Well, I can only really describe it as like a slow moving train coming closer and closer, and suddenly one blinks and the darn thing is about to run us over. Today, the Search Advisory Committee met and the search firm president, Mr. Funk, advised the committee to vet only Senator John Thrasher as a candidate for the position. This, he argued, would allow for a more level playing field--if the committee votes for him to be president, the search would be over; if the committee votes no, then other candidates may apply. As one of the faculty members on the search committee stated, to interview one candidate is highly irregular (or in my words, it is complete BS).
To say that the search is open and fair and to then say we are only going to vet one candidate does not in my mind seem at all compatible. In fact, it seems impossible. Academic searches for any position should include multiple candidates so the committee members have comparisons to make. The facts that the search firm did not list a deadline on the national advertisement and did not use the criteria that the search committee agreed to, which included academic credentials, need to be considered for such actions effectively discouraged people from applying. This is outrageous. Further, we have no idea who did actually apply, but we do know that Senator Thrasher had not yet applied. Despite this fact, one politician motioned to only interview Thrasher, another politician seconded the motion, and another politician spoke favorably to the motion. Note the pattern.
Before the meeting, we were told via email by the Chair that there would be no public comment. At the beginning of the meeting, the Chair told the room that there would be no public comment. After a quick discussion with a person who I really need to thank profusely, a 20 minute public comment period was granted. All of the speakers--students and faculty--disagreed with the decision to interview only one candidate for various reasons, not the least of which is it is not fair and open competition to only interview one candidate. After the public comment period, the members of the Search Advisory Committee voted 15-9 to only bring in John Thrasher as a candidate. As one of the faculty members on the committee noted for the record, all of the students and faculty members on the committee voted no. This of course is key.
I've been saying all along that it appeared the fix was in. Sometimes I really hate being right about such things. But I'm remaining optimistic. It's not a done deal yet. We can still derail the train. We still have some power in numbers. We can be convincing. We can organize to say no, this is not a fair and open and honest and transparent process. This is Florida politics, pure and simple. We can say no, this is a university not a political extension of the Capitol. And to have the search firm and search chair say that Thrasher is the only viable candidate because no one else will apply (even though 11 nameless people did in fact apply) after only advertising a highly problematic ad for two weeks that would discourage most of the viable candidates out there from applying is--how should I say it--ludicrous. We must continue to be engaged and attend the next meeting when the Search Advisory Committee begins interviewing Senator Thrasher, the only candidate being considered. As stated at the end of today's meeting, that meeting will be held June 11 at 10am in the Turnbull Center.
