The Bobcat Nation

In todays Billings Gazette there is an article on the March Regents meeting. A lot of discussion about finances, but I saw nothing about multi year contracts?

Am I missing something? I thought the multi year contracts was an agenda item?

Robcat wrote:In todays Billings Gazette there is an article on the March Regents meeting. A lot of discussion about finances, but I saw nothing about multi year contracts?

Am I missing something? I thought the multi year contracts was an agenda item?

I don't know about specific Agenda items at this Regents meeting, but the way the meetings work are that there are some sub-committee meetings on Wed afternoon, with the full Board of Regents meeting on Thursday (all day) and Friday (morning).
Thus, I would anticipate that if multi-year contracts are on the Agenda, they will be discussed either today or tomorrow.

Here is the link to the agenda -

http://www.montana.edu/wwwbor/3-2006agendaBOR.htm

Thanks, Grizdoc, looks like it was not on the agenda.

HelenaCat95, I know you can answer this.
DO they ever dicuss things not on the agenda?

Ponycat wrote:HelenaCat95, I know you can answer this.
DO they ever dicuss things not on the agenda?

Yes, they discuss non-agenda items at just about every meeting.

However, in compliance with MT's Open meeting laws, they do not make decisions without adequate notice. That means that the earliest that they make a decision on a non-agenda item is the next scheduled Regents meeting - provided that it is on that Agenda.

Robcat wrote:Thanks, Grizdoc, looks like it was not on the agenda.

I think this is it, but it's a tough read and well disguised.

Look at item a. Discussion of draft guidelines.......... in the Staff and Compensation Committee Items.

You are correct.
Looks like they may be taking up the issue - still doesn't guarantee that a decision will be made on it.

HelenaCat95 wrote:You are correct.
Looks like they may be taking up the issue - still doesn't guarantee that a decision will be made on it.

So does this mean that they can just keep putting off the issue, by not guaranteeing any decision on the matter?

grizband wrote:

HelenaCat95 wrote:You are correct.
Looks like they may be taking up the issue - still doesn't guarantee that a decision will be made on it.

So does this mean that they can just keep putting off the issue, by not guaranteeing any decision on the matter?

Yes...nothing is "forcing" them to make a decision. This is pretty much true for any non-budget or non-accreditation issue.
However, is it feasible for them to continue to put off decision after decision for months and years? Not really - public opinion wouldn't really let that happen - But it is possible, and I need only point to the "seamless transfer of credits" issue that has been festering for well over a decade.

Bottom line - I would be surprised if they made a decision on the issue this meeting. I would also be surprised if they hadn't made a decision by the end of this year. However, I have to say that with the Regents, nothing really surprises me anymore.

HelenaCat95 wrote:

grizband wrote:

HelenaCat95 wrote:You are correct.
Looks like they may be taking up the issue - still doesn't guarantee that a decision will be made on it.

So does this mean that they can just keep putting off the issue, by not guaranteeing any decision on the matter?

Yes...nothing is "forcing" them to make a decision. This is pretty much true for any non-budget or non-accreditation issue.
However, is it feasible for them to continue to put off decision after decision for months and years? Not really - public opinion wouldn't really let that happen - But it is possible, and I need only point to the "seamless transfer of credits" issue that has been festering for well over a decade.

Bottom line - I would be surprised if they made a decision on the issue this meeting. I would also be surprised if they hadn't made a decision by the end of this year. However, I have to say that with the Regents, nothing really surprises me anymore.

I just re-read my post.
I should've been a lawyer - or at least the guy that developed and explains the NCAA APR formula.

I heard on the radio this morning that the House passed the resolution to allow multi year contracts but the Regents "conveniently ignored" them

catamaran wrote:I heard on the radio this morning that the House passed the resolution to allow multi year contracts but the Regents "conveniently ignored" them

A bill was passed last session (Spring of '05) that allowed the Regents to offer multi-year contracts - although some would argue that this wasn't necessary, because MT Statute didn't prohibit multi-year contracts(at least that's what I thought I remembered).
Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, the issue was not on the Regents Agenda until this weeks meeting.
So to say that they "conveniently ignored" it isn't necessarily accurate. Could they have had it on the Agenda before this week? Sure. But in cases dealing with these types of personnel/contracting issues, they usually wait until someone (i.e., one of the institutions) brings it forward, rather than proactively putting in on their agenda.

I'm just repeating what the representative said in an interview

Tucked in to the bottom of this article, it says the Regents "took no action" on the multi-year contract issue.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/news/sta ... egents.txt

As was discussed earlier, this is how they usually respond to issues like this. The best chance for a decision (either up or down) will be at the next Regents meeting (I think it's in May).

catamaran wrote:I'm just repeating what the representative said in an interview

Sorry - wasn't trying to throw stones at you.
If my response came off bad, I apologize.

The fact that they are discussing draft guidelines, and the draft has been written, indicates progress. It has been my experience with any state agency or board that nothing happens overnight and who knows how far down the road thye are to taking action on this matter.

The Board next meets in May and they may be trying to get something in place due to the fact that the fiscal year is coming up at which time coaches contracts will have to be renewed.