U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 15, 2008 05:12 AM UTC
48 Comments
On the one hand, the selection process seems to be way too opaque and it should bring forward 3 (or more) finalists.
On the flip side, I’ve yet to hear any clear reasons for saying Benson should not be the president. Lots of innuendo and yes he funded political groups – which tend to push the envelope.
Anyways – here’s my $0.02 worth on this.
Benson is obviously not what the Boulder liberals want. But in his ability to raise money, he is probably what they need. Patty Limerick’s article in theDenver Post today is a cogent argument as to why Benson could serve well in the post. But CU is likely to once again display the pettiness and parochialism that has caused leadership of higher education in Colorado to shift increasingly to CSU under great leaders like Al Yates and Larry Penley. As a CU grad and former UCDenver adjunct faculty member, I decry that loss of leadership, but I can’t fail to see it happening.
Benson is a board member for the Center for American West, which is headed by…Patty Limerick. That little conflict-of-interest was not disclosed by Limerick or the Denver Post.
It’s more a source of insight. And by the way, Awen, how many MacArthur “genius grants” have you won lately?
An undisclosed conflict of interest becomes a “source of insight?” ROTFL
a conflict? You are a model of muddled thinking, my friend.
I think that the Center for the American West is Patty’s baby and bensen is a supporter….so one would expect her to support his nomination…with one of those left handed disclaimers…”In the interest of full disclosures…” which she evidently did not. All I know is what I read on this blog…
Shiloh, my friend, i have not yet received my MacArthur genius grant…any you????
I am sure I missed your vita…..CU? student? alumnus? faculty?DGHGLQ?
carry on, then
two degrees from Boulder, eight years on the faculty in denver. Husband of a cu grad, father of a cu grad. And, most important of all, a taxpayer!
What departments? Are/were you tenured? Adjunct? What years were you a student at Boulder? I will grant you money is critically important. But a faculty perspective is also helpful….let’s hear more about what your CU experience was….
basically, one of those do it for love things. Like David Thi, I’m ambivalent about Benson. I can’t go along with the leftist harpies attacking him. But I do worry about whether the faculty will accept him…not love him but accept him.
What CU, higher education in general and ultimately Colorado needs is an effort to get rid of our crappy constitution, led by TABOR , the Gallagher Amendment and Amendment 23, that is destroying thyose things that make this state worthwhile. In the nature of things, a conservative businessman is well placed to lead that assault: i.e., Nixon could go to China and Benson could…and did..lead the fight for Referendum C. But unfortunately, the political sophstication of most faculty, especially in Boulder, is very low. They have no idea how much the Ward Churchill scandal hurt CU with the people of Colorado and think all the world loves them because they’re liberal. Hank Brown was the perfect leader. I just wish we could get him to stay on another three years.
See Shiloh, your arguments are well reasoned, for the most part, and your opinion is valuable. But, let us deconstruct some of what you say..
“leftist harpies”..the term is pejorative and does not add to a reasoned debate. To be concerned about Bensen’s long history as a partisan, to be concerned about his failure to demonstrate an appreciation of the kind of academic environment that is essential to research does not make me a “leftist harpy.” There are elements in the right wing radio rant which are trying to make this a conflict between right and left..red and blue…the rosen drill. I reject that.
Your assertion that Tabor, Gallagher and #23 are our “crappy constitution” is one that I can not support…hyberbole, my friend, is unbecoming in someone who taught, at tax payers expense, Colorado students. Each one of those amendments has an element, which works and parts which do not. Tabor says tax payers have to approve tax increases. That’s great. But, it also has a formula which unfairly restricts government’s ability to use revenue. Gallagher saved the homes of countless people who saw their homes skyrocket in value and would have lost those homes if there had not been a cap on property taxes……but it was business, and small businesses, which subsidized that….and that what should be changed. Amendment #23 was an attempt by parents to get some kind of guaranteed funding for k -12..for kids….it freezes the buget and the goal was good, but the
impact on funding for other necessary state activities was not…..There are plans afoot to revise the Constitution in a deliberate way….not toss out our “crappy constitution.”
