What's new

Mark Kennedy new CU President, affirmed in party line vote (formerly Bruce Benson retires)

Denver_sc

Club Member
Club Member
DiStephano is reviled at allbuffs but people working at the university think highly of the guy. i have no view on Phil, really.
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.
 

dio

Admin
Club Member
Junta Member
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.
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.
 

Hugegroove

Club Member
Club Member
I think people bring up Benson as an example of a guy who did well in spite of initial opposition. The argument being that we should give Kennedy that same leeway. I can buy that. I’m willing to put my preconceived notions about Kennedy aside and judge the job he’s doing. BUT, he has a short leash as far as I’m concerned. We don’t need a guy with a steep learning curve. We need a guy to build on what Benson did.
THIS!
 

buffs233

Club Member
Club Member
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.
 

buffs233

Club Member
Club Member
Forgot to add that Mark Kennedy and Tucker hit-it-off immediately. Kennedy will be fighting with several Dems on the BOR to maintain and even grow support for the CU AD.
 

Not Sure

Club Member
Club Member
It’s not Kennedy’s job to fight with the Regents. The two dipshits (three, actually) need to be held in check by the sane members of the BoR.
 

buffalo1

Club Member
Club Member
It’s not Kennedy’s job to fight with the Regents. The two dipshits (three, actually) need to be held in check by the sane members of the BoR.
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.
 

Highlander

There can be only one
Club Member
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.
I wasn't previously that concerned about Kennedy as an athletics/football supporter.

I'm now terribly concerned.
 

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
This is bizarre.

How can someone be a public official with responsibilities for budgeting and oversight of a state university and then say he/she is working as a private citizen that directly relates to their position?
 

DBT

Club Member
Club Member
This is bizarre.

How can someone be a public official with responsibilities for budgeting and oversight of a state university and then say he/she is working as a private citizen that directly relates to their position?
You’re going out of your way to find fault with the guy.
 

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
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.
 

skibum

Did not pee on the Alamo.
Club Member
It’s not Kennedy’s job to fight with the Regents. The two dipshits (three, actually) need to be held in check by the voters and donors who fund their campaigns.
FIFY. The place to fight them is via campaign donations and votes.
 

DBT

Club Member
Club Member
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.
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.
 

Not Sure

Club Member
Club Member
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.
 

dio

Admin
Club Member
Junta Member
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.
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
Club Member
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.
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.
 

BuffsNYC

Clubber Lang
Club Member
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.
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.
 

Not Sure

Club Member
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 ****
I get your point, and I agree the BoR is a huge mess. Maybe I’m too cynical, but I suspect the reason for the leak had less to do with exposing the idiocy of the regents and more to do with undermining Kennedy.
I’d be glad to be wrong on that.
 

BuffsNYC

Clubber Lang
Club Member
I get your point, and I agree the BoR is a huge mess. Maybe I’m too cynical, but I suspect the reason for the leak had less to do with exposing the idiocy of the regents and more to do with undermining Kennedy.
I’d be glad to be wrong on that.
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.
 
Top