Regarding today’s report that J. Bruce Harreld visited the University of Iowa to speak about “transformational change” several months before being selected as the new president — and specifically that he had lunch with Jean Robillard, the head of the search committee, and Bruce Rastetter, the president of the regents — while the news itself is damning, so is Harreld’s omission of that fact during the open forum which was held for the benefit of faculty, staff and interested stakeholders.

I don’t know whether Harreld’s visit to Iowa City on July 8th was his first visit to the University of Iowa or not, but at the time Harreld was reportedly not a candidate for the position of president. So on some level, one would think that visit must have created quite an impression if he subsequently decided to apply for the job.

When Harreld later found himself in front of a hostile crowd, and was trying to win them over, why did he not mention the fact that he was wowed only a couple of months earlier when he apparently got his first glimpse into all that the University of Iowa is and can be? Instead, as has been noted, Harreld’s only comment about researching the university is his now infamous reference to having looked up the school on Wikipedia. Was there simply no opportunity for Harreld to mention his prior visit, including his lunch with Robillard and Rastetter, or did he intentionally avoid doing so?

I don’t know, but after watching the whole presentation I believe I can state with some certainty that he did not mention (or, if you prefer, disclose) either. What follows are timing marks where Harreld had what might fairly be described as a conversational opening to talk about the process that ultimately brought him to Iowa.

6:00 — Begins speaking.

10:25 — Mentions the “medical school”.

13:00 — Mentions “prior meetings here on campus”.

1:05:45 — Makes mention of medical research, and indicates that he is familiar with someone seated in the audience who is associated with same.

1:13:38 — Takes a question from someone on staff at UHIC.

1:19:00 — Answers a question about transparency, and whether he is doing or has done work for the regents.

1:26:42 — Answers a question about the need for transparency in a different context.

1:30:44 — Makes reference to Wikipedia.

Harreld spoke extemporaneously for a half hour before taking questions, and seemed comfortable doing so. He laid out his vision, stayed on message, and never once referenced notes — though he may have had prompts that were not visible to the camera. Except for the slip-up regarding false information on his resume Harreld showed no problem with recall.

So how does someone with Harreld’s grasp of the facts, having once helped save IBM from itself, and apparently having been blown away on a brief visit only two short months before, omit that transformational moment from his personal narrative? If you’re on the faculty or staff, or you’re a student, it’s one thing to consider the impact of today’s disclosure in terms of the regents, but another to wonder why Harreld himself didn’t disclose those same facts when he clearly had an opportunity to do so.

When asked why he was applying to be president of the University of Iowa, Harreld had a consistent answer. On multiple occasions he said, “I think I can help.” Fair enough. It’s clear that J. Bruce Harreld has been around the block, and if he’s willing to share the benefit of his wisdom and experience over five mean Iowa winters we should take the man at his word until given reason to do otherwise.

Speaking of which, it does seem that someone with Harreld’s wisdom and experience would know that omitting prior contact with the head of the search committee and the president of the Board of Regents might look bad, even if nothing shady was going on. And, as a leader, we might rightly expect Harreld to defuse even the appearance of impropriety by disclosing that contact. Because if that information did come out later, it very well might make people have second thoughts about J. Bruce Harreld’s personal credibility, integrity, and commitment to transparency.

Or is that just how business is done?

— Mark Barrett

Among the questions I asked in the previous post, regarding the recent hire of J. Bruce Harreld to be the new president of the University of Iowa, was whether there was a level playing field for all candidates. Apparently not:

The businessman picked as the next University of Iowa president had visited campus two months earlier at the invitation of the presidential search committee chair.

The university confirmed Monday that Bruce Harreld visited University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics on July 8.

A spokeswoman says Harreld spoke to about 40 people at the invitation of university vice president Jean Robillard, who was leading the 21-member committee searching for the next school president. Harreld wasn’t paid.

Harreld’s visit, first reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education, raises more questions about whether he was given special treatment during the search. Critics say Harreld was unqualified but the Iowa Board of Regents hired him anyway.

It’s not clear whether Robillard was asked to extend an invitation by someone, but I’m sure we’ll get an answer once everyone gets their stories straight. You know, like the Governor did the other day when he said he supported Harreld 100%, but also added that he had absolutely nothing to do with the hire. Even though Harreld was also the only candidate who spoke to the governor personally.

