A bill that would let universities search for presidents behind closed doors stalled in a state House committee yesterday in the face of warnings that the best candidates refuse to apply for jobs in Michigan.
State lawmakers got a lot of advice on the subject yesterday, some of it from Regent Philip Power (D-Ann Arbor) and Law School Dean Jeffrey Lehman.
Power and Lehman traveled to Lansing yesterday to address the seven-member House Higher Education Committee about universities' presidential search processes and the Michigan Open Meetings Act.
"Based on the experience I and my colleagues on the U-M Board of Regents have just gone through, the evidence is overwhelming that the Open Meetings Act should be amended," Power said in a statement he read to the committee.
"This is not a University of Michigan vs. the newspapers issue," Power said. "The issue has to do solely with what is the best public policy for the people of the state of Michigan."
Power stressed that the current interpretation of the Open Meetings Act severely hampers Michigan public universities' ability to select presidents. He said the act must be amended and that the process deters some of the best candidates from participating.
"This state is now regarded by leaders in higher education around the country as a crazy place (because of the openness in hiring university presidents)," Power said.
Power said the University managed to find a great president in Dartmouth Provost and former Law School Dean Lee Bollinger. "Much of the time we were flying in the dark and we were very, very lucky," Power said.
Lehman, also chair of the Presidential Search Advisory Committee, said no current university presidents applied for the University presidency. He said they fear being viewed as disloyal to their own institutions once their candidacy is publicized.
"Giving newspapers a seat at the table damages the recruiting process," he said.
But critics of the measure said that boards of public universities need to be accountable to the public.
"Are you saying the people that put $1.5 billion into higher education should have no voice?" asked Rep. Lingg Brewer (D-Holt).
Ed Petykiewicz, editor of The Ann Arbor News, said newspapers do not want a seat at the table when university presidents are picked, but want to watch public officials make decisions.
That might be uncomfortable for some, he said, but decisions made in secret also can lead to problems.
The newspapers' lawsuit over Michigan's hiring of former University President James Duderstadt resulted in the opening of records on that search that showed University officials commenting on the religion, ethnicity and age of candidates, he said.
Records indicate a regent called a candidate who was the majority of the board's top choice and threatened to make life difficult for him, which led to the candidate's withdrawal, Petykiewicz said.
Dawn Phillips, general counsel for the Michigan Press Association, warned the committee that permitting more secrecy in government will feed paranoia about government actions.
She said the law already allows material in applications to be kept confidential if disclosure would create an unwarranted invasion of privacy. "The more information available to everyone, the better the decision will be," she said.
On a 3-3 vote, the measure failed to advance out of the House Higher Education Committee after four hours of testimony. Rep. Jessie Dalman (R-Holland), who chairs the committee, said the issue is not dead. "We might want to revisit this," Dalman said.
Kathy Kirby, a spokesperson for the committee, said the group adopted five amendments to the bill, the most significant being that five final search candidates could be named for the public part of the process. The original version of the bill called for a public process for only three final candidates.
The measure will have to be reintroduced next year if it does not pass the House this month.
A Senate-passed measure would close the selection process until three finalists are chosen. Under the Senate bill, the regents' vote would be delayed for 14 days to allow time for public comment. The House panel extended the comment period to 30 days.