Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, would have been wise to pick another institution for his lecture on how American universities and colleges can, , “restore their reputation as stewards of scholarship, rather than political partisans.”

Kennedy was hired in 2019 by a Republican board looking for a conservative who checked all the right boxes. Kennedy was a former Republican congressman from Minnesota who led the University of North Dakota for three years before coming to Colorado. He left after little more than a year, partly because of faculty opposition that started during his hire amid questions about exaggerated qualifications and culminated with a flippant and insensitive remark using “the trail of tears” colloquially.

Rufo coming to CU Boulder after his victory against liberal academia makes a mockery of his claims that conservatives only desire meritocracy in academia and are not opposed to diversity as long as it is earned.

Rufo was silent about ����ԲԱ���’s thin resume or his bumbling efforts to lead the state’s flagship university system. It����ap OK for white men who have been handed a coveted position well above their qualification level to be incompetent, but Rufo was loud and aggressive when it was a Black woman struggling in her new role.

Coloradans who watched ����ԲԱ���’s hire unfold in a blatant effort to fill former President Bruce Benson’s shoes with another equally conservative individual can now laugh at Rufo coming to town to tell us about how the problem of hiring underqualified individuals to fill roles is uniquely a problem of the liberal institutions dead set on realizing equality.

Someone should ask Rufo what the difference is between a hire made of an underqualified individual in pursuit of breaking a glass ceiling that has existed at Harvard for 387 years and a hire made to perpetuate conservative control of a university system.

Colorado’s Republican Sen. Hank Brown was president of CU from 2005 to 2008. Benson, owner of an oil and gas company, took the role after him and served a remarkable 11 years before he retired in 2019. Benson worked hard to ensure there was a conservative presence on CU’s campuses, including creating the Bruce D. Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization.

Rufo spoke at an event organized by the Benson Center on Wednesday night with a lecture titled “Laying Siege to the Institutions.” His speech centered on encouraging a concerted effort to reclaim American institutions from within from radical philosophies that he says have permeated our federal bureaucracies since the ’60s.

Since the ’60s, the University of Colorado has seen two women lead the institution. The stand as a testament to how difficult it is for people of color to work their way up the “meritocracy” of academia.

Rufo’s speech came at a perfect time to highlight the reality that the meritocracy has never been fully based on merit, and even conservatives in modern-day America hand out jobs based on qualifications and criteria that have little to do with ability. Rufo should consider that the scales of meritocracy have been tipped for so long in one direction that it is OK today for the scales to tip the other way.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Even after he was named interim president of CU in June 2021, Saliman wasn’t always sure he wanted to apply for the permanent position. But those who have worked with Saliman throughout the course of his evolving career recognized the connection between his experience and what was needed in CU’s next president.

“(Saliman) knows how to do the work and the vision,” said Tanya Mares Kelly-Bowry, CU’s former vice president for government relations. “Usually when you have a numbers guy, they’re not visionary. I think that����ap the great leadership he will bring to CU. I am excited to see where we are going in the next few years.”

Saliman, 55, who graduated from CU Boulder in 1989, did eventually change his mind and tossed his hat in the ring to run for the president position and was unanimously selected by the University of Colorado Board of Regents to be the  earlier this year.

Now everything has come full circle, said Kelly-Bowry, who has worked with Saliman in various capacities for about 30 years.

“When I became the youngest Hispanic vice president in the history of CU, Todd Saliman was one of the guys who helped convince my higher-ups that they could promote me as both a woman and a woman of color,” Kelly-Bowry said. “He has always had a long track record of working on diversity issues and supporting women in powerful positions.”

Kelly-Bowry said she has worked with seven CU presidents, but not one has had the financial knowledge that Saliman has.

“He knows the ins and out, and he knows the money, and I think that makes him a critical asset in his role,” Kelly-Bowry said.

