MSU Presidential Search Thread - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 25, 2006

RE: MSU Presidential Search Thread

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Live from PJ's wrote:

What MSU doesn't need is a president picked with too much faculty input, as faculty are notorious for their resistance to change.

I must say this claim always puzzles me, since faculty members are often from distant locations, and thus have had to undergo wrenching geographic changes. In addition, they must keep up with an often rapid change within their own disciplines, especially at research institutions like MSU and USM. Moreover, the very process of acquiring a Ph.D. means a great deal of changing ideas, changing ways of doing things, and the like. So, it's odd to hear such a claim from LFPJ or the many others who are presumably locals may in fact be quite settled in their own ways and resistant themselves to any kind of meaningful change.

On the other hand, if by "resistance to change" the poster means resistance to chaos, to the constant toil of reversing the effects of poorly thought out and hastily implemented administrative decisions, then isn't such resistance reasonable rather than "notorious"?

JL

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Professor Lares,

There you go again, writing a well thought out insightful post that asks a question for which most of us would need no prompting to answer. However, several of the recent posters on this topic will read it and try to understand what you are saying. After their head starts hurting from thinking (it does not come naturally to them), you will get a response that ends up attacking you and your mama.

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Jameela Lares wrote:

Live from PJ's wrote: What MSU doesn't need is a president picked with too much faculty input, as faculty are notorious for their resistance to change.

I must say this claim always puzzles me, since faculty members are often from distant locations, and thus have had to undergo wrenching geographic changes. In addition, they must keep up with an often rapid change within their own disciplines, especially at research institutions like MSU and USM. Moreover, the very process of acquiring a Ph.D. means a great deal of changing ideas, changing ways of doing things, and the like. So, it's odd to hear such a claim from LFPJ or the many others who are presumably locals may in fact be quite settled in their own ways and resistant themselves to any kind of meaningful change. On the other hand, if by "resistance to change" the poster means resistance to chaos, to the constant toil of reversing the effects of poorly thought out and hastily implemented administrative decisions, then isn't such resistance reasonable rather than "notorious"? JL

Good luck on getting an answer, Professor Lares. I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered. Questions seem to be ignored and more assertions made without any evidence.

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Edward Sanders' blog:

http://edwardsanders.blogspot.com/

3/24/06

...Fairly or unfairly, Walter Wendler's candidacy has gotten off to a rocky start which could only lead to a Shelby Thames type relationship with the MSU family. ...

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Jameela Lares wrote:

Live from PJ's wrote: What MSU doesn't need is a president picked with too much faculty input, as faculty are notorious for their resistance to change. I must say this claim always puzzles me, since faculty members are often from distant locations, and thus have had to undergo wrenching geographic changes. In addition, they must keep up with an often rapid change within their own disciplines, especially at research institutions like MSU and USM. Moreover, the very process of acquiring a Ph.D. means a great deal of changing ideas, changing ways of doing things, and the like. So, it's odd to hear such a claim from LFPJ or the many others who are presumably locals may in fact be quite settled in their own ways and resistant themselves to any kind of meaningful change. On the other hand, if by "resistance to change" the poster means resistance to chaos, to the constant toil of reversing the effects of poorly thought out and hastily implemented administrative decisions, then isn't such resistance reasonable rather than "notorious"? JL

An excellent comment! I join the other posters in hoping that you get a serious, thoughtful response. How about giving it a try, LFPJ?

Date: Mar 26, 2006

CL

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060326/COL0412/603260427

March 26, 2006

New MSU president will face challenges
By Sid Salter

The presidential search at Mississippi State University is supposed to be mercifully drawing to a close this weekend - unless it blows completely apart as the last MSU presidential search did back in 2002.

Hopefully, the Board of Trustees of Institutions of Higher Learning won't repeat that exercise this time around....

...As the College Board gathers to hopefully finalize the MSU presidential search, there are some lessons to be learned from the process.

