What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Kroll not seeking reelection!

This is my favorite - 'Liberals will destroy the AD! Can't vote for liberals to the BoR!!'

The BoR has been controlled by Republicans for 40years. It clearly hasn't made a difference.
Steve Bosley would like a word.

I think it’s pretty clear that any problems the AD has with the BoR stems from Regents who occupy the left side of the political spectrum. That’s not really in debate, is it? You can be a Democrat and still be supportive of athletics, but it’s very uncommon for Republican Regents to throw the kind of childish fits that dipshits like Kroll have done.
 
digging a bit more, it seems the size of 9 regents is stated in the state constitution, but doesn't provide guidance on how they are selected.

so, i'm not clear if the new districting will mean one of the 'at large' flips to a district-type seat or grows by one or how this is decided.

Text of Section 12:
Regents of University.
There shall be nine regents of the university of Colorado who shall be elected in the manner prescribed by law for terms of six years each. Said regents shall constitute a body corporate to be known by the name and style of "The Regents of the University of Colorado."The board of regents shall select from among its members a chairman who shall conduct the meetings of the board and a vicechairman who shall assume the duties of the chairman in case of his absence.


An Amendment to Articles VIII and IX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, concerning the state institutions of higher education, and providing for the governing boards thereof; increasing the number of regents of the University of Colorado from six to nine; providing for the election of such regents as provided by law; and providing for the removal of the authority of the president of the University of Colorado to vote in case of a tie vote by the Regents
 
Steve Bosley would like a word.

I think it’s pretty clear that any problems the AD has with the BoR stems from Regents who occupy the left side of the political spectrum. That’s not really in debate, is it? You can be a Democrat and still be supportive of athletics, but it’s very uncommon for Republican Regents to throw the kind of childish fits that dipshits like Kroll have done.
It's also very uncommon for Democratic Regents to act like Kroll. Trying to paint all dem regents with the Kroll brush is a nice whipping boy, but the real problem we have right now is that the AD whose hire was approved by Republican regents and then given a big raise by Democratic regents **** the bed with a coaching hire that everyone knew was very questionable.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that with redistricting, one of the at-large seats will be assigned to the new congressional district.

Additionally, the constitution says that 9 members must be elected by the citizens. The legislature could also expand the BoR to include governor appointed positions and dilute the control of the the elected regents.
 
My understanding is that with redistricting, one of the at-large seats will be assigned to the new congressional district.

Additionally, the constitution says that 9 members must be elected by the citizens. The legislature could also expand the BoR to include governor appointed positions and dilute the control of the the elected regents.
I'm not reading it the same. The language is "There shall be nine regents of the university of Colorado who shall be elected in the manner prescribed by law for terms of six years each." I'll let our lawyer members correct me, but I'd read that to be the size of nine is fixed unless the constitution is ammended.
 
You might be right because no one has ever tested it, but last time we have a big BoR discussion I believe we had some research that showed the BoR can be expanded to whatever number, so long as there are 9 elected seats as well. It was thought that that was one of the few avenues the Governor might have to influence the Regents
 
My understanding is that with redistricting, one of the at-large seats will be assigned to the new congressional district.

Additionally, the constitution says that 9 members must be elected by the citizens. The legislature could also expand the BoR to include governor appointed positions and dilute the control of the the elected regents.
Technically, the BoR reflects the total number of Congressional representatives the state has. So that number will increase to ten once the new districts are drawn. I’m any event, I like the idea of de-politicizing the BoR with a sizable number of appointee positions. The trick would be that those positions have to be added over a period of time, not all at once. Not that I think Polis would screw it up, but you don’t want one person deciding half the Regents all on his own.
 
