Regent Sahai: 'Maybe we dropped the ball'

[joelbc1]

Given there is no such BoD or BoR in existence - I'm not sure why we even need to address this.

It will be so interpreted by those directly affected (faculty/staff)....,,.,,,There was a great article written a couple of weeks ago by an Iowa native who is now a full professor of history at USoCal and who is President of some national professor's professional group. He stated that right now Iowa could be cherry picking outstanding faculty members from UW (Madison) who are unhappy with Gov. Walkers cuts in that universities budget.....However, the current action of the Iowa BoR will negate any of these efforts because of the uncertainty resulting from the methodology of the BoR approach in hiring the new President.
Just sayin' Muteo....perceptions are reality...not only in politics but in education as well. The "outsiders" perception of the UI has not been improved by their latest actions.

 

[joelbc1]

[QUOTE="Metuo Accipiter, post: 1052297, member: 4856". Academics generally need to understand citations as part of their core function -- organizational leaders do not. So if there was no intent to deceive - then get over it. Again - shame on him for not getting the proper help necessary to ensure proper citation -- but it still seems like an excuse to attack him and not a real reason to disqualify him.[/QUOTE]
You are probably correct Muteo about the purposeful deception....However, this guy was given priviliges and benefits not afforded other finalists for the job. It looks like "an inside job" from the get-go. Fact of the matter, it was. The faculty is no dummy here. THey just don't appreciate the fact that the BoR (and the Governor) chose to lie to them.
This is not so much about the appointee as it is the bosses. The Governor and the BoR have set this guy up for failure. That's a bad show by them.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

It will be so interpreted by those directly affected (faculty/staff)....,,.,,,There was a great article written a couple of weeks ago by an Iowa native who is now a full professor of history at USoCal and who is President of some national professor's professional group. He stated that right now Iowa could be cherry picking outstanding faculty members from UW (Madison) who are unhappy with Gov. Walkers cuts in that universities budget.....However, the current action of the Iowa BoR will negate any of these efforts because of the uncertainty resulting from the methodology of the BoR approach in hiring the new President.
Just sayin' Muteo....perceptions are reality...not only in politics but in education as well. The "outsiders" perception of the UI has not been improved by their latest actions.

Do you think the actions of the faculty senate - and this constant campaign to attack and diminish the BoR is helping? It's not a one-way street here. The university community isn't a helpless victim in all of this.

What concerns me the most at this point is that I don't believe it's likely Harreld can be successful. I don't believe the detractors who now claim they will give him a fair shot. To some degree it's in their interest to subvert his administration to prove their claim he was a bad hire - to protect their closed society from outsiders. If he ends up being a great president the faculty senate and others would look like a group of whiny imbeciles for raising such a ruckus.

I hope I'm wrong - but at this point it's difficult to have faith in a positive outcome.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

An inaccurate resume is generally a big deal in any arena. The content that specifically is concentrated on - and to what degree - obviously changes depending on the audience. But to beat up on a non-academic (<= the real issue) for not listing papers how academics demand they be cited is an error on his part - but to most people it seems to be a silly qualm. Academics generally need to understand citations as part of their core function -- organizational leaders do not. So if there was no intent to deceive - then get over it. Again - shame on him for not getting the proper help necessary to ensure proper citation -- but it still seems like an excuse to attack him and not a real reason to disqualify him.

He wants to run a university with a $3.5 billion annual budget but couldn't be bother to make sure his CV was accurate. What does that tell you?

 

[HereComeTheHawks]

Who was on the search committee that put Harreld as one of 4 finalists? It is my understanding that faculty members comprised a majority of the committee. If this guy is so terrible why even present him to the regents as a finalist?

 

[mstp1992]

Who was on the search committee that put Harreld as one of 4 finalists? It is my understanding that faculty members comprised a majority of the committee. If this guy is so terrible why even present him to the regents as a finalist?

He was essentially forced into the mix by the regents who were on the search committee (read: Rastetter). You see who 3 of the final 4 were and that'll give a clear idea of who the majority of faculty on the committee wanted. My understanding is that Rastetter is not being forthcoming in his appraisal of how the final selection was made. Harreld was their choice no matter who else they brought for the public forums.

Why can't Rastetter just admit this?

 

[JRHawk2003]

Why can't Rastetter just admit this?

Well, I think you know why.

