The-Ave.US

Ana Mary Cauce, Dean, on why the confidential UW process is better than the public process in Minnesota.

Dear Colleagues,

As a participant on the Presidential Search committee, I wanted to explain why confidentiality has become standard in such searches, even in public universities.

There was a time when the job of the president was substantially different for public and private universities, especially in terms of “fundraising”, broadly defined. More specifically, private universities were primarily funded by tuition and private donations (and federal grants and research dollars, and for institutions with medical schools and hospitals, from patient fees etc). In contrast, public universities were primarily funded by well… the public, via the legislature and its allocation of taxpayer dollars. As we all know, things have changed dramatically in the last few decades. Tuition dollars now outstrip state funding for many of the leading public universities, including the UW. Indeed, state funding is often less than 20%, and in some cases less that 10% of an institutions total funding (the UW is now in the latter category). Meanwhile, public universities, like private universities, carry out multi-billion dollar fund-raising campaigns from private donors. The mission of publics and privates remain fairly different, but fund sources are substantially similar – at least for top research universities.

Private universities have almost always conducted their presidential searches (and increasingly commonly their Provost and Dean searches) not because candidates fear scrutiny from faculty, but because they fear de-stabilizing their relationships with donors  — both their ability to continue fundraising while they are candidates and, to continue fundraising if their candidacy is unsuccessful. Personal relationships with donors ARE an important part of fundraising efforts, and it is difficult to imagine that those relationships wouldn’t be affected by word got that a President was looking to leave. (Most assume that if someone is looking at one position,  they are likely looking at others, and their leaving is just a matter of time).  With public universities now as dependent on fund-raising as privates, we are seeing more and more publics moving to confidential searches – and these days not just at the President level (Michigan did not have a public search for their Provost, and UCSD’s Vice Chancellor search is almost entirely confidential). Most importantly, if a university is interested in having high level sitting Presidents as part of their candidate pool, a confidential search is pretty much necessary. And, it is not at all unusual for top public universities – including our peers like University of Michigan, University of Virginia, and the UC schools.

There are some exceptions. In some states, state law requires a more open process. But, how open is the process in such states? Well University of Minnesota was conducting their search at the same time we were.  State law required that finalists for the search come on campus for an interview, and it also required that any interviews with the Regents (or more precisely a quorum of the Regents) be public. So… once they had their four final candidates and were ready to move to on-campus interviews two of them (believed to be sitting Presidents) dropped out. Another one of the candidates was not moved to the final-final list by the Regents, who interviewed the candidates in groups of 3, thus getting around the need to make the meetings publics. Finally, only one candidate (who was not a sitting President) was brought on to campus for a couple of days of interviews before being confirmed as president (see http://www.mndaily.com/blogs/newsstand/2010/11/22/transparency-presidential-search-questioned). I’m not sure that was a more satisfactory situation.

I cannot say with any certainty that all of the final group of candidates interviewed would have dropped out if the search had been more public. But, I CAN say with a great deal of certainty that some of the candidates in what was truly an excellent pool of finalists would have dropped out (or not even entered).  I don’t believe that would have served us well.

We had a robust search process, and there was reasonable faculty representation.  J.W., our senate President, was not the only faculty member on the committee. The committee also included Pat Stayton from BioEngineering, and Kellye Testy from Law, and myself. (I still teach, I still do research and publish, and am still a faculty member – and have been faculty here for 25 years, beginning as an Assistant Professor). The committee also included a graduate student (GPSS prez) an undergraduate representative (ASUW prez), and several alumni and community leaders, as well as three regents. The Committee was also incredibly diverse, including at least five members of underrepresented minority groups, and at least three members who are openly LGBT  (ok, so I’m double counting myself). The committee put in long hours inside and outside of meetings, was diligent in its reference checking, asked very direct and incisive questions of the candidates, and worked hard to think about the candidates’ effectiveness in working with UW’s many stakeholders – including students, staff, faculty, the legislature, donors, community leaders. The regents, who already put in long pro bono hours in service to the UW, did even further vetting and the diligence and care they put into this decision was, in my opinion, both admirable and praiseworthy.

I would love to have seen a more open process. I believe in openness and transparency. On  a personal level, I threw my hat into one administrative “race”, was openly a finalist, and did not get the position (as Dean of Undergrad Education about 8 years or so ago). It wasn’t fun to “lose” publically, but it wasn’t so awful either. I was also openly a finalist for the dean’s position I now hold, even though I worried it would make me less effective as the Executive Vice Provost, if I wasn’t chosen. I do believe that each time the interview process was a good learning experience and I had more credibility entering my present job because I went through the interview process. I do wish that we could have done that for the Presidential search. However, I honestly believe it would not have been in our own best interest.

But, whatever you think about the confidentiality or secrecy of the process, it’s important not blame our next President for a process that neither he or she designed. I really do appreciate the fact that Janelle Taylor, Prez of AAUP, has not done that. Thank you.

Monday is just a few short hours away. It is the end of one process and the beginning of another. I am extremely pleased with what I believe will be the final outcome – a President with excellent credentials as a faculty member, and as an academic and civic leader. Someone with an excellent reputation of working well and collaboratively with faculty (including faculty governance), staff, and students. And someone with incredible integrity and a deep commitment to diversity, in the full sense of the word. It will be an honor for me to work with him or her, and I believe that (at least most of the time) it will also be a pleasure.

It is the season of rebirth and renewal – working together we can make this new phase in the life of UW it’s best.