• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

3/21 CALL TO ACTION - New Message To Send!


Well-known member
Thank you all for continuing to support this cause. I think many read my update upon returning, if not you can find it in the the long thread about my trip to Helena yesterday.

Today and tomorrow it is vitally important that the Senate Committee segregates the nominations. It came to my attention that the current nomination that they will be voting on will be for all three regents (in a single nomination). Obviously we would like the discussion over the concern of Mr. Williams words to be on a stand-alone basis.

So once again, can you all please contact the Senate Committee on Education and Cultural Resources by following this link: http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/63rd/legwebmessage.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please open with this statement:

I would like to ask the Senate Committee to segregate the nominations for Mr. Pat Williams, Mr. Jefferey Krauss, and Mr Joseph Thiel so each person nominated to the board of regents can be reviewed and decided upon based on their own merits.

I continue to stand in opposition of the appointment of Pat Williams to the board of regents based upon his statements and the meaning of his words, however I feel that my objections should not penalize or delay the confirmation of Mr Krauss or Mr Theil.
Having the three nominees together gives the Senators the cover of deniability. It is like decision by committee where no one person can be singled out for bad decisions. An individual Senator can claim they never specifically voted for one nominee or not.
For us to be successful the nominees must be considered individually. It is likely the Senate will decline this because of time constraints. It is time to rally and really put the pressure on. Do not give up hope.
Politics, don't you just hate it!
Good next step, BW.
Listening to the hearing yesterday, it occurred to me that this whole ordeal has unfortunately focused on whether Pat Williams should be confirmed and bundling his confirmation with two other regents greases the skids for his approval.
The committee members should be asking themselves if Steve Bullock can and should come up with a better regent than Pat Williams, one that can represent without dividing the university community or the state. The answer to that question should be a no brainer.
Thanks all for doing this so far - and as always forward this info on to other concerned people! Help get the word out!
Keep er going Brint ... good work!

This is what I sent to the full committee and also to Senator Peterson and Senator Lewis.

Dear Senator(s) ___________,

I would like to ask the Senate Committee to segregate the nominations to the board of regents, so each can be reviewed and decided upon based on their own merits.

I also want to reaffirm my opposition to the Pat Williams confirmation.

Regents are not normally career politicians like Pat. We need regents concerned solely with higher education of students. This is not “THE” highest priority for most of the interest groups Pat supports.

Another issue with Pat is his need to be the center of attention. That’s ok for career politicians but not for regents.

Thank you for your consideration of this.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Done. Thanks for representing those of us who could not go to Helena. I was surprised he did not immediately withdraw his name from consideration after making such offensive statements. In my opinion, Pat Williams has permanently damaged his ability to serve effectively as a regent.

I also find it illuminating in terms of his ability to serve as a regent that he was not wise enough to keep his thoughts to himself about the entire situation until the facts were better known (and the verdicts were rendered). Surely there are others in the state who could demonstrate more wisdom and maturity.
Done. Mr. Williams conduct at the hearing was arrogant and showed him to be nothing but a slick politician unable to accept his own conduct. Blaming the reporter was shameful.