W E E K E N D E D I T I O N | J A N U A R Y 2 5 - 2 8 , 2 0 18 | T W I C E W E E K LY I N P R I N T | O U D A I LY. C O M
OUDAILY
PHOTOS PROVIDED BY OU WESTERN COLLECTIONS
Vital information about the search process to replace OU President David Boren will remain confidential.
SHROUDED IN SECRECY
Committee tasked with finding Boren’s successor will not release candidate names, interview questions or schedule
T
he search committee to replace OU President David Boren will begin interviewing candidates for OU’s highest office soon — but that process is shrouded in secrecy. The presidential search committee, tasked with nominating and presenting candidates to the Board of Regents, will not be releasing vital information about the ongoing search process, including the names of potential candidates for the job Boren has occupied for nearly two decades. Candidate names, interview questions and any schedule of interviews, which will begin in February, will remain confidential during the rest of the search, said David Rainbolt, chair of the search committee. Rainbolt said the finalists chosen will be sent to the regents on March 1. With these names remaining confidential, OU students and faculty will not have the opportunity to personally review the background of potential candidates for the presidency, nor will they have the opportunity to express their approval or disapproval of any candidate. Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of
NICK HAZELRIGG • @NICKHAZELRIGG Florida, said secrecy during the search should be a reason for concern. “The job of being college president is like being the mayor of a city,” LoMonte said. “You’re responsible for people’s safety, their housing, their healthcare — and nobody wants to live in a city where the mayor gets picked behind closed doors.” However, Rainbolt said, it is important not to release the names out of fear the candidates could be fired by their current employers if it were discovered they were under consideration for OU’s presidency. “All of them have jobs, and we owe those candidates confidentiality,” Rainbolt said. “We really don’t want the outside world to know who’s coming and going at interviews.” LoMonte said the argument of protecting job security was a “thin justification,” as it is likely the search committee would want to contact the current employer of a serious candidate for a thorough background check. In addition to the committee’s decision to keep this information private, OU signed a contract with executive search firm Storbeck/ Pimentel and Associates in which the university agreed not to
release information about candidates gathered by the firm, which OU will pay upwards of $200,000 for its services. Rainbolt said he believed not only the candidate list should be confidential, but said it would be “silly” to release any of the standardized questions that would be asked of every candidate to the public before the interviews. Rainbolt said the presidential profile created by the committee would shape the questions, but those questions would remain secret. The profile, which was created by the committee based on survey responses from the OU community as well as open forums with students, faculty, staff and alumni, included five major aspects the next president should be focused on: strategic vision, fundraising, academic excellence, diversity and public mission and impact. Cameron Burleson, representative for OU undergraduate students, said he and every other member of the committee signed a “confidentiality agreement” in which they agreed not to discuss the names of any candidates or the content of search committee meetings with the public. Burleson is one of three students on the committee, and each
student has one-third of a vote in deliberations. “I’m as transparent as possible, so anyone can ask me any questions about what’s going on, so long as it doesn’t go against the confidentiality agreement,” Burleson said. “I think when you start going into the location of interview, and who’s going to be there, the fear is that you have the press and all of those people trying to come in and — I guess — distract the committee from being able to really focus on the candidates. The whole point of (the confidentiality agreement) is about focusing on who’s in the room at the time and how we are going to best choose the people we think are going to be best for the job.” With these restrictions, the OU community will likely not learn of the finalists’ identities or backgrounds until the regents make the final decision. Rainbolt said it would be up to the Board of Regents whether to release the finalists’ names. The Board of Regents could not be reached for comment. LoMonte argues a transparent search yields the best possible results for the institution. “There are so many benefits to public disclosure that you can’t
let the pride of the candidate outweigh all those other benefits,” LoMonte said. “Those benefits are numerous and well-documented. If you don’t include the community in the search, there’s a risk you’re going to get a president who is not the right cultural fit for the campus.” Rainbolt said he believes the secrecy of the search should not be concerning, as he thinks the committee is large and diverse enough to be representative of the desires of the university community. The committee is made up of 17 representatives chosen from a pool of nominees chosen by student, faculty and staff governing bodies. Despite Rainbolt citing job security concerns for the candidates as the reason for secrecy, LoMonte said, it would be nearly impossible for the finalists’ employers to be unaware of their employees’ involvement in the presidential search process. “If you’re about to make a crucial decision in the life of a university,” LoMonte said, “and you’re not calling the current employer — then you’re n e g l i g e n t i n y o u r s e a r c h .” Nick Hazelrigg
hazelriggn@gmail.com