Return to Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site

Return to Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
 
 

[Note: This material is copyright by The Chronicle of Higher Education, and is reproduced here as a matter of "fair use" for non-commercial, educational purposes only. Any other use may require the prior approval of The Chronicle of Higher Education.]

The University of Iowa’s Faculty Senate voted overwhelmingly this afternoon for a resolution expressing no confidence in the Board of Regents, which has drawn increasingly heated criticism for a failed presidential search, the Iowa City Press-Citizen reported. The vote was 62 to 1, with seven members absent. The regents ended their search for a new president last month after concluding that the finalists were unqualified. After that decision was assailed by a host of critics, the board initially said it would resume the search, with the original candidates. But last week the regents said they planned to restart the search from scratch, prompting today’s vote.

   1.

      very interesting….I knew there were probelms at Iowa but not this intense

      — kimball@callutheran.edu    Dec 13, 09:18 AM    #
   2.

      Our institution has just announced a new president. The same search firm which handled the Gallaudet fiasco handled our search. Two of the three finalists withdrew, so the “chosen” one was truly the last man standing. I’m very concerned about the interactions between seach firms and Boards. Congratulations to Iowa faculty for having the courage to speak out!!

      — anon    Dec 13, 09:52 AM    #
   3.

      So this meaningless gesture is supposed to accomplish:
      a) an improved presidential search
      b) improved faculty-board relations
      c) improved isntructional quality
      d) more State money for the University, or
      e) none of the above!

      — anon    Dec 13, 11:20 AM    #
   4.

      A previous writer points to an increasingly serious weakness in college and university leadership systems: the near total absence of what in the business world is called “succession planning.”

      My (huge) university now uses external search firms to fill positions as low as dean. This is a disgrace. We should all have structures in place to develop the talent and skills of faculty who want to go into higher administration.

      — ANONYMOUS    Dec 13, 11:34 AM    #
   5.

      The vote is meant to bring an outstanding president to the University of Iowa. Once the incompetent Board of Regents leadership is removed, a serious search can go forward. Good candidates will not have to fear that they will have to work with unethical and micromanaging Board leaders if they accept the presidency.

      — anonymous    Dec 13, 12:44 PM    #
   6.

      This is more about a few faculty seeing their name in the paper (repeatedly) than doing what’s best for the university.

      The Iowa Code clearly states it’s the purview of the Regents to pick the president—not the faculty.

      It’s funny that there are no problems between the Regents and the other institutions it governs (Iowa State, Northern Iowa, Iowa School for the Deaf and the Iowa Blind and Sight Saving).

      Maybe the problem isn’t with the Board of Regents??

      — John    Dec 13, 03:27 PM    #
   7.

      Response to John…Dec 13, 03:27 PM

      “This is more about a few faculty seeing their name in the paper (repeatedly) than doing what’s best for the university.”
      —> If that were true, why is it that every other campus group, which includes staff, undergraduate, and graduate students, pursuing the same no-confidence votes? Further, a former Regent president and the Johnson County Democrats have publicly criticized the current Regent actions. Please read up on this issue before making such bold accusations…

      “The Iowa Code clearly states it’s the purview of the Regents to pick the president—not the faculty.”
      —> Read Shelly Kurtz’s address to the faculty senate, as it addresses the many reasons for the no-confidence vote. The presidental search is not the only issue…

      — anonymous    Dec 13, 04:21 PM    #
   8.

      I have read Shelly Kurtz’s comments and I think he is wrong.

      Kurtz says Regents cannot do their job whatever way they want. That is wrong. They can and the Iowa Code give them to power to decide what’s best.

      Kurtz decries the failure of the current presidential search. Searches fail all the time. Just because a search as failed is no reason to call for a no-confidence vote. Why is it that is the Regents’ fault the search failed. The fault lies with many…including the faculty who served on the search committee. That committee was unable to forward a name that a majority of the Board could accept as President.

      Why is it that Kurtz singles out only Gartner and Wahlert? The vote to disband the search was 6-2 in favor. Why not attack them all as he has done in his public remarks directed at Gartner and Wahlert?

      Kurtz decries the secretive nature of the search. Yet it was the search committee that agreed to the conditions. The candidates demanded confidentiality—not the board. Also, the Iowa Code specifically allows for a public board to hold executive sessions to evaluate the professional qualifications of current or future employees.