Strategically planning

Before Saliman took the reins as interim president and now president, CU and the Board of Regents created a strategic plan with former who left the position July 1, 2021, after he failed to demonstrate leadership in diversity, equity and inclusion and shared governance.

Now that Saliman has taken over as president, Lesley Smith, chair of the CU Board of Regents, said she looks forward to picking up that work again and tackling strategic plan goals with Saliman.

“As interim president, (Saliman) had some ideas, and now we can move forward full throttle with those ideas,” she said. “I feel like that the board is in agreement on these goals, and we are ready to move forward with Todd.”

CU’s strategic plan is built on four pillars: affordability and student success; discovery and impact; diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) and access; and fiscal strength.

Saliman has used those four pillars as a guide for the work he wants to do. So far, he’s created five priority “buckets” that will guide him with his work. They are student success, teaching and education; reflecting the diversity of Colorado; research and creative work; serving the community of Colorado and connecting to the community of Colorado; and meeting the health care needs of Colorado while also addressing the state’s health care workforce needs.

Saliman has already made headway on some of his top priorities such as work to improve student retention and graduation rates, he said.

He approved funds for CU Boulder’s new that will house all first-year incoming engineering students at Williams Village starting in fall 2023. It cost $5.5 million to renovate Williams Village for future engineering students. The funds are being pulled from the university’s investment earnings, said Ken McConnellogue, spokesperson for the CU System.

In addition, Saliman also worked with the system to allocate about $37 million toward supporting CU Boulder with its work to expand scholarships for first-generation students and increase scholarships for transfer students.

“We are trying to implement very real things to help improve retention and graduation rates,” Saliman said. “The retention and graduation rate at CU Boulder is improving because of things like that.”

Putting his skills to work

Saliman joined CU in 2011 as the university’s senior vice president for strategy, government relations and chief financial officer.

During that time, CU Boulder Chief Operating Officer Pat O’Rourke said he saw how Saliman was able to use his understanding and knowledge of fiscal policy from his higher education background and his work in politics to bolster the university.

“I don’t think that there’s anyone in Colorado who has a better understanding of fiscal policy,” O’Rourke said of Saliman. “He’s really wonderful at being able to identify opportunities, and you really saw that come together when Todd worked with all higher education institutions across the state to be able to come up with a funding formula.”

Saliman’s effort to work with other higher education institutions in Colorado resulted in lawmakers approving about a 11.4% increase in funding for higher education this year. That increase, coupled with tuition increases and a projected enrollment increase, allowed the Board of Regents to for nonclassified staff and faculty merit-based increases beginning in January.

“He’s always going to be thinking about collaborations and partnerships that will not just make us better, but hopefully will make the state stronger,” O’Rourke said.

Working together with not just other higher education institutions but state lawmakers has been one of Saliman’s longtime priorities, he said. While working with the Legislature, Saliman has made it a point to discuss CU’s total largest expense: compensation.

“We know that we live in a competitive environment where people have options,” Saliman said. “We want to retain our faculty and staff. They’re the ones that do the work. They’re the ones that educate our students and provide our students services every day.”

O’Rourke said Saliman also understands how to work with the campuses both individually and collectively in an effort to help the university accomplish its goals while also meeting the state’s needs.

“Todd will be really great at being able to work with the campuses and the Board of Regents without trying to jam us into ‘his vision.’” O’Rourke said. “I think he wants to be able to unlock the tools that will allow each campus to be successful, but they’re going to chart their own path.”

Answering the call

A recent diversity, equity and inclusion produced a lot of data and is now leading the way for work at each of CU’s campuses.

With the Campus and Workplace Culture survey in hand, each campus now has a roadmap to begin addressing its shortfalls, Saliman said. Although the individual campuses will meet with groups or departments to implement changes, he said he also recognizes the importance of hearing from the individuals on the ground.

“This spring I visited each campus, and I met with a student group, a faculty group and a DEI group,” he said. “I talked to them exactly about these things — about what is going well and what they thought needed to change, and I am going to go back this spring to do that again.”

