La Crosse Tribune: DEVELOP A BETTER SYSTEM FOR HIRING UW ADMINISTRATORS
The botched hiring of a new chancellor at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside has legislative opponents of the UW System absolutely drooling with delight.
Sadly, they have good cause. But this isn’t time for playing politics and demanding hearings. Instead, the UW System needs to initiate and implement meaningful reform to improve the process for recruiting key administrators to our world-class universities. And, UW System President Kevin Reilly is taking the right approach by calling for an examination of the Parkside problem and figuring out how to strengthen the recruitment process for future searches.
Here’s what happened: Robert Felner was scheduled to begin at Parkside this month. Before he could set up his new office, U.S. Secret Service agents showed up to collect 200 to 300 boxes of documents that Felner had shipped to the Kenosha campus from his former home, the University of Louisville.
It seems the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Western District of Kentucky is investigating whether Felner mishandled nearly $500,000 in federal grant money. So, Felner backed out of the chancellorship at Parkside.
In fairness, a federal investigation may well have been a secret—meaning the folks recruiting Felner may not have known.
But, those boxes aren’t the only baggage that Felner was carrying with him. He received a vote of no-confidence from faculty at Louisville.
The search committee at Parkside knew about the vote of no-confidence. Because of the otherwise glowing recommendations—and because of the feeling that Felner was being criticized by faculty for making much-needed change at Louisville—the committee discounted the vote.
Worse, the committee didn’t bother to mention it to UW System officials or members of the Board of Regents, who make the hiring decision. And the consulting firm retained for the hiring didn’t know about the vote of no-confidence either.
Clearly, the Parkside search committee put Reilly and the Board of Regents in an embarrassing spot. And, it doesn’t help that legislative opponents are waiting to tee off on such gaffes.
The best revenge for all involved is to fix the system. Here are several ideas for improving the process:
— The local search-and-screen committees, appointed by President Reilly, include a wide range of a dozen or more campus representatives and a couple of community representatives. We recommend adding more community representatives to improve balance. In the past, some qualified candidates within the UW System or the specific campus have been summarily passed over because of various rivalries and agendas.
— Provide more consideration of non-academic leaders of UW campuses. Without question, being grounded in the academic mission is crucial to leading a campus. But, a person with broad-based non-academic experience can clearly provide expertise with budgets, leadership and other issues that would help guide the academic leadership on a campus.
— Minimize the influence (and cost) of consultants, who can charge nearly $100,000 for a search. With all of the searches that UW campuses conduct, there must be expertise at the UW System to provide the support that local search-and-screen committees need. And, a consultant doesn’t necessarily know what a campus needs—and may have independent agendas.
— The process of checking backgrounds should be turned over to a seasoned, top-level group of administrators within the UW System. These selections are too important to rely on a local committee or consultant to check references.
— While we’re at it, we think local committees can use distance-learning technology —instead of expensive meetings at regional airports—to conduct meetings with the first wave of candidates, which could be more than a dozen.
In the wake of the Felner flap, Reilly is suggesting a review of the reference-checking process. He also wants to make sure that everyone involved in the search is clear about their responsibilities. And, he wants to make sure that the aggressive timeline for selecting a new chancellor at Parkside didn’t contribute to the lack of due diligence.
As with recent selections of chancellors at UW-La Crosse and other campuses, there’s an excellent track record of hiring top-quality candidates who fit the needs of individual campuses and communities.
With a few changes designed to open the process and tighten the background checks, the University of Wisconsin System has an opportunity to improve its odds of hiring a winner every time.—LA CROSSE TRIBUNE.
Follow
DEVELOP A BETTER SYSTEM FOR HIRING UW ADMINISTRATORS
La Crosse Tribune: DEVELOP A BETTER SYSTEM FOR HIRING UW ADMINISTRATORS
The botched hiring of a new chancellor at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside has legislative opponents of the UW System absolutely drooling with delight.
Sadly, they have good cause. But this isn’t time for playing politics and demanding hearings. Instead, the UW System needs to initiate and implement meaningful reform to improve the process for recruiting key administrators to our world-class universities. And, UW System President Kevin Reilly is taking the right approach by calling for an examination of the Parkside problem and figuring out how to strengthen the recruitment process for future searches.
Here’s what happened: Robert Felner was scheduled to begin at Parkside this month. Before he could set up his new office, U.S. Secret Service agents showed up to collect 200 to 300 boxes of documents that Felner had shipped to the Kenosha campus from his former home, the University of Louisville.
It seems the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Western District of Kentucky is investigating whether Felner mishandled nearly $500,000 in federal grant money. So, Felner backed out of the chancellorship at Parkside.
In fairness, a federal investigation may well have been a secret—meaning the folks recruiting Felner may not have known.
But, those boxes aren’t the only baggage that Felner was carrying with him. He received a vote of no-confidence from faculty at Louisville.
The search committee at Parkside knew about the vote of no-confidence. Because of the otherwise glowing recommendations—and because of the feeling that Felner was being criticized by faculty for making much-needed change at Louisville—the committee discounted the vote.
Worse, the committee didn’t bother to mention it to UW System officials or members of the Board of Regents, who make the hiring decision. And the consulting firm retained for the hiring didn’t know about the vote of no-confidence either.
Clearly, the Parkside search committee put Reilly and the Board of Regents in an embarrassing spot. And, it doesn’t help that legislative opponents are waiting to tee off on such gaffes.
The best revenge for all involved is to fix the system. Here are several ideas for improving the process:
— The local search-and-screen committees, appointed by President Reilly, include a wide range of a dozen or more campus representatives and a couple of community representatives. We recommend adding more community representatives to improve balance. In the past, some qualified candidates within the UW System or the specific campus have been summarily passed over because of various rivalries and agendas.
— Provide more consideration of non-academic leaders of UW campuses. Without question, being grounded in the academic mission is crucial to leading a campus. But, a person with broad-based non-academic experience can clearly provide expertise with budgets, leadership and other issues that would help guide the academic leadership on a campus.
— Minimize the influence (and cost) of consultants, who can charge nearly $100,000 for a search. With all of the searches that UW campuses conduct, there must be expertise at the UW System to provide the support that local search-and-screen committees need. And, a consultant doesn’t necessarily know what a campus needs—and may have independent agendas.
— The process of checking backgrounds should be turned over to a seasoned, top-level group of administrators within the UW System. These selections are too important to rely on a local committee or consultant to check references.
— While we’re at it, we think local committees can use distance-learning technology —instead of expensive meetings at regional airports—to conduct meetings with the first wave of candidates, which could be more than a dozen.
In the wake of the Felner flap, Reilly is suggesting a review of the reference-checking process. He also wants to make sure that everyone involved in the search is clear about their responsibilities. And, he wants to make sure that the aggressive timeline for selecting a new chancellor at Parkside didn’t contribute to the lack of due diligence.
As with recent selections of chancellors at UW-La Crosse and other campuses, there’s an excellent track record of hiring top-quality candidates who fit the needs of individual campuses and communities.
With a few changes designed to open the process and tighten the background checks, the University of Wisconsin System has an opportunity to improve its odds of hiring a winner every time.—LA CROSSE TRIBUNE.
Comments Off on DEVELOP A BETTER SYSTEM FOR HIRING UW ADMINISTRATORS
Posted in Administration, Commentary