Thursday, November 30, 2006

UI President Search XI

Today's Commentary

References to stories are by author (or publication, if no author is indicated) in the list of "Media Stories and Commentary," below, that provide links to the full text.

1. UI Reputation. The Daily Iowan editorializes: "Botched Presidential Search Puts UI's Reputation at Stake." Its editorial board is correct. This is a major issue for the University, as I wrote November 26: "I believe this [resolving the problems and rebuilding reputation] will take years, not months, and that the current situation is much more serious than any of us realize in terms of the UI's ability to maintain its national reputation, and its ability to attract and retain research funds, faculty and staff, international and domestic visitors and students." "The Answer/So What Do I Think We Need?" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. The Daily Iowan's concern, and mine, are further born out in Ben Fornell's story of reactions from around the country, and the story that will appear in tomorrow's Chronicle of Higher Education. As I concluded "The Answer," cited and linked from above, "[T]he faster we can get this unfortunate scenario behind us, and have a new president ahead of us, the better for all involved."

2. Vilsack's commitment. Although I have run for U.S. Senate and House positions, as well as the local school board, and been involved in one way or another with most presidential elections since 1948, and was once asked (but declined) to be a presidential candidate for a third party, I have never actually been a presidental candidate. But I have some notion of the demands on Governor Vilsack's time that began (or continued and accelerated) with the formal launching of his campaign for the Democratic Party nomination for president this morning, and the travel that will take him over the next few days from Iowa to New Hampsire, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Nevada -- Nevada?! Surely not for its 5 electoral votes -- and South Carolina. See the accounts from Thomas Beaumont and Mike Glover, below.

Now most corporate or government executives at large organizations have staff to do much of what is presented as having been done by the executive; they can't possibly do it all themselves. Hopefully, that is the case with Vilsack's representations that he is going to clean up this mess with the Regents: some staffer is following through.

Although at this point, anyone not present at the secret Monday night meeting has to take everything on faith: that Vilsack did, in fact, represent that he would clean up the mess, that he specified just exactly what he was going to do and how he was going to do it, and by when, and how he was going to report back to the group -- as well as that, having made those representations, he intends to, and will, make good on them. If there is a responsible staffer, we don't know that either, or who it is, or what they are doing.

What we do know for sure is that Vilsack has succeeded in substantially suppressing, if not removing, stories in the national media associating his name with a disaster created by a Board to which he has appointed the members. He has the benefit of the appearance of the great negotiator. There were going to be "votes of no confidence" in the Regents' leadership, and he bought some time -- how much we don't know -- and succeeded in cancelling those votes.

What more will result from his intervention has yet to be revealed.

3. Timing. David Yepsen is calling for more delay in this morning's column. To support the suggestion he's laid out an agenda of issues he thinks should be resolved before a new president is appointed that (a) would take at least a year to resolve, and (b) presumably any new president would like to have at least an opportunity to become informed about, if not help shape. Whether this is entirely Yepsen's idea, or was suggested to him by someone who may have a different agenda from Yepsen, we can't know. But Kathryn Fiegen's story quotes a regent who is also supporting delay.

There is absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose from delay, as I wrote in
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006 ("The Answer"/"OK, but what's next? Where is the next UI president going to come from?"/"2. The Regents should select whomever they believe to be the best of the four finalists who emerged from their search process."). As those much wiser in such matters than myself have said, "We need a president." The longer we delay the worse it gets. There is no reason to believe yet another search will produce better possibilities that the four before the Regents right now. Indeed, the way this search has been handled we will probably get a worse selection from the next search. The Regents have absolutely everything they need before them to make this selection -- either by themselves, in secret, or following campus interviews (if the candidates, having been promised confidentiality, can be persuaded to reveal their names). There is no reason a meeting for this purpose could not be held today, or tomorrow, or the next day, or early next week.

This all seems so obvious on its face. Not that it's the "best" solution; the best solution would have been to have avoided this disaster; but it is clearly "the least worst" solution. So that one cannot help but be suspicious of the motives of those urging delay, and begin to speculate about the principals involved.

4. Wellmark during the interim. With the concern about Wellmark's role, that only grows given the secrecy surrounding the presidental search process, there are also questions about what has happened so far, and may occur during further delays in the selection process, to benefit its interest in what one anonymous comment to this blog characterizes as the "cash cow" that is the UIHC. I've already discussed concerns regarding the proposed new vice president position to oversee the UIHC and College of Medicine. "The Vice President" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search IX," November 28, 2006. There would be even more reason for concern -- regardless of Wellmark's role (or the absence thereof) -- if a part of the motive of the advocates for delay is to be able to put that vice president in place before a president has been selected, thereby making that vice president someone who would owe his or her position to someone other than the president to whom they theoretically report.

And speaking of comments on these blog entries, many of which are, admittedly "anonymous," you might want to give them a read and evaluate for yourself what you make of their content, given that you don't know the source. There's a lot of material there.

______________

This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search

Today's (November 30) is the 11th installment in this blog's report and commentary regarding the continuing saga of the Iowa Board of Regents' efforts to find a president for the University of Iowa. Here are links to the prior ten:

Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search II," November 21, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search III," November 22, 2003;

Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search IV," November 23, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search V," November 24, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VI," November 25, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VIII," November 27, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search IX," November 28, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search X," November 29, 2006.


Each contains links to the full text of such relevant reports, media stories, blogs and other commentary as I have found regarding the UI presidential search. Together I believe that collection of material to be the most complete available anywhere on the Internet. However, note that the references are not repeated from one entry to the next, so the lists in all the relevant blog entries must be checked to get the full collection.

