UI President Search XV

Updated, Revised December 15, 5:00 p.m., 6:15 p.m.; December 16, 9:30 a.m., 9:15 p.m. (Links to additional stories and other material; additions of essays under "Mardi Gras," "Which Would be Worse?," "In Praise of Michael Gartner," "Wellmark: Malignant or Benign?," revisions and additions throughout.) December 17, 11:00 a.m. (See sub-heading "December 17" under "Commentary" and under "Media Stories and Commentary.)

[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story, these blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the leftmost column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehesive analyses of the controversy." The last entry containing the summary of prior entries (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.]

Commentary

The pressure for Regents' resignations is mounting.

In addition to the "no confidence" resolutions from university groups, focusing on the need to remove the Regents' "leadership" (a euphemism for Regents Gartner and Wahlert) two Iowa State Senators have suggested that the better procedure would be for all regents to tender their resignations to Governor-Elect Culver, leaving him the option of re-appointing some and not others.

Today's Press-Citizen editorial supports this approach.

Consistent with this solution, a sitting regent, Tom Bedell, has announced that he will be the first to offer his resignation, along with his statement of the need for new Regents' leadership.

Former Regents president and UI supporter Marvin Pomerantz has said of Regent Gartner, "It's a policy-making board. Mike engenders conflict where ever he goes, . . . he’s not a great leader."

Blogger State29 has been reviewing the allegations of some troubling past history involving Gartner in previous administrative positions.

The Johnson County Democrats -- an organization central to any presidential hopeful's success in the Iowa caucuses (including Governor Vilsack's) -- has joined the chorus.

And virtually every possible representative group of UI personnel -- faculty, staff, College of Liberal Arts, graduate students, and student government -- has overwhelminglyly passed resolutions of "no confidence" in the Regents.

Earlier this week I called Faculty Senate President Shelly Kurtz' statement to the Senate on December 12 (also available as a link from "Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIV," December 12, 2006 (with updates and revisions)) the single most important document regarding the situation.

Why? Because it makes abundantly clear to all who will but read it, that what is happening is not what Regent Gartner has called a "circus," or "Mardi Gras," or "an Iowa City" phenomenon. Today's Des Moines Register carries Kurtz' statement in full to Register readers around the state -- along with the shorter op ed version which the Press-Citizen also carries this morning. Hopefully, it will help many Iowans better understand the seriousness of the situation.

Meanwhile, Gartner continues to dismiss, ridicule and trivialize the observations and complaints about his "leadership."

"Stay the course," says Governor Vilsack -- long after President Bush has abandoned the phrase. He declares that he still has confidence in the Regents' leadership -- a leadership which, in its spare time, is helping the Governor raise money for his presidential campaign.

Anyone old enough to remember the Viet Nam War may find Vilsack's position reminiscent of Pete Seeger's song, "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy," written for the "Smothers' Brothers Comedy Hour," but censored by CBS. It contained the line, "Waist deep in the Big Muddy, and the big fool says, 'Push on.'"

To remove any possible ambiguity, the purpose of this reference is not to suggest that Vilsack or Gartner are either "fools" or "big fools." I tend not to use that word myself, because I don't find it either very descriptive or analytically useful. To the extent it has a meaning it is not a meaning I would ascribe to either of those gentlemen.

The point of the reference is that there comes a time when what is increasingly seen to be a failed course of action should be abandoned, rather than pursued. It is my judgment that this is such a time (as I put forth in "Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII -- The Answer," November 26, 2006): that both Vilsack and Gartner would be personally advantaged (as well as doing the right thing for Iowa) to stop "pushing on," recognize the seriousness of the situation brought on by the Regents' failed leadership and that replacing that leadership is really their best "least worst" option at this point, and that every additional day's delay in doing so is simply making the situation -- and their own best interests -- worse.

Mardi Gras

Regent Gartner has compared the reactions of the UI's stakeholders to his leadership to "Mardi Gras."

Having spent some time working in New Orleans, I am tempted to reply with a reference to the exchange between Senators Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle during the 1988 debate when both were running for Vice President on their respective parties' tickets. Quayle compared himself to Senator Kennedy. Senator Bentsen responded, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy."

"Regent Gartner, I served in New Orleans. I knew New Orleans. New Orleans was a friend of mine. Regent Gartner, what you have created is no Mardi Gras."

