 "Photo: Kevin Stich/The Pan American")
The university has suddenly, and ahead of schedule, moved into the final stage of its search for a permanent president. Still, it has been appalling to observe the lack of transparency, down to the 11th hour of the search.
The presidential search is a pivotal moment in this university’s history. The person selected will lead UTPA with a comprehensive vision that ideally will guide the Valley community into better times. However, actions the UT System has taken in secrecy have ensured as little transparency as possible, also virtually eliminating the previously promised chance for input from the UTPA community.
It had been said repeatedly over the course of this search by System and university administration that the search would conclude some time in November. However, during Convocation, Interim President Charles Sorber said the list had been narrowed down to 10 presidential candidates. Last week the newspaper tried to obtain confirmation of this from System, but was denied an answer. The same was the case when we tried to verify Sorber’s comment about the process becoming “more transparent from here on out.”
The point is, How is the university community supposed to give feedback when it hasn’t been fed any information?
Now there is also an apparent technical misunderstanding in the current situation. The leadership in Austin said these candidates coming onto campus are not finalists. If they were to be officially announced as finalists then System would be obligated by law to release their names.
However, yesterday the first candidate was introduced as a finalist on multiple occasions. Apparently the board of regents reserves the right to enter the hiring process, toss all the candidates the search committee had picked, and name its own president. Rare, but it has been done.
We also take issue with a candidate’s name only being released the day before he/she is scheduled to arrive on campus for the visit. System cannot expect students, faculty and staff to have enough time to learn about these candidates and make the gig in that time span. People are busy with the academic mission, but if given a little more time to make arrangements, would be able to invest full involvement in the process. That much ballyhooed “input” is supposed to be a lightning-fast occurrence, apparently.
The lack of a chance to participate meaningfully may have become evident yesterday when there were no more than 50 people in the audience for each public forum. There were also no more than five students at each, not including the five from The Pan American.
There were widespread comments, the gist of which were that people did not know a candidate was even on campus.
Two days notice is nowhere near enough time for students, faculty and staff to plan to attend the visits. And not going to the events leaves the university, which will be directly affected by the decision, at the mercy of the few elites at the top of the chain. So much for the new, post-Good ol’ Boy era at UTPA.
If System wants to wholeheartedly embrace this university’s opinion on who the next president should be, then its representatives need to give folks the time to be part of the process.
According to System the reason for withholding identities until the last minute is to protect the candidates. Some have noted that this also protects the candidates from being seen as short-timers or unhappy employees at their current place of business. This isn’t a logical explanation given the candidates’ names will eventually be made public regardless of what happens.
Those who have ripped away the UT-Pan American community’s input have hijacked any semblance of democracy left in the process.
Behind the scenes, multiple sources involved in the process will admit that System has seemingly built a smokescreen around the “finalists.” It must be asked why go through such lengths to protect these people? System has crossed the line and is now protecting the candidates above the interests of this community.
We shouldn’t allow the wool to be pulled over our eyes. However, due to the manner in which System has handled this, we may not have time to even protest.
The university community needs to fight for our right to have a say in the decision. It is imperative that Faculty Senate, the Staff Senate, and most importantly the Student Government Association battle for the rights of their constituents.
We appreciate the effort of our one student representative on the search committee. However, he was appointed by System and cannot adequately represent the 18,000 views among the student body.
Transparency took a hit again when we, the official student newspaper, tried to gain access to SGA’s meeting with the candidate. Access was denied because the meeting was billed as private. No one besides SGA members was allowed in. Not a single student.
The same went for Faculty Senate and Staff Senate. There are too many instances where transparency is being impeded. We received notice of the town halls too late. We are learning of their names too late. We aren’t given adequate access to the candidates.
We challenge the students to urge their representatives in student government to ask why this is occurring, and why the space for input from the university community has been almost nonexistent. We challenge our student government leaders to lead in this critical time. If something is wrong with this situation, tell those responsible.
The people responsible are administrators from UT-System. They hold the names of the candidates until the day before. Let them know the last leg of the process is flawed. System holds the key to transparency.
Stand up for your right to know. Stand up for transparency.
3 comments
darlene@tokyo.com