President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 21, 2008 06:16 PM UTC

Making Nice With "Ben$on"

  • 43 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #2: CU Board of Regents sends equally measured defensive/conciliatory email to CU student body (below the fold).

UPDATE: Liberal group Progress Now offers Benson grudging “congratulations.” Release below the fold.

As the Denver Post reports:

Top Democratic lawmakers who had been critical of Bruce Benson adopted a more conciliatory tone Wednesday with his selection as president of the University of Colorado.

State Senate President Peter Groff, D-Denver, and House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, had criticized Benson in a letter to CU regents last week.

But the pair wished Benson well Wednesday.

“We’re looking forward to working with him to move the university forward,” Groff said, adding, “We asked questions that were legitimate questions” in the letter.

Madden was one of Benson’s sharpest critics and had suggested the Republican oilman’s lightning- rod reputation would benefit other universities when it came time for appropriations. On Wednesday, she waved off questions about the tension and signaled a cease-fire…

The Boulder Daily Camera continues:

Despite their disappointment, Benson’s detractors shared some of that hope.

“I hope very much Mr. Benson will now come to meet with faculty and work together,” said Uriel Nauenberg, chairman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly, which last week voted 40-4 against supporting Benson. “He said that he will engage the university faculty, and I take him at his word.”

Nauenberg said that he, like many other faculty members, is disappointed the regents accepted a single candidate and rejected the near consensus of the Faculty Assembly.

“I hope that in the future there is more interactions between the regents and the faculty in making these decisions,” he said. “We have a feeling that is not happening at the present time.”

Michael Huttner, director of the advocacy group ProgressNow, which launched an anti-Benson campaign earlier this month, vowed to keep a watchful eye on the new leader.

“We’re going to continue to hold Benson accountable to ensure that he puts the interest of the CU community above his personal political agenda,” Huttner said.

Jon Caldara, president of the libertarian think tank Independence Institute, said he thinks Benson is in for a rough ride at CU.

“I don’t think Bruce Benson realizes what the hell he’s getting himself into,” Caldara said. “When he finds out he can’t fire the next Ward Churchill or the next incompetent person at CU, he might realize the asylum is being run by the inmates.”

Caldara praised Benson for his ability to raise money.

“I think the people at CU should be very grateful they have somebody who can actually shake down some money,” Caldara said. “With this simple little vote you’ve taken one of the states only good Republican fundraisers … and he’s now fundraising for the crazed staff and faculty of one of the most liberal universities in the nation.

“It’s terrific news to CU.”

ProgressNow Pledges to Hold Benson Accountable

Colorado Progressives Express Hope that New CU President “Proves Us Wrong”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, February 21, 2008

CONTACT: Michael Huttner, Executive Director

(303)931-4547

DENVER: After a three week campaign in opposition to oil executive Bruce Benson’s nomination to the Presidency of the University of Colorado, ProgressNow congratulated Benson on his approval and expressed hope that the issues raised during his selection process would be addressed.

“Despite the concerns raised by many members of the CU community, Benson will be the next President of the University of Colorado and has tremendous challenges ahead of him,” ProgressNow Executive Director Michael Huttner said. “We owe it to Colorado’s flagship academic institution to support Benson as he tries to solve CU’s conservative-engineered funding crisis. We hope he lives up to the commitments he made to reject his partisan political past and embrace the groundbreaking energy and climate research going on at CU.”

Huttner noted that nearly all CU faculty and student associations condemned Benson’s nomination, with at least two Regents attempting at the last minute to have the search process restarted and multiple candidates made public.

“We’re going to continue to hold Benson accountable to ensure that he puts the interest of the CU community above his personal political agenda,” Huttner said.

Huttner concluded, “For the sake of the CU community, we hope that Benson proves us wrong.”

ProgressNow thanked the thousands of members who signed petitions at www.boycottbenson.com opposing Benson and sent thousands of messages directly to CU Regents, and promised to keep them informed about Benson’s progress in the months ahead.