I have enormous respect for Regent Tom Bedell -- as I do for his father, Berkley Bedell. I will continue to praise him for his genuine commitment to Iowa, its universities, its Board of Regents, and his leadership in speaking out, courage to criticize the leadership of the Board on which he serves, and the sacrifice represented by his offer to tender his resignation.

Moreover, I even understand what might have caused him to criticize those speaking on behalf of the thousands of individuals in virtually every UI group of stakeholders who expressed their near-unanimous "no confidence" in the Board of Regents. He characterized it as "disgusting and embarrassing."

Clearly, there is human behavior that fairly can be characterized as "disgusting and embarrassing." It may be a child throwing a tantrum in the supermarket, a corporate CEO throwing a tantrum over a missed sales goal, an Army drill sergeant over a recruit's poor performance, a professor over the failure to get a classroom or a requested parking space -- or a regent whose top choice for university president didn't make it to the "final four."

But equally clearly, there are other occasions when the behavior of protest is understood to be an acceptable expression of personal conscience.

This was the case for Martin Luther when he declared his intolerance for the Roman Church’s corruption on Halloween in 1517, by nailing his 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Church door. It's the way most of us view the actions of his namesake, Dr. Martin Luther King, with his non-violent civil disobedience and marches in the South during the 1960s. It is true for the "conscientious objector" called to military service. It is the distinction we recognize between walking out of a marriage because of a verbal argument, and a wife's seeking shelter from an environment of perpetual physical abuse. It is the distinction between employees' general grousing and the protection we accord the "whistle-blower" who reveals an institution's practices that may be unethical, illegal or a potential threat to the health and safety of the public. In the most extreme, it is represented by the response of the early colonists in the "Declaration of Independence" that was to become the birth announcement for our nation.

As you may have guessed by now, I believe the reactions of the UI stakeholder groups is of this latter character. It is not mere professorial petulance. It is not, as Gartner says, a "circus atmosphere" or "Mardi Gras" brought on by a "lynch mob." It is not, as he asserts, "a governance issue" -- at least not in the sense that he means: "who governs the University of Iowa -- the Board of Regents or . . . the faculty over there?" (Indeed, as Faculty Senate President Kurtz stated directly, "Let me begin by emphasizing that the Faculty Senate fully recognizes that the Regents have the statutory responsibility to select our next president.")

It is for that reason that I do not believe these differences are something that, to quote Gartner's belief expressed in his "Iowa Press" interview, "time will take care of." Nor is it something that will be resolved with Regent Bedell's recommendation of "a cooling off period." A cooling off period can be an effective remedy when two kindergarten kids get in a fight. It can be useful after a married couple's argument. It cannot solve the problem of a husband prone to violence who regularly beats his wife. And it is not alone enough to resolve what Jay Christenson-Szalanski brilliantly identifies in his December 15 Press-Citizen column as a clash of cultures between the University and the current Regents' leadership. (My own efforts at describing a "university culture" and how to "manage" it is in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIV," December 12, 2006 (section I).)

It is my belief that the former and present Regents, Iowa State senators, editorial boards, and stakeholder groups that have taken a stand are genuine in their concern that the current Regents leadership's governance model is grossly at odds with that of prior boards of regents and with the very basic requirements of any university. So far as I know, this is the first time in the 160-year history of the University that these groups have felt so strongly about regents' misdirection.

That is why I am urging every legislator and regent, every journalist and editorial writer, every columnist and composer of letters to the editor and blogs, every educator from around the country who is following this saga, to read President Kurtz' statement word for word. Having done so, you may disagree with one or more of his facts, analyses, and conclusions, but I doubt that anyone would still believe that he is just the ringmaster for a "circus" or "inmates wanting to run the institution." The concerns of which he speaks are those of individuals who have agonized over what they believe are dangerous risks to a valuable educational asset for the people of Iowa.

_______________

Which Would be Worse?

"Which would be worse, in a way?" was a line used by UC Berkeley professor Michael Rogan in the CBS "60 Minutes" segment called "Ronald Reagan the Movie," December 15, 1985 (also the title of Professor Rogan's paper and presentation). Professor Rogan had discovered that President Reagan had referred in speeches to an event from a fictional film as if it really had occurred. Morley Safer asked Professor Rogan whether he thought the President knew he was misrepresenting history or whether Reagan thought the event actually had occurred. Rogan paused, then responded, before addressing the question, "Which would be worse, in a way?"