The entries also contain some commentary of my own. For example,
  • The first contains, among other things, a summarized version of the facts, and a relatively long essay in paragraph 4 entitled, "What are the necessary qualifications for UI's president?"
  • The second includes my effort to identify eight separate categories of issues involved in these stories, provide a bit of legal analysis of Iowa's open meetings law, and reference a little history from Regent Michael Gartner's past.
  • In III I deal with the implications of the revelation that, among the reasons for rejecting the four candidates recommended by the search committee, these Regents, bedeviled by ties to health insurance company Wellmark in the past, may have nonetheless preferred the candidate they did because of her ties to a related health insurance provider. This story, of course, has implications for Governor Vilsack's presidential race, and the beginning of Governor-Elect Culver's term.
  • The fourth includes a contributor's list of Regents-Wellmark ties, and comment about what the Regents'-authorized search committee "Criteria Check List" reveals about the lack of early Regents' concern about health services experience, and some of the problems with search firms.
  • The fifth focuses on the UI's Provost, Michael J. Hogan, and what his rejection by the Regents (as one of the final four) reveals about the failures of the Regents' process.
  • In number VI the primary focus of the news, and my commentary, relates to Governor Vilsack's announcement of his meeting with Regent Gartner and UI officials in Cedar Rapids tomorrow, November 27.
  • In the seventh the discussion involved the revelations in Regent Bob Downer's column, and accompanying stories, regarding the role of Wellmark in President David Skorton's departure, and further evaluation of the perception that this Regents' mess is Governor Vilsack's Katrina as a presidential candidate, given his initial "stay the course" and "You're doing a heck of a job Mike" support of Gartner (which didn't even rise to sufficient importance for him to deliver personally, rather than through a spokesperson).
  • Number eight is limited to links to stories regarding the big story of that day: the closed meeting in Cedar Rapids with Governor Vilsack, and representatives of the Regents and UI constituent groups.
  • In the ninth my commentary touched on four issues: (1) whatever is decided with regard to the proposed "vote of no confidence," it's essential that the full list of grievances by the UI regarding the Regents behavior and process (that is, not just the way the search has been conducted) be assembled, documented, written up, and made public in order that all stakeholders may become aware of the issues that need to be addressed; (2) that the delay granted the Governor could turn into a way the issues can be deep-sixed by holding announcements until no one is on campus during the winter break, (3) that the current Regents' governance model is broken (with suggestions for repair provided from the reproduction of a column by Mark Schantz from last June), and (4) that the proposed new UI vice president position needs to be watched carefully for evidence of continuing efforts to put Wellmark-friendly in positions of conflict of interest.
  • Yesterday's, the tenth, included a "recap" regarding the proposed Vice President position, why "the grievances, the problems, need to be explained," and why "timing is everything."
_______________

Media Stories and Commentary

"Try Again," The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 1, 2006

Editorial, "Botched Presidential Search Puts UI's Reputation at Stake," The Daily Iowan, November 30, 2006

Ben Fornell, "UI Search Surprises Many; The Regents' Decision to Reject All Four Presidential Candidates Has Stunned More Than Those in the UI Community,"
The Daily Iowan, November 3j0, 2006

Kurt Hiatt, "UI's Search Firm Found Only 1 Finalist," The Daily Iowan, November 30, 2006

Richard Shannon, "Release Search Records," The Daily Iowan, November 30, 2006

Thomas Beaumont, "Vilsack kicks off long-shot campaign; The governor begins a five-state tour today to announce his candidacy for president,"
Des Moines Register, November 30, 2006 (with links to the Register site's photos and a graphic of his cross-country travel)

David Yepsen, "Slow Down, Let New Guard Sort Out U of I Mess," Des Moines Register, November 30, 2006

Diane Heldt, "Search tab: $195,227 so far; Documents released by regents reveal expenses and inner workings of the hunt for UI’s president," The Gazette, November 30, 2006

Kathryn Fiegen, "Regent: UI should not rush its search; Universities may be competing for candidates," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 30, 2006

Mike Glover, "Vilsack to Face Challenge on Home Turf,"
Washington Post, November 28, 2006

Blogs

IowaPolitics.com, "FromDC2Iowa: UI President Search VII: The Answer,"
November 27, 2006

Open Country (Maria Houser Conzemius), "Gartner and Wahlert to Resign?" November 29, 2006

State29, "The Great Negotiator,"
November 30, 2006

University Diaries (Margaret Soltan), "The Failed Presidential Search at the University of Iowa Gets More and More Interesting," November 29, 2006
______________
Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

UI President Search X

Recap: Where Are We Now?

There have been, now, ten of these blog entries regarding the UI presidential search since the announcement by the Regents on November 17 that they were rejecting the search committee's final four, firing the search committee, calling off the search, and refusing to say what's next. The list of those entries, with direct links, below, can fill in the details for anyone who's interested. I won't try to summarize all of that here.

Of course, the current status is that the Governor and representatives of the Regents and UI constituent groups met Monday evening, and that following the meeting the "votes of no confidence" scheduled for Tuesday by the Faculty Senate and others have been abandoned (or at least postponed) on the basis of unrevealed reasons for confidence that the Governor will proceed with unrevealed measures, as a result of which unrevealed problems will be resolved in unrevealed ways.

(I have set forth my own efforts to come up with the least emotionally charged resolution to all of this under the heading, "The Answer," in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.)

So while we wait to see what all this means, I will highlight what seem to me to be some important remaining issues.

1. The New UI Vice President Position and the Elephant in the Board Room: Wellmark. See the discussion under "The Vice President" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search IX," November 28, 2006. To understand the concerns here, this exercise may help: Imagine if the Governor was President George Bush, the President of the Board of Regents was Vice President Dick Cheney, and the company with seemingly disproportionate influence over University of Iowa contracts was Halliburton.

2. The Grievances, the Problems, Need to be Explained. See the discussion under this heading in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search IX," November 29, 2006. The Regents' governance process is broken and needs to be fixed. There is some confusion within the public -- and perhaps even some elected officials and media -- that the conflict is all about the way the search was handled. That is far from the entirety of the problem; it is only the latest in a years-long string of other examples. Postponing or cancelling a "vote of no confidence" is one thing; postponing or cancelling the need to address these problems is another matter entirely. For starters, that list needs to be prepared and made public. Following that, Mark Schantz' suggestion (in a column from last June reproduced in yesterday's blog entry) of a Blue Ribbon panel to address these governance issues needs to be a top priority.

