Back in September, we said that the Cal State Long Beach presidential search process should be open to the public.
Now that our next president has been selected, we still believe that it should be open.
In 2011, former Cal State University Chancellor Charles B. Reed changed the requirements for the CSU’s presidential selection process.
Prior to the change, CSU presidential finalists were required to visit their respective campuses to meet with students and faculty before a final decision was made.
Reed argued that forcing candidates to reveal their identities caused qualified candidates to refrain from applying.
If a candidate applies and doesn’t get the position, there is a legitimate fear of possibly losing support at their home university. But to some extent, that’s a risk that comes with any job change.
The problem is that Reed’s claim hasn’t been proven. Although it is reasonable to think that this problem may have happened before, the CSU has yet to show us instances of this occurring in past CSU presidential searches.
CSULB has a history of strong, effective presidents that were all selected through a partially transparent search process.
The question is why the change?
The Chair of the CSU Board of Trustees Bob Linscheid announced Jane Close Conoley’s selection at January’s BOT meeting.
Prior to the announcement, nearly all students and faculty did not even know Conoley was a candidate.
The closed search process left faculty and students in the dark. Sure, there is a faculty representative and a student representative who sit on the Advisory Committee to the Trustees Committee for the Selection of the President, but how much weight do they really carry in the selection process? It seems like more of a formality than anything else.
Many students felt disconnected throughout CSULB’s presidential search, and we wouldn’t be surprised to hear that other campuses that have had their presidents selected through a closed search have had similar experiences.
Even CSULB leaders gave mixed reviews.
CSULB Interim President Donald Para said the closed search process is “necessary but unfortunate.”
Associated Students, Inc. President John Haberstroh said that the search process is trustworthy, so long as you trust the people who are making the decision.
Technically, CSU Spokesman Mike Uhlenkamp said that candidates can still visit prospective campuses on a case-by-case basis and under mutual agreement between the BOT and candidate.
But since the 2011 policy change, eight presidents have been selected using a closed-door process.
Overall, it bothers us that the final candidates are not required to visit the CSU campuses they applied to before selections are made.
Because finalists are not required to visit, faculty members are prevented from interacting with a potential boss and students remain clueless.
We could see an argument for why students wouldn’t necessarily need a larger voice in the selection process, but the faculty should at least be allowed to form an opinion about their future boss.
We think Conoley will do great work for CSULB. However, we wish we had a chance to meet her and the other two finalists before a final decision was made.
Whether or not her visit would have changed anything is unclear, but it could have appeased those who questioned the lack of transparency.