Four, actually. Hawk reports to Bohn, who reports to DiStephano, who reports to Benson, who reports to the Regents.
This gets me thinking about the power structure of the university of Colorado in light of last week's decission to extend Hawkins. There is a bureacracy that can be expensive and inefficient.
Level 1: Colorado State Government. State constitution and law establishes 1) tax proceeds directed towards higher ed; 2) In-state tuition levels; 3) Cap on the percent of students that can be admitted from out of state; 3) Framework in which the University exists. Issue 1: State only contributes 6% of CU's budget generated from taxpayers, yet has influence over admissions and tuition decissions. Issue 2: With 94% of CU's revenue coming from tuition, fundraising, or private and government grants, does the State have a disproportionant amount of influence over how the university is run? Issue 3: The CUAD is funded through voluntary student fees, ticket sales, network contracts, conference revenue agreements, and licensing. No state taxpayer money is used to fund the CUAD. But as the state's "flagship" university, there is a perception that the CUAD is under the dominion of the taxpayer.
Level 2: The Regents (Steve Bosley - Chair,
Joseph Neguse, Stephen Ludwig, James Geddes, Tom Lucero, Michael Carrigan, Kyle Hybl, Tillie Bishop, Monisha Merchant). These 8 positions are elected by their respective districts. This body votes on any changes to the terms of Hawkin's employment. Issue 1: The voters in each of these districts are assumed to be unable to distinguish private donations and tax-payer money when it comes to funding. Issue 2: The electorate generally opposes Higher Ed funding, and most voters do not consider CU football to be a priority. Issue 3: Out of state alumni and boosters hold no sway over the Regents. Issue 4: Do any of the Regents get elected based upon their support of CU football?
Level 3. Office of the President - Bruce Benson. Appointed by the Regents. Responsible for the entire university system, including the 4 campuses located in Boulder, Colo Springs, Denver, and the Anshultz Medical Campus in Aurora. Issue 1: The University is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. In the big scheme of things, a $45M CUAD budget is small potatoes. Issue 2: Benson was selected due to his business accumen and influence at the state capitol. His office is in Downtown Denver. He is a politician. Issue 3: Being a huge proponent of CU football is not considered being a politically wise priority in this down economy. Issue 4: The CUAD is a Boulder Campus responsibility, not an intra-campus institution. Issue 5: The operations of the Boulder campus falls to the Boulder Chancellor, except for big PR issues such as the Hawkins contract.
Level 4: The Boulder Chancellor - Phil Destephano. Responsible for the Operations of the Boulder campus, including Academic programs, staffing, admissions, campus budget and capital programs, and, oh yeah, the athletic department, too. Issue 1: The win-loss column of the FB program isn't the top priority. Issue 2: He can't afford to be out of synch with his boss or the regents. Issue 3: Money problems in a down economy.
Level 5: CUAD - Mike Bohn. Responsible for all of CU's athletic programs and facilities. Responsible for complying with NCAA, B12, title 9 provisions. Responsible for P/L of the CUAD, staffing decissions, community and booster outreach, and the athletic and academic performance of CU Boulder's student athletes.
Level 6: Football Coach and highest paid State Employee - Dan Hawkins. Recruit and graduate student athletes. Staffing of football operations. Media and booster relations. Community outreach (ie FB Camps). Compliance with NCAA FB rules. Oh yeah...field competitive teams. Issue 1: He's a State Employee, which comes with a lot of strings attached. Issue 2: Proceeds from the FB program funds the non-revenue sports. Issue 3: Arms race with conference and other D1 schools. Issue 4: Not located in geographical location that is considered a recruiting hotbed. Issue 5: Hostility and opposition towards program exists within community and state. Issue 6: Missing blue chip high dollar whales amongst the booster ranks. Issue 7: Admissions restrictions that are unique to CU.
Makes sense to me to privatize the CUAD and set it free from the jurisdiction of the regents and the multiple levels of institutional bureacracy. If it were privatized, the governence would include major stakeholders, and might include board governance to investors, one or more regent, members from all CU campuses, alumni, ect.
I'm just thinking through this. But would it make sense for the CUAD to report to Benson instead of DeStephano? This would serve to further leverage intracampus opportunities and improve fan outreach in the key front range communities where CU has a presence.