State partisans (including students, faculty, staff and alumni) chafed at the secrecy of the search and Meredith's rather imperious handling of the situation.

It's a safe bet that if State folks didn't like, the USM and late the Ole Miss communities won't like it much, either.

The good news is that first searches and first governance models are like first waffles - you can start over and do better....

Date: Mar 26, 2006

CL

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060326/OPINION/603260302/1009

March 26, 2006

MSU presidential search is top notch

...For months, I have quietly watched this unfold, listening to rumors, reading numerous emails, letters to the editor and newspaper articles. Strong opinions have been expressed and accusations made. Much of the information has been inaccurate and, unfortunately, some was purposely misleading....

Ed Blakeslee
Chair, MSU Presidential Search Committee
Board of Trustees
Institutions of Higher Learning

Date: Mar 26, 2006

"We are committed to hiring an outstanding person

Uh. Oh. Seems I've heard that song before.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

CL

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060327/OPINION01/603270309

March 27, 2006

Miss. State: How NOT to conduct a search

...Perhaps bureaucrats used to hiding from the public behind closed doors and vague words, who lack respect for the public or lack one ounce of courage find this so-called "professional model" of secretly landing a top job a good idea.

But for choosing a leader of the state's largest public university, who must deal openly with the public, have the trust of the public and respect of the public, and be unafraid of public opinion - indeed, being open and courageous enough to win it openly and publicly - this "professional model" is incredibly lame....

Date: Mar 27, 2006

MSU Reflector

http://www.reflector-online.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/03/26/442725e6ad3dc

Secret President?
College Board to vote on 'preferred candidate' Tuesday after campus meetings

Sara McAdory
March 26, 2006

...A press conference will be held following a meeting, during which the board will "more than likely" introduce MSU's next president, said Annie Mitchell, College Board director of media relations....

Date: Mar 27, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Can anyone tell me why these posters believe and trust the motives and actions of College Board Members, the Board Office, Presidents of universities, Vice Presidents of universities and deans, but think faculty are a pile of crap who cannot be trusted without a time clock? They are so dense that they do not realize that Meredith, all Presidents and Vice Presidents used to be faculty. They want someone to be President of MSU who does not have the courage to announce his/her candidacy. You really believe that someone that devious will make the tough decisions for MSU?

Cossack,

I just caught this post and had to respond. I am one of "these posters," I don't advocate the use of time clocks, and I don't like the attitude I'm picking up from your post about those of us who happen to disagree with you about the MSU search. Your responses are starting to sound like the dogma you ridicule in those that visit here every so often to stir things up. Is it so impossible for you to admit that your experience is limited regarding presidential searches and that some of us may have experiences of our own that could indicate that private searches are not such a bad thing? I have such personal anecdotes, because I have seen good and bad searches, both public and private.

I would like to see an enumeration of "crimes" against faculty that Meredith has committed since taking over as commissioner. 1. He gave us a definite end to the Thames Presidency. 2. He met with AAUP leadership and promised that they could be involved in the search process. As far as I know, these are the only two major decisions regarding USM that Meredith has made so far. If he has made other desicions regarding USM directly, then I would like to see them listed.

Here's a thought for you: Was the USM Presidential search public or private when Thames was hired? My recollection is that the process was public but that the Board ignored the wishes of USM faculty. Did public = good search?

Date: Mar 27, 2006

Southern Justice wrote:

Here's a thought for you: Was the USM Presidential search public or private when Thames was hired? My recollection is that the process was public but that the Board ignored the wishes of USM faculty. Did public = good search?

At least the IHL Board knew the opinion of the faculty in that search and chose to ignore it. In the so called "secret search" they will not know the faculty's opinion (and neither will the faculty) until months after the new president is installed. How can having more information of the final short list of candidates make the search weaker than having more information? In my opinion that is the question that needs answering.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

Southern Justice wrote:

Cossack, . . . . . I don't like the attitude I'm picking up from your post about those of us who happen to disagree with you about the MSU search . . . . .Here's a thought for you: Was the USM Presidential search public or private when Thames was hired? My recollection is that the process was public but that the Board ignored the wishes of USM faculty.