Saliman has also dedicated himself to outreach and engagement work, which he will use to help attract people from rural parts of the state to CU, he said.

“Our campuses are big and can be pretty different from a rural community, but we have a lot to offer to every person in this state and to every community in this state,” he said.

Over the past few years, the Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization had been widely criticized for its affiliation with John Eastman, who served as its visiting professor while making unproven claims of widespread election fraud at former President Donald Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, rally in Washington.

Since then, Denver organization New Era Colorado has created a calling for the center’s dissolution, saying it promotes a “white supremacy culture.”

But Saliman said Eastman needs to be separated from the center and its work.

“I think it����ap important to separate his appalling behavior from the work that the Benson Center does every day to foster an environment where we can hear different opinions on the campus,” he said.

Saliman said maintaining conservative thought on campus is another way CU Boulder can continue to fulfill its DEI goals.

“I think the Benson Center has an important role in being a part of that forum for diverse communication on the campus where we hear from all perspectives,” he said. “There is no way we as a society can move forward during difficult times if we can’t find a way to listen and hear each other, and I think they are part of that.”

Although Saliman acknowledges each campus has a ways to go to fulfill its DEI goals, one faculty member has taken notice of his efforts thus far to adhere to his promise.

When CU released its strategic plan, Jennifer Ho, director for CU Boulder’s Center for the Humanities and Arts, read through it. With a background in diversity, equity, inclusion and access — she focused on the third pillar — DEI.

Ho realized the only racial group missing from almost every campus report was Asian Americans.

“Only Colorado Springs listed Asian Americans,” Ho said. “Denver listed Pacific Islanders. I think Anschutz does the same thing — they leave out Asian Americans — but they list Pacific Islanders.”

If all Asian Americans are lumped together, the group is overrepresented at higher education institutions in the U.S., but what the strategic plan failed to do was desegregate the racial group, Ho said.

“It leaves out really significant groups of Asian Americans that are very much underrepresented in higher education,” Ho said. “It leaves southeast Asians from Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos –, and it doesn’t include the number of Pakistani Americans.”

Rather than turn to Twitter — her usual medium to share her thoughts — Ho decided to send then-interim President Saliman an email. She also included CU Boulder Chancellor Philip DiStefano, CU Boulder Provost Russell Moore and CU Boulder COO O’Rourke.

Ho sent the email on a Friday and by Tuesday, O’Rourke had replied, assuring her that Saliman would get the email. That following Thursday, Ho was on a virtual meeting with Saliman, she said.

“I fully expected (Saliman) to say, ‘This didn’t happen under my watch, but there is nothing we can do about it now,’” Ho said. “Within like two or three minutes, he was like, ‘We are going to change the strategic plan.’ I was at UNC (University of North Carolina) Chapel Hill for years — this would never have happened.”

Ho said she gives credit to Saliman for taking the time to meet with her and for making the changes.

“He is not running on his own ego,” Ho said. “He is actually open to feedback. He said, ‘I am totally embarrassed and really sorry.’”

Hundreds of people expressed interest in the job, the regents said, and they relied on a Pennsylvania-based firm, Storbeck Search, which presented a 19-member search team with a pool of 39 candidates.

The governing regents announced that these included “13 women and 26 men – 13 candidates from Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) groups – from 20 U.S. states, the District of Columbia and international candidates.”

Search team members then interviewed 10 candidates: seven women and three men – two BIPOC candidates – from seven states, the regents said. The search team then picked five highly qualified candidates, and sent these names – unranked – to the regents for interviews. Those five candidates included three women and two men, and one BIPOC candidate, from five states.

The regents are expected to announce “a finalist or finalists” after a vote on Tuesday, and select a president by the end of this month after the finalist or finalists tour CU campuses. “We look forward to receiving significant public input after Tuesday’s vote,” the regents wrote in a statement issued Monday morning from board chair Jack Kroll, vice chair Sue Sharkey and search team leader  Lesley Smith.

