it. Step 4) Monday, October 15......what happens after that? Does Buning walk away and agree to a settlement or does he let things drag on or possibly file a lawsuit in the future? The question is, what does Buning have up his sleeve? To me, the whole thing could have been resolved four weeks ago during that homecoming weekend. A press conference was set-up on Monday at that time to announce that Buning was leaving (either by being fired, resignation, or mutually agreed settlement to part ways.....whichever Buning chose which one he wanted to do). I know we won't change Sioux-cia's mind because Buning is a good guy since he took the time to talk to her for five minutes and give her a little pep talk and shake her hand (does the image of Presidents kissing babies come to mind???), but.... in the end, the situation that was to be concluded four weeks ago, turned into a circus/freak show directly related to Buning's request for the leave of absence, not UND officials or any of the rest of us. And the circus/freak show could continue into the future depending on Buning's decision and course of action after next Monday. The moral of the story for those for whom it was too hard to follow......DIRECT ACTIONS TAKEN BY BUNING CAUSED THE SITUATION WHERE WE ARE AT TODAY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Sioux-cia, when you say "I'm not talking about Buning's job performance. I'm talking about the circus/freak show we're calling his firing", how can you put any responsibility on UND for what it has become? Are they responsible for him pulling the leave of absense out of a hat? If you want to call it a circus/freak show then go ahead, but remember, and that is you and the rest that feel that way, who is responsible for what it has become, Mr Buning and he alone is responsible for it. He could have just walked away but chose not to do that. He alone made it into what it is, and I am sure in his future job search it will come back to haunt him. Can any ND university employee just take a LOA? Doesn't it have to be approved by someone? Again most are missing the point about Mr. Martinsen, no post I've seen is ripping him for anything. It's the policy of placing him into the athletic department under the control of the university president and not the AD. I know that it's been said that he wasn't in the athletic department, but anyone that is involved with university athletics should report to the AD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Can any ND university employee just take a LOA? Doesn't it have to be approved by someone? http://www.ndus.edu/policies/human-resourc...olicy.asp?id=21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 A simple timeline if you will so perhaps Sioux-cia can follow or anyone else for that matter..... Step 1) Buning is told before weekend of homecoming that he is going to be let go and he can either be fired or walk away amicably and save himself and UND the embarrassment of dragging this thing out. He's given the weekend to decide. Sioux-cia can certainly fight her own battles, but I'm pretty sure she was largely referring to what happened before Step 1. I.e. Martinson's involvement, information leaks to ss.com posters who started the whisper campaign, etc. In my opinion, whoever was right or wrong, this is the type of stuff that happens when the President doesn't care about athletics. Leadership starts at the top. Kupchella should have never delegated oversight of the athletic department to someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 10, 2007 Author Share Posted October 10, 2007 Kupchella should have never delegated oversight of the athletic department to someone else. What if some in the athletic department asked for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 ...delegated oversight of the athletic department to someone else. Two someone elses: Harmeson and Martinsen. That's messy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 http://www.ndus.edu/policies/human-resourc...olicy.asp?id=21 Sounds to me someone has to approve it. But then the wording is as clear as mud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Sioux-cia can certainly fight her own battles, but I'm pretty sure she was largely referring to what happened before Step 1. I.e. Martinson's involvement, information leaks to ss.com posters who started the whisper campaign, etc. I suppose people can decide for themselves whether I'm credible or not, but I know for a fact that Dan Martinsen was not the source for the information posted on this site regarding the lack of passes for coaches' families, etc. Yes, he received an e-mail about it, but a lot of other people knew about this issue, as well. A number of people were upset about the situation. It's not important who the poster was, or where he/she got the information, but it did not come either directly or indirectly from Dan Martinsen. I'm not here to argue whether certain leaks should or should not have happened, but I don't like it when people are blamed for things they did not do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Kupchella should have never delegated oversight of the athletic department to someone else. This is not aimed at you "mksioux" but to the general audience (you just happened to bring it up): This "president should run athletics" mindset (perpetuated by the NCAA no less) is hokum in my opinion. Yes, athletics is very public, but it's one aspect of a major university. Why should the president "more run" directly athletics moreso than medicine, law, art & sciences, engineering, research, or any other division? Good leaders delegate. If athletics at a university, any university, requires a "full-time president" maybe we should shut down the rest of the university and call college athletics what it is in that model: professional, with a CEO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxmama Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 I know we won't change Sioux-cia's mind because Buning is a good guy since he took the time to talk to her for five minutes and give her a little pep talk and shake her hand (does the image of Presidents kissing babies come to mind???), but.... That's about as far off base as you can get! