Big news in the wind

[UND92,96]

Your question appears to assume that prior to the advent of Internet message boards, there was no way for incompetent people to be removed from their jobs.

No, actually I try not to assume. You know the old expression. But do I think Buning's fate was in any significant way related to postings on this or any other message board? Not at all. I also don't think for one second that Harmeson based his decision on anonymous complaints. I believe the survey simply confirmed that what he had been hearing from many people within the department was indeed a consensus opinion.

It is obviously unfortunate that UND is not looking very good in many people's eyes because of this whole episode. Which is why I ask the question: what SHOULD the UND administration have done?

[Stromer]

The first one.

Ok. Then if he was to be fired on Monday, the administration screwed it up by not waiting until Kup came back. If I am going to fire my AD, I am darn well going to have the President of the University there along with the other major players. I also am not going to fire him the weekend of Potato bowl when there are a lot of alumni in town and all eyes focused on the football program. I would wait for a weekend like this one where the FBall team is out of town and it is pretty quiet in town. Alas, did he need to be removed last weekend or could it have waited a couple more weeks?

[mikejm]

I should probably confess my role in this whole fiasco and beg forgiveness. You see the Bunings and I met over a couple of beers the other day and I told them that he was to be fired on Monday.

Obviously both Tom and Debi were more than a little surprised at the revelation. I did have to explain that the firing had been delayed, as it was originally scheduled to happen 16 July. But I told them in no uncertain terms that I had it on good authority that Monday would be it.

I'm sure the Bunings spent a lot of time over the days after our meeting weighing their options. While the leave of absence concept seems a little lame, perhaps it was the only thing they could come up with on such short notice.

So, again, I am sorry for whatever role I might have unwittingly played in complicating this situation. Had I not told Tom he was to be fired, I'm sure the whole thing would already be behind us.

[GeauxSioux]

POSITION: Associate Athletics Director/Chief Financial Officer, #08-091

Looks like Twamley is doing something.

[PCM]

You're teaching journalism to me?

Someone needs to. You continually preach about journalism when you obviously know nothing about the subject.

I thought you told me at one time you weren't a journalist? Sorry, I forgot, reporter / member of the media. How can someone who hasn't worked in journalism teach journalistic standards.

I told you in a private message that I was raised by a journalist, that I have a degree in journalism, that I have worked as a professional journalist, that I've won awards for journalism and that I've spent the past 25 years working in the field of media relations. While it's true that there are a great many people who know far more about journalism than I do, I'm reasonably confident that my knowledge of the subject far surpasses yours.

I also told you that I don't consider my hobby of covering hockey for USCHO to be real journalism. That's why I have no problem hanging the "sudo-reporter" label on myself that someone here slapped on me several years back. I gave you a list of people who are professional journalists and who get paid to cover UND athletics full time. I suggested that if you wanted to berate real journalists for what they don't know, you call them up and give them a piece of your mind. Did you do that?

OK, sorry....to pacify people let's call my source "Deep Throat". There, he's got a name. Now the journalist (I mean reporter or member of the media) in you can go about speculating and writing who Deep Throat is.

Actually, I have a pretty good idea who it is. I have my soruces, too.

[The Sicatoka]

POSITION: Associate Athletics Director/Chief Financial Officer, #08-091

Looks like Twamley is doing something.

That's an AAD position, not the AD position.

[7NationalTitles]

Ok. Then if he was to be fired on Monday, the administration screwed it up by not waiting until Kup came back. If I am going to fire my AD, I am darn well going to have the President of the University there along with the other major players. I also am not going to fire him the weekend of Potato bowl when there are a lot of alumni in town and all eyes focused on the football program. I would wait for a weekend like this one where the FBall team is out of town and it is pretty quiet in town. Alas, did he need to be removed last weekend or could it have waited a couple more weeks?

All they need is the OK from Kupchella to get it done. If they have his approval, they don't need him to be at the meeting. It may look better if the is there but sometimes the situation calls for immediate action and the action can't be delayed until everyone is in place. I'm sure Kupchella weighed in accordingly.

[GeauxSioux]

That's an AAD position, not the AD position.

I realize that it isn't the AD. Just pointing out that movement is happening.