CU’s previous president Mark Kennedy resigned last June after a two-year tenure strained by controversy over his conservative political positions. The CU faculty censured Kennedy for “failure to lead” on matters of diversity, equity and inclusion.

One of the candidates to be president is CU’s interim president Todd Saliman, who last December revealed he would seek the job. The initial interim presidency contract for Saliman stipulated that he wouldn’t apply for the permanent position, and CU officials last year issued a statement saying “Saliman has said he will not apply for the permanent position.” The regents in September modified the contract to allow Saliman to seek the job.

Courts have backed up CU’s position that it does not have to name finalists. CU administrators contend they cannot attract strong candidates if names are made public because that could hurt candidates in their current jobs.

And, as a former member of the Princeton University governing Board of Trustees and as a current member of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, I know the single most important responsibility of CU’s governing Board of Regents is the selection of a president to lead an institution with a $5 billion budget covering 70,000 students and 37,000 employees at the CU Boulder, UC Denver, UC Colorado Springs, and Anschutz campuses.

The regents had promised the community a transparent process but appear to be laying the groundwork to name a single “finalist” to avoid disclosing the names of other applicants.

Until a year ago, the literal reading of the Colorado Open Meetings Law and the Colorado Open Records Act required public institutions to disclose who the finalists were. However, last year a law was passed which allows the naming of only a single “finalist.”

In the previous presidential search, the Board’s Democratic and Republican members had unanimously advanced only one candidate — Mark Kennedy — and described him as a “finalist,” despite others who clearly were finalists.

Kennedy ultimately was hired on a partisan 5 (Republican) to 4 (Democratic) vote. Today Democrats have a 5 to 4 majority.

By denying CU community members and all other Coloradans (including the voters who elected the Regents) the list of applicants for the position — or at least the list of finalists — the 2019 Regents made it impossible for anyone outside their circle to assess the quality of their decision-making.

The key point is that disclosure of those who applied for the job gives the public the ability to evaluate the quality of the Regents’ most important decisions. Without the ability to assess the list of candidates, the public has no way of knowing how well the Regents performed.

When one of the 2019 Regents or a related party leaked the list of 30 candidates, the public had the opportunity to evaluate the job the Board did and most then graded the Regents with an “F.”

This didn’t mean Kennedy could not be a good president. It simply meant the Regents made a poor, clearly politically-motivated decision. Coloradans hope this egregious approach is not repeated in the current search process.

The Regents and their peers at other public institutions and agencies validly argue that disclosing the names of applicants or even just the finalists is likely to discourage some of the most attractive, highest-quality candidates from applying.

They posit that many potentially exceptional candidates would be loath to have it known publicly they were interested in leaving their positions. This is a strong argument in favor of not disclosing the names of many, if any, candidates, especially if an institution wants to maximize the number of exceptional applicants.

However, there is an equally strong argument that, even with the possibility of applicants’ names being made public, the applicant pool still would include exceptional candidates.

This was proven when the previous list of 30 candidates was disclosed publicly because many of the candidates were unconcerned about that revelation.

The list proved that, even if half the candidates had not applied, the Regents still could have made a better choice.

It also is fallacious to assume disclosure of an applicant����ap name automatically is deleterious to every candidate.

In some cases, having one’s name announced as someone who is being considered for such a prestigious position is an asset and actually increases that person’s chance of eventually securing such a position.

The presumption that disclosure of someone’s interest in a superior position always is seen in a negative light is false, especially in higher education.

The best leaders of institutions surround themselves with the highest quality people they can find. They assume these people eventually will seek other positions and actually support those efforts.

The ultimate question is, “Does the public’s interest in being able to evaluate the performance of their elected representatives supersede the desire to maximize the number of applicants?”

The Regents have the legal right to name only a single finalist. Hopefully, for the benefit of Colorado’s citizenry, the Regents will decide to disclose multiple names so everyone can more accurately determine how good a job they did performing their most important duty.