Southern Justice - I find it strange that even an appologist could write something like this and still keep a straight face.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

I think MSU should carry this Secret President idea even further. After they secretly select someone, he/she should wear a mask or a paper bag over his/her head while on campus. There's no need for anyone to know who this person is after the decision has been made.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

Outside Observer wrote:

I think MSU should carry this Secret President idea even further. After they secretly select someone, he/she should wear a mask or a paper bag over his/her head while on campus. There's no need for anyone to know who this person is after the decision has been made.

Hire me! Here me! My credentials meet those qualifications.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

Southern Justice

I apologize; I did not know you were that sensitive. However, I have read two of your post this morning and I am confused. In one you believe I understated the improper dealings by SFT with various vendors where the deals were made in secret. I have the same concerns and I think most faculty share those concerns. Of course, that is why governments use an open bid system where all bids are open to scrutiny. However, that does not stop the secret kickbacks etc. that plagued Mississippi when it had the Beat system.

In another post, you take me to task for not trusting a secret selection of the MSU president because you trust Meredith based on a few data points of empirical evidence. You then point to an open search with a bad outcome as proof that open searches do not always bring good results. You are confusing specific individual outcomes with a selection system. Over time, open searches reduce the inside dealings that you point out happening under SFT. We can continue to disagree on theses issues, but I suspect that you will not convince many people of the value of selective secret processes.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

Cossack wrote:

You then point to an open search with a bad outcome as proof that open searches do not always bring good results. You are confusing specific individual outcomes with a selection system. Over time, open searches reduce the inside dealings that you point out happening under SFT. We can continue to disagree on theses issues, but I suspect that you will not convince many people of the value of selective secret processes.

Before I start, let me say that I'm not taking sides, just making an observation. The secret, or semi-secret selection process to which you object isn't that extraordinary in industry or in academia. In recent years it's been used at UNC-Chapel Hill, Texas, and Texas A&M, not exactly low caliber institutions or beds of corruption. In one of these cases with which I'm most familiar, several of the candidates requested that the search committee keep their identities confidential until such time they were selected as finalists. If I remember correctly, the final three candidates were named prior to a final choice being made. In none of these instances were the university faculties consulted. It seems to me that the IHL process itself, while certainly lacking in faculty input, isn't nearly as suspect as the sordid history of corruption and back rooms deals that haunt Mississippi generally, and USM specifically. I'm wondering now if the individual who's finally selected by Meredith et al to captain MSU will provide any clues as to what USM might expect on down the line.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

Cossack,
But the SFT selection and I would argue the last State selection process shows that open searches do not always work. So is your argument that open searches will work more often than closed searches? Why is it that the trend in higher education is toward more closed searches? Why do most top universities use closed processes? And why is secret searches the norm in the most important position in academics, head coaches?

Though I said this sarcastically, I am curious what the rationale is behind the current trend. This situation is not unique to Mississippi and I would think many people brighter than me has provided good answers.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

asdf wrote:

Cossack,But the SFT selection and I would argue the last State selection process shows that open searches do not always work. So is your argument that open searches will work more often than closed searches? Why is it that the trend in higher education is toward more closed searches? Why do most top universities use closed processes? And why is secret searches the norm in the most important position in academics, head coaches? Though I said this sarcastically, I am curious what the rationale is behind the current trend. This situation is not unique to Mississippi and I would think many people brighter than me has provided good answers.

This wasn't a truly "open" search. It was a masquerade of an open search -- an "open" search inname only.

The answer to your question abot what makes this different is the nature of the university as an institution of knowlege and proliferating ideas: openess is fundamental to every university process because secrecy undermines the search for truth.

