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: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents,

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

_______________