|
By Kathleen L.
Komar, Immediate Past Chair of the Senate
A number of faculty members have
asked me how the Advisory Committee for the Chancellor’s Search functioned. Let
me briefly sketch the procedures of the committee. First, the committee was
composed of representatives from the faculty, students, alumni, foundation
board, staff and regents and chaired by President Dynes. Staff from the office
of the president assisted the committee and acted as advisors. The search firm
of AT Kearney was represented by Alberto Pimentel. I chaired the faculty
sub-committee which was composed of three faculty members from UCLA (James
Economou from our medical school, Alfonso Cardenas from Computer Science and
myself from the Humanities) and two from other campuses including the vice-chair
of the systemwide academic senate, John Oakley (a law professor from Davis) and
Professor Mu-Ming Poo (from the Dept of Molecular and Cell Biology at
Berkeley).
From the beginning, the absolute
confidentiality necessary to the search was stressed by President Dynes. While
I am always in favor of being as open as possible, it rapidly became obvious to
all of us on the committee why confidentiality was so crucial. All of the
people we were going to be recruiting for our pool already hold important
positions at other institutions. Their own careers at their institutions might
well be damaged if it were known that they were being considered for a
chancellorship elsewhere. Since we would only be asking them to be in our
pool—and not guaranteeing them the job—we actually ask them to take a
considerable risk for very low odds of a positive outcome. We were all
convinced by this argument—as well as by the argument that we might well be
looking at some of these folks for other UC positions at later dates. They must
understand that we respect confidentiality in order for them to be willing to
participate in this or future searches.
After conferring with representatives of the
faculty, students, staff and administration in our first large meeting (which
some of you attended), the reviewing began. The review process was that the
faculty sub-committee vetted all the files, looking particularly for several
characteristics—and most importantly for academic excellence and the ability to
understand, interact with and lead a faculty in more disciplines than almost
anywhere else in the country. We looked at over 600 files of potential
candidates in high level administrative positions from research and teaching
institutions from across the country. Those we found to be of interest were
contacted by the search firm to see if we could talk them into being in our
pool. In addition, every person who was nominated by anyone was approached and
asked if they would consider being in the pool. We presented any nominations we
received (including all those multiply nominated), so that each of those
nominated could be contacted. We also vetted all the files of those who applied
for the position directly.
The faculty sub-committee kept
making cuts in this very substantial group of files and going back to the larger
advisory committee for their comments, questions and challenges. All advisory
committee members were free to challenge or question our increasingly short
lists and to resurrect candidates we had cut if they felt we had missed some
important information. We were concerned that we had the most diverse possible
pool of potential candidates and several times asked for additional files or
suggestions for names of any candidates who would increase that diversity of the
pool. The faculty sub-committee conferred weekly until we came to a short list
of approximately 10 names.
The faculty sub-committee was
looking for the best combination of all of the following criteria:
- Academic excellence. Evidence of an outstanding
academic career was essential. Strength in research, teaching and service
was part of this consideration as were national or international recognition
of academic work.
- Evidence of a concern for diversity in all aspects
of university life. We were looking for actual accomplishments here, not
just the right rhetoric. Evidence of participation in diversity issues,
research into this area or outreach activities were among the possibilities.
- Evidence of leadership abilities. We were
looking for major initiatives accomplished or experiments undertaken as well
as the capacity to build cooperation. Work in an environment of shared
governance was a plus. Evidence of the ability to increase and maintain the
academic excellence of the institution was crucial. We were looking for an
energetic, articulate leader with a successful record in dealing with both
the internal and external challenges in a large highly-ranked research and
teaching university.
- Evidence of advanced administrative experience.
We were looking for multiple administrative positions or an administrative
position that included a large, complex institution with both undergraduate
and graduate students and advanced researchers.
- Understanding of interdisciplinary and
collaborative work—either in the academic or administrative background
(or both). We were looking for someone who had been in an environment that
fostered an understanding of work across a wide range of disciplines.
- Ability to work with extramural constituencies.
Alumni and friends of the university are spread across the globe.
Sensitivity to other cultures as well as to the range of American cultures
is crucial. Ability to work in the broader community immediately
surrounding Los Angeles and California as a whole is also crucial.
- Experience with or potential for fundraising.
Evidence of experience with development or fundraising was a plus—community,
corporate or alumni work was a plus. We wanted someone who could interact
with the Los Angeles and California community to promote the cause of higher
education to the larger population.
After the short list was determined, a sub-set
of that list was chosen by President Dynes to be interviewed. The entire
committee was present at the interviews. We discussed our impression of each
candidate. After all the interviews, each of us submitted a sheet stating who
among the candidates we thought could do the job of serving as Chancellor of
UCLA and our top three preferences. Those sheets were given to President Dynes
who then selected the candidate he felt would make the best chancellor. He then
began negotiations.
I must say that I was impressed with my fellow
advisory committee members. First, I would like to thank Jim Economou and
Alfonso Cardenas as well as John Oakley and Mu-Ming Poo for their dedication and
wisdom in this process. It was a lot more work than any of us anticipated, and
I’m grateful to the faculty sub-committee members for their hard work and candid
opinions. I was also very impressed with the representatives of all the campus
constituencies. The graduate and undergraduate students, the alumni and
foundations board members, the staff and regents all contributed candid
opinions, great questions and intense concern for the process.
The advisory
committee is currently resuming its work. We would more than welcome any
suggestions the faculty might have as to candidates. All those already
suggested by any faculty member have been approached, but any new ideas are
always welcome.
|