I acknowlege that we adopt closed and secret processes -- but these are driven by imperatives from the outside world that have penetrated the university. The need for research secrecy, for instance, is driven partly by capital; security issues; or the fear that ideas may be stolen by the unscrupulous. But a university should adopt these practices skeptically and in ways that minimally affect the core values of the uhiversity.

Accepting secret hires in major academic jobs shold be questioned for the very reason that it is the norm in business. Although the university must practically speaking, function as a business it is not a business. The proliferation of profit entities within the university is causing us to forget that.

We should (I hope) all acknowlege that in the best of all possible worlds there would be no secrecy on a university campus beyond that needed to protect the information of individual students and staff. People who want highly paid (and publically responsible) positions as executives in a public universty should accept the risks inherent in this kind of position, rather than continue to contribute to the trend of continuing to distort core university values.

This is truly a case of having their cake and eating it too. In this sense the aspiring executive is actually risking nothing in a high stakes job search -- the university, in its hire of someone to oversee its mission, is the one taking al of the risk. Limiting public knowlege of candidates is one of the surest way to allow candidates, search committees, or headhunters to control information that is ganed about a candidate, and this to control the inquiry process.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

IIt does not matter who else is using secret searches in other industries or that some universities have or are using secret searches. The question revolves around process and outcomes. If someone is convinced that secret process always trump open processes, their minds will not be changed by evidence or logic. Most of what could be said has been said on this topic. Posters are split on the issue and will remain so.

As an aside, I want to point out that there are two Southern Justice posters who have posted on this Board. The most recent poster is not the Southern Justice poster of two months ago. I do not know if the name adoption was inadvertent or intentional. However, I do think that it reduces the creditability of the poster if they pick a user name that has been used by another poster. There may be other cases of this that I have not picked up. I am sorry that this has happened since the recent Southern Justice appears to be a serious person, albeit with posts that sometimes have more emotion than thoughts.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

in my business life i always pleased to see that my employees were considered for other positions....it always made me feel that i had good employees!!

the people who were never offered jobs seemed to be the slugs

Date: Mar 27, 2006

stephen judd wrote:

asdf wrote: Cossack,But the SFT selection and I would argue the last State selection process shows that open searches do not always work. So is your argument that open searches will work more often than closed searches? Why is it that the trend in higher education is toward more closed searches? Why do most top universities use closed processes? And why is secret searches the norm in the most important position in academics, head coaches? Though I said this sarcastically, I am curious what the rationale is behind the current trend. This situation is not unique to Mississippi and I would think many people brighter than me has provided good answers. This wasn't a truly "open" search. It was a masquerade of an open search -- an "open" search inname only. The answer to your question abot what makes this different is the nature of the university as an institution of knowlege and proliferating ideas: openess is fundamental to every university process because secrecy undermines the search for truth. I acknowlege that we adopt closed and secret processes -- but these are driven by imperatives from the outside world that have penetrated the university. The need for research secrecy, for instance, is driven partly by capital; security issues; or the fear that ideas may be stolen by the unscrupulous. But a university should adopt these practices skeptically and in ways that minimally affect the core values of the uhiversity. Accepting secret hires in major academic jobs shold be questioned for the very reason that it is the norm in business. Although the university must practically speaking, function as a business it is not a business. The proliferation of profit entities within the university is causing us to forget that. We should (I hope) all acknowlege that in the best of all possible worlds there would be no secrecy on a university campus beyond that needed to protect the information of individual students and staff. People who want highly paid (and publically responsible) positions as executives in a public universty should accept the risks inherent in this kind of position, rather than continue to contribute to the trend of continuing to distort core university values. This is truly a case of having their cake and eating it too. In this sense the aspiring executive is actually risking nothing in a high stakes job search -- the university, in its hire of someone to oversee its mission, is the one taking al of the risk. Limiting public knowlege of candidates is one of the surest way to allow candidates, search committees, or headhunters to control information that is ganed about a candidate, and this to control the inquiry process.

