On Friday, the MSU Board of Trustees limited an eight-month, nationwide search for MSU's next president to a five-week walk up one flight of stairs in the Administration Building. Trustees interviewed MSU's current Provost Lou Anna Simon Thursday morning and deliberated for exactly one day before they were able to make Simon an offer to be MSU's 20th president.
The search was concise, deliberate and local. They chose a veteran of MSU administration, current President M. Peter McPherson's second-in-command and perhaps the most qualified candidate they could have culled. Even the most steadfast critics of Simon's nomination cannot deny her credentials nor her competency in pulling the strings of a Big Ten university.
But we can't help feeling somewhat uneasy with the decision.
Despite the prudence of Simon's selection, the Board of Trustees wasted a golden opportunity. Flash back to spring, when Simon's realignment of MSU's liberal arts program created a noticeable rift between faculty members and university administration. Through no intentional malice, Simon's reorganization called for quick, decisive action, and many faculty members felt they had been circumvented in the process. Inter-university communication between officials, professors, students and staff was conspicuously strained, and Simon was unfortunately and perhaps unfairly made the personification of faulty lines of communication.
Flash back to May 7, when President McPherson announced he would be stepping down as president effective Jan. 1, 2005. Trustees promptly announced they were in no rush to determine a successor. The opportunity to mend university fences revealed itself. Faculty members, the East Lansing City Council and even The State News offered their assistance in the search with emphasis on public forum, vast input and a great deal of listening on the behalf of administrators.
There is little doubt of Simon's qualification as president. She undoubtedly has a devotion and firm dedication to academics and public service via the university, but the opportunity to bridge the communication rift at MSU was unfortunately squandered. A sound choice as president? Yes. A tactful one? No.
Upon examination of why MSU trustees chose to blind side all with a hasty selection, their motivation seems fairly clear. Our university faces a troubled time, and an increasingly troubled future dependent on confident leadership. There is yet to be closure of the College of Human Medicine's transition to Grand Rapids, and there remains the quest for $1 billion in federal funding for our Rare Isotope Accelerator project.
Both of those initiatives will see much attention from McPherson in his final months, but conclusion to those - and a variety of projects - are simply long-term. MSU Trustees went with someone standing knee deep in university affairs to make sure the position fit the individual.
There should have been more outreach on the part of the trustees in the duration of this search. There was the opportunity to smooth the friction between administrators, students and faculty via a lengthy search process, and it was ignored. Even if Simon had been tabbed since May 8 to succeed McPherson, the announcement should not have been done without such positive outreach, and that alone will sour some to Simon's nomination.
To be sure, the concerns of many in this presidential search were not addressed. We have little doubt that Simon's nomination after such progressive outreach would have elicited uproar. If anything, faculty, students and other constituency groups would be at least partially satisfied that the administration was interested in their voice.
Again, Simon is an immensely qualified candidate. Addressing those concerns in a public forum or otherwise could have only produced constructive dialogue en route to choosing a qualified candidate. Succinctly, we have little concern about the next president. We have great concern, however, in the fallout of the process employed in this abbreviated search.
Was Simon's appointment the result of panic? Was the consideration of other candidates a mere afterthought throughout this ordeal? There's a clear absence of harmful intent with this appointment, but it nevertheless raises questions and suspicions that were previously avoidable. Instead, the potential of flared relations between faculty, administrators and students continues to rise. Opportunity blown.
We have every confidence in the ability and determination of Lou Anna Simon as our next president. The choice was a prudent one, if not ideal considering the needs of our university, but the manner in which it was finalized is contrary to mutual expressions of progress.
You have our full support, Provost Simon, it's the board that worries us.
