All of us in the GRU academic family, and those in Augusta who have been watching the news or reading the newspaper, know that our current President, Dr. Ricardo Azziz, has interviewed for positions at several other prestigious Universities – most recently at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The results of UNLV’s presidential search has not yet been announced as of the deadline for this column, but it is clear that before too long GRU will be faced with the need for our own presidential search. How will this be conducted? The Board of Regents will be choosing the next GRU president, and there will be a process to advertise the position and to screen through those candidates who apply. Some of the applicants will doubtless choose not to have their names revealed until late in the process in order not to jeopardize their present jobs. The candidate pool will then be narrowed down to four or five, who will then be announced publicly and will visit the campus for face-to-face interviews. Those interviews will result in recommendations, and only after that process will the Board of Regents begin negotiations about who it perceives to be the top candidate.
But let’s look at that process. Who is it who decides what, exactly, should be in that job announcement? President Azziz heads both GRU and GRHealth. Should his successor continue to head both? Or should there be two searches: one for the President of GRU (who could presumably be either a Ph.D. or an M.D. with experience running a university), and another for the CEO of GRHealth (an M.D. with major hospital teaching and administrative experience)? Once the job description is announced, who should be involved in the process of screening and ultimately interviewing candidates? Specifically, what should be the role of the GRU faculty and students in that process?
These are questions that most of us can only speculate about. The AAUP has a recommended policy on the subject (online at http://aaup.org/report/faculty-participation-selection-evaluation-and-retention-administrators), emphasizing the primary role of faculty and board in the search for a president. The AAUP recommends, for example, that the composition of the various screening boards be tailored by agreement of the faculty and board, reflecting both the primacy of faculty concern and the need to provide students with a voice. The Board of Regents, with whom the legal power of appointment rests, should agree to select a name from among those submitted by the committee, and, in any case, should agree that no person will be chosen over the objections of the faculty representatives. Those are the AAUP recommendations, but there is no guarantee that the GRU selection process will follow them – bringing up the question, once again, as to what the process actually will be for our GRU presidential search.
The Summerville campus has not seen a presidential search in several decades, and doubtless the rules have changed since then. Faculty and students both need to know more about the process and how we can help tailor it to meet our unique needs at GRU. Our AAUP GRU chapter is already planning a program for early in spring semester, and perhaps we can partner with student government in the idea. We will be asking those who are experts in the field to discuss how presidential searches are conducted in Georgia public institutions, and in particular how faculty and students will be or can be involved. Our AAUP meetings are “open meetings” and all are invited. We generally meet on the third Friday of each month, starting at 2:30 p.m. Look for our upcoming AAUP announcements about presidential search and other topics, and join us if you are interested!
rscott5@gru.edu