3. Timing is Everything. Also discussed in yesterday's commentary is the matter of timing. If the Governor does, in fact, get everything resolved and wrapped up in a week or two, and the Regents get a new president selected from the final four, that's one thing. But a common institutional "solution" to a mess like this is to shroud it in secrecy, and postpone any announcements, until the controversy dies down and folks are focused on other things. The way to do that in a university setting is to hold the announcements until nobody's on campus -- such as during the winter break that will soon clear out Iowa City. Hopefully, that's not a part of anyone's design.

______________

This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search

Today's (November 29) is the tenth installment in this blog's report and commentary regarding the continuing saga of the Iowa Board of Regents' efforts to find a president for the University of Iowa. Here are links to the prior nine:

Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search II," November 21, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search III," November 22, 2003;

Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search IV," November 23, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search V," November 24, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VI," November 25, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VIII," November 27, 2006;
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search IX," November 28, 2006.


Each contains links to the full text of such relevant reports, media stories, blogs and other commentary as I have found regarding the UI presidential search. Together I believe that collection of material to be the most complete available anywhere on the Internet. However, note that the references are not repeated from one entry to the next, so the lists in all the relevant blog entries must be checked to get the full collection.

The entries also contain some commentary of my own. For example,
  • The first contains, among other things, a summarized version of the facts, and a relatively long essay in paragraph 4 entitled, "What are the necessary qualifications for UI's president?"
  • The second includes my effort to identify eight separate categories of issues involved in these stories, provide a bit of legal analysis of Iowa's open meetings law, and reference a little history from Regent Michael Gartner's past.
  • In III I deal with the implications of the revelation that, among the reasons for rejecting the four candidates recommended by the search committee, these Regents, bedeviled by ties to health insurance company Wellmark in the past, may have nonetheless preferred the candidate they did because of her ties to a related health insurance provider. This story, of course, has implications for Governor Vilsack's presidential race, and the beginning of Governor-Elect Culver's term.
  • The fourth includes a contributor's list of Regents-Wellmark ties, and comment about what the Regents'-authorized search committee "Criteria Check List" reveals about the lack of early Regents' concern about health services experience, and some of the problems with search firms.
  • The fifth focuses on the UI's Provost, Michael J. Hogan, and what his rejection by the Regents (as one of the final four) reveals about the failures of the Regents' process.
  • In number VI the primary focus of the news, and my commentary, relates to Governor Vilsack's announcement of his meeting with Regent Gartner and UI officials in Cedar Rapids tomorrow, November 27.
  • In the seventh the discussion involved the revelations in Regent Bob Downer's column, and accompanying stories, regarding the role of Wellmark in President David Skorton's departure, and further evaluation of the perception that this Regents' mess is Governor Vilsack's Katrina as a presidential candidate, given his initial "stay the course" and "You're doing a heck of a job Mike" support of Gartner (which didn't even rise to sufficient importance for him to deliver personally, rather than through a spokesperson).
  • Number eight is limited to links to stories regarding the big story of that day: the closed meeting in Cedar Rapids with Governor Vilsack, and representatives of the Regents and UI constituent groups.
  • In the ninth my commentary touched on four issues: (1) whatever is decided with regard to the proposed "vote of no confidence," it's essential that the full list of grievances by the UI regarding the Regents behavior and process (that is, not just the way the search has been conducted) be assembled, documented, written up, and made public in order that all stakeholders may become aware of the issues that need to be addressed; (2) that the delay granted the Governor could turn into a way the issues can be deep-sixed by holding announcements until no one is on campus during the winter break, (3) that the current Regents' governance model is broken (with suggestions for repair provided from the reproduction of a column by Mark Schantz from last June), and (4) that the proposed new UI vice president position needs to be watched carefully for evidence of continuing efforts to put Wellmark-friendly in positions of conflict of interest.
_______________

Media Stories and Commentary

Editorial, "Regents Should Reconsider Four Finalists for UI President," The Daily Iowan, November 29, 2006

Danny Valentine, "Search Still Up in Air," The Daily Iowan, November 29, 2006

Erin Jordan, "Regents ties stir concern at U of I; Critics fear insurer could be affecting presidential
search,"
Des Moines Register, November 29, 2006

Erin Jordan, "Session Fuels Optimism About Presidential Hunt," Des Moines Register, November 29, 2006

Steve Collins and Carroll Reasoner, "Obey golden rule of openness in U of I search," Des Moines Register, November 29, 2006

Diane Heldt, "Willing to wait; No-confidence votes postponed in search for new UI president,"
The Gazette, November 29, 2006

Editorial, "UI and Regents Should Talk Out in the Open," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 29, 2006

Brian Morelli, "No-confidence vote off for now; 'Fruitful' meeting with Vilsack eases tensions between regents, UI," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 29, 2006

Brian Morelli and Associated Press, "UI's Hogan Finalist for Presidency at UD," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 29, 2006

Blog

Krusty Konservative, "What is the Board of Regents Agenda?" November 29, 2006

J.D. Mendenhall, "Ode to My Alma Mater," November 28, 2006

State29, "Do You Know What I Mean?"
November 29, 2006

State29, "I Don't Want to Work, I Just Want to Bang on the Drum All Day,"
November 29, 2006
______________
Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

UI President Search IX

The Greivances, the Problems, Need to be Explained

Well, the big closed meeting with UI officials and Governor Vilsack ended last evening with very little revealed thereafter except that "progress" had been made and that maybe there wouldn't be votes of "no confidence" in the Regents' leadership after all.

The Daily Iowan editorializes, "No-Confidence Vote Not the Way to Go," The Daily Iowan, November 28, 2006. But its analysis conflates the no-confidence vote with curtailing all communication. I think that's a mistake and that there is a middle way.

Of course, communication should continue -- whether there's a vote of no confidence or not. Even President Bush is coming around to the view that perhaps a refusal to communicate with Syria, Iran and North Korea is not the best way to serve U.S. interests -- notwithstanding the equivalent of "no confidence" expressions from all sides. Similarly, there's no reason why the UI constituent groups should not continue to communicate with the Regents if the opportunity for constructive and mutually respectful dialogue presents itself.

But the no-confidence vote is another matter. Perhaps the name should be changed from "No-Confidence" to something less confrontational, such as, "A Petition from [the constituent group name] to the Governor of Iowa and the Iowa Board of Regents."

