Before public comment, though, the BOT discussed the search. A motion to present three presidential finalists to the BOT (as opposed to just one) passed, and a discussion of whether the BOT should be more involved in the search ensued. I think the answer to the latter was no, let the PSAC do its job, which would make sense since the BOT ultimately decides on the president anyway, not the Search Advisory Committee.
The public comment included a call for the BOT to make a commitment to a distinguished academic with higher ed leadership experience like the UF BOT has done, but that didn’t happen.
The public comment also called for greater representation of faculty and students on the PSAC, but that didn’t happen, either.
The public comment also called for members of the PSAC with connections to the Koch Brothers and ALEC to step down from the committee (a call based in part on the controversy regarding the Koch Foundation deal with FSU [1]), but perhaps not surprisingly, that didn’t happen, either. One of the members of the BOT became quite outraged and said that the request to ask people with conflicts to step down was "insulting," especially because faculty members are “paid by FSU” while BOT members are not. Not sure how that relates to asking PSAC members to voluntarily step down due to conflicts of interest, but fortunately, another member of the BOT explained the importance of discourse, debate, free speech, and the rights of faculty and students to present their viewpoints in front of the BOT.
While it sounds great that three finalists will be presented to the BOT, the lack of commitment to an academician to lead the university and a PSAC that has already voted to interview only one candidate seem to suggest that if one of the three finalists is the presumptive political candidate, some say he has enough votes on the BOT to become the next president, despite the call from students and faculty for another Eric Barron.[2]
Please send your nominations to Alberto Pimentel at a.pimentel@storbeckpimentel.com
