Really? How will UF Survive?

So the UF presidential search is in its final stages, and it's astounding: a Florida politician is not on the short list. How can this be? How will UF get any money from the legislature? How will a distinguished academic like the three finalists UF will interview be able to navigate the corrupt, I mean complicated, Florida legislative process?

The differences between the searches are really startling and reveal the illogical arguments made by the FSU PSAC and FSU BOT for what they really are: an excuse for blatant political cronyism. Be sure to see http://www.gainesville.com/article/20141011/ARTICLES/141019912 for a discussion of the UF presidential search and to review the caliber of finalists.

UF gets it. Why doesn't FSU? 

Student Art Event, Presidential Search

I thought you might be interested in a student art project event that will be held on Monday, October 13. There will be two performances: 9:45-10:15 and 1:30-2:00. The performances will take place at the Westcott fountain.

This is version two of the cardboard heads project Anne Stagg's summer 3D Foundations art class performed regarding the presidential search (the students worked in groups to create two candidates for the president position--http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2014/07/24/art-class-creates-fsus-next-president/13112177/).

According to Anne Stagg, "In preparation for this project, each student wrote an individual letter to Sen Thrasher after his appointment. From those letters, we extracted bits and pieces from each letter to construct a composite letter that will be presented on Monday. The idea of this project is to continue to give a voice to our students' concerns in a creative and engaging way. While there is plenty of frustration with the election process, we are moving forward and using creativity as an outlet for positive and forward-looking conversation."

I have to say that I was inspired by the students' summer performance and am looking so forward to Monday's projects.

Excerpts of an email to UFF-FSU members last week

I sent the following note to union members last week, but I think the info is useful for anyone who has followed our presidential search:

Over the past week or so, ever since FSU’s Board of Trustees voted for John Thrasher to be our next President, I have received correspondence from many of faculty members inquiring about next steps. First, let me thank all of you who have expressed an interest in the Presidential Search and helped and supported us in our many struggles along the way. I am so glad that many of you remain committed to reverse the course the Board of Trustees have set, and I share your commitment.

There has been a great deal of discussion among our union's Executive Council about shifting our focus to two areas.

First and most immediate is working to get all of our members and their families out to vote in the upcoming elections.  What we just witnessed with the search process is a direct result of Florida’s political systems, and we must work to change them. This election affords us that opportunity, so please keep an eye out for information regarding the various races and how you can get involved.

Second, many have also suggested that we need to work on building our membership so that we as an organization have the strength to continue to protect each other and the university, and I agree wholeheartedly.  If you are willing to help us with this effort, please contact me and I'll forward your message to our membership committee.

And since I've been asked about this several times, please know that we cannot organize any actions that resemble a work stoppage (e.g., a walk-out). It is unconstitutional to do so.

On the presidential search question, there is still plenty that can be done by individual faculty as members of the university, taxpayers, and voters.  The Board of Governors has not made a decision yet, and they are a political body subject to the will of those who appoint them, who are in turn accountable to all of us.  I hope you will continue to raise your voices as I will continue to raise my own as an individual.

You can contact the Board of Governors at:

Florida Board of Governors
State University System
325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1614
Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0400
Phone (850) 245-0466
Fax (850) 245-9685
E-mail: info@flbog.edu  

The Board of Governors plans to vote on Thrasher's appointment at the November 5-6 meeting.

Chilling speech

Students and faculty members have expressed much dismay about their voices not being heard. We teach our students that they should speak out against injustice because their voices matter, but the BOT decision seems to have ripped that message apart. Speaking truth to power is always vital, and this is even more essential in an academic setting in which shared governance, academic freedom, and academic integrity are integral to the promise of higher education. But I understand the fear of retribution that many faculty have expressed, and I understand the frustration of students who are concerned that their voices weren't heard in a place where voices (and reason) should absolutely matter. But when politics trumps reason, our response needs to be political as well. SO PLEASE VOTE! If you are not registered to vote, you need to do so by October 6. Don't wait!

What can you do? VOTE

A lot of folks have been asking, what can we do now? I am told that the Board of Governors (BOG) vote is usually a formality, but perhaps a letter to the BOG that outlines why the BOT decision is so problematic would be useful (perhaps needless to say, a polite note is more effective than one that is not). You can contact the Board of Governors at http://www.flbog.edu/contact/.

Another thing we need to do is make sure EVERYONE votes in this midterm election. Remember, the Governor appoints 6 of the 11 Board of Trustee members. The other 6 are appointed by the BOG. The BOG is comprised of 17 members, 14 of whom are appointed by the Governor. So, who the next Governor is definitely matters! You can find information about registering to vote here: http://election.dos.state.fl.us/ and here: http://yourvoteflorida.com/

It is my understanding that if you are a student whose permanent address is not in Tallahassee, you can request an absentee ballot, but please note that it will be mailed to your permanent address. If that is your parents’ home, they would need to then send the ballot to you, so don’t wait.

You can also vote by mail now. If you are in Leon County, you can find information here: http://www.leonvotes.org/ Again, don’t wait. Request the ballot now.

No, I'm not surprised

I’ve had several people ask me why I am “surprised” that the BOT chose Senator Thrasher to be our next president, and obviously, I am not surprised. I’ve been predicting this since February. But I am extremely disheartened by the absolute lack of consideration of the key constituents of the university, namely faculty and students. The Trustees completely, utterly, shamelessly ignored the will of campus and selected their political buddy over three extremely qualified higher education leaders.

I keep thinking, how are we going to recruit and retain faculty at a university that doesn’t care what the faculty think? How are we going to retain and recruit faculty at a university whose president knows nothing about the academy (but everything about the Capitol), denies science and whose own voting record demonstrates anti-union, anti-faculty, anti-tenure attitudes and policies?

I saw an article in the Democrat this morning with a headline that one of the faculty leaders on campus is eager to work with Thrasher (though I've been told he didn't actually say that), and yes, obviously we will need to do so (though, folks, he still has to go through the BOG, which was grumbling earlier because the search was a national embarrassment—and still is).  As another faculty leader on campus, I say that doesn't mean let’s roll over. I’m happy to work with anyone who has the best interests of the institution at heart and who respects faculty so we can move this university forward--absolutely. But we will not give up shared governance; we will not give up academic freedom; we will not give up tenure; we will not give up integrity; we will not give up on our faculty one tiny bit because someone made a campaign promise to increase salaries. We will, however, hold anyone who makes such promises to them. But I guess Senator Thrasher is gonna have to manufacture money in his basement because as Trustee Rolando said, unless the legislature finds religion and allocates more money to higher education, then the argument that Thrasher knows the legislature and can steer more funds to us is garbage.

The fact that this search was a sham from the beginning only adds to my, let’s call it frustration, that a non-academic politician with personal, political, and financial ties to the BOT members and most of the PSAC members was rammed through despite loud opposition by all facets of the community (and calling him a non-academic is not name-calling—having a law degree does not make one an academic if he/she hasn’t worked in academia). Let’s not forget that alumni—who are also donors—are also outraged. I’d love to know how many people pulled their donations. I have anecdotal evidence of this, but I would like data.

