Jan. 30, 9:00 a.m., 9:25 a.m., 12:15 p.m., 2:25 p.m. (response to reader comments)
This morning's stories deal with the Gartner-ordered Iowa State Auditor's investigation of the Colloton emails leak, the Press-Citizen's revelations of Downer-Colloton correspondence and e-mails, a Daily-Iowan editorial regarding Grassley's investigation of the tax deductibility of "contributions" to college athletic programs, and letters to the Press-Citizen involving the "attack" on Colloton and the UI sports program's involvement with the Iowa Lottery. There's even an Earthpark story! (The Press-Citizen letters from Saturday and Sunday's editions, and the Monday morning Daily Iowan, were not available when yesterday's blog entry was prepared, but are included in the links below.)
State Auditor's Investigation
There are a number of aspects of the use of the Iowa State Auditor to investigate computer security at the UIHC that concern me.
1. Gartner's role and Board governance. The Daily Iowan reminds us this morning, "This issue first publicly surfaced when state Board of Regents President Michael Gartner asked for an investigation into the incident during a Jan. 11 telephone conference." There may have been formal Board action on this matter during the January 11 phone call. I don't know. But what it sounds like is yet one more example of Board President Gartner's unilateral action in the name of the Board -- while the Board members sit idly by and let him do it without even questioning, let alone rebelling at, what he is doing.
2. Micromanaging and Board governance. Assume for the moment that this did involve formal Board action. Is it an appropriate thing for a Board (a board of any institution) to get itself involved in? Whether it is characterized as a "security breach" (Gartner's characterization) or a "personnel matter" (the University's characterization) it strikes me as a level of detail that involves many layers of management below a board that is properly focused on "policy." I'm not suggesting it wasn't serious or important. I'm just questioning who should most appropriately have first responsibility for following up. I don't think that's the Regents. I don't even think it is a matter for University Interim President or the newly appointed hospital vice president. It's a detail for the hospital CEO, if that.
3. Violation of Board's appellate responsibilities. When this investigation was first proposed by Gartner, it was pointed out how it violated the Regents' responsibilities as an appellate body. I have not researched this, so I don't speak with any authority, but it is my understanding that, if a UI employee wishes to appeal a punishment imposed upon him or her, the appellate process ultimately lands on the Regents' desks. If that were to occur in this case, as a result of the Regents playing the role of the prosecutor their independence as a reviewing body has been compromised.
4. Did the UI "request" this audit or not? Erin Jordan's story begins, "The University of Iowa has asked the state auditor's office to investigate computer security at University Hospitals after an employee accessed private information of a former director. U of I Interim President Gary Fethke said in a news release Monday he wanted the external review . . .." Isn't this a Regent-ordered investigation -- complete with (according to Jordan's story) the use of the Regents' own internal auditor? The University earlier said that this was a "personnel matter" that was thoroughly investigated, and on which the case was closed as of January 15. What happened in the interim that would cause Fethke to say that "he wanted the external review"? Was he instructed to say this, and if so by whom?
5. What is there to audit? The University in general, and the UIHC in particular, have computer systems ("Information Technology," "IT") professionals in place. They are very conscious of the security risks that come with computer and network hardware and software in large institutions, and the computer hackers who like to break into systems -- mostly for fun, but some to engage in identity theft, invasions of privacy, or access to cash or credit cards. They have systems in place to minimize such risks, and they are updated regularly as new risks are known. As Lyle Muller reports this morning, "Interim UI President Gary Fethke said the university constantly audits how it controls access to its information technology in an effort to protect electronic records and documents."
Moreover, it is relevant to note that hardware or software (a "security breach") was not the cause of the unauthorized access to John Colloton emails -- if the University's earliest representations can be believed. There was no "hacker." There was no compromise of employee or patient records. It was described as a "personnel matter." That suggests another category of risks that has little or nothing to do with IT procedures regarding hardware and software.
I cannot know what happened. I have no source other than the stories in the papers. But it sounds like someone who was authorized to have access to Colloton's computer, or that of his secretary, or the backup tapes (or other media) on which the emails were stored -- but someone who was not authorized to copy and remove from the premises the content of those emails -- may have made copies that played a role in the process that resulted in some of Colloton's emails having been provided to the Press-Citizen.
That is what I would call a "personnel matter." And the University says its investigation of that was completed by January 15.
So the State Auditor can try to familiarize himself with the hardware and software protections the UI IT people have in place -- even though those protections are apparently irrelevant to this case. And he can find out what practices are followed in the hiring and oversight of IT personnel. But unless he can come up with some new "employee honesty vaccine" with which all IT new hires are injected there's not much he can do.
And, failing those options, what is there to "audit" -- especially what is there to audit that will take "a number of months" (which is what Lyle Muller quotes State Auditor David Vaudt as saying is his timeline)?
6. What's this really about? What is Gartner up to, and why? Is he really more interested in who did it than in what that person did, and what can be done to minimize the risk of such things occurring again? Does he want to impose his own personal punishment on whoever did this dastardly deed that might end up embarrassing him and his friend John Colloton?
Speculation is not very productive. But the saga of the Regents and the University of Iowa does get "curiouser and curiouser," doesn't it?
Response to Blog Comments
This blog has been blessed with some high quality comments from time to time for which I am grateful. Sometimes funny, often serious, almost always insightful, few actually require a response from me, but all are appreciated. When I do respond, however, I tend to do it within a blog entry, rather than as a comment -- as the other day when I followed up on the comment regarding the op ed last December about the Attorney General's advice to prior search committees regarding their open meetings obligations.
Here are a couple more.
On January 28 John Neff wrote regarding my letter to the editor of the Daily Iowan responding to their editorial advocating a new Johnson County Jail:
"I have some questions for you about the jail;1. The population of the jail has grown at about 3% per year for the past twenty years and the population of the county has grown at about 1.5% over the same time interval. For the past four years the jail has grown at about 4.5% per year. What do you think can be done to reduce the growth rate?2. The glue that holds the Johnson County Criminal Justice System together is about 2000 offenders. About 6% are incarcerated and the other 94% are on pretrial release, probation, parole, waiting to get into jail to serve their sentence, on home detention or in a residential work release facility. To solve jail crowding the judges will have to move 3% from the jail into an alternative program. They have not done so. Why not?"
