Board of Regents Meeting

[JimmyJack]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

See, I disagree with that mentality.

I'm not saying that you treat those who disagree with you disrespectfully. I'm saying that you do not adjust your message for them. They're not listening.

The BoR message needs to be clear, simple, and unapologetic:

"Universities bring money into the local economy through research grants and research funding. Universities produce a competitive local workforce. Universities help launch new businesses. Universities contribute culture and entertainment."

Every action they undertake needs to underpin that.

When you say, "Our universities need ongoing investment," but repeatedly defer authorizing that ongoing investment, you are effectually supporting those who say, "they don't really need that investment."

Because, clearly, if the school *needed* that investment, the BoR would authorize it.

I get what you're saying, and you're absolutely right.

[propar80]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

1 - no $100M stadium
2 - this is okaying a fifteen year master plan, not authorizing immediate construction of 100% of the work
3 - why not defer launch of the "It Starts With State" campaign?

Shoot. By extending this logic, SDSU should avoid announcing gifts, avoid announcing new projects, avoid announcing fund raising campaigns, and avoid soliciting donations because it would 'look bad.'

Zoo's exactly right...This "approval" from the BOR isn't to "build" a new stadium. This approval is needed to just get plans for a new stadium ready to show prospective donors, how it might be funded, etc.

Example: Because of BOR/SD Leg. red tape...the Dykhouse SAC is short amost $1M in upgrades because of it. So in otherwords, almost $1M of Mr. Dykhouse and Mr. Sanford's money went to SD political bulls#$t, instead of into that building. If I was T. Denny, I wouldn't give one more red cent to a project that has anything to do with the SD Legislature. I hope they don't feel this way, but I wouldn't blame them one bit if he did.

It is absolutely mind-numbing how anti-progressive Pierre is. And I'm by no means a Democrat(Progressive).

Go Jacks!!

[zooropa]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

At the same time you look across campus and they are building $100 million football stadium?

1 - no $100M stadium
2 - this is okaying a fifteen year master plan, not authorizing immediate construction of 100% of the work
3 - why not defer launch of the "It Starts With State" campaign?

Shoot. By extending this logic, SDSU should avoid announcing gifts, avoid announcing new projects, avoid announcing fund raising campaigns, and avoid soliciting donations because it would 'look bad.'

[joeboo22]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

Amen Zooropa!!!

It takes vision and leadership to move forward. Posturing and politicing will always be done, but vision and leadership moves us forward!

it does, and I agree with it that they should have ok'd it along time ago. But when you are announcing faculty cuts, tuition raises and approving over $100 million in Sports buildings in the same meeting people are not going to be happy.

How would you feel if you are the chair of the history department, you are told you are not going to get a raise, you have to lay-off 2 of your assistant professors and your students tuition is going up. At the same time you look across campus and they are building $100 million football stadium? I know its different and everything but you have to see why so many people see line A see line B and make a connection.

[GopherHole]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

Amen Zooropa!!!

It takes vision and leadership to move forward. Posturing and politicing will always be done, but vision and leadership moves us forward!

[zooropa]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

From Chicoine's letter in the latest State magazine:

"Members of the Joint Committee on Appropriations asked university presidents what practices would stop, change, and start if state funding were reduced again. My response then was rather basic: South Dakota State will continue to implement the 2008-2012 strategic plan of the University."

That's the kind of statement I'm talking about: 'Regardless of funding, we will continue to pursue our strategic plan.'

It reinforces the university's autonomy in setting its course.

Had Chicoine involved the legislators in discussions about what would be cut, what would be kept, etc., allowing them to opine on the relative merits of different programs, practices, etc., how could he later argue in favor of university autonomy?

[zooropa]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

Take Trev Alberts @ UNO.

His position: "We cannot stay D-2 and keep the athletic department. We cannot go D-1 with wrestling and football and keep the athletic department."

Now if he were to start waffling, authorizing second and third studies, start talking about ways to save football, etc., guess what happens to his argument?

All of a sudden, he's negotiating against himself.

And that is PRECISELY what the BoR does when it waffles on things like this.

[zooropa]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

I don't disagree at all... except that a few of the people who feel that universities are parasites serve in the state Legislature. You can't stop trying catering to them. Well, you can... but things could always get worse if you do.

See, I disagree with that mentality.

I'm not saying that you treat those who disagree with you disrespectfully. I'm saying that you do not adjust your message for them. They're not listening.

