UI Held Hostage Day 489 - Hines, Gilchrist & War's End

May 25, 2007, 9:10 a.m.

More on Dean Hines' Analysis of Search Secrecy
If you're interested in the issue of whether Search Committee II is covered by the Iowa Open Meetings law, and former UI law dean Bill Hines analysis of the issue, I added some further analysis last evening to yesterday's blog [Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 488 - Regents Meeting; Hines on Law," May 24, 2007], including a link to the full text of the case he relies on and the Iowa law's definition of "meeting.

Mary Gilchrist Wins Chance At Jury Trial
There's been a major development in the Mary Gilchrist law suit. Here's an excerpt from The Gazette's report this morning:

Judge moves lawsuit over UI lab director's firing to next stage

IOWA CITY — A judge denied a summary judgment motion by University of Iowa Interim President Gary Fethke and another top university official in a lawsuit former University Hygienic Laboratory Director Mary Gilchrist filed over her firing. The UI officials had asked Judge Mitchell Turner to decide the case without bringing it to trial.

In February, a Johnson County District Court judge denied a temporary injunction that would have prevented the UI from firing Gilchrist under Iowa’s whistle-blower statute. Attorneys for the UI argued last month that if she isn’t a whistle-blower, then she has no case to take to a jury.

But that judgment applied only to the temporary injunction and wasn’t a final judgment in the case, as UI attorneys had argued, Turner wrote in a 10-page ruling filed Thursday.

Had Gilchrist's attorneys lost on the defendants' summary judgment motion that would have been the end of the matter. Now they have the opportunity, if they choose to pursue it, to have a "jury of her peers" decide whether she was "insubordinate" or fired for being a "whistle blower."

Ending the War
And speaking of Mary Gilchrist, I earlier repeated her comment that, "I think one has to do the right thing, and the consequences cannot be the major factor that determines what one does." Nicholas Johnson, "Pounding Nails" in "UI Held Hostage Day 486 - Secrecy Issues & Other UI Items," May 22, 2007.

I'm reminded of it this morning as I'm reading the Washington Post's account of yesterday's war funding bill. Shailagh Murray, "Congress Passes Deadline-Free War Funding Bill; Measure Includes Benchmarks for Iraqis," Washington Post, May 25, 2007, p. A1.

I have known a number of elected public officials, for many of whom I've had enormous respect. Together, they have ranged along a continuum from hopelessly naive and unrealistically idealistic to almost exclusively self-serving and personally enriching.

A widely held belief, or rationalization, among them has been the view that because, on balance, they are doing more for the public than would be done by their likely successor, that fact fully justifies whatever compromises they make, the time they spend raising money from the wealthy and special interests (and then doing their bidding), and the times they go along with their leadership in supporting bills they actually oppose.

I'm not sitting in judgment of any of them this morning. I can't know what they know. They may truly believe they have done all they possibly could to end this war.

But I can't help but wonder how many of those Democrats who were elected in an anti-war campaign voted as they did yesterday, at least in part, out of a fear of being cast as "unpatriotic," "soft on terrorism," or unwilling to "support our troops," when they were next up for re-election. (As State29 puts it this morning, "Democrats are Weak and Surrender Easily," May 25, 2007.)

I was fully aware, when serving as an FCC commissioner, that my dissenting opinions, Congressional testimony, articles, books and speeches would result in my never being offered one of those lucrative jobs in broadcasting, the telephone industry, or the law and lobbying firms that represent their interests. Similarly, when I ran for and was elected to the local school board, I announced that I was only going to serve one term.

It has always seemed to me that focusing on one's re-appointment, or re-election, can get in the way of the job one is supposed to do when courageous and unpopular stands are required to fully serve the public interest.

I don't see how you can say that you want to end the war and bring the troops home and at the same time vote an additional $100 billion dollars to prolong the killing. Maybe cutting off funding is not the answer. But, if not, then all those bright folks in Congress, and the think tanks that populate the nation's capital, have an obligation to come up with better alternatives. Merely bemoaning the war, while funding it, is unacceptable.

This war has become, for me, as if every day is Memorial Day. It's like attending a seemingly unending series of funerals. It is a somber moment for me when the PBS evening news, or the ABC Sunday morning show, show the pictures of those who have most recently died in Iraq -- along with their age and home town. I stop whatever else I am doing, focus in silence, reflect on each in turn -- what it has been like for their family, friends, former classmates, and home town -- and I pray and I grieve.

I don't care how partisan you are, no one's re-election is worth that -- especially not for an unnecessary, "pre-emptive," counterproductive war that only serves to breed ever more potential terrorists and reduce, rather than enhance, our national security.

Mary Gilchrist is right: "one has to do the right thing, and the consequences cannot be the major factor that determines what one does." Voting to continue this war is not "the right thing."
_____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.

# # #
[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.

Searching: 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 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
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 http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________

UI Held Hostage Day 488 - Regents Meeting; Hines on Law

May 24, 2007, 7:25 a.m.; revised 9:10 p.m. (addition of definition and discussion of "meeting" under Iowa open meetings law)

Yesterday's blog entry, posted at 11:55 a.m. [Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 487 - Governance Regents Number One Priority," May 22, 2007], suggested that if the Board of Regents was serious about having a UI president in place by July 1 it might want to consider time for interviews of finalists and its own deliberations sometime in June, rather than devoting its June 13th meeting to a strategic planning discussion, as announced.

At 1:58 p.m. yesterday afternoon, Board Executive Director and COO Gary Stenke emailed Board members that he thought that a good idea; that is, he started the process of finding out the free time in their schedules the weeks of June 11 and 18. See, Brian Morelli, "Regents Look for Meeting Window," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 24, 2007, p. 3A.

Meanwhile, the secrecy about the secrecy in the Regents and Search Committee I deliberations was broken in the Press-Citizen's suit against the Regents. Former UI Faculty Senate President Shelly Kurtz revealed that the closed session deliberations went well beyond consideration of candidates and included discussions of process (namely, the confidentiality agreements required by the Regents and rejected by the faculty). Brian Morelli, "Official: Interrogatories 'incomplete;' Officials: Regents did not record portions of Nov. meeting," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 24, 2007, p. 3A. If true, this would be a clear violation of the Iowa open meetings law. That is, when otherwise open meetings are closed, the reason for the closure must be stated in open meeting, it must be one of the reasons expressly permitted by the law, and nothing else may be done during that closed session.

However, all that turns on the subject of former law school dean, Professor Bill Hines' analysis of the open meetings law. It has been published in the Des Moines Register, the Iowa City Press-Citizen, and, this morning, in The Gazette: N. William Hines, "Why UI's Search Meetings Not Open," The Gazette, May 24, 2007, p. 7A. (The links to the Register and Press-Citizen, above, will let you read his analysis.)