We are left to ask the same question about Regent Michael Gartner.

Gartner has made a number of public comments about the UI faculty in general, and individual members in particular, which faculty have characterized as "disparaging." (The Board of Regents inquired of the University regarding the salaries and teaching loads of each of the major spokespersons who had challenged their actions -- the Board said on behalf of a "legislator," whom they refused to identify. This was thought by many to have been a deliberate effort at intimidation.) For example, his email exchanges with Brian Morelli, published (with Gartner's permission) by the Press-Citizen, contain the following. Morelli asked if Gartner would like to explain why he would talk about the salary and teaching load of an individual faculty member (who served on the search committee and complained about the Regent's rejection of all four finalists). Gartner wrote:

"If repeating those facts - that [the professor] was teaching one course and that she was making $80,000 or $90,000 a year, or whatever, is disparagement, then I guess I don't know what disparagement is. . . . I probably also repeated another thing [she] told me -- that she uses only Citgo oil in her car, because she believes that that helps the poor people of Venezuela. I found that interesting."

"I suspect there are people in this state who would think that $85,000 for nine months and the teaching of one course are simply interesting facts. . . . I meet every six weeks or so with student representatives of all three student governments. There usually are two representatives of the University of Iowa there. I could well have commented on her salary and teaching load, because I find that interesting."

Many would find this behavior by the President of the Iowa State Board of Regents, his disparagement of the university and its faculty as an institution as well as the community of Iowa City, this effort to engage in deliberate ridicule, disparagement and embarrassment -- if not, indeed, intimidation -- of individual faculty members, this populist appeal to the anti-intellectualism that exists within much of the population, to be inconsistent with his responsibility to lobby and otherwise work for the best interests of the University.

And so we are left with the "which would be worse?" question for Michael Gartner. Would it be worse that he is unaware of his responsibility, his role, and the impact of his actions and statements? Or would it be worse that he is well aware of what he is doing and that he is deliberately setting about destroying the very institution he is sworn to build and advance?

_______________

In Praise of Michael Gartner

Regents President Michael Gartner has taken a bit of a beating around the ears the past couple of weeks. (This picture is from The Daily Iowan of December 12.) He may feel that I've even contributed to it with the comments immediately above and elsewhere. Others may feel that he's mostly brought it on himself.

But this morning (December 16), as I was reading today's Louisville Courier-Journal online, what should I come upon but Michael Gartner's book review of The Letters of E.B. White. It's a beautifully written review. And both what Gartner's written, and the way he's written it, show that -- like many of our generation -- he's clearly been influenced by, and is an admirer of E.B. White, whom the headline writer confidently characterizes as, simply, "America's Best Essayist."

My first reaction, at a human level, was a smile and the pleasure of knowing that, in the midst of all that's going on around him, Gartner was able to pause, relax, retreat into the writing of an old friend, and pay him the tribute he did.

My second reaction was to reflect back upon the words of Marvin Pomerantz -- words mostly remembered for his criticism of Mr. Gartner, supporting the chorus calling for Gartner's resignation: "Mike engenders conflict wherever he goes . . . he's not a great leader."

But Pomerantz, in fairness to Gartner, was more balanced in his assessment, also saying: "Mike is brilliant. He's got a lot of great ideas. . .." (He is also a Pulitzer Prize winner -- 1997, editorial writing.)

In addition to faculty and other complaints about Regent Gartner's handling of the UI president search, there were comparable complaints about the secrecy of -- and exclusions of interested parties from -- Gartner's earlier strategic planning efforts. But notwithstanding those process-focused complaints, all I heard was a general acknowledgment that the questions he was asking, and the issues he was raising, were appropriate and constructive.

So what's the point of this sidebar? It's that, while I continue believe that it would be in Michael Gartner's best personal interest to at least resign as president of the Regents, if not entirely from the Board, I think it would be a mistake to lose his input entirely.

I, too, have always liked to spin off ideas, proposals and analyses to stimulate good discussion ever since my high school debating years. When serving as a local school board member I wrote a column every two weeks throughout my three-year term exploring a wide range of K-12 issues. But I long ago came to realize that 90 percent of my ideas would be rejected -- some because they would have to wait 10 or 20 years before they'd be adopted, others because they really should be rejected in any age. My law school colleagues are especially skilled in pointing out those that fall in the latter category. Finding the 10 percent has always been the challenge.