###

TO: CU Students

FROM: Board of Regents

SENDER: Ken.McConnellogue@cu.edu

DATE: February 21, 2008

SUBJECT: Regents Statement on Naming CU President

The University of Colorado Board of Regents on Wednesday voted to name Bruce Benson as the institution’s 22nd president. Although the board’s vote was not unanimous, we do agree that it is important for us to work together to make the president successful. We ask that CU’s internal and external constituents do the same.

As Regents, our obligation to the public and to the university is to act in the best interests of CU. While individual regents reach their own conclusions about how that is defined and vote accordingly, in the end, our collective goal is to foster an environment that allows our university to thrive.

CU and all of Colorado higher education face a funding crisis, and we believe that Bruce Benson will provide the leadership and coalition-building skills to address that crisis. He has demonstrated abilities in that arena.

When the board wrote and approved the job description, it did so mindful that the individual who met the qualifications may not have a traditional academic background. Constitutionally, the president is the principal executive officer of the university and the laws of the regents require the president to be the chief academic officer of the university. We believe Mr. Benson can fulfill those duties.

The majority on the board believe Bruce Benson fits the job description and that he can move the University of Colorado forward. Our challenges are significant and our time is short. We must apply our collective energies to addressing the funding dilemma that threatens our ability to fulfill our basic mission.

The Board of Regents recognizes that this decision is unpopular among some important groups. We believe Mr. Benson will reach out to constituents in the first months of his presidency to build bridges and create partnerships, both inside and outside the university. But we all have a role to play in those partnerships, and we trust the university community will pull together to support our new president.

Tweet
Share

Comments

43 thoughts on “Making Nice With “Ben$on””

  1. …will be to arrange for C.U. to confer an honorary doctorate upon Rush Limpbaugh for his work as a research subject on the synergistic effects of Oxycontin and Viagra.

    1. And here I was sure his first act was going to be awarding honorary degrees to the holy trinity…I mean…Dobby, Pat “Damn-the-gays”  Robertson, and the late great Jerry Falwell.

      Aww shucks…I guess Limpy may be more deserving…  😉

    2. That is awesome Queer One!

      The level of intellegent thought in that joke goes beyond anything I can comprehend, seeing that I only have a BA from CU.  Oh well, I guess I’ll just go to work today as PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO.

      Sincerely,

      Bruce Benson

                 

      1. So getting the position is it ?  The battle is won ?  All he wanted is the title, and now he can just mill around campus, have 3 hour lunches like Dick Tharp, and gossip on the phone with his cronies ? I don’t think so.

        Benson got the nod from the regents yesterday, but now the onus is on him to prove himself, lead and not be a hack, fundraise like he said he would, and not fuck up the job in general.

        He will have big shoes to fill – I don’t think Hank Brown made a single mistake at CU, and was universally admired for his leadership.    

  2. You mean Dems at the capitol aren’t all ready to support completely cutting off CU because of Benson?

    You mean they’re actually going to do what they were elected to do…try to make the state and the university better?

    You mean when Dr. Nauenberg and the rest of the BFA showed up on campus this morning they didn’t resign en masse or find out they had all been fired by the almighty Benson?

    With all the BS flying out of Alice Madden and others’ mouths, you’d-a-thunk the world was coming to an end these last few weeks.

    Amazing how life does indeed go on even when pouting doesn’t lead to the result you want…

    1. In legislative lobbying, and in managing a large institution like CU, ineffective leaders die subtle deaths of a thousand cuts.

      When the next earmark for a biofuels research program that could legitimatel go to either CU or CSU comes up, let’s see who gets it.  

      When a regulation makes life inconvenient for CU and Benson calls the Department of Regulatory Agencies asking for slack, don’t be surprised if he’s told “the rules are the rules,” rather than “that’s a good point, how about I scheduling a hearing next month to consider an adjustment to that and direct the staff to make your issue a low priority since pending policy changes are being considered.”