As for Ward Churchill….he is rightly criticized for academic sloppiness…but his historical perspective is critically important to an understanding of this country…
There was a book written by Kaplan, called “Imperial Grunts”…written back when the US was winning in Iraq before we started losing in Iraq before we started winning again…maybe Kaplan’s thesis is exactly the same as Churchills….the only difference is that he is noncritical of the US being an Empire…..
I too have two degrees from CU…but in the last few years I attempted to upgrade technical skills by taking courses at Metro…with adjunct professors who were awful….in one case, the department offered to refund tutition half way through the course …..which really hurt kids who were in a degree track….
There is tension between tentured faculty and adjunct professors…reflected I think in your comments”that they think all the work loves them because they are liberal”…
As for the value of conservative businessmen….the times they are achanging….I don’t think “conservative businessmen” are going to be that important in the future….
and thus lose my constitutional rights, I suggest you go fuck yourself. Then see what they actually pay adjunct faculty.
And you use that strawman argument again….”If you think I taught at taxpayer expense and thus lose my constitutional rights.” I never said anything of the kind, never even implied that…quite the contrary….but by totally misquoting me, you then have an excuse to spew a lot of hostility directed at me…
So you are pissed that tenured faculty make more than adjunct faculty…so you want Bensen to go get those “leftist harpies” and that tentured faculty…
Now, I understand your agenda….I respect your freedom of speech, indeed I respect Ward Churchill’s freedom of speech….but your anger has you cockeyed…you are off center…the language is offputting in a blog…
I suspect you have a real story to tell about what really happened to you in academia…..but I don’t want to hear it……
I hope to hell you are not typical of adjunct professors or those who are supporting bensen….
Sober up, my friend, go for a run….work it off…
you are an imbecile. Deal with it.
Apparently Benson has a history of trying to break tenure. This risk that he might do the same at CU is a major problem for two reasons:
(1) It guarantees continuous, rancorous controversy – the last thing CU needs.
(2) Good professors won’t come to CU because they don’t want to take the risk of being stranded without tenure.
not just cu, but Colorado. The reason is that they know the state doesn’t give a damn about higher education and won’t support it.
Another reason to love Dougie Bruce, author of the education killing TABOR amendment.
on that fire? Why shouldn’t CU go after a candidate who can not only raise funds, but also draw top academic talent?
College professors read the news–both the news published in the paper and the news in their higher ed “trade journals”–and they know about Benson’s aggressive attack on tenure. They also know that less than 1% of major universities has a president without an advanced degree.
It is actually possible to begin restoring CU’s reputation as a top-tier academic institution. Hank Brown actually started laying the groundwork for that.
CU has had enough controversy and negative press. Why take a step backward by sticking with a controversial appointment that reeks of cronyism and patronage, when there are a number of qualified candidates out there?
Benson has turned the corner on tenure. So much so that I believe the head of Metro State profs believes he holds no ill will toward tenure.
Does the CU President have the power alone to make or break tenure?
Meanwhile, the profs at CU would rather have a guy who can only raise $100k for their school but knows to raise his pinky while he drinks his tea. Narrow minded and pathetic.
Sure, when I aggressively tried to destroy tenure at Metro I didn’t really mean it, and I promise I won’t do it again. Can I be president now please, please ?
Fool me once…
The lawsuit filed against the board of trustees is now in the Colorado Supreme Court. Benson wrote a letter last May (before leaving the Metro board) saying he had a civic responsibility to continue the fight (the board lost the case on appeal) because of the impact the case would have on other state colleges and universities. That sounds like an effort to change the tenure rules at places other than Metro.
Benson doesn’t play well with others, at least, not the “others” that the job requires him to cooperate well with to function in his job.
1. The faculty hates him.
2. The legislators who vote on general fund appropriations for CU hate him because he funded dirty personal attacks on them.