Most of the discussion of this subject has assumed the open meetings law applies to UI Presidential Search Committee I and II, and has then focused on whether what those Committees have done complies with the terms of the law.

What Dean Hines is arguing is that whether the terms of the law have been complied with or not is simply irrelevant. Why? Because the Search Committees are not even subject to the law -- or, otherwise put, that a careful reading of Iowa Supreme Court opinions in the Donohue and the 2005 Vision Iowa cases could reasonably lead one to a prediction that the Iowa Supreme Court would likely find that the Search Committees are not covered by the law.

Ultimately, of course, the meaning of any law is what the courts say it is. (As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson once said, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.") A legislature may pass a law regarding how "yellow" and "red" are to be treated, and a court, confronted with "green," may decide that green is "yellow" because by "yellow" the legislature simply meant any color "substantially possessed of qualities of 'yellow.'"

So, rather than get into that kind of analysis, I'll simply set forth here, as a service to lawyers and generally interested persons alike, Section 21.2 of the Iowa Code.

The definitions sections are central to any "statutory interpretation." In this case, for example, to be subject to the requirements of "open meetings" the Search Committees must meet the standards of two statutory definitions: they must be a "governmental body" and the activities in which they engage must constitute a "meeting."

Here, first, is the Iowa Code (2007) defintion of a "governmental body" [with my comments, in brackets, following each category]:

21.2 Definitions.

As used in this chapter:

1. "Governmental body" means:

a. A board, council, commission or other governing body expressly created by the statutes of this state or by executive order. [This presumably would include the Board of Regents (which is "expressly created by" statute), but not its Search Committees, which are not.]

b. A board, council, commission, or other governing body of a political subdivision or tax-supported district in this state. [Not applicable; political subdivisions are counties and cities.]

c. A multimembered body formally and directly created by one or more boards, councils, commissions, or other governing bodies subject to paragraphs "a" and "b" of this subsection. [This could be argued to include a body -- such as the Search Committees -- created by the Board of Regents (a "governing body subject to paragraph "a").]

d. Those multimembered bodies to which the state board of regents or a president of a university has delegated the responsibility for the management and control of the intercollegiate athletic programs at the state universities. [This can be argued to be evidence that (a) the Legislature deliberately omitted Search Committees, or (b) its willingness to include at least this one example of such committees, and thus, by extension, others as well.]

e. An advisory board, advisory commission, or task force created by the governor or the general assembly to develop and make recommendations on public policy issues. [Not applicable; Search Committees are not created by the Governor or General Assembly.]

f. A nonprofit corporation other than a fair conducting a fair event as provided in chapter 174, whose facilities or indebtedness are supported in whole or in part with property tax revenue and which is licensed to conduct pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter 99D or a nonprofit corporation which is a successor to the nonprofit corporation which built the facility. [Not applicable.]

g. A nonprofit corporation licensed to conduct gambling games pursuant to chapter 99F. [Not applicable -- notwithstanding the UI athletic program's reliance on gambling industry partnerships and revenues.]

h. An advisory board, advisory commission, advisory committee, task force, or other body created by statute or executive order of this state or created by an executive order of a political subdivision of this state to develop and make recommendations on public policy issues. [Not applicable.]

The second standard, or definition, that the Search Committees must meet in order to be subject to the Iowa open meetings law is that the activities in which they engage constitute a "meeting." Here is the Iowa Code (2007) definition of "meeting":

21.2 Definitions.

As used in this chapter:

* * *

2. "Meeting" means a gathering in person or by electronic means, formal or informal, of a majority of the members of a governmental body where there is deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body's policy-making duties. Meetings shall not include a gathering of members of a governmental body for purely ministerial or social purposes when there is no discussion of policy or no intent to avoid the purposes of this chapter."

In fact, in the case on which Dean Hines relies, Mason v. Vision Iowa Board, July 15, 2005, although the Iowa District Court decided that a committee of Board members did not constitute a "governmental body," the Iowa Supreme Court expressly declined to address that issue, focusing on the "meeting" definition instead ("we need not determine whether the committee is a governmental body because we agree with the district court that the committee’s meetings did not fall within the statutory definition of a 'meeting' . . .").

Without getting into an analysis of the court's opinion (which is available in full from the link immediately above), the relevant language from the definition would be "deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body's policy-making duties."

Assuming the Search Committee does meet the definition of a "governmental body," does what it is engaged in doing constitute a statutory "meeting"? Is the winnowing of a pool of 100 or more potential UI presidents down to a group of four to be passed along to the Regents a task fairly characterized as a "policy-making duty"? (But, then, how relevant is that, given that there are many functions performed by governmental bodies, that all would concede must be in open meeting, that are not what one would normally characterize as "policy-making"?) And, even if it is "policy-making," is it a mere "advisory committee" role; is it a mere "recommendation" to the Board (as distinguished from "action") -- or is it the performance of a Regents' task, the making of a "decision" (at least as to those four)?

Now you figure it out. What do you think? Everyone can play this game.
_____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.

# # #
[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.

Searching: 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 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
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 http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________

UI Held Hostage Day 487 - Governance Regents Number One Priority

May 23, 2007, 11:55 a.m.

Regents, Governance, PR Firms, Strategic Planning, Presidential Selection, and June 13
As I have written here at length over the past few months, the number one, top priority issue confronting the Board of Regents -- and especially its new additions -- is the study, eventual selection, and application of, a governance model. See, e.g., most recently, Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to Regents on 'Governance," in "UI Held Hostage Day 451 - Open Letter to Regents," April 17, 2007.

Two recent items further illustrate this need.

So far as is known, the Regents' Executive Director and President, without formal Board action, have decided to hire a public relations firm. "Request for Proposals: Promotional Services for the Board of Regents, State of Iowa;" see especially, Section F. Proposal to Implement the Statement of Work, p. 8. By May 21 there were sufficient questions regarding the content of this RFP that a "Questions and Answers" had to be issued. See, Associated Press, "Regents Want to Hire a Marketing, PR Expert," Des Moines Register, May 18, 2007 ("I don't have the expertise to say, 'How do we get this news on the front page of some newspapers around the state?'" [Regents Executive Director Gary] Steinke says. "That's the kind of thing we need to do a better job of — blowing our own horn.")

Clearly, anyone who would phrase the question in that way is in need of a little guidance. The way you "get this news on the front page" is to provide the newspaper, in timely fashion, with information which -- in their judgment, not yours -- is worthy of the front page, and then return their phone calls promptly when they call. Every for-profit and non-profit institution in the country, along with most celebrities, wants to "blow its own horn." Do you have any idea how much of their public relations firms' self-serving (and not incidentally very expensive) horn blowing on behalf of clients ends up in newspaper editors' circular files -- often unopened?