Looking at the directory there doesn't seem to be anyone in that position.

UND Athletics

[7NationalTitles]

I should probably confess my role in this whole fiasco and beg forgiveness. You see the Bunings and I met over a couple of beers the other day and I told them that he was to be fired on Monday.

Obviously both Tom and Debi were more than a little surprised at the revelation. I did have to explain that the firing had been delayed, as it was originally scheduled to happen 16 July. But I told them in no uncertain terms that I had it on good authority that Monday would be it.

I'm sure the Bunings spent a lot of time over the days after our meeting weighing their options. While the leave of absence concept seems a little lame, perhaps it was the only thing they could come up with on such short notice.

So, again, I am sorry for whatever role I might have unwittingly played in complicating this situation. Had I not told Tom he was to be fired, I'm sure the whole thing would already be behind us.

I have to ask, was this done out of loyalty to the Buning's or for what other reason. I don't see in any way how it would help the administration to inform the employee about this before it happens. Doing so allows the employee to come up with alternative plans to pre-empt any action the University would or was planning to take. I would think that informing him of this would undermine any procedures the school already had in place to get the thing done and to keep it from getting all muddied.

Hmmm......interesting.........

[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.

[THETRIOUXPER]

I have to ask, was this done out of loyalty to the Buning's or for what other reason. I don't see in any way how it would help the administration to inform the employee about this before it happens. Doing so allows the employee to come up with alternative plans to pre-empt any action the University would or was planning to take. I would think that informing him of this would undermine any procedures the school already had in place to get the thing done and to keep it from getting all muddied.

Hmmm......interesting.........

As I read what mikejm wrote I had to sit back and laugh. Knowing him like I think I do i'm pretty sure he was just having some fun trying to lighten things up a little. In fact, if you were serious mike, I have to say i would be very, very concerned about you.

[PCM]

I should probably confess my role in this whole fiasco and beg forgiveness.

You are a bad, bad man.

[The Sicatoka]

I did have to explain that the firing had been delayed, as it was originally scheduled to happen 16 July.

I thought it was August 5. Never mind.

[PCM]

No, actually I try not to assume. You know the old expression. But do I think Buning's fate was in any significant way related to postings on this or any other message board? Not at all.

If that's the case, what was the point of keeping up the steady drumbeat of anti-Buning posts for months? What was the point of telling people to flood Twamley Hall with e-mails and phone calls to do something about Buning? What was the point of "insiders" castigating anyone who dared to suggest that there might be another side to the story or that all in the athletics department might not be as bad as it seemed? Why did the "insiders" invest so much time and effort in berating anyone who dared to post something positive about Buning?

I find it interesting that all those who so desperately wanted Buning gone suddenly want to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their role in making it happen.

[DI IN FARGO]

A couple of questions:

1. In your opinion, had nothing ever been mentioned about problems within the athletic department on this board, would the end result have been substantially different for Buning? Put another way, were the whispers a substantial cause of Buning's problems, or merely a result of his actions?

2. In your opinion, how should the administration have handled this matter?

I'm curious how you condone the use of survey by anonymous sources to determine ones job? I asked this in a previous post and I see not one person has attempted an answer. If UND had as part of its SOP used surveys to determine or help determine all employees job perfomrance I don't think UND would be in quite the fix they are in. I would still question the use of anonymous sources but so be it. But in this case UND has gone out of the normal SOP by it's own admission to conduct a survey on one employ Bunning. To the general public that looks terrible. To the employees attorney it has to look like a gift to be used in a lawsuit against the employer for unfair and unequal treatment directed towards one employee. I've never heard of any organization using such tactics against one employee whether you think he did a good job or not. If he didn't then document the issues and follow the SOP for such terminations. Going on a witch hunt to fire an empolyee which is exactly what happened deserving or not to be fired is wrong. But if you want to defend that practice feel free. The other posters are correct who have said this only makes whats happening look like a three ring circus, without the ring leader present.

[7NationalTitles]

If that's the case, what was the point of keeping up the steady drumbeat of anti-Buning posts for months? What was the point of telling people to flood Twamley Hall with e-mails and phone calls to do something about Buning? What was the point of "insiders" castigating anyone who dared to suggest that there might be another side to the story or that all in the athletics department might not be as bad as it seemed? Why did the "insiders" invest so much time and effort in berating anyone who dared to post something positive about Buning?