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iramurphy Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Can any ND university employee just take a LOA? Doesn't it have to be approved by someone? Again most are missing the point about Mr. Martinsen, no post I've seen is ripping him for anything. It's the policy of placing him into the athletic department under the control of the university president and not the AD. I know that it's been said that he wasn't in the athletic department, but anyone that is involved with university athletics should report to the AD. Contrary to what some believe, Martinson had no decision making authority and made no decisions about things within the athletic department. He served in an advisory capacity and his role was to assist with the D1 transistion which would require him to communicate with many people in the Athletic Dept. including coaches as well as Alumni office staff and administrative personel. A lot of what he did was garner financial support and committments to make the D1 move based on what those at UND told him it would require and to try and coordinate communication between the involved parties. If you have followed the D1 move in your own school, you should realize the D1 move is not just about athletics but involves academics, research, marketing, and support from students and faculty etc. I would hope that is all a part of what Martinson advised the president on. I am not sure why people assumed he had any decision making authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 10, 2007 Author Share Posted October 10, 2007 I suppose people can decide for themselves whether I'm credible or not, but I know for a fact that Dan Martinsen was not the source for the information posted on this site regarding the lack of passes for coaches' families, etc. Yes, he received an e-mail about it, but a lot of other people knew about this issue, as well. A number of people were upset about the situation. It's not important who the poster was, or where he/she got the information, but it did not come either directly or indirectly from Dan Martinsen. I'm not here to argue whether certain leaks should or should not have happened, but I don't like it when people are blamed for things they did not do. Nor do I. And it's precisely why I wish people would think a bit more about who's reading what's posted here, how it appears to the outside world and how others might use it to discredit UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 This is not aimed at you "mksioux" but to the general audience (you just happened to bring it up): This "president should run athletics" mindset (perpetuated by the NCAA no less) is hokum in my opinion. Yes, athletics is very public, but it's one aspect of a major university. Why should the president "more run" directly athletics moreso than medicine, law, art & sciences, engineering, research, or any other division? Good leaders delegate. If athletics at a university, any university, requires a "full-time president" maybe we should shut down the rest of the university and call college athletics what it is in that model: professional, with a CEO. I'm sure you know what "delegated oversight" means. mksioux didn't say that the president should "run" the athletic department. That's why you have an AD to run the department, just like the head of any department or division. The president is still responble for all departments within his/her university. It's well known that Kupchella didn't have much time for athletics. He resisted the move to DI from the start. Spin it anyway you want but the ultimate responsibility for the situation in the athletic dept. is Kupchella's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 That's why you have an AD to run the department, just like the head of any department or division. Yup, and they all report to VPs or Deans, not the president (as the NCAA would have). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Outsider here. Take my opinion for what it's worth. I would argue that, under typical conditions, an AD should have as much regular contact with their university's president as any dean of a college. In times of flux or transition, that contact should increase to the level of a VP. I don't believe that was happening here because the comments made by Kupchella in Buning's evalution all seem to come from reports he had read rather than personal experience with the man. I would further argue that most of the problems stem from a president that views athletics as a necessary evil, rather than as a tool and catalyst to further the universty's main missions. This attitude seems to have created small fissures that other problems took root in and widened. Just one person's opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Are there any formal performance evaluations, in addition to the anonymous 360 eval, that document Bunning's poor job performance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 10, 2007 Author Share Posted October 10, 2007 I would further argue that most of the problems stem from a president that views athletics as a necessary evil, rather than as a tool and catalyst to further the universty's main missions. I don't believe that's even close to an accurate characterization of the situation at UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 I don't believe that's even close to an accurate characterization of the situation at UND. Sorry, but that's the way it looks fom the outside. It seems like CK does just barely enough to keep the necessary people happy, but is never proactive. I don't see any of the passion he has for academics, research and endowments reflected in his actions towards athletics. I'm not saying I'm right, just that I haven't seen much to contradict this view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 10, 2007 Author Share Posted October 10, 2007 Sorry, but that's the way it looks fom the outside. It seems like CK does just barely enough to keep the necessary people happy, but is never proactive. I don't see any of the passion he has for academics, research and endowments reflected in his actions towards athletics. I'm not saying I'm right, just that I haven't seen much to contradict this view. The state of athletics at UND throughout Kupchella's tenure and the success its teams have enjoyed are all the proof I need that your view is far from reality. Exactly what do you think the athletics program would look like at a university run by a president who viewed athletics as "a necessary evil"? UND would be one of the worst examples you could find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 I don't see any of the passion he has for academics, research and endowments reflected in his actions towards athletics. A president of an academic and research institution putting academics, research, and long-term funding for those (endowments) ahead of athletics