Learn more :: Article Archives :: Details of secretive chancellor selection surface

Details of Secretive Chancellor Selection Surface: UC President Dynes Wields Too Much Power in Selection, Advisory Committee Members Say
by Lisa Humes-Schulz and Dev Chatterji, August 2, 2004

Now that the nearly six-month-long selection process of Chancellor Robert Berdahl's successor is over, members of the 17-person advisory committee have offered insight into the tight-lipped, closed-door process.

The selection process that netted the appointment of University of Toronto President Robert Birgeneau July 27 has been criticized as being overly secretive and lacking input from more than a select few individuals.

“It's really unfortunate that students did not have much of a voice,” said Jessica Quindel , former Graduate Assembly president and one of two student representatives on the committee.

The advisory committee, appointed by UC President Robert Dynes in late January, which consisted of professors, Regents, alumni representatives and two student representatives, was responsible for evaluating the candidates and making recommendations to Dynes.

Although individual committee members were not permitted to share their recommendations with each other, Dynes was aware of and took the recommendations into consideration before forwarding his decision to the UC Board of Regents for approval.

“Certainly the committee process provides an opportunity to provide views and make clear their preferences, but ultimately it is the president's decision,” said Brad Hayward, spokesperson for the UC Office of President. “It's not a selection committee, just an advisory committee.”

Before delivering potential chancellor candidates to the advisory committee, Dynes whittled the number of candidates from 298 down to 19, but several committee members said they were only given the names of four candidates the night before meeting and interviewing them.

The full committee spent between 16 and 20 minutes to discuss each of the four candidates, Quindel said.

“We couldn't do any due diligence as a selection committee,” she said. “There's no way to be as thorough as one would hope that way.”

University of California “Policy on Appointment of Chancellors” requires that the committee be given between five and 15 candidate names.

Hayward said he could neither confirm nor deny that only four names were given to the committee.

Other committee members charged the nonbinding and secretive recommendation process to Dynes is ineffective and grants him too much power in the process.

At least two members of the committee objected to the appointment of Birgeneau —the total vote count is known only to Dynes.

Once making it to the full Board of Regents, only Regent Velma Montoya voted against his appointment, with Regent David Lee abstaining from the vote.

“I felt that Birgeneau did not have as much experience as he should for a UC Chancellor,” said Montoya. “At this point, I feel that there should be someone from within the UC system who would be well qualified to lead the Berkeley campus.”

Montoya said she has “deep reservations about Birgeneau as an administrator.”

She also said Birgeneau was ushered through the process.

“I found it pretty appalling—Dynes and Birgeneau have known each other for at least 30 years. They grew up in Canada together,” Quindel said. “There's an old boys network at work here.”

Administrators said Dynes came to know Birgeneau at a professional level once they both were high-level administrators.

“When you're an educator, after a certain level, you get to know others of

comparable worth. That's mainly how Bob Birgeneau and Rob Dynes came to trust each others' professional objectives—there's nothing wrong with that,” said George Blumenthal, faculty representative to the Board of Regents, who voted in favor of Birgeneau's appointment.

Besides Dynes' tight relationship with Birgeneau , some committee members also decried the extreme secrecy of the process.

Both student representatives, Quindel and former ASUC President Kris Cuaresma-Primm , said they feared if they spoke about the process, student representation on future advisory committees would be threatened.

Throughout Berdahl's selection process in 1997, however, committee members were more vocal about the process and told the public at least four names before a final decision was made.

The university policy regarding the selection of new chancellors does not stipulate secrecy and states the advisory committee “will solicit the opinions of other interested groups in whatever manner it considers appropriate.”

Despite widespread criticism, many administrators applauded the process and the result.

“We engaged in a very substantial and effective consultation with the advisory committee,” Hayward said. “The process resulted in a great outcome, it was a very successful search.”

Originally published in the Daily Californian.

Learn more :: Article Archives :: Details of secretive chancellor selection surface