Another angle on this; How weak are some of these other people on the Board? In theory Rastetter has no more of a say than any other board member. The President Pro Tem is a former superintendent. If they felt that strongly in deliberations that Harreld is not the guy, why fall in with the decision? Force a stalemate, re-start the search. Its not like that hasn't happened before.

I have been in searches myself as a candidate. If they used a search firm, why are board members out recruiting candidates? What was the search firm doing?

This whole thing is weird to me.

 

[mstp1992]

Well, I think you know why.

Another angle on this; How weak are some of these other people on the Board? In theory Rastetter has no more of a say than any other board member. The President Pro Tem is a former superintendent. If they felt that strongly in deliberations that Harreld is not the guy, why fall in with the decision? Force a stalemate, re-start the search. Its not like that hasn't happened before.

I have been in searches myself as a candidate. If they used a search firm, why are board members out recruiting candidates? What was the search firm doing?

This whole thing is weird to me.

The search firm made $250,000 for their efforts.

 

[swagsurfer02]

The faculty who feel this was wrong should resign........ to show their displeasure.

 

[mstp1992]

The faculty who feel this was wrong should resign........ to show their displeasure.

Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[swagsurfer02]

Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course I do, it's a matter of principle.

 

[mstp1992]

Of course I do, it's a matter of principle.

Nope. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[mstp1992]

Do you think the actions of the faculty senate - and this constant campaign to attack and diminish the BoR is helping? It's not a one-way street here. The university community isn't a helpless victim in all of this.

What concerns me the most at this point is that I don't believe it's likely Harreld can be successful. I don't believe the detractors who now claim they will give him a fair shot. To some degree it's in their interest to subvert his administration to prove their claim he was a bad hire - to protect their closed society from outsiders. If he ends up being a great president the faculty senate and others would look like a group of whiny imbeciles for raising such a ruckus.

I hope I'm wrong - but at this point it's difficult to have faith in a positive outcome.

If he fails it will because the BoR set him up for failure.

When ISU needed a new president why didn't they go after a corporate type?

 

[waterboy4582]

Nope. You don't know what you're talking about.

God you are a whiny little bitch. You still can't figure out nobody cares what the faculty think?

 

[THE_DEVIL]

The faculty who feel this was wrong should resign........ to show their displeasure.

Actually quite the opposite. They should try to make the institution they care about better. Do you really believe in giving up on an issue you feel strongly about because you don't get your way?

 

[mstp1992]

God you are a whiny little bitch. You still can't figure out nobody cares what the faculty think?

Nobody gives a shit what you think about anything.

 

[waterboy4582]

Nobody gives a shit what you think about anything.

That makes two of us.

 

[joelbc1]

Do you think the actions of the faculty senate - and this constant campaign to attack and diminish the BoR is helping? It's not a one-way street here. The university community isn't a helpless victim in all of this.

What concerns me the most at this point is that I don't believe it's likely Harreld can be successful. I don't believe the detractors who now claim they will give him a fair shot. To some degree it's in their interest to subvert his administration to prove their claim he was a bad hire - to protect their closed society from outsiders. If he ends up being a great president the faculty senate and others would look like a group of whiny imbeciles for raising such a ruckus.

I hope I'm wrong - but at this point it's difficult to have faith in a positive outcome.

So basically Muteo, you are of the opinion that the UI faculty should just bend over and grab their collective ankles and hope the BoR is going to use a lubricant?
I agree, the faculty is in a "no win" situation here,,,,,but they have ever GD right to be pissed at the BoR and demonstrate how pissed off they are as loudly (and politely) as they can. For "we the people" to sit an pass judgement on their actions (so far appropriate) and call them bad sports is silly. The Governor and thew BoR brought this on themselves. They have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[swagsurfer02]

Actually quite the opposite. They should try to make the institution they care about better. Do you really believe in giving up on an issue you feel strongly about because you don't get your way?

Absolutely. If they don't want to quit, well then quit whining and do their job to the best of their ability.

It's over, he's been hired so deal with it or apply elsewhere.

 

[mstp1992]

That makes two of us.

That previous comment was immature and unwarranted on my part. Apologies to you.

I will say that I don't believe the opinions of people not potentially directly affected by this decision (and the decisions of the BoR in general) carry as much weight as those of us on campus. That's just my personal opinion. I don't think my opinion carries any weight with regard to president selections at ISU or UNI.