Branstad’s spokesman denies the governor had input into the decision, but he acknowledges that Branstad called Harreld, which he didn’t do with other candidates. It happened, said Centers, after Harreld asked Regents President Bruce Rastetter about Branstad’s “support for the university.” Rastetter is close with Branstad.

Support for the university indeed.

— Mark Barrett

As an alumnus of the University of Iowa, the recent hiring of J. Bruce Harreld to be the new president of my alma mater gives me pause. In the aftermath of that hire there has been an outpouring of frustration about the hiring process and selection, voiced immediately through votes of no-confidence in the Iowa Board of Regents by both the faculty and students. Chief among the complaints seems to be that the hire may have been a backroom deal brokered by a malevolent force on the Board of Regents, who is disinterested in whether the university can meet its core responsibilities as an institution of higher learning.

While I sympathize with anyone’s frustration in trying to get the truth out of a politically appointed bureaucrat, plausible deniability is a cornerstone of all political chicanery, and can at times approach high art. So the idea that a smoking gun might suddenly appear and reveal the entire hiring process to have been deliberate fraud is unlikely at best. In fact, attacking the regents would only play to the board’s strengths given their control of the hiring process, their secrecy, and particularly their institutional ability to deny and delay until everyone just runs out of indignation.

From time to time, however, bureaucrats — and particularly politically appointed bureaucrats — forget that while they’re cooking the books or lying to the people they purportedly serve they’re still obligated to meet a minimum standard of competence. They don’t have to be rocket scientists, or even rock scientists, but they do have to meet basic tests of accountability, particularly when working in government.

In questioning the mechanics of how Harreld was hired, a crime is being alleged. It may be that an actual crime took place, having to do with hiring practices and government regulations and things I know nothing about, or that the crime was metaphorical. It is frustrating that we will probably never have access to the information that would allow us to determine who, specifically, engineered such a crime, but we don’t have to know whodunnit to know that a crime took place.

The Board of Regents unanimously agreed to hire Harreld at a salary of $600,000 for each of five years, plus $1,000,000 in deferred compensation, meaning Harreld will be paid a minimum of $4,000,000 under the current contract. What makes that particularly remarkable, and factors into the outrage at his hiring, is that J. Bruce Harreld is demonstrably unqualified for the job. That the Iowa Board of Regents insisted, unanimously, on hiring him anyway, obviously calls their own competence into question.

The usual bureaucratic dodge is to say that there was ample opportunity to ask questions and raise objections during the hiring process, that the decision has been made, that it will not be reversed, and that it is now incumbent on everyone to move past any sour grapes and work together as professionals to make the University of Iowa great. As a factual matter, the four finalists for the position did each appear in an open forum and answer questions from stakeholders, and those forums did take place before the regents came to their unanimous determination. If people wanted to raise objections so the regents would factor those concerns into their own decision-making process, they should have made their voices heard.

Preliminary results from the AAUP survey show Ohio State University Provost Joseph Steinmetz with the most support and J. Bruce Harreld, former IBM, Boston Market Company, and Kraft General Foods executive, with the least support.

Of the more than 440 UI faculty members who responded to the AAUP survey — a voluntary poll conducted online that asked the same 10 questions for each candidate — 98 percent said they believe Steinmetz is qualified to be UI president.

Among faculty, only about 3 percent thought Harreld is qualified. The other two candidates — Oberlin College President Marvin Krislov and Tulane University Provost Michael Bernstein — also received high marks from the faculty, with about 94 percent calling Bernstein qualified for the job and 91 percent saying so of Krislov.

Of the 230-plus students, staff, and community members who responded to the AAUP poll, about 95 percent said they thought Steinmetz is qualified for the job, followed by Krislov at 84 percent, Bernstein at 80 percent, and Harreld at 4 percent.

Fair enough. Rather than dwell on the past we will look to the future, and in particular the future graduates of the University of Iowa who are now being led by a man who was not simply the least qualified of the final four candidates vying for president, but unqualified for the position. Because in insisting that they had the right to hire whomever they want, the Board or Regents has not only undercut the very premise of the institution that Harreld now leads, they have eviscerated the criteria by which the students at that institution are judged on a daily basis.

[ Read more ]