Actually, it's highly unlikely that there is advice from any public relations firm in the country that is even the equal, let alone better than, that which could be easily provided by the fellow who happens to be the President of the Board of Regents. He is, after all, a former newspaper editor, a frequent newspaper contributor, a newspaper owner, and former President of NBC News. Aside from his advice and guidance, most of the routine media relations tasks can be performed by someone among those 21 employees in Steinke's office ("The Board Office has 21 individuals," Answer to Question 9, "Questions and Answers," p. 3).

So it's not clear to me (without knowing more) why the Board would need a public relations firm. As "JackDM" put it, in a comment on the Register's May 18 AP story:

Since when do we need to hire PR and Marketing Firms for State departments or agencies? I mean are they going to do ads that say "We are better than the Illinois Board of Regents?"

The Board of Regents and their staff have never had a sense of reality. Instead of all those salaries they should disband the Regents Office and allow the Universities to govern themselves like the majority of states do. We save money on the building rent in Urbandale, we eliminate salaries and benefits for the goof offs in the office, and eliminate private plane travel, meal benefits at five star restaurants, and...the embarrassment of the Board of Regents. The money could be placed into the colleges to at least keep tuition steady. Go to the Board of Regents website and look at the budget they have!

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think we should do away with the Board of Regents, and I frankly doubt that its staff consists of "goof offs." But I do think the Board -- and we -- need to think through the governance model. What, exactly, is it that the Board should be doing and why?

Why does "the Board" need a public relations firm? There is relatively little news that comes from the Board of Regents, as such. Not only is a Board public relations firm unnecessary, it would make matters worse in a variety of ways -- not the least of which would be public relations.

The most newsworthy stories (mostly positive, but also negative) come from the Regents' institutions themselves -- such as the University of Iowa. In the nature of media relations -- especially in an age of the 24/7 news cycle -- efficient and effective coverage requires that the stories, and the media's contacts, come from those on the scene. So far as I can see, the institutions' news services are doing about as good a job as anyone could, given their resources. Requiring them to run their stories and responses to reporters' questions through "the Regents' public relations firm" would be one of the biggest steps backward imaginable.

So far as I know, it's relatively unusual for, say, a corporate board of directors to have its own public relations firm -- separate and apart from that which serves the company. So we're back once again to governance issues.

If you conceive of the Regents' institutions as the subsidiary corporations of a conglomerate corporation called The Board of Regents, with the President of the Board as the CEO, the Executive Director as the COO (his actual self-characterization), and the 8 other Regents as vice presidents reporting to the CEO, that's one model -- not very far from the way the present Board seems to work. Under such a model, it would still be inefficient, but otherwise understandable, to have all contact with the media run through "headquarters." [Source: "The single contact person will be the Executive Director . . . chief operating officer of the Board of Regents . . .." Answer to Question 9, "Questions and Answers," p. 3.]

If, on the other hand, you apply the John Carver model to the Board, along with the 80-year-old national tradition of "shared governance" of universities, with the universities' presidents as close as you'll get to a CEO, responsibility for media relations would normally rest with the universities.

And that is why, before the Board can even think about the matter of hiring a public relations firm it first needs to address, as its top priority, the matter of a governance model.

The same thing can be said for Michael Gartner's unilateral announcement that the June 13 meeting is to be devoted in large measure to "strategic planning."

From this morning's Gazette: Diane Heldt, "Regents ready for strategic planning," The Gazette, May 23, 2007, p. B2.

The state Board of Regents, the presidents of Iowa’s three public universities, and a University Hospitals leader will discuss long-term strategic planning at the June 13 regents meeting in Des Moines. Regents President Michael Gartner, in an e-mail to the regents, the presidents of the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa, and to Jean Robillard, vice president for medical affairs and dean of the UI Carver College of Medicine, laid out a plan for the discussion.

It’s a good time to jump back into the subject, Gartner told The Gazette, because the June meeting is light on other business, the UI presidential search is coming to a close, and four new regents are in place. ‘‘It seems like a good time to sit back and take an assessment of where we are and where we’d like to go,’’ he said.

It will be an informal, public discussion of the long-term views for the UI, ISU, UNI and University Hospitals, he said, and likely the first in a series of discussions.

Questions suggested in his e-mail include:
| What should the universities look like academically and structurally in 10 years?
| What areas should each excel in, both in teaching and in research?
| When is duplication needed and when is it a less-than-ideal use of resources?
| What existing areas at each institution need to be fortified, what new areas need to be launched, what areas must be maintained but not emphasized, what areas should be phrased out?
| How can each university best serve the state’s and its citizens’ changing and increasingly diverse interests?
| What can the universities do to make sure entering students are more than adequately prepared for a university curriculum?

* * *

This raises all kinds of questions. A month ago I addressed some of them in the context of the need for a Regents-Universities governance model. Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to Regents on 'Governance," in "UI Held Hostage Day 451 - Open Letter to Regents," April 17, 2007.

The Board of Regents already does some of this [establish John Carver's "ends policies"] with "strategic plans" and "goals" for its institutions' presidents. (See, for example, "2004-2009 Strategic Plan of the Board of Regents," which, while largely hortatory and devoid of measurable goals, anticipates such might be developed.) One of the most relevant sections of its "Policy Manual," Chapter 6, "Academic Policies and Procedures," is "Under Revision." Although the Board may also have addressed the equivalent of "executive limitations" I am not aware it has done so. But see, e.g., Regents' Policy Manual, Chapter 7.02, "Code of Business and Fiduciary Conduct," (3) "Compliance with Law."

Earlier, in January, I addressed related issues:

We know that Regent Gartner earlier wanted to get a "strategic planning" process started before UI had a president or the UNI president had much time on the job. Is that still going on? Will there be a new UI strategic plan in place to greet the new UI president (if one can ever be found under these circumstances)?

* * *

(5) A lot of work needs to be done on a new "strategic plan" -- as well as a governance model for Regents-universities' relationships. A new president will walk into either (a) the current vacuum, not knowing what will emerge from the Regents' process on either topic, or (b) very recently adopted documents the president had no opportunity to help shape.

Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search Held Hostage Day 59 - Jan. 14," January 14, 2007.

1. If we are, in fact, to have a new UI president selected by July 1, Search Committee II has concluded its clandestine interviews, campus visits are planned, and there's to be a Regents meeting on June 13, I would think (without knowing more) that the top priority on June 13 would be a consideration of Search Committee II's list of finalists for Regents' consideration.