So, I understand you may disagree with the manner in which faculty and staff and students have made their displeasure with this hire known.

However, I think it's also important to understand why there is as much discontent as there is. It's not just about Harreld. It goes back several years and this is just kind of the last straw in dealing with Rastetter.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Absolutely. If they don't want to quit, well then quit whining and do their job to the best of their ability.

It's over, he's been hired so deal with it or apply elsewhere.

By voicing there concerns these people MAY help to prevent future problems like this. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem, correct?

 

[mstp1992]

Absolutely. If they don't want to quit, well then quit whining and do their job to the best of their ability.

It's over, he's been hired so deal with it or apply elsewhere.

Are you purposely being obtuse?

Usually, you aren't this ignorant.

 

[swagsurfer02]

Are you purposely being obtuse?

Usually, you aren't this ignorant.

It's not ignorant, there's not many places where you can public ally trash your boss and there aren't repercussions. He has been hired, obviously to the displeasure of many faculty members. If it was me, I would either accept it or look for another opportunity.

 

[mstp1992]

An inaccurate resume is generally a big deal in any arena. The content that specifically is concentrated on - and to what degree - obviously changes depending on the audience. But to beat up on a non-academic (<= the real issue) for not listing papers how academics demand they be cited is an error on his part - but to most people it seems to be a silly qualm. Academics generally need to understand citations as part of their core function -- organizational leaders do not. So if there was no intent to deceive - then get over it. Again - shame on him for not getting the proper help necessary to ensure proper citation -- but it still seems like an excuse to attack him and not a real reason to disqualify him.

The problem is what you and others naive to the world of academia perceive as inconsequential is precisely what shows he is not interested in what's best for an academic institution.

For God sake, the man admitted he looked up information about the University of Iowa on Wikipedia. How difficult would it have been to use "the Google" to find out how to correctly cite publications on a resume when applying for the presidency of a large university?

The errors he committed on his resume are tantamount to academic fraud and would exclude you from any job consideration, eliminate you from any grant application, etc. You would be a pariah in the field.

The fact this would not be taken seriously by you or those in the corporate world is irrelevant and shows a lack of understanding of the current and future state of academics.

At this point, Harreld's success or failure is dependent upon his ability to show he's not some puppet brought in by the Board of Rastetter. He MUST demonstrate he's willing to put the University of Iowa ahead of the wishes of Branstad and Rastetter.
As soon as he begins agreeing with the Board of Rastetter on issues negative to the long term goals of Iowa then a difficult job will be made impossible.

It's up to Harreld at this point. He's either president of the University of Iowa or he's not.

 

[mstp1992]

It's not ignorant, there's not many places where you can public ally trash your boss and there aren't repercussions. He has been hired, obviously to the displeasure of many faculty members. If it was me, I would either accept it or look for another opportunity.

Clarification: there aren't many for-profit institutions where you can publicly trash your boss.

Why would you just kowtow to a decision that you believe to be detrimental to an organization you want to make better? Why not try to change the decision or at least make your wishes known and perhaps alter the perceived direction said decision would lead your organization?

Again, ignorance (or a lack of spine) on your part.

 

[swagsurfer02]

Clarification: there aren't many for-profit institutions where you can publicly trash your boss.

Why would you just kowtow to a decision that you believe to be detrimental to an organization you want to make better? Why not try to change the decision or at least make your wishes known and perhaps alter the perceived direction said decision would lead your organization?

Again, ignorance (or a lack of spine) on your part.

You and many others have made your wishes known. Do you have more gripes with the hiring procedure? I'm all for trying to make the U better, but for crying out loud give the guy a shot. He'll never succeed in working with you if you continually try to make him fail at every turn.

 

[joelbc1]

You and many others have made your wishes known. Do you have more gripes with the hiring procedure? I'm all for trying to make the U better, but for crying out loud give the guy a shot. He'll never succeed in working with you if you continually try to make him fail at every turn.

It might be fair to say that it isn't Harreld or the faculty that will fail here.......The failure here lies with the BoR and the Governor of Iowa.

 

[mstp1992]

You and many others have made your wishes known. Do you have more gripes with the hiring procedure? I'm all for trying to make the U better, but for crying out loud give the guy a shot. He'll never succeed in working with you if you continually try to make him fail at every turn.

Nobody's trying to make him fail. That's the point you (and many others) don't understand.

