Page 4-Tuesday, February 20, 1979-The Michigan Daily
tic icia B iy
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom.
Vol. LXXXIX, No. 118 News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
Regents establish guide ines
for next University presdent
Cyp itts en
Advisory groups deserve
vote in presidential search
TUDENT LEADERS have actively
..gJ fought for the right to interview
candidates for the University
presidency since the Regents outlined
the selection process last October. On
Friday, the Board took a positive step
by granting the students, faculty, and
,,alumni advisory committees that
%right. But this is not 9nough because
the three committees are only ad-
visory. The Regents must give all
three groups the right to vote on who
will become Robben Fleming's per-
When the Board outlined the
process last fall, it stated that "the ad-
visory committees are not to conduct
any interviews. This is the prerogative
of the Regents Selection Committee
alone." In early November and for the
o next several months, the Regents were
only able to promise these groups par-
ticipation "somewhere down the line."
But they never indicated what type of
participation they had in mind.
The Michigan Student Assembly
S(MSA), enraged by the Regents'
O dominance of the search process,
a voted to boycott it. The Senate Ad-
visory Community on University Af-
fairs (SACUA) also criticized the
;=Regents' guidelines but still voted to
form an advisory committee.
MSA finally chose a committee in
mid-December, but that committee
drafted 'a resolution that it would ask
MSA to resume the boycott if it was not
granted the right to interview. can-
didates. Meanwhile, student commit-
tee co-chairperson Jeff Supowit quietly
Z negotiated with the Regents to get that
x During their monthly meeting on
.1Friday, the Regents finally gave in to
the student demands. By allowing
three faculty members, two students
and two alumni from the advisory
committees to question the final group
,of hopefuls, the Board added a bit of
democracy to a process it had been
governing autocratically. But it still
has not given in enough.
The right to interview is no sub-
,,stitute for the right to vote for the next
president. The Board still reserves en-
tirely for itself the right to pick the
:person who will probably lead the
*:University for the next decade on the
;flimsy justification that it is the only
obody that truly represents the citizens
of Michigan. But that is not the point.
It is true that the Regents are chosen
in a state-wide election, but the vast
V majority of the state's voters do not
really know anything about the can-
can-didates and vote only according to par-
+, Until the Regents allow the student,
; faculty and alumni groups to vote for
Sthe next president, there is absolutely
no guarantee that the needs of those
three groups will be considered.
7t 4 .
It is grossly unfair that students, who
must learn in an institution in which
the president's decisions affect them
so much, don't have an equal say in
who the school's next leader will be.
Faculty are also heavily dependent
on the decisions of the University
president. They must acquire state ap-
propriations for their department's
research which often depends on the
ability of the president to lobby the
state legislators in Lansing. Alumni,
who support the University with
millions of dollars each year, have the
right to help choose the person who
partially guides the spending of their
donations. Anything less than voting
rights for these three groups con-
stitutes negligence on the part of the
As an alternative to the system
devised by the Regents, we suggest a
selection committee composed of the
eight Regents, eight students, eight
faculty members, and four alumni.
Three-quarters of the twenty eight
voters would have to agree on a certain
candidate before he or she could
become president. This system insures
that only a candidate which each group
finds to be desirable will be elected.
For instance, if the Regents favor a
candidate which all the students op-
pose, this system would guarantee that
candidate would not be chosen.
Another clause of the Regents' latest
resolution states that "advisory com-
mittee members shall not com-
municate directly or indirectly with
persons recommended for the
presidency unless expressly
authorized in writing by the Chairman
of the Regents Selection Committee."
Presumably, the rule is intended to
keep advisory committee members
from contacting candidates, whenever
they desire, and to insure that only
designated interviewers will question
the candidates at specific times.
But the rule is really a thinly-veiled
effort at censorship and centralization.
The Regents are trying to control the
process by themselves with only token
input from the three advisory commit-
tees. How are the advisory committess
going to be able to determine who will
be on their list of possible successors to
Fleming if they are restricted from
personally contacting them?
The Regents' fanatical desire for
secrecy should not override the ad-
visory groups' rights to question
people they wish to recommend as
possible candidates for the presidency.
The students, faculty and alumni
groups have greatly benefitted from
the Regents' concession to grant them
interviewing rights. But it is only a
small step on the long road to gaining
parity in the selection process. Until
the Regents correct these ills, they will
continue to neglect their respon-
sibilities to the University community.
"r'" n /
Thie Regents Seiectionc omm itee ap-
preciates the reports submitted on the Needs
of The University of Michigan by the Faculty
Committee on the Presidency, Student Com-
mittee on the Presidency, and the Alumni
Committee on the Presidency. In addition, the
Regents are indebted to those other groups
and individuals who submitted memoran-
dums and reports on this subject.
