Big news: Chancellor resigns

"they are making business decisions when we want something else to be the standard"

This would be a fitting epitaph if everything continues to go to hell in a handbasket.

Will, what I believe is not the issue, but you seem to want throw up that strawman. Just to be clear, another resident named Ken Broun is more than capable of serving as a representative who can cogently discuss all sides of town-gown relations. After all he just may bring a broader perspective to the table then if they had appointed you. And as for Fred Battle, I think it is unfair to speculate about what he may or may not bring if he were appointed.

Mark, what's your evidence that everything is going go to hell in a handbasket? Or, is this just another one of your "just for your own amusement" comments?

No Will, mainly because the vast swarm of critis would say that as chair of the Chamber, she couldn't reflect any viewpoints or opinions other than that of the business community, right Mark M.? I say again, lots of folks could add to the process but that doesn't mean that their views won't be heard.

So Will, what can't Ken Broun do in your book?

OK Will, I guess it's not too smart for a candidate to be too forthcoming on a public forum.

Will is quoted in this morning's Herald Sun: "As far as the new chancellor -- including the search for him -- I am concerned that the process started by the LAC [Leadership Advisory Committee] will slow down."

I think it's time for UNC to have a woman in the chancellor's office.....

Fred - my post was a reaction to your phrase which seemed to sum up the challenges we face in dealing with nearly every pressing issue. We collectively are driving toward a cliff with the destruction of a society and ecosystems in Iraq & Afghanistan for war profit, with ice caps melting , with a lack of drought and energy awareness from NC leadership, with tinkering on the "achievement" gap and affordable housing, the willful breaking up of the Constitution, corroding democracy, and on and on - all because “they are making business decisions when we want something else to be the standard”.

We are so steeped in rogue capitalism that we will form several more committees on the "achievement gap" and "affordable housing" when we really just need to pay people a living wage so they can afford a house or time to spend with their children.

Given the challenges that we face, I haven't heard anything about Carolina North that leads me to believe that solving these pressing problems is the driving force behind the expansion. All I can see is the corporate-academic complex at work on a narrow business goal.

So I guess Will in fact does have more to say. Anyone surprised?

There's not much discussion about this years election either Will.

I absolutely agree that there should be more local input.

I'm not convinced that the University has an obligation for using local input in its search for a new Chancellor beyond that which it is already doing. I do believe, however, that one of the most important criteria that the search committee should use in its evaluations is a demonstrated desire and willingness on the part of a successful candidate to set a new standard for universities in the active promotion of town/gown interactions.

Ruby, just out of curiosity, would you sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition of service if you were asked to?

No Ruby, I talking about serving as a member of the Chancellor Selection Committee - would you sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition of service if you were asked to?

Ruby,

Yes to your question. I do believe it would be smart on the part of the search committee to solicit public input - I just don't believe they have a formal obligation to do so. There is certainly nothing to stop any of the members of the search committee from asking students, area residents or public officials what qualities they would like to see in a Chancellor and I would hope, in order to strengthen their mission, they would do so.

Thanks George. Note also that we have a penchant around here to discount the "citizen" status of someone who works for UNC, as it they are myopic slaves to their employer and understand nothing about their community. The election in 2003 proved how well that approach can work in an election.

Therefore, my point (again) is that (1) UNC would be criticized if they just selected one "citizen" to serve on their committee and (2) the "citizens" already on the committee have the ability to bring a variety of perspectives to the discussion. WillR refused to answer, but who believes Ken Broun is unable to articulate the varied faces of the town-gown situation in our community?

The search firm and the selection committee will put great emphisis on how a candidate approaches and has handled succession leadership. Town-gown is a key element in that and I suspect it will be fully examined.

The discussion of Chapel Hill representative (s) being at the table during the chancellor search fuels discussion of how important a college town is to the college and their perceived broader mission.

Once you go down the road of who should be represented at the table gets very crowded. How about racial and ethnic representation? Eastern NC representation versus Western North Carolina representation could be point of contention? Conservative versus progressive representation could be argued.

I agree with Will the community needs fresh ideas for peaceful co-existence or, God Forbid, co-operation with UNC. Critical to the process is a new chancellor that accepts the premise that UNC can not grow without significant input from the town. Also critical is recognition from town “leaders” that UNC and the medical complex are not just another developer. UNC is Chapel Hill and Chapel Hill is UNC.

Will, you are not getting enough sleep and it's obvious. I never said more input was detrimental, I said two students were "representing" 28,000 people. I also ask you, "So Will, what can't Ken Broun do in your book?" You elected not to answer and that's fine. Note that no one "demanded" a response from you.

You think UNC is obligated to include some other "citizens" chosen in some unspecified way using some unspecified critera, and I don't think they lack a town-gown perspective or the ability to consider a wide range of viewpoints with the committee they have chosen.

Get some rest Will. This is not the best time to be off your game.