Response: I was advocating for some "thinking outside the box" ("the jail cell"); looking for alternatives to new jails that might better serve the incarcerated and the community and at lower cost. I phrased it in terms of "if" ("if we haven't yet done that") rather than an assertion that we had not. If it's the case that we're already using alternatives to incarceration for all but 6% of those we might have placed in jails, I'd say we're doing pretty well on that score. John asks, why have the judges not cut it even further, to 3%? I haven't a clue; but I'd guess it may well be because they think they've pushed about as far in that direction as they need to or can.
On January 29 (yesterday) "Anonymous" wrote:
"You are only seeing one angle on the jail. There is also a facilities angle. The current structure is 25 years old. It is used 24/7/365. The building itself is worn out and basically fully depreciated. It needs replacement even if you just leave it at the same capacity. That of course would be stupid in a county that has grown by almost 40,000 people since the current jail was built."
Response: If we have but two choices -- (1) tear down the present jail and build another in its place that is identical to the present one, or (2) tear down the present jail and build a replacement that is somewhat larger (and, presumably, includes whatever features the best literature suggests are improvements we've learned about regarding jails in the last 25 years) -- then I'd say you're right: that's pretty much a no-brainer. But I was unaware (until now) that those were our only choices. And I don't know what "worn out" and "fully depreciated" (except in the accounting sense) means with regard to a solid brick building that looks pretty good from the outside.
While it may seem internally inconsistent, I'd like to believe that it's not, that I: (1) support expanding a great many public programs (especially when, by spending now we save even greater costs in the future), including additional prisons, up to and including raising taxes (preferably income taxes), but (
2) I'm a strong advocate of exploring every possible alternative to doing so first (especially alternatives that can produce a higher quality output at a lesser cost than at present) -- an intellectual exercise that doesn't seem to be very popular with public officials. In my letter to the editor I offered some of those alternatives for jails; in the blog posting I went on to give an example with K-12 expenditures.
Once a thorough and honest effort has been made -- by those who don't have a self-interest in the outcome -- and all possible alternatives have been examined and rejected, and the need remains, then, of course, go ahead.
"Anon77" reminded me, yesterday, that I had meant to include that PC story, and forgot in the rush. I may still now. Meanwhile, read his (or her) comment regarding Gartner's seemingly staying out of the fray at the Legislature.
And "Anonymous" wrote yesterday: "Why don't you comment more on say the FCC basically saying local government cable franchise agreements are dead?"
Response: There are a number of publications that report monthly, weekly, and even daily, on the doings at the FCC -- in addition to the FCC's opinions, new regulations, and other output. There's no way I can keep up with that with a daily blog and get anything else done in my life. I spent seven years writing 400 dissenting opinions -- plus magzine articles, speeches and even books -- about how horrible it was 35 years ago. Plus, today there's more to be offended and write about. Compared with the present Commission, we now look back on those earlier days I then thought were so awful as "the Golden Age of Responsible FCC Regulation." I'll put a toe in that water again from time to time, but I've had my full emersion baptism.
# # #
[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. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.) For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most 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 comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Editorial, "Athletics tax deductions not right message," The Daily Iowan, January 29, 2007
Neal Sauerberg, "State auditor to probe UIHC info leak," The Daily Iowan, January 30, 2007
Terry McCoy, "Panel begins UI-head search," The Daily Iowan, January 29, 2007
Dean Treftz, "Sports donors under review," The Daily Iowan, January 29, 2007
Erin Jordan, "U of I requests review of hospital's data security," Des Moines Register, January 30, 2007
James Q. Lynch, "Grassley says 'no' to Earthpark extension; Project's supporters must match federal grant of $50 million," The Gazette, January 30, 2007
Lyle Muller, "Auditor to check safeguards used at University Hospitals; Audit in response to employee’s improper use of resources," The Gazette, January 30, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Auditor to Look Into UI Breach," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 30, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Letters touch on allegations of blame; Correspondence shows glimpse into Wellmark dispute," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 30, 2007
Stan Miller, "UI and Lottery Should Not Mix," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 28, 2007
Dave Nagle, "Colloton Has Left Us a Great Legacy," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 27, 2007
Blogs
State29, "Athletic Supporter Tax Deductions," January 29, 2007
State29, "Earthpork Deadline," January 30, 2007
State29, "The Botanical Center's Red Ink," January 30, 2007
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
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
_______________
Jan. 29, 8:30 a.m.
It has now been 373 days since we knew we needed a successor to UI President David Skorton. The Regents have yet to hire one. This is scarcely the fault of Search Committee II, which is now up and running, has held its first meeting, and is planning to meet -- and report -- weekly. But the resignations of UI administrators continues (in spite of assurances that this is nothing to worry about), and who can blame them given the past year's history with this Board of Regents and the lack of even a hint from the newly-elected Governor that he's willing to replace the Board's "leadership"?
There are no stories as such in the media this morning regarding the presidential search. If that continues to be the case over time, as Search Committee II meets weekly, this blog will continue to mark the days the UI has been "held hostage," and look out for, link to and comment on such stories as may run from time to time. But we'll also probably get back to a wider coverage of issues as we did pre-November 2006.
In Praise of John Colloton
The Press-Citizen's Letters to the Editor from January 27, 28 and 29 are not yet available online, but there was one from Dave Nagle last Saturday that sets the tone for this little commentary. Dave Nagle, "Colloton Has Left Us a Great Legacy," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 27, 2007.
Nagle refers to articles "attacking John Colloton," and concludes, "A great man has left us a great legacy. His example should be honored, not diminished."
Nagle raises a point that I think needs to be addressed -- both generally and with regard to John Colloton.
