The measures would further hide presidential searches from the University community and Michigan citizens. Proposed OMA revisions would allow the University Board of Regents to meet in secret after a search advisory committee gives the regents five finalists. The five names would be made public and the regents would have to wait until at least 30 days before making a selection. The process would grant the University community nothing but a superficial knowledge of the five finalists, providing no opportunities for interaction between the candidates and students and faculty. The measures also would eliminate the chance for the public to examine qualifications and intentions of the candidates - information that the regents would ascertain in secret. The University would have, at best, a limited view.
Moreover, the amendments would obscure the University's search committee - which is merely an extension of the regents. The FOIA addendum would exempt the committee from relinquishing requested search documents. Whether or not it directly reports to the citizens of this state, the committee is working on their behalf, and therefore must be accountable to residents. Committee members must design the process by which they develop a pool of candidates in the direct interest of the public, especially students and faculty.
The committee must establish the process as a matter of public record, open for inspection at all levels. Government in all its forms needs to be accountable to the public it serves. The amendments are counterintuitive to the fundamental tenets of democracy.
Secret searches deny the community participation. Regents and other administrators have often complained that an open search limits the number and quality of candidates. They claim many qualified administrators would not want to insult the institution at which they are serving by becoming a candidate for a position outside the institution. However, in the only semi-open search the University has ever conducted - the search that resulted in President-select Lee Bollinger - the four finalists were all extremely well qualified and did not fear ill will from the universities that currently employed them. Holding the search in the open can increase the new president's support - various constituencies have the opportunity to witness and/or participate in the search process. Public selection gives the president a community mandate. Open searches foster trust. Secret searches instill mistrust. What do the regents have to fear?