      There will be no finger prints, but little sleights like that will tend to accumulate.  The same sorts of things will likely happen within the institution.

      And, in the meantime, far more publicly, I suspect that there will be a short term wave of empty evelopes from a signficant number of alumni contributors.

      1. I, too, think the situation bears careful watching. As a  member of the CU alumni community, I am pissed off. But, I am not a member of the BMD community, so I don’t count.

        My major concern is what is going to happen to the superior atmospheric research program.  I think that the various departments should foster “Booster Clubs” based on the Buff groups which support football.

        Pool our money, pool our power and protect the integrity of the academic departments….My department was Political Science..god knows if I would recognize it today…I don’t care if they rehire dr. doby do…but I don’t want students or professors intimated or any kind of witch hunt…which we did have back in the early sixities….

        I think that “calls for political diversity” should not allow standards to be reduced.

        1. will still be dealt with on a campus level.  Benson being the head of the entire university isn’t goint to change the fact that if ATOC or PoliSci  have issues, they go to the head of the department, then the dean of A&S, then the provost, then the VC’s and finally Chancellor Peterson.  It’s not as if Benson will be sitting in his office evaluating every program on campus himself.  It’s not his job and he and the regents know it.

          And as a PoliSci grad student, I will say that I believe we have a fantastic department.  From  Dobby and Dr. Mike Kanner to nutjobs like Horst Mewes, there is a reasonable range of political ideology and that is good for the department.  

          1. Why descend to personal attacks on a respected professor, just because you don’t share his ideology?

            When I was a PoliSci student in the 1980s, I disagreed with Professor Ed Rozek on just about every subject; but, I gave him the respect due to someone who (unlike me) had achieved his doctorate and earned tenure, and who put effort and thought into teaching.  Mewes has scholarship and teaching credentials and history that are deserving of respect, regardless of your ideology.

            1. It’s Mewes’ “ideology” I agree with.  He’s the reason my secondary focus if Political Theory.  But I still think he’s a nutjob.

              Dobby (or the person I know as Dobby) and Kanner I disagree with on just about everything.  But they represent the conservative end of the discipline and that is a good thing.  

            2. As a political science student in 1960s (!) I disagreed with everything Ed Rozek said….I finally took a seminar from him my last semester…I was burned out and did not finish my paper…I took an incomplete which eventually turned in to an F….however, the good doctor did everything to help me complete that paper…through the years, I have thought of that seminar..over and over again…one of the best I have even taken….

              When I go bananas on this post because of the holocaust :”forgetters”….discussing modern day Europe and neglecting to mention the destruction of the Jewish population of Europe in MY lifetime….it goes back to what I learned in that seminar…and also from one great liberal icon…Richard Pfaff..also of that department….

              That is the integrity I am talking about…I am pissed off that grad student is comfortable using the term “nutjobs”…

              That elaborate appeal scheme makes no sense…in my day, we would have laughed it off…

              the department needs real ALUMNI support …..and you, sir or madam..Dabee 57 need to learn some academic manners… hell the situation is already deteriorating…

              1. I love it when old people get mad…it brings out the uncaring, elitist, asshole 23-year-old in me.

                Why should I care that you’re pissed about me or anyone else calling a prof a nutjob?  Horst, or The Esteemed Dr. Mewes as I’m sure you’d insist on my calling him, is freakin’ crazy.  He rails on the Bush administration (which I’m all for) class after class then doddles back to his office, TA’s in tow, day in and day out.  I didn’t learn a damn thing in his Theory class…which is why, confused by his ramblings, I went back and tried to figure out what political theory is all about.

                I’ll go ahead and chart my own course when it comes to “academic manners.”  So long as I have profs that insist on NOT being addressed as Doctor, I’ll continue to refer to Horst and any other profs I deem worthy as nutjobs.

                1. Of course, that’s what being 23 is all about–the sense of being: bulletproof, smarter and tougher than everybody else, and unaccountable to anybody.

                  Enjoy it while you’re young–and hope like hell that you get a thesis committee that approves of youthful arrogance.