3. The students hate him.
4. Three of the nine Regents have no faith in him.
5. He threatened to run nasty attack ads against a fourth member of the CU Regents.
6. He has no graduate degree.
7. He was canned from leading Metro State because he was too political.
8. He tried to impair tenure at Metro State and has left it the legacy of a whole bunch of very unhappy professors and a lawsuit that still isn’t over.
A college president for a state university system needs to main things:
1. The ability to secure more funding from the state legislature than anybody else could.
2. The, at least, grudging support of every major constituency in the university.
Benson can deliver on neither of these key qualifications for the job. He should be running for President of the alumni association (as his ability to raise private sector money is unquestioned), not President of the University.
Benson would be just fine as the head of CU Foundation. He could put his excellent fund-raising skills to work getting private donations from other very wealthy people, in whose world he moves with comfort. I intend that as a compliment to Benson, and if we are to take him at his word about his commitment to CU, I can’t imagine a better position for him.
DavidThi, have you read ohwilleke’s ten points above? If so, would you agree that there are compelling reasons why Benson is unsuited to become CU’s President?
you are totally wrong in your summary, ohlefty. The key is can Benson
A=help raise private money?
b-Help persuade the business community to rally behind a new fiscal reform that will increase higher ed funding in general, possibly by means of a severance tax.
He did this brilliantly in Ref C.
As to three of the regents not supporting him, A, those three are all democrats, and b, one of them, Carlisle, actually helped recruit him because she recognized as many do that his skills are right for cu at this juncture. Only when the left became unglued and started howling for her head –and rallying behind her primary opponent, Rollie Heath, — did Cindy decide to turn against the man she originally helped recruit.
Do you want a guy who–at minimum– pushed the legal and ethical edges of political funding and political combat as the leader of your university? Saying, “I won’t do it any more” is not good enough for me. He is not the model I want.
between Yates and Benson.
1. Yates’ political work has been after he left his position as President of a Colorado university, not before as would be the case with Benson.
2. While I believe that a lot of what is legal in campaign finance should be prohibited, I have seen no evidence that Yates has crossed any lines. Benson’s Trailhead Group, on the other hand, has clearly been in the center of a number of shady activities with numerous complaints.
If the dems win in November…big time….Bensen’s connections are not going to help CU….his CU connections could only help his buddies looking for a place to regroup….Patty Limrick is a historian of the West….she is not a scientist…and it is the scientific and medical facilities at CU which have the most to lose, IMHO, from Bensen…..
I don’t believe that faculty goes just where the money is…..if money is all that counts….the CU Foundation should simply hire Bensen as a fund raiser…..this whole president stuff sounds like a payback for the money he has already raised….
It is not innuendo to point out what a person has done in the past and then to project how that history could impact the future
It has been a rough couple of years for CU, I hate to think what Bensen would bring…..OU West…
Re the sudden hesitation: It would be so nice to “win one for ole CU” I am a member of the alumni community.
and that is exactly why her expert assessment of this situation is so important. If you’ve read any of her books, you’d understand how keen a grasp she has on the evolving political landscape of the West. And if you’re so certain that money doesn’t count for anything, could you lend me $50 until payday?
I echo a sentiment in today’s Rocky….make Bensen head of the CU foundation..
Isn’t higher education in trouble today because Republican Legislatures through the years have gutted programs? Why would we now want the man who helped elect and reelect those legislatures to “rescue” the mess they made…..
The key to excellence in universities is excellent faculty..especially in research……money follows that kind of reputation…..Bensen would not enhance that at all
Putting a party hack in that position is just crap….what about Gene Nichols?…..he is a real Indian to boot!!
Then what is the single most critical issue facing higher education? That’s not to say Benson doesn’t bring a lot of other talents and resources to the table, but who else has nearly the ability to raise the kind of money Benson does?
By the standards of many critics on this blog, we should just hire the most tenured professor. Surely he or she could raise more than $0 AND can hold his own in a conversation about alternative theories behind Beowulf and/or molecular protein bonds.