Aaron Harber is the host of “The Aaron Harber Show,” (www.HarberTV.com/Info).  This column represents his opinion and not that of the CCHE.  Email Aaron@HarberTV.com.  © Copyright 2022 by Aaron Harber and USA Talk Network, Inc.  All rights reserved.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Todd Saliman, the University of Colorado’s chief financial officer, was named interim president of the four-campus, multibillion-dollar CU system Tuesday ahead of the looming departure of President Mark Kennedy.

The university’s elected Board of Regents voted unanimously to make the appointment at a short midday meeting.

“Todd is a valued and respected member of the university community who has a sound understanding of the issues it faces,” Regent Glen Gallegos, R-Grand Junction, and the board’s chair, said in a statement.

“He was the unanimous choice of the Board of Regents and we look forward to working with him to continue CU’s momentum and upward trajectory. His appointment will provide important continuity in some of our key initiatives, including strategic planning, online education and the fall return to on-campus teaching and learning.”

Saliman, who has been at the university since 2011, is leaving his post as CU’s senior vice president for strategy, government relations and chief financial officer in system administration. In a news release, Saliman said he would not seek the permanent presidency.

He’ll take his position at the helm of the university system after Kennedy leaves on July 1. University officials have not announced a search process to select Kennedy’s permanenet successor, and it was not clear how long Saliman is expected to serve in the interim role.

Before CU, Saliman served as Colorado’s budget director in the administration of Gov. Bill Ritter and was a senior adviser early in the administration of Gov. John Hickenlooper. Before that, he served in the Colorado legislature from 1995 to 2002 with four years on the Joint Budget Committee.

Saliman guided the state budget through the 2008 recession, according to a university-provided biography, and owned and operated a lobbying firm representing prominent organizations and governmental entities in the state, including CU.

Born and raised in Colorado, Saliman is a CU Boulder alumnus.

During Tuesday’s Board of Regents meeting, Saliman beamed and sported a tie featuring CU’s signature black and gold colors.

“I’m so honored that you asked me to do this and you put your trust in me,” Saliman said. “I will do my very best every day to do a good job for all of you and for our students and staff of this great university. We’ll continue to focus on what matters most — serving students and the community, doing great research and serving Colorado.”

Regents only had good things to say about Saliman during Tuesday’s meeting, noting his adeptness at balancing a budget and compassion for students, staff and faculty.

“You’re an exceptional listener, master of the budget, savant of handling of university legislative affairs,” said Regent Jack Kroll, D-Denver. “We’re very fortunate that you’ve committed to taking on this role.”

Regent Sue Sharkey, R-Castle Rock, said she knew Saliman would do a great job as president because of his love of the university.

“This is a great day for CU,” Sharkey said. “We will be here to support you through thick and thin.”

In contrast, Kennedy’s departure from Colorado’s flagship university played out much like the former Republican Congressman’s contentious introduction to the CU community,  devolving into political fighting.

At a Board of Regents meeting last month in which Kennedy was awarded a $1.3 million separation deal, Republican regents on the politically-elected, nine-member board rebuked the university’s statement that Kennedy’s leaving was neither a termination nor a resignation, alleging that the conservative president was fired for his political beliefs.

����ԲԱ���’s May announcement that he planned to step down after two years in the job followed recent censure votes by Boulder faculty members and students for his handling of diversity issues. Critics also have targeted Kennedy for a lack of “shared governance,” or not seeking sufficient input from the university community.

Students and others protested his hiring as he made campus visits before the final vote by the Board of Regents. That 5-4 vote wasn’t the ringing endorsement you want walking into that kind of job and should have signaled to him that he needed to win some people over.

He could have worked to show that the hostility was misguided, that he could embrace — or at least try to understand — demands for social equity and justice, and that he could collaborate with those throughout the university community.

But he didn’t, perhaps because he didn’t have anything to lose.