Perhaps others aren’t hearing the same things I’m hearing: faculty already being recruited or applying for jobs, students and parents upset that politics trumped experience and merit, alumni outraged, community members flabbergasted that this could happen at our university.

So, no, I’m not surprised by the outcome. I’m surprised by the blatant in your face we don't care what anyone thinks politics after the search firm recruited excellent and qualified candidates. Wasted everyone’s time and taxpayer money just to give FSU a permanent black eye.

Some press

Still need some time to gather my thoughts regarding yesterday's decision (yes, I was quoted as saying travesty, and if you saw the other candidates, I'm pretty sure you'd agree).

So in the meantime, here's a round-up of press that was sent to me regarding the BOT's decision to ignore the majority of student and faculty voices and instead choose their political and personal friend.

Thrasher is choice for FSU, despite loud opposition
In the end, the voices of Florida State University's faculty and students failed to persuade the decision-makers. By an 11-2 vote of the FSU Board of Trustees, John Thrasher was chosen as the university's next president. A motion to pick Thrasher was the only one considered by trustees after a day of interviews and public comment that was overwhelmingly opposed to the career politician. Members of the trustees, a majority with close personal and political ties to the Republican Thrasher, cited his leadership skills and gift for raising money before the final vote after 5 p.m. on Tuesday. Thrasher isn't likely to start until mid-November, pending confirmation by the Board of Governors at their Nov. 5 meeting. Thrasher, 70, was interviewed by the board for 75 minutes at 8 a.m. and did not return to the Turnbull Center following the vote. He told the Democrat that he hopes to meet with interim President Garnett Stokes, who had been provost for three years before Eric Barron's departure for Penn State on April 2, as quickly as today. He said he wants to know what she would like to have happen. Before their vote, the trustees listened to almost two hours of public comment, almost all from professors and students opposed to Thrasher and in favor of the three traditional academics leaders the board had also interviewed earlier Tuesday: Richard Marchase, Michael Martin and Michele Wheatly. Students lined the perimeter of the conference room during the public-comment session and while the trustees deliberated, many carrying anti-Thrasher signs. Some erupted upon the final vote. "FSU is not for sale," was one chant of dissent. Thrasher has said he will step down immediately as chair of Gov. Rick Scott's reelection campaign. There is also the matter of his seat in the Florida Senate, where he is up for reelection in November. Thrasher's campaign announced after the vote he intends to remain on the ballot, where he faces Democratic and no-party affiliation challengers. "I intend to continue to campaign for re-election to the Senate and will continue to carry out my commitment to the people of my district," Thrasher said in a statement sent by his campaign. "If I am ultimately selected to lead FSU, this will allow the voters to select who will be the next senator from the 6th District." Storbeck/Pimentel, the search firm helping FSU select its next leader, conducted surveys following each candidate's campus forums last week. Thrasher received favorable ratings from only 11 percent of the responders, while 87 percent said he was not fit to be FSU's president. By comparison, the other three candidates had favorable scores between 78 and 91 percent. The FSU Faculty Senate, which represents all 16 colleges at the university, passed a unanimous resolution Friday calling for the trustees to hire one of the three academics among the four finalists. "We deserve a president who plays on the national stage, one who walks the walk, one who won't put off potential donors in the other party," Michael Buchler, a music professor and faculty senator, said during the public comment period. "FSU has never hired a president who didn't have experience in the classroom." [...]
http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/2014/09/23/thrasher-named-fsu-president/16112701/

[...] The process to hire a successor has been bumpy ever since Thrasher emerged as a candidate. Initially FSU planned to interview him ahead of all candidates but that created a backlash and ultimately led to the search being delayed. Emails obtained by The Associated Press this past summer showed that the consultant first hired to help FSU told the head of the search committee that the university was trying to "concoct a competitive process" that would end with Thrasher's hiring. Those same emails showed Thrasher reached out directly to top FSU officials about the job and that the former campaign manager of Scott gave advice about the search.
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268748/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=XHSZn9SO

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/09/24/despite-faculty-opposition-politician-become-president-florida-state-u 

http://www.businessinsider.com/fsu-president-john-thrasher-2014-9 

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2014/09/thrasher-advances-to-final-step-in-fsu.html 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article2212206.html

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/school-zone/os-fsu-taps-for-president-20140923-post.html

And the BOT chooses...

John Thrasher. What a shocker.

Public comment today

Though the last interview just ended, Chairman Bense said that they will wait until 2:15 for public comment.

Ed Burr's "No one's told anyone I'm aware of how to vote" pull-quote

Today's Tallahassee Democrat quotes PSAC Chair and BOT member Ed Burr as saying, “I’ve never known of a fix to be in. No one’s told anyone I’m aware of how to vote." Yes, isn't that the beauty of stacking the deck in favor of one candidate over others? By stacking the search committee with friends, former colleagues, lobbyists, and business associates of Thrasher and Governor Scott? Let us not forget that Thrasher is Scott's reelection campaign chair, a job announced before Eric Barron left FSU. And hey, some of those folks have already been handed government positions by Scott, like Rep. Jimmy Patronis, who was just appointed by Scott to the Public Service Commission despite the fact that he has no experience.[1] And I love that former Speaker John McKay said that the survey results that show a whooping 87% of campus thinks Thrasher is unqualified for the job wasn't scientific. He based his entire vote on one former president's letter (and let's not forget, a former politician as well) rather than the hundreds of faculty, students, staff, and others who spent the time attending the forums and filling out the surveys. He said in a conversation with a few of our colleagues that faculty members are merely employees, and like other industries, apparently we shouldn't have a say in who becomes president. Hey, McKay, it's called shared governance, and we are not making widgets here. Insulting to say the least. As they are all scratching each other's political backs, the university's reputation is at stake.

Reflections on today's final PSAC meeting

I’m still reeling a bit from today’s meeting. It was so surreal:

Public comment after public comment raised concerns about Senator Thrasher’s lack of qualifications based on his interview, his CV, his voting record, and the like (I should note that one law student and three self-identified sorority students spoke in favor of Thrasher’s candidacy). Almost all of the speakers noted that the three academics have—and even exceed—the stated qualifications.

The headhunter, Mr. Pimentel, reported the results of the surveys, including the fact that 87% of the survey respondents rated Thrasher as below average or not qualified--compare that to the 92% who rated Dr. Wheatly as above average or excellent, the 88% who rated Dr. Martin as above average or excellent, or the 74% who rated Dr. Marchase as above average or excellent.

The PSAC Chair, Ed Burr, said that concerns were raised last time about a motion being made too quickly (thus, many people didn’t have the opportunity to speak), so he asked that the members refrain from doing so, yet former Senator Lawson proceeded to make a motion too quickly (so that discussion was again limited).

