DITCHWALK

While speaking at an open forum as one of four finalists for the open presidency at the University of Iowa, J. Bruce Harreld made no mention of his visit to the University of Iowa campus two months earlier. Only after his unanimous election by the Board of Regents was it revealed that he had visited the state with his wife, and that he had met with both the president of the Board of Regents, Bruce Rastetter, and the head of the search committee and acting president, Jean Robillard, as well as two more members of the search committee who were hastily added at the last minute.

It has been reported that at the time Harreld was not a candidate for the position, and that Robillard simply invited him to speak to a small group of people at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics*, but that narrative is now falling apart.

The chief of staff for Robillard sent Harreld a July 2 email with itineraries for his and his wife’s trip. The message referenced Robillard’s invitation to Harreld to speak to UIHC leadership on “sustaining success.” At the time, Robillard was head of the presidential search committee.

The email said that Harreld’s wife, Mary, would be escorted for “a tour/lunch while you are meeting with UI Health Care leadership.”

Mary Harreld’s itinerary was not provided, but included a tour of the new Hancher construction site.

“Mary and I truly appreciate your showing her the campus and especially the soon to be finished Hancher Performing Arts Center,” Harreld replied. “We look forward to meeting you.”

One reason it’s important for Rastetter and Robillard to stick to the narrative that Harreld was not a candidate at that point is that it could fairly be noted that the treatment afforded Harreld was not uniformly afforded to other candidates. The reason that narrative is now falling apart is that it strains credulity that Harreld’s wife was given a tour of the campus for any reason other than to show her the campus that her husband would be presiding over only two short months later.

Another reason it’s important to cling to any remaining shred of plausible deniability about Harreld’s status as a candidate is that it means Rastetter and Robillard did nothing wrong by failing to notify the full twenty-one-person search committee that Harreld was in town and being considered for the job:

During a meeting Thursday of the UI chapter of the American Association of University Professors, faculty members discussed the summer visit. Two members of the search committee said they learned of it in the newspaper.

“I didn’t know … and I think there are others who were completely unaware of this,” said one of them, Dorothy Johnson, a UI art history professor. “I’m learning things in the paper I had no knowledge of even though I was on the search committee.”

As is always the case when dealing with politically appointed bureaucrats and their collaborators the details are both mind-numbing and critical, but you can find an excellent summary of the ever-evolving narrative of Harreld’s visit here.

After Rastetter and Robillard both promised an open and transparent hiring process, and despite the fact that the regents were taken to court eight years ago for conducting a presidential search in violation of the law (which they lost), and after J. Bruce Harreld himself spoke at the university and talked about shared governance, transparency and building trust, it is readily apparent that neither Rastetter, Robillard or Harreld knows what transparency means, what shared governance means, or how to build trust with anyone except themselves. And of course with Mary Harreld.

* If you are not familiar with the UIHC, what you need to know is that it is a massive cutting-edge teaching hospital with resources and staff that rival any hospital complex in the world. On any given day there must be dozens of people giving talks on different subjects, none of whom would be contacted by the acting president’s chief of staff, none of whom would have a sit-down with the acting president (who was at that time also head of the presidential search committee), none of whom would meet with the president of the regents (whose body would soon vote on the candidate of their choice), and none of whom’s spouses would be given a tour of the campus even if they tagged along on such a junket, which they likely would not.

— Mark Barrett

I don’t remember what I was doing eight years ago, but what retired University of Iowa professor Harold Hammond was doing was filing suit against the regents for violating the state’s open-meetings law during the search that ultimately led to the hiring of Sally Mason:

In a 2009 settlement, the search committee admitted to violating the open meetings law in four different ways, including by failing to give proper notice of meetings and discussing matters in closed session that were required to be discussed openly. The university promised that in the future, presidential search committees would “take thorough and sufficient steps” to comply with the Open Meetings Law. The school also paid Hammond’s legal fees of $66,000.

While it is of course surprising that a suit had to be brought to compel an august body like the regents to comply with state laws, or at least to promise to comply with those laws in the future, it is distressing that they went right back to business as usual during the hiring of J. Bruce Harreld. Which is why Professor Hammond is suing them again on the exact same grounds:

The petition filed by Harrold Hammond, an emeritus professor in the College of Dentistry, adds another layer of controversy to the search, which ended earlier this month with the selection of former IBM executive Bruce Harreld. It asks a judge to void actions taken by the 21-member committee, which vetted dozens of candidates before recommending four finalists to the Board of Regents.

So if you’re scoring at home, that’s two corrupt searches, two corrupt outcomes, two corrupt Boards of Regents. Given the gap in time and the change in personnel you would think it would be hard for such malfeasance to persist, so I find it difficult not to wonder if there are people in key positions of authority in the state today who were also in key positions of authority the last time this happened.

For all the talk about the cultural problems on the campus of the University of Iowa, and there clearly are cultural problems facing the students, it appears that the university may be rotting from the head down. That’s particularly worrisome given the close association between acting president Jean Robillard and the head of the Board of Regents, Bruce Rastetter, both of whom paid special attention to J. Bruce Harreld as a candidate. Could it be that there’s a persistent cultural problem among the students because the people in charge can’t stop treating the University of Iowa like their own professional duchy, slush find or research park?

One would hope that the adults in any room always have the best interests of their charges at heart, but when it comes to choosing the president of the University of Iowa that doesn’t seem to be the case. And yet maybe the most disturbing part about the whole sordid mess is the abject incompetence. I mean, if you’re smart enough to rope Christina Bohannan in at the last minute in order to give your preferential treatment of J. Bruce Harreld the appearance of propriety, how do you bungle everything else? How does your hand-picked, personally groomed candidate stand up in front of a room full of people, talk about transparency and building trust, and forget to mention the transformational change that took place in his heart, mind and soul when he and his wife visited the University of Iowa campus only a few short months before? Better yet, how do you conduct meetings in secret when you got sued for doing the exact same thing last time, and lost?

I know there are people in high places in Iowa who are afflicted with feelings of inadequacy because they want to be major players in a sexy state like California or New York. And I know those feelings of inadequacy drive them to do corrupt things in furtherance of their frustrated desires. But it seems to me that plenty of states are so far ahead in terms of corruption that Iowa might as well throw its lot in with the fine, upstanding crowd. And a good first step would be removing Bruce Rastetter from the Board of Regents, replacing Jean Robillard as the acting president of the University of Iowa, giving J. Bruce Harreld the opportunity to withdraw from the position that was offered to him before he is deposed, and freeing the remaining members of the regents from whatever oath of secrecy or pledge of confidentiality or double-secret probation is being used as a pretext to keep them from speaking to the press and explaining why we should still have faith in them.

After that, we can get on with the business of hiring a president through a transparent process that produces a fully qualified candidate who is prepared to hit the ground running on day one, instead of an unqualified carpetbagger who will need to spend years engrossed in remedial instruction while also stitching back together the tattered shreds of his personal credibility. Because as it stands now, the regents have decided to pass on a sure thing and take an unnecessary $4,000,000, five-year gamble on J. Bruce Harreld — a man who needed a cabal of power brokers to grease his candidacy, who used Wikipedia as a resource in researching the university, who submitted a resume that contained false information, and who failed to mention that he had been invited to the campus two months earlier by the acting head of the university who was also the head of the search committee. All qualities which, in five costly years, may seem like blatantly obvious indicators that J. Bruce Harreld was not the man for the job.

You know, the same kind of indicators that would get almost any college kid bounced out of a work-study interview no matter who they knew.

— Mark Barrett

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 ]