      And why exactly does the Board need to consult with the faculty? Faculty are employees. I’m sure the Board of Ford Motor does not consult with line workers on who the next CEO should be. I grant you that faculty members are not “line workers”, but they are employees and it would only be through a courtesy that the Board would solicit their advice—not a requirement.

      Kurtz’s entire statement is filled with ad hominim attacks on Gartner and Wahlert. I think we should expect better of someone who holds himself so highly above others.

      Kurtz makes numerous wild accusations throughout his statement, but produces little evidence to back them up.

      After reading his statement, it seems to me that he is most upset that the Board doesn’t give him enought respect and that he is not the one in charge. If he wants to run things, maybe he should run for office or apply to be a president. It’s doubtful he will ever do that…he would have to leave a job where he is paid a sum that surpasses the income of 99 percent of Iowans and only has to teach a few courses. To most Iowans, and especially Shelly Kurtz, that seems like a good deal.

      — John    Dec 13, 06:02 PM    #
   9.

      It is noteworthy that, just today, former Iowa Regent President Marvin Pomerantz, actuallly a successful business leader (something Gartner is emphatically and empirically not), has met with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register and lambasted Gartner and the fiasco this search process has become.

      Granted, Pomerantz was appointed by a Republican and Gartner by Democrat Tom Vilsack. But Pomerantz was an infinitely better friend to higher education throughout this state than Gartner has thus far managed to be. Pomerantz admits Gartner is a man of many “brilliant” ideas, but though he has great ideas, Pomerantz adds, “he is not a great leader,” and should never have been appointed president of the Regents. “Michael engenders controversy wherever he goes.”

      It is huge that this would come from Mr. Pomerantz, and it will go a long way toward obliterating any argument that this controversy is being stoked by a bunch of whiny elites. (We have been getting a good whiff of anti-intellectualism in Iowa at this moment from some segments of the peanut gallery, predictably enough.)

      Gartner cannot lead. He can think, he can write. He has won a Pulitzer Prize. These are laudable things for which he has been amply lauded. But for this mess, which he has almost single-handedly managed to create, he should be removed.

      It is set forth in the Iowa Code that the Governor has the authority to removed a regent for “malfeasance in office.” The Iowa Senate then must ratify the removal. Gartner has demeaned some of the finest faculty in the country by his handling of this search. The search failed because of his mishandling. The UI has been diminished and its presidency has become a thing to be declined rather than sought by top-tier applicants. Mr. Gartner rejected a set of supremely qualified applicants for the sake of someone in the insurance industry he had his eye on for the job – a fact he has made clear. Does none of this constitute malfeasance for a regent? I believe it qualifies handsomely. Gartner should go. In the corporate world, he would be sacked for being such a bomb-thrower – and it would not be the first time (he lost his job at CBS News for botching some notorious truck testing, and also for being incredibly incendiary as a leader).

      Pomerantz is a successful businessman – and he lead a successful Board during a largely supportive period for higher education in Iowa. He was rather conservative in certain ways, and very down-to-earth. He was subjected to some ridicule from time to time. And yet many in Iowa are fondly recalling his tenure as Regent President tonight because he knew how to let processes work in the capable hands of those most intimately affected by them. Pomerantz’s decision to weigh in here may have a significant effect on the outcome.

      — Kim    Dec 13, 08:36 PM    #
  10.

      “And why exactly does the Board need to consult with the faculty? Faculty are employees.” This statement speaks volumes about what is the problem at UI, and in higher education in general. Despite the best efforts of state legislators, Boards of Trustees, and some higher administrators to turn universities into businesses, the essence of a university can never be turned into a “bottom line” business proposition. Yes, faculty are employees, but they are highly skilled, dedicated professionals who are in the class room every day making sure that the university fulfills its mission. They face every day the challenges of educating the nation’s youth with scarce resources, poor student preparation, and public apathy towards or hostility for education. Further, the skills and knowledge that faculty possess make them “employees” who are relatively hard to replace – an excellent teacher/scholar who has an active passion for the profession is not as common as one would think, so to imply that these “employees” are simply interchangeable cogs in a wheel is to show ignorance of the true situation. Furthermore, for a board of trustees to not consult the faculty and take into account their expertise in educational matters is to shoot the process in the foot. The president must be able to lead, and without the support of the faculty, effective leadership is impossible. Universities and their boards should return to their educational mission, realizing that if the university is a “business” it is a unique one that cannot operate effectively on a standard business model.

