Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Mark Kennedy new, but soon to be old CU President - Official CU president Thread

I still can’t wrap my head around how this guy could possibly be the sole finalist. How on Earth can he be the cream of the crop? You mean to tell me they interviewed a dozen or so candidates, supposedly after sifting through their resumes to make sure they had the requisite qualifications, whittled it down to a couple, and then chose this guy? How does that happen? Something is seriously wrong with the process if that’s actually what happened here.
 
Not Sure said:
I still can’t wrap my head around how this guy could possibly be the sole finalist. How on Earth can he be the cream of the crop? You mean to tell me they interviewed a dozen or so candidates, supposedly after sifting through their resumes to make sure they had the requisite qualifications, whittled it down to a couple, and then chose this guy? How does that happen? Something is seriously wrong with the process if that’s actually what happened here.
Click to expand...
There were over a hundred applicants, perhaps the position isn't as stellar as we would like to think it is.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
That's a good question. Is there a mechanism in place to decline the suggestions and start over? The finger-pointing and name-calling has gone over the line, though.
Click to expand...
The finger pointing and name calling is a function of the emotional nature of this issue. Calmer heads need to look past that noise.
 
Not Sure said:
I still can’t wrap my head around how this guy could possibly be the sole finalist. How on Earth can he be the cream of the crop? You mean to tell me they interviewed a dozen or so candidates, supposedly after sifting through their resumes to make sure they had the requisite qualifications, whittled it down to a couple, and then chose this guy? How does that happen? Something is seriously wrong with the process if that’s actually what happened here.
Click to expand...
He was a finalist for a similar position in Florida. So, possibly, he has at least some appeal to some people. Maybe. I’m not defending him. Just pointing out a fact. Don’t attack me! :)
 
SuperiorBuff said:
There were over a hundred applicants, perhaps the position isn't as stellar as we would like to think it is.
Click to expand...
With over 100 applicants and Kennedy was really the best one? Wut?

I’m not saying we should hire Stanford’s President. But I can’t get over the apparent fact that this guy was the best of the bunch. That just doesn’t compute for me.
 
DBT said:
He was a finalist for a similar position in Florida. So, possibly, he has at least some appeal to some people. Maybe. I’m not defending him. Just pointing out a fact. Don’t attack me! :)
Click to expand...

UCF is not similar to the CU job though. Quite different actually.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
First off, I don't give a flying **** if you think I'm wearing thin or not.

Everything I have said has been documented in the media. The Regents did not **** up the search process from the beginning. The process was done according to policy and very professional. The search committee was very inclusive, not at all stacked politically. This has been documented in the media.

At what point have I defended Kennedy? What gives you any indication that he would be my choice?

Will the final vote be political? You're goddamn right it will. Is it the best way to choose a president, no. It's what we have, and politically voted in boards will vote with a political bias.

All I have done in this thread, is call out the witch-hunt where it has been documented as false.

If you don't like this explanation, blow me!
Click to expand...

CaLmEr hEaDs MuSt PrEvAiL!
 
SuperiorBuff said:
First off, I don't give a flying **** if you think I'm wearing thin or not.

Everything I have said has been documented in the media. The Regents did not **** up the search process from the beginning. The process was done according to policy and very professional. The search committee was very inclusive, not at all stacked politically. This has been documented in the media.

At what point have I defended Kennedy? What gives you any indication that he would be my choice?

Will the final vote be political? You're goddamn right it will. Is it the best way to choose a president, no. It's what we have, and politically voted in boards will vote with a political bias.

All I have done in this thread, is call out the witch-hunt where it has been documented as false.

If you don't like this explanation, blow me!
Click to expand...
You still didn't answer my question about which part of Bliff's post was wrong. I suspect you take issue with the part of the post that says that the finalist process (which I think we all understand is different than the search committee) has been a cluster**** from the start.

I think if you look at it objectively, that's true:

  • The candidate leaked that CU had voted him to be the sole finalist to an ND newspaper (which should have been disqualifying immediately).
  • Then, rather than coordinate on response,there were several different regents and the official CU spokesperson saying different things to the media about "how things were rushed"- which got misconstrued as "the search process was rushed" when evidently they meant that the "announcement of the finalist" was rushed. They then had to go back and correct those statements.
  • Further, both Shoemaker and Lesley Smith have said that some of the information revealed after he was announced as the sole finalist was not revealed to them prior to the vote to name him finalist. I know- you've already said that's wrong, but you can't very well say "this stuff has been documented in the media" for some stuff but not other stuff if you can't or won't say why.
  • Then, a regent said to the media that they were expecting the media and constituents to do some of the vetting, which furthers the narrative that this was a sloppy process.
Like it or not, objectively that is a cluster****. Educate me as to what's incorrect about the bullet points above.