Faculty members and students on the PSAC reiterated that the campus feedback clearly showed that Thrasher does not have the qualifications necessary, yet the politicians and lobbyists and financial interests ignored the data and spoke in favor of his candidacy, again, despite the overwhelming evidence.

And despite the survey results (a survey, I should note, that was approved by the powers that be), despite the overwhelming number of public comments that raised serious questions about Thrasher’s candidacy, and despite the significant concerns raised by the students and faculty on the PSAC (for example, Professor Eric Walker said it would be “professional malpractice” to forward Thrasher’s name), the politicos and financial interests outnumbered the faculty and students, demonstrating loud and clear that this is all about political cronyism.

It is truly a travesty that a person with so few qualifications is actually being considered alongside infinitely more qualified academic candidates. His supporters call the faculty and students who are speaking at the meetings political, but it is the Thrasher supporters who made this a political left-right fight, for we have consistently noted that Thrasher does not meet the stated qualifications required by the criteria set forth by the PSAC. I wouldn’t care if Thrasher was the most liberal person in all of the US. Based on the PSAC's own criteria, he is not qualified. It’s that simple. Like I said in my comments, it would be like appointing a fire chief who has never been a fire-fighter. Experience absolutely matters.

Despite the rhetoric, loving the institution is not a qualification for being president. No one doubts that Thrasher is a devoted alumnus. However, there’s no evidence that Thrasher can increase funding, especially if you look at his voting record regarding higher education budgets. Further, it is illegal for him to lobby for funding from the legislature anyway due to an ethics law that prohibits it for two years after someone leaves the legislature (though Rep. Jimmy Patronis—who is not a lawyer as Gary Fineout pointed out—explained the ways one can get around that law). His responses to questions at his forums demonstrated that he doesn’t believe in science, which is a flashing neon sign that we should question his ability to lead a research one institution. He would not be considered a candidate anywhere else in the nation, according to Pimentel, and he doesn’t have the higher education experience as a teacher, researcher or administrator that is essential to leading a university. Pimentel also raised concerns about Thrasher and shared governance, which is another huge red flag. It was obvious from Thrasher’s interview that he does not like being questioned and finds a laugh “heckling” to the point of angrily threatening to leave an interview.

And perhaps most importantly, the campus spoke, but was ignored.

Please take a look at my posts about the other candidates and look at the survey results for each of the candidates. I’m afraid our focus—mine included—on Thrasher is not fair to the other candidates who are obviously highly qualified and ready to lead an institution of higher education.

The BOT interviews begin at 8 tomorrow, and the general meeting of the BOT begins no earlier than 2:15 according to the presidentialsearch.fsu.edu site. The BOT general meeting will begin with comments, and then the BOT will decide who will be the next president. I sure hope that everyone who can will attend—let the BOT know who you think is the most qualified candidate to lead our university.

Faculty and students outvoted again--surveys and BOT info, too.

So if you haven't heard yet, the PSAC voted to recommend all four candidates to the BOT. Interviews will start at 8:00am. John Thrasher will interview first. Here's the schedule:

The interviews and meeting will be held in Room 208 of the Augustus B. Turnbull III Florida State Conference Center, 555 W. Pensacola St., Tallahassee, Fla., as follows:

• 8 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. John E. Thrasher: Cover Letter | CV | Survey Responses | Reference Report
• 9:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. Michele G. Wheatly: Cover Letter | CV | Survey Responses | Reference Report
• 11 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. Michael V. Martin: Cover Letter | CV | Survey Responses | Reference Report
• 12:45 p.m. – 2 p.m. Richard Marchase: Cover Letter | CV | Survey Responses | Reference Report

I highly encourage you to review the survey responses. They are quite enlightening.

The general meeting will begin at 2:00pm, and public comment is listed first on the agenda.

I've also been asked to provide contact information for the FSU BOT members. Their information can be found here: http://trustees.fsu.edu/directory/  You can email them all by clicking here:  Send email to the BOT

Survey results posted

The survey results for each candidate are posted at presidentialsearch.fsu.edu. 87% of the respondents ranked Senator Thrasher at below average or not qualified. Wheatley ranked 92% in top two categories. What a difference.

Top 25 Presidents

A faculty member who wishes to remain anonymous sent me this list of the top 25 university presidents. Note that even the one politician who is president of a top 25 university, Mitch Daniels of Purdue, has extensive management experience (he also stacked the BOT with people who then hired him--doesn't that sound like a fix?).

As the Democrat editorial asked, what do we want to be? Top 25? A football school that teaches some classes? Corporate University, Inc.? Political University, Inc.?


University of California—​Berkeley http://chancellor.berkeley.edu/chancellors/dirks/biography
Nicholas B. Dirks is UC Berkeley's 10th chancellor. Previously, he was Columbia University's executive vice president and dean of its faculty of arts and sciences, and the Franz Boas Professor of Anthropology and History.

University of California—​Los Angeles http://chancellor.ucla.edu/biography
Dr. Block became chancellor of UCLA on August 1, 2007. Previously, he served as vice president and provost of the University of Virginia, where he held the Alumni Council Thomas Jefferson Professorship in Biology and directed the National Science Foundation’s Science and Technology Center for Biological Timing. He also headed an NIH graduate training program aimed at increasing the number of scientists from underrepresented groups.

University of Virginia http://www.virginia.edu/president/biography.html
President Sullivan came to UVa from the University of Michigan, where she was provost and executive vice president for academic affairs. Prior to her work at Michigan, Ms. Sullivan was executive vice chancellor for academic affairs for the University of Texas System, a position she held from 2002 until May 2006. She served as faculty member at the University of Texas at Austin from 1981 to 2006.

University of Michigan—​Ann Arbor https://president.umich.edu/about/biography/ President Schlissel previously was provost of Brown University, where he was responsible for all academic programmatic and budgetary functions within Brown’s schools and colleges, as well as the libraries, research institutes and centers.

University of North Carolina—​Chapel Hill http://chancellor.unc.edu/biography/
After joining the Dartmouth faculty in 1983, Folt rose steadily through the academic and administrative ranks. She was named associate director of Dartmouth’s Toxic Metals Research Program in 1998, and two years later became associate director of the Center for Environmental Health Sciences. In 2001, she was appointed dean of graduate studies and associate dean of the faculty for interdisciplinary programs. She was promoted to dean of the faculty in 2004, tapped as acting provost in 2009, and named provost in 2010.

College of William and Mary http://www.wm.edu/about/administration/president/biography/index.php
Taylor Reveley was sworn in as the 27th president of the College of William & Mary on September 5, 2008, after serving as interim president since February 2008. Before assuming his current post, he served as dean of William & Mary Law School for almost a decade, starting in August 1998. He is the John Stewart Bryan Professor of Jurisprudence.

Georgia Institute of Technology http://www.president.gatech.edu/about-dr-peterson/biography-photos
G. P. “Bud” Peterson was appointed as the 11th president of Georgia Tech on April 1, 2009. Prior to his appointment, he served as chancellor at the University of Colorado at Boulder (2006-2009), provost at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York (2000-2006), and program director at the National Science Foundation for the Thermal Transport and Thermal Processing Program (1993-1994).