He will, after all, walk away from the job with a $1.3 million payoff so CU doesn’t have to keep him on for the third and final year of his contract.

If he so chooses he likely can find a soft landing at a conservative think tank or maybe in consulting work. We need not worry about his future; as a politician, he knows that you win some and you lose some.

The split-up is being called a resignation or a mutual agreement prompted by a shift in the board’s politics. The board switched this year from the Republican majority that had held sway for 40 years to a Democrat majority. The process and vote that led to ����ԲԱ���’s hiring in 2019 was an election issue.

Partisanship on university governing boards has increased in recent years, not surprising given the growing political divide. But that����ap a topic for another day.

For now, let����ap get back to that $1.3 million payoff.

Well of course Kennedy gets that because he had a three-year contract and he’s leaving after two years under that “mutual agreement.”

����ԲԱ���’s says: “The Board of Regents and I have entered into discussions about an orderly transition of the presidency of the university in the near future. The board has a new makeup this year, which has led to changes in its focus and philosophy.”

He then briefly discusses his accomplishments and appreciation for the people he’s worked with.

That means he and a majority of the regents can’t agree on how to run the university so he gets $1.3 million to go away quietly. How nice.

The idea of a golden parachute as it has evolved is repugnant. The concept originated to pay out corporate executives who lost out when one company took over another, which seems fair enough.

Now, the parachutes are a payout to make a problem go away.

It should be a concern that corporations spend money that way, but it����ap a travesty when public institutions do so. Especially in the cash-strapped world of education.

I may be labeled as Pollyannish for suggesting that Kennedy and the “refocused” board should have tried to find a way to work together for his final year. The regents are his bosses after all and their job is to set direction.

If Kennedy refused to follow that direction, he could be fired for cause and go away. No payout needed.

We apparently, though, quickly went beyond any “work together” attempt, as students and faculty in separate votes censured Kennedy, who already had wasted two years when he could have tried to mend some fences.

Going forward, though, the regents must make changes.

Jobs aren’t guaranteed for most people and lucrative severance packages, even during layoffs, are a thing of the best. Executives don’t need special treatment. The common argument is that incentives are needed to attract the best candidates, but is that true?

I’d venture that people who apply to be a university president with an $800K or more salary believe they’ll do a bang-up job and get to stay for a while. And if they’re the kind of 21st-century leader we like to talk about, they will.

If they’re savvy a change in political winds probably won’t derail them, although if it does, they’ll land on their feet without a handout. These are people with options.

The regents must do their part as well, including leaving their partisan hats at the door and working in the best interest of students and the university systems’ bottom line.

If we can’t make inroads toward nonpartisan governance of public universities, there is little hope that we can do it elsewhere.

Sue McMillin is a long-time Colorado reporter and editor who worked for The Gazette and Durango Herald. Now a regular columnist for The Denver Post and a freelance writer, she lives in Cañon City. Email her at suemcmillin20@gmail.com.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

A presidential search process led to the unveiling of Kennedy as the sole finalist, with the former Republican congressman’s introduction clouded by opposition to his voting record and claims by one regent that he hadn’t been sufficiently vetted.

Infighting among members of the politically elected Board of Regents presaged nearly half of them rejecting the school’s new leader in a party-line vote.

Then, in the wake of Kennedy’s hiring, came a leaked list of candidates who hadn’t made the cut, furor over a verbal gaffe and, ultimately, a first-of-its-kind censure vote by the Boulder campus faculty, citing the CU president’s lack of leadership around diversity issues.

Now, Kennedy’s presidency — during which he led the CU system through a pandemic and a revamp of its strategic plan — will come to a premature end next month with a $1.3 million payout. The regents are expected to name an interim president soon and outline their search process for Kennedy’s successor.

Higher education experts with experience in presidential searches say this transition presents an opportunity for CU’s leaders to take their time, get it right and inspire unity with their selection.