on his priority list? What is the man thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxforeverbaby Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 A simple timeline if you will so perhaps Sioux-cia can follow or anyone else for that matter..... Step 1) Buning is told before weekend of homecoming that he is going to be let go and he can either be fired or walk away amicably and save himself and UND the embarrassment of dragging this thing out. He's given the weekend to decide. Step 2) Buning takes the weekend and decides that he does not want to be fired and that he also doesn't want to resign and resolve the matter quickly (to review and reflect on a possible lawsuit?). He finds the section in the university system rules/procedures dealing with leave of absences. Buning tells the school he's requesting a four week leave of absence (in order to give himself time to see if he wants to file suit or if he realizes he's got no recourse against the school). Step 3) Speculation begins to run rampant. Varying opinions on message boards. Newspapers digging for public information disclosures. Opinion and other articles written. A circus/freak show ensues as Sioux-cia so elequently puts it. Step 4) Monday, October 15......what happens after that? Does Buning walk away and agree to a settlement or does he let things drag on or possibly file a lawsuit in the future? The question is, what does Buning have up his sleeve? To me, the whole thing could have been resolved four weeks ago during that homecoming weekend. A press conference was set-up on Monday at that time to announce that Buning was leaving (either by being fired, resignation, or mutually agreed settlement to part ways.....whichever Buning chose which one he wanted to do). I know we won't change Sioux-cia's mind because Buning is a good guy since he took the time to talk to her for five minutes and give her a little pep talk and shake her hand (does the image of Presidents kissing babies come to mind???), but.... in the end, the situation that was to be concluded four weeks ago, turned into a circus/freak show directly related to Buning's request for the leave of absence, not UND officials or any of the rest of us. And the circus/freak show could continue into the future depending on Buning's decision and course of action after next Monday. The moral of the story for those for whom it was too hard to follow......DIRECT ACTIONS TAKEN BY BUNING CAUSED THE SITUATION WHERE WE ARE AT TODAY! except your timeline is wrong or perhaps worded wrong. Buning took the leave of absence on Sept. 16th or so we have been told. It was announced on the 17th, that is two days after the Potato Bowl and a full week before Homecoming week started. So, he was not given the weekend of Homecoming to decide. Now, if I may I believe what Siouxcia is referring to is that we the people should only have known that he was taking a leave of absence. There never should have been so-called "facts" that he has been fired. Yes, I know that it looks like he has been and you have your sources that told you that, but I have to go with what the people who are in charge at the Univ. say and they say that he hasn't been. Regardless of whether there was rumors or not, the public still shouldn't have had any ideas about problems. I don't not proclaim to know all that is going on at UND nor would I want to because that is why we have people in charge. I don't have a need to know even if I want to, so why do I think that I need to? Even if people have been let in the know of something as an employee of UND, they shouldn't let others outside of UND or who already knows about it know about it. I am sorry, that is my little rant and I will stop now or it will go on forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 What if some in the athletic department asked for it? Maybe that speaks to his lack of interest in athletics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 10, 2007 Author Share Posted October 10, 2007 Maybe that speaks to his lack of interest in athletics? Or maybe it speaks to his sense of priorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 A president of an academic and research institution putting academics, research, and long-term funding for those (endowments) ahead of athletics on his priority list? What is the man thinking? That athletics are a burden; something he wishes he could do without or, at the very least, foist off on someone else. That attitude would work great at a very prestegious academic university like some of the Ivys, other private schools, or DIII schools. But UND is different. UND requires a president that understands that athletics are critical to the alumni base. That athletics are an engine for university growth. That, at a school like UND, athletics must be put at, or near, the same level as academics and research because athletics can provide the excitement to boost both to new heights. Athletics primes the pump for growth and fundraising. I don't believe CK believes that deep down. He'll pay lip service to it to keep big boosters placated, he may even want to believe it, but his actions, comments and letters don't bear it out. I wasn't going to bring him into this, but I need him to make a point. Do you think Joe Chapman is a sports fan? A football or basketball fan? He's not. But he completely gets the role of athletics at a state school like NDSU(or UND). He knows that he needs to show complete support for athletics. It doesn't mean that other parts of campus need to suffer. At the same time he was pushing athletics, he was also taking research from $45M to $105M annually(that's NSF numbers, not massaged figures). He doubled the number of graduate students while tripling the number of graduate degrees offered. I don't know if the 5-year/$75M fundraising campaign would've been successful without the excitement generated by the MN FB games and the WI BB wins, and I'm sure it wouldn't have made it to $108M without them. BTW, $53M of that went towards endowments. What I'm trying to say, is that the president of a school like UND must be an active and visible supporter of athletics for the school to reach its full potential. Can any of you say that Charles Kupchella fits that description? I can't. Since I'm an outsider, I'll stop posting on this thread unless somebody directs a comment to me that needs a response or someone asks something that can be answered with hard data(I'm good at that ). Otherwise, I've said all that I wanted and perhaps a bit more than I should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.