I think it would be as big a mistake to let Michael Gartner dictate what the State's universities should become as it would be if all of my ideas about college reform were to be adopted (some of which can be found in earlier entries in this blog, see the Blog Index).

But considering his experience, range of interests, intellectual and writing ability and clear interest in higher education, so long as he is not president of the Regents, or chair of the strategic planning committee, I think that it would be equally short sighted not to benefit from what are bound to be his creative and controversial contributions to a discussion of the future of Iowa's universities.

In short, there's no reason not to acknowledge, praise and draw upon his strengths at the same time one is identifying what are perceived as his less well developed skills.

_______________

Wellmark: Malignant or Benign?

Having spent some of my professional lifetime dealing with a variety of corporate abuses and executives' greed and disregard of the public interest I would not refuse to listen to a fact-based explanation of why Wellmark represents just one more example.

But I emphasize "fact-based."

David Elbert's column in the Des Moines Register's business section, which I had meant to bring into this discussion a week ago, makes some assertions I can't buy: "conflicts of interests . . . exist, or should exist, on the boards of virtually every major business and institution in the nation. . . . [B]oards that don't have members who represent conflicting interests aren't doing their jobs . . .."

Sorry, but I don't think that conflicts of interest are either necessary or desirable for board members of any institution. Nor are they legal, ruled Iowa's Attorney General, Tom Miller, when John Forsyth was simultaneously serving as CEO of Wellmark and President of the Board of Regents (which contracts with Wellmark).

There is a lot of very stimulating commentary that has been appended to these blog entries. And what I'm requesting now is some more on the Wellmark issue from someone who understands it much better than I.

Elbert says that Wellmark is a "mutual," owned by the policyholders. If Wellmark is not, in fact, a publicly traded, for-profit corporation, what then is the primary problem, or conflict? Is it that its administrative costs are too high? That its executives are paid too much in salary, benefits and bonuses?

If, as Elbert says, Wellmark has an incentive to hold down hospital and other medical costs, what problem does that create? Is it that it "holds down costs" by shifting what would otherwise be policyholders' reimbursed medical costs onto those policyholders as "co-payments"? Is the "conflict" that Wellmark wishes to hold down the costs (for its policyholders, and which Wellmark would have to reimburse) and the UIHC wants to raise its prices/costs (with a resulting increase in the reimbursements it will receive from Wellmark)?

Is the problem that Wellmark is a single-source supplier, with a monopolist's power to set prices? Would it be better if the UIHC had the services of multiple insurance companies competing with each other on price and service?

Is Wellmark even an insurer for the UI employees, or is the University in effect "self-insured," and simply outsourcing to Wellmark the administrative task of processing the paperwork? What complications does this create with regard to the comparative charges for UI employees and those hospital patients who are not UI employees?

As I say, I'm prepared to believe anything that's fact-based. But it would be helpful to have an analysis or rebuttle of Elbert's column, with an explanation of the problems, from someone who's informed, inclined, and doesn't have their own conflict of interest on the issues.

_______________

Commentary December 17

1. Gartner and "natural leaders." On this morning's (December 17) "Meet the Press" former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said of himself, with regard to a possible run for the presidency, "I'm not a natural leader; I am a natural intellectual and gadfly." Here's a guy who's already at 10% in the polls for president of the United States and was chosen by his colleagues to be Speaker of the U.S. House of Represenatives (and thereby third in line for the presidency) who is able to concede on national television that his strength is more as an idea guy and gadfly than as a leader or administrator. That's the sort of thing I was saying of Garter yesterday under the heading, "In Praise of Michael Gartner."

2. The Wellmark "conflict." Yesterday I put out a call for information about the relationship between Wellmark and the UIHC -- since that has figured prominently in some of the sidebar criticism of the Regents' driving away Skorton and insisting on replacing him with a health insurance board member. Boy, did I get a response in the comments to this blog entry! And I thank all you anonymous contributors -- and John Neff -- for your participation. But I feel like the audience member who told the nuclear physicist after his lecture, "Before your lecture I was very confused about nuclear energy. Now I am still confused, but on a much higher plane." So far as the UIHC's problem funding the indigents and inmates it must serve, that's a real one, and serious -- but not, as I now see it, really Wellmark's fault or responsibility. Based on my limited understanding, it just strikes me as one more good reason why we need to join the civilized/industrialized world and adopt a system of universal, single-payer health care for all Americans.

