UCLA’s Worst: No. 1: Chancellor search needed to be public

When Albert Carnesale announced in September that he planned to
step down as chancellor, June 30, 2006 seemed like a long time
away.

That date was when Carnesale officially planned to hang up his
hat (so to speak) and pass the chancellorship to someone else. And
yet here we are, in early June, and no one has been named to follow
him.

If the price of landing UCLA a top-notch chief executive is
having to take the search right up until the deadline (or even
beyond it if the UC Office of the President decides to name an
interim chancellor as the search continues) then so be it. We can
live with delay.

On the other hand, we shouldn’t have to live with a total
lack of transparency in the search process, especially at one of
the most prestigious public (read: public) university systems in
the world.

What little information has been made known to the public
hasn’t been good. The Los Angeles Times reported the UC had a
top candidate, but she withdrew over contract negotiations about
five weeks ago. The search committee reconvened again on June 5,
but there has been no indication as to how it’s
proceeding.

Not giving the UCLA community a voice in the search process was
bad enough. Not giving it a clue as to how the search is
progressing so close to deadline, or not even reassuring us that
the search will still finish as planned, is even worse.