JimBob
12-01-2007, 08:17 AM
OSU's search process doubted
By APRIL MARCISZEWSKI World Staff Writer
12/1/2007
A professor says the search for a president may have violated the Open Meeting Act.
A professor and president of an open-government advocacy group questioned on Friday whether the Oklahoma State University presidential search committee violated the state’s Open Meeting Act.
The attorney for OSU’s governing board, Charles Drake, replied in an email to OSU journalism professor Joey Senat that the search committee did not eliminate any presidential candidates from the board’s consideration.
The search committee unanimously recommended one candidate, former board member Burns Hargis, to the board on Thursday, according to board s p o k e s m a n Brent Gooden.
The board of regents is scheduled to consider Hargis in a vote Tuesday.
Meanwhile on Friday, for the first time since outlining basic search procedures in February, the board released the number of candidates at stages throughout the process, and Gooden defended the process.
Senat, president of FOI (Freedom of Information) Oklahoma Inc., said, “It sounds like they want to play games with the Open Meeting Act.”
He contended in an e-mail to Drake that the search committee, which was formed by the board, exercised “actual or de facto decision-making authority,” quoting the 1978 Oklahoma Supreme Court case Sanders v. Benton.
Senat quoted a 1984 Oklahoma attorney general opinion as saying that a subgroup that reviews and eliminates, in that case, bids for contracts, is making decisions.
Drake referred to the same attorney general opinions and said the OSU search committee had not eliminated any candidates from the board of regents’ consideration. In fact, Drake wrote, the committee procedures state that the board alone has the responsibility to choose and employ a president, reject all candidates or reopen the search.
The procedures also allow the board to choose from among candidates referred by the committee, reject the referrals and request more recommendations, or create a new search committee.
Senat called Drake’s explanation “semantics” and said the search committee, “practically speaking,” eliminated all candidates besides Hargis from contention.
Senat pointed out: “I don’t have any notion of whether Mr. Hargis is the best candidate or not. My concern is that the process should be conducted in the open, as required by our state law.
“When government operates in secret, and particularly if it’s in violation of the sunshine law, that breeds cynicism among the public about the government,” Senat said.
“. . . The public is entitled to be informed about its government.”
To follow the Open Meeting Act, the committee should have notified the public of its meetings and posted agendas for those meetings, Senat said.
The committee could have gone into executive session to discuss and review applicants but would have had to take any votes about semifinalists or finalists in open session.
“The way the process has run, it looks like it’s been a done deal,” Senat said. “ . . . We’ll never know if he (Hargis) was the best-qualified candidate, and we don’t even know who the finalists he beat out would have been.”
Gooden backed the process, saying in an e-mail: “The national consultant engaged by the regents to assist with the OSU presidential search process judged the quality of the pool as much higher than our previous searches. The search committee did an excellent job ensuring the process was deliberate and comprehensive in scope.”
In previous presidential searches by the A&M board of regents, an OSU presidential search committee unanimously referred one candidate, David Schmidly, and a Langston University search committee referred five candidates to the board, Gooden wrote.
Schmidly was chosen in February as the University of New Mexico president and was officially installed in October.
OSU presidential search
102 “potential candidates,” including 53 nominees, were in contact with the search committee.
The 33-member committee considered whether applicants and nominees were qualified and narrowed the pool to 27 applicants.
Six candidates interviewed with the committee.
Three were interviewed.
The committee unanimously referred Burns Hargis to OSU’s governing board “for further consideration.”
Source: Board spokesman Brent Gooden
By APRIL MARCISZEWSKI World Staff Writer
12/1/2007
A professor says the search for a president may have violated the Open Meeting Act.
A professor and president of an open-government advocacy group questioned on Friday whether the Oklahoma State University presidential search committee violated the state’s Open Meeting Act.
The attorney for OSU’s governing board, Charles Drake, replied in an email to OSU journalism professor Joey Senat that the search committee did not eliminate any presidential candidates from the board’s consideration.
The search committee unanimously recommended one candidate, former board member Burns Hargis, to the board on Thursday, according to board s p o k e s m a n Brent Gooden.
The board of regents is scheduled to consider Hargis in a vote Tuesday.
Meanwhile on Friday, for the first time since outlining basic search procedures in February, the board released the number of candidates at stages throughout the process, and Gooden defended the process.
Senat, president of FOI (Freedom of Information) Oklahoma Inc., said, “It sounds like they want to play games with the Open Meeting Act.”
He contended in an e-mail to Drake that the search committee, which was formed by the board, exercised “actual or de facto decision-making authority,” quoting the 1978 Oklahoma Supreme Court case Sanders v. Benton.
Senat quoted a 1984 Oklahoma attorney general opinion as saying that a subgroup that reviews and eliminates, in that case, bids for contracts, is making decisions.
Drake referred to the same attorney general opinions and said the OSU search committee had not eliminated any candidates from the board of regents’ consideration. In fact, Drake wrote, the committee procedures state that the board alone has the responsibility to choose and employ a president, reject all candidates or reopen the search.
The procedures also allow the board to choose from among candidates referred by the committee, reject the referrals and request more recommendations, or create a new search committee.
Senat called Drake’s explanation “semantics” and said the search committee, “practically speaking,” eliminated all candidates besides Hargis from contention.
Senat pointed out: “I don’t have any notion of whether Mr. Hargis is the best candidate or not. My concern is that the process should be conducted in the open, as required by our state law.
“When government operates in secret, and particularly if it’s in violation of the sunshine law, that breeds cynicism among the public about the government,” Senat said.
“. . . The public is entitled to be informed about its government.”
To follow the Open Meeting Act, the committee should have notified the public of its meetings and posted agendas for those meetings, Senat said.
The committee could have gone into executive session to discuss and review applicants but would have had to take any votes about semifinalists or finalists in open session.
“The way the process has run, it looks like it’s been a done deal,” Senat said. “ . . . We’ll never know if he (Hargis) was the best-qualified candidate, and we don’t even know who the finalists he beat out would have been.”
Gooden backed the process, saying in an e-mail: “The national consultant engaged by the regents to assist with the OSU presidential search process judged the quality of the pool as much higher than our previous searches. The search committee did an excellent job ensuring the process was deliberate and comprehensive in scope.”
In previous presidential searches by the A&M board of regents, an OSU presidential search committee unanimously referred one candidate, David Schmidly, and a Langston University search committee referred five candidates to the board, Gooden wrote.
Schmidly was chosen in February as the University of New Mexico president and was officially installed in October.
OSU presidential search
102 “potential candidates,” including 53 nominees, were in contact with the search committee.
The 33-member committee considered whether applicants and nominees were qualified and narrowed the pool to 27 applicants.
Six candidates interviewed with the committee.
Three were interviewed.
The committee unanimously referred Burns Hargis to OSU’s governing board “for further consideration.”
Source: Board spokesman Brent Gooden