One more addition: we also accept secrecy in a university for nationalistic and patriotic reasons. But at its core, a university, like knowlege, is international in nature. If the world were different, we would accept that a university in Cairo, St. Petersburg or Hattiesburg should have far more in comon with one another than with other national institutions they may collaborate with in their own countries. Intellectuals and artists are (or should be) citizens of the world first.

I realize that is an ideal and is NOT practical. But I think that it is something that we should at least aspire to achieve, and an aspiration against which every attempt to use the university for "national" and "patriotic" ends should be questioned. In other words, it should be the default standard, the measuring stick against which all institutions who wish to use the university for their own ends should be tested. I'd contend that one of the reasons so many people misunderstand the university -- and why the university seems to have become one of just many "tools" of government and business is that we do not maintain an apropriately skeptical distance from those whose primary objective in funding a university is not supporting teaching or research as ends in themselves, but only support specific varieties of teaching and research.

Until we can sell our own society the idea that the university is (or should be) at its best a "disinterested" practitioner of scholarship and research, we are dealing from a very weak position when we accept funded research and reshape our teaching and our curriculum without posing much more critical questions about how the choices we are making are, in fact, making the university more vulnerable to the critique that the values of the university and the values of society should be the same . . . . and that the university should reshape its core values to fit those of the culture in which it finds itself.

The university is one of the few institutions equipped to function as a skeptical voice (or voices, really). I'll admit this sensibility is partly a product of a childhood coming at the end of WWII, when we learned the lessons of totalitarianism, as well as the Cold War. It is also the product of my Baptist upbringing (once the Baptists were TRUE skeptics) in which it was clear that to identify any state or nation with "being on God's side" was to be idolatrous.

The university is not perfect -- but it's ability to project disinterest, to not identify itself with a particular ideology as an institution -- is important to its credibility.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

Cossack wrote:

It does not matter who else is using secret searches in other industries or that some universities have or are using secret searches. The question revolves around process and outcomes. If someone is convinced that secret process always trump open processes, their minds will not be changed by evidence or logic. Most of what could be said has been said on this topic. Posters are split on the issue and will remain so.

Cossack:

I am not in Hattiesburg or USM affiliated, and would like to think that I'm a dispassionate student of the present IHL search process. I've come to respect your posts and observations more than most, as they seem to be well reasoned and lacking animus. Concerning the secret search process, if one could agree that many tier one universities have utilized at least a modified version of the confidential search process with notable success, do you view their results as anomalies? Personally I think we're on the same page; I don't believe that secret process always trumps open process and in a perfect world the more open the process, the better. However from a practical standpoint, when the best (and typically already well employed) candidates prefer to remain anonymous during the early screening, what would you do? If the committee insists on disclosing the names of all candidates from the get-go, then many options are immediately foreclosed to the seach committee. What would you think if the applicants were unnamed until the list was pared down to the top three candidates? Would this be viewed as a reasonable compromise, in your opinion? With respect to the search for Thames successor, I wonder if a presidential search committee which included representation in the form of delegates from your faculty senate would be more palatable to the USM faculty. Or would the selection of those delegates in and of itself trigger another wave of internal bickering? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, if you'd care to comment. Thanks in advance for your time.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

IHL PR (an update of PR ID# 387, 3/22/06)

http://www.ihl.state.ms.us/newsstory.asp?ID=388

BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO CONDUCT INTERVIEWS FOR MISSISSIPPI STATE PRESIDENT

3/25/2006 (Jackson, Miss. ) -

The Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) will convene on Sunday and Monday, March 26 and 27, to hold meetings of the Board’s Presidential Search Committee. The purpose of the meetings is to interview candidates for President of Mississippi State University. The meetings will begin at 8:30 a.m. on both days to begin the process. This time has been updated to enable the Board to convene and go into executive session before the interviews begin at 9:30 a.m. All meetings will be held in the former IHL Board Room on the 9th floor of the Education and Research Center, 3825 Ridgewood Road, Jackson. Executive sessions will be held in accordance with the Mississippi Open Meetings Act.