There's no reason why such a petition can't begin with a thanks to the Governor for his time and efforts in bringing the parties together, and an expressed willingness to continue negotiations so long as they continue to be profitable.

But it is essential, in my view, for all involved -- Governor, Regents, UI community and stakeholders -- for the UI groups to prepare and present to the world their lengthy list of grievances going back for years and involving far more than the most recent problems surrounding the Regents' presidential search process. Those problems should not be swept under the rug or provided nothing but a band aid in the emergency ward, in the name of "progress" having been made.

Nor should their presentation to the world be delayed. Surely everyone is aware that at least a part of what is going on here (in addition to some very commendable efforts to solve this mess) is an effort to calm the waters long enough that students and faculty are focusing on exams, following which the university will out for the holiday break, the alums are thinking about the Alamo Bowl, and the rest of the citizenry is wondering how they can handle their credit card debt in 2007 if they buy the kids all the things they want in 2006.

I first discovered this institutional public relations technique when serving as an FCC commissioner. Whenever the Commission was really up to no good it would tend to time the release of its decisions so as to minimize the media's attention. Finally, a particularly egregious example, involving a soaking of ATT's telephone subscribers with a big rate hike, prompted me to write about it in an article published by the Saturday Review under the title: "Why Ma Bell Still Believes in Santa," Saturday Review, March 11, 1972, p. 57 ("The commission . . . as usual chose a 'graveyard time' to announce an important decision -- the late afternoon of the last working day before Christmas -- in the hope that the press would not particularly notice the announcement.")

Given that the holiday season has already begun -- we've survived "Black Friday" and, yesterday, "Internet Monday" -- you can see why that old article might have come to mind, and why there may be those among us who also "believe in Santa."

Face it, the Iowa Board of Regents governance system and practices are broken (of which more later from a more credible source than myself). Those practices are not good for the State of Iowa, and they are certainly not good for the creation and maintenance of a quality academic institution. They simply must be addressed and reformed.

The listing of grievances
need not be called a "vote of no-confidence." It need not be mean-spirited. But it must be thorough and it must be candid, and it must be now.

The people of Iowa, their legislators, Regents, and the UI community must be made aware that the University's objections have not been the rantings of a bunch of petulant professors disconnected from "the real world." The full list of grievances will make clear these substantive problems are "the real world" and that the objections to them are both reasonable and responsible.

The Regents' Governance Model is Broken and Needs Repair

I have written about theories and practice of board governance, and the use of the John Carver model by the School Board of the Iowa City Community School District on which I served. See Nicholas Johnson, "Board Governance: Theory and Practice," with links to some of John Carver's writing. (One of his observations is that, without his or comparable clearly articulated governance models, "boards are incompetent groups of competent people.") And see, in the context of this presidential search, Nicholas Johnson, "What are the necessary qualifications for UI's president?" UI President Search I," November 18, 2006, par. 4. My experience and observations shape my perception of the Regents' governance problems.

But I have promised "a more credible source" on these issues than myself. And here he is -- along with a column of his from last June.

Mark
Schantz previously served as general counsel of the University of Iowa, solicitor general of Iowa and as a member of the First in the Nation in Education Commission. He is currently a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law. Thus, he's had some experience with all of this.

Needless to say, a part of the reason for a reference to Mark Schantz' take on these issues is that he and I see pretty much eye-to-eye on the problems -- and solutions. He, John Carver, and I would also tend to agree with the assessment of Steven Sample, quoted in Schantz' column:

"
Which decisions should be made by the Board of Trustees? Very few, if the trustees have the university's best interests at heart. The board should be concerned mainly with decisions that define vision and goals, and whether the president and his coterie of top-level officers are achieving their goals. In the long run, these may well be the only decisions that any university
governing board should make."


It is, however, important to note that Professor Schantz has not spoken or written publicly about the presidential search, and nothing in this column was written with that in mind. Nor is he the one who has suggested to me that I reproduce his column today in this context. But I think it is important to do so. Rather than link to it, I simply reproduce it here:

Why not a broad review of Regents' role?

Mark Schantz

Des Moines Register

June 24, 2006

Recent news articles indicate a legislative committee will raise questions about alleged Board of Regents micro-management of the University of Iowa.

Little good is likely to emerge from an investigation that focuses on specific incidents and personalities. What could be helpful is the appointment of a blue-ribbon task force by the General Assembly/governor to conduct a thorough review of the structure and functioning of the Board of Regents.

The three regents universities themselves have been the subject of several serious reviews in recent decades, as has been the K-12 system. But the basic structure and functioning of the Board of Regents has not been carefully examined from outside since it replaced the State Board of Education in 1955. That has not been the case in other states, Illinois for example.

What questions about the Board of Regents might be appropriately pursued by such a task force? The following would be a good start.

1. Should Iowa law provide a governing board for each institution rather than one overarching structure? There is necessarily some overlap in the missions and programs of the three institutions, but they also clearly possess unique strengths and face different economic realities. In an environment where available new resources are not keeping pace with increasing costs, a strategic focus of building on strengths may well make more sense than attempting equitably to allocate diminishing quality. A board dedicated, say, to Iowa State University could itself focus on goals appropriate to that institution and develop the specific expertise necessary for wise policy decisions. Certainly the current board manages institutions that are far larger, more complex and more expensive than they were in 1955.

2. Should the present trend toward centralizing the governance structure in Des Moines, often characterized as movement toward a "system" model, be halted or reversed? The staff and budget of the Board Office (staff to the Regents) has grown significantly faster than its legislative appropriation. Nearly $2 million has been reallocated from the institutions to support this growth, funds that might be better spent on hiring (or retaining) quality faculty.

3. Should the institutional governing boards be reconstituted as public corporations, as they are in many states, rather than as state agencies as they are in Iowa? Universities undertake few of the regulatory functions characteristic of most executive agencies. The public-corporation model would serve to underscore the fiduciary role of governing boards as "long-term stewards" of the universities, rather than as an extension of a governor's political program, as most true agencies are and should be. This change, then, would tend to return the boards to their historic role as buffers between short-term political concerns and long-term institution-building.

