• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

By Phillip CarterSummer Bruin Staff

The search process for a new University of California president imploded last week, as premature publicity forced the UC Regents' pick, Ohio State University president E. Gordon Gee, to turn down the job.

Gee's name surfaced in media reports as the regents' choice last week, after Regent Roy Brophy announced on June 16 that the search committee had unanimously approved a new president to be brought to the full board for approval within a few weeks.

Brophy's announcement sparked a flurry of speculation among both UC insiders and outsiders. Gee's name was leaked after a newspaper in Ohio reported that several UC officials had been there in the past week talking to him. While the process was unfolding, Gee was in Asia on a vacation with his family, and was supposed to fly from Hong Kong to San Francisco on Thursday to meet with the Regents.

However, Gee did not fly back to California. Instead, he issued a statement on Thursday turning down the position, saying, "I have decided to remain at Ohio State University as I have work left unfinished." Gee also cited "extraordinary support" from Ohio officials, including Governor George Voinovich and his university's board of trustees and students.

Gee had been intended to replace outgoing UC President Jack Peltason, who is scheduled to retire from the $243,000 a year job on Oct. 1, after three years in the post.

At their May meeting, Brophy, who chairs the regents' presidential-search committee, said that he hoped to have a new president by the June meeting. At that meeting, he pushed the date back a few more weeks. Now it appears that the search may go on for another month or more.

University spokesman Terry Colvin said that the regents would go "back to the drawing board" for new candidates, but that they would still go off their "short list" of about 10 top choices.

Many regents and UC observers said they were outraged at the way this process had gone, and expressed regret at Gee's withdrawal from the presidential selection.

"I'm furious," said UC Davis law Professor Daniel Simmons, who chairs the state Academic Council and sat on the search committee. "We lost somebody who would have been very good."

Regent Meredith Khachigian, who also was on the search committee, blamed journalistic and political speculation for making the UC process into a public spectacle, thus damaging it.

"I regret when both legislators and media have to make our jobs so much harder," she said.

Gee's selection began to unravel when charges sprung forward over his payment of bonuses to aides at the University of Colorado between 1987 and 1990, where he was also president.

Several legislators wrote a letter to the UC Board of Regents over that issue, saying that it bore a "striking and troubling resemblance" to a UC scandal three years ago, when then-UC President David Gardner paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses to UC executives. Gardner himself later took a $1 million retirement package.

In response to these allegations, Simmons said the search committee had investigated them, and found them to be insubstantial.

"They may have been a mistake at the time, but (the charges) weren't that big a deal and certainly didn't disqualify Gee."

Several UC officials, including UC President Emeritus Clark Kerr, speculated that Gee's withdrawal and past Board of Regents difficulties with outside candidates may push them towards an internal choice for UC President.

"There might be an inclination to say 'Well, maybe it's safer to work with people we already know well already ... somebody who has a commitment to UC,'" Kerr said. "(The Regents) could be a little more shy about going outside."

Inside California, the short list is very short, with UC Berkeley Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien and CSU Chancellor Barry Munitz heading the list. UCLA Chancellor Charles Young withdrew himself from the running months ago, citing a desire to remain at UCLA.

Gee's botched selection and other problems have highlighted a number of regents' criticisms of their presidential-search process. Brophy, who chairs the search committee, described it as "the most undemocratic process the university has ever been involved in."

At their May meeting, several regents questioned Brophy's wisdom in keeping the process so secretive.

Regent Tom Sayles said he would reject any candidate without personal input into the process, and would prefer to have two candidates to choose from. Lieutenant Governor Gray Davis concurred with Sayles, saying that at least, regents should have a chance to suggest questions to the search committee.

In particular, several students objected to the board about the lack of student input in picking a new president. UC Berkeley law student Jess Bravin said that the level of student participation was "meaningless," and just given to students as a token offering.

"The university has no constituency more important than its students," Bravin said."We deserve not only to make our priorities known, but also to advise you on how well the candidates for president seem suited to accomplishing them."

Ohio State President turns down top UC job

Gee's rejection of offer blamed on a botched process