Secrecy obscures chancellor search

When UCLA’s new chancellor is selected, I hope the UC
Board of Regents sends up a puff of white smoke. Actually, the
election of a new Pope is more open than this process, in that we
often know who the candidates are.

The secrecy of the names and negotiations for a post of such
critical and long-term importance to the campus is the vestige of
another age, when secrecy was the default position for anything
sensitive.

We have seen the folly of this in government ““ even in the
university’s own processes lately ““ and the backlash
that follows it.

The only clearly stated rationale for secrecy is that candidates
may not want their current employers to know they are looking for
another position.

That may be a justifiable reason for account executives or
middle-managers quietly looking to switch jobs, surfing
Monster.com. It shouldn’t apply when the stakes are so high
in identifying the right person to lead the campus.

These candidates are highly regarded and accomplished people,
one would hope, who can expect to be recruited by other
institutions. It is no secret these people are being recruited, and
it is not in the interests of the campus to keep these people a
secret.

It should be noted that UCLA only made public the person who was
apparently the top candidate ““ Deborah Freund, Syracuse
University’s provost of academic affairs ““ after she
withdrew.

But she had openly been a candidate for the presidency of the
University of Arizona a few months earlier, so I guess her employer
already knew she was looking.

Arizona is one of the approximately 70 percent of American
universities that conduct open or partially open presidential
searches, according to a University of New Mexico study.

Another is Harvard, which sent out a letter to all alumni that
said they are “seeking general advice and specific
nominations” for their open presidency and promising to have
a series of consultations with faculty, student and alumni groups
“to inform our deliberations.”

If our pre-eminent private university can do that, why
can’t our pre-eminent public university?

No one is calling for a democratic election or a popularity
contest. It is the regents’ solemn fiduciary duty to the
people of California to choose carefully and wisely, without
political influence or consequence.

But that does not mean that the people most affected, the
students, alumni, donors, faculty, staff and administrators of
UCLA, should not have broader input, including knowing who the
finalists are.

One general meeting was held on campus on Dec. 8, 2005, to help
determine “the distinct needs of UCLA.” I don’t
know who or how many attended, but is one open-invitation meeting
held almost six months ago sufficient for input from the campus
community?

UCLA has certain natural disadvantages. It’s part of a
system that governs 10 campuses and three labs, without a
home-based board of influential trustees, in a polyglot community
in which its achievements are not always readily acknowledged. And
it’s got an overriding need for a chancellor who can hit the
ground running, without a lengthy learning curve.

The needs of UCLA are indeed distinct, and the regents should
already know them. Those of us who have studied here, worked here,
given money here, and care deeply about the future here actually
might have something useful to offer in the selection of someone to
meet those needs.

Charles is a former UCLA vice chancellor.