University of California—​San Diego http://chancellor.ucsd.edu/chancellor-khosla/khosla-biography
Before his current appointment, Khosla served as Dean of the College of Engineering and Philip and Marsha Dowd University Professor at Carnegie Mellon University.

University of California—​Davis http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/about/index.html
Previously, Chancellor Katehi served as provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; the John A. Edwardson Dean of Engineering and professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue University; and associate dean for academic affairs and graduate education in the College of Engineering and professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the University of Michigan.

University of California—​Santa Barbara https://chancellor.ucsb.edu/about/
Henry T. Yang was named UC Santa Barbara’s fifth chancellor in 1994. He was formerly the Neil A. Armstrong Distinguished Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Purdue University, where he also served as the dean of engineering for ten years.

University of California—​Irvine http://chancellor.uci.edu/about/index.html Open (previous president jumped to OSU)

University of Illinois—​Urbana-​Champaign http://oc.illinois.edu/bio.html
Prior to this appointment Dr. Wise was interim President of the University of Washington in 2010-2011. Before that appointment, she served as Provost and Executive Vice President at the University of Washington, a position she held for five years. Dr. Wise was dean of the College of Biological Sciences at the University of California-Davis for three years.

University of Wisconsin—​Madison http://www.chancellor.wisc.edu/
Blank brings strong academic credentials to the position of chancellor. She served as dean and professor of public policy and economics in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan from 1999 to 2008.

Pennsylvania State University—​University Park http://president.psu.edu/biography.html
Eric J. Barron, former dean at Penn State and former president of Florida State University, began his presidency at Penn State on May 12, 2014.

University of Florida http://president.ufl.edu/about/machen/
Prior to his arrival at UF, President Machen served for six years as president of the University of Utah, where he is credited with expanding the university’s health sciences program, stabilizing the university’s finances and bolstering diversity.  From 1995 to 1997, he was provost and executive vice president for academic affairs at the University of Michigan, and from 1989 until 1995, he served as dean of Michigan’s School of Dentistry. From 1983 to 1989, he was professor and associate dean at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill’s School of Dentistry.

University of Washington http://www.washington.edu/president/biography/
From Columbia, President Young was appointed dean of the George Washington University Law School, where he focused on building top-notch faculty and students and establishing study and research relationships with foreign institutions, propelling GW Law School into a top 20 nationally ranked law school. Before coming to the UW, President Young served seven years as University President and Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Utah.

University of Texas—​Austin http://www.utexas.edu/president/bio
William Powers Jr., is the 28th president of The University of Texas at Austin. Before taking office on February 1, 2006, he served as dean of the university's School of Law, where he won recognition for recruiting a world-class faculty and attracting highly diverse and talented students.

Ohio State University—​Columbus http://president.osu.edu/about-the-president.html
From July 2005 – June 2014, Dr. Drake served as chancellor of the University of California, Irvine. He also served as a Distinguished Professor of Ophthalmology (School of Medicine) and Education (School of Education).

University of Connecticut http://president.uconn.edu/biography/
Prior to her appointment at UConn, President Herbst served as executive vice chancellor and chief academic officer of the University System of Georgia, where she led 15 university presidents and oversaw the academic missions for all 35 public universities in Georgia.  Before arriving in Georgia, she was provost and executive vice president at the University at Albany (SUNY), and also served as officer in charge of the university from 2006 to 2007, upon the death of Kermit L. Hall.  She previously served as the dean of the College of Liberal Arts at Temple University.

Clemson University http://www.clemson.edu/administration/president/biography.html
James P. Clements, took office December 31, 2013, after serving nearly five years as president of West Virginia University. Prior to his appointment at WVU, Clements served as Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Robert W. Deutsch Distinguished Professor of Information Technology and Vice President for Economic and Community Outreach at Towson University, the second largest university in the University System of Maryland.

Purdue University—​West Lafayette http://www.purdue.edu/president/about/index.html
Daniels assumed that role in January 2013, at the conclusion of his term as Governor of the State of Indiana. He was elected as the 49th governor of Indiana in 2004, in his first bid for any elected office. He was re-elected in 2008 to a second and final term, receiving more votes than any candidate for any public office in the state's history.  President Daniels came from a successful career in business and government, holding numerous top management positions in both the private and public sectors. His work as CEO of the Hudson Institute and President of Eli Lilly and Company's North American Pharmaceutical Operations taught him the business skills he brought to state government. He also served as Chief of Staff to Senator Richard Lugar, Senior Advisor to President Ronald Reagan and Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush.

University of Georgia http://president.uga.edu/index.php/meet_president/biography
Jere W. Morehead became the University of Georgia's 22nd president on July 1, 2013, having previously served as UGA's senior vice president for academic affairs and provost since 2010.  President Morehead's career covers a wide range of faculty and administrative roles. Prior to 2010, he served UGA in several key administrative assignments, including vice president for instruction, vice provost for academic affairs, associate provost and director of the Honors Program, and acting executive director of legal affairs. From 2003 to 2010, he served as the University's Faculty Athletics Representative.

University of Maryland—​College Park http://www.president.umd.edu/
Previously, Loh served as Executive Vice President and Provost of The University of Iowa; Dean of Seattle University's College of Arts and Sciences; Director, Governor's Policy Office and chief policy adviser to The Hon. Gary Locke, State of Washington; Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculties, University of Colorado-Boulder; and Dean, University of Washington Law School.

University of Pittsburgh http://www.pitt.edu/chancellor/profile
Following his nomination by President Barack Obama and his confirmation by the U.S. Senate, Chancellor Gallagher became Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 2009 and was given the additional position of Undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology in 2010. He served in both capacities until June 2014.

Texas A&M University—​College Station http://president.tamu.edu/about/history-of-the-office/ Open

Tallahassee Democrat's Editorial

I sure hope the Democrat doesn't mind that I am pasting its editorial below. This is a must-read, especially for the Trustees.

Our Opinion: Say no to Thrasher

                 TLH12:10 a.m. EDT September 20, 2014

(Photo: Democrat )

 663CONNECT 21TWEETLINKEDIN 6COMMENTEMAILMORE

This is an important moment for Florida State University and its Board of Trustees, which is charged with selecting a new president from the finalists for the job.

More is at stake than who will lead the institution; this also is about what kind of place Florida State will become.

All indications suggest the trustees are ready to select former House speaker and current state Sen. John Thrasher, one-time chair of the state Republican Party who also chairs Gov. Rick Scott’s election campaign committee.

The search committee meets Monday to decide if any of the four finalists do not deserve to be forwarded to the trustees, which meets Tuesday to pick FSU’s next president.

The real question before the trustees begin is not with who, but what. That is, what is FSU really?

Is it simply a political prize to be awarded as spoils by victors in political elections? Let’s be honest: Who believes Sen. Thrasher would be considered a serious candidate were someone besides Rick Scott the governor?