2. Now it's one thing not to undertake strategic planning between last November and this month because we want to wait until we have a new UI president in place. That's proven to be a long time to wait. But wait we did. So now we're going to take it up two weeks before he or she has been selected? Why does that make sense -- especially given our prior patience?

3. The current Regents' strategic plan is titled, "2004-2009 Strategic Plan of the Board of Regents, State of Iowa." Since that would seem, on its face, to have a couple of years yet to go, it's not totally clear what the effect of the proposed discussion will be. Is the new Board about to "take it from the top" with a sort of "zero-based strategic planning," or will the output be revisions to the 2009 Plan?

4. Most fundamental, of course, once again, is the matter of governance model. Until the Regents and their universities' administrators have decided who is responsible for what and to whom and when and why, it is a little difficult to come up with what they call a "strategic plan," Carver calls "ends policies," and most would simply call "measurable goals."

5. Finally, we still have the related issue of the relative role of the President of the Board and the entire membership of the Board. My own preference (and that of many other students of governance) would be for the setting of agendas, the posing of discussion questions (as in Gartner's email), and the focus of the Board at its meetings to be something that comes out of prior discussions among all 9 members (rather than unilaterally from the President or staff).
_____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.

# # #
[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.

Searching: 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 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
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 http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________

UI Held Hostage Day 486 - Secrecy Issues & Other UI Items

May 22, 2007, 7:30 a.m.

UI President Search Updates and Other UI Items
ProLog For presidential candidates and others interested in what's going on at the University of Iowa, I have earlier referred you to our distinguished Executive Vice President and Provost Michael J. Hogan's Web site. To this he has now added his personal blog, creatively christened "ProLog." It will be well worth a regular look, as he says, "It’s my hope to update things here every few days."

Abolish Presidency? Had the Regents simply left Provost Hogan in charge after President David Skorton's departure to Cornell University not only would they have provided the smoothest transition in the University's history, Hogan would soon be into his second year. Yesterday morning's Press-Citizen carries a letter to the editor that suggests something along this line. Julie Spencer, "Let's Just Get Rid of President's Position," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 21, 2007, p. 11A ("perhaps the best remedy to this ongoing debacle is do away with the president's position altogther").

Pounding Nails Mary Gilchrist, former director of the UI Hygienic Lab, was -- I think it accurate to say -- "fired." Whether her advocacy for the lab was "insubordination" or "whistle blowing" is still in litigation. Whatever a judge may decide, the Massachusetts State Laboratory decided it was exactly the kind of leadership they wanted. She's gone; they've got her now. Hieu Pham, "Gilchrist Lands Job at Mass. Lab," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 21, 2007, p. 1A. (Hieu Pham quotes Gilchrist as saying, "I think one has to do the right thing, and the consequences cannot be the major factor that determines what one does.")

"Bob," a former employee of Chrysler, said of his former working environment: "if you speak up about an issue, you are considered the nail to be pounded down, not an angel spreading the 'quality word.'" It's a common institutional observation -- and complaint. On May 3 I wrote that "Skorton is the former UI president who was run off by lesser mortals . . .." Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 467 - UI's Stealth President," May 3, 2007. It produced the following comment to that blog entry from "Obadiah Plainman": "As an attorney, one would think you would know better than to use heresay [sic] to prove a case." It was a fair criticism. (Though I had some credible sources, I didn't feel I had permission to use them). I should have said, "some feel," or "it is rumored that."

But whatever the cause, whatever the characterization, in my opinion the UI is the poorer for the loss of Gilchrist as well as Skorton.

Does Iowa's Open Meetings Apply to Presidential Searches? Last Sunday, upon my return to the blogosphere, I wrote, "I haven't even had time to go through the last ten days' newspapers, . . .. Meanwhile, here are some random items." See Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 484 - May 20 - Back to Blogosphere," May 20, 2007.

"John Barleykorn" responded with the following comment: "What, no response to your former boss saying the Board of Regents isn't bound by the open meetings law?" It was a reference to N. William Hines, "Law Doesn't Support Charges," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 14, 2007, p. 11A ("Before the open meetings law zealots storm the university with torches and pitchforks, they and the media that hypes their concerns would do well to real carefully the Iowa law they so righteously champion . . ..")

The only reason I didn't mention this Sunday was because I hadn't yet seen it.

As I did write on Sunday:

The position of Search Committee II is "we will only comply with Iowa's open meetings law if our candidates are willing to be law abiding -- but a few of what we think are our best candidates are scofflaws and we feel we need to accommodate them." I addressed this position before I took my blog break. My position was, in effect, "if you want to violate the law at least make a stab at coming up with a legal argument as to why all of its provisions are inapplicable to what you're doing." See Nicholas Johnson, "But Before I Do . . ." in "UI Held Hostage Day 472 - Beagle's Landing; More Secrecy," May 8, 2007.

What Search Committee II decided it would do -- over the objections of Iowa's governor and the President of the Board of Regents -- was that it would comply with a part of the notice provisions, but not all: they would reveal when they would be interviewing candidates but not where.

Bill Hines is a distinguished legal scholar and teacher, one of the longest serving law school deans in American history, and one who was selected by his colleagues as President of the American Association of Law Schools. He's also a personal friend, has been a basketball player of some considerable skill, and continues to be able to find the most illusive fish in Minnesota. In short, his analysis of the Iowa Open Meetings Law is somewhere between persuasive and entitled to great respect.

Where I totally agree with him is that if Search Committee II wants to take the position that it is somehow exempt from open meetings requirements its legal argument needs to be structured as he has tried to present it. Thankfully, he does not even try to make a case for Search Committee II selectively picking from the act the provisions with which it will (date and time of meeting) and will not (where the meeting is to take place) comply -- as the Committee did. He just flat out argues that the act is not applicable to Search Committee II at all.

I also agree that the Supreme Court of Iowa might (but not, as he argues, "would surely") buy his interpretation.

Finally, I agree with his unstated assertion -- as Professor Arthur Bonfield and I have argued elsewhere -- that the Legislature needs to revisit many of the provisions of the Iowa Open Meetings Law, including those affecting this search.

Where I respectfully disagree -- as I have repeatedly argued in these blog entries -- is that the language of the act can only be interpreted in the way he suggests. I analyze it differently. I believe that Search Committee II is covered by its terms. All of them.

But arguing about such interpretations is what lawyers (and law professors) do. (And although it is somewhere between difficult and impossible for others -- including our spouses -- to comprehend, at its best it is our bizarre way of bonding and strengthening personal respect and affection.)

Clearly, his position is not universally held. There are lots of us "open meetings law zealots" out here.

On the same page with Dean Hines' op ed is Duncan Stewart, "UI Search Candidates' Names Should be Public," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 14, 2007, p. 11A ("Anyone who wants to lead Iowa's largest university . . . should have the backbone and intellectual standing to make their application public").