4. Should the boards and their officers be given at least general direction concerning their appropriate role? Steven B. Sample, who has led the University of Southern California to an enhanced academic reputation and relative prosperity has this to say:

Which decisions should be made by the Board of Trustees? Very few, if the trustees have the university's best interests at heart. The board should be concerned mainly with decisions that define vision and goals, and whether the president and his coterie of top-level officers are achieving their goals. In the long run, these may well be the only decisions that any university
governing board should make.

This is the advice given to all trustees by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, which includes trustees of public institutions often known as "regents." In the same vein, a board president should see herself as the presiding officer of a collective governing board, not as an executive officer superior to a university president.
_______________
MARK SCHANTZ teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law. He previously served as general counsel of the University of Iowa, solicitor general of Iowa and as a member of the First in the Nation in Education Commission. The opinions expressed above are his alone.
_______________

The Vice President


The proposed new vice president position at the University of Iowa for oversight of the UIHC and College of Medicine deserves a close look. This is not to say there is at this time any evidence whatsoever, of which I am aware, of anything out of the ordinary.

But the old "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" comes to mind. And this is not twice, or three times -- it's the fourth time.

1. The CEO of Wellmark was appointed to the Board of Regents. Given the fact that the UIHC negotiates with Wellmark over rates, this rather obvious conflict of interest ultimately led to the removal of that Board member.

2.
The Wellmark influence by means of membership on the Board of Regents having failed, when the UI President, David Skorton, stood up for the University's rights in those Wellmark negotiations, the Regents' behavior that contributed to his ultimate departure began. As Regent Bob Downer writes, "why was Skorton denied a raise comparable to the other presidents? I would submit that it was due to Skorton's heresy in giving a notice of termination of the University Hospitals' contract with Wellmark in December 2004." (See link to "Many Fences to Mend," below.)

3. As an alternative to Regents control, the latest presidential search offered the last minute opportunity for the Regents to select a UI president -- Deborah Freund -- with ties to a $5 billion health insurance company.

4. It's possible, if in fact the Regents follow their own procedure, and the suggestions of Governor Vilsack, that the president will be selected from the final four. This will leave both the Regents, and the UI president's office, without a top health insurance executive in place.

According to an anonymous comment on this blog entry, the UIHC gets 25% of its revenue from Wellmark. I have no independent knowledge of that fact, but it certainly seems ballpark. The comment also suggests that these amounts were, formerly, unilaterally set by Wellmark -- until Skorton suggested they should be negotiated, and was, according to Regent Downer, apparently run off as a result.

5. Now, as an alternatve to an insurance-friendy Regent or UI president, it has been proposed that a new (or at least not presentaly occupied) position of vice president with responsibility for the UIHC -- and its negotiations with Wellmark -- be created. It is not insulting to anyone, or irresponsible, to suggest that the search process for filling this position needs to be watched for yet another example of Wellmark influence, and the possible return to non-negotiated relations between the UIHC and Wellmark.

Media Stories and Commentary

Editorial, "No-Confidence Vote Not the Way to Go," The Daily Iowan, November 28, 2006

Dean Treftz, "Search 'Progress' Reported After Meeting," The Daily Iowan, November 28, 2006

Erin Jordan, "U of I groups delay protest votes; The governor buys time for Iowa Board of Regents," Des Moines Register, November 28, 2006

Diane Heldt, "Meeting with Governor Cools UI Tension," The Gazette, November 28, 2006

Brian Morelli, "Officials tight-lipped after meeting; No-confidence vote on regents uncertain," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2006

Brian Morelli, "No-Confidence Vote Cancelled,"
Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2006

"Fethke Urges Calm, Greer Discusses Meeting,"
Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2006

"UI Provost Finalist for Delaware Job,"
Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2006

Rachel Kipp, "Second finalist for president tours UD; Board hopes to make decision by year's end," The News Journal (Wilmington)/Deleware Online, November 28, 2006 [Provost Mike Hogan at University of Deleware]

Robert N. Downer, "Many Fences to Mend,"
Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2006
______________
Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________

Monday, November 27, 2006

UI President Search VIII


Flash:
Diane Heldt, "Governor, regents, UI officials emerge from meeting pleased," The Gazette Online, November 27, 2006 8:42 p.m.

Erin Jordan, "Vilsack works to mediate U of I controversy,"
Des Moines Register, November 27, 2006

"
6:45 p.m. UPDATE: A security guard told reporters at 6:40 p.m. that Gov. Vilsack and participants in their meeting at the U.S. Bank building in downtown Cedar Rapids had ordered food and that they would be meeting at least an hour to hour-and-a-half more, Gazette reporter Diane Heldt said." Gazette Online.

This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search

Today's (November 27) is the eighth installment in this blog's report and commentary regarding the continuing saga of the Iowa Board of Regents' efforts to find a president for the University of Iowa. Here are links to the prior six: Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006; Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search II," November 21, 2006; Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search III," November 22, 2003; Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search IV," November 23, 2006; Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search V," November 24, 2006; Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VI," November 25, 2006; Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.

Each contains links to the full text of such relevant reports, media stories, blogs and other commentary as I have found. Together I believe them to be the most complete collection available anywhere on the Internet. However, note that the references are not repeated from one entry to the next, so the lists in all the relevant blog entries must be checked to get the full collection.

The entries also contain some commentary of my own. For example,
  • The first contains, among other things, a summarized version of the facts, and a relatively long essay in paragraph 4 entitled, "What are the necessary qualifications for UI's president?"
  • The second includes my effort to identify eight separate categories of issues involved in these stories, provide a bit of legal analysis of Iowa's open meetings law, and reference a little history from Regent Michael Gartner's past.
  • In III I deal with the implications of the revelation that, among the reasons for rejecting the four candidates recommended by the search committee, these Regents, bedeviled by ties to health insurance company Wellmark in the past, may have nonetheless preferred the candidate they did because of her ties to a related health insurance provider. This story, of course, has implications for Governor Vilsack's presidential race, and the beginning of Governor-Elect Culver's term.
  • The fourth includes a contributor's list of Regents-Wellmark ties, and comment about what the Regents'-authorized search committee "Criteria Check List" reveals about the lack of early Regents' concern about health services experience, and some of the problems with search firms.
  • The fifth focuses on the UI's Provost, Michael J. Hogan, and what his rejection by the Regents (as one of the final four) reveals about the failures of the Regents' process.
  • In number VI the primary focus of the news, and my commentary, relates to Governor Vilsack's announcement of his meeting with Regent Gartner and UI officials in Cedar Rapids tomorrow, November 27.
  • In the seventh the discussion involved the revelations in Regent Bob Downer's column, and accompanying stories, regarding the role of Wellmark in President David Skorton's departure, and further evaluation of the perception that this Regents' mess is Governor Vilsack's Katrina as a presidential candidate, given his initial "stay the course" and "You're doing a heck of a job Mike" support of Gartner (which didn't even rise to sufficient importance for him to deliver personally, rather than through a spokesperson).
_______________