The preferred candidate for President of Mississippi State University will be announced during a brief press conference and via press release following the second day of interviews on Monday, March 27. Once identified, the preferred candidate will be brought to the Mississippi State University campus in Starkville, Mississippi, on Tuesday, March 28, for open, day-long interviews with various university constituencies. The interview schedule is as follows:

7:45 a.m.—8:30 a.m. Breakfast with Vice Presidents, Foundation Board Room, Hunter Henry Center

8:45 a.m.—9:30 a.m. Meeting with Campus Leadership, Parker Ballroom, Hunter Henry Center

9:45 a.m.—10:45 a.m. Meeting with General Faculty, Parker Ballroom, Hunter Henry Center

11:00 a.m.—11:45 a.m. Meeting with Student Leadership, Foundation Board Room, Hunter Henry Center

11:50 a.m.—12:45 p.m. Lunch with Alumni Executive Committee, Correro Board Room, Hunter Henry Center

1:00 p.m.—1:45 p.m. Meeting with Staff Council, Foundation Board Room, Hunter Henry Center

2:00 p.m.—3:30 p.m. Campus and Community Reception, Parker Ballroom, Hunter Henry Center

3:45 p.m.—4:45 p.m. Meeting with MSU Foundation Board, Foundation Board Room, Hunter Henry Center

5:00 p.m. Meeting of the Board of Trustees, Correro Board Room, Hunter Henry CenterT.B.A. Press Conference, Parker Ballroom, Hunter Henry Center

Date: Mar 27, 2006

Headhunter wrote:

... However from a practical standpoint, when the best (and typically already well employed) candidates prefer to remain anonymous during the early screening, what would you do? If the committee insists on disclosing the names of all candidates from the get-go, then many options are immediately foreclosed to the seach committee. What would you think if the applicants were unnamed until the list was pared down to the top three candidates? ...

This is the point I have tried to make, Headhunter. Many of the "secret" searches mentioned at other institutions were not totally secret. The final 3 to 5 candidates on the short list were made public because their references required superiors and subordinates to be contacted. So the need to be "secret" for their present job situation ceased to be an issue at that point. Keeping the process totally secret, as the IHL is doing, only keeps the faculty voice and other stake holders silent. The public wil never know faculty opinion on the chosen candidate.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

Dear Friends,

I wanted to personally inform you that earlier today, I advised the Mississippi IHL and Dr. Meredith of my decision to withdraw my name from consideration for the presidency of Mississippi State University. Late last week I was assured that following the IHL's nationwide search, I was the leading candidate and the position was mine for the asking. To USM's everlasting credit, I reportedly became a shoo-in to become MSU's top bulldawg after the search committee learned of my groundbreaking post-doctoral research in economical development, conducted during my time in Hattiesburg. They were also impressed by the wonderful success we've enjoyed while building USM at D'Lo into a well respected comprehensive research university from scratch in only 18 months. Though I was humbled and honored to learn I was the committee's first choice, after much soul searching and a meeting this morning with our Provost, it became apparent that my heart is with USM at D'Lo, and my work here is not done. Accordingly, I will remain here and continue to shepherd our fine institution through the opening of our new schools of medicine and law in the Fall. Also, we're negotiating the purchase of a new Electron Beam Linear Accelerator for our Physics Research Center, and soon we'll be kicking off a vigorous $150,000,000 capital campaign to fund construction of our new 102,000 seat football stadium and multi-purpose indoor sports arena. As you've probably heard, we'll be joining the SEC in 2008 and must meet their minimum facility requirements prior to admission. So as you can see we have a lot on our plate and with your help, we'll continue moving forward.

In closing I'd like to thank the IHL and Dr. Meredith for their kindness, my lovely wife for her support and understanding, and the USMD Provost, Dr. Emma, who as always has been an absolute rock. In fact, I won't be a bit surprised to see Emma leave us soon and take the helm of some great university herself. They would indeed be fortunate to have her.