      — Anonymous    Dec 14, 08:16 AM    #
  11.

      For probably t he best description of what is really going on, read Dave Elbert, Des Moines Register Business Editor. You can read his remarks here: http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/BUSINESS/612100328/1029/archive

      Finally someone not in an ivory tower adds some common sense to this arrogant display by the Iowa faculty and staff.

      What president would want to lead a university where the faculty show such blatent disrespect for the its governing board.

      Yes, faculty are highly skilled, dedicated and in some cases hard to replace. That being said, a president or board should not have to change their views or style to one that is found acceptable to those who shout the loudest on the faculty. To do so, means those faculty are really running the university, not the citizens appointed by the Governor and confimed by the Senate.

      Regarding the remarks of Pomerantz, years ago he was run off the Board due to controversy at Iowa State and was one of the most divisive Board presidents in recent memory. I fail to see why now the Iowa faculty see a pronouncement by him to be the gold standard of Board conduct. Also, Pomerantz and Gartner have never been close and in many cases have been on opposite sides. Gartner is a large Democrat donor and Pomerantz is one of the biggest Republican donors in the state. Pomerantz has always had an ax to grind with Gartner.

      The faculty at Iowa are collectively acting like a misbehaving two-year old. Throwing a fit when they don’t get what they want. Maybe its time to discipline this misbehaving child that lives in the ivory tower??

      — John    Dec 14, 11:52 AM    #
  12.

      Let’s see….Kim argues that Gartner should be removed from the Board due to “Malfeasance in Office.” As evidence she cites:

      1. The search failing due to Gartner’s mishandeling. What’s Kim’s definition of “mishandeling? Gartner is the president of the Board charged with picking the next president at Iowa. If the search committee didn’t forward a name that a majority of Board members can endorse, I fail to see why this is labled as “mishandeling.” Further it’s the Board’s perogative to accept or reject. They didn’t feel that the slate of candidates met their standards. I’m assuming that the faculty want the best person possible, but apparently their standards are below those of the Board.

      2. The UI has been diminished…It’s the faculty and staff that are making a mockery of the university, not the Board. What potential president would want to run an institution where the faculty and staff leap to no-confidence votes when they don’t get what they want. There are pleanty of other universities looking for presidents where the faculty actually act in a professional manner.

      3. Gartner rejected a slate of supremely qualified candidates due to the fact that the person he wanted was not on the short list….How do we know these candidates were “supremely qualified?” Who is making that pronouncement? Kurtz? Why is his opinion more valuable than that of a majority of the Board of Regents. It’s be Board’s perogative to accept or reject. That’s a power granted specifically to the Board by the Iowa Code.

      4. Kim also claims that Gartner has demeaned the Iowa faculty. What evidence is that of that?? Read Kurtz’s statement…he is the one making the personal attacks. And so what if he demeaned someone…that’s no reason to remove someone for “malfeasance of office”. It seems that the faculty had their collective feelings hurt. They need to grow up and join the real world.

      — John    Dec 14, 12:23 PM    #
  13.

      Unfortunately, this debate continues to reveal the divide that exists between higher education and the public who are unfamiliar with the university system. First, only those who are not deeply involved with the day-to-day activities of an institution of higher education would call it an “ivory tower.” Being an excellent teacher/scholar is one of the most demanding professions one could choose, and for those who do it very well (which presumably includes most of the faculty at any state’s flagship institution), life as a faculty member is hardly a life of ease and luxury. Second, on a university campus, one becomes very familiar with the idea known as “shared governance.” While the state (and thus the people of the state) provides funding for the university, the bulk of the administrative duties are carried on by faculty members who serve as program and department chairs, deans, committee chairs and committee members across the university. This includes a very large section of the faculty. Decisions at department and program level are generally made through consultation and discussion of all concerned parties. Thus, even if the president does not come from the ranks of the faculty, he or she must be able to work within this structure in which the faculty are the “middle managers” of the university. And third, the faculty who also serve as administrators would not be doing their jobs if they believed that actions of higher administrators were taking the university in the wrong direction that would ultimately do harm to the institution. The essence of the university is to think critically and to ask questions – including asking hard questions of those in positions of authority. While faculty members – like everyone else – can be petty and arrogant, it would be an error to dismiss as childish all those who voice dissenting opinions.

      — Anonymous    Dec 14, 03:45 PM