Commentary Regarding Today's Stories

. . . will be provided later in the day; meanwhile, today's leading stories and commentary are available, and linked from below.
_______________

Media Stories and Commentary

Editorial, "Open Presidential Search a Must to Repair UI, Regent Relations,"
The Daily Iowan, November 27, 2006

Danny Valentine, "Relations With Regents Grow Icy," The Daily Iowan, November 27, 2006

Jonathan Carlson, "Go Back to the Future in U of I Presidential Search,"
Des Moines Register, November 27, 2006

Editorial, "Gomers: What's Going Wrong,"
The Gazette, November 27, 2006

Mark Bowden, "UI Searchers Could Learn from C.R.," The Gazette, November 27, 2006

Hieu Pham, "Regents consider UI vice president; Position would oversee UIHC, College of Medicine," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 27, 2006

Related

Matt Nelson, "Plan Might be Stalled," The Daily Iowan, November 27, 2006 [status of Regents' UI "strategic planning" process]
______________
Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________

Sunday, November 26, 2006

UI President Search VII: The Answer

This, the seventh entry in this blog series about the UI presidential selection, opens with my thoughts about the solution to this mess.

[If you scroll on down you will find the usual opening -- "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search" -- with its links to the prior entries, their links to the full text of newspaper stories and other relevant material from the prior 24 hours, and summaries of the main focus of each of the prior entries. As always, it also concludes with the "Media Stories and Commentary" section, with links to the stories of the day -- today the revelations of Regent Bob Downer -- and my comments about those stories.]
The Answer

As with President Bush's efforts to re-think an exit strategy for Iraq, the deliberations of the James Baker commission, and a group of the best and the brightest of the Pentagon's officers, I think it is time we start putting some options on the table for how to get ourselves out of our own little Iraq war here in Iowa -- the Regents' botched efforts in conducting a search for a new UI president.

You're right: I have no responsibility for this mess, did not participate in it in any way, and no one has asked my advice. But that's never held me back in the past, and I've always followed the farmer's suggestion, when asked by a city slicker what he could do to help: "Grab a plow and start plowing." Right now Iowa needs all the hands on plows we can find.

Having collected and uploaded to the Internet via this blog what I believe to be the most thorough collection of relevant material from the past 10 days, having grieved and agonized over possible solutions (see paragraphs 3-6, under "Michael J. Hogan," in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search V," November 24, 2006), and given my past experience (see paragraph 4, under "4. What are the necessary qualifications for UI's President?," in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006), the following proposals and analysis may, at a minimum, prompt a discussion that can produce even better ideas from others.

So what do I think we need?

We need a solution that will preserve as much dignity as possible for Governor Vilsack and Regents Gartner and Wahlert -- "the Board leadership" -- and the UI constituent groups, especially if they go ahead with their "votes of no confidence" in the Board's leadership. We need to reassure all of the UI's stakeholders -- which includes every Iowan -- of the integrity of the search process, and that the efforts of the search committee and all who participated in the process -- along with the money spent -- was not in vain. And, like re-building the infrastructure and prospects for democracy in Iraq, we need to both be seriously and successfully about, and appear to be about, building from scratch rational governance models, and mutal respect, between the UI community and the Board of Regents. I believe this will take years, not months, and that the current situation is much more serious than any of us realize in terms of the UI's ability to maintain its national reputation, and its ability to attract and retain research funds, faculty and staff, international and domestic visitors and students.

So how do we go about that?

1. Regents Gartner and Wahlert need to announce their resignations from the Board. Now. The effective date is less important. It can be tomorrow, following the 5:00 p.m. meeting in Cedar Rapids. It could be at the end of this year, December 31. Or it could be the day Governor-Elect Culver is sworn in. The important thing is that the announcement be made as promptly as possible.

I will not repeat here, even in summary fashion, a list of all the accumulated grievances going well beyond just the search process. Many are mentioned somewhere in the stories and commentary to which these blog entries have linked. But trust me: It's a long list, with a unifying theme in terms of Regents' behavior.

I do not propose these resignations lightly. There are no good solutions to our dilemma, but this I now believe to be "the least worst" first step.

Others who have suggested this course have communicated that a sense of animus, or retribution, may be driving their suggestion Regents be replaced. That is not my motive -- indeed, quite the opposite. I have known, and known of, Michael Gartner for years. I do not wish him harm. I just think things have reached the point that his resignation is now his, and our, only option.

Properly handled, the resignations of these two can minimize the harm to themselves -- along with the festering boil that their continued service inflames, and the public relations black eye it gives to the State of Iowa in general, and the UI in particular, that grows a deeper purple with every passing day. If they can do this on their own, without the appearance or reality of intervention by Governor Vilsack or Governor-Elect Culver, it will be a great favor to the governors as well -- someting Gartner should want to do. (See
Marc Hansen, "Vilsack Image 'Iowanonymous' -- But It's Early," Des Moines Register, November 19, 2006, for Gartner's support of Vilsack's fund raising and presidential bid.)

Few administrators have demonstrated more loyalty to their appointees than President George W. Bush. And yet even Bush, after FEMA Director Michael "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" Brown's handling of Katrina, ultimately accepted his resignation. Even Bush, after repeatedly saying that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would stay as Secretary through the end of Bush's term, notwithstanding what Jon Stewart calls the "Mess-o-potamia," ultimately accepted his resignation. In both instances the way it was handled enabled both to cite the controversy surrounding them, rather than "incompetence," as the reason they were choosing to leave.

