Editorial: UC presidential search policy in need of update

The procedure for selecting a new University of California president – outlined in a vague policy established in 1996 – needs to be revised to ensure it is detailed, inclusive and transparent.

Under the standing policy, this year’s presidential search is led by a special committee that is composed only of regents and consults broadly with four other bodies: the academic, the student, the staff and the alumni advisory committees. While the academic advisory committee helps screen potential candidates, the other three committees are only able to give broad suggestions on what traits the new president should have.

In other words, the process of determining a final list of presidential candidates, interviewing them, discussing them and really influencing the final decision is restricted to the regents committee. By the end of the search process, this sole committee is responsible for recommending one or more candidates to the entire UC Board of Regents.

The procedure for selecting the new leader of the UC – a public system – is essentially undemocratic.

With a search currently underway for UC President Mark Yudof’s successor, now is the time for the regents to draft and implement a process that includes the following amendments.

1. The regents should formally add a faculty and a staff representative to the main regents’ presidential search committee so all constituent groups are directly involved in the decision-making process regarding all potential candidates for the position.The current policy does not provide any way for a single faculty or staff member to participate in the regents’ discussions about which candidate or candidates to recommend to the entire Board of Regents. This hole seems absurd, given that faculty and staff are important groups and bring a perspective different than that of a regent.
2. In a similar vein, the four advisory committees should be allowed to interview the final candidate or candidates before the regents committee makes a nomination.The advisory committees should then be able to present their thoughts about the candidate or candidates in a written statement to the regents committee and the entire Board of Regents. This provision would ensure that the opinions of the advisory committee are clearly expressed and considered before a decision is made.
3. The outgoing president should be formally involved in discussions regarding his or her successor. After all, the outgoing president knows best what the job entails and can offer insight on whether a particular candidate will be able to handle the job.By allowing constituent groups to be more actively involved, the UC can foster closer relations between the incoming president and those they will be leading during their tenure.