Does FSU’s leader truly not need to embrace scientific principles or empirical evidence?

Will it simply be an athletic powerhouse, content to ride the laurels of football national championships?

Will it just be a slave to the cash flowing from corporate givers?

Or can it ever reach its potential as a top public university, doing important work to benefit the nation and humanity?

Sen. Thrasher has had a long and proud political career.

We mean no disrespect to Sen. Thrasher nor to diminish his accomplishments. He is simply the wrong person for this job.

We know we may be whistling into the wind, but we urge the trustees to put aside their loyalty to Sen. Thrasher, who doesn’t seem to be qualified on the basis of the job description.

We are bothered that as a potential president of a top-tier research institution, Sen. Thrasher could not even bring himself to divorce his political philosophy from the job he covets.

Asked about evolution, Sen. Thrasher talked about his religious beliefs, saying: “I have a great faith in my life that has guided me in my life in a lot of things I believe in.” The implication is that science and faith cannot co-exist.

Sen. Thrasher also declined to give a specific answer when asked about the science behind climate change, and then threatened to walk out of the room when two students giggled at his answers, a clear signal of the senator’s intolerance for disagreement.

Later, the senator said he was trying to send a message to the students, the message being he is not to be heckled, he said. The message seems to be clear: disagreement is not to be tolerated, let alone embraced, as must occur in academic life.

We have no doubt that should Sen. Thrasher be selected, life will go on at Florida State University. We also have no doubt that it will do so without some current members of the faculty, that some top-flight researchers may look elsewhere for work, as may students seeking a university dedicated to top academic and scientific standards.

There is no question that the selection of Sen. Thrasher would hurt the reputation of the university he professes to love. The job will have been won through the exercise of pure power politics, not a true vetting of the most qualified for the presidency.

We urge the trustees to truly think through the implications of what they are about to do.

Dr. Marchase's interview

Dr. Richard Marchase spent a good part of his interview discussing what he’s accomplished at UAB, particularly UAB’s growth in research funding under his leadership. His commitment to growing the STEM fields was quite evident, and he had clear ideas about how to raise funds from multiple sources. He said that he was “empathetic” with our “lofty aspirations” and that he is “impressed with the pockets of strength in faculty” that will provide the foundation for more faculty recruitment. He also said that he senses the “passion” various groups have for FSU.

I think those of us in the arts and humanities were concerned about Marchase’s seemingly myopic view of STEM as the driver of the university. Three different questions about the arts and humanities resulted in discussions of how we need to go full steam ahead with STEM initiatives, funding, research, and majors and that we may need to “rightsize” colleges like Music since there's only so much funding. Of course, the focus on STEM is in line with what Governor Scott has been pushing, but I think it is absolutely crucial to recognize, encourage, and fund our strengths in the arts and humanities. This is not to say he didn’t acknowledge the importance of the arts and humanities, but the narrow focus of his answers was disconcerting (one person said terrifying) for some of us. He did mention that his wife, who is the director of the Birmingham Museum of Art, reminds him that art and humanities encourage creative thinking and the involvement of the community. But they--and the social sciences--certainly do much much more than that.

One of humorous parts of the interview was when our colleague asked him if he had ever been told that he looks like Regis Philbin; he had.

He was the only one of the candidates who has no experience with unions (Alabama is not a union state), and thus he'd need "wise advisors." I assured him that he could count on me to advise him (of course!). I suppose I’d rather deal with someone who has no experience with unions than someone who is clearly anti-union, for the role of the faculty union is to protect and advance faculty rights, including tenure, academic freedom, and shared governance, not to be adversarial for the sake of being adversarial.

Marchase stated that his priorities would be addressing sexual violence (this would be his top priority—he was also the only candidate to mention sexual assault in his PSAC interview); recruiting faculty; reaching out to Senator Thrasher to give the Senator confidence that his leadership would be good for FSU, and with the Senator’s help, we can move forward in a productive manner; getting everyone back on the same team (he said we need to get back to work and be productive—I am not sure how to take that comment); discussing our relationship with the city of Tallahassee; allowing donors to hear from the president early on; and increasing philanthropy and state funding.

I found Marchase to be a straight-talker, which can be an effective leadership style. He has a clear vision and clear priorities for the university; I just worry about how he would balance STEM priorities with all of the other priorities on campus.

Dr. Martin's interview

As you likely know, Dr. Michael Martin could not attend the forums in person because he had emergency eye surgery for a detached retina. I was asked whether the Skype forum put him at a disadvantage, and my answer was even though we did miss a bit of what he said because of the unfortunate technical difficulties associated with this medium, his extraordinary wealth of higher education experience and his charismatic personality were still very evident. And I would have liked to have had a beer with him at the reception to talk about his experiences as a teamster, but I digress.

As I said, and will likely say again, Martin’s experience in higher education is exceptional, as he has served in just about every capacity—as a professor, Faculty Senate president, dean, vice president, president, and chancellor—in the university system. Like Wheatly, he also has experience working in higher ed in Florida, as he was Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources at UF from 1998-2004.  This wealth of experience would be extremely beneficial for enhancing the reputation of the university, particularly because he has leadership experience in AAU universities and knows what it takes to be the high caliber university we know we can be with the right leader.

Some of the highlights of the interview included his extensive discussion of education as a public good; his view that the preservation of arts and humanities programs is essential, for such programs engage the public in ways a great university should; his confidence that we have the ingredients in place to get to the top, and with his 44 years of experience, he can help get us there; his assurance that we need several different revenue streams (in fact, he stated that if you bet your future on the legislature, you’ll lose, especially because legislatures change); his “great faith in shared governance” and “shared fairness;” his assertion that we need a president with a network of colleagues nationally, which he obviously has; and his vision of transitioning FSU into the elite group of universities.  And as a faculty union president who grew up in Pittsburgh, I appreciated his story about his 89-year-old father who still sees himself as a union man and the fact that Martin himself was once a teamster—when Jimmy Hoffa was still alive—though he assured us that he had nothing to do with Hoffa’s disappearance (that elicited a lot of laughter). I heard someone say he talked in administrative speak, and I suppose that was in part a function of the brief Skype interviews, but yes, he did say all the right things. I thought he was sincere, though, so I didn't find it as problematic as perhaps it could be.

I do wish that there had been more time to talk with Martin, for I would have liked to have asked him to discuss his ideas in even more detail, especially his vision for the future. But in all, I thought he was extremely likeable, funny, and down-to-earth, which will appeal to all constituencies. I think he has the confidence and extensive experience necessary to engage, inspire, and motivate faculty and students to succeed. He'd be an excellent president, one committed to students, faculty, and the public good.

