As with the last few meetings, the chair of the PSAC, Ed Burr, and the chair of the BOT who is also on the PSAC, Allan Bense, were not in the room. In fact, a third of the members called in and one didn't show. This is unbelievable to me. The argument is the members of the Committee volunteer their time and, I was told Burr said but it’s hard for me to know for sure because those of us in the room can’t hear what that the people on the phone are saying, that they have to pay their own way to get to Tallahassee. Look, there are plenty of people who would be willing to serve on this Committee and would be committed to being there in person every time, including all of the faculty and students who have attended the meetings. If choosing the candidates for president of the university isn’t worth the time or energy or gas money to get to Tallahassee, then why agree to be on the Committee? I heard someone say it was so they aren’t bombarded by press, but I don’t know if that’s the case.
The meeting began with public comment. Fortunately, all members of the public who wanted to speak were able to do so. The comment period lasted more than an hour, and not one of the speakers supported a politician as a candidate. Not one. Everyone said we needed a qualified academic. And the students who spoke asked for the search committee to be reconstituted because the faculty and students on the PSAC are outnumbered in terms of decision-making—remember the 15-9 vote to interview only Thrasher? A student on the PSAC made a motion to reset the PSAC to include 1/3 students, 1/3 faculty, and 1/3 other interests, but since the PSAC can’t reconstitute itself, the motion was changed to urging the BOT to reconstitute the PSAC. It was voted down 24-2, with one of the two undergraduates and the lone graduate student voting yes. The faculty members on the PSAC argued that the pool of candidates for the position is strong and a reset of the committee may mean we’d lose those folks. But, as the vote to include Senator Thrasher demonstrates, the call we’ve made from the beginning to include greater representation of students and faculty is absolutely accurate—we’re definitely outnumbered by the political and economic interests on the PSAC. But more on that in a minute.
Once the motion to reconstitute the committee failed, the students began a mic check. One student began to read from the student plan that presents a democratic way to reconstitute the search committee, and the other students repeated what he said, until he was escorted from the room by the officer there. Another student began reading in his place, and she too was removed. A motion to suspend the meeting was made, and 40 minutes later, the meeting resumed. In that 40 minutes, more police were called in, and we were told, and told to tell the students, that those who interrupted the proceedings again would be asked to leave and could possibly be arrested (if they didn’t show their IDs, I think, but that was unclear). I understand the need to follow meeting protocol, but I also know the frustration that we all feel knowing the fix is still in.
Once the meeting resumed, the search consultant Alberto Pimentel gave his recommendations, and on his list of 8 was Thrasher. Three additional names (all academics) would later be added to the list. Professor Eric Walker made a motion to exclude Thrasher from the list, and a disturbing conversation commenced.
Two of the students spoke for the motion as did Professor Cliff Madsen and Dean Driscoll. Al Lawson spoke against the motion in favor of Thrasher, and in his comments he said that he’s talked to faculty all over campus and it’s only some English and Music professors who oppose Thrasher’s candidacy. That caused an uproar in the crowd as nothing can be further from the truth (I’ve heard from many, many faculty across campus—some of whom actually did speak with Lawson and told him Thrasher’s not qualified for the position). Two of our colleagues spoke out, and they were also escorted from the room, but Lawson’s comment was stunningly inaccurate and absolutely needed to be refuted. I do hope that faculty from across campus come to the interviews. I suppose people can also write to Al Lawson and others on the PSAC and/or BOT to let them know what they think (Lawson’s on Twitter and Facebook, but I have yet to confirm an email address).
Former FL Senate President John McKay said it would be “insulting” to Sandy D'Alemberte to remove Thrasher from the list, but as the graduate student on the committee (who is a third year law student) stated, “While I respect past president D’Alemberte as much as anybody in the room,” she said, “I don’t think we should be worried about insulting him. I don’t think John Thrasher is qualified based on academic experience.”[1]
Most telling about this entire discussion, though, was the answer Pimentel gave to BOG member Edward Morton’s question, would Thrasher be considered a candidate anywhere else in the country? Pimentel said no, only in Florida. Sooooo, let’s see here. He’s the most qualified candidate for a high profile research one institution that wants to join the ranks of the top 25 and AAU? Really? But unfortunately, Morton voted against the motion.
And the motion to exclude Thrasher failed, 18-8, with all 4 faculty members, all 3 students, and the lone dean on the PSAC voting no. Déjà vu all over again, eh?
And that leads us to one of the reasons why it can’t be said that the search has been reset. The fix is still in. I just can’t see how someone can look at the final list of candidates and say Thrasher is more qualified to lead the university. Fundraising is NOT the only function of the president for cryin’ out loud! Just ask Eric Barron.
But it’s more than that, right? This is all about Florida politics. To interview a candidate who wouldn't be qualified as president anywhere else in the country is absolutely unfathomable.
And as I've heard from a few folks in the last few days, the Governor’s hands are in this, too. The chair of his re-election campaign wants to be president of a university? Sure, let’s make that happen! If this is true, Governor, citizens don’t like political cronyism. They don’t like being threatened. They don’t like injustice and unfairness. They don’t like to be railroaded.
So, why else am I scratching my head?
- The list of candidates for interviews Monday and Tuesday includes 11 people. One of them is definitely not like the others. See the list and CVs on the presidentialsearch.fsu.edu website.
- The interviews will not be webcast, presumably because it would give unfair advantage to the other candidates if they were watching the proceedings. I get that, so it is vital that those who can attend do to see who is most qualified to be on the short list for on-campus interviews. But the interviews begin less than 36 hours after the list of candidates was determined! Why the hurry? Let me refer once again to UF’s search—no rush there and they are also under the same Sunshine laws.
- The times the candidates are interviewing will likely not be posted until right before the PSAC starts its work at 7:30am Monday. The fact that these decisions are made and agendas are posted at the last minute makes it difficult for people to attend. I suppose that’s the point of keeping things in the dark as long as possible. UPDATE: Oh, the list is posted! I missed it because it is under the September 2nd update. That makes sense. The meetings start at 7:30am Monday and 8:00am Tuesday. The "debriefing," which I assume means making a decision on the short list, is scheduled for 3:35pm Tuesday. John Thrasher will be interviewed Tuesday from 9:50am – 11:00am.
- If all of the faculty members and all of the students on the committee oppose a candidate because he’s not qualified (and they are not all from Music and English, Mr. Lawson), wouldn't that raise a giant red flag? And if all of the people who came to the meeting and made public comment oppose a candidate because he’s not qualified, shouldn't that mean something?
This is why I think the fix is still in. But that does not mean that I’ll give up speaking truth to power. I hope all of you don't stop as well.
No matter what, folks, if Thrasher does become president, he will always be surrounded by this controversy. The reputation of the university will be tarnished. His presidency will be seen by many as ill-gotten. I am not sure why he and his PSAC and BOT supporters don’t see this. This university is more than football and fundraising. But if you ram in an unqualified president at a time when the university was finally moving forward academically, football and fundraising alone are not going to sustain us. Imagine what recruitment of faculty will look like. Imagine the exodus of faculty. That's not beneficial for the university, the students, or the State of Florida.
I know John Thrasher cares deeply about this university, but I do, too. I care about my colleagues, and I care about our students. I care about the alumni who we taught and the students who will attend in the future. The value of a degree is based in part on the reputation of the institution. This is not about Thrasher the person or Thrasher the Republican. It’s about who’s qualified to lead this university. Being a politician is not a qualification; it’s that simple.