Sort of a catch 22, what’s the difference between raising money and selling out? For a lot of politicians it is letting donors set parts of policy. I could see Benson accepting a huge donation and making all science classes fit inside of the bible. Or maybe the WGA sends a couple of million and all of the lit and film classes turn into studies of prime time tv and the latest blockbusters.
don’t know much about Benson with that Bible comment. But you’re probably right. Didn’t he demand they stop teaching evolution in K-12? After all, he did personally raise millions for that.
Of all the criticism, that is the most baseless and easy to refute directly from his history of raising money for education at every level.
Nevertheless, don’t the Regents have some say on the budget?
from Lundberg Declares Climate Change “Junk Science”
And Lundberg is a Bruce supporter, what could be better?
n/t
I’m not sure how the CU regents came up with just one finalist for the position. Maybe their criteria was someone who knew the ropes of the political system and had a proven record of successful fund raising. If that is the case, then Bruce Benson is the right man.
As the Rocky Mountain News put it, Benson is not being feted as the chancellor of the Boulder campus. This “concern” about his lack of an advanced degree is just thinly disguised partisan politics at work. It has created a circus atmosphere that is very likely to discourage any other top ranked candidate from even applying.
I don’t see why the CU faculty even gets to vote on this pick. When Michael Bennett, another non-traditional choice, was picked as the new superintendent of the Denver Public Schools, I do not recall the DPS faculty getting to vote on his selection. Their opinions were solicited, but their approval was not sought. That decision rested with the duly elected DPS Board of Education… just as the presidency of CU rests with the duly elected CU Board of Regents.
The University of Colorado does not belong to the faculty or the students. It belongs to the people of Colorado. That’s why the people get to vote on who the CU Regents are.
While it is not conclusive, it is impressive that Benson has gotten many endorsements from business, government, and academic leaders… even some who could not be considered political allies. I would hate to see this nomination torpedoed just because the students and faculty don’t like it.
I formally and fully apologize for calling you a sock puppet. You are a genuine poster, and a hardcore right wing ‘pub at that which this site needs more of. And no, I’m not being snarky when I say that.
That said, let’s debate. My understanding is that the state only pays about 8% of the University of Colorado’s operating costs (pulling from memory – I remember it being brought up during the Ward Churchill flap). By contrast I’m pretty sure that, save community fundraising, DPS is almost entirely supported by the taxpayers. Correct me if I’m wrong about that. But if it’s accurate, that makes your comparison and apples-to-oranges one.
An awful lot of brand new posters have joined our little group in the last few days to discuss it . . .
I believe you are not being snarky with your apology. I gladly accept it. I really didn’t join this — my truly first blog ever — to engage in flame wars. I am delighted to bury the hatchet and move on.
I’m a Republican first, a conservative second, but I am not so much as a hardcore right winger as you might think. Please let some time pass before making that judgment.
That said, I honestly don’t know what percentage of CU’s operating costs the state pays. But if the 8% figure you cited is accurate, wouldn’t a successful big time fund raiser, who knows the political ropes, be more important to the university than someone with a PhD?
I still don’t think the Boulder faculty and current crop of students should be trumping the CU regents’ decision… whatever that might end up being. That’s why the board is an elected body.
Glad we got that cleared up. (Think of it as a drill – it can get a lot nastier, although thankfully it doesn’t very often at this blog.)
I really don’t know what all is expected of a University president. I guess fundraising is one job since everyone mentions that, but I don’t imagine it’s the entire job. I don’t think being proven in that one capacity alone makes him qualified, but the regents may have different ideas.
In today’s Rocky Mountain News , it was pointed out that when former Republican politician Hank Brown was hired as president of the University of Northern Colorado in 1997, there was “near anarchy” among the faculty. Now Hank Brown is lauded as the past president of that university as well as the current one at CU.
I’d hate to see Bruce Benson’s nomination withdrawn, or defeated, because of knee jerk reactions from insulated faculty, naive students, and some partisan Democratic legislators.