Dave Nagle has served in Congress and as chair of the Iowa Democratic Party. For wholly understandable reasons, politicians have a tendency to see people (including journalists) in either-or terms. "Understandable" because, as they are sometimes reminded, "You're not paranoid, you have real enemies." Sycophants, those who lavish praise unsullied by any comment that could be interpreted as even mildly critical, are "friends." "You're either for me or against me" -- and thereby eligible for something akin to Nixon's "enemies list." "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
So it's understandable that former Congressman Nagle would equate questions regarding Iowa's public records law, and the rationale for, and details of, a university's designation of a professor as "emeritus" -- occasioned by events surrounding John Colloton -- as an "attack." In the world of Washington it is very often the case that such issues, or any embarrassing allegation, would be raised, not to explore the substance of the policy, but as a way to "get" one's "enemy."
Diane Heldt's story yesterday, "Emeritus Faculty Continue to Contribute" (linked from yesterday's blog entry), describes a response from former Regents' President Pomerantz similar to that of Dave Nagle:
"Regents Amir Arbisser of Davenport and Bob Downer of Iowa City have asked how universities distribute the free parking and office space that Colloton and other retired UI professors and officials receive. Both said they were not criticizing Colloton and that they admire what he has accomplished for the UI. . . . [Pomerantz] chastised Arbisser and Downer in a letter . . ..
"'You either have a fundamental void in your knowledge . . . [or] bias that stands in the way of clear thinking. . .. [Y]ou ought to be applauding him in retirement, not knocking him!'"
1. Let's get this out of the way: I have tremendous admiration for what John Colloton has accomplished with his life in general, and for the University of Iowa in particular. In my encounters with him he has always been friendly and gracious; I have no negative memory of him. I like the guy.
2. I am in no way troubled by the emeritus program in general, or its application to John Colloton in particular. If anyone is entitled to some recognition after a half-century of contribution to the University it is him.
3. In all the writing I have done about public records and open meetings, while I am generally in favor of openness, I also recognize that we must acknowledge an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy" and that "open meetings" requirements should be applicable to some areas where they are not now, but should not be applied to some areas where they now are.
4. As I've read the coverage of these issues in the context involving John Colloton I may have been naive, but I don't see any of it as an "attack" on Colloton, let alone one driven by his "enemies." (a) I've seen nothing in the articles inconsistent with the fact that the emeritus status was granted him by a grateful University, not stolen by him in the dead of night. He did not write the rules. If they are vague -- or even non-existent -- that can't be laid at his desk. I haven't heard anyone say that it can. (b) As for the e-mails, there's nothing to suggest that he did not think, at the time they were written, that they were, and would remain, private and personal. He has been advised, not only by his own personal lawyer, but by the Attorney General of the State of Iowa, that his initial assumptions were correct.
5. I won't repeat here all the discussion found elsewhere in this blog regarding the substantive issues.
(a) Public records. I happen to think that the Attorney General's ruling is wrong. But, hey, he's the Attorney General and I'm not. At a minimum I'd agree there are many ambiguous and complicating factors: the statutory "of or belonging to" language that's nowhere defined, the University's Operations Manual that clearly contemplates some personal use of UI computers, but the difficulty squaring all use as "personal" when public resources (secretary, office, stationery) are invested.
(b) Emeritus. I support the idea of post-retirement emeritus status; no one (of whom I'm aware) is arguing it should be abolished. But it appears that some of the standards and details of the program are not as clearly defined or regularized as they might be. Whether these details should be the product of the University Administration or the Regents is a question I haven't addressed. But it seems to me perfectly appropriate for the Regents (as full Board action, not an individual's request) to ask for information about almost any aspect of the Regents' universities (unless, as recently, it appears the motivation may be one of intimidating faculty).
But note that none of these questions can fairly be considered an "attack" on John Colloton, who has been highly praised for his service and nowhere (of which I am aware) even alleged (let alone proven) to have done anything wrong, to have violated any law or regulation.
6. Perhaps the media -- and other commentators, including myself -- should have been more precise in distinguishing (a) the person of John Colloton, and (b) the substantive issues raised by the public records request for his emails. But it seems to me that distinction was pretty clear to anyone who was reading closely.
Meanwhile, I think there's some obligation on the readers, as well, to not be quite so quick to take offense over stories in which they, or their friends, are mentioned -- unless, of course, they have been falsely charged with something damaging to their reputations, which is the definition of "defamation."
Because I like to be encouraging and complimentary to those I encounter throughout the day, I have become aware that there is a (thankfully) very small percentage of folks who seem to start off every day offended and then look for reasons why someone who is in fact complimenting them is, from their perspective, being disrespectful, or critical, or making fun of them.
As for the friends of John Colloton (a group in which I include myself) we need to be able to develop the intellectual capacity to hold two thoughts in mind simultaneously: (1) John Colloton is a very decent guy who has made a great contribution to the University, and (2) a recent request for his emails has highlighted a range of issues that we will all benefit from addressing and resolving.
7. Meanwhile, The Gazette has the local papers have run a couple of lengthy features in praise of the emeritus system in general and John Colloton in particular: Diane Heldt, "Emeritus faculty continue to contribute; Scrutiny stems from recent questions about resources granted former hospital director," The Gazette, January 28, 2007, and Kathryn Fiegen, "Colloton 'Leads by Example,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 27, 2007 (with link to "Colloton Records Request Timeline").
# # #
[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. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.) For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most 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 comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and CommentaryReference
Board of Regents, Agenda Item 11 (revised), February 1-2, 2006 ("Presidential Search Process," "Duties of the Search Firm," "Duties of the Search Committee")
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
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
_______________
Jan. 28, 10:45 a.m., 12:15 p.m.
Athletics and Academics
There's been more national (and state-wide) focus on college football and basketball issues recently. I wrote about them last September. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Athletics and Academics," September 30, 2006.
At the outset, let me say that, in my experience and among my acquaintance with academics over the years, I find them all over the lot when it comes to attitudes about professional and intercollegiate athletics. Somewhere between "many" and "most" I would even call "sports enthusiasts." They buy season tickets, attend most games, have favorite professional teams (football, baseball and basketball), are knowledgeable, talk, and even write, about sports. Many participated in major sports while in high school or college, and some are still active personally. At the other extreme, I have one colleague currently whose attitude I would have to concede involves a measure of disdain for sports (which he pronounces "schportz"); but he's really alone in holding that position.