Just for discussion here's Wisconsin-Madison search team from 2000:

Members of the UW-Madison Chancellor Search and Screen Committee are as follows:

Faculty: Agatino Balio, (Communication Arts); David Bethea (Slavic Languages); Jo Handelsman (Plant Pathology); Bernice Durand, chair (Physics); Laura Kiessling (Chemistry and Biochemistry); Stephen Robinson (Industrial Engineering and Computer Sciences); Thomas Rockwell Mackie (Medical Physics and Oncology); Lydia Zepeda (Consumer Sciences); Linda Oakley (Nursing); Brent McCown (Horticulture); and Don Nichols (Economics).

Academic staff: William Steffenhagen (assistant dean, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences) and Esther Olson (assistant director, Synchrotron Radiation Center).

Students: Tshaka Barrows (junior) and Adam Briggs (senior).

Administrators: Charles Read (dean, School of Education) and David Olien (senior vice president for administration, UW System).

Community: Wade Fetzer, past chair of the board of the University of Wisconsin Foundation; David Zoerb, chair of the Badger Action Network, Wisconsin Alumni Association; Mark Bugher, director of the UW Research Park and former secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Administration; and San Orr, chairman of the board of Wausau-Mosinee Paper Corporation and an emeritus president of the UW System Board of Regents.

That's why they make Fords and Chevys, Ruby. I see nothing mean or hostile, and others tell me that they have followed the logic and see the point I am attempting to make. And "nonsense." is believing that UNC staff and faculty are so myoptic and in lock-step with some agenda.

Final comment: note Steve's list and how they are defining "community."

Lots of news coverage today on the search to replace Chancellor Moeser. The DTH Editorial Board headline is "The search for a champion" and indicate what what they would like to see in the next chancellor.

In the CHH's "Keep the chancellor search process open", they focus on a broad and inclusive process (not the composition of the committee) and offer this advice: "Involving the university's stakeholders in the process should help the search, not hinder it. Input from those stakeholders could aid the search committee in making its recommendation."

In the N&O, there is an article, "UNC-CH seeks extraordinary leader" noting the skills the new chancellor will require and a discussion of the advantages of "knowing" UNC already and having local roots.

In the morning N&O editorial, "Searching for what?", they observe, "Is UNC-Chapel Hill seeking a new chancellor for a liberal arts university, or a CEO for a Wall Street firm?" Noting the tensions between the various missions and pressures to expand enrollment, build research facilities and remain true to the liberal arts education, they conclude by saying, "The man or woman who can best accomplish that mission -- a distinguished scholar, perhaps? -- is the chancellor the committee should seek."

As the DTH says, the July 1 deadline is looming!

Fred

Read these with interest. UNC position is made difficult by great expectations, limited funds and entrenched interest groups inside and outside the University.

We seldom discuss how much the medical complex is driving growth in Chapel Hill and at UNC. For the new Chancellor this growth will be a major challenge. I think a candidate with experience with a medical complex on campus is critical. Moeser, coming from Univ of Neb - Lincoln, did not have this experience.

Funding will remain a major issue. The demand for equitable salaries at UNC will remain critical. Funding for new technology, both IT and “Green”, to drive the University of the Future and present continues as a sore point. Reading that UNC is considering expanding coal generation in Chapel Hill does not thrill me.

From a funding perspective a candidate with local knowledge has attraction. Recent choices for UNC System positions underline the political nature of running the System or the universities that constitute the greater UNC. I am remembering in particular the UNC Bond and the delays and missteps that occurred.

Continuing to building the endowment will also be a major part of the job. I am told that the 2.2 Billion ++ is a nice number but that it could be and should be 3 times that amount. UNC CH is leading the pack in athletic fundraising:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1882085/

Finally the new chancellor will have to contend with the notion of many that UNC CH has grown enough in size and scope. Many in town hold that view but only a few say it in public. Given that the BOT and new chancellor are not likely to adapt that view the fun will continue……

Steve, I can't disagree with what you have written. This job gets harder each iteration and I hope the selection committee can identify a person with the right set of complex skills AND is willing to come and tackle it.

There is pressure from the president and the BOG to prepare now for the grown at each of the campuses, and planning for that growth will not be easy here. That's a challenge running through your other points - the UNC-CH chancellor is not a unitary decision maker.

We know that money rules, and not just in terms of fundraising (Moeser was criticized for the bonus he was given even though his package is not antwhere near the high end of peer institutions), but I think it will have to be about more than money to convince the right person to accept the position --- in spite of the belief some have that the institution can get anyone it wants.

"Reading that UNC is considering expanding coal generation in Chapel Hill does not thrill me." -- Steve Peck

Steve, where did you get this? I want to read it, for it counters
everything I have heard recently. If it becomes a
serious discussion, we'll move it to a more relevant thread.

I second Gene Nichol.
http://www.wm.edu/president/index.php

Joe

I was wrong. Please disregard comment.

Funding green technology is an issue. My information on expanding coal generation was muddled.

Sorry.

Some of you may have seen the Sunday NYTimes magazine devoted to higher education, in particular, Delbanco's article asking if universities have become just another set of corporations ("Academic Business" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/magazine/30wwln-lede-t.html?ref=magazine -- they'll ask you to register).

