With less than six weeks left before Chancellor Albert Carnesale
is scheduled to step down, the UCLA community knows nothing more
about its next chief executive than it did in September when
Carnesale announced he would vacate his post.
The University of California’s executive search process is
kept confidential, with the 17-member chancellor search committee
meeting in closed sessions, and the only information that will be
released to the public will be after UC President Robert Dynes has
selected a candidate and has forwarded his choice to the UC Board
of Regents for approval.
UC officials released a brief statement last week on the
search’s status, saying only that it is still in progress and
the search committee will meet again soon to “continue its
work.”
That announcement came just more than a week after the Los
Angeles Times reported Syracuse University Provost Deborah Freund,
identified as the UC’s top pick, withdrew from the search
while in negotiations with UC President Robert Dynes.
The UC has not commented on Freund’s withdrawal or even
acknowledged that she was ever considered for the position, other
than to say that the search is ongoing and no candidate has been
selected.
UCLA spokeswoman Carol Stogsdill said Carnesale has not been
asked to stay longer than June 30 as a result of the progress of
the search.
But not all searches for top-level executives are done using the
UC’s confidential methodology. Partially open or completely
open processes are common at other universities.
In a study done by Nick Estes, former general counsel for the
University of New Mexico, 30 percent of nationwide searches for
chancellor openings follow the closed process like the UC’s,
in which the identity of the candidate of choice is made public
only at the conclusion of the entire search process.
Alberto Pimentel, vice president at A.T. Kearney, the search
firm hired to recruit candidates, said the committee will not have
to start from “ground zero” and that they are in
“good shape” with respect to progress.
UC officials say they use a confidential process because
candidates may not want their current employers to be aware of
their desire to leave.
“The primary reason (the search is kept private) is out of
respect for the candidates. Identifying the candidates would
acknowledge their interests in other opportunities, which could put
them in awkward situations with their own institutions if
they’re not selected,” said UC spokesman Paul
Schwartz.
But other schools do not adhere to such a policy with regard to
searches for senior positions.
There are different degrees of openness in executive searches,
which include entirely open, partially open and completely closed
processes, Pimentel said.
Pimentel, who has conducted searches for all three types of
processes, said the UC uses a closed system because executives at
senior-level positions from other institutions would be the
strongest candidates and the university “simply can’t
afford to have their names shared publicly without risking or
damaging their relationships with people at their current
institutions.”
“You won’t get the same caliber of candidates in
your pool to begin with because they will choose not to participate
if it is known to be an open process,” he said.
From his experience in approaching potential candidates for
higher-education executive searches, one of the first questions
prospective candidates ask is whether the search process is open or
closed, Pimentel said.
Just three months ago, Freund was one of the top candidates for
president at the University of Arizona, where the search process is
partially open.
In that university’s search, the names of the top four
candidates were made public, after which forums were held for
public input.
“We strongly believe in keeping the names of prospects
confidential until they have been invited to campus visits,”
said Anne Barton, the assistant executive director for Public
Affairs and Special Projects for the Arizona Board of Regents.
Pimentel said lack of transparency is an “understandable
concern,” which is why there are also “very good
reasons” why an institution would want to have an open
process.
“(An open or partially open process) would allow the
campus community to look at the candidates you’re
considering,” Pimentel said.
Recently, the University of Nevada, Reno, held a completely open
process in which everything from discussion of candidates within
the committee to candidate interviews were all done in the presence
of press.
Nevada and Florida are the only states that conduct all hiring
and executive searches in public, according to the Journal of
College and University Law, as mandated by those states’
open-meeting and open-records laws.
While California schools are not bound by any similar state law,
the California State University system, unlike the UC, voluntarily
has a partially open search process.
The partially open process in the case of the CSU system refers
to making the names of the top four candidates vying for an
executive position public.
The UCLA search committee has met three times and the date for
the committee’s next meeting has not yet been announced.
After he steps down, Carnesale plans to take a year-long
sabbatical until July 2007, at which point he will return to UCLA
as a professor of public policy and mechanical and aerospace
engineering. He will earn his current chancellor’s salary of
$323,600 during the sabbatical in a package approved by the UC
Board of Regents last week.