Yesterday's Faculty Senate Resolution

The FSU Faculty Senate UNANIMOUSLY approved the following resolution yesterday:

Motion to the Faculty Senate, September 19, 2014

Be it resolved that we, the members of the Florida State University Faculty Senate, having heard the candidates’ public interviews, enthusiastically recommend that the Presidential Search Advisory Committee forward Richard Marchase, Michael Martin, and Michele Wheatly to the Board of Trustees as candidates for President of FSU. Each of these candidates has long, distinguished, and varied national experience in academia, each has a track record of fundraising from both public and private sources, and each expressed a clear vision for how to advance FSU. We believe that they would be extraordinary leaders who would help move FSU forward into the highest national ranks of public universities.

Dr. Wheatly's interview

Dr. Michele Wheatly began her interview talking about her family, just as Thrasher did, but the discussion led to an accounting of the time she spent as a professor at UF, her research, her time as provost at UWV, and her skill set for this job. In response to questions, she discussed the importance of interdisciplinary research, particularly collaboration among humanities and STEM fields; the importance of undergraduate research; the importance of a holistic education that includes the arts and humanities (based in large part on her own European education); the need to support graduate students (she noted that she was once a “penniless graduate student” but that doesn’t mean we should continue to exploit  grad students); the need to “get more money” (based on a story about her daughter—when she was six, she made a list of things she wanted, and the first thing on the list was ‘get more money’) but to also be accountable and to use resources wisely; the need to “get more money” from multiple funding sources, including grants, state and federal money, partnerships with sister institutions, private funding, donors, and the like, noting that “philanthropy is a team sport” and demonstrating her success in terms of raising funds from these different groups. She made it clear throughout the faculty forum that she is committed to shared governance, stating that she can’t imagine not including the faculty brain trust in decision-making. Above all, she said, is the need for integrity of leadership. I agree wholeheartedly. In order to achieve our ambitious goals, we need a leader with integrity who can increase our national and international reputation so that we may move forward, whether that is moving up in the rankings (of course, I recognize that rankings are problematic, but I also think moving up is a worthy goal), joining the AAU, and/or focusing on quality rather than merely quantity. We also need a leader who can make the campus a safe place for all communities.

I heard a few things from a few faculty members after her forums (which were not as well-attended as the forums the day before, unfortunately) that I wanted to note. I think any discussion of online education makes some folks uncomfortable, but especially because she seemed to be more than okay with for-profit companies that promote MOOCs, such as Coursera.  She did, however, make it clear that there’s a need for faculty involvement in selecting courses and a need for academic innovation and multiple modalities of teaching, research, and service. During the student forum, there was a discussion of the Salaita case.[1][2] People are quite passionate on both sides of the issue, and as a critical political economist and free speech and academic freedom advocate, any call for “civility,” as Wheatly made (and interestingly, Eric Barron very recently sent an email to Penn State constituencies regarding civility[3]), makes me very nervous as it can be read as code for “don’t say anything that appears to be controversial.” I agree that  discourse should not be reduced to cable news pundits yelling as others speak, and social media such as Twitter complicate what we mean by discourse, but just because I don’t like or agree with what someone says doesn’t mean I think they should be silenced. Quite the opposite. I also worry about the role of corporate donors silencing dissenting opinions.[4] I asked Wheatly about her answer during the reception, and we had a productive discussion about it.

A colleague sent me a note stating that like Thrasher, Wheatly also said that she’d need to consult with constituents before making decisions, so what’s the difference? Well, there’s an enormous difference. Wheatly explained how she has and how she would approach an issue, but, with her commitment to shared governance, she’d be foolish not to obtain faculty input before decisions are made. Thrasher needs to consult with constituents because he doesn’t know anything about the academy or what we do here because he’s never taught, researched, or served in a university setting. He did not have any ideas about how to approach issues, only that we need resources (without explaining how he’d do that, especially when he can’t legally lobby the legislature for two years[5]).

In all, I found Wheatly to be bold, honest, poised and authentic. She has a great sense of humor and can handle any room with any constituency with grace and confidence.  We need a leader who can motivate faculty and students to achieve even greater things, and I am absolutely convinced that Dr. Wheatly can do this.

Updates and Reminders

Just a few reminders about upcoming presidential search meetings:

Richard Marchase's Faculty Forum will be held today at 1:30pm in 208 Turnbull. If you cannot make it at that time, you are welcome to attend any of the other sessions. Please see presidentialsearch.fsu.edu for today's schedule.

The Faculty Senate meets today at 3:35pm in the Dodd Hall Auditorium. The agenda includes a discussion of the presidential search.

The deadline to fill out the surveys for each of the candidates is now Saturday by 5:00pm. You can find the link to each survey in the Forum Schedule chart on the presidentialsearch.fsu.edu homepage.

The Presidential Search Advisory Committee will meet Monday at 1:00pm in 208 Turnbull. The agenda has not been posted yet, but I assume that there will be a public comment period. My understanding is that this meeting will be webcast.

The Board of Trustees will begin interviews with the final candidates at 8:30am on Tuesday, the 23rd, in 208 Turnbull. According to the presidential search website, the General Meeting of the Trustees will begin at 2:00pm or 15 minutes following conclusion of the final interview. The agenda is posted, and the meeting will begin with public comment. It is my understanding that the interviews and the general meeting will be webcast. This is an extremely important meeting because the BOT is expected to make a final decision regarding the next president.

I strongly encourage all of you to attend these important meetings if you can, and please encourage your colleagues to do so as well.

There's still time to sign and share our petition for a leader with higher education experience. Please see http://uff-fsu.org/2014-president-search/

"Thrasher's Secret Lobbying Dilemma"

A must-read by the AP's Gary Fineout for those who argue that the political candidate is the only one who can lobby for more money from the legislature--he can, but it's illegal:

http://findout.typepad.com/the_fine_print/2014/09/john-thrashers-secret-lobbying-dilemma.html

Update on Martin and the survey deadline has been extended

Michael Martin's forums will be held tomorrow in 208 Turnbull at the following times (according to the presidentialsearch.fsu.edu website, which keeps changing so keep checking):

Staff: 10-11
Faculty: 12:30-1:30
Students: 2-3

Surveys are now due Saturday by 5:00pm (rather than Friday by 11:00pm). You can find the surveys on the presidentialsearch.fsu.edu homepage--there will be a link in the forum schedule chart under each person's name.

Some folks have been asking about a post regarding Wheatly's interview: I hope to write a post sometime today, but I have a couple of deadlines so it may not be until tomorrow evening.

Michael Martin interview needs to be rescheduled

Note from the presidential search website:

As a result of emergency surgery for a detached retina, Dr. Michael V. Martin cannot attend the on-campus forums scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 17. Every effort is being made to reschedule the forums. Updates will be provided as information becomes available.

Solidarity in the Sunshine State!

I just received a message that Florida International University's Faculty Senate passed the following resolution today:

The Faculty Senate of Florida International University expresses its support for the following resolution adopted by the Faculty Senate of Florida State University:

"Be it resolved that we, the members of the Florida State University Faculty Senate, call upon the Presidential Search Advisory Committee not to recommend Senator Thrasher as a candidate for President of FSU. We further call upon the Board of Trustees not to hire Senator Thrasher as the next President of FSU. Senator Thrasher lacks the stated qualifications required for the position, whereas the other three finalists meet those qualifications. We encourage all faculty members to participate fully in the interview process and to submit comments."