                2. I’m in my 60s and will bet you a case of Coors I can beat you at either chess or weight-lifting, your choice.  (You can leg press 500 pounds a dozen times, can’t you?  If not, I open with pawn to king four.)  But Dwyer’s inchoate posts, misunderstanding of even simple statements, and inappropropriate invective make me suspect he is suffering from a form of dementia.

                  Even so,I suggest you also take a philosophy class.  That way, you can put Descartes before your Horst. 😉

      2. And of even greater concern, you have to wonder whether top-notch academic and research talent, especially in the area of climate change and alternative energy research and education, will think twice about coming to a University headed by an oil industry climate-change denier who has no advanced degrees.

        1. The best-endowed university, Harvard, also has the reputation as the best-endowed intellectually. Universities aren’t oil companies, or real estate speculators, or ski resort operators. Their product is intellectual excellence, for which they need to attract top academic talent that will in turn attract top students, who will enrich the institution’s reputation. After that comes the endowment, the contributions, the federal funding.

          For years CU suffered because of its reputation as a party school. Now, dare I say, it suffers because it has no reputation, except perhaps that it’s located in a pleasing place. The choice of Benson is highly symbolic: it indicates a complete lack of awareness of anything remotely related to intellectual achievement.

          1. It continues to de-emphasize the academics and the fact that CU has been a top-rated research university.  I’m trying to be hopeful but it’s tough.  

    1. to see if Mr. Benson will follow through on his pledge to completely separate himself from partisan politics, when it comes to the contested CD-7 Regent’s race.  Or, will he just not make any direct donations, while continuing to “Ranger up” contributions from others to Pat Hayes, hold fundraisers for Hayes, etc.  

  6. Any thinking member of the CU faculty or student body knows the regents aren’t interested in their views on CU’s president.

    The point of the public hearings and opposition to his nomination was to shorten his leash and get him on record (repeatedly) saying he would focus on fundraising and wouldn’t interfere with the academic mission.  

    That doesn’t mean he’ll do that, of course, but it does make it make it more difficult for him to stray outside of his stated objectives.

      1. I assume you meant “you won, Benson and the Regents lost.”

        It was a foregone conclusion that Benson would be voted in as president from the time he was put forward as the sole finalist (assuming no video emerged of him strangling a puppy).

        There was nothing to be won or lost – at least as far as his appointment as President goes – the game was already over (anyone who thought otherwise wasn’t really paying attention).

        I’ve said several times on this forum that Benson would be voted in as president, so I guess in that sense I “won” given that I was right.  I’ve also said he could be a good president if he sticks to lobbying and fund-raising – jury is still out on that, but my hunch is I’ll win again on that one.

        I doubt any “the” will be trembling, but that wasn’t the point.

        Getting him on record as focusing on fundraising, not weakening tenure, not interfering with scientific research he disagrees with, etc., was probably the best strategy that could be tried, given that his appointment was going to happen anyway.

        How does that help?  Well, Republicans hate flip-floppers almost as much as they hate Hillary.  Having Benson come in after a split vote (first in many years) and in the wake of protests, reduces his mandate and gives him less room to maneuver (without being called a liar). It will also increase public scrutiny of his actions.  

        I agree with dwyer that the Regents won’t fire him, but the Regents, press and others can put pressure on him in other ways. Does anyone really think he’s going to start a full-on assault on the atmospheric research program right after he’s repeatedly said he wouldn’t?  And if so, there would be no consequences?

        He’s an old man who failed in his only bid for public office.  I suspect that part of his motivation is vanity – he gets a prestigious (but difficult) position, and, if he does what he said he would do, can retire being perceived as someone who helped Higher Ed in Colorado.

  7. 6 republican regents voted him in. Thats what happens when voters give 6 regent jobs to republicans. How many regent jobs are up for reelection in November? I ask because I don’t know.