Similary, the Regents' resignations need not involve the two Regents' mea culpa. Governor Vilsack can accept their resignations with "deep regret and appreciation for their great service." He can defer to Governor-Elect Culver for their replacements -- thus totally distancing Vilsack from the start to finish of this disaster.The Regents can say that they did what they believed to be in the best interests of the State of Iowa and its Regent institutions, that there was progress in those institutions during their term of service, but that precisely because of their commitment to the welfare of those institutions, given the current controvery they realize that the best service they can perform at this time is to resign.

OK, but what's next? Where is the next UI president going to come from?

2. The Regents should select whomever they believe to be the best of the four finalists who emerged from their search process.

In my judgment, and the reason I made it paragraph 1, the resignations of the Regents' leadership are an essential preliminary to doing anything about replacing Dave Skorton.

So long as they remain on the Board I'm not sure we will be able to find anyone willing to serve as UI president under these circumstances -- or, if we are, should we want anyone who would be willing to walk into this situation just because it pays well.

One of the reasons candiates are, or should be, wary, is that it will be extraordinarily difficult for a new UI president to have, or build, the relationships he or she needs to function in that position so long as the president is perceived as someone who sees nothing wrong with, and is willing to do the bidding of, the Regents' leadership.

This is more than a way out of our dilemma, it is also, I believe, the only realistic course available.

Consider what we've been through: a near year-long search, utilizing one of the nation's top search firms, with input from one of the best-connected faculties and other stakeholders of any American university, the expenditure of hundreds or thousands of hours and probably at least a couple hundred thousand dollars total, the utilization of a "Criteria Check List" prepared by the Regents with additions from the search committee, a distinguished group of individuals on the search committee, and an advisory committee to the academic representaties on the search committee, a winnowing process that produced what even Regent Gartner described as "wonderfully accomplished people" -- as one would expect such a search would produce -- followed by interviews of the top 7 by the full Board of Regents and some members of the search committee, from which the top four were overwhelmingly supported and ultimately selected.

Even under the best of circumstances it is highly unlikely that a new, second search would produce better candidates than those produced by the search we've already conducted. And these aren't "the best of circumstances."

The odds are high -- especially if the Board leadership remains, but even if it doesn't -- that a second search would find us dealing with very wary potential candidates, reluctant even to apply, and others substantially less "wonderfully accomplished" than the ones we've already found.

Even if it were not the only option, going with the results of our first search has the added advantage of asuaging the members of the search committee, UI constituencies, and the world that's watching, with the message that what has happened was but a bump in the road rather than complete demolition from an IED (improvised explosive device) planted by a couple insurgent Regents.

It also has the advantage of maintaining face for the Regents. They are still left with the legal responsibility for selecting the UI's president, and from the pool that was produced by the process they put in place, and followed to the end in producing what they represented were good and qualified candidates -- up until the 11th hour. They might even stick with their secrecy (and therefore, presumably, not have on-campus visits -- even though I would think that a mistake, and that they ought to do what they can to encourage the final four to willingly reveal their identities). They could simply make the final selection from the final four without any additional process, arguing that if we're going to stick with the first search we also should stick with its conditions and promises of confidentiality made to the applicants

This could be done at the Regents' meeting now scheduled for mid-December in Iowa City, if not before. Because the faster we can get this unfortunate scenario behind us, and have a new president ahead of us, the better for all involved.

So, that's my proposal. What's yours?
_______________

This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search


Today's (November 26) is the seventh installment in this blog's report and commentary regarding the continuing saga of the Iowa Board of Regents' efforts to find a president for the University of Iowa. Here are links to the prior six: Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006; Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search II," November 21, 2006; Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search III," November 22, 2003; Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search IV," November 23, 2006; Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search V," November 24, 2006; Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VI," November 25, 2006.

Each contains links to the full text of such relevant reports, media stories, blogs and other commentary as I have found. Together I believe them to be the most complete collection available anywhere on the Internet. However, note that the references are not repeated from one entry to the next, so the lists in all the relevant blog entries must be checked to get the full collection.

The entries also contain some commentary of my own. For example,
  • The first contains, among other things, a summarized version of the facts, and a relatively long essay in paragraph 4 entitled, "What are the necessary qualifications for UI's president?"
  • The second includes my effort to identify eight separate categories of issues involved in these stories, provide a bit of legal analysis of Iowa's open meetings law, and reference a little history from Regent Michael Gartner's past.
  • In III I deal with the implications of the revelation that, among the reasons for rejecting the four candidates recommended by the search committee, these Regents, bedeviled by ties to health insurance company Wellmark in the past, may have nonetheless preferred the candidate they did because of her ties to a related health insurance provider. This story, of course, has implications for Governor Vilsack's presidential race, and the beginning of Governor-Elect Culver's term.
  • The fourth includes a contributor's list of Regents-Wellmark ties, and comment about what the Regents'-authorized search committee "Criteria Check List" reveals about the lack of early Regents' concern about health services experience, and some of the problems with search firms.
  • The fifth focuses on the UI's Provost, Michael J. Hogan, and what his rejection by the Regents (as one of the final four) reveals about the failures of the Regents' process.
  • In number VI the primary focus of the news, and my commentary, relates to Governor Vilsack's announcement of his meeting with Regent Gartner and UI officials in Cedar Rapids tomorrow, November 27.
_______________

Regent Robert Downer

Today was Regent Downer's day, what with his column in the Des Moines Register, along with Erin Jordan's story, as well as a story in The Gazette -- all of which are available in full text from links below, under the heading "Media Stories and Commentary."

The highlights are as follows:

1. Downer confirms what all have suspected: Skorton's being run off by the Regents "was due to Skorton's heresy in giving a notice of termination of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics/Carver College of Medicine contract with Wellmark. . . . [S]ince then . . . there seems to be an unusual level of emotion that has attached to issues involving UIHC."

