University at Buffalo - The State University of New York

Published: November 20, 2003

Three members of the Presidential Search Advisory Committee and the consultant to the committee gathered recently to discuss with the Reporter the search process that resulted in the appointment of John B. Simpson as UB's next president.

Joining the Reporter's editor were:

Jeremy M. Jacobs, chair of the UB Council and chair of the committee.

.

.

.

Jean Dowdall, vice president of EMN/Witt/Kieffer, the national search firm that assisted the committee in identifying and recruiting candidates.

.

.

Michael E. Cohen, professor of neurology and pediatrics in the School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences and past chair of the Faculty Senate.

.

.

Jennifer Tuttle, vice president of the Faculty Student Association and student representative on the UB Council.

.

.

First, some facts around the search committee. The Presidential Search Advisory Committee was established by the UB Council in March to solicit and evaluate nominations and applications for the president's position according to guidelines established by the SUNY Board of Trustees. The committee was charged with submitting a list of qualified candidates to the UB Council. The council, in turn, made a final recommendation to SUNY Chancellor Robert L. King. The SUNY Trustees, on the recommendation of King, approved John B. Simpson as the UB's 14th president on Oct. 28.

Tell us a little about the search committee itself? How broad was the representation?
Jacobs: The committee was truly representative of the university and the community-at-large. There were 17 members, with 10 key UB graduates and two representatives from the student body, one from the graduate level and one from the undergraduate level. Our undergraduate representative was also a member of the UB Council. Our goal was to ensure that each constituency was represented and that we had a diverse group of professionals that could work together to find the very best candidate for the next president of UB. Our timeline was aggressive, but the committee stayed focused on its mission. I think it's also important to mention that John O'Connor, vice chancellor and secretary of the State University of New York, served as an ex officio member of the search committee. Without John O'Connor, this process would never have gotten done in such a timely manner. He was a non-voting member, but an extraordinarily important one and was invaluable to the overall process.

How was the search firm selected?
Jacobs: The search firm selection was conducted by the UB Council members serving on the search committee. Once we selected the search firm of EMN/Witt/Kieffer, we then brought together the entire search committee to begin the official process.

How far-reaching and how proactive was this search? How did it compare with searches at comparable universities?
Dowdall: It was extremely proactive. The vast majority of the finalists were recruited candidates; they did not come forward on their own. You make lots of recruiting efforts before you come up with the right people. We had candidates who we tried to recruit who were very interested and then we decided we were not interested in them, and then we recruited people who we were very interested in who maybe weren't so interested in us. The people who got the most attention at the end were absolutely aggressively recruited candidates. A variety of people on the search committee participated in that aggressive recruiting. The search firm brought in the names, but then the search committee members helped to cultivate the relationship and kindle the interest in the candidates.

How many candidates were there?
Jacobs: More than 40 candidates were reviewed by the search committee. We had a great pool of candidates, with top-level leaders from all over the United States applying for the position, including presidents, deans and senior officers. The committee reduced the pool to a narrower group of candidates to interview. Those who came here interviewed first with the committee members. Those who were invited back for a second interview also met with a group of vice presidents, deans and community leaders. In addition, the candidates had an opportunity to formally and informally tour the campus.

How did the members interact? Was it difficult for the committee to reach a consensus?
Jacobs: The committee worked together to define the desired characteristics of the new president from the beginning. There were times when the search firm came forward with a candidate who appeared to be a good match. Because of the broad expertise and perspectives of the members, the candidate might be exceptionally strong in one area, but lack the skills needed in another. There was a lot of positive interaction and healthy debate throughout the process. It is important to point out that every single person who participated as a member of the committee had an opportunity to express their views and vote on every candidate, which in the end, served this process well.

Dowdall: There are lots of committees that are as diverse as this—with students, faculty, staff, alumni and board members—but not many that are able to engage in this kind of deliberation. I think it was the discussion that was most compelling. It was always an opportunity for people to listen to other points of view and reflect on that, rather than simply advocating for their own point of view. That was a very impressive part of the process and a relatively rare tone that you don't always see in search committees. Credit goes to the chairman, who insisted that all reflect and listen and share thoughts and then come to a common understanding.