And clearly Harold Hammond, an emeritus professor in the department of oral pathology, radiology and medicine, and his lawyer, Iowa City attorney Gregg Geerdes, do not buy the Dean's legal analysis. "Hammond is asking the court to void any and all actions taken by the search committee, stop the defendants from violating the laws again and compensation for attorney's fees." Kathryn Fiegen, "Emeritus Professor Sues Regents, Search Committee," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 19, 2007, p. 1A.

Secrecy Issues: What's Really At Stake? OK, let's put the legal issues aside for now, and try to understand (a) what are the legitimate issues of concern to presidential candidates regarding secrecy, and (b) if and how Search Committee II's approach is responsive to those concerns.

There seems, to me, to be an internal inconsistency in the Committee's logic and process. I'm the first to acknowledge that may well be because I just don't know -- or understand -- what they've done and why.

During their interview process secrecy has been a paramount concern -- up to and including a willingness to violate the law (in the view of some lawyers, journalists, the Governor of Iowa and the President of the Board of Regents). But now, during the interim between their interviews (May 13 and 14) and passing four names on to the Board of Regents (sometime in June), "In a unanimous decision, the group voted to schedule campus visits for 'several candidates' before forwarding a final slate to the Iowa state Board of Regents." (Of course, the Committee hasn't yet figured out how that is going to work. "The search committee also decided to form a subcommittee to devise ways the on-campus interviews could happen . . ..") Kathryn Fiegen, "UI Finalists Will Interview on Campus; Search Group Decision Unanimous," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 19, 2007, p. A1.

Now I'm not trying to be cute or critical. I'm really just trying to understand what this is about.

Fiegen quotes one member of the Committee as saying, "An abbreviated process may be necessary to keep some candidates in the pool." An earlier story reported, "The committee says exposure would cause 'needless and irreparable harm,' . . . [And, from another Committee member:] being a known candidate can jeopardize someone's current job. 'Outside academia, people have a hard time understanding,' . . .." Brian Morelli, "Search Committee Proceeds With Plans; Group Enters Closed Session in Undisclosed Location," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 12, 2007, p. 3A.

Now there is some question as to whether "being a known candidate" really does cause a candidate harm. Indeed, I am informed that some of these candidates, engaging in secret interviews, are the very ones leaking the fact they are under consideration -- precisely because it enhances their reputation in their current position, and may even be the basis for a pay raise.

And given what appears to be most Americans willingness to be moved at any time for an increase in pay, prestige and power, can't it be reasonably assumed that almost every university president and provost is continuously searching for new opportunities? That being the reality, what's the big deal about acknowledging it?

But let's put all that aside as well, and assume for the moment that to be known as a potential president of the University of Iowa is something no one would ever want known because of the "irreparable harm" to their reputation -- something close, I gather, to the legal standard for "defamation."

Accepting that, why does the need for secrecy only extend to their being interviewed by Search Committee II? Why is it not equally applicable to their showing up on campus? Assuming that we are not going to follow the advice from The Gazette that they all show up with pillow cases over their heads (the paper offered to supply them) [Editorial, "The Pillowcase Option," The Gazette, May 9, 2007, p. 4A] won't their identity then be known -- back home as well as in Iowa City?

Is this just a problem in risk assessment, and benefit-cost analysis, for these gamblers playing the odds? That is, having one's identity revealed at any stage is a cause of "irreparable harm," but the odds of actually being chosen improve as the process progresses. When you're one of 100 or more potential candidates the odds of being selected are slight, and the harm is substantial. When you're one of four finalists, the harm is just as great, but the odds of you actually being selected are much better; thus, the reality of significant harm (from being known to be a candidate) is outweighed by the relatively good odds of receiving the even greater benefit of becoming the UI president.

(Dean Hines' interpretation of the law may be found to be correct. Or the Legislature may revise the law to exclude universities' presidential searches from open meetings requirements. It may be it will be decided that the public and media have absolutely no right to know about this process. That's within the power of our democratically elected representatives to decide. But if we do have a need and right to know what is going on, at what stage in the process does that right come into being? Are the identities of the 100 or so candidates who have been rejected by Search Committee II of no relevance to our understanding the process?

Recall what the 19th Century New York City political Boss William Tweed is credited with having said, “I don’t care who does the electing just so long as I do the nominating.” By the time Search Committee II has done the "nominating" -- whether of those who come for campus visits, or the four they forward on to the Board of Regents -- it leaves relatively few choices for "who does the electing."

Our national parties' presidential candidates used to be selected as our UI president is being selected. A "smoked-filled, back room of Party leaders" would do the nominating. The voters' choices were limited to two candidates: one Republican and one Democrat. Today's caucuses and primaries open the nominating as well as the election process to the public and media. Of course, there may be more reason for secrecy surrounding the selection of the President of the University of Iowa than for the President of the United States.

To reveal only the names of some list of "finalists" may be a pragmatic compromise, all considered. But it is just that: a compromise. It is not -- to me, at this time -- a reasoned position.)

And the Committee is saying that "several candidates" will visit the campus -- following which four names will be submitted to the Board. So are we talking numbers here? It would be devastating to an educational administrator were it to become known that he or she was among the "less than 20" interviewed at a secret location, but it is somehow perfectly OK to be one of, say, seven candidates visiting the campus?

And what's this "abbreviated process" about -- a reference to campus visits that are compressed into a relatively shorter time period (say, three or four days rather than a couple of weeks)? There's no "irreparable harm" to having it known that you were a part of an "abbreviated process" at Iowa, but if the University takes its time, and does a little more thorough job of getting to know a number of finalists (and they the University), somehow your career is ruined? Isn't this like a "little bit pregnant"? It seems to me you're either a candidate or you're not. Unless we really are going to take The Gazette's pillow case advice, or limit the candidates' visits to a helicopter fly-over of Iowa City, it seems to me it's going to be very difficult to keep a veil of secrecy over the identity of those candidates visiting the campus.

Oh, well, there are a great many things in this life I don't understand, and maybe I should just chalk this one up as one more.
_____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.

# # #
[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.

Searching: 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 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
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 http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________

UI Held Hostage Day 484 - May 20 - Back to Blogosphere

May 20, 2007, 11:45 a.m.

I haven't even had time to go through the last ten days' newspapers, let alone reflect on what happened during that time. I'll try to spread some of that out during the next week or so. Meanwhile, here are some random items.

