Opinion
Page 4 University Daily Kansan, February 23, 1981
Open search next time
You don't see them at work. They don't say very much. On the whole, they're about as inconspicuous as any group can get, and at times you wonder if they're progressing toward their goal.
But pretty soon, out of the blue, they—the members of the chancellor Advisory Search Committee—will send a list of five names to the Board of Regents, and suddenly there'll be a new face to run the University of Kansas.
The long process of selecting a new chancellor began shortly after Archie Dykes resigned that post last May. His permanent successor won't be selected until after spring break. In essence, it's taking this University about as long to select its chancellor as it takes this nation to select its president. But while a presidential election is a year-long process filled with primaries and campaigning, the almost year-long chancellor selection is a quiet, introverted affair.
Is it right that the chancellor who will chart the course of KU through the future is chosen by the mysterious search committee? Is the present process used to find a KU chancellor the best method possible?
Clearly not. The new chancellor is chosen by Regents (unselected) through nominations by 12 search committee members (also unselected, or, in the case of two members, indirectly elected). It's a selection process of the few, by the few, but for the many.
True, the issue is moot—this time. It's too late to change the process that'll pick a
successor to Acting Chancellor Del Shanklet. But there'll be a next time, and when that time arises, the search process from beginning to end must be opened up. Students, faculty, alumni and the general public must all have more of a share in the process.
The public must know the names of the candidates under consideration, just as they know which politicians are running for the presidency. It's true that some candidates would drop out, but that's not too high a price for a democratic process in a democratic society.
And next time, the search committee would be wise to look right on Mount Oread a little closer. After all, when the position of executive vice chancellor was open, it was filled by promoting from within the University; and when an acting chancellor was needed while the permanent one was being chosen, the position also was filled from within.
So why is it that when the top slot is open, the search committee feels compelled to use other universities as a farm club system for candidates? Why go searching from sea to shining sea, while almost totally ignoring the domestic product?
So as the current search committee is winding up its task, some arguments for and against the present system are presented on this page today. It may be too late to change this search committee's procedures, but there's plenty to be changed when the next one comes along.
Letters to the Editor
Classified employees at KU deserve equal treatment
To the editor:
It is unfortunate that the original premise on which the charge of discrimination was made ("KU work policy viewed as discriminatory, Kansan, Feb. 5, 1981) has become camouflaged with the froth of administrative rhetoric.
Basically, I think classified employees feel discriminated against when the chancellor of the University of Kansas is empowered to cancel classes because of inclement weather, thereby excusing faculty and students from campus. In the case of the campus, but has no authority to excuse classmates, who are not only expected but required to work to report.
Legislation "requiring the faculty to come to school on bad weather days or forfeit pay or time off" is ludicrous, and it was not the intent of the original proposal—nor was the matter of additional pay for classified employees who were able to get to work during the summer. All that matters that classified employees be given the same consideration as faculty and students in accordance with Affirmative Action guidelines.
Granted, there may be agencies on campus, such as Facilities Operations, whose employees need to report to work to clear campus roads and sidewalks (and how much easier that task would be without cars clumping up the parking areas!); surely they knew their services would be required in bad weather when they were hired.
It is a continual frustration for classified employees at KU to deal with the State Civil Service administration in Topeka, which has neither a clue about the employment situation at the university level nor, apparently, the geography of Lawrence and Mt. Oread. The only solution, as I see it, is to turn over the university data to the administration of KU, as is the case at the University of California-Berkley, and the University of Wisconsin, to name only two.
Of course, the faculty is expected to make up lost academic time when classes are canceled; of course, students are expected to make up the work missed; and of course, we don't expect extra work missed. We don't expect extra pay for "brugging the elements"; we don't expect to be docked pay or to have to work nights and weekends to make up time simply for having the good sense to stay off the roads that have been built in a dangerous for faculty and students to travel.
Barring that possibility, then the least we should be able to expect is equal treatment with faculty and students in the matter of inclement weather policy. I urge other classified employees to make their voices heard by expressing their views to Joseph
Collins, chairman of the Government Action Group, Classified Senate.
Barbara Paris Administrative assistant Department of English
Jews held hostage
To the editor:
Feb. 25 has been designated Soviet Jewry Day. Day after Jewish camps across the nation are closed.
Before the Bolshevik takeover of 1917, the Jews were subject to a number of restrictions—residential ones, like living inside the Pale of Settlement; educational ones, like the ban on entering certain universities and quotas elsewhere; and occupational ones, like the ban to engage in agriculture. In response to these restrictions, Russian emigrants pack up and leave for America, especially so in the wake of bloody anti-Jewish riots in the early 1900s.
After 1917, all restrictions on account of national affiliation or religion were repealed, but not for long. The old restrictions (but not the new ones) were simply reimposed and some gossypials added.