“Where these things have gone best is when there’s really as much consensus as you possibly can get, and that’s a real challenge,” said Aims McGuinness, a consultant with the Boulder-based National Center for Higher Education Management Systems who has worked with CU’s regents for decades. “What you’re seeing happen around the country with university searches is rushed decisions that then lead to

Yet heading into that next presidential search, the partisan divide on the Board of Regents — a nine-member body whose members are elected in staggered years — rages on. Republican regents, who lost their board majority in January for the first time in nearly four decades, decried Kennedy’s negotiated departure as a Democratic power grab stemming from intolerance for conservatives on CU’s campuses.

“Coloradans should take notice of what the Democrats do here today,” Regent Chance Hill, R-Colorado Springs, said during Wednesday’s vote to approve Kennedy’s parting agreement. “We will lose our state and our country if voters continue to elect Democrats more interested in appeasing the woke mob than in doing what is right.”

As CU gears up for its second presidential search in the last three years, higher education management experts, constituents and people involved in past searches shared their thoughts on what the university can do to create a less divisive selection process that the CU community can get behind.

Picking the right search firm

Katherine Haley, a higher education search consultant and twice former university president, has executed 50 presidential searches.

“It’s the search firm’s job to try to assure that all candidates are considered equally and not to allow one candidate or another to be pressed forward by a certain contingent of the board,” Haley said.

Former Regent Irene Griego, a Democrat who co-chaired with Republican Regent Heidi Ganahl the search committee that selected Kennedy, said the search process she was a part of should have worked — in theory.

“However, when individuals manipulate a process or when consultants fail to do a thorough review of all the candidates, it creates a weak process,” Griego said, without offering further elaboration on the Kennedy search process.

Regent Nolbert Chavez, D-Lakewood, was the only regent to respond to an interview request from The Denver Post for this story. He said much remains up in the air about the upcoming search process.

“I don’t even know what direction we’re headed,” Chavez said. “Ideally, we would be able to come up with either an interim or a permanent president that is bipartisan.”

An ideal candidate starts with an ideal search firm, McGuinness said.

“You need to select a search firm that has a reputation of pursuing searches consistent with the goals that are consistent with CU,” McGuinness said, noting that in 2019 the University of California selected a as that was consistent with the stated values of the school’s presidential search. “That’s different than just getting a search firm and having the search firm define the goals for you and the candidates that happen to appear — suddenly you’re picking among different agendas.”

Role of the search committee

Former Republican Regent Steve Bosley, who chaired the committees that led to the selection of CU presidents Hank Brown and Bruce Benson, said casting a broad net for search committee participants, candidates and public input made those two searches successful.

“We broadcast the heck out of it,” said Bosley, who personally recruited Benson for the job.

According to the university, at the time Kennedy was touted as the sole finalist, search firm Wheless Partners had considered more than 100 candidates before presenting around 30 names to a made up of the regent co-chairs, one faculty representative from each campus, a dean, a staff representative, a student, two alumni and four community representatives.

That committee narrowed the list to 10 candidates, who were each interviewed, and forwarded six of them to the full Board of Regents, which interviewed all six before voting unanimously to make Kennedy the sole finalist.

“A comprehensive review of the process needs to be conducted to identify what went right and what went wrong before a new chair of the committee or a search committee is selected,” Griego said. “Reviewing the process takes time and should have been done after Mark Kennedy was selected president.”

Before Benson secured the vote in 2008, Bosley toured the state holding listening sessions with Coloradans about what they’d like to see in a university president.

“If we ask you, you know we’re interested in what you have to say,” Bosley said. “We took the time to listen.”

Shubhashika Singh, a 20-year-old CU Boulder sophomore, hopes to see a student of color on the search committee.

“We talk about prioritizing diversity, equity and inclusion, but we need to ensure we have students who come from diverse backgrounds on that committee,” Singh said.

By engaging the university community, Haley said a search committee makes constituents feel buy-in for a new leader.

“The search needs to galvanize and bring everyone together