Yes I tear into our various political figures in my blog here. But at the same time I understand that these people are human, they will make mistakes, and they will have weaknesses. I don't expect perfection and I do appreciate those that learn from their mistakes.
Claire Levy is a recent case in point, she made some false steps in the McLean/Stevens land grab case but they are (were?) good friends of hers and that is rough. But she did figure out that what happened was wrong and signed on to legislation to fix the law in question. All in all, impressive in how it turned out.
But there is the occasional politician who just seems truly clueless. Hillary Hall is one in her ability to utter two sentences that totally conflict with each other, and does not realize the disconnect. It's no surprise that voting continues to be a mess here.
Well Cindy Carlisle seems determined to take the crown from Hillary. It's not just her abject pandering on the issue of Bruce Benson, it's how incompetently she does it. Wow! Lets take a look at her letter in today's Daily Camera.
When the CU Presidential Search Committee met with the regents Jan. 30, I was dismayed Bruce Benson was put forward as the single finalist for the job, and doubly dismayed by the only alternative we heard -- a "second tier" of two entirely unacceptable candidates. Grudgingly, I voted to move the process to the next phase of evaluation of Benson by the university community.
...
Because the single-finalist process is so defective and polarizing, and has sown such division, and stained the committee's and regents' and candidate's credibility, constrained CU's options and violated the openness and accountability that I value, and that President Brown values, I must vote against Bruce Benson and for a renewed search.
Cindy - what changed? By your own words the process was bad when you voted for Bruce, before you then voted against him. Couldn't you make up something that changed?
...and learned a great deal of new information from nearly a dozen people who worked closely with Benson in higher education. A number of these supported Benson's candidacy going forward. A greater number did not. And nothing, it turned out, could repair the polarizing harm caused by the process itself.
Are you telling us that your vote is determined on the majority opinion of a group of less than 12 people? What happens if we elect you to the Senate and you meet a group of 20 people? Will you do whatever they ask?
This single finalist process is a throwback to the dark, bunkered days of CU secrecy I've spent five years working as regent to pry open.
And yet you voted to move his candidacy forward? If you give up this easily on your major effort, what will we see from you as a Senator?
It is also the end result of a disastrous decision -- spearheaded by a Denver regent -- to move the CU system, and hundreds of Boulder jobs, from our flagship campus to a downtown Denver office building. With help from Pete Steinhauer, I fought to keep the president here, but lost. What we're left with is a diminished presidency.
Huh? What does any of this process have to do with moving the presidency to Denver? You make assertion after assertion here but with absolutely nothing to back any of it up. Come on, throw us a bone here.
Nothing could be more important to me than the health of the Boulder campus.
Even to the exclusion of the rest of the University system? Does this mean as a Senator the health of the City of Boulder would come before the rest of your district? Good for us but sucks for the rest of the district.
I was not one of Benson's three nominators, as has been misreported, but did write a short letter stating that I thought he should be among a group of finalists meriting consideration.
Are you claiming that Heath Urie in this article is wrong when he says "writing a Jan. 8 letter of support to the presidential search panel and later seconding and supporting a motion to have Benson be the sole finalist."
Like a lot of people who caucused Feb. 5, I yearn for a politics that transcends partisanship.
WHAT??? Ok, a lot of us are looking to find compromises and even when possible transcend politics. But that wasn't the mindset at the caucuses. Last Tuesday night was a joyous celebration of the resurgence of the Democratic party and a discussion of which candidate could best kick Republican butt this November.
Because the single-finalist process is so defective and polarizing, and has sown such division, and stained the committee's and regents' and candidate's credibility, constrained CU's options and violated the openness and accountability that I value, and that President Brown values, I must vote against Bruce Benson and for a renewed search.
Good job pulling Hank Brown's name into this. Your credibility is by now so small I'm not sure the electron microscope at C.U. could detect it. Grab yourself some of Hank's credibility. But back to your reasons - you don't say a single thing against Bruce Benson, just against the Regent's process. Ok, maybe it does need to be redone - but in that case take some responsibility as it's your process that led to this and you voted for it down the line. Own up to your mistakes.
In recent days I learned for the first time that at least two candidates for the CU presidency not only had strong academic credentials but were leaders of large state university systems with more students and more campuses than CU. I have no idea why they were never presented to the board.
Did you have George Tennant running the search process. Do you ask George Bush for advice on how to govern? You have no idea why they weren't presented to the board? Do you think maybe you should try to find out? Just a thought. Or are you going to sit on your ass and hope that this time things will work better?
Now I urge my fellow board members to regroup, to examine what went wrong, to reopen the search, and to name two or more finalists with experience running multi-campus university systems for evaluation as finalists by our community.
Gee, if only a regent had voted for this at the start. Oh wait, that could have been you. Why didn't you do that at the start?
Cindy - politicians pander. And we all complain about it but they do it because it works. But you missed a key point - you have to do it well. This is just pathetic.