Solidarity!

Senator Thrasher's interview

John Thrasher was interviewed today, and it was certainly eventful.[1] The papers are reporting that approximately 200 faculty and students attended the faculty forum and approximately 150 attended the student forum. The room was packed for the faculty forum—and I hope the other candidates’ forums will be as well. He started off as he did last time with a this-is-my-life intro, and then faculty began to ask questions about everything from how Thrasher will use the faculty expertise on campus (to which he answered resources and higher faculty salaries, two consistent and constant messages), to the effects of the passing of HB115/SB318 that eliminated the sunshine in meetings between direct support organizations and research donors (which I spoke against in front of Thrasher’s committee during the legislative session), to climate change questions (he said he’d need to consult scientists), to an evolution question (everyone seemed to gasp before and after he said he has “a great faith to guide him”), to anti-union and anti-tenure legislation (he wouldn’t address his anti-union stance and mentioned bad K-12 teachers when discussing tenure), to sexual assault on campus (he did mention yesterday’s New York Times article and noted policies that are already in place—which aren’t enough as noted in the article). 

A few people remarked that it was surprising how quickly Thrasher lost his temper in the faculty forum. When he was answering the question about climate change, someone in the front row chuckled, and he threatened to leave because he was being heckled. That was a revealing moment. He recovered, but the damage was done.

One of the funniest lines was from a faculty member who noted that newspapers always call Thrasher a “powerful” senator, as if "powerful" was Thrasher’s first name. People also laughed when the same faculty member asked, it is said that people are afraid of not making you president; what would happen to us if we don't select you as president?

During the student forum, a student mentioned that Thrasher received campaign money from the Koch brothers, and Thrasher denied receiving said money. I tweeted this and asked for a fact check. Several people tweeted back the evidence that he did indeed receive money from Koch Industries.

Unfortunately, Thrasher did not provide a vision for the university, nor did he answer questions directly, nor did he provide details about how he was going to raise state and private funding. It was as if he was campaigning, and he thought the only thing we care about is salary. Don’t get me wrong—salary is an issue—but it is not the only thing most faculty members think about. Also important are the protection of shared governance, academic freedom, and academic integrity and the reputation of the institution and how the appearance of political cronyism may affect our reputation (which someone asked about as well, though not quite in those words). Rather than providing a vision of where we need to go and how we are going to get there, he often answered questions by saying he’d need to talk things out with the different constituencies who asked him the questions. While I am all about listening to others, this showed his lack of awareness of university life and values and concerns. And when asked about his voting record, he either couldn’t remember or he’d say it doesn’t matter now what he voted on in the past—unless it was about the medical school. That was a bit surprising, as I had expected that he'd be prepared to answer these questions.

Deep down I think I wanted him to do well in this interview considering that people still think the fix is in and he will be our next president. I even asked him jokingly (admittedly after a glass of wine at the reception) if he planned to try to fire me, and he assured me he wouldn’t (I have witnesses!). Perhaps some would disagree, but it seemed to me that he simply didn’t demonstrate any understanding of the academy. And that is a glaring problem. 

Another problem of course is the divisiveness. As at least one of the other candidates from last week's interviews noted that if you don't have the faculty behind you, you can't be an effective leader and the institution suffers. The divisiveness was palpable in both forums I attended, and I fear this will have long term effects if he's anointed president, including difficulties retaining our great faculty and trying to attract new faculty.

I think overall the message today was that John Thrasher loves FSU and that’s why he wants to be president. We really don’t know how he’s going to do it, but we do know that he wants it. And we know that he was politicking us all the way to Westcott. 

Suggestion regarding tweeting the interviews #fsusearch

I just received a request that folks tweet questions and answers from the interviews using the hashtag #fsusearch so that people who can't attend and can't watch because the interviews are not being webcast can follow along.

Higher Ed Experience Wanted

I find it fascinating--and distressing--that in some circles the discussion of our presidential search has been reduced to the kind of horse race coverage that we see with political campaigns--pro- or anti-Thrasher--rather than really asking, who is the most qualified candidate to lead this institution given our ambitious academic goals? As I've been saying all along, we need to compare the criteria set forth by the search committee to the records of each candidate, and we clearly see some large differences. But some are saying it's just those liberal professors and their students who oppose a political candidate[1] without really listening to our concerns (which is especially disconcerting when they sit on the PSAC and have been addressed multiple times). So, even though we already had a petition in June with 1400 names asking for a fair and transparent search, I wanted to be sure it wasn't just a few liberal professors and a few radical students (who, btw, the faculty have not coached or recruited to speak--I find that charge offensive considering university students are adults who know what they need in an academic institution) who are looking for an experienced academic leader. With encouragement from several of our members, UFF-FSU launched a new petition-- http://uff-fsu.org/2014-president-search/--yesterday at 11am. It is now less than 24 hours later and we more than 600 signatures. That's much more than just a few noisy students and faculty members. And please note the number of alumni who are signing this petition, for they know the reputation of the university is at stake here as well.

The interviews begin today. John Thrasher meets with staff, faculty, students, and community members today, Michele Wheatly does so tomorrow, Michael Martin does so Wednesday, and Richard Marchase does so Friday. Please see presidentialsearch.fsu.edu for the full schedule. These interviews will NOT be webcast, so if you can, please participate. If you are a faculty member who cannot attend interviews at the time the faculty forums are scheduled, I encourage you to attend one (or more) of the other forums. An online feedback form will be available the morning of each interview. Feedback is due Friday, September 19 at 11:00 p.m.

We all care deeply about this institution and want what is best to move it forward.[2] It can't be stressed enough that an academic leader who has taught, conducted research, has national and international connections, and raised funds from multiple sources will help us achieve our top 25 goal. If the Legislature really cares about higher education in Florida, funds for higher education should not be based on how well the president can lobby but rather how can we make Florida thrive. 

The interview schedule has been posted

All forums will be held in the Augustus B. Turnbull III Florida State Conference Center, 555 West Pensacola Street, Tallahassee, Florida.