Jacobs: It was obvious at the end that this committee consisted of some of the best and brightest at UB. These were committed community and university leaders who were interested in finding the best person to lead this great university.

Tuttle: I don't think that could have happened if the committee wasn't so diverse. I know I came in with set notions, and by talking with everyone else, you realized what was best for the whole institution. It was because of the diversity of the committee we were able to do that.

Cohen: The business people began to respect the opinion of the faculty, and, in turn, the faculty recognized how important some of the business people were around that table. It was a continuous interaction, which was very fruitful. Virtually all the candidates came out of academia, so I think the committee came to the consensus that the person had to be an academic. We really took the measure of the university during this time—where the university was and were it ought to go. Framing that helped us to decide what kind of candidate we wanted. And I think that at the end of the day, all of us felt, in fact, that we had all had our say and the candidate who came forward was the best kind of person we could get for the kind of university we wanted.

There were only two students among the 18 members of the search committee. Were the students' views seriously considered by the other members of the committee?
Tuttle: The SUNY guidelines only call for one student representative, so naturally we greatly appreciated that there were two student representatives, as there are very different concerns at the graduate and undergraduate levels. I think between the two of us, we were fully able to represent the students. It wasn't a situation where because we were students we weren't listened to. I really felt our opinions were accepted as much as everyone else's.

The committee has been criticized for not releasing the names of the finalists, as some other universities have done. Why did you feel it was important to keep the search process totally confidential?
Jacobs: Early on in the process, the search firm told us that confidentiality would greatly enhance the university's ability to recruit world-class talent. The committee discussed this issue in the beginning and we all agreed that maintaining confidentiality was a key to reaching out to the best and most talented candidates. While we know this was somewhat controversial in the press, we believed the benefit far outweighed the risk. We know that the majority of candidates would not have put their name in the hat if the search didn't guarantee confidentiality. Our primary mission was to find the best pool of candidates, and ultimately the next president of UB. Having a confidential process made this happen.

Cohen: The faculty members on the search committee also bought into the need for confidentiality. There was nobody on the search committee who did not accept the need to keep this quiet.

Tuttle: When we first started, I hadn't made my mind up about the confidentiality issue, but after we went through the process and I saw the quality of the candidates we were getting, I realized it was absolutely essential. We would rather have the better candidate in a closed process than a somewhat acceptable candidate in an open process. So in the end, I think everyone was happy.

The search committee set up a special Web site for the search. Was it a successful communication tool?
Jacobs: The Web site received more than 46,000 hits between March 12 and Nov. 15. It was one of the key ways the search committee updated the university community on a regular basis. For the candidates, the Web site also served as a great introductory tool. It's amazing how many read the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with SUNY that's on the site. Many candidates also offered us their views on the MOU, so it was an education for us, too.

Now that the selection process has been completed, how do you feel about the outcome? What do you think about John Simpson?
Cohen: After having spoken with him, interviewed him, reviewed his CV, I certainly came away with the idea that not only does he have leadership skills, but he can make the tough decisions and do it in such a way that he's not going to anger people. He also seems to be a scholar, he understands scholarship and he understands where a university ought to be going. He understands very fully the role of a president, the role of leadership. John Simpson's the kind of guy who can take this university to the next level. I'm very happy with the selection. I think he's going to be terrific.

Tuttle: What really impresses me about him was that he is one of the few candidates who talked about the philosophy of higher education. He really understands what a public institution stands for. I feel completely safe putting undergraduate concerns in his hands. I would not have been happy with a lot of candidates because I think their focus would have been too much on research and the graduate schools, and undergraduates would have been ignored. I feel comfortable with Dr. Simpson's ability to blend graduate and undergraduate concerns while combining both research and the humanities.

Jacobs: When you're thinking about the next president of a great university and the person who is going to take such a strong leader's place, you want to see the mantle passed to somebody who can maintain a level of achievement and continue to grow this world-class university. We saw that immediately in John Simpson. Not only does he bring intellectual qualities, but what is very apparent to me is that he's a person that can build consensus in the university and community. He has a strong vision for where he wants to go, and I think he will be an outstanding leader. I know we are all looking forward to him guiding this university for many years in the future.