Friends,

I support the notion that meetings wherein candidates are discussed
should remain closed. My reasons are simple and practical. If they are
public then the better candidates will not apply because their current
employer may not know they're "looking." More than likely, in a
completely open process, we would attract only candidates who have been
encouraged to leave their current posts.

That being said, I also believe it borders on scandalous that a division
as vital as Student Development and perhaps others are not represented
on the committee. Student Development bears much of the responsibility
for the quality of the student experience on our campus. Further, the
previous administration, despite its great accomplishments, seemed more
than a little skewed in one direction. I don't think the answer is to
reach for perhaps yet another extreme. It seems to me we can avoid this
hazard and instill more confidence in the process by bringing a few more
representatives to the table to make certain that all important
constituencies are involved.

I believe at this point it would be fairly easy to make this compromise.
If we wait too long a groundswell of mistrust could contaminate the hard
work of this committee.

Tom Bissonette


-----Original Message-----
From: UTC Staff E-Mail List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Verbie Prevost
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [UTCSTAFF] Open Meetings

In response to the concern expressed in the Faculty Senate minutes
(presumably based on newspaper reports), let me provide information to
the
entire University community on the Chancellor Search Committee meetings
and
their openness.

Unlike any other previous search on this campus, all meetings of the
search
committee thus far have been open, despite what you may have read in the
papers.  Both the Chattanooga Times Free Press and Echo editor have been
present throughout both meetings.  Inexplicably, following the second
meeting, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter who attended the
entire
meeting did not report on any actions actually taken during that
meeting.   She did, however, report that the committee voted to close
the
meetings.  No such vote ever occurred!  In fact, the committee did not
even
discuss the issue during the meeting.  Prior to the meeting there had
been
some concern expressed to me by committee members about the continued
presence of the media when we began to talk about candidates.  Thus,
early
in the meeting I briefly announced to the committee my intention (based
on
traditional practice and on direction provided by President Petersen) to
close any meetings which were devoted to discussing candidates (still at
least a couple of months or longer away).   The reasons for doing that
are
to develop a strong pool of applicants and to allow the kind of frank
discussions that all of us know are crucial to selecting the best
candidates to interview and ultimately the finalists to recommend to the
President.  This practice, by the way, is one currently being debated
throughout the nation, and there are valid arguments on both sides.  See
more information on that below.*

As I reported to you regarding yesterday's meeting, one of the things
the
committee did was to approve (with a voice vote) a statement of
responsibility (which I copied in full for you).  Today's paper reported
that "During Monday's meeting, committee members also signed a
confidentiality statement that prevents them from speaking to anyone
outside the panel about the search."  No one at the meeting signed
anything.

Today's paper also reported that  I "declined comment on whether
Baker-Parker has the upper hand because of its past relationship with
the
university system."  I declined to comment on either firm as obviously
that
would not be appropriate in this situation.  The subcommittee selected
the
two strongest firms from the four that provided proposals.  Each of
these
firms will make a presentation to the entire committee.  The committee
will
use a rating form (details of which were provided to each company that
submitted a proposal) to decide which firm to employ.  I can not judge
presentations that have not occurred, so I can not legitimately
speculate
about the odds of which company would be selected.  The process of
selecting the search firm is designed to be, like the entire search,
fair
and open.

Faculty, staff, and students, like the media, are free to attend
meetings
not devoted to discussing candidates.  I will announce the time and
location of our next meeting (at which we will listen to the search firm
presentations and make a selection) as soon as it is firm.  It would be
helpful to know, however, who plans to attend so that we could be sure
to
adjust the location if more space were needed.

As I have stated frequently, the goal of the search committee is quite
simple:  to find the best possible chancellor for UTC.  I appreciate so
much your continued support and help as we seek to achieve this goal.

Verbie



*Thus far, there has been limited empirical research on the effects of
fully open searches, but several studies suggest that sunshine laws have
been one factor leading to lengthy, expensive, unwieldy, inefficient,
and
unsuccessful searches.  The Chronicle of Higher Education in its July 9,
2004, issue had a series of articles debating the subject (including one
by
John Petersen that praised the open process used by UT for the
Presidential
search).   One article, "Choose Public-College Presidents in the
Sunshine,
but Know When to Draw the Shades," examines the issues on both sides and
concludes with an endorsement of "a balanced approach, one that ensures
confidentiality in the 'search' for presidents and openness in the
'selection' of presidents."  The authors of the article, Vanderbilt
professors Hearn and McLendon, also say, "States should seek to ensure
confidentiality for candidates in the early stages of a presidential
transition process, but should publicly reveal finalists before reaching
any decision."  (That, of course, is what we wish to do as a search
committee at UTC.)

Other related articles:
Basinger, J., "No Long-Term President and No Prospects:  How Politics On
and Off the Campus Scuttled the Search for a Leader at the U. of
Florida,"
Chronicle of Higher Education, 0 March 2001, A35, 37

American Association of State Colleges and Universities, "Presidential
Searches and Sunshine Laws," Policy Matters, Vol. 1, No. 3, September
2004.






Verbie Lovorn Prevost
Katharine Pryor Professor and Acting Head
Department of English  2703
615 McCallie Ave.
Chattanooga, TN  37403
Phone:  423-425-4238
Fax:  423-425-2282
Email:  [log in to unmask]