Just in case you were under the impression that the search for a new Penn State University president in the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky scandal somehow is some great exercise in transparency, consider this:
Stung by criticism from its own board of trustees that the process to find a successor to booted President Graham Spanier, awaiting trial for allegedly covering up the scandal, was the definition of “opaque,” top Penn State officials repaired to the basement conference room of an on-campus hotel to discuss the matter in a closed executive session.
Talk about tone-deaf.
Penn State supposedly was set to name its new president last week. But when some of the newest members of the board at large began to raise a stink about the process — a secretive affair involving a 12-trustee selection committee — the university delayed the announcement.
The clear impression is that the committee expected a rubber stamp from the full board and, when challenged, didn't like the possibility of being stained with its own ink pad.
Board Chairman Keith Masser, a selection committee member, defends the confidential search process as necessary to attract “the best and most qualified and extraordinary candidates.” No, it's not. And there are plenty of examples nationwide of far more open selection processes.
In normal times, a full and open search in which a number of finalists visit the campus, meet the public and even participate in question-and-answer sessions is wise. In difficult times, such as what's now going on at Penn State, such a process should be an imperative.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.