The following article by Tia Mitchell regarding
the Board of Governors’ (BOG) response to the FSU search was posted yesterday: http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/bog-considers-streamlining-university-presidential-searches-amid-fsu-issues/2185090
The article states that BOG “Chairman Mori Hosseini floated a plan today that would result in streamlined, standard practices that all 12 public Florida universities would follow in future presidential searches,” because, as another BOG member Dean Colson said, "I think it’s damaged the national reputation at FSU the way this search has played out.”
The article enumerates the Chairman’s proposed changes as such:
The article states that BOG “Chairman Mori Hosseini floated a plan today that would result in streamlined, standard practices that all 12 public Florida universities would follow in future presidential searches,” because, as another BOG member Dean Colson said, "I think it’s damaged the national reputation at FSU the way this search has played out.”
The article enumerates the Chairman’s proposed changes as such:
*Increase BOG presence by having additional
members participate in university search processes.
*Specify the roles and responsibilities of the
BOG, university boards of trustees and presidential search committees.
*Identify common job descriptions and
qualifications to ensure universities are recruiting candidates that meet the
school’s mission and BOG priorities.
*Establish benchmarks or general timelines to
ensure search processes are consistent.
*Create general guidelines for determining the
compensation of newly hired presidents.
While I can see why someone would think this necessary, I would sure hope that faculty would be consulted before considering such a thing. The reason why this search was so flawed is because this search was not open and transparent due to a flawed process and, as the evidence seems to suggest, political cronyism.[1]
During the May PSAC meeting, BOG member Edward Morton saw the problem with interviewing just one candidate, explained this to the committee, and voted no to the motion to interview only one person. He was unfortunately on the losing side, but it looks like the BOG understands the severity of the situation created by the Search Advisory Committee leadership and the previous search firm. Not sure the BOT does.
It appears from what I’ve seen that the UF search is much more adequate. For example, the first 5 criteria listed in the job description are:
*Has an academic background and credentials, including Ph.D. or highest degree in chosen field.
While I can see why someone would think this necessary, I would sure hope that faculty would be consulted before considering such a thing. The reason why this search was so flawed is because this search was not open and transparent due to a flawed process and, as the evidence seems to suggest, political cronyism.[1]
During the May PSAC meeting, BOG member Edward Morton saw the problem with interviewing just one candidate, explained this to the committee, and voted no to the motion to interview only one person. He was unfortunately on the losing side, but it looks like the BOG understands the severity of the situation created by the Search Advisory Committee leadership and the previous search firm. Not sure the BOT does.
It appears from what I’ve seen that the UF search is much more adequate. For example, the first 5 criteria listed in the job description are:
*Has an academic background and credentials, including Ph.D. or highest degree in chosen field.
*Is recognized as a national and international
scholar of distinction (e.g., is a member of a national academy or institute or
a fellow of a major academic society, or has a distinguished record of research).
*Demonstrates a record of meaningful
accomplishments in executive leadership of and decision-making in complex
organizations, and has a strong record of innovation and transformation.
*Has experience in an administrative leadership
position at a major university.
*Will have respect and influence among AAU and
other peer organizations and institutions.[2]
Compare this to the FSU Presidential Position announcement [3]. Also compare the UF preamble to "Qualifications and Criteria for UF’s Next President" at http://presidentialsearch.fsu.edu/position-profile/ to the FSU preamble to the "Preferred Qualities and Characteristics" in the longer job description located on the FSU Presidential Search website, http://presidentialsearch.fsu.edu/position-profile/
While I'm at it, another concern that I have is the FSU Search Chair has not sent emails to let FSU constituents know when and where the Search Advisory Committee meetings are being held, the agenda of these meetings, or the progression of the search other than to tell us that the flawed search is now open again. This lack of communication does not suggest openness. I hope for UF's sake that the Chair of its search remains in contact with UF constituents as the search progresses.[4]
Again, I suppose I can see why the BOG would want to step in and streamline searches due to the embarrassment caused by this flawed search, but it’s not so simple as each of the universities have different missions and traditions. The problem seems to be more about politics than anything else. I hope that the BOG would invite multiple constituencies to participate in any decision-making regarding presidential searches, and I’d probably be the first to volunteer to be involved in such an effort.
According to an update to Mitchell's article, there is a BOG study in the works, and I again hope that faculty are involved in the process.
Compare this to the FSU Presidential Position announcement [3]. Also compare the UF preamble to "Qualifications and Criteria for UF’s Next President" at http://presidentialsearch.fsu.edu/position-profile/ to the FSU preamble to the "Preferred Qualities and Characteristics" in the longer job description located on the FSU Presidential Search website, http://presidentialsearch.fsu.edu/position-profile/
While I'm at it, another concern that I have is the FSU Search Chair has not sent emails to let FSU constituents know when and where the Search Advisory Committee meetings are being held, the agenda of these meetings, or the progression of the search other than to tell us that the flawed search is now open again. This lack of communication does not suggest openness. I hope for UF's sake that the Chair of its search remains in contact with UF constituents as the search progresses.[4]
Again, I suppose I can see why the BOG would want to step in and streamline searches due to the embarrassment caused by this flawed search, but it’s not so simple as each of the universities have different missions and traditions. The problem seems to be more about politics than anything else. I hope that the BOG would invite multiple constituencies to participate in any decision-making regarding presidential searches, and I’d probably be the first to volunteer to be involved in such an effort.
According to an update to Mitchell's article, there is a BOG study in the works, and I again hope that faculty are involved in the process.