Why would the Board of Regents purposely select someone they obviously knew would be an extremely unpopular choice, create tons of controversy, and because of this a tough job will have been made tougher? There are quite a few who don't believe this selection was done with the best intentions of the University of Iowa in mind.

 

[swagsurfer02]

Nobody's trying to make him fail. That's the point you (and many others) don't understand.

Why would the Board of Regents purposely select someone they obviously knew would be an extremely unpopular choice, create tons of controversy, and because of this a tough job will have been made tougher? There are quite a few who don't believe this selection was done with the best intentions of the University of Iowa in mind.

So, if I'm understanding you right.... You think the BOR screwed up by who they hired, also through the hiring practice.

Let me ask you this, do you believe he is incapable of serving in the role of president as an asset to the university? If so, why?

Also, wasn't he a professor at an Ivy League university for a period of time, wouldnt that experience make him familiar with academia?

 

[mstp1992]

So, if I'm understanding you right.... You think the BOR screwed up by who they hired, also through the hiring practice.

Let me ask you this, do you believe he is incapable of serving in the role of president as an asset to the university? If so, why?

Also, wasn't he a professor at an Ivy League university for a period of time, wouldnt that experience make him familiar with academia?

He was an instructor with no administrative responsibilities.

Is he capable? Possibly.

Were the other candidates? Without a doubt.

 

[swagsurfer02]

He was an instructor with no administrative responsibilities.

Is he capable? Possibly.

We're the other candidates? Without a doubt.

So how long are you going to protest the hire, until you retire? He leaves? Etc...

 

[mstp1992]

So how long are you going to protest the hire, until you retire? He leaves? Etc...

Well, he officially starts on November 2, so we have another week.

Honestly, though, it's up to him to show he's not just a Rastetter/Branstad puppet. If he begins to acquiesce to the changes the BoR are proposing then his tenure will be tumultuous. If he goes against them then he has a good chance of having success.

 

[joelbc1]

Do you think the actions of the faculty senate - and this constant campaign to attack and diminish the BoR is helping? It's not a one-way street here. The university community isn't a helpless victim in all of this.

What concerns me the most at this point is that I don't believe it's likely Harreld can be successful. I don't believe the detractors who now claim they will give him a fair shot. To some degree it's in their interest to subvert his administration to prove their claim he was a bad hire - to protect their closed society from outsiders. If he ends up being a great president the faculty senate and others would look like a group of whiny imbeciles for raising such a ruckus.

I hope I'm wrong - but at this point it's difficult to have faith in a positive outcome.

If Harreld is successful, it will be because the UI has rallied around him...It will have nothing to do with the BoR or Governor....and honest Muteo....how are most of us going to know if he is successful or not? All our information will come from the media. I am sure neither you nor I "follow" the goings on at IC closely enough to "know" what's happening.

 

[mstp1992]

If Harreld is successful, it will be because the UI has rallied around him...It will have nothing to do with the BoR or Governor....and honest Muteo....how are most of us going to know if he is successful or not? All our information will come from the media. I am sure neither you nor I "follow" the goings on at IC closely enough to "know" what's happening.

Here's another take on Harreld's dishonesty with respect to his CV.

Ditchwalk

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Well, he officially starts on November 2, so we have another week.

Honestly, though, it's up to him to show he's not just a Rastetter/Branstad puppet. If he begins to acquiesce to the changes the BoR are proposing then his tenure will be tumultuous. If he goes against them then he has a good chance of having success.

"It's up to him to show he's not just a Rastetter/Branstad puppet."

Can you not see just how incredibly jaded that is? If you were an outsider - would you believe the faculty is going to be professional and supportive if you saw this sort of attitude on display?

There's nothing in this guys background to make me believe he'll acquiesce to anyone. He doesn't "need" this job. I'm sure he's financially set for life. He's here because he wants to help an institution of higher learning/hospital/research center with his unique skillset and background. Unfortunately - it appears he's headed into a buzzsaw.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Here's another take on Harreld's dishonesty with respect to his CV.

Ditchwalk

Again - the very fact you have been judge, jury and executioner and unequivocally deemed the erros to be "dishonesty" instead of what most would assume they are - errors - shows just how impossible it's going to be for him to work with folks like you.

I mean - c'mon. Do you really believe he was trying to hide the fact there were co-authors on those articles listed? Seriously?

