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

onealcd said:
Any of these initiatives will be pushed through with the new president or are they so far out there that the new person will want to reverse course?
Click to expand...
I suspect the CU Online initiative will continue to be supported, but his technology initiatives might get the axe
 
Uncle Ken said:
He's the president, DBT.

Sometimes it feels like your mind does backflips to characterize a white male as the victim.

He's the ****ing president. He gets paid a lot of money to make sure things run smoothly and progress. That takes trust. It's his job.

I can acknowledge that the faculty can be difficult to work with, and I'm not even sure Kennedy was given a fair chance. But honestly, who has to be accountable in this situation? Leaders face tough challenges all of the time.
Click to expand...
I’m just asking the question. Since you are on top of it and I’m not, what has he done or not done to work with the faculty? You could be absolutely correct. I do not know. Am I just to take everyone’s word that he hasn’t made an effort to work with the faculty?
 
Not Sure said:
I would argue that there was little chance of him ever building trust with the faculty. That’s not an endorsement of his job performance, merely an acknowledgment that his was an impossible job from the get-go.

I already feel sorry for the next person, whoever that may be.
Click to expand...
Meh. It’s less difficult than you imagine.
 
Im Out He Man GIF
 
TallBuff said:
Wait, let me get this straight. A conservative majority BOR hired an underqualified and overly political president with no ties to the state, and it did not work out well? Huh.
Interested GIF by Nick Cannon
Click to expand...

More than that... Democrats get their first crack at it in 40 years. They don't want to miss that opportunity.
 
DBT said:
I’m just asking the question. Since you are on top of it and I’m not, what has he done or not done to work with the faculty? You could be absolutely correct. I do not know. Am I just to take everyone’s word that he hasn’t made an effort to work with the faculty?
Click to expand...
What has he done or not done?

He achieved a censure vote. That's what he's done. There is nothing else that needs to be known. That's the outcome he was paid to not achieve.

Was it a tough job to win over the faculty? Sure. Were they biased against him? Likely. That was his challenge and he failed.
 
I’m curious as to what difference political affiliation makes when choosing a University President. Unless you think it’s going to help with state funding, which is a reach at best, I don’t see any reason to take political affiliation into consideration at all.
 
MtnBuff said:
Most recently when running for the office Jack Kroll made specific statements about athletic spending (which clearly showed that he didn't understand athletic funding by the way) and referenced coaches pay and paying fired coaches.

Other regents or regent candidates have done the same as well as some members of the Boulder community.

No reference here by the way to demanding retention, only a reference to frequently heard complaints about paying football coaches instead of curing cancer or funding other favorite programs, despite the fact that those funds would not be there to fund those other things if athletics weren't there.

John Q. "Big Bucks" Donor isn't going to say " Well since we don't have a football team I'll just donate my six figure check to the fine arts department." It doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...
The university will be paying out a nice settlement for Mr. Kennedy
 
Not Sure said:
I’m curious as to what difference political affiliation makes when choosing a University President. Unless you think it’s going to help with state funding, which is a reach at best, I don’t see any reason to take political affiliation into consideration at all.
Click to expand...
I mean, I agree - but I expect that the new Presidnet will be more of an academic, likely a women and/or poc, and have a different focus on certain topics
 
Uncle Ken said:
What has he done or not done?

He achieved a censure vote. That's what he's done. There is nothing else that needs to be known. That's the outcome he was paid to not achieve.

Was it a tough job to win over the faculty? Sure. Were they biased against him? Likely. That was his challenge and he failed.
Click to expand...
Censure based on what? “Failure of leadership with respect to diversity, equity and inclusion?” In the middle of a complete shutdown due to the pandemic?

Maybe the guy sucks. I don’t know 2% of what he’s done so I guess I’m just supposed to buy in, right? “The faculty voted to censure so he must suck!” Got it.
 
The censure was a grandstanding move, but it had its desired effect. He’s stepping down.
 
buffs233 said:
Not some hardcore supporter of MK but two years in this position, especially during COVID-19, is not an appropriate sample size. Consistency matters. This was purely a political decision by the Board and I fully expect the hire to be equally politically driven.
Click to expand...
If 2 years isn't enough to decide if the person leading your institution is effective, you probably shouldn't be allowed to make that decision.
 
DBT said:
Censure based on what? “Failure of leadership with respect to diversity, equity and inclusion?” In the middle of a complete shutdown due to the pandemic?

Maybe the guy sucks. I don’t know 2% of what he’s done so I guess I’m just supposed to buy in, right? “The faculty voted to censure so he must suck!” Got it.
Click to expand...
It means they don't trust him. It's his job to build relationships.

Job Description: Lead people

Job outcome: People don't follow

Assessment: He failed

Quit trying to paint him as a victim (hey, I'm just asking questions man). You have an agenda. You might not even be able to see it but you do.

Again, designated leaders often face challenges. Some overcome them, others don't. He was unable to surmount this relationship challenge. Whether the cards were stacked against him or not, it was his job to overcome the perception that the faculty had of him coming in.
 
Last edited:
He was a horrible choice. The faculty did not like Benson nor Hank Brown when they were hired either. Neither was censured. And let's be honest, what has he done to hang his hat on? If he had some accomplishments to go along with the censure, we would not be having this conversation. No tears being cried here to see him go.

Now I will be interested to see who is brought in. Kroll and his ilk need to be muzzled by the center portion of this board. I fear how incopetent the regents are in everything they do and where the anti-athletics focus will drive this university if unchecked. Kennedy did not have a great relationship with boosters, did not fund raise well from what I saw, but he also did not torpedo the AD.
 
Uncle Ken said:
It means they don't trust him. It's his job to build relationships he failed.

Job Description: Lead people

Job outcome: People don't follow

Assessment: He failed

Quit trying to paint him as a victim (hey, I'm just asking questions man). You have an agenda. You might not even be able to see it but you do.

Again, designated leaders often face challenges. Some overcome them, others don't. He was unable to surmount this relationship challenge. Whether the cards were stacked against him or not, it was his job to overcome the perception that the faculty had of him coming in.
Click to expand...
You have an agenda too! Everyone on this board has an agenda. The faculty was pissed at the process under which he was hired, which I understand because it was poorly handled. But because of that he never had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning them over. You damned well know that.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't the UCB chancellor have a bigger impact on the success of the UCB AD than the system president? Judging by the responses of this board over the years, it appears to me that the chancellor has more of a say in how the AD runs than the system president.
 
I don’t know too many people who thought he was a good choice. There’s two issues at play here, though - was he a good choice? No. Was he given a reasonable chance to succeed? Also, no.

I hope the next President is not judged or chosen based on political affiliation and more on his/her ability to lead effectively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top