UNC search still dark
Published October 1, 2015
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, October 1, 2015.
In a moment of inspiration Monday, the state House of Representatives approved an amendment that would bring light to a hidden process — the selection of the president of the University of North Carolina. The candle of openness burned but briefly.
The vehicle was a Senate bill setting term limits for UNC Board of Governors members. They could sit for no more than 12 years. There’s no restriction now. “We would love to allow other folks to serve on the Board of Governors,” Sen. Tom Apodaca (R-Henderson), the bill’s sponsor, said.
A cynic might suggest that, because appointments often go to campaign contributors, increasing turnover on the board also would generate more donations. Surely, no one was thinking about that.
When the measure reached the House floor, Rep. Grier Martin (D-Wake) proposed an excellent amendment. It pertained to the process of selecting a new system president, which is underway right now. It provided that:
l The search committee must submit at least three final candidates to the board.
l The names and credentials of the candidates must be made public at least 10 days before the board votes to hire one.
l The board must hold at least one meeting in which the three candidates are discussed in open session.
l A majority vote of the board is required to choose a president.
The amendment passed by an overwhelming vote of 97-11, a significant endorsement of openness.
This is exactly how it should have been done all along. The UNC president is one of the most important public officials in the state. The people, as well as the many constituents of the UNC system, should know who the final candidates are and have an opportunity to contract board members with their opinions.
The same goes for chancellors of the various UNC campuses. Some schools have made final candidates known and even introduced them to the university community. That’s a very helpful exercise. But most don’t, contending that public disclosure discourages top candidates from applying. There may be examples of that, but it’s not a good argument when the leadership of public institutions is at stake. This concern is overcome by the advantages of openness and the opportunity to hire a leader who has been vetted by those he will serve, even if only for 10 days.
Sadly, House members changed their minds by the time they took a final vote Tuesday. They removed the provisions requiring public disclosure.
“Confidentiality is crucial, absolutely crucial, to the ability to recruit and thoroughly vet the level of candidates that we want for a number of positions, but particularly this position as president of the university system, which I think all of us feel very strongly about,” Rep. Nelson Dollar (R-Wake) said in an argument so convincing that nearly everyone who voted for transparency Monday, including Martin, voted against it Tuesday.
At the very same time, The News & Observer of Raleigh reported, the UNC presidential search committee was meeting behind closed doors. And the public remained in the dark.