 

[CeMar_Clone]

NIce of him. Still doesn't explain why they hired the least qualified finalists and ignored all faculty and staff input:

A member of the Iowa Board of Regents said Thursday that the board may have “dropped the ball” during the search for a new University of Iowa president, but urged the UI community to give the new president a chance.

Regent Subhash Sahai, a physician from Webster City, told his fellow board members Thursday that he was “angry, mad and most importantly sad” upon learning last month that a majority of the board had met with incoming UI President Harreld this summer before the search committee had begun evaluating applications.

“And I think my words at the time … were, ‘I am pissed,’ and that’s not the language I usually use,” said Sahai, who received his medical degree from UI in 1973.

Sahai said he has since had conversations with President Bruce Rastetter and President Pro Tem Katie Mulholland, who assured him that the early meetings with Harreld did not prejudice them against the other three finalists for UI president.

Although having no reason to doubt those assurances, Sahai said, the early meetings did create the perception that the search process was “less than impartial." The revelation of the meetings further added to the already intense negative backlash among many UI faculty, students, staff and community members.

“To the people of the university, state, alumni, I can only say that maybe we dropped the ball,” Sahai said.

Hundreds of members of the UI community protested outside Wednesday’s board meeting in the Iowa Memorial Union on the UI campus. They interrupted the meeting to deliver a printout of an online petition – with about 1,000 signatures – calling for the board to reverse its appointment of Harreld as president.

“The people at the university love this place, and their anger is understandable,” Sahai said.

The board’s Sept. 3 selection of Harreld was unanimous, but came after 90 minutes of closed-session discussion.

“I want people at the university to know that we had passionate, intense and rigorous debate about the choice for a candidate,” Sahai said. “I’ve always maintained that a decision of this magnitude requires a unanimous support. ... Right or wrong, I stick with it, and I think the majority of the people on the board at the time felt it was the thing to do.”

Sahai praised Harreld’s efforts to reach out and meet privately with his critics over the past few weeks. He urged the incoming president to continue those efforts after officially beginning the job next month.

“Finally, I beseech the principals of the university to give Mr. Harreld a chance with utmost sincerity,” he said. “Your and our future depends on it.”

http://www.press-citizen.com/story/.../regent-sahai-maybe-we-dropped-ball/74390392/

So, anyone that has ever been to the U of I can never be president of the U of I?

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

So how long are you going to protest the hire, until you retire? He leaves? Etc...

From what I can tell they'll protest him until they can determine that he's their puppet - instead of the BoR's.

If he comes in and actually wants to be a leader - not a chance. Disaster will ensue if he steps out of line with regard to the plan the faculty senate has for the U of Iowa.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

I'm not saying they would have fully accepted it; however, in talking with my colleagues it would have been much easier to accept that this is the direction the BoR wanted to go.

The process was just insulting.

The faculty was asked for input and they gave it. Here is the real problem, the faculty at the U of I actually think that they matter most. They actually represent only 1/3 of the business, so their vote is to be blunt, not worth much in the bigger picture. The tail does not wag the dog, but apparently the libs in IC want it to be that way.

 

[mstp1992]

"It's up to him to show he's not just a Rastetter/Branstad puppet."

Can you not see just how incredibly jaded that is? If you were an outsider - would you believe the faculty is going to be professional and supportive if you saw this sort of attitude on display?

There's nothing in this guys background to make me believe he'll acquiesce to anyone. He doesn't "need" this job. I'm sure he's financially set for life. He's here because he wants to help an institution of higher learning with his unique skillset and background. Unfortunately - it appears he's headed into a buzzsaw.

He's arriving under a huge cloud of suspicion regarding his motives for wanting this position. There are many who don't believe he actually wanted the position, but came in under false pretenses for Branstad and Rastetter. During his public forum someone asked his opinion about the new funding model proposed by the BoR. His response: "Yes, I can imagine reasons that might be the case. I think you can, too ... I wouldn’t approach it like, gee, we need our own third. You sound like … kids coming at me telling me that because this daughter has so much, the other one wants the same.”

With that type of response how can you NOT get the idea that he will be simply a 'yes' man to the BoR.

The man had to look up information about the University of Iowa from Wikipedia. How confident would you be that he actually understands fully the nature of a large academic institution.

These are just a couple of reasons why it's up to him to show us differently.