By Phillip CarterSummer Bruin Staff
The search process for a new University of California president
imploded last week, as premature publicity forced the UC Regents’
pick, Ohio State University president E. Gordon Gee, to turn down
the job.
Gee’s name surfaced in media reports as the regents’ choice last
week, after Regent Roy Brophy announced on June 16 that the search
committee had unanimously approved a new president to be brought to
the full board for approval within a few weeks.
Brophy’s announcement sparked a flurry of speculation among both
UC insiders and outsiders. Gee’s name was leaked after a newspaper
in Ohio reported that several UC officials had been there in the
past week talking to him. While the process was unfolding, Gee was
in Asia on a vacation with his family, and was supposed to fly from
Hong Kong to San Francisco on Thursday to meet with the
Regents.
However, Gee did not fly back to California. Instead, he issued
a statement on Thursday turning down the position, saying, "I have
decided to remain at Ohio State University as I have work left
unfinished." Gee also cited "extraordinary support" from Ohio
officials, including Governor George Voinovich and his university’s
board of trustees and students.
Gee had been intended to replace outgoing UC President Jack
Peltason, who is scheduled to retire from the $243,000 a year job
on Oct. 1, after three years in the post.
At their May meeting, Brophy, who chairs the regents’
presidential-search committee, said that he hoped to have a new
president by the June meeting. At that meeting, he pushed the date
back a few more weeks. Now it appears that the search may go on for
another month or more.
University spokesman Terry Colvin said that the regents would go
"back to the drawing board" for new candidates, but that they would
still go off their "short list" of about 10 top choices.
Many regents and UC observers said they were outraged at the way
this process had gone, and expressed regret at Gee’s withdrawal
from the presidential selection.
"I’m furious," said UC Davis law Professor Daniel Simmons, who
chairs the state Academic Council and sat on the search committee.
"We lost somebody who would have been very good."
Regent Meredith Khachigian, who also was on the search
committee, blamed journalistic and political speculation for making
the UC process into a public spectacle, thus damaging it.
"I regret when both legislators and media have to make our jobs
so much harder," she said.
Gee’s selection began to unravel when charges sprung forward
over his payment of bonuses to aides at the University of Colorado
between 1987 and 1990, where he was also president.
Several legislators wrote a letter to the UC Board of Regents
over that issue, saying that it bore a "striking and troubling
resemblance" to a UC scandal three years ago, when then-UC
President David Gardner paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars
in bonuses to UC executives. Gardner himself later took a $1
million retirement package.
In response to these allegations, Simmons said the search
committee had investigated them, and found them to be
insubstantial.
"They may have been a mistake at the time, but (the charges)
weren’t that big a deal and certainly didn’t disqualify Gee."
Several UC officials, including UC President Emeritus Clark
Kerr, speculated that Gee’s withdrawal and past Board of Regents
difficulties with outside candidates may push them towards an
internal choice for UC President.
"There might be an inclination to say ‘Well, maybe it’s safer to
work with people we already know well already … somebody who has
a commitment to UC,’" Kerr said. "(The Regents) could be a little
more shy about going outside."
Inside California, the short list is very short, with UC
Berkeley Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien and CSU Chancellor Barry Munitz
heading the list. UCLA Chancellor Charles Young withdrew himself
from the running months ago, citing a desire to remain at UCLA.
Gee’s botched selection and other problems have highlighted a
number of regents’ criticisms of their presidential-search process.
Brophy, who chairs the search committee, described it as "the most
undemocratic process the university has ever been involved in."
At their May meeting, several regents questioned Brophy’s wisdom
in keeping the process so secretive.
Regent Tom Sayles said he would reject any candidate without
personal input into the process, and would prefer to have two
candidates to choose from. Lieutenant Governor Gray Davis concurred
with Sayles, saying that at least, regents should have a chance to
suggest questions to the search committee.
In particular, several students objected to the board about the
lack of student input in picking a new president. UC Berkeley law
student Jess Bravin said that the level of student participation
was "meaningless," and just given to students as a token
offering.
"The university has no constituency more important than its
students," Bravin said."We deserve not only to make our priorities
known, but also to advise you on how well the candidates for
president seem suited to accomplishing them."
Ohio State President turns down top UC job
Gee’s rejection of offer blamed on a botched process