On the other hand, I know some involved in intercollegiate or professional sports -- and many in the academy -- who recognize that there are problems (as well as benefits) from trying to operate major, big business athletic operations from inside colleges and universities.
As always, it's important to isolate the issues. Aside from my one colleague, there's little support for doing away with sports (and I'm not sure even he would advocate that). There are abuses with which those inside the business are even more anxious to deal than are their critics on the outside. But sports, in general, have been with our species for thousands of years, serve a human passion, and aren't going away even if one would want them to.
The issue, simply, is where they can best be located institutionally within the society. Throughout most of the world sports are organized into "community" (not "college") teams. That in no way diminishes their role in those societies; if anything it enhances it.
That's what I was advocating last September in my proposed reforms for high school and college athletic programs. I suggested we simply spin off the major college sports into the businesses they have become, what with the multi-million-dollar coaches' salaries, even more expensive stadium and arena construction projects, TV revenues, ties to organized gambling (See Nicholas Johnson, "Gambling on the Hawkeyes; Wanna Bet?" "UI Held Hostage Day 66 - Jan. 21," January 21, 2007, and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Football Promoting Gambling?" September 16, 2007) and product endorsements (See Scott Dochterman, "Sports Marketing; High-profile coaches double as advertisers," The Gazette, January 24, 2007). Some ties to schools would remain, but we could drop the pretense about "student" athletes.
This past Wednesday, Sports Illustrated's Frank DeFord had a commentary along these lines on NPR. (See Frank DeFord, "Money in College Sports? Let's be Honest," Morning Edition, National Public Radio, January 24, 2007.) He's suggesting what would be, in effect, a "College of Entertainment" within a university's cluster of colleges; just recognize that's what we're doing: universities are providing intercollegiate athletic programs because they are a form of entertainment that the public has grown to know and love -- and demand. Full stop. Remove the "academic" pretense.
Much of the current focus on the issue has been prompted by Senator Charles Grassley's running up his flagpole the prospect of removing the "charitable" tax deduction the wealthiest fans get for their "contributions" to college athletic programs that are now often a prerequisite for getting good (or even any) seats. (See Charles Grassley, "Looking Out for Taxpayers by Looking at Donations," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 27, 2007. See also Scott Dochterman, "Tax-exempt changes could affect donations; But officials at Iowa, ISU have no immediate concerns about issue," The Gazette, January 20, 2007; Tom Witosky, "Grassley: Do College-Athletic Contributions Merit Tax Deductions?" Des Moines Register, January 18, 2007 (with link to Tom Witosky, "How Deduction is Figured on Kinick Lease Payment"); Nicholas Johnson, "Federal Subsidies for UI Football Program," "UI President Search Held Hostage Day 64 - Jan. 19, 2007, January 19, 2007; "Congress' Letter to the NCAA (letter sent to NCAA president Miles Brand from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas on October 2, 2006)," USAToday, October 5, 2006.)
This morning a number of readers chimed in on the issues in the Des Moines Register's letters section, linked below.
Will anything change? Probably not this year. But there does seem to be more focus on the variety of issues surrounding the big business of college football and basketball. And as Tom Paine once said, "Words pile up and afterwards men do things. First the words."
These are among the words.
"Thinking Outside the . . ."
How might we redesign what is now college football into something that would involve many of the same people -- even retain some of the ties to colleges -- in ways that would continue to please the fans and bring in the money? That's "thinking outside the skybox" -- what we were just addressing, above.
"Thinking outside the box," as the expression goes, can apply to lots of boxes.
We need to do some "thinking outside the prison cell," too, as I wrote in a letter to the editor of The Daily Iowan last Thursday:
"The Daily Iowan editorializes "it is necessary to provide adequate and appropriate facilities to handle inmates" in the Johnson County Jail. ("Talk of new jail should be more than just words," Jan. 22.) The editorial is right. Prisoners "are still people and still entitled to decent care." That's not only a no-brainer, it's the law.
"But it's not the issue.
"Some cities' officials look at crowded freeways and say, "We need more lanes." They're right that traffic jams are an economic and personal burden. But wider roads are soon equally congested.
"Other cities' officials look at crowded freeways and say, "Let's substitute better public transportation and bike paths." That's sometimes a more effective strategy.
"Similarly, some see crowded jails and want to build more and bigger ones. Others ask, "Why are these people in jail?"
"Prisons have become our public-housing program, holding one of the largest prison populations in the world.
"Who are they? A goodly number are mentally ill, deprived of the mental hospital care formerly provided. Others are addicted to alcohol or other drugs. Many are nonviolent offenders found with small amounts of marijuana. Some are just awaiting trial. Community service or tracking ankle bracelets could be alternatives for still more.
"Have we applied basic systems analysis and "thinking outside the cell" to "crowded jails"? Maybe we have. If not, $25 million jails may be the equivalent of eight-lane freeways when bike paths would do."
Nicholas Johnson, "New Jail Isn't Answer," The Daily Iowan, January 25, 2007 (with link to original DI editorial, "Talk of New Jail Should be More Than Just Words").
In this morning's Register Rev. Carlos Jayne, of the Justice Reform Consortium (in other words, someone who actually knows what they're talking about on this issue!), takes a comparable stance, noting that we're currently "incarcerating too many people for too long; requiring mandatory sentencing for too many crimes; allowing sentencing in the court systems to be controlled by county attorneys rather than judges; using our prisons for places to store the mentally ill; refusing to provide substance-abuse treatment in lieu of prison; not providing adequate funding for the education, treatment and counseling required by the parole board of an inmate to be considered for parole."
Thinking outside the school house
Do we need a transition sentence if I'm going to move from a discussion of prisons to conventional high schools? Fortunately, in Eastern Iowa we do. Not so in many parts of the country. We have good schools here. Like any community with civic pride, they may not be fully as good as we think they are, there may be some things we could improve slightly, but by any standard they are schools that give us a lot of which to be rightfully proud.