Staff Forum

Mon, Sept 15
John E. Thrasher
9:30 am-10:45 am
Room 208

Tues, Sept 16

Michele G. Wheatly
9:30 am-10:45 am
Room 208

Wed Sept 17

Michael V. Martin
9:30 am-10:45 am
Room 108

Fri Sept 19

Richard Marchase
9:30 am-10:45 am
Room 208

Student Forum

Mon, Sept 15

John E. Thrasher
3:00 pm-4:15 pm
Room 208

Tues, Sept 16

Michele G. Wheatly
3:00 pm-4:15 pm
Room 208

Wed Sept 17

Michael V. Martin
3:00 pm-4:15 pm
Room 108

Fri Sept 19

Richard Marchase
3:00 pm-4:15 pm
Room 208

Campus/Community Reception

Mon, Sept 15

John E. Thrasher
4:30 pm-5:30 pm
2nd floor Atrium

Tues, Sept 16

Michele G. Wheatly
4:30 pm-5:30 pm
2nd floor Atrium

Wed Sept 17

Michael V. Martin
4:30 pm-5:30 pm
1st floor Atrium

Fri Sept 19

Richard Marchase
4:30 pm-5:30 pm
2nd floor Atrium

Faculty Senate Resolution

The Faculty Senate held a special session today, and the following resolution passed 39-23 (and as Tia Mitchell explained, no one in the room spoke in favor of Thrasher's candidacy[1]):

"Be it resolved that we, the members of the Florida State University Faculty Senate, call upon the Presidential Search Advisory Committee not to recommend Senator Thrasher as a candidate for President of FSU. We further call upon the Board of Trustees not to hire Senator Thrasher as the next President of FSU. Senator Thrasher lacks the stated qualifications required for the position, whereas the other three finalists meet those qualifications. We encourage all faculty members to participate fully in the interview process and to submit comments."

I hope that the PSAC and BOT now hear the faculty loud and clear. As one of the interviewees said, the job of an academic leader is very difficult if the faculty aren't behind you. And I imagine it is even more difficult if you've never been in a faculty member's shoes.

I hope that the candidates for president hear the faculty loud and clear as well and know that we are looking forward to hearing from you again next week. This has been a difficult journey, filled with many pitfalls and some new opportunities, but all along we have said that we need an academic leader to help us reach our ambitious academic goals and who values and truly understands shared governance, academic freedom, academic integrity, and tenure.

So I too encourage all faculty members to participate fully in the interview process. I think you will find each of the academic leaders smart, personable, funny, articulate and ready to move us forward into the top 25. That's what the next president of this great university needs to do--in order to make us even greater.

I am, for the first time in this process, cautiously optimistic. This is not over yet, not by a long shot, but we did the impossible once, and the great academic candidates who interviewed during the last two days demonstrate that the long shadow wasn't so long.

That horrible taste in my mouth

It's been a long two days of interviews topped off by an extremely stressful "debriefing" that didn't allow for discussion before Delores Spearman, wife of top insider lobbyist Guy Spearman, made a motion to include academics Michele Wheatly, Michael Martin, and Richard Marchase as well as non-academic politician John Thrasher. Motions were made to add Garnett Stokes as one of the finalists, but they failed, including the one that the people in the room cheered for--replacing Thrasher with Stokes. But the faculty, students, and dean were outnumbered again, twice, and the fix is still in.

I want to talk about the wonderful distinguished academic candidates who have a wealth of experience in higher education leadership as well as in fundraising and athletics and everything that was asked. How they talked about important issues such as how to enhance diversity of students and faculty and the importance of shared governance. How they talked about how they could unite the FSU community to move us forward to excellence.

I want to talk about how Thrasher wasn't asked the same questions the other candidates were asked, how he talked more about his family than his (lack of) qualifications, how he stated he wasn't a thespian when answering a question about the arts, how he said he woke up this morning thinking about "this academics thing," how he said he didn't know any presidents of universities in states other than Florida but said he'd meet them "if it's important," how he said he "embraced" tenure, but that K-12 teachers just sit in chairs and get tenure, and how he was campaigning rather than interviewing to be the leader of a research one institution.

I want to talk about how the faculty, students, and dean were outnumbered again on a motion to replace Thrasher with Stokes and against the motion to accept the four candidates because it included Thrasher, who doesn't have the qualifications necessary to move us forward to the top 25 or AAU (well, he doesn't know and isn't sure if it's important to know other presidents or anything about "this academics thing").

I want to talk about how the air was sucked out of the room when that happened.

I want to talk about how people stopped me and wrote me today to say, yes, indeed, the fix is in and political cronyism ruled the day.

But I have this horrible taste in my mouth. Can't tell if it is disappointment or disgust or a little of both. So I'll save all that for another day.

Let's rush this process!

Although PSAC member Professor Eric Walker expressed our concerns about the "flexible" timing of the "debriefing," Chair Ed Burr remained unconcerned and will march along as "efficiently" as possible. So I will continue to post updates with information.

UPDATE: 9:26: Candidate Marchase on closing statement. Thrasher up next, likely no break in between.

UPDATE: 9:50: Burr felt compelled to read long statement about not disrupting proceedings. Claims transparency.  Uh...

UPDATE: 11:49: will post a longer blog about my impressions of the candidates later, but let's just say that one of the best lines in the politician's interview was either "I am not a thespian" or that he woke up thinking about "this academics thing."

UPDATE: 1:19: Things have been on time so far.

UPDATE: 2:06: Stokes giving her final remarks. One more candidate before the "debriefing."

UPDATE: 2:18: Looks like Chairman Burr changed his mind. Things are running on time.

UPDATE: 3:15: Well, looks like they are "debriefing" now.

UPDATE: 4:18: Deliberations starting.

UPDATE: 5:21:Candidates are Wheatly, Martin, Marchase, and Thrasher. Faculty, Students, and Dean were outvoted again.

IMPORTANT Note about Tuesday interviews

The following was posted to the presidentialsearch.fsu.edu site this afternoon after the interviews ended early today:

"Note: Interview start times are approximate and will be conducted on a continuous basis with the exception of a break for lunch. All candidates will be interviewed immediately following the conclusion of the previous candidate listed on the schedule below."


This is a very troubling development. This means that we don't know exactly when people will interview or exactly when the "debriefing" will start, which is seriously problematic as they will likely start with public comment. So, if the public doesn't know when to be there, how can the public speak? And remember, the "debriefing" is when the PSAC will decide upon the short list for on-campus interviews (no less than 3 candidates).

So, now, everything is rushed, even the interviews. I've been asked if this is being done on purpose to keep faculty and students from attending. Hard for me to say no.

On a more positive note, I think the interviews went really well today. The candidates were smart and their answers  were compelling. I'm looking forward to the rest of the interviews tomorrow. However, the lyrics to the Sesame Street song, "One of These Things (Is Not Like the Other)," will likely be stuck in my head:

"One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?"

September 9 Schedule

Pasted below is the schedule for the September 9 interviews. These are public meetings, but they won't be webcast. The final meeting, the "debrief,"scheduled at 3:35, will be the meeting when the PSAC will decide upon the short list of 3-4 candidates. It sounds like there will be time for public comment at the beginning of the meeting. The meetings will be held in 108 Turnbull.

Day 2: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014

8:00am – 8:30am

Committee Convenes

8:30am – 9:40am

Candidate #7 – Richard Marchase

9:50am – 11:00am

Candidate #8 – John Thrasher

11:10am – 12:20pm

Candidate #9 – Michele Wheatly

12:20pm – 1:05pm

Lunch

1:05pm – 2:15pm

Candidate #10 – Garnett Stokes

2:25pm – 3:35pm

Candidate #11 – Murray Gibson

3:35pm

Debrief