Each Advisory Committee may assess for
itself the weight to be given each criterion.
The order of the criteria is not indicative of
THE REGENTS Selection Committee may
modify the criteria for a University President
as the process of selection evolves.
A person having all of these desired charac-
teristics may not be found, so some abilities
will be regarded as more important than
The Regents Selection Committee has
determined that the following characteristics
should be considered when selecting the next
President of The University of Michigan:
1. Possess outstanding ability to provide
vigorous, informed, imaginative and in-
2. Possess executive and administrative
3. Possess sensitivity to the nature and pur-
poses of the University as an academic in-
stitution and to academic freedom.
4. Possess the ability to delegate authority.
5. While it is not contemplated that any
present executive officers need be replaced,
the President should be able to possess the
capacity to form a team of administrators
whose abilities complement the President's to
achieve the goals of the University.
6. Possess schorlarly background.
7. Be able to serve at least ten years.
8. Need not hold a Ph.D. degree.
9. May be selected from within or without
The University of Michigan.
10. Possess sensitivity to affirmative action
- the need for identifying and ,attracting
women and minorities for enrollment, hiring
11. Be sensitive to personnel and labor
relations problems, and dealings with labor
12. Possess those personality traits which
are necessary to Work effectively with people,
including faculty, studts, staff, alumni,
general public, and the R6nts.
13. Be committed to exqence throughout
the University - excellce in teaching,
research and service.
14. Possess the ability tivork effectively
with government officials Ithe local, state
and national level, but ust have the
capability to resist any govnmental inter-
ference which impinges upthe academic
and intellectual freedom of tiUniversity, or
will have that effect in the fut4.
15. Be able to manage prudtly in times of
financial stringency without crificing the
quality of excellence.
16. Be able to perceive the cnging needs
of society so as to plan and PNare for the
University to accomplish its issions and
goals in the future.
17. Possess the capacity to excise leader-
ship in fund raising.
18. Be able to fully utilize all (he resour-
ces of the University in an integred manner
to enhance excellence of teachii research
19. Sensitivity to the problems' a multi-
the critical needs
of the University
The foillowing are excerpts
from the needs of the Univer-
sity statement submitted by
the student advisory commit-
tee to the Regents.
Students are largely disenfran-
chised from decision making in
the University. Decisions are
reached at all levels of the
University without adequate
representation of students, who
are the people the institution is
supposed to serve. While preparing
students to enter a democratic
society,the University provides a
model of bureaucratic arrogan-
ce. Student participation in the
selection of deans and depar-
tment heads, the people who
shape the academic programs of
the University, must be active
rather than token. The budget
and tuition are simply announ-
ced; students must have a
greater say in determining the
price of the product and the
value they receive for it. The
freedom and diverse ideas and
values prevail - the very essen-
ce of higher education.
A disproportionate amount of
teaching is performed by
graduate student teaching
assistants. Relations between the
University and the teaching
assistants are poor, adversely af-
fecting these graduate students
and the undergraduates they
teach. The new president should
do everything possible to im-
prove this climate. The Univer-
sity budget should reflect the im-
portance and prevalence of
teaching assistants. They must
be adequately compensated for
the services theyperform. The
University needs to develop a
program to better prepare
graduate students for their
One constant complaint of un-
dergraduates is their lack of con-
tact with faculty membersother
than teaching assistants. Un-
dergraduates deserve access to
senior faculty. Professors must
recognize the need to share their
"It has been stated by some that
the University is not an instrument
of social change.
the values of
enlightened social ini
it cannot teach these
classroom and perfoi
in practice. "
Whether the Republicans hold their 7-4 council majority thispril,
or whether the Democrats stage a council coup, will determi. the
direction of city policy for at least the next 365 days. But the Ail 2
election will have implications for the next decade -- whichever rty
wins this election may be in a position to assure domination of citall
for the next ten years.
In 1980, there will be a new federal census to reflect population if-
ts. In 1981, when the census data comes back, council will hato
redraw present ward lines. And whichever party controls council n
will no doubt redraw the wards to make sure that party stays in por
for a long time to come.
AND' WHEN IT comes to the policies of survival, neither party,
above drawing up a redistricting plan to protect their own carcasses
after all, what's a little gerrymandering among friends?
One look at the origins of the five existing wards proves that.
The city's five wards were originally supposed to be uniform piI
shaped wedges emanating from the center of town. At best, however
they resemble exactly what they were- a hasty and haphazard con-
promise between the Democrats and the now-defunct Human Right
Party (HRP). The oddly-shaped mesh of indefinable, criss-crossin'
boundaries has been called "five unsuccessful attempts to impregnak
the center of the city." The most arbitrarily-shaped ward is the Four
"swing" ward, which one councilman there described as resembli
"a dinasaur trying to give birth."