But The Gazette editorialized this morning that maybe we still need to do some thinking outside the classoom before we go raising millions of dollars with a local sales tax hike and handing it over to the schools. (See Editorial, "Defining Needs and Wants," The Gazette, January 28, 2007.)
There are a lot of ideas out there -- tried and proven out elsewhere -- that can simultaneously increase the quality of the educational experience while decreasing the cost of K-12 education.
Want an example? As a school board member, I pointed out to my colleagues before the most recent bond issue that if they would read, and apply, the recommendations of the National Commission on the High School Senior Year we would instantaneously eliminate all problems of "crowding" in the high schools, reduce costs, and improve our high school seniors' preparation for higher education -- and for life -- without spending a dime. "Local control of schools" means a community can decide it would rather pay for a $40 million bond issue (the biggest chunk of which went to the high schools), and that's what we did. But the option was there. There are numerous other examples in the literature.
As the editorial points out, one of the advantages of bonding -- rather than open-ended sales tax revenues -- is that it forces both school administrators and taxpayers to focus on specific new construction and capital improvement projects, and their budgets, while deciding, as the editorial phrases it, which are the "needs" and which are the "wants."
My view on the 20% sales tax increase vote February 13? I think the issues are much more complicated than either the proponents or opponents are willing to admit.
# # #
[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. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.) For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most 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 comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Carlos Jayne, "New laws, not new prisons, are Iowa's answer," Des Moines Register, January 28, 2007
"Letters to the Editor: Athletics and Academics," Des Moines Register, January 28, 2007
- Jon Torgerson, Education Takes a Back Seat to Athletics
- Ken Schumacher
- James I. Mackay
- Caroline Peterson, Grassley is Fiddling While Taxpayers Burn
- Sam Osborne, Let's Make It Fair
Editorial, "Defining Needs and Wants," The Gazette, January 28, 2007
Diane Heldt, "Emeritus faculty continue to contribute; Scrutiny stems from recent questions about resources granted former hospital director," The Gazette, January 28, 2007
Editorial, "Hospital Turnover and Open Presidential Searches; Our quick take on last week's news stories," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 27, 2007
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
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
_______________
Jan. 27, 10:00 a.m., 8:00 p.m.
On this Day 371 of UI Held Hostage, the morning's stories are linked below.
In terms of the UI president search the news is all about Search Committee II: the membership, the first meeting, the planning process, rulings that Iowa's open meetings laws do apply and the committee's intention to hold weekly meetings (a subject to which Bob Patton directs his pen) and provide weekly reports, but the committee's disinclination to make a commitment at this time regarding on-campus interviews.
There's comment about the significant number of administrators leaving the UIHC, and a lengthy feature in praise of John Colloton.
And there's more to be said about the big business of UI's athletic program, with an op ed by Senator Chuck Grassley and transcript of Frank DeFord's NPR commentary a couple days ago.
And to this I add my brief letter to the editor in the Daily Iowan earlier in the week offering a snippet of systems analysis thinking about the planning and budgeting of public projects (in this case a new county jail) -- but an analytical approach also applicable to education in general, the local school district's proposed new tax, and the UI athletic program as well.
In Praise of Search Committee II
Virtually everything I can think of to say about the members of Search Committee II is laudatory and positive. They are quality people who care about this University, have a track record of service, and I am confident will take this responsibility seriously, do a quality job, and put in more hours on it than they probably should -- given their family and other obligations.
It is impressive that they are getting down to work and planning regular weekly meetings. It is reassuring that they seem committed to openness and are planning regular weekly reports to the University community.
We are fortunate they have agreed to serve, and we all owe them our thanks for doing so.
Search Committee II and Open Meetings Requirements
Yesterday (Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 370 - Jan. 26," January 26, 2007) I presented my interpretation of the Iowa Open Meetings law: the Search Committee II is required to hold its meetings in public -- and that it would be well advised to do so even if a technical legal argument could be made as to how it could evade the law.
I was soon reminded, by an Anonymous comment to my blog, that a column to which I had provided a link in early December revealed that this was the advice of the Iowa Attorney General to prior search committees. The authors of that column were Steve Collins, who chaired the 1995 search that resulted in the selection of Mary Sue Coleman (now president of Michigan), and Carroll Reasoner, a member of the 2002 search committee that ended up producing David Skorton (now president of Cornell). They wrote:
"The heads of the 1995 and 2002 University of Iowa presidential search committees were advised by the Attorney General’s Office that the search committee was a governmental body and needed to comply with the Iowa open meetings law. These leaders were also advised by that office on how to comply with the open meetings law, and they followed that advice. All discussion of process issues were held in open session at a public meeting in the presence of the press."
Steve Collins and Carroll Reasoner, "Golden rule for presidential searches," The Gazette, December 3, 2006.
From Brian Morelli's report this morning, linked below, we learn that "UI General Counsel Marc Mills was on hand to advise committee members on open meeting laws and the proper process for discussing candidate names.' We are a group sanctioned by the regents and, therefore, subject to open meeting laws,' said committee chairman and College of Dentistry Dean David Johnsen."
Since all now seem to agree that is the case, what is the basis for keeping the names of possible candidates "confidential"? Diane Heldt reports, "The group will go into executive session to discuss candidates and will keep candidate names confidential, but discussions of the process will be open, said Johnsen, dean of the UI College of Dentistry."
Search Committee II, Candidate Confidentiality and On-Campus Interviews
There are a number of issues regarding the confidentiality of candidates.
As I wrote yesterday, the primary exception to the Open Meetings requirements for Search Committee II would be when negative information about a potential candidate is being discussed -- information that would, in the words of the Iowa Code, cause "needless and irreparable injury to that individual's reputation." Iowa Code Sec. 21.5 (i). There is no exception, of which I am aware, for "personnel matters" generally, for "executive session to discuss candidates" (more colloquially, "closed, secret meetings") -- or, for that matter, a special distinction for "discussions of the process." Nor do I believe that the Code permits private bi-lateral agreements as a basis for closing meetings otherwise required by law to be open (or abandoning on-campus interviews); for example, an agreement between an applicant and Search Committee II that his or her application, and any discussion of that applicant, would be treated as "confidential" (i.e., be conducted in "closed" rather than "open" meetings).
