It has been a while since we posted here, but the process is heating up, so we'll try to play catch-up...
When the Leadership Statement Committee met on 18 June 2015, staff and faculty representatives asked if candidates for the President's post could be given the opportunity to meet with groups from the several University stakeholder groups. This was -- we believe -- a reasonable option that recognized the propriety of confidentiality some candidates might want, and preserved at least in part the ideals of transparency and accountability.
Search Committee Chair Joan MacNeill gave those assurances.
Between the June LSC meeting and early September, the Screening Committee likely reviewed applications to winnow down to the interview list. It appears that recommendations for further review went to the Search Committee, and on Sun Sep 13, Mon Sep 14, and Tue Sep 15, meetings with early starts (8/830am) were scheduled at SAS Institute in Cary.
Assembly Chair Steve Leonard attended those meetings -- although he was required to leave as the meetings went into closed session immediately after being called to order. The room was obviously set up for interviewing (U-shaped seating for the committee; a small table with a single chair set in the middle for an interviewee), the entire Search Committee was present in person, and the setting was fully formal.
These suppositions were more or less confirmed when Board Chair John Fennebresque said at an 18 Sep news conference that the search was down to 10 candidates, and that the list was still in flux. (3 full days of interviews would be just about right for 10 candidates.)
On 11 Sep, the faculty representatives on the Leadership Statement Committee (Green, Jovanovic, Leonard), in a letter endorsed by the full Faculty Assembly, reminded MacNeill of her assurances. On 15 Sep the LSC reps and the Assembly notified the full Board of Governors of their request to ask candidates to meet with stakeholders.
MacNeill responded on 16 Sep, reiterating her commitment. At the 18 Sep news conference, however, Fennebresque stated unequivocally (even defiantly) that no faculty would be speaking to the candidates, and that the Board would choose the President. (Apparently, Mr Fennebresque's advisers have convinced him that on this matter the Board's legal authority and prerogative powers should trump common precedent and best practices of advice and consent.)
What does this mean for student, staff, and faculty meetings with candidates for the most important leadership position in the UNC system? Certainly Mrs. MacNeill should be taken at her word, but so should Mr. Fennebresque. And therein lies the difficulty.
