In defense of the University's OMA violations, regents claim they were unable to speak freely with candidates. And, according to Engler, many candidates withdrew from the search due to fear of their current bosses finding out that candidates held an interest in the position. However, the regents should be able to ask the same questions in an open meeting that they would have under closed circumstances.
State Sen. John Schwarz (R-Battle Creek) said OMA helped University President-select Lee Bollinger secure the spot - due to his 21-year employment at the University. The issue of an open or closed interviewing process should have had no impact on the selection of the best candidate; the regents should know better.
The act needs no further modification. Under the proposed legislation, Michigan's public universities would be required to release the names of the final three candidates, making information about the other candidates unavailable to the press and the public during a 30-day "cooling off" period. Many members of the community would feel suspicious if the legislation passes. With public tax dollars in the state universities' pockets, Michigan citizens feel justified in asking for information about how public institutions run.
Students deserve more than the filtered information that the proposed modifications to OMA would provide. While students cannot vote for the University president, they are one of the most affected constituencies. The faculty, too, deserves a larger part in the process - as taxpayers and as a part of the University. A public university president represents the institution to the outside world - and the public should have both an input in the process and a chance to view the regents' deliberations.
The whole University population should have access to the same information about the candidates as the regents who select them. The University community should feel that it knows its president at least as well as the regents - who get the most exposure to candidates.
With less than six weeks left as the majority party in the House, Republican members are rushing to vote on the proposed changes before the Democrats take control. If the proposals are worth approval, legislators will pass them despite partisan politics. Republicans should not ram through important pieces of legislation in this manner - it is irresponsible and overtly political.
And these proposals are not worth approval. Engler and his lackeys have a further agenda - they want to have more involvement in public university governing boards. But the state, students and faculty agree on this point: The Open Meetings Act is a necessary and solid piece of legislation - as it stands.