UI's Stealth Presidential Search Continues

If you are one of the presidential candidates who is tracking this blog, hopefully you are better informed than I about where things in general -- and you in particular -- stand at the moment. But, if not, it looks like, from the stories of May 12, that interviews were held on May 13 and 14 (at an undisclosed location) with those ("less than 20") characterized as finalists as of Search Committee II's Friday meeting on May 11. So, I guess if you don't recall being interviewed last weekend you might want to give Dean Dave Johnsen a call and find out why not.

The on-again-off-again debate about transparency in Search II has continued. The position of Search Committee II is "we will only comply with Iowa's open meetings law if our candidates are willing to be law abiding -- but a few of what we think are our best candidates are scofflaws and we feel we need to accommodate them." I addressed this position before I took my blog break. My position was, in effect, "if you want to violate the law at least make a stab at coming up with a legal argument as to why all of its provisions are inapplicable to what you're doing." See Nicholas Johnson, "But Before I Do . . ." in "UI Held Hostage Day 472 - Beagle's Landing; More Secrecy," May 8, 2007.

What Search Committee II decided it would do -- over the objections of Iowa's governor and the President of the Board of Regents -- was that it would comply with a part of the notice provisions, but not all: they would reveal when they would be interviewing candidates but not where. As anyone, especially a group of academics, ought to know, the coordinates on any space-time event require both (a) a date and time (according to some agreed upon calendar and time zone (UTC or CDT)), and (b) a place (which, if on Earth, can be either "address" or latitude and longitude).

This is true whether you're inviting someone to an open house, an open election, or an open meeting. See Editorial, "Call for open meetings in UI search, governor; Don't follow attorney general's example," Des Moines Register, May 9, 2007; and Danny Valentine, "U of I to keep interview locations secret; Members of the presidential search committee say they are concerned about protecting candidates' identities," Des Moines Register, May 12, 2007.

As of yesterday, the Committee had decided to have some on-campus interviews of finalists, but wasn't yet sure exactly what that would mean -- in terms of how long they will be here, or who will know, let alone have an opportunity to meet and question them. Hey, folks, this is day 484; June 1 is just around the corner, and July 1 (by which the Regents are to have selected the ultimate winner in this marathon) is not far behind. We really need some decisions about this process (as we have needed them since last January). Kathryn Fiegen, "UI finalists will interview on campus; Search group decision unanimous," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 19, 2007, p. 1A.

Meanwhile, Ms. Fiegen also reported on page one: "Emeritus Professor Sues Regents, Search Committee," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 19, 2007, p. 1A (over their violations of Iowa's open meetings law).

There was a significant clause in a story in The Daily Iowan's last issue of the academic year.

The story involved Regents' President Michael Gartner's statement that Search Committee II ought to comply with Iowa's open meetings law. There are those who've belittled what they characterize as a convenient conversion by Gartner from a practice of secrecy to a preaching of openness. I say give the guy some credit: for creating the policy that emails among Regents will be posted to the Board's Web page, and for this statement solidly supporting compliance with Iowa's law. (My position is that if the law needs to be changed, as may be the case, that's something to be done by the Legislature, not by the boards and agencies on a case-by-case basis as they find it convenient to do so.)

But far more significant than any of that, in my view, is the following sentence from Matt Nelson's story in The Daily Iowan: "Gartner asked the committee to reconsider its decision to hold the meetings at an undisclosed site based on the history of the presidential search but emphasized that he spoke only for himself and not the entire board." (emphasis supplied) Matt Nelson, "Panel to secretly interview UI president semifinalists," The Daily Iowan, May 11, 2007.

This is, to my knowledge, the first time that President Gartner has ever acknowledged the very basic governance principle that only "the Board" speaks for "the Board" and that individual Board members -- including the President of the Board of Regents -- have a governance obligation to make very clear when they are speaking for the Board and when they are just speaking in their individual capacity.

It could have just been an off-hand comment, but I am hoping that it may be a first step toward the establishment of a full-blown set of governance standards regarding: (1) measurable goals (what John Carver calls "ends policies"), (2) relationships between the Board and Regents institutions' presidents and faculties (taking into account the academy's tradition of "shared governance" -- and the need to provide an operational definition of just what that means), (3) what Carver calls "executive limitations," and (4) the Board members' own relationships, and self-imposed restrictions on their own behavior.

See Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to Regents on 'Governance,'" in "UI Held Hostage Day 451 - Open Letter to Regents," April 17, 2007.

But before you get too hopeful about this, read State 29, "This Ought to Make Nicholas Johnson Laugh," May 18, 2007. It did. (The Board of Regents has apparently hired a public relations firm. There may be more on this later.) But it was bitter sweet because of its implications for governance: Apparently Regent Bob Downer was not even informed of this "Board of Regents decision," let alone given an opportunity to participate in it.

_____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.

# # #
[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.

Searching: 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 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
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 http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________

UI Held Hostage Day 472 - Beagle's Landing; More Secrecy

May 8, 2007, 2:30 p.m.

The Beagle Is Landing; Plus: But before I do . . .
Having spent 320 days in the blogosphere, I am now on time and on course to return to the reality of Earth this evening for a brief rest before my next lift off into the blogosphere sometime later this month.

(The record for the longest time in space is, I believe, held by "medical doctor Valeriy Polyakov [who] set a new world space-endurance record by living on Mir for 438 days -- long enough for a spacecraft to travel to Mars." Glenn Elert, ed., "Duration of the Longest Space Flight," The Physics Factbook. This feat was, of course, eclipsed by our Board of Regents some 34 days ago -- on their way to today's "UI Held Hostage Day 472." Way to go!)

I believe this blog is adequately provisioned to sustain any who may shuttle up here and stop by during the interim, given that I cannot find everything written here even with all the available search features and the "Blog Index" -- and it's stuff I've written. So just look around. Ultimately you'll find more than enough to read.

I'm around. I'm not going anywhere. I'm just going to spend some time on Earth and get some non-blog work done, and survey what's happened to the Planet in my absence.

Meanwhile, I trust the Governor, Legislature, Board of Regents, UI administration and faculty to carry on briefly without my direction -- subject only to such commentary as may be necessary upon my return.

But Before I Do . . .
Having said that I'll trust all those folks while I'm out of the blogosphere, I just can't let this morning's news (May 8) go without comment.

Here are excerpts from The Gazette's take on the story. Gregg Hennigan, "UI interview location to be secret; Time, date, agenda will be posted for semifinalist interviews," The Gazette, May 8, 2007, p. B1:

The state’s open-meetings law requires that the time, date, place and a tentative agenda be posted at least 24 hours before a meeting of a governmental body.

The time, date and an agenda of the interviews will be posted, but their location will be kept secret and the meetings will be closed to the public to protect candidates’ identities, UI general counsel Marc Mills said Monday.