There are two issues here: (1) can the names of candidates be revealed, and (2) can the pros and cons of candidates be discussed in open meetings?
Now I may be wrong. I don't have a copy of the act before me at the moment. There may be something in there that says the names of job applicants are (a) not "public records," and (b) can legally be discussed in "closed" meetings. It's just that, if so, I've either never seen it or can't now recall it.
Admittedly, the "needless and irreparable injury to that individual's reputation" language allows for some wiggle room. Frankly, I think that the phrase should refer (and may well originally have been intended to refer) to the consideration of the dismissal of an employee for reasons related to professional incompetence, or moral turpitude. To reveal that someone is under consideration for another position is something as likely to be viewed as "enhancing" rather than "injuring" someone's reputation -- indeed, it may well result in a proffered pay raise in an effort to keep that person in their present position.
The argument for confidentiality and closed meetings regarding candidates presumably is that, if they aren't selected for the position, that "rejection" may somehow reflect adversely on them; or that their supervisors or colleagues may think less of them because they were thinking about leaving. I guess I just don't think that can reasonably be said to meet the statutory definition of "irreparable injury to that individual's reputation" -- any more than qualifying for the Olympics in your sport, but then not winning the gold medal, could be said to be an "irreparable injury to one's reputation."
One can debate whether the law should be changed to provide for closed meetings when "governmental bodies" are discussing candidates for a position. That's another matter. I just think the law as written doesn't provide for such an exception.
There's an "administrative issue" with regard to how to handle the discussion of any candidate's record insofar as it includes negatives that could cause "irreparable injury to reputation." Worst case, it seems to me, a search committee could hold open meetings to go over candidates' basic resume data -- possibly including mention of the more positive comments from references. It could then hold a closed meeting for a discussion of the negatives, bad references -- even rumors and unsubstantiated allegations (if it's getting into such material).
In any event, I am unaware of anything in the law that permits closing an otherwise-open meeting merely because a candidate or candidates for a job opening are being discussed.
And I certainly am unaware of anything that would authorize keeping secret the mere names of candidates.
(It should probably be noted that, while a search committee cannot close a session without the agreement of a candidate, neither can it close a meeting merely because a candidate has requested it be closed.)
So that's a presentation (of sorts) of the negatives -- the reasons why the committee would be wrong to close meetings, and keep names confidential.
So what's the case for disclosure? Why should Search Committee II want to, for example, reveal the names of the four finalists and have them participate in on-campus interviews?
In terms of the law, note that the Iowa Open Meetings law both (a) starts with the presumption that questions should be resolved in favor of openness, and (b) makes expressly clear that nothing in the listing of exceptions (when meetings can be closed) imposes an obligation on a governmental body to close any meeting -- thus presumably including even meetings that would cause "irreparable injury." (I don't have the citations for those sections before me at the moment.)
So clearly (if my interpretation is correct) Search Committee II has all the legal authority it needs to run a totally open search. (In other words, even on those occasions when it legally could invoke closed meetings or confidentiality -- occasions which I believe to be somewhere between rare and non-existent -- are not occasions when the law requires that it must do so.)
1. Frankly, I would be somewhat put off by a presidential candidate who would even go along with a secret procedure with no campus visits -- let alone one who insisted upon it. Isn't it enough that we have a Board of Regents that wants to operate out of the sunshine? Do we really want a president who's also most comfortable functioning in the dark -- someone who doesn't even need to evolve into such patterns of secrecy, but who is comfortable beginning their administration on that note?
2. I really do not want a president who's in it for the money; someone who doesn't really want to work at the University Iowa; someone who just wants to be "a university president," any university's president; someone who's fully prepared to jump ship again in a couple years for whatever is the next best-paying and most prestigious position they can land.
Consider, by contrast, John Colloton's half-century at UIHC. As his former executive assistant, Amy O'Deen, is quoted as saying in this morning's feature on him, "'He was a very humble person,' she said.' He could have gone on to bigger, better paying jobs at other places across the country, but he didn't. He is a true Iowan, and this was his baby.'" Similarly, David Skorton, who gave so much to this University in so many ways, gave every indication that he, too, accepted the job with the intention of living out his career at Iowa.
(Not incidentally, this raises again what I described a couple days ago as "the elephant in our board room" -- Michael Gartner. (See Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search Held Hostage Day 70 - Jan. 25," January 25, 2007.) I believe Search Committee II simply must address those issues -- amongst themselves and with at least those who make it to the short lists near the end of their process. I won't repeat again what I discussed there.)
It is difficult to imagine a candidate with so little interest in the University, so little curiosity even, that he or she would be willing to accept the position as president without wanting campus visits -- unless their primary reasons for coming would be those I fear.
3. A president needs to be comfortable with faculty, staff, students, business and other community leaders, regents, legislators, and stakeholders. They, in turn, need to be comfortable with him or her. To leave all those individuals with the sense -- and the reality -- of having been totally excluded from the selection process is, as they say, "starting off backing up." And parachuting that new president down onto the Pentacrest, where her or she will meet those stakeholders for the first time after having already been designated as president, is a very substantial -- and easily avoidable -- additional hurdle for all to have to clear before the work can begin.
4. It would simply be a nice thing to do, a mark of respect, for the Committee and the Regents to say to the students, staff, faculty and administrators, "You matter. You're a part of this. We want you to have as much chance to meet and question the potential president of your university as you will have -- as an Iowan during this pre-caucus period, to meet and question the potential president of the United States."