The forceful anti-Jewish campaign billed as "combating the rootless costumphans" in the early 1950s, the execution of leading Jewish writers and educators in 1952, the sentencing of Jewish doctors who had allegedly conspired to poison Stalin (and who, incidentally, were found to be behind the attack) after their resettlement at gunpoint of the entire Jewish population in far-away Siberia planned for 1953—those were just some of the landmarks.
The anti-Jewish rampage abated somewhat after the death of Stalin in 1953. However, the overall situation rapidly deteriorated in the 1970s. The movement for the right to emigrate—which in a police state is far from secure—made a handful of bold activists has caught on.
Ultimately, the right to emigrate for some has been won, but it has been paid for dearly. Some of the Jewish activists are still imprisoned for their desire to emigrate; many others have been refused visas and lost their jobs. Still others have been waiting for more than a hundred years to be freed from law under the authorities yet. The Soviet Jews are being held hostage to the ups and downs of limping detente and the fortunes of the grain embargo.
Those imprisoned on trumped-up charges should be set free and those wishing to emigrate let go. Today we must make our voices heard in the Senate, where that have been stationed at KU for Feb. 25.
Overland Park senior
The University Daily KANSAN
(USPS 684-640) Published at the University of Kannan August through May and Monday and Thursday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., for students in grades 12 to 15. Subscriptions by mail are $1 for six months or $9 if a year in Douglas County and $1 for six months or $9 each year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $1 a semester, paid through the student activity fee. Additional changes of address to the University Dudy Kannan, Pint Hall, The University of Kannan, Lawrence, KS 75930.
Unused editors represent the opinion of the Kansasman editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of the editors. The authors should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include the writer's class and homework or faculty or staff position. The Kansas reserves the right to edit letters for publication. They can be delivered personally or mailed to the Kansasway, 11 FIrt
A busy day in the life of the chancellor search committee
Confidentiality should be maintained
Sometime in the next few months the University of Kansas will have a new chancellor. This person will be charged with the duty of providing leadership and direction for the University's important position so, obviously, the decision-making process is neither easy nor to be taken lightly.
The search is still not completed but, as you might expect, it's already open season on grumbling about the selection process. In most cases, those upset with the present system either misunderstand the role of the Chancellor Advisory Search Committee or enjoy complaining that they are not allowing prejudice or emotion color opinion, an examination of the facts is in order.
Doing so, you immediately realize that the search committee doesn't shroud itself in mystery. Made up of 12 members—four students, four faculty and four alumni—selected a committee to examine the mittee's selection process is no big secret. In fact, the procedure is just as you might expect.
of these candidates are interviewed by the committee and finally, an unranked list of five finalists is given to the Board of Regents. After the Board chooses the nine nominees, the Regents choose the new chancellor.
Briefly put, a nationwide advertising campaign announces the opening. Interested candidates submit their resumes and other relevant materials by a certain date. At the same time, the committee formulates the criteria to be used in the selection process. According to one committee member, discussion centers on what the University's needs are in general and what qualifications the future chancellor should have to meet those needs.
Certainly the most persistent complaint centers on the issues of confidentiality. When they ask about that, they do so.
The committee uses its guidelines to narrow down the large list. Eventually, a small number
DAVID
HENRY
would not be made public. Critics claim that by being denied access to the field of candidates, they're being kept in the dark. And we all know what that implies: possible dirty doings by a gang of 12. Once again, the facts of the matter go a long way to silence criticism.
Whover started the assumption that confidentiality must be availed at all costs? Former Chancellor E. Laurence Chalmer, infamous for belief in openness, nevertheless believed in a closed selection process for the chancellor's position. His rationale was based on the fact that he had made his identity's interest in a new school were revealed, things could get pretty sticky back home.
Of course, some institutions simply don't care. Others do however. A lot. A potential candidate, without the guarantee of privacy, is faced with an almost-no-win decision. Because he knows announcing a desire to move will likely irritate his current employer, he'd better be damned certain he has a good chance for the new position. But realistically, the list of qualified candidates will be huge and he may not be what the committee's looking for. Therefore, concern for his present and future well-being will prevent a quality candidate from applying.
The composition of the committee also brings a chorus of complaints. Apparently, some people believe there isn't adequate representation of differing views. Everyone wants effective representation of the committee can be achieved. Where do you draw the line between a representative committee and chaos resulting from 100 different opinions? Or 200? Deciding on the criteria and narrowing the list would be a hopeless task. Most likely, the committee will be compromise candidates that excited no one.
Although armed with the best of intentions, those who advocate an open chancellor's search do themselves a disservice by limiting the field of possible candidates. Further, on paper, a larger search committee might appear more representative. Actually, such a proposal could easily backfire—resulting in a bland, middle-of-the road chancellor.