The decision came after consulting the state Attorney General’s Office. Mills said ‘‘the global thinking’’ is that the search committee is subject to the open-meetings law. ‘‘The intent is, again, to provide the notice as the law requires us to do but not to open it up so that the identity of those individuals is known,’’ he said. ‘‘That’s the balance we’re trying to strike.’’

Kathleen Richardson, the Iowa Freedom of Information Council’s executive secretary, criticized the decision.

‘‘If they’re going to follow the notice requirement, they can’t pick and choose what they’re going to provide,’’ Richardson said. ‘‘Otherwise, they’re again defying the intent of the law, which is that people who want to attend meetings should know where and when they are.’’

* * *
The public notice section of the law, however, lists no exceptions for providing the time, date, place and agenda for open and closed meetings. Bob Brammer, spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, which often performs legal services for Iowa’s public universities, declined comment, citing attorney-client privilege.

* * *
The search committee has not yet decided how to handle finalist interviews.

There are multiple issues here.

1. Desirability of secrecy in hiring. I've repeatedly made my own position clear: I would not want as UI president someone whose first official act is their insistence on a veil of secrecy over their activities. I've spelled out other disadvantages in greater detail elsewhere: Nicholas Johnson, "Shhh, It's a Secret" in "UI Held Hostage Day 467 -- UI's Stealth President," May 3, 2007; and see Nicholas Johnson, "UI's Stealth President Update" in "UI Held Hostage Day 470 -- Stealth Pres; Cable; Media," May 6, 2007.

On the other hand, I've had conversations with knowledgeable persons who have personally witnessed the disadvantages of having to reveal the identities of job applicants. In at least one case a university president was told by his board that if he revealed the fact he was a candidate at Iowa (during a prior presidential search) he would be fired. I give them the benefit of the doubt that the concerns they express are genuinely held. I just disagree.

2. Applicability of Iowa's Open Meetings Law to Search Committee II. All seem to concede that Search Committee II is bound by the Open Meetings law (as the quote from UI general counsel Marc Mills, above, would seem to confirm).

3. Interviews conducted in Closed Meetings. I don't think the Act is as clear as some others seem to believe it is with regard to permitting interviews to be held in closed session. (The reference to "harm" from open discussion of personnel matters seems to me more directed to disciplinary proceedings, or firings, for violations of law, unprofessional or immoral conduct than it is to hiring someone for a prestigious position.) But there are strong arguments to be made for Search Committee II's position that it can, in some instances, go into closed session for the interview itself.

4. Creating a closed meeting. The Iowa law is very clear. In order to have a closed meeting one must first have an open meeting. During the open meeting a motion can be made to go into closed session, there is a statement of the statutory provision, the exception permitting a closed session, on which the body is relying, and then a vote is taken. At the conclusion of the closed meeting the body comes back into an open meeting before adjourning.

5. Open meetings requirements. At least 24 hours prior to a meeting the board or commission -- or in this case Search Committee II -- must make public (a) that an open meeting is to be held, (b) the day and time of the meeting, (c) the place of the meeting, and (d) the agenda of what is to be discussed and decided. All of these requirements must be met. The purpose, after all, is to enable the media and public to be present. It would do little good to know where a meeting will be held, but not what day or time; or to know the day and time, but not the location. These requirements are not like pizza toppings, where you get to pick any three of five. You have to take them all. When it comes to the law you can't say, for example, "I'm willing to keep both headlights working on my car, but I really think one tail light ought to be enough."

6. Changing the law. Admittedly, there is a potential conflict in the Open Meetings law: if, in fact, secret interviews are permitted because revealing the applicants' names would cause them harm, then it follows that requiring the mandated procedures for open meetings going into closed sessions would certainly risk the revelation of those names (as applicants would be subject to being seen as they arrived and left). But if there is a need for a change in the law (that has been there for some years now), that is something to be done by the State Legislature -- as Professor Arthur Bonfield and others (including myself) have advocated be done with regard to a number of provisions. It is not something that a governmental body should be doing unilaterally on its own to suit its convenience and the requests of job applicants.

7. Best strategy. If those advising Search Committee II do want to free the Committee from the legal mandates of the Open Meetings Law (a position I do not support), it seems to me they would be better advised to try to make the argument that none of its notice provisions apply. That's admittedly a tough argument to win. But it seems to me it would be easier than their present, rather loony "cut the baby in half" compromise position, that a law designed to enable public and media to witness government action can be adequately served by announcing the day and time of a meeting but not its location. Just argue that secret, closed applicant interview sessions are required and that any notice regarding when and where they are to occur will compromise that need.

8. The pragmatic solution. Put the law aside for a moment and think in systems analysis terms. Here's a simple solution to all the cloak and dagger secrecy -- that, not incidentally, fully complies with the open meetings law while radically reducing the cost of what usually turns into a $250,000 expense per search. Use video conferencing (if the Committee insists on seeing the applicant), or the even cheaper audio conferencing. Announce the time and place and agenda of the Committee's open meeting. Go into closed session for interviews (in a room that's adequately sound proofed that you don't have to be worried about being overheard). Interview to your heart's content; ask all the questions you can think of and more. When you're done, go back into open session and adjourn. It's simple. It's incredibly cheap. It saves an enormous amount of time of Search Committee II members travelling to distant (or even in-state) locations. Is it "the same" as interviewing someone face to face; is it as effective? No. But given the problems associated with the alternatives it's not a bad trade off. (A colleague (not Arthur) and I discussed this earlier in the day. But I didn't clear with him using his name in connetion with this idea.)

OK. Now I can land.

Good luck in the interim, my friends. Looks like you may need it.
_____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.

# # #
[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.

Searching: 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 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
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 http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________

UI Held Hostage Day 470 - Stealth Pres; Cable; Media

May 6, 2007, 1:40 p.m.

UI's Stealth President Update
There is more to report on the "Stealth President" scene since last Thursday's blog entry, Nicholas Johnson, "Shhh, It's a Secret" in "UI Held Hostage Day 467 - UI's Stealth President," May 3, 2007.

On Friday, the Press-Citizen picked up the theme with its piece, Editorial, "There Ain't No Such Thing as 'Hybrid' Openness," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 4, 2007 -- that kindly included a link to my blog entry.

Much of Saturday's paper was devoted to Regents matters. Editorial, "New and Returning Regents Have a Lot to Accomplish," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 5, 2007; Brian Morelli, "The Four New Regents Decide It's Time to Reach Out; Board Ready for a New Tone and a Fresh Start," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 5, 2007;

Just as the Press-Citizen's outstanding Hieu Pham and other reporters occasionally have the paper to themselves, Brian Morelli was all over that Saturday edition. In addition to the general piece about the Regents on page one, there was a series reflecting interviews with each of the new appointees. Brian Morelli, "Campbell Brings Extensive Political Background," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 5, 2007; Brian Morelli, "Evans Says Financial Training Will Help With Regents," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 5, 2007; Brian Morelli, "Board Welcomes Farm Experience [Craig Lang]," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 5, 2007; Brian Morelli, "Miles Excited to Make Difference," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 5, 2007 [Miles is the Governor's choice for, and unanimous Board members' selection as, Board President Pro-Tem].