Please stop and visit whenever you're traveling old Highway 49 through D'Lo. Our doors are always open and the coffee's always hot.

Sincerely yours,

W.J. Johnson, Chancellor
USM at D'Lo

Date: Mar 27, 2006

LeftASAP wrote:

Headhunter wrote: ... However from a practical standpoint, when the best (and typically already well employed) candidates prefer to remain anonymous during the early screening, what would you do? If the committee insists on disclosing the names of all candidates from the get-go, then many options are immediately foreclosed to the seach committee. What would you think if the applicants were unnamed until the list was pared down to the top three candidates? ...

This is the point I have tried to make, Headhunter. Many of the "secret" searches mentioned at other institutions were not totally secret. The final 3 to 5 candidates on the short list were made public because their references required superiors and subordinates to be contacted. So the need to be "secret" for their present job situation ceased to be an issue at that point. Keeping the process totally secret, as the IHL is doing, only keeps the faculty voice and other stake holders silent. The public wil never know faculty opinion on the chosen candidate.

Got it. I think we're saying pretty much the same thing, in so many words. Not that anyone would ever ask me, but I'd advocate a semi-confidential search process such as you've just described, with the final candidates to be identified and undergo public scrutiny. Initially I thought that's what Meredith was planning to do. I wonder if he changed his mind, or the IHL changed it for him? As I said earlier, I'd also urge any search committee appointed by the IHL to include a couple of highly respected members of the faculty, to be chosen by the faculty senate, to sit on the committee from beginning to end.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

Headhunter,

We can assume, I hope, that the Board and Meredith have a threshold for qualifications for a viable candidate. I have no problem with the committee sorting through and pulling out those who do not meet the minimum qualifications. The group would hold little interest for most of us. As for qualifications, I would think that a sitting president or a high level college administrator elsewhere would make it through the initial screen. After that, I would make the process open. In this particular case, the group contains someone is neither a setting president nor a higher-level college administrator. That also is reasonable since a CEO of a large organization way well have the skills to be president of a university. As an aside, the present president at SUM had none of those qualifications. His only professional qualification was that he was a failed administrator at the Coast. In the present case of MSU, we have a politically connected person who works for a senator. Wisely, that person managed (my opinion) to have their name revealed. If a politically connected candidate becomes a university president in a closed search, you tell me what signal that sends both in and outside the state? While I want to say that we can put a small number out such as three and say that is acceptable, I think that it should be a large number announced ahead of time.

Most of the posts have focused on the problem of exposing a sitting president to repercussions from seeking another position, but not on the problem of rebuilding trust once the secret candidate gets the job. However, I am not surprised. There is a concept that it does not matter what the faculty and staff think of a new president or how they will respond to the process and appointment. Once a president is picked, everything is fine. If it does not matter how the president is picked or who it is, why bother with a search? I do not think that there is anything left to discuss on the president search issue and I would have not posted except you asked a legitimate question in a profession manner. I hope I have answered it in turn.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

Headhunter wrote:

...Not that anyone would ever ask me, but I'd advocate a semi-confidential search process such as you've just described, with the final candidates to be identified and undergo public scrutiny. ... I'd also urge any search committee appointed by the IHL to include a couple of highly respected members of the faculty, to be chosen by the faculty senate, to sit on the committee from beginning to end.

Actually, this is kind of the process IHL used for past searches. All of the names were kept confidential until the last 3-4. The main difference is your last point. This is the reform that I think is most needed. As it stands now and in the past, only IHL board members are on the search committee. Faculty, staff, students, alumni, et al. are on an advisory committee that has no voting rights. I don't know how you reform this because there are many factions that would want a vote (do you have the pres of the faculty senate, staff council, student government, alumni association, etc all trying to vote along with 12 board members???). As long as the IHL has the only voting rights for the next president, then it does not matter if the process is completely open or secrete, they will simply vote in who they want.