# # #
[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. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.) For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most 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 comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Nicholas Johnson, "New Jail Isn't Answer," The Daily Iowan, January 25, 2007 (with link to original DI editorial, "Talk of New Jail Should be More Than Just Words")
Erin Jordan, "U of I presidential search panel agrees to make its meetings open," Des Moines Register, January 26, 2007
Diane Heldt, "Campus interview decision put off; Committee members pledge openness," The Gazette, January 27, 2007
Diane Heldt, "String of exits draws concern; UI hospitals’ chief to stay, calls concerns natural but unfounded," The Gazette, January 27, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Search Committee Promises Openness," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 27, 2007
Kathryn Fiegen, "Colloton 'Leads by Example,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 27, 2007 (with link to "Colloton Records Request Timeline")
Bob Patton, "Shades of the Past" (editorial cartoon), Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 27, 2007
Charles Grassley, "Looking Out for Taxpayers by Looking at Donations," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 27, 2007
Frank DeFord, "Money in College Sports? Let's be Honest," Morning Edition, National Public Radio, January 24, 2007
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
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
_______________
Jan. 26, 11:45 a.m., 1:30 p.m.
Why the jump in the "Held Hostage" days? We've decided the "Held Hostage" count should more properly begin with January 21, 2006 -- when it became known that UI President David Skorton was going to Cornell, and that we'd best get down to work with all deliberate speed to find his replacement -- rather than the day the Regents rejected Search Committee I's four finalists, abandoned the search, and fired the committee members (November 17, 2006 -- "a date which will live in infamy").
Day 370: Search Committee II is to Hold Its First Meeting
The most directly relevant item in this morning's papers is that Search Committee II is going to commemorate Day 370 by holding its first meeting this afternoon. (See "Presidential Search Committee to Meet," linked below.) It is appropriate that it give some up-front attention to organization and process -- but that's all that's on its agenda. It's wonderful that the meeting will start with a session open to the public and media, but disappointing that it will then draw the curtains of secrecy.
It remains an open question whether Search Committee II is required to comply with the Open Meetings law. There is certainly a reasonable argument that it is. But put aside the legal question. It's unseemly to argue (as the Regents have done on occasion) that so long as one complies with the strict, literal standards of the law (of anything) that no other considerations matter. The Committee would certainly be well advised to follow the standards of the Open Meetings law in any event. If it does so, virtually all of its meetings would be open to the public and the media.
(Aside from other subject matter discussions for which closed meetings are possible, the primary exception would be when negative information about a potential candidate is being discussed -- information that would cause "needless and irreparable injury to that individual's reputation." Iowa Code Sec. 21.5 (i). There is no exception, of which I am aware, for "personnel matters" generally. Nor do I believe that the Code permits private bi-lateral agreements as a basis for closing meetings otherwise requred by law to be open; for example, an agreement between an applicant and Search Committee II that his or her application, and any discussion of that applicant, would be treated as "confidential" (i.e., be conducted in "closed" rather than "open" meeting). )
[The relevant law is in Iowa Code Secs. 21.3 and 21.2 (1)(h). The first jprovides that "meetings of governmental bodies . . . shall be held in open session . . .." The second says that "governmental bodies means . . . An advisory . . . committee . . . created by an executive order of a political subdivision of this state to develop and make recommendations on public policy issues."
The Board of Regents would presumably be a "political subdivision." Clearly Search Committee II was created by an "executive order" of the Regents. That leaves only the question of the extent to which "recommendations" to the Regents regarding finalists for UI president constitute "recommendations on public policy issues."
Most reasonably and broadly understood they would. There would be no rational legislative reason for excepting this category of recommendations, and clearly -- as the last few months have illustrated -- there are public policy issues involved in the selection of a university president. On the other hand, in the most narrow sense one could argue that recommendations regarding hiring decisions are not recommendations on "public policy issues."]
# # #
[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. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.) For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most 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 comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Editorial, "UI must show stability as education leader," The Daily Iowan, January 26, 2007
Erin Jordan, "State to appeal award to U of I fraternity," Des Moines Register, January 26, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Hay up for New Mexico presidency; UI vice president one of 5 finalists," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 26, 2007
"Presidential Search Committee to Meet," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 26, 2007
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
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
_______________
Jan. 25, 1:30 p.m., 3:40 p.m., 4:20 p.m., 8:45 p.m. (additional links)
Today's Most Significant Story
What is in some ways the most significant story in this morning's papers is found, not in an Iowa paper, but in the Albuquerque Tribune.
Why is that? What could it possibly be about?
What it's about is the best way to run a university's presidential search. (Susie Gran, "UNM finalists are doers, shakers, colleagues say," linked below.) [Links to additional of today's stories will be added later.]
The University of New Mexico is also looking for a new president. (And one item of interest for us is that our own Meredith Hay is among the finalists.)
But note what else.
The New Mexico Regents have run an open process.
They've now announced the names of the five finalists.
There will be on-campus interviews.
And not only are the finalists' names revealed, but much of their background as well -- what the Tribune calls their "baggage and bragging rights." And let me tell you, there's no sugar coating on the former. There are quotes from individuals at their present institutions regarding "the good, the bad and the ugly" about each. (Our own Shelly Kurtz had nice things to say about Meredith.)
All in all, it's about as far as one could get from the "confidentiality" surrounding our Regents-run (into the ground) Search I.
And they're not waiting a year to do it. The University of New Mexico is not "held hostage."
Moreover, there is significant faculty participation (and a Faculty Committee on Governance; something we don't have; not the committee, a rational working governance model):
"John Geissman, chairman of the UNM Faculty Committee on Governance . . . said the faculty will prepare a list of questions for the finalists to answer during campus interviews, which regents President Jamie Koch said will be arranged quickly. Regents want to name a new president in March. In the meantime, Geissman said he hopes UNM faculty with colleagues at the finalists' institutions will gather information about the candidates and scrutinize their performance."
Hopefully, our Search Committee II will have actually done some work by March (its first meeting is tomorrow, to plan its work) -- over a year after we knew we would have to find a successor to David Skorton. By that time New Mexico will already have its president -- possibly someone we could have had in 2006.
I urge every Regent, every member of our Search Committee II, to read that Tribune article and then, during a moment of silence pray that we can do half as well.
Oops, I Forgot Our Anniversary!
Did you ever forget your anniversary. What an embarrassment that is! Well, that's kind of how I'm feeling today.
Did you forget, too?
It was this last Sunday, January 21.