The BoR message needs to be clear, simple, and unapologetic:

"Universities bring money into the local economy through research grants and research funding. Universities produce a competitive local workforce. Universities help launch new businesses. Universities contribute culture and entertainment."

Every action they undertake needs to underpin that.

When you say, "Our universities need ongoing investment," but repeatedly defer authorizing that ongoing investment, you are effectually supporting those who say, "they don't really need that investment."

Because, clearly, if the school *needed* that investment, the BoR would authorize it.

[JimmyJack]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

IMO it is folly to cater to those who cannot be pleased.

Whether it's supporters of the nickname in North Dakota, supporters of the wrestling and football programs at UNO, or people in South Dakota who feel that universities are parasites that do nothing for the state's economy--in all three instances, you cannot convince them otherwise, so why bother?

I don't disagree at all... except that a few of the people who feel that universities are parasites serve in the state Legislature. You can't stop trying catering to them. Well, you can... but things could always get worse if you do.

[zooropa]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

You really think Jim Gas Station Guy in Chamberlain or Bob the Bus Driver in Kadoka is interested in splitting hairs about what "kind" of money is being spent by the Regents? Or are they just going to shake their heads and wonder why the Ivory Tower gang doesn't know enough to tighten its belt? People hear what they want to hear.

IMO it is folly to cater to those who cannot be pleased.

Whether it's supporters of the nickname in North Dakota, supporters of the wrestling and football programs at UNO, or people in South Dakota who feel that universities are parasites that do nothing for the state's economy--in all three instances, you cannot convince them otherwise, so why bother?

[HoboD]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

I would think that a newer facility thats replacing an older facility may not cost as much to maintain in the long run.

Not necessarily. Depends on what you are replacing the old with. More square footage, more related infrastructure (parking lots, practice fields) more amenities vs. the prior facility could easily relate to higher maintenance costs then the old facility.

[Pierre_Jacks_Fan]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

I would think that a newer facility thats replacing an older facility may not cost as much to maintain in the long run.

[Nidaros]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

Many people who WORK on university campuses don't understand the concept of different pots of money. I have heard tenured faculty members ask why athletics money isn't going to the library, or why the money spent to pave a parking lot isn't being spent on employee salaries.

You really think Jim Gas Station Guy in Chamberlain or Bob the Bus Driver in Kadoka is interested in splitting hairs about what "kind" of money is being spent by the Regents? Or are they just going to shake their heads and wonder why the Ivory Tower gang doesn't know enough to tighten its belt? People hear what they want to hear.

The Regents work in a political system. They rely on the Legislature (political, no?) to set funding levels. Legislators listen to Jim in Chamberlain and Bob in Kadoka, no matter how clueless they are.

I would also agree with this and the other post. We are in an anti-progressive era. Less government and less spending, but we should still have to have those services no matter what. i.e. a basketball arena at USD. I think a knee-jerk era would be an appropriate name.

Another point is that even if some thing is built with private funds, the cost of maintaining this building is the responsiblity of the state. So even though the intial cost is free to the tax payers, the cost of maintaining that facility is not. It comes from the taxpayers, so politically it is a big consideration.

[JimmyJack]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

Many people who WORK on university campuses don't understand the concept of different pots of money. I have heard tenured faculty members ask why athletics money isn't going to the library, or why the money spent to pave a parking lot isn't being spent on employee salaries.

You really think Jim Gas Station Guy in Chamberlain or Bob the Bus Driver in Kadoka is interested in splitting hairs about what "kind" of money is being spent by the Regents? Or are they just going to shake their heads and wonder why the Ivory Tower gang doesn't know enough to tighten its belt? People hear what they want to hear.

The Regents work in a political system. They rely on the Legislature (political, no?) to set funding levels. Legislators listen to Jim in Chamberlain and Bob in Kadoka, no matter how clueless they are.

[joeboo22]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

I'm with you. If it's coming from 100% private donations, then there should be no problems.

But the mentality of a lot of people is that either those donations would go to the school's endowment or if they can raise money to have a 50-200 million dollar stadium they shouldn't be cutting faculty or research individuals at the Universities. The Board of Regents wants to win the media with these "drastic cuts" saying we are taking a lot of pain and its hurting the students. If right after they cut the faculty they announce a 120 million stadium at SDSU and a 45 million dollar basketball facility for USD they lose a lot of people. (I'm guessing on numbers have no clue what they actually will be)