Return to Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site www.nicholasjohnson.org

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

Return to Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
 
 

It's time to consider the removal of a regent or 2

Linda Alexander

The Gazette

November 18, 2006

[Note: This material is copyright by The Gazette, 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 Gazette.]

Legislators should review Chapter 262 of the Iowa Code, the part about the state Board of Regents. Pay close attention to sections 4 and 5: The governor, with the Senate’s approval, may remove any regent ‘‘for malfeasance in office, or for any cause which would render the member ineligible for appointment or incapable or unfit to discharge the duties of the office.’’ If the Legislature is not in session, the governor can suspend such a member and appoint his or her replacement. Then the Senate has to approve that action during its next session. When a regent’s actions create a chasm of mutual mistrust and disrespect between the Board of Regents and the faculty and staff of a university, and when that mistrust is shared by the people of Iowa, such a step wouldn’t be an overreaction.

  That said, people at the University of Iowa have at least two questions for the regents: 1. Why? Why did the board not only reject the four candidates recommended for consideration as the next UI president but also terminate the search process and dissolve the search committee? (Regents Bob Downer and Rose Vasquez voted against the motion, and student Regent Jenny Connolly abstained.) Friday’s vote came less than a week after all nine regents participated in seven candidate interviews. (That in itself is unusual. In the past, only regents who served on a search committee participated in candidate interviews. But nothing about this search has been ‘‘usual.’’) And it came just days after the search committee approved the recommendation of four candidates. Faculty members on the committee said approval was unanimous; regents on the committee, including regents President Michael Gartner and President Pro Tem Teresa Wahlert, disagreed.

  Many believe that the ‘‘right name’’ simply wasn’t among the four names.

  Now, people say, Gartner can pick the person he has wanted all along.

  Others are saying that Gov.-elect Chet Culver stepped in and told Gartner the search process was so botched from the get-go that it had to be started all over. Next time, the gossip goes, Culver wants it done more like it has been done in the past. That way, the next president won’t face the Herculean task of trying to win the trust of faculty and staff members.

  If that’s true, people at the UI need to know. That information would temper their rage over the regents’ vote.

  2. What’s next? Regent Amir Arbisser told a news reporter before Friday’s meeting, ‘‘It will be clear from the discussion there what will transpire next.’’ Yep, clear as an opaque window.

  Will the regents start the process over and try to put together a new search committee? They’d have a hard time finding anyone at the UI willing to serve. Will the regents undertake the process on their own?

  Will a new search begin immediately, or will the regents keep Interim President Gary Fethke on the job for a while as they make changes in the UI’s management and structure?

  One thing is certain: Unless folks at the UI get good answers fast, the Faculty Senate and Staff Council will call for votes of no confidence in the Board of Regents. It’s hard to imagine who would want the job after that illustration of just how damaged the relations between the regents and the UI community have become.