While the University’s presidential search has officially begun, it is still uncertain whether students will be represented in the process.

The University’s Board of Regents announced the appointment of the presidential search advisory committee — which is tasked with finding University President Mary Sue Coleman’s successor — but it does not include current University students.

The 16-person advisory committee is comprised of eight regents and eight faculty members who will work alongside Russell Reynolds Associates, the executive recruiting firm appointed to lead the search. The 16-member committee in 2002 included two students: University alum Matt Nolan, then Michigan Student Assembly president, and University alum Lisa Jackson, a doctoral student of psychology.

While Business senior Michael Proppe, Central Student Government president, advocated for similar student representation on the current committee, his requests went unfulfilled.

The regents plan to hold public meetings in September and October to receive feedback from students, but Proppe said without actual student representation on the committee, he is concerned that student input will not be as effective.

“We need some sort of way of knowing that the search committee, the consultants and the regents aren’t just going to sit there and listen politely and just nod their heads and never really discuss it again,” he said.

Proppe said he is already in talks with regents about increasing student input and there is still a possibility of adding a student representative to the committee. He spoke briefly to Regent Andrew Richner (R— Grosse Pointe Park) on Tuesday and with E. Royster Harper, vice president for student affairs, on a separate occasion to create a plan to “ensure there is significant input still in the search process.”

Proppe said he hopes to have more conversations with regents in the future, and added that he’s “not going to close any doors” on advocating for a student representative.

In a statement to The Michigan Daily on behalf of the board, Regent Laurence Dietch (D — Bloomfield Hills) wrote that the committee aspires to seek input from a wide array of students.

“We approach this work with great care to involve every stakeholder in a process that encourages sharing ideas regarding potential candidates and the important characteristics of candidates for this position,” he said.

Dietch served as chairman of the 2002 presidential search, along with current Regents Andrea Fisher Newman (R — Ann Arbor) and Katherine White (D — Ann Arbor) and the two student representatives, among others.

Proppe compiled a file of recent presidential searches among the top 25 public universities and every committee formed included at least one student representative, besides Clemson University, whose 2013 search committee had no student representatives but held public forums.

While most committees had one or two student representatives, the University of California had a 12-member Student Advisory Committee comprised of student representatives from each of the University of California campuses to find a successor for current president Mark Yudof, who will step down Aug. 31.

Proppe said the lack of a student representative parallels the recent adoption of the football general admission policy by the Athletic Department, a decision which involved no student opinion.

Despite passing two resolutions, approaching regents with concerns and proposing solutions for compromise to Athletic Director Dave Brandon, no amendments were made to the policy.

“It’s important that they’re going to students and seeking their feedback before they make the decision,” Proppe said. “I think it’s really important that the regents are seeking a lot of feedback from students and a lot of input in their decision on who the next University president will be.”

In a June interview, Dean of Students Laura B. Jones said the primary purpose of student government was to keep a relatively static University administration aware of inter-generational student needs and help it stay focused on serving students.

Nolan, the then-MSA president who held one of two seats on the 2002 committee, said the inability to reach a compromise for student input with University administration deserved an explanation.

“Whether you agree with the regents’ decision or not, I do think it is a fair question to ask the regents why it is different this time,” he said. “Explaining that rationale could go a long way in making more people (support) the decision.”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.