The Chancellor Advisory Search Committee's 12 members have a great deal of responsibility. The advice they present to the Regents in the coming weeks affects us all. And regardless of differences of opinion, both critics and supporters of the system share a common end. Namely, a desire for a highly qualified chancellor to lead KU.
Democratic process overlooked in search
The chancellorship is the most powerful position at the University of Kansas. Yet the person who fillts that post is selected behind them, or no input from our University community.
Twelve people—four students, four faculty members and four alumni—were appointed by the Board of Regents to form the chancellor Advisory Search Committee. After a lengthy process of reviewing applications and interviewing applicants, the committee will submit a list of five names to the Regents, who make the final selection of our new chancellor.
Between the time the old chancellor resigns and the new chancellor is chosen, a student or faculty member who has any feelings about the search can write a letter, or, if she or he is lucky enough to know a committee member, can speak directly to someone about his or her concerns. But mostly that person can wait in frustrated silence and wonder who it is that the Regents will choose to run our University for the next four years.
It doesn't have to be that way
It is possible to conduct the search for a new chancellor in an open and democratic manner. We can, with a few changes in the process, select a new leader for our school in a way that allows all of us to have a say in what kind of individual we choose and be sure that he or she is chosen (fairly).
The first place to make a change is in the selection of the committee members. Although the current policy of including the student body president, the Faculty Executive Committee chairman and the alumni association president is a good one because all are elected by the bodies they represent, the remaining members should be chosen more democratically.
Campus-wide election of committee members is impractical; however, they can be elected at open hearings by Student Senate, the Faculty Executive Committee and the alumni committee. A manual based on any interested students, faculty members or alumni. This would also allow for open questioning of applicants by any member of the University community prior to selection, and would be a process of local nomination and Regen approval now being used.
The second place to make a change is in the
formation of criteria used to select the new chancellor. Once again, the current process can be made more open with public meetings and community input. After receiving recommendations from Student Senate, the Faculty Executive Committee and the alumni
JOE BARTOS
association, the committee could hold an open meeting to decide upon criteria for the search. Again, this change would make the process more direct and responsive.
In addition, these two changes would provide safeguards against the behind-the-scenes manipulation possible in a closed system. Without public scrutiny, guidelines can be used to prevent selection process can be manipulated by power blocs within the committee. With public scrutiny, the committee can be held accountable for its actions. But these changes are only cosmetic unless a third change is made—the reduction of the list of applicants for chancellor.
The second advantage of a public disclosure of the candidates would be the making of the search more responsive to the needs of the University. If the search were open, then finalists could be brought to the campus to meet with faculty members, students and alumni, so that compatibility between candidates and the University could be given a direct test. This process would
Without publication of the chancellor's list, we will not have an open search for chancellor. And we will not have the advantages gained in an open process.
The first advantage is more honesty and confidence that the search has been conducted with due process. As with the selection of the committee and the criteria, public scrutiny will give us insurance for a fair search. Without publication of the chancellor's list, the committee will meet in secret meetings and pursue a closed process that has great potential for abuse.
Also, this contact would make the transition of chancellors a lot smoother. If groups know the new chancellor and feel they have participated in this process, their administration will have an easier time establishing a healthy working relationship. As it is now, the marriage between the chancellor and the University is arranged for two groups that are about each other but must somehow fall in love.
be an advantage to both the University and the candidates.
The major obstacle an open search faces is the possibility that some well-qualified applicants will drop out of the selection process if their names are made public. But this obstacle grows a little smaller if you consider that these well-qualified individuals are likely to leave KU for a higher offer. Their secret application for chancellor has already convinced them of it at least once.
Also, just how interested would this type of applicant be in the welfare of our University? If we choose a chancellor who has an eye for a better job, isn't that person likely to pursue easy short-term policies that make him or her look good at work? Are there firm policies that won't pay off for many years?
Along with unreliability, the question of integrity arises from a secret application. If the applicant is not willing to admit her or her interest in another job, then how much can this person be trusted in anything he or she says? Aren't we likely to be getting a new chancellor who prefers secrecy and double-talk to open disclosure and honesty?
Furthermore, we cannot divorce the process of choosing a chancellor from the University system as a whole. A secretive applicant chosen by the university's administration system.
If you play the game, you follow the rules.
A closed search is a game KU is better off without. There is too much chance for abuse, too little input from the University community and too much secrecy for a public institution.
Open searches have been used at other universities and have worked. They provide insurance against abuse, are more responsive to people and promote a healthy, open atmosphere.
An open search will and us the best possible
charmanter for KU. And that's what we all want,
isn't it?