How The U Can Come Clean On Kaler.

There has been some criticism and questions from the public as to how the U selected the new President.  Is Eric Kaler the best person?  The Chairman of the Regents, Clyde Allen, indicated that all four semi-finalists are qualified for the U of M Presidency.  How is it that every regent was on board to support Candidate C (Kaler) when Regent Simmons made the motion to name him as the finalist?  What communication or meetings were there between regents or the selection committee and regents about the U President selection process?

To bring more transparency, openness, and accountability to the recent presidential process I suggest the following:

1. Make public the search committee's notes and evaluations of each of the four semi-finalists. The search committee used criteria developed by the Regents.  Public data can be separated from private data.  If the consultant did an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of the semi-finalists that should be public.  Again the separation of private and public data.

2. Make available all agendas, minutes, and all data that are public of the Presidential Search Committee.

3. Tell the public the process of how Regent Allen and Simmons communicated with the other Regents during the Presidential selection process.  There have been allegations of serial or rolling meetings to avoid the Open Meeting Law.

I am sure other things could be done.  That is for other people and entities to do and suggest.  For me this is a start.