But Morelli's most significant article in terms of Search Committee II's secrecy is the page one, Brian Morelli, "UI to Issue Public Notice for Interviews," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 5, 2007:

The University of Iowa presidential search committee will give public notice of the interviews with semifinalists, said Marc Mills, UI vice president for legal affairs and general counsel, in an e-mail Friday evening.

Those interviews then will be conducted in closed session, Mills said.

The decision about how the semifinalist interviews will be conducted comes after UI sought advice from the Iowa attorney general and after the state ombudsman and other open government advocates urged an open process.

Mills advised the 13-member search committee during a closed session of Friday's presidential search meeting. He and the committee had sought out the advice of the Iowa attorney general on whether the committee must announce the time, date and location of an imminent semifinal round of interviews.

. . .

Letters from state Ombudsman William Angrick and Kathleen Richardson, executive secretary of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, as well as media reports about open meetings laws prompted a lively 20-minute discussion among the committee members Friday, before the group entered closed session.

. . .

The search committee still has not decided whether to have on campus interviews for the final round.

So the UI lawyer briefed the committee in a secret, closed session about whether they could have secret, closed sessions. I assume that's one of the exceptions to Iowa's Open Meetings law, but I'm not now in a position to take the time to find which exception it is. (It's rather amusing even if it's legal.)

Here is The Gazette's take on the story, Gregg Hennigan, "UI Search Plans Kept Secret; Committee Mum on Open Interviews in Seeking President," The Gazette, May 5, 2007, p. 1B, 7B.

IOWA CITY — The University of Iowa presidential search committee is keeping secret, at least for now, whether it will conduct open or closed interviews with semifinalist candidates.

UI general counsel Marc Mills said in an e-mail to reporters Friday afternoon that, after consulting with the state Attorney General’s Office, he had provided the search committee legal advice on the applicability of the state open-meetings law to semifinalist interviews.

‘‘As I’m sure you understand, I am unable to share the substance of that advice with you,’’ Mills wrote.

Steve Collins, a UI engineering professor who chaired the 1995 committee that chose former President Mary Sue Coleman, said semifinalist interviews should be confidential, but he was confused why the process would not be disclosed. ‘‘I don’t fully understand the thinking behind this decision, but it would be useful for the public to hear as soon as possible what the process is going to be,’’ he said.
. . .

Bob Brammer, spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, said attorney-client privilege prevented him from commenting.

The decision comes a day after state ombudsman William Angrick II and the Iowa Freedom of Information Council sent letters to Attorney General Tom Miller asking for an open hiring process. Angrick said Friday he hoped the process eventually is disclosed. ‘‘I am not particularly concerned that we have a deliberation taking place,’’ he said.
. . .

[Search Committee II Chair, David] Johnsen said they’d address whether finalists should come to campus for open interviews when the time comes. Faculty, staff and student leaders have advocated strongly for public, on-campus interviews for finalists.

The Register's stories are Erin Jordan, "Ombudsman Asks for Clarification on Secrecy Rules," Des Moines Register, May 4, 2007 ("'To me, the determinable factor is not individual preference, mere inconvenience or even potential embarrassment,' [Ombudsman William] Angrick wrote. 'The standard is higher than that; it is needless injury that cannot be repaired.'"), and Erin Jordan, "U of I search panel gets advice on secrecy; A lawyer says the group will give public notice of interviews with candidates for the school's presidency," Des Moines Register, May 5, 2007 ("'We will give notice of the interviews of the semi-finalists,' [UI general counsel Mark] Mills said in an e-mail Friday evening. David Johnsen, dean of the College of Dentistry and chairman of the search committee, said earlier this week that announcing the interviews could jeopardize the confidentiality of some candidates. If the dates of the interviews are made public, the absence of high-ranking officials from their home universities on those dates might indicate they are in the running for the U of I post, Johnsen said.")

I guess this will mean that the announcement of the place and time of the interviews will be announced 24 hours in advance -- because it is a meeting governed by the Iowa Open Meetings law -- at which Search Committee II will immediately go into secret closed session for the interview itself. This will give the media a fighting chance at investigating and guessing at who is under the burkas the candidates will be wearing into the meeting room.

Meanwhile, I guess that every university president or provost in the United States who needs to travel around that time will need to come up with an iron clad explanation for where they are going and why -- in order to avoid the obloquy and serious harm to their reputation and effectiveness that would necessarily follow from the public suspicion that they would actually have been considered a candidate for president of the University of Iowa, something similar to the horror surrounding the Hindenburg dirigible crash 70 years ago.

This whole secrecy business is getting "curiouser and curiouser" and coming to resemble Alice in Wonderland in other ways as well.

Update on Qwest's Cable Grab Bill
As of May 3 Qwest's cable bill -- passed by the Iowa Senate and House with the help of about $190,000 in campaign contributions -- was still sitting on the Governor's desk unsigned. See, Jason Clayworth, "Cable law faulty, advocates say; Lawsuits targeting franchise fees in jeopardy, they fear," Des Moines Register, May 3, 2007.

Today's Most Significant Story or Column
Today's most significant story or column is Rekha Basu, "World news that unites is missing," Des Moines Register, May 6, 2007.

Why? Because it's the media addressing one of the most serious defects in American media: Its failure to report to Americans what we need to know about all (or at least a significant sampling) of the peoples with whom we share this planet. She provides some classic examples of what our media does and does not report.

Ironically, I am spending this weekend (in part) doing my job as a judge in the Project Censored compilation of the year's "Ten Best Censored Stories." I'll have more to say about Project Censored later, once our selections have been made. For now, if you'd like to know more, just check out the Project Censored Web site.

Interestingly, all the stories Ms. Basu notes as significantly ignored by American media are stories that I knew about. How did that happen? I listen to the BBC, and visit its Web site. (My Web site also contains a "Global Media" page full of links to a sampling of the world's media.)

This is truly perhaps the most significant issue of our times, my friends, because it's no longer true that "what you don't know won't kill you." It's precisely what we don't know that is killing us, and will continue to. Our need to know what's going on around our planet is scarcely limited to our commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We're talking about things we need to know with regard to global trade as well as global terrorism, global war as well as global warming.
_____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.

# # #
[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.

Searching: 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 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
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 http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________