Citing such things as patent ownership, real estate expansion and development, and marketing strategies based on ranking manipulation, he says that universities are becoming more and more like corporations. Although he glosses over the holding-company aspect of the many universities with gargantuan endowments, he does raise the issue of some sea-changes in the concepts of higher education for students. He suggests breaking with the student-as-consumer paradigm to ask whether we shouldn't expect universities to "go beyond imparting skills and handing out a useful credential." A university should be, he says, "a place in which students are treated as more than sources of revenue, just as we want doctors to treat patients without keeping one eye on the clock." Interesting if not quixotic thought.

To the extent that UNC-Chapel Hill is going to have to respond to shifting pressures -- some toward more applied and practical training, some toward (as Delbanco suggests) creating citizenship, some toward non-campus-based learning, and so forth -- it will be an "interesting time" for the new chancellor. The time of defining a chancellor's primary job as presiding over capital development may indeed be waning or at least changing direction. Will town-gown relations play a larger role in the future? We can hope so, but some creativity will be needed to avoid being merely a limiting condition on the size of the campus.

Today's DTH has another story on the search. The committee is now up to 21, with an additional professor and the head of the alumni association.

Interesting input from Mayor Pro Tem Strom:

And though Chapel Hill will not have a direct vote, Bill Strom, Chapel Hill mayor pro tem, said some committee members live in Chapel Hill and can give a local perspective.

"UNC's got to make their own choice here," Strom said. "I'm confident that we will have an opportunity to give input, and that's fine."

If you are tracking, the 21 on the committee now breaks down to six full-member trustees, six professors, five alumni, two employees and two students.

Does anyone have any pertinent behind-the-scenes experience here regarding the actual impact of comments made at public forums? While I think anything that keeps the University mindful of the "eyes" of their host town is worthwhile, I still have trouble imagining just how much difference it could make to have a town-generated "wish list" of candidates' attributes.

Similarly, I wonder what specifically, beyond "should be willing to work with the town in planning and take town's interests into account" might go on that list. We can ask for assurances of continuity and keeping commitments (e.g., re: HWA), but how specific could we be? And when all is said and done, how much would anyone be willing to make in the way of assurances, especially if a candidate comes from outside and doesn't yet know all the ins and outs of CN?

I'm very struck, meanwhile, by the contrast between the "demography" of the UNC search committee and UWisc's, and not just on the issue of "community" representation. As an alum with an academic orientation, the representation from faculty and academic alumni on the UWisc list impressed me, while the weight of the non-academic on the UNC list dismayed me. But if I'm calling for people to be realists about town input, I should probably be equally realistic about academic input.

Linda, should that email be encrypted to preserve its confidentiality ;-)?

As far as general criteria, might I suggest a review of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2?

The CHH's editorial this morning takes exception with the charge given to the selection committee by President Bowles to maintain confidentiality.

The reasons underlying this fixation on confidentiality would seem to be a belief that potential candidates would be reluctant to apply for the position if that were to be known; it might endanger their current position; it might be awkward for them.

At the risk of me being called "silly," "illogical," and writing "nonsense" again, is there anyone else willing to make the pro-case for why confidentiality is needed in these types of searches?

Nothing silly or nonsensical about such a question. But I can see where most applicants for this position would not want their names published.

Fred, if you are, say, currently the chancellor or president or provost at the University of _________ (fill in the blank), and you'd like to explore the possibility of a move to the chancellorship here at UNC, you are going to want to begin that exploration without everyone at the University of _______ knowing that you're looking to leave. Nothing would be more undermining of that person's position at the University of ______ than for people think s/he is dissatisfied, out the door, or less than fully committed to the University of ________.

If we wish to attract a top candidate from another institution, confidentiality is essential.

Well done, Eric !

Now doesn't it seem like the Search Committee would identify and reach out to potential candidates, as opposed to taking applications? Our next Chancellor is out there waiting to be hand-picked.

One of the concerns mentioned by candidates when openly considered for the top job at another institution is how their decisions and key actions during the search process might be considered and interpreted by those at their current institution.

Personally, I think that who you are looking at ought to remain confidential. I think you end up with a better process when good people know that their candidacy is not generally known. Remember, the committee will vote on the candidates to recommend to UNC system President Erskine Bowles who will then choose one finalist to be sent to the UNC Board of Governors. They elect the chancellor. So, what should the public's role be in each phase?

Comments based on your experiences Anita?

The public is not allowed any meaningful say in who gets chosen so what difference does it make if the search is secretive? The insiders will pick who they want.

How would you give the public a meaningful say Mark? Also, who would you include in "the public?"

I'm hoping UNC provides comment cards to collect criteria instead of asking for a ranking of the qualities they believe important.

Will,
I'm sure they will consider your comments in whatever form works best for you:

“You may also send opinions as well as nominate candidates by sending an email to chancellor_search@unc.edu or writing to Chancellor Search Committee, P.O. Box 229, Chapel Hill, NC 27514-0229.

(sorry I don't know how to make one of those nice quotation boxes).

Linda

Fred,

It's a state university right? So it's our university? How about a democratic vote for chancellor? That gets around any semantic wiggling about who is the public. We know who we are. Do they know who we are?