OCR Text |
Show Faculty Chastizes Regents For Pres. Search Methods other with respect to this basic issue of the qualifying criteria for the presidency, but it does not appear ap-pear that real understanding was achieved." IN THE MESSAGE to the Regents Reg-ents the Committee noted a "very large overlap" in th list of candidates candi-dates of the Faculty Committee and the Board of Regents, said 12 or 13 names appeared on both the Committee's preferred list and the Regent's preferred list, but that "the Board of Regents could not see its way clear to select one of the candidates appearing on both lists." The report emphasized that the legal responsibility of selecting a president indeed rested with the Regents, although a University regulation reg-ulation says "The Board of Regents shall call upon the Faculty Council to elect a committee to confer with the Board upon the selection of the president." By SANDY GILMOUR Chronicle Assoc Editor The Faculty Presidential Search Committee has criticized the Board of Regents for the lack of influence the Committee had in selecting the new president of the Univeristy. In a 13 page report to the Regents, Re-gents, the Committee, who by University regulation is to be consulted for election of a president, presi-dent, noted that it was "most unfortunate" that the committee did not have more say in the selection. The committee chastized the method of selection, not the man himself, and presented the report shortly after Dr. James C. Fletcher's Fletch-er's unanimous vote by the Regents. The report was submitted, the committee com-mittee said, to aid future Presidential Presid-ential Search Committees. THE REPORT listed the activities of the Faculty Committee and those of the Regents committee who also reviewed names nrtmnsed for thp The Committee called its message mess-age an "after the fact" report and said "The matter of selction of the new president is therefore closed; we have a new president, and we will support him with out full energies in the best Interests of the University." It noted the "large amount of time" spent gathering information and in meetings, said over 20 committee com-mittee meetings were held ''averaging ''aver-aging over two hours each," on top of about six meetings held jointly with members of the Regents. It added that the Regents had "also devoted a very large amount of time to the search." The Committee also welcomed Dr. Fletcher to his new job, a I resolution unanimously passed. The Regents' presidential search committee met with the Faculty Committee three days before the Regent's unanimous vote to elect Dr. Fletcher. At that time there apparently had been some dissen- presidency. It listed what the committee's com-mittee's 13 members felt were key qualifications of a university president. pres-ident. "In view of the immediate and future needs of this University ,and in view of the fact that the president presi-dent is not only the executive officer off-icer of the Board of Regents, but also the academic leader of the faculty, the majority of the faculty Committee expressed a strong preference pre-ference for candidates familiar with the breadth of purpose, and experienced exper-ienced in the operations of a university. uni-versity. "In contrast," the report continued, con-tinued, "we have the Impression that the Regents felt that administrative admin-istrative experience in industry or business represented a more valuable experience in terms of the problems to be faced by the J University in the near future. 'Both groups made a real effort to convey their feelings to each tion over who should get the top administration spot. "BY THE END OF this rather long meeting" as the Committee described it," the general atmosphere atmos-phere seemed to be that everything which could be said had been said. This turned out to be the case, since on Friday, Feb. 28, the Regents Reg-ents announced to the press their unanimous action in appointing the new president. No direct communication communi-cation of this action was made to the Faculty Search Committeft"" Concluding the report, the Committee Com-mittee said, "Although we recognize recogn-ize that it is the legal duty of the Board of Regents to select the president, pres-ident, the majority of the committee commit-tee believes it is most unfortunate that the Faculty Committee had so little influence on the final outcome." |