On November 22 I wrote (
Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search III," November 22, 2003):
It is far too early, and I am far too inadequately informed and inherently disinclined, to be coming to conclusions. But if it is true that Governor Vilsack was willing to put a represenative of the health insurance industry on the Board, knowing it would make for a conflict of interest in the Board's negotiations with the UI hospitals, and if that contributed to David Skorton's mistreatment and departure (as a result of his standing up for the UI's interests vis-a-vis the insurance industry), and if Vilsack has received significant campaign contributions from the health insurance industry (as governor and as a presidential candidate), and if his appointments to that Board, and instructions to its members, related to the interests of that industry, and if the heavy-handed way the Board has handled the search process was driven by similar pressures, and if the Board's favoring the selection of Deborah Freund is in some way a part of this same scenario -- involving the removal of UI opposition to health insurance rates and payments by appointing an insurance-friendly UI president (rather than trying to serve the industry through Board appointments) -- all of which have been suggested in one way or another by others much more knowledgeable than myself -- then there is a much bigger story here than anyone (or at least I) ever imagined, a story of Pulitzer Prize-winning proportions. Clearly, that's a lot of "ifs." But they at least ought to be pursued and debunked, if that proves to be the proper disposition.
This is the context in which Downer's revelations, or confirmations, take their meaning. To which he notes, and adds, the irony that "Skorton possessed the qualifications that the board majority now says it needs in a U of I president."

2. Downer also describes the now-infamous last 30 hours of the search process: "Regents on the Search Committee had repeatedly told the board it would have an excellent field of candidates from which to choose. . . . This was my understanding through the conclusion of the interviews on Nov. 11, and again when the board's executive session resumed at noon on Nov. 14. However, a mere 30 hours after that meeting, these 'outstanding candidates' were found to be lacking."

3. Never has a dash conveyed so much meaning as when he writes, "It is possible that the new U of I president - if one is ever selected - will be paid . . .." (emphasis supplied) If one is ever selected?

4. Finally, he acknowledges, "Many [UI] faculty have stayed, despite higher salary offers at other institutions, because of a supportive environment, a great community in which to live and expressions of appreciation for their work by colleagues, alumni, donors - and, until now, regents." It is this that gives at least justification, and even real need, for the proposed votes of "no confidence" in the Regents' leadership by UI constituencies.

Both Erin Jordan and Scott Dochterman expand on these themes.
_______________

Governor Vilsack

We will know better by tomorrow (Monday, November 27) evening, after the 5:00 p.m. meeting between the Governor, Michael Gartner, and UI representatives just how seriously the Governor believes this crisis is -- for him.

One blogger on the Des Moines Register's blog site commented, "This responsibility for this fiasco lies directly at the feet of Governor Vilsack, who selected the Regents. If he does not fix this before he leaves office–by demanding the resignation of several regents and publically stating that their approach to this was terribly inappropriate – I will never support him in his presidential bid. His regents may be his Michael Brown and the search may be his Katrina. Such poor judgment is not competent presidential material.
"

Another writes, "Ever since John Forsyth was appointed to the BOR, I have been looking for some indication that the Regents actually have a clue about what their role is vis a vis the state universities. It seems this particular groups wants to exploit the resources of the universities for their own aggrandizement (read “insurance industry”).

"In my opinion, this all comes down to whether or not our state’s flagship university will be 'the University of Iowa' or 'the University of a Small Group of Powerful Rich People Who Live in Des Moines.'

"I promise you, this will be an issue when Vilsack runs in the Iowa caucuses."

Comments, "U of I Presidential Search,"
Newsroom Online, Des Moines Register, November 23, 2006

Look, these are the comments of only two people in a state of nearly three million, and I don't even know who they are. But I do think there are analogies to President Bush's handling of Katrina and FEMA Director Michael "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" Brown. Just consider these passages from Brian Morelli's November 21 report of Governor Vilsack's initial reactions to the Regents-created Katrina that hit Iowa City.

"Gov. Tom Vilsack, through his spokesperson Jennifer Mullin, said time is needed for parties involved to reach out to each other so they can move forward to find the best possible person to lead UI.

. . .

Mullin said it would be unusual for the governor to step into the situation.

"It is not something he would get involved in. The governor appoints very capable people to handle these types of situations," (emphass supplied) Mullin said of regent appointees, all of which Vilsack appointed.

"Regarding possible open meeting violations, Mullin said Vilsack does not have all the details.

. . .

"He doesn't know all of the details of these meetings, so he can't say one way or another if regents failed open meetings laws," Mullin said, noting that Vilsack said four attorneys advised the regents.

"The attorneys did not include Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, his chief-of-staff Eric Tabor said."

Brian Morelli, "Fallout Continues From Regents' Decision; Groups move toward no confidence vote; Vilsack won't step in," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 21, 2006.

_______________

Media Stories and Commentary

Editorial, "Do search Iowa's way: In the open; Honor public's expectation for government in sunshine," Des Moines Register, November 26, 2006

Robert Downer, "Regent Questions Treatment of Skorton, Halting of Search," Des Moines Register, November 26, 2006

Erin Jordan, "U of I seeks remedy for unease; Those wanting a university president with experience in health care had one until they drove him away, one regent says," Des Moines Register, November 26, 2006

Lynn Campbell, "College leaders fare well elsewhere; Some who left Iowa now among nation's highest-paid, survey shows,"
Des Moines Register, November 26, 2006; but see, in this connection,
Nicholas Johnson, "Pricey Presidents' Added Cost," The Daily Iowan, March 7, 2006

Scott Dochterman, "I.C. regent wants search continued; Downer’s was 1 of 2 votes to keep going," The Gazette, November 26, 2006

Editorial, "Regents Condense Iowa City Meeting," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 26, 2006

Related

Joe Gardyasz, "High-tech tug of war," Des Moines Business Record Online, November 26, 2006 ("[Regents President] Michael Gartner was very persuasive that the money should go through the regents directly and not through the IDED board.")

Rod Boshart, "The man who would be president; Vilsack’s friends, colleagues say he has what it takes," The Gazette, November 26, 2006

Blogs

State29, "Iowa Measures its Penis Size According to a University President's Salary," November 26, 2006; "Pre-Turkey Roundup," November 22, 2006; "Michael Gartner is a Cranky Guy in a Bow Tie," November 21, 2006.
______________
Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site www.nicholasjohnson.org
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________