  8. Thanks, CJ. If the Democrats pick up 2 regent spots and get the majority at 5-4, how does that impact Benson’s job as President? Does he ever have to re-apply or is he pres. for the duration? Are we stuck with this guy for life? And lastly, slightly off topic, as president, does he have an edge in funneling the science department’s work on renewable energy to his private sector pals? Just curious.  

    1. You may not agree with his politics but the guy clearly believes in education and wants to make C.U. better. He’s also quite wealthy so I don’t think he will view C.U. as his private cookie jar.

      Can we stick to more reasonable worries???

      1. Better, as in, more David Horowitz litmus-test-passing profs?  Better as in the weakening of tenure?

        By the way, if he’s so concerned about CU’s financial well-being, and is such a magnanimous philanthropist, I’m sure he’ll have no problem allowing the University to keep his $300,000+ base salary package, right?

        As to why people make assumptions about Benson, it might have something to do with his being one of the most divisive partisan political figures in Colorado history.

        The very fact that he is one of only two CU Presidents in modern CU history to have been appointed by a divided vote of the Board of Regents, coupled with the fact that the Faculty Assembly (after meeting with him) voted 40-4 against him, is more than enough reason to be skeptical.  I don’t have to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything.  With all of his political buddies showing up at the Board of Regents meeting last night painting him as the most selfless person since J.C., I fully expect he’ll have no problem putting my skepticism to rest.

        1. as was MLK. But I think they both did a wonderful job. I’m not saying Benson is their equal, but he might actually turn out to be a good president.

          As to tenure job security, I’m not sure it’s a net plus at universities. It let Gamow and Churchill hang on way too long and I can’t recall any other faculty member in recent time that there was any demand to remove.

      2. If Dan Willis lived in Boulder, he would be you.  You both are intelligent, well informed and good gov guys. BUT, your statement “guy clearly believes in education and wants to make C.U. better” is a hopeless platitude…..please:

        1) define education

        2) define “better”….ie more favorable to the guys who don’t believe in global climate change?

        3) what exactly did he do for DPS? He raised $8 mil…where did it go???

        the devil is in the details….the reasonable worry is that excellent faculty and researchers with options will not come to CU or stay at CU because they don’t want to waste time waiting to figure out what “this guy believes about education”

        The reasonable worry is that Bensen may pursue a political agenda under the guise of “making CU better.”

        You don’t think that he will use CU as his private “cookie jar”….nobody thinks that Bensen would steal,,,for god’s sakes….the problem is where he can direct funds…how would he…and that goes back to a political agenda …which he may geniunely see as “making CU better.”

    2. 23-20-106.

      President – election.

      Statute text

      The regents of the university shall elect a president of the university, who shall be an employee-at-will pursuant to section 24-19-104, C.R.S., and whose employment shall be subject to the restrictions imposed by article 19 of title 24, C.R.S. The president shall be the principal executive officer of the university and a member of the faculty thereof and shall carry out the policies and programs established by the board of regents.

      1. The president shall be the principal executive officer of the university and a member of the faculty thereof

        So, can we add this to the “Big Line?”

        Does anyone have odds for which department he will be appointed to?  

        Geology? Earth science? Political science? Marketing? Sociology?

        Will the administration pull a “Ward Churchill” and give him tenure (over the protests of the faculty) in his new faculty position?

        2. Regent law says the president of the university is also the president of the faculty senate (the body made up of all faculty). The laws do NOT require the president to be tenured or hold an advanced degree. The president presides over the annual faculty senate meeting (which ought to be very interesting, next time it comes around).

          In addition, Benson, because he does not hold an advanced degree,  does not have to be offered tenure. Even the geology department, which he has funded, would likely be looked at as laughingstocks to offer tenure to someone so academically unqualified. For those of you who so strongly opposed Ward Churchill, how would it look to offer tenure to someone who had even less academic credentials than Churchill?

          Finally, with regard to the “automatic contract,” the president is subject to a five-year review, should he make it that long. The last two presidents who made it that far, Buechner and Hoffman, both resigned just prior to the five-year review.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

79 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!