THE CURRENT wards were created to be the best predictor of el;
tion results. With a few notable exceptions, Democrats hie
traditionally won the First and Second Wards, while Republicans c
sistently win in the Third and Fifth. The Fourth Ward is the "swii'
ward that usually determines which party will control council r
Both Mayor Louis Belcher and his opponent Jamie Kenworthy age
on one thing - the city is in desperate need of redistricting. With fr
"safe" wards, councilmembers from those wards have no incene
(other than inner goodness) to remain responsive to the r constitues.
One observer noted that the Republicans could run Godzilla inae
Third Ward and he'd win. Likewise, if Gerighis Kahn ran in the Secid
Ward as a Democrat, he'd probably be unopposed.
The present ward lines came out of a classic scenario of back-rm
bargaining, political deals, and bitter partisan wrangling in the ty
hall of late 1973. That was in the days when there were three polital
parties on council, when two Human Rights councilmembers helhe
deciding votes by siding with either the Democrats or the Republns
- whoever offered the best deal.
WHEN REDISTRICTING came to council that year, there werno
less than five separate plans for drawing up the ward boundarie-
including the Black Plan, the Red Plan, and the Green Plan. Aer
several fragile coalitions collapsed, and the HRP joined he
Republicans to kill the Democrats' favored "Prior Commiss"
redistricting plan, the Dems and the HRP sat down on Saturda to
hammer out a compromise. They finished shortly before the Monay
vote was set, and unveiled to council the "Last Chance Plan."
The "Last Chance Plan" - rammed past the GOP b a
Democratic/HRP coalition - was the origin of the present ward lies.
The Second Ward was made 75 per cent student, to preserve an RP
bastion, and all the Fifth Ward democratic precincts were redistrited
into the First Ward.
Republicans challenged this last chance gerrymandering athe
way to the Michigan Supreme Court, calling the new ward lines ilagal
and based on inaccurate census data. But the courts did presere the
right of the party in pdwer to gerrymander in its own best inteest -
and the ward boundaries drawn in 1973 are still with us.
BUT THE lines will be wihdrawn in 1981, and barrixg any
surprises in the four "safe" wards, one of four scearios
is likely to emerge from the upcoing April elections:
" Mayor Belcher and Councilman E. Edward Hood both win i April
and maintain the Republicans' 7-4majority. The GOP could tln lose
the Fourth Ward in the 1980 electin, and still have a 6-5 majrity-
and be the party to draw up the newward lines for the next decae.
" Belcher could win but the GOP could lose the Fourth, in which case
incumbent Republican David Fishei- up for reelection as anincum-
bent in 1980-would have to hold on a his seat to give the Repblicans
a 6-5 majority and the redistricting lower.
" Jamie Kenworthy could beat Bel'her and LeRoy Cappaert could
beat Hood in the Fourth, and the Demcrats would be in power with a
6-5 majority when the ward lines get rlrawn.
" Kenworthy could win while the Reublicans keep the Fourth. The
GOP would still be in the majority, al if Fischer won reelection in
1980, they'd have a majority for the 981 redistricting. But Mayor
Kenworthy would have the veto powel over any GOP redistricting
plan, so any new ward lines would ha to be another compromise
between the parties.
For more- effective and responsive gvernment, both Democrats
issues of tenure, divestiture, and
the presidential selection process
itself highlight the problem.
We recognize the ever in-
creasing constraints of
budgetary considerations upon
the University. Inflation reduces
the power of the money we have,
the political tides of austerity
reduce the prospect of obtaining
more money, and tuition is fast
approaching an upper limit. An
essential function of the new
president will be to develop ways
to cope with these pressures.
Budget cutbacks cannot be made
haphazardly; unpleasant choices
must be made rationally and
fairly. The new president must be
sensitive to the academic needs
of students for the future. Some of
Liberal education, experimen-
tal learning, diversity of people
from cultural and economic
backgrounds, and diversity of
The president, as an "over-
seer" of the program, must see
that its policies, guidelines and
commitments are realized. He or
she is able to set the overall tone
and entindpnr thinivenrsity_ It
learning through teaching un-
The University must improve
relations with its own employees.
The University has demonstrated
its hostility to organization of
employees, which is illustrated
most dramatically by the
Association of Federal, State,
County and Municipal Em-
ployees Organization. The
University must be sensitive to
the needs of its employees and
serve as a model of employer
The University faces a future
fraught with prospects of the so-
called "tax revolt", fiscal control
by government, hostility to ex-
penditures for higher education,
shrinking enrollment due to
demographic changes and
spiraling tuition. Therefore it is
essential for the University to
seek new and expanding sources
of money. At the same time, the
University must exercise sound
fical policies without sacrificing
quality education and social
responsibility, a herculean task.
The president's role in meeting
these challenges is vital.
THE RESPONSIBILI'T'Y OF