Sections

Let there be light

Regents must hold open search for president

Last time the University regents selected a president, they violated the law and betrayed the public's trust by closing the search. In the present search, the regents have promised to comply with the law as they select a successor to James Duderstadt, who will step down in June. But the regents' recent actions signal otherwise. With the appointment of a private consultant and a search advisory panel, the regents are slinking back toward a search process full of secrecy and deceit. Instead, the regents should be straightforward and open about every aspect of the search -- anything less is unacceptable and possibly illegal.

Last Thursday, the regents announced a plan to form a search advisory committee. The 12-person panel will be responsible for compiling a list of candidates for the University's presidency. The panel, which will consist of faculty, staff, students and an alum, will not be allowed to meet with the regents until they release the list in September. The committee will work closely with consultant Malcolm MacKay of the private New York-based firm Russell Reynolds Associates. The selection process appears acceptable, but there is a catch -- the advisory committee will conduct its business behind close doors.

The regents' decision to create a committee that will meet in private is disappointing. Joan Lowenstein, a University communication studies lecturer and media law specialist, captured the essence: "I think it violates the law in spirit, if not in letter." The regents must not use the committee to sidestep the Open Meetings Act -- the committee's presence will give the regents the opportunity to do so, while the public is left in the dark.

Michigan law allows a government institution to appoint a subcommittee that meets in private as long as it is purely a advisory role. It cannot make decisions or cuts. The regents claim this as the purpose of the search committee. In other words, it cannot eliminate or rigorously promote certain candidates above others. If it does, the committee will be violating state law. Although the committee will have to turn a list of all the possible candidates they considered over to the regents in the fall, students have no way to know what the committee does in private. What if the committee pulls candidates from consideration? What if the committee goes out of its way to push for some candidates and sabotage others? It is impossible to answer these questions. The public will never see the whole process -- though it is entitled to -- as long as any part of the search process is conducted behind closed doors.

The vague duties of MacKay are also suspect. The regents said MacKay's job is to search for and inform the committee of candidates. MacKay will search for candidates and meet with the committee privately. MacKay, therefore, is not accountable to the public, despite his determining role in the search process. MacKay's private freedom gives rise to another possibility: Will he consult covertly with various regents about candidates? While this action would be in violation of the OMA, it is far from farfetched. During MacKay's public interview with the regents, he admitted his ignorance of the OMA and his unfamiliarity with the University. MacKay may follow the law strictly. Once again, the public will never know.

Letters to the editor should be sent to

daily.letters@umich.edu

Comments about this site should be addressed to

online.daily@umich.edu