3. "An Iowa City Issue." In his "Iowa Press" interview (linked below) Michael Gartner said of the Regents problem at UI: "the issue doesn't appear at Iowa State. It doesn't appear at UNI. It's sort of an Iowa City issue." It turns out he may have spoken too soon. See "Officials at Other Universities Speak Out," linked below, for the sentiments from Ames and Cedar Falls supporting the UI faculty's concerns.

4. "Governance." Some of this morning's stories are discussing the "governance" issue. I have created a Web site devoted to governance issues, played a major role in fashioning a reform of a local school board's governance model using the John Carver approach, and have written about it at some length in a blog entry relating to this UI presidential search: Nicholas Johnson, "The Regents Governance Model is Broken and Needs Repair," UI President Search IX, November 28, 2006. Whether those interested in this subject care about what I've written and done is not crucial. What would be a tragedy, and not a little bit ironic in an academic environment, is if they fail to recognize that there is a substantial body of literature, data regarding "what works," case studies of success and failure with regard to the practices and procedures and governance models used by boards of directors in relating to CEOs and institutional personnel. Let's begin this process with a little bit of research, folks, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel based on our instincts and limited personal experience.

4. It's not all "governance." There are a variety of governance models. Some work better than others for boards of regents, although there are a goodly number of universal principles of board governance.

But once again, I refer you to UI Faculty Senate President Shelly Kurtz' statement regarding the vote of no confidence in the Regents' leadership. Many and possibly most of what concerned the UI faculty would have been -- and should have been -- a matter of concern regardless of the governance model used. Katherine Tachau has provided her own take on some additional facts, relevant in this connection, in response to Michael Gartner's assertion that “These people make emotional charges and they never, ever have facts.”

Representations ("promises") that turn out not to be true (e.g., campus visits by the final four), established processes and procedures abandoned at the last minute (e.g., a final four recommended by a 10-month search process, search committee, including regents, that are subsequently all rejected -- following which one is offered the job anyway), unnecessary secrecy about proceedings that may well have violated the letter as well as the spirit of the Iowa open meetings law, a demonstrated lack of civility and collgiality, a willingness to engage in disparagement and intimidation of employees -- the list goes on -- are not issues about a broken "governance model."

Regent Gartner said in his "Iowa Press" interview "the isue is who governs the University of Iowa, the Regents or . . . the faculty over there." There are a number of things wrong with that statement. (1) That's not an issue so far as the faculty is concerned, as President Kurtz makes unambiguously clear in the very opening of his statement. The faculty clearly understands that the Iowa Code places some form of governance responsibility in the Regents. (2) It's an incredibly naive and simplistic statement about governance, an understanding (let alone fashioning) of which is almost never aided by asking, "Who governs?" (3) It fails to acknowledge in any way whatsoever the concerns expressed in Kurtz' statement, and illustrated in the paragraph above, that exist without regard to governance models.



_______________

Media Stories and Commentary

Ben Fornell, "UISG Rebukes Regents, Vilsack," The Daily Iowan, December 15, 2006

Danny Valentine and Mason Kerns, "Regent Bedell Resigns; Blasts Board, UI," The Daily Iowan, December 15, 2006

Erin Jordan and Jonathan Roos, "Vexed Regent Bedell Resigns; He says U of I flap puts bigger issues on hold," Des Moines Register, December 15, 2006

Lee Hermiston, "Two Votes by Students Rip Regents, Vilsack," Des Moines Register, December 15, 2006

"Regent Tom Bedell's Letter of Resignation," Des Moines Register, December 15, 2006

"Regent Explains Resignation to Citizens" (Regent Tom Bedell's Statement), Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 15, 2006

Sheldon Kurtz, "Changing Leadership of Regents 'Essential,'" Des Moines Register, December 15, 2006

David Elbert, "Conflicts in U of I Search Difficult to Avoid; A squabble over perceived Wellmark link to regents and school's hospital has effect on hunt for leader," Des Moines Register, December 10, 2006

Diane Heldt, "Regent Resigns Over UI Search; Bedell blames all sides, hopes his exit shakes up leadership," The Gazette, December 15, 2006