Surely you remember the date. That was the day, one year ago this month, that the University of Iowa community, and its Board of Regents, were put on notice that we would have to find a new UI president. See Franklin Crawford, "Cardiologist, computer scientist, jazz musician: David J. Skorton named Cornell's 12th president," Cornell University Chronicle Online, Jan. 21, 2006.
It's too painful to recount what a gem of a guy he was, and how I feel about our own Board of Regents contributing to his departure and resulting body blow to the University. And besides this is a "family blog" that we need to keep fit for children to read.
But it is worthwhile to recall the date, and to realize that, while I give the Regents the benefit of the doubt by saying this is only "Day 70" of the UI Held Hostage, it is, in fact Day 369. And, in that connection, I might note that the Crawford article, linked above, reveals that Cornell's recruitment was a "six-month search."
New Mexico. Cornell. What is it about Iowa?
The Elephant
This is a picture of the elephant in our park
This is a picture of the elephant in our board room
Michael Gartner has many redeeming qualities, not the least of which is his ability as a writer, a matter I've commented about before. (See "In Praise of Michael Gartner" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XV," December 15, 2006.)
But his role as a collegial member of the Board of Regents, and his relationship with the University of Iowa, has left a good deal to be desired in the judgment of the UI faculty, staff, and students -- the organizations of all of which have independently passed -- in what I assume is unprecedented action -- resolutions of "no confidence" in the "Regents' leadership" (a euphemism for "Michael Gartner").
His term as president of the Regents runs into 2008; his term as a Regent until 2012.
Governor Culver shows no signs of pressing for his resignation. Culver's efforts to find regents to replace the four whose terms have expired (or, in the case of Tom Bedell, resigned -- in part because of Gartner) will be the first test of others' willingness to work with Gartner.
And what of potential presidential candidates? Is it not a disqualifying item if they have (a) not bothered even to inform themselves of this tension between the University and the "Regents leadership"? (b) What if they have inquired, and are informed, but are willing to serve anyway? Don't they need to be asked, "Why?" Are they just in it for the money -- a raise substantially above what they are now earning? (c) If they are unconcerned because they have a solution in mind, shouldn't they be asked to share that with us?
And don't we have to consider the possibility that we're confronting something similar to Mark Twain's and Groucho Marx' observation that, "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member"? Might it be the case that we don't want as UI president anyone who would be willing to serve under these conditions?
Just a thought.
# # #
[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. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most 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 comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Susie Gran, "UNM finalists are doers, shakers, colleagues say," Albuquerque Tribune, January 25, 2007
Kurt Hiatt and Ashton Shurson, "UI May Lose Another Official," The Daily Iowan, January 25, 2007
Erin Jordan, "Retirees' perks at U of I spark yeas and nays; Some of the 160 who benefit receive office space and free parking," Des Moines Register, January 25, 2007
Diane Heldt, "Regent resignation finally accepted; Tensions over UI presidential search led to departure," The Gazette, January 25, 2007
Zack Kucharski, "Judge: UI must pay fraternity; $127,700 judgment also names state, UI official," The Gazette, January 25, 2007
Brian Morelli, "UI VP a Finalist for New Mexico," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 25, 2007
Blogs
State29, "The Open Process," January 25, 2007
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
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
_______________
Jan. 24, 8:00 a.m., 10:15 p.m. (additional links)
Given other obligations today, links to all stories, and full commentary, will have to come later -- perhaps even this evening.
But here's what you need to know for your morning "UI Held Hostage" briefing, with links to at least a handful of stories -- three of Brian Morelli's (search committee, emeritus perks, and UIHC departure) and one of Diane Heldt's (inquiries about faculty).
The Regents met by phone yesterday. As expected, they approved what was to be six, and is now seven, new Search Committee II members. (I had thought there might be a possibility, given the pressure for an undergraduate on the committee, that the Regents might have -- as a token "reaching out," "amends," and "public relations," if nothing else -- instructed Dean Johnsen to add one. But that didn't happen.)
They have also responded to the media and public interest (coming out of the Colloton e-mails dispute) regarding Colloton's perks, asking each of the Regents' institutions to at least inform the Regents as to what the policies are. (Actually, a little clarification on that score isn't a bad idea. At a minimum, the Regents certainly are within their rights, so far, in simply asking for information.)
Faculty leaders have decided to not move ahead on a proposed policy that faculty should have the right to know when the University has received, and responded to, inquiries regarding them. (Although prompted by Regents' inquiries about salaries and teaching loads, this could, presumably, also cover inquiries by Homeland Security (or other intelegence agencies and law enforcement), media, or ideologically/politically-motivated groups or individuals.) Anyhow, they're not going ahead with it.
And UIHC has lost yet one more administrator who's chosing to move on.
There are updates on the commercialization of the UI's athletic programs (advertising and endorsements by coaches) and Optiva (still going ahead with name change without polling 43,500 members excluded from disputed close vote).
And there are a slug of interesting letters to the editor in the Des Moines Register on a number of issues I'm interested in.
# # #
[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. Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most 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 comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006. My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006. And the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References". A _______________
Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 (updated January 17, 2007) is also available.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
Terry McCoy, "Regents OK Search-Panel Members," The Daily Iowan, January 24, 2007
Erin Jordan, "Regents request policies on perks for retired faculty," Des Moines Register, January 24, 2007
Scott Dochterman, "Sports Marketing; High-profile coaches double as advertisers," The Gazette, January 24, 2007
George C. Ford, "Optiva name here to stay; Voting issue won’t affect UI credit union change," The Gazette, January 24, 2007
Diane Heldt, "Faculty Leaders Won't Seek Notice of Information Requests," The Gazette, January 24, 2007
Lee Hermiston, "New committee in place; Regents approve 7 more members," The Gazette, January 24, 2007
Brian Morelli, "UI President Search Group Finalized; First Meeting Likely to be Friday,"," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 24, 2007
Brian Morelli, "Regents to Investigate Emeritus Policy," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 24, 2007
Brian Morelli, "UIHC Loses Chief Nursing Officer; Everett Third Exec to Leave in 6 Months," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 24, 2007
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
_______________
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
_______________