House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, questions how Benson can work with Deomcratic lawmakers who were attacked by the Trailhead group in the last election. I detest anyone’s 527 group because the lack of accountability, but it was not like Benson was writing, or even approving, the ad copy.
Seeing how those Democratic legislators obviously won their respective races, it is incumbent upon them to work with whoever the CU regents choose as president. If they can’t see beyond their previous role as a Democratic candidate, and appreciate their current responsibilities as the actual officeholder, then maybe it is them who should be stepping aside.
I think it is safe to say that CU is in dire need for someone who can raise a significant amount of money for the school. Lots of folks want to smooze with a university president. But if you expect them to smooze with the director of development, they’re probably going to find excuses to be elsewhere.
I still think the lack of an advanced degree argument is a poor smoke screen. It didn’t seem to matter when Gov. Dick Lamm, a Democrat, appointed Benson to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, or when Benson became the chairman of the Metro State College Board of Trustees. No one cared about an advanced degree when he was appointed chairman of the Denver Public Schools Foundation, or when Gov. Ritter made him co-chairman of the P-20 Education Coordinating Council.
Has Benson proven he is a successful leader? Absolutely! Has he shown, over the years, that he has a genuine interest in education? Most certainly!
The everyday academic matters involving the four campuses can be handled by the respective chancellors… all of whom no doubt have PhD’s. But it is not necessary for CU to have a president to hold one anymore than it was necessary for Michael Bennett to have one to be the DPS superintendent. I seem to recall that Betsy Hoffman and Judith Albino had doctorates, but no one is bragging about their leadership skills at CU.
but wholly irrelevant to the point at hand.
The people of Colorado own the university. The faculty work for us. Of course, they can vote to register their opinion. So can the students. So can the squirrels, Ralphie the Buffalo and the drug dealers on the Hill. But the only vote that counts is when the people elect regents to run their university. The regents should listen respectfully to all opinions (well, maybe not to Ralphie’s. He’s just too liberal.)
But then THEY cast the only vote that counts to hire Benson or not.
Is that standard practice or was it completely un-official? I understand that the vote only serves as a suggestion, right?
The faculty vote is non-binding…
http://cbs4denver.com/local/be…
It’s worth pointing out that the majority of faculty and students are citizens of Colorado.
More importantly, the taxpayers of Colorado only contribute about 8-9% of CU’s operating budget. Students (through tuition) and faculty (through grants and contracts) provide a much higher percentage of the operating budget. If the Regents had an 8-9% say in the presidential choice, that would be fair. Most of the rest should be allocated to the people who really pay the bills.
Many people don’t realize what an economic engine CU is — bringing in more than $600 million in grants (primarily federal money). If we have a handful of talented researchers leave (especially in the biomedical field) that’s millions in revenue lost — along with the jobs and tax revenue that those funds support.
The faculty have a say because they have a shared responsibility in how the university operates. As one small example, faculty fill many of the key administrative positions (dept chairs, deans, senate, etc).
Traditionally, faculty hired administrators to do the work they didn’t want (e.g., fundraising, fawning over legislators, etc) so they could more fully apply their skills towards what they were most passionate about (teaching & research).
Faculty, through their garnering of grant support (which always includes a hefty “overhead” component) contribute greatly to the funding of university operations. These grants are used to pay research staff, buy equipment, rent laboratory space, support students, pay faculty summer salaries, rent vehicles, etc.
Universities are NOT a top-down operation (at least not the good ones). Universities are model democracies – the employees/faculty have a say in who their leaders are. If we let this model fail, what are we saying about our faith in this form of governance?
Boy, you so never were a graduate student!!!
Oligarchies is much more like it.
Two earned graduate degrees (from land grant institutions). Worked in administration at one (land grant) university. Worked closely with faculty. Taught as an adjunct at a state college.
I did not claim universities were perfect or ideal. Just “models” which should probably be interpreted as “small!”
I stand by my statements.