I find it interesting that all those who so desperately wanted Buning gone suddenly want to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their role in making it happen.

I'm not absolving myself. I think my drumbeat has been pretty clear and have said things on the inside weren't as rosy as they looked to the average person on the outside. I'm sure what I said didn't change anybody's mind nor did it cause anyone to call / email Twamley. Buning's actions spoke for themselves and it didn't need the help of posters from here to help nudge him out the door. Now it's coming out from those being surveyed what it was actually like on the inside and how they felt which isn't too far off than what was being said by those against Buning on here.

Yet people didn't want to believe it then and still don't want to believe it. Now they want to blame myself and other for our role in all of this and our responsibility. If you think that, than I must have more power than I thought. And if I'm that powerful, what cause do you want me or others to pursue next? That's just good stuff right there. I'm powerful and have influence....ha ha! Good times....good times.

[THETRIOUXPER]

I'm not absolving myself. I think my drumbeat has been pretty clear and have said things on the inside weren't as rosy as they looked to the average person on the outside. I'm sure what I said didn't change anybody's mind nor did it cause anyone to call / email Twamley. Buning's actions spoke for themselves and it didn't need the help of posters from here to help nudge him out the door. Now it's coming out from those being surveyed what it was actually like on the inside and how they felt which isn't too far off than what was being said by those against Buning on here.

Yet people didn't want to believe it then and still don't want to believe it. Now they want to blame myself and other for our role in all of this and our responsibility. If you think that, than I must have more power than I thought. And if I'm that powerful, what cause do you want me or others to pursue next? That's just good stuff right there. I'm powerful and have influence....ha ha! Good times....good times.

I believe that the reason people wanted the e-mails sent and the phone calls made was to show support for Hak getting a new contract, not to get buning fired.

[siouxjoy]

I'm curious how you condone the use of survey by anonymous sources to determine ones job? I asked this in a previous post and I see not one person has attempted an answer. If UND had as part of its SOP used surveys to determine or help determine all employees job perfomrance I don't think UND would be in quite the fix they are in. I would still question the use of anonymous sources but so be it. But in this case UND has gone out of the normal SOP by it's own admission to conduct a survey on one employ Bunning. To the general public that looks terrible. To the employees attorney it has to look like a gift to be used in a lawsuit against the employer for unfair and unequal treatment directed towards one employee. I've never heard of any organization using such tactics against one employee whether you think he did a good job or not. If he didn't then document the issues and follow the SOP for such terminations. Going on a witch hunt to fire an empolyee which is exactly what happened deserving or not to be fired is wrong. But if you want to defend that practice feel free. The other posters are correct who have said this only makes whats happening look like a three ring circus, without the ring leader present.

I saw your first post, and the first thing that popped into my head was my grad class in Personnel, Supervision, and Staff Development. Some organizations implement a 360 evaluation program, where employees get an opportunity to evaluate their supervisor. It is all done anonymously, so employees don't feel that their answers will be detrimental to their future employment. I, personally, would love to see it. In a lot of orgs, the supervisor answers to someone who isn't with that person day in/day out. It is hard to see what is going wrong (or right) until something hits the fan. Plus, as a supervisor, I would think that getting feedback from my employees can only make me better.

I realize this isn't exactly the same thing that happened in the athletics office, but it is similar to a common practice seen in a lot of organizations.

[DI IN FARGO]

I saw your first post, and the first thing that popped into my head was my grad class in Personnel, Supervision, and Staff Development. Some organizations implement a 360 evaluation program, where employees get an opportunity to evaluate their supervisor. It is all done anonymously, so employees don't feel that their answers will be detrimental to their future employment. I, personally, would love to see it. In a lot of orgs, the supervisor answers to someone who isn't with that person day in/day out. It is hard to see what is going wrong (or right) until something hits the fan. Plus, as a supervisor, I would think that getting feedback from my employees can only make me better.

I realize this isn't exactly the same thing that happened in the athletics office, but it is similar to a common practice seen in a lot of organizations.

Fair enough but what about only doing it for one employee? That's a huge problem and I don't see how UND will be able to defend that.

