Seriously?! I know quite a few faculty and they HATE that guy as much as Allbuffs does. Of course, his recent track record has been much, much worse than his past mediocrity so it might be that he used to be respected.
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
- Thread starter buff4bcs1985
- Start date
He isn't liked by faculty and staff as far as I can tell
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
it's been since 2012 since i had a CU paycheck....and i will say the people i knew, faculty admins and staff thought Phil was a good guy for their interests.
maybe elevation has changed the man or his reputation at the institution.
can't say.
maybe elevation has changed the man or his reputation at the institution.
can't say.
THIS!
Mark Kennedy is not the problem at CU. I have met him and expect him to be very supportive of the AD and football, in particular.
The two left wing, football-hating idiots on the Board of Regents (Shoemaker and Kroll) along with that dumbass lefty, faculty member Lesley Smith, however, are a serious threat to the CU football program.
buffalo1
Club Member
This is true. I've served on numerous appointed and elected boards. The hired executive director should never get in the middle of a board squabble. The ED will almost always be shown the door at some point. But the ED CAN provide important facts, data, information and perspective from an expert/staff knowledge point of view.
I wasn't previously that concerned about Kennedy as an athletics/football supporter.
I'm now terribly concerned.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Because the issues relate to far more in the state than just their position of leadership.
You’re going out of your way to find fault with the guy.
No. I'm saying it's a weird thing to me from both Regent Ganahl and President Kennedy.
I don't understand how you separate lobbying efforts related to your job function from your job by saying that it's something you're doing on the side as a private citizen. Maybe it is just to make it clear that their positions are not representing CU in any official capacity, but I don't know that it's really possible to separate the two.
As far as the issue itself, I haven't studied it enough to see if I agree with Ganahl, Kennedy or neither.
FIFY. The place to fight them is via campaign donations and votes.
I think a government or quasi governmental employ should steer clear of interjecting political opinion in their job as much as possible. There are reasons government employees are reminded of the Hatch Act every election cycle.
I’m skeptical when I hear about lists like this being leaked. There’s a small number of people who could have leaked the list and the person who leaked it has a clear agenda.
at this point, it doesn’t really matter who the other candidates were. We hired Kennedy. We hashed our the reasons he wasn’t the best choice months ago. The Regents screwed the pooch, but that’s all water under the bridge now. It does no good to re-open the debate.
at this point, it doesn’t really matter who the other candidates were. We hired Kennedy. We hashed our the reasons he wasn’t the best choice months ago. The Regents screwed the pooch, but that’s all water under the bridge now. It does no good to re-open the debate.
chitownbuff
Club Member
The list was confirmed by CUs lawyer in agreement to not release 3 candidates name...
And I disagree entirely with your conclusion. You can't sweep this under the rug as the 'it is over now' because in a few years the process is going to happen again. The public needs to be aware of the disaster so that hopefully it doesn't again. The discussion is less about Kennedy at this point, and more about process.
Additionally it should help drive any efforts to reform the BoR, which is such a freaking cluster ****
chitownbuff
Club Member
With 3 regents up for re-election, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Take your head out of the sand and do something about it if you weren’t happy with the results.
What's your point? That a nakedly political process that yields a poor result should be swept under the rug so we can all feel good about it? At some point, CU is going to have to hire a new president. Is it your position that the same process should apply? What if Democrats control the Board of Regents at the time? You good with a requirement that the hiree must have been an elected Democrat?
Edit: What @dio said.
Why is the motive of the leaker relevant? Almost every source speaks to the press for selfish reasons. It's what they reveal that matters.
I think motive is always relevant.