Better safe than sorry wrote:

---

A brilliant suggestion, Stephen. We can't wait for the IHL and then respond to their plan (which probably is no plan.) A public discussion will help insure that the search actually happens.

---

I think this commissioner is more open to input from campus constituencies than previous ones. But in any case, we need to make sure that he has the perception that the campus community is actively concerned about the search and the integrity of that search. He needs to know that many people don't believe the last search was an honest one, and that the relationship between the current administration and certain nodes of power within the Hattiesburg community, when combined with the fairly corrupt political systems throughout this state make it imperative that this search be conducted differently than in the past.

 

Professor Judd puts forth some sound ideas about the next Presidential search. The time to begin is now, or at least starting Spring semester. In my view, it would be very helpful for the Faculty Senate to develop both a process along the lines suggested and a time line for the process. If the Board and the Board Office are approaching this search in good faith, they should welcome the input. If we are in for more bad faith activities from the Board and Board office, we might as well find out early instead of being blind sided. Having a lengthy and orderly search process benefits USM, the Board, and whomever is chosen as the new President. It would not serve a new President well to begin his/her tenure with cloud over their head from a tainted process.

I also would caution against looking for a savior who will come in and bring back the past. I have heard discussions about Lucas' daughter being touted as the next President. She may turn out to be the best candidate, assuming she applies, but I am wary of any more insiders as President. USM is a mature university with serious research activity, Division I sports programs, and many faculty with national reputations. It is time we acted like a major university and hired from the outside.

good post SJ.

The real questions are: Will there be a presidential search? and If there is a presidential search will it differ from the last PS?

*** wrote:

---

so ours gets rushed.

---

or delayed

Stephen,

I disagree with several of your suggestions. First, I know everyone is anxious to move on from Shelby, but to start the search now makes no sense.  According to the sticky on the board, Shelby does not leave until May 2007.  What purpose would it serve to start now?  You have been on search committees before, how long do they take?  I have never been on one that lasted for 18 months (granted I have been on committees that decided not to hire someone and reopened the following year, so I guess this could count as lasting longer than 18 months).  Plus, who is going to apply now for a job that starts summer of 2007.  There is nothing wrong with asking the college board for a timeline, but do not expect anything to start until fall 2006.   

 

Next, I completely disagree that all candidates names need to be made public.  That would greatly reduce the number of applicants.  The example most people would understand would be to compare this to hiring a head football coach.  Nobody wants their name out in the public if they do not make the short list.  This can be personally embarrassing and possibly professional suicide at their current job.  Plus, once an applicant gets a reputation for applying to many president positions but not landing them, this is a death nail for the future attempts.  

 

Actually, this brings about an interesting point about the finalist last time around.  Nobody else wanted Terry Hickey for a president, so now he is a provost at Central Florida.  Ann Hart was evidently a good candidate since 2nd tier UNH wanted her.  Of course, how Hickey, Hart, and Thames became the finalists happened behind the closed doors of the college board.

 

As for equal representation, I believe that the last advisory committee was equally spread out among the colleges (Lib Arts, Ed Psych, and Sci Tech each having 2, and Business, Arts, Nursing, Health, and CICE having 1 each...and libraries had 1 but I don’t remember where they used to be; these numbers include Deans or lower).  There was a slant toward administration (10 with administrative titles and 8 without; along with 3 non-faculty/administrators, 3 students, and 15 from outside the univ).  All of the people were picked by Griffin (as chair of the CAC), and I just can’t believe that he was a political insider bent on getting Thames in.  Now, maybe the faculty senate could do a better job selecting the advisory committee, but in all reality, it will not matter.  The advisory committee is not the search committee, and as long as the search committee consists of college board members who do not answer to the university, they will do what they want (e.g. of the around 11 people that the college board interviewed, only 6 were recommended by the advisory committee and 3 recommended were discarded).  To change this process, you would have to change the board rules (see page 33 of the IHL Policies and Bylaws).   

 

I completely agree that the meetings with the candidates should be recorded/ webcasted, etc. for others to watch.  I guess the polls of each of the groups could be made public, but this could work against you.  The last time around, Thames won at least the student and alumni vote.  By the way, how would you weight the different constituencies?  Would the faculty vote count more than staff?  Would it be one person, one vote?  As for when the vote is taken, that sounds fine to me, though in my experience, people tend to want to start evaluating candidates as soon as they leave.

 

Bottom line, I think that the biggest change in the process that needs to be made is that the campus advisory committee’s role needs to be elevated so that they are part of the final decision process.

Just a reminder from far away:

There have been two presidential searches conducted with those same bad IHL procedures (just about the worst, in my opinion, is the rating after each visit instead of after all the candidates have been seen). The first search yielded Horace Fleming, whom powerful alumni and the board wanted to remove after his first term. The second . . . well, I need not go on.

I agree with Stephen: get the Board thinking about this now so that some modifications may be made in the process. If they announce how it will be done, they'll never back down. Some gradual movement in their thinking over the next year, if that's possible, is the best hope.

Good luck! and NO QUARTER.
Anne Wallace

Professor Wallace's post reflects my view of how to proceed; positively, deliberatively, and professionally..

We should not be content until the list of prospective candidates includes at least three from schools in the top 10 in the football polls.

LOL!

Former CAC wrote:

---

It's been bothering me lately because I could not remember who was the 4th person the IHL selected to interview for the president's job.  Last night I accidentally ran across the original IHL press release from March 28, 2002.  It was Stan Albrecht, Provost at Utah State.  He recently became president of Utah State http://www.usu.edu/president/ No point to this, I just thought I would add to the history of the last time around.

---

And is probably thanking his lucky stars for being spared the job from he!!

It wasn't the job from he!! when he interviewed for it....

TinyFish wrote:

---

It wasn't the job from he!! when he interviewed for it....

---

And although SFT probably doesn't regard it as the job from he!! now, probably nobody else would regard it as such had any of the other applicants been selected.

I would offer that the USM presidency is probably going to be fairly attractive when the search process does commence, considering that it will be a terrific challenge to someone who wants to demonstrate their abilities & that the next president will probably have one he!!uva "honeymoon" with everybody but the used car salesmen.

I agree that the process ought to be transparent and ought to involve many faculty members.  That being said -- please do not put me on that committee.  The sad reality is that if you serve on such a committee you will indeed work your tush off.  You might or might not get wonderful candidtates -- you have to play the hand you are dealt.  Then after lots of work you wind up with someone, even if they are good, that many people on campus will not like one way or another.  Then they all look at you funny and somehow blame you for the hire.  "How could you have done this?"  "You must have had an agenda."  "So and so tried to curry favor."  You name it.  We want faculty to serve, and some turn around and do not trust their service.  Believe me the few warm fuzzies that come from being on an administrative search committee (and just the good old need to get a job done right) are not worth the grief that will flow later.