Technically, the BoR reflects the total number of Congressional representatives the state has. So that number will increase to ten once the new districts are drawn. I’m any event, I like the idea of de-politicizing the BoR with a sizable number of appointee positions. The trick would be that those positions have to be added over a period of time, not all at once. Not that I think Polis would screw it up, but you don’t want one person deciding half the Regents all on his own.
can you cite a source? that seems contradictory to the constitutional article I quoted above: "There shall be nine regents of the university of Colorado.."
 
can you cite a source? that seems contradictory to the constitutional article I quoted above: "There shall be nine regents of the university of Colorado.."
The only source I can site is my own knowledge of how it has historically worked. There’s a regent for every congressional district plus two elected at large.
 
a bit more, from the regents' by-laws:

As provided by the state constitution and state law, there shall be nine regents of the University of Colorado, elected in the manner prescribed by law for terms of six years. The governor of the state shall fill any vacancies that may occur, and the persons so appointed shall hold their offices until the next general election and until successors are elected and duly qualified. The number of terms that a regent may serve is prescribed by section 11, Article XVIII of the Colorado state constitution.
 
and digging a bit deeper into the CO Revised Statutes:

(1) The university shall be governed by a board of nine regents, who shall be elected for terms of six years each as provided in this section.

(2) (a) At the general election held in 1974, and each six years thereafter, three regents shall be elected, one of whom shall be a qualified elector of, and elected by the qualified electors of, the first congressional district; one of whom shall be a qualified elector of, and elected by the qualified electors of, the fourth congressional district; and one of whom shall be a qualified elector of this state and elected at large by the qualified electors of this state.

(b) At the general election held in 1976, and each six years thereafter, three regents shall be elected, one of whom shall be a qualified elector of, and elected by the qualified electors of, the third congressional district; one of whom shall be a qualified elector of, and elected by the qualified electors of, the fifth congressional district; and one of whom shall be a qualified elector of this state and elected at large by the qualified electors of this state.

(c) (I) At the general election held in 1978, and each six years thereafter through the general election held in 1996, three regents shall be elected, one of whom shall be a resident of, and elected by the qualified electors of, the second congressional district, one of whom shall be a resident of, and elected by the qualified electors of, the sixth congressional district, and one of whom shall be a qualified elector of this state and elected at large by the qualified electors of this state.

(II) At the general election held in 2002, and each six years thereafter, three regents shall be elected, one of whom shall be a resident of, and elected by the qualified electors of, the second congressional district, one of whom shall be a resident of, and elected by the qualified electors of, the sixth congressional district, and one of whom shall be a resident of, and elected by the qualified electors of, the seventh congressional district.

I could be missing something, but it seems the number of nine is fixed by the state constitution, the BoR by-laws and by the CRS. Likewise, it seems that all regent positions must be elected and not appointed.

the CRS currently doesn't have a provision for handling the 8th district, so I assume @dio is right that the legislature will pass something re-allocating one of the at-large bids there.

TIA if anyone has a credible source clarifying or contradicting my understanding.
 
The only source I can site is my own knowledge of how it has historically worked. There’s a regent for every congressional district plus two elected at large.
Based on my recollections, Hokie is right. There used to be three at large, now there's two, soon likely to be one.
 
I should add that I agree completely that the way we have set up the governance of the University of Colorado system is outdated and counterproductive. It should be changed, but doing that I believe would require an amendment to the Colorado Constitution. Not that doing that is all that hard, but it’s still a process that nobody seems to want to take on.
There was a movement afoot in the State Legislature after the board selected Kennedy as president, to "stack the deck". Essentially the plan was to keep the elected Regents and add Regent seats that would be appointed by the Gov. This would not have required amending the State Constitution. That movement died when D's gained control of the board.

Edit to add: As to @hokiehead point, the sponsors of the Bill at the time they were seriously considering this, were confident that they could do it, and if it went to court they would win. That said, it certainly wasn't 100% confidence, but they were willing to try.
 
Last edited:
I posted this link earlier. I know people hate actually reading things. Redistricting affecting the BOR

It is undetermined how the Board of Regents will be reallocated by redistricting. But the elected positions of the BOR must remain at 9 by the constitution.
thanks dude.

I didn't read because I saw your avatar and thought "who the hell is this clown. scroll..."
 
I don't think CU undergrad will ever be in that top tier, and that's ok. This is just my understanding having very brief conversations with folks associated with CU, and observing what my wife has gone through at the Anschutz campus.

