Spring Break
Mail Call
By: Brian Young
Issue date: 6/22/09 Section: Mail Call
While I am in no position to argue Chairman Morris Foster's statement that the Board of Regents was only given one viable candidate, the circumstances of former President Murano's selection and subsequent removal are not any less questionable.
Consider that Murano was recommended by the chancellor, a political appointee with little academic experience, and approved by the board without consulting the faculty senate. Also consider that one candidate was said to not fulfill the selection requirements; Murano did not, either, having never served as a university president, yet she was deemed acceptable by the board. Finally, consider that the events leading to Murano's resignation were centered on a poor performance review by the chancellor which claimed that she "refused to acknowledge her commitment to [the Board of Regents] or chancellor." This all suggests that she was not selected for her qualifications, but to be a mouthpiece for the chancellor. When she refused to serve this role, she was forced to resign. Further proposals of combining the presidency and the chancellorship only reinforce this view. While it is true that ultimate authority lies with the Board of Regents, if their goal is to improve education and research then they must involve the educators and researchers. If the board was unhappy with the selection committee's candidates, they should have engaged the faculty, explaining their objections and asking for new candidates. The presidency of a world-class university is not something to assign based on the pettiness of minor political appointments, for which there is little accountability. While I do not know the intentions of the board, their actions have not been in the best interest of the University in this matter.
Consider that Murano was recommended by the chancellor, a political appointee with little academic experience, and approved by the board without consulting the faculty senate. Also consider that one candidate was said to not fulfill the selection requirements; Murano did not, either, having never served as a university president, yet she was deemed acceptable by the board. Finally, consider that the events leading to Murano's resignation were centered on a poor performance review by the chancellor which claimed that she "refused to acknowledge her commitment to [the Board of Regents] or chancellor." This all suggests that she was not selected for her qualifications, but to be a mouthpiece for the chancellor. When she refused to serve this role, she was forced to resign. Further proposals of combining the presidency and the chancellorship only reinforce this view. While it is true that ultimate authority lies with the Board of Regents, if their goal is to improve education and research then they must involve the educators and researchers. If the board was unhappy with the selection committee's candidates, they should have engaged the faculty, explaining their objections and asking for new candidates. The presidency of a world-class university is not something to assign based on the pettiness of minor political appointments, for which there is little accountability. While I do not know the intentions of the board, their actions have not been in the best interest of the University in this matter.
Be sure to include your name, major, and class year. Submissions without this information are subject to deletion.
By submitting a comment, you agree to thebatt.com's Terms of Use.
You may also send a Mail Call to The Battalion at mailcall@thebatt.com