Re: Notre Dame going Independent?
READ AT YOUR OWN RISK...
$6000 is nothing. The North Dakota government has so much money right now they can't figure out how to spend it.
Nice spin dog, I almost spilled coffee on my keyboard.
I honestly expected something a bit more intelligent from you Hovey.
So essentially, they have so much money that they can afford to waste it? That's not exactly comforting news to other hard working,
responsible North Dakota taxpayers who don't appreciate this pointless and unnecessary use of taxpayer dollars by these clowns in the ND legislature:
Having six people take this trip to Indianapolis at a cost of more than $6,000 is a terrible waste of money. Maybe those who are in our North Dakota Legislature who plan to attend this meeting have been in politics too long. The dollars you are planning to spend are not yours. They belong to the citizens of North Dakota. We as citizens see this kind of waste every day in Washington, D.C. Let's not rationalize to justify this trip.
They know the NCAA is not going to change their minds, but they feel they owe it to the University of North Dakota, and more particularily, the alumni who feel strongly about the name, to take every step possible to try to save it. But I can tell you that the vast majority of North Dakota residents, and UND fans in particular, understand that boat has already sailed.
You've got to be kidding me?
The legislature owes it to UND alumni? Really?
If the bill was doomed from the beginning, then 1) Why pass an unconstitutional piece of legislation to begin with? Appease the alumni?
Please...wake up, your dreaming. What about the voice of the Native Americans who disagree with it? I guess it's ok for lily white politicians and alumni to decide what's best for them right?
and 2) Why pass such a strongly worded
BILL obviously intended to intimidate the NCAA and the SBHE by threatening an antitrust suit? Is this the best your elected officials can do in terms of diplomacy? Is this how elected officials listen to the voice of Native Americans within the State of North Dakota? This is more like a pathetic comedy routine
So tell me kind sir, what was this dumb bill essentially intended to accomplish other than p*ssing the NCAA off, running roughshod over the sentiments of tribal leaders within your borders that disagree with it, and further sealing the fate of NCAA sanctions against UND? C’mon Hovey, this is just bad governing run by a biased UND cohort…gone stupid and you know it. I reiterate, this is one of the most ridiculous and irresponsible blunders ever conceived by a state government.
So what do you think is going to happen August 15? The NCAA Board of Governors will convene, a lightning bolt from their headquarters will strike UND, smiting your enemies to the West? Good luck with that. The "sanctions" you so eagerly hope will be leveled like a thunderbolt upon us are that we can't host any NCAA events, and we won't be able to use the name or wear uniforms or equipment bearing the name in NCAA events. So what exactly are we going to be hosting between now and November?
Dispense with the special effects...that's equally as pathetic as your bias attempt to interpret my personal opinion or minimize the effects of this mess. Would it shock you if I told you I've always held that I'd like UND to keep the nickname ONLY IF it passed the litmus test assigned by the NCAA? It didn't pass, so let go of it, move on, adopt a new moniker and play hockey...this isn't quantum mechanics.
It remains to be seen what the unique effects of NCAA sanctions against UND will be. Nevertheless, no member school EVER wants to incur this kind of negative national exposure on minority rights issues and cause potential damage to a school's reputation in the eyes of an increasingly multicultural society. IMHO the substance and manner of a law of this nature tends to brand ND politicians, UND fans and segments of the general public as insensitive to minority issues, and potentially discriminatory. Moreover, the legislature’s somewhat militant approach in threatening an antitrust is a pitiful substitute for diplomacy and essentially polarizes both parties making it virtually impossible for any substantive negotiations to take place. I’m sure the press will have a lovefest on this story.
And if you think Notre Dame AD Swarbrick isn't even aware UND exists or is in this mess, well, there is dumb and there's...u
Oh, and by the way Harley, the reason we North Dakotans aren't all wound up about the unconstitutional "impairment of contracts" issue that bothers you so much is that we understand that the law passed by the Legislature will never be enforced against UND. The reason the law will never be enforced is that we understand it has nothing to do with impairment of contracts and everything to do with that fact that the Board of Higher Education, in North Dakota, is a separately established Consitutional entity, with sole authority to govern the conduct of the University of North Dakota, beyond the setting of appropriations by the Legislature.
"We"?
...so you're now representing all North Dakota citizens? Wrong, the two issues are intimately correlated. Article VIII, Section 6 (6)(b) of the North Dakota State Constitution clearly renders FULL constitutional and statutory authority over such administrative matters to the State Board of Higher Education. In fact, it was on the basis of the authority of this very article that they represented the State of North Dakota and UND in filing a
LAWSUIT against the NCAA in 2007. Subsequently, full authority to fulfill the SBHE and NCAA settlement agreement in 2007 to remove the nickname was given to the SBHE. By passing this law the legislature is in constitutional breach of recognizing the authority of this article and impairing the above said contract. That seems very clear.
I can assure you no one at UND is truly worried that the nickname law is going to be used to prosecute or sue anyone at UND or on the Board of Higher Ed.
So this law is just a Trojan horse and legislative constitutionality and jurisprudence no longer matter in North Dakota as long as we can keep the name? What kind of governing is that? That’s absurd.
Here's what a couple of current UND professors that disagree with you on the details and seriousness of this matter of a breach of constitutional authority. Perhaps you can straighten them out too!
:
Editorials and columns in North Dakota newspapers reviewed possible explanations of Rep. Al Carlson’s, R-Fargo, motivation for introducing the law mandating the University of North Dakota retain the “Fighting Sioux” name and logo. We suggest the most important question is unanswered: Is the action taken by the Legislature constitutional?
The North Dakota Century Code seems clear that the action is unconstitutional. We are not attorneys. Yet, as residents for a combined 72 years, citizens and taxpayers of North Dakota, we await a ruling from Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem. An opinion by the AG is the constitutionally mandated first step in reviewing legislative action. Charged with this responsibility, the attorney general is elected to provide an opinion on challenged actions of the Legislature. To be decided is not only the authority of the state Board of Higher Education but legality of ignoring a contract signed by state officials. And not only a contract but a contract negotiated by the attorney general.
Additionally, after reading the Century Code’s description of the power of the higher ed board, we are at a loss as to why the members of the board have not challenged legislative infringement on the constitutionally mandated authority of the board. As Lloyd Omdahl noted in a recent column in The Forum, failure to challenge the Legislature establishes a precedent that can be used in the future to justify further encroachment on the authority of the board.
What is most disconcerting is the apparent lack of accountability of Stenehjem in the matter of the authority of the board. Although several legislators requested a legal opinion, Stenehjem dismissed their request, not on grounds of standing, but more imperiously on the grounds of awaiting an appeal from the board.
We sympathize with the difficult position that Stenehjem is in given that he negotiated the agreement with the NCAA.
Now that the board has indicated, without explanation, that no appeal will be forthcoming, will Stenehjem act if the legislators’ request is reinstated? His espoused busy schedule, and deflecting of the legislators’ initial request for a legal opinion, leaves this uncertain. Uncertain as well is action by the legislators, who have made no second request for the attorney general’s opinion.
This irresponsible behavior by elected officials, legislative and executive alike, is disturbing and needs be corrected.
-Thomas Petros is a professor of psychology and Donald Poochigian is a professor of philosophy and religion at UND.