Frist, much like offensive line talent in the state, most of the state's top students go elsewhere. Attend any graduation and you will notice that the top students routinely attend School of Mines, Ivy league, Cal schools, or smaller more prestigious private schools. Of course there are exceptions, but when you export your best talent, you can't expect to attract top out of state talent - especially when you look at out of state tuition costs. You also can't blame Colorado kids for going to those schools, I would want my kids to make that decision if given the option.

Second, CU, rightfully so in my opinion, still has a focus to educate Colorado residents. As a result, CU has to admit several residents that drag averages down.

Just my two cents, probably 100% wrong. I think CU is a fine school, and I'd be proud if any of my girls graduated from Boulder.
I get all that, but WHY? Why did CU get to a point where local kids want to leave?
And what makes UNC so good - especially surrounded by Duke, Wake, NCST. Seems like there’s more competition there.
And UGA and UF have gone the exact opposite directions as CU. They used to be ****, now they are T50, bordering on public elite.
How does this happen?
 
This is my favorite - 'Liberals will destroy the AD! Can't vote for liberals to the BoR!!'

The BoR has been controlled by Republicans for 40years. It clearly hasn't made a difference.
Exclude the late 80's - mid 90's take out the run of weeks ranked 1 NC near 2 and a possible third 94..< different enough for you?
The second Ricky was hired the whole thing changed from the top down and we've reaped the wind.
 
My understanding is that with redistricting, one of the at-large seats will be assigned to the new congressional district.

Additionally, the constitution says that 9 members must be elected by the citizens. The legislature could also expand the BoR to include governor appointed positions and dilute the control of the the elected regents.
Due to legalese, I believe the way this is worded allows more seats. It’s a “words have meaning” type thing where if you wanted something more specific that would hold up in court, you should have written it less vaguely.
 
Lots of voices on many sides in the political spectrum? I post in there. You and I both know that isn't true. There are a ton of voices on one side - and they tend to shout down those who don't agree with them to the point where people like me (who don't-regardless of the fact that I switched parties and voted for Biden last November) get shouted down to the point they don't want to fool around in there.

By the way, Denver gave the CU BoR Jack Kroll. If you don't think another woke, anti-athletics loon coming out of there isn't a possibility - you've got another thing coming. One more thing - which political party do Kroll and Shoemaker belong to again? I don't see the Republican members of the BoR pulling the kind of grandstanding **** those two have during their time on the board.
^^^^^This I thought I was on the wrong web site...
Insinuating that the political forum contains many voices that span the spectrum is a bold face lie so much so it's laughable but I'm pretty sure that's known.
 
^^^^^This I thought I was on the wrong web site...
Insinuating that the political forum contains many voices that span the spectrum is a bold face lie so much so it's laughable but I'm pretty sure that's known.
It used to contain diverse views. Until the Republicans went full fascist. Then all the sane Pub voters on this forum switched to the party that still believes in democracy.
 
Re: diversity of opinions on the Politics board, it's a question of granularity.

At a very high level, sure, you can say"almost all the posters are Anti-Trump" and you'd be right.

But get down to specific issues and policies, get down to how the constitution should be interpreted, what tweaks may improve our government, etc... and we're all over the map.

And i have to give credit to Ken and a few others for making big efforts to reach out to our Trumpy members and engage them in rational discussion. Most, if not all, have declined to do so.
 
It used to contain diverse views. Until the Republicans went full fascist. Then all the sane Pub voters on this forum switched to the party that still believes in democracy.
I have no doubt as to your opinion(s) it is interesting how one person can speak for so many assuming they vote as they post on a web site.
 
Re: diversity of opinions on the Politics board, it's a question of granularity.

At a very high level, sure, you can say"almost all the posters are Anti-Trump" and you'd be right.

But get down to specific issues and policies, get down to how the constitution should be interpreted, what tweaks may improve our government, etc... and we're all over the map.

And i have to give credit to Ken and a few others for making big efforts to reach out to our Trumpy members and engage them in rational discussion. Most, if not all, have declined to do so.
Your failing is that you want to believe that a conserve would engage in arena they have no chance for fairness..not going to happen here better off to troll and have fun reading the circle jerk.
Your props I'm sure you believe them....but then you screwed the pooch by "Trumpy". < yep I'm going to post.
 
Back
Top