[The Sicatoka]

If UND had as part of its SOP used surveys to determine or help determine all employees job perfomrance ....

Dig around the NDUS site. There has to be a review procedure that solicits feedback from all interfaces with a particular job: supervisors, peers, and those who report to. (Every organization has some method to do that.) I'd be surprised if it hadn't always been there. It got used. The result was found under open records. And?

[mikejm]

I have to ask, was this done out of loyalty to the Buning's or for what other reason. I don't see in any way how it would help the administration to inform the employee about this before it happens. Doing so allows the employee to come up with alternative plans to pre-empt any action the University would or was planning to take. I would think that informing him of this would undermine any procedures the school already had in place to get the thing done and to keep it from getting all muddied.

Hmmm......interesting.........

Let's put this on a level you might understand:

You buy your pizza dough from Larry, the salesman for Acme Pizza Dough Co. You really like the dough; it makes a good pie and your customers like the crust a lot. You think Larry is a decent guy, but he's not the reason you buy your dough from Acme. You'd buy Acme dough even if Larry was fired.

But you hear from the Allied Pizza Sauce salesman, Phil, that Larry is going to get fired. So the next time you see Larry, you mention what you've heard, so he can get his ducks in a row, or whatever he decides to do with this "information".

Does the fact that you told Larry that you heard he was going to be canned in any way compromise

[THETRIOUXPER]

Let's put this on a level you might understand:

You buy your pizza dough from Larry, the salesman for Acme Pizza Dough Co. You really like the dough; it makes a good pie and your customers like the crust a lot. You think Larry is a decent guy, but he's not the reason you buy your dough from Acme. You'd buy Acme dough even if Larry was fired.

But you hear from the Allied Pizza Sauce salesman, Phil, that Larry is going to get fired. So the next time you see Larry, you mention what you've heard, so he can get his ducks in a row, or whatever he decides to do with this "information".

Does the fact that you told Larry that you heard he was going to be canned in any way compromise

[star2city]

Fair enough but what about only doing it for one employee? That's a huge problem and I don't see how UND will be able to defend that.

You and I have no idea what the state's procedure is or whether Buning was on probation.

Could NDSU defend how they treated George Ellis? The courts repeatedly said no.

"The entire situation reeks of the school looking for a way to get rid of Ellis because of a personal dislike or because Ellis didn't fit the corporate, yes-man atmosphere that seems to have taken over the Bison Sports Arena"...

The judge said George Ellis won

NDSU over the last few years has been purging the "undesireable old and infirmed" from the campus. They're general treatment of those that have been dedicated employees is to first LIE on performance reviews - have employees escorted to their vehicles and not allow the employee to take any of their personal belongings until NDSU personnel has gone through them with a fine tooth comb....... and if the employee is lucky they MIGHT get some of their property back.

If you are looking for injustice, perhaps look within your own camp first. Come back when it's cleaned up.

[mikejm]

Say, have you ever considered a career in sales mike?

No, I don't think any pizza parlors would buy anything from me

[UND92,96]

If that's the case, what was the point of keeping up the steady drumbeat of anti-Buning posts for months? What was the point of telling people to flood Twamley Hall with e-mails and phone calls to do something about Buning? What was the point of "insiders" castigating anyone who dared to suggest that there might be another side to the story or that all in the athletics department might not be as bad as it seemed? Why did the "insiders" invest so much time and effort in berating anyone who dared to post something positive about Buning?

Well, I don't think I did any of those things, aside from perhaps being anti-Buning, but the point, as it were, is that as a fan and alum, I'm going to give my opinion when it comes to what I perceive as damage being done to the department. Of course not everything Buning did was bad, but evidently the bad outweighed the good or he probably wouldn't have gotten such low marks from those in the department.

I find it interesting that all those who so desperately wanted Buning gone suddenly want to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their role in making it happen.

To the extent I'm in any way responsible for Buning's apparent ouster, I'm not trying to absolve myself. I just don't think it would have happened based upon complaints from people outside the department. Personally, I e-mailed Phil Harmeson exactly once, and it was during the men's basketball coach hiring process. As somebody once suggested, I pretty much let the professionals handle it. And I guess they did.