Des Moines Register
11-21-06
Shed secrecy in search for university president
Regents' bungling fuels public distrust.
REGISTER EDITORIAL BOARD
The Iowa Board of Regents has bungled the search for a new University of Iowa
president, leaving observers to wonder whether the regents have a hidden
agenda and whether they seriously value participation by the university
community or, for that matter, the people of Iowa.
Indeed, their actions have created a climate of confusion and distrust that
threatens serious harm to the university.
To begin to rebuild trust and respect with the university and the public, the board
must open the process to the public. Obviously, doing it in secret did not work
very well.
Last week's surprising action by the board to reject all finalists selected by an
advisory committee left some committee members and even some regents
surprised and angry.
From the beginning, this whole ordeal has been badly handled:
- The board insulted former President David Skorton by giving him a smaller
raise for 2006 - 3 percent - than his counterparts at Iowa State University and the
University of Northern Iowa, who received 5 percent. ISU President Gregory
Geoffroy also was given a deferred compensation package of $60,000 a year, if
he continues at ISU until January 2011. The board said it wanted to ensure
Geoffroy would stay at ISU. Skorton has said the difference in raises did not play
a part in his decision to leave for Cornell University. But another message could
certainly be construed from the board's heavy-handed maneuver: It cared about
keeping Geoffroy but not Skorton.
- The board gave a much smaller role than in the past to university staff and
students in the search process.
- It has shrouded the process in secrecy, including a bizarre demand that searchcommittee members sign oaths that they would not share details with even their
own family members. This is particularly ironic given that the board's president is
Michael Gartner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper editor who throughout his
career fought courageously for the people's right to know.
There is a reason why the Legislature enacted the open-records and openmeetings laws, and that reason would seem obvious in this situation. The people
of Iowa deserve to know how top officials of public institutions are hired. What
sort of people are public officials looking for? Who has applied for the job? What
are the standards for picking finalists and the finalist?
None of that was clear last week, except that the board was suddenly (and
apparently newly) interested in a candidate with special expertise in the healthcare field. After the board's mysterious decision to pull the plug on this round of
the search process, the public was left to speculate that some regents hadn't
gotten their way.
The goal of public accountability that led to creation of Iowa's open-records and
open-meeting laws has been forgotten in recent years as public officials retreat
into secrecy to search for school superintendents, city managers and other top
managers. The Legislature should tighten those laws to mandate public
applications and interviews.
While scrapping work done to date on the presidential search leaves a lot of
unanswered questions, it also offers an opportunity to start over, to get it right
this time and perhaps to rebuild relations with the U of I and the public in the
process. The best way to do that: Do the job in the open, hold all meetings in
public and make public the names of the applicants.
And about that advisory committee: Regents should dispense with it if they are
not interested in its advice.