Student representatives from 10 University of California campuses sent a letter Friday to other advisory committees asking for their support in requesting more involvement in the selection of the next UC president.
According to Oiyan Poon, chair of the Student Advisory Committee for the Appointment of the President of the UC and president of the UC Student Association, the representatives felt that the lack of participation and attendance of the UC Board of Regents at a recent meeting was a sign of disrespect.
Poon said the experience was particularly disappointing coming so closely on the heels of Board of Regents Chairman Richard Blum’s promises this August to increase transparency within the university infrastructure.
UC spokesman Trey Davis said the regents were acting in accordance with standing university policy, which states that consultation with advisory committees is solely for the purpose of reviewing relevancy of board-approved criteria and the presentation of the nominee or nominees to members of the groups at the conclusion of the search.
According to Poon, the Student Advisory Committee was told by the Office of the Secretary of the Regents that they would only get to meet the final candidate, though not when this would happen. She added that she saw the language of the policy as vague and that her interpretation was that the committee was within its rights in expecting to be part of the interviewing process of the future president of the university.
All the advisory committees were invited to meet with the board on Sept. 20 to offer their input regarding criteria by which the future UC president should be selected, Davis said.
But Poon’s letter described how the Student Advisory Committee flew up to Davis for a 3 p.m. meeting. She added that it started almost three hours late and only included two actual regents, Ben Allen and John J. Moores.
“There were four at first, but 10 minutes into it two of them left,” Poon said.
But Davis said there is no way to control how long a regents meeting will last.
Poon said that while she understands the regents have their own travel and time constraints, she said not enough time was set aside for the voice of the student body.
“We felt like we were not being taken seriously and that this was kind of just a token gesture,” Poon said.
Poon said that attempts to contact the other committees, which include the alumni, staff, chancellors, vice presidents of the president’s office and the lab directors, have been difficult due to the fact that communication is entirely controlled and coordinated by the regents’ secretary’s office.
“If (Blum) really believes that the university should be more transparent, given the scandals with compensation and the management of the labs, then he really should put up and follow through,” said Poon.
Davis defended the wording of the policy, calling it self-explanatory.
“It says nominee or nominees. A candidate is not a nominee,” said Davis.
But D’Artagnan Scorza, student regent-designate, described the policy as vague and attributed the conflict between the Student Advisory Committee and the regents to that lack of detail.
“It’s critical to pay attention to the language of the policy because that’s going to determine the level of participation,” said Scorza.
He emphasized the need for the voices of all relevant constituencies to be heard in order for the university to effectively operate under principles of shared governance.
“It’s pretty difficult to advocate for a hand in the process if you don’t even know what’s happening,” said Scorza.
Davis declined to comment on Scorza’s statements.