You have repeatedly responded to any criticism of the process with flip statements about how the criticism is wrong, but you haven't given any reasons as to why we should trust you over what the regents are saying to the press. My suspicion is that you (or someone you're very close to) were somehow involved in the search committee- and I don't think anyone here has criticized the job of the search committee but rather the BoR in their approval of this joker as the sole finalist.

I'm sorry that you take any criticism of this whole process personally, but thanks for stopping by the board, Sue.
 
ZandiBuff said:
That was as bad as a political debate.
Ask a question.
Dance around the question.
Say you don't understand the question.
Answer a different question.
Move on.
Click to expand...

Yeah - not great. Hopefully we're all wrong and the guy is great. I expect a bumpy ride for the next 5 years
 
Denver_sc said:
You still didn't answer my question about which part of Bliff's post was wrong. I suspect you take issue with the part of the post that says that the finalist process (which I think we all understand is different than the search committee) has been a cluster**** from the start.

I think if you look at it objectively, that's true:

  • The candidate leaked that CU had voted him to be the sole finalist to an ND newspaper (which should have been disqualifying immediately).
  • Then, rather than coordinate on response,there were several different regents and the official CU spokesperson saying different things to the media about "how things were rushed"- which got misconstrued as "the search process was rushed" when evidently they meant that the "announcement of the finalist" was rushed. They then had to go back and correct those statements.
  • Further, both Shoemaker and Lesley Smith have said that some of the information revealed after he was announced as the sole finalist was not revealed to them prior to the vote to name him finalist. I know- you've already said that's wrong, but you can't very well say "this stuff has been documented in the media" for some stuff but not other stuff if you can't or won't say why.
  • Then, a regent said to the media that they were expecting the media and constituents to do some of the vetting, which furthers the narrative that this was a sloppy process.
Like it or not, objectively that is a cluster****. Educate me as to what's incorrect about the bullet points above.

You have repeatedly responded to any criticism of the process with flip statements about how the criticism is wrong, but you haven't given any reasons as to why we should trust you over what the regents are saying to the press. My suspicion is that you (or someone you're very close to) were somehow involved in the search committee- and I don't think anyone here has criticized the job of the search committee but rather the BoR in their approval of this joker as the sole finalist.

I'm sorry that you take any criticism of this whole process personally, but thanks for stopping by the board, Sue.
Click to expand...

Bliff Cranch said:
What I think nearly all of us can agree on is this search and ‘finalist’ process has been a cluster from the start and the Regents, left, right, and center, are to blame.
Click to expand...
This is what is wrong with his post.

Since the finalist has been leaked/revealed, a couple of the regents have created a complete cluster****. We have one who makes the village idiot look like a genius, Kroll. And another who's political agenda trumps her responsibilities to the board, Shoemaker. Unfortunately, with a politically assembled board, speaking with one voice is impossible. Individuals can not be controlled.

Shoemaker and Smith are outright lying; everything "dug up" after the announcement was brought to the regents by the search committee, and discussed with the candidate during his interview. There have been no surprises.

You obviously won't believe this, I don't give a ****.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
This is what is wrong with his post.

Since the finalist has been leaked/revealed, a couple of the regents have created a complete cluster****. We have one who makes the village idiot look like a genius, Kroll. And another who's political agenda trumps her responsibilities to the board, Shoemaker. Unfortunately, with a politically assembled board, speaking with one voice is impossible. Individuals can not be controlled.

Shoemaker and Smith are outright lying; everything "dug up" after the announcement was brought to the regents by the search committee, and discussed with the candidate during his interview. There have been no surprises.

You obviously won't believe this, I don't give a ****.
Click to expand...
Source.
 
I do not doubt Superior on this at all. It took less than 5 minutes on google to find the **** that has been brought up. What is really disturbing to me is the settiling for a canddate who does not have ties or comes from a peer institution - even from a lower role like chancellor, no fund raising experience that I have been made aware of. Those issues are big. Then his complete lack of ability in the interveiws that I have heard or watched to navigate even middle of the road questions from a difficulty standpoint.

I can believe that they went thru the correct process and have a couple of ****nuts for Regents who are unable to manage the balance of their own agendas. But I do not know how our list of candidates ended up delivering what I cannot and will not consider a viable candidate. This has nothing to do with his voting record. He just does not appear to have the chops or qualifications for the role of President of CU. There is no way one of what we consider our peer institutions would hire him.
 
Let's also not forget the pandering of Trumper Heidi Ganahl to try and score points to win a shot at the Governors mansion, or Sue Sharkey pandering to ultra-conservative Douglas County
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top