Rebecca McKanna, "University of Iowa Students Add Voice to Regents Conflict," The Gazette, December 15, 2006

Editorial, "One Face-Saving Way Out of UI, Regents Impasse," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 15, 2006

Editorial, "Rogue Regents Wreck Search," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 10, 2006

Mike McWilliams, "Bedell Resigns, Says Regents Failed; Calls UI officials' actions 'disgusting,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 15, 2006

Brian Morelli, "Regents to Talk About 2nd Search; Open Meeting Monday," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 16, 2006

Brian Morelli, "Regent Defends Inquiries; Says it was not attempt to intimidate," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 10, 2006

David Barker, "Time to Move Beyond Iowa City's of 'Orgy of Self Righteousness,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 15, 2006

Jonathan Carlson, "Don't Abandon On-Campus Interviews of UI Candidates," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 15, 2006

Jay Christenson-Szalanski, "UI vs. Regents: Controversy is About Success Not Power," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 15, 2006

"Ten Letters to the Editor," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 13 and 15, 2006

• William Stanford, "It's More Than a 'Radical Minority'"
• Ilse Bendorf, "Why Are Regents Bullying Faculty?"
• John Solow, "Using This Mess to Do Some Good"
• Paul Maske, "Dems Are Right About Regents"
• Thomas Miller, "Leave Politics Out of UI Search"
• Harold L. Hammond, "It's Time for the Regents to Act"
• Kirsten Jensen, "Get Rid of the Entire Structure"
• Charles Miller, "Don't Lose Sight of UI's Mission"
• Bill Decker, "More Than Just a Power Struggle"
• Daniel C. Zwiener, "Request Designed to Intimidate"
  

Sheldon Kurtz, "Regents Haven't Met Their 'Duty of Care,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 15, 2006

"Memo From Deans to Regents, Governor," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 15, 2006

Darwin Danielson, "Regent Resigns Over Controversy With U-I President's Search," Radio Iowa, December 15, 2006

"Michael Gartner -- Iowa Board of Regents," Iowa Press/Iowa Public Television, December 15, 2006 (transcript)

Michael Gartner, "America's Best Essayist Showed 'an Eloquent and Lifelong Devotion' to Friends and Freedom; Book Review, Letters of E.B. White," Louisville Courier-Journal, December 16, 2006

Katherine H. Tachau, "'Facts' and Michael Gartner," December 15, 2006

Blogs

Cyclone Conservatives, "One Down, the Rest to Go," December 15, 2006

Open Country (Maria Houser Conzemius), "Replies to Vilsack: Fly Home, Fire Gartner and Wahlert," December 15, 2006

Open Country (Maria Houser Conszemius), "Michael Gartner Stays the Course," December 15, 2006 (a review of Gartner interview on "Iowa Press," Iowa Public Television, December 15, 2006, 7:30 p.m.)

State29, "Statement on the Resolution of No Confidence in the Leadership of the Board of Regents," December 14, 2006

Straight Out of the Cornfield (David Goodner), "One Down, Eight to Go?" December 14, 2006

Media Stories and Commentary December 17

Erin Jordan, "Deans Fear U of I Brouhaha Will Drive Off Faculty; College leaders want regents to name a new president by July 1, 2007," Des Moines Register, December 17, 2006

Jonathan Roos and Erin Jordan, "State May Question Regents; Legislature could weigh in on U of I president search," Des Moines Register, December 17, 2006

"Officials At Other Universities Speak Out," Des Moines Register, December 17, 2006

David Yepsen, "Why Not Just Elect Regents?" Des Moines Register, December 17, 2006

Editorial, "UI Search Not Quite Ready," The Gazette, December 17, 2006

Diane Heldt, "Who Runs State School? UI presidential search failure raises questions on shared governance," The Gazette, December 17, 2006

Diane Heldt, "Regents Prepare for Next UI Presidential Search," The Gazette, December 17, 2006

Zack Kucharski, "President Controversy Retreats at UI Graduation," The Gazette, December 17, 2006

Robert Anderson, Sen. Daryl Beall and Rep. Willard Jenkins, "Education: Treasure Iowa's Most Valuable Export," The Gazette, December 17, 2006

Editorial, "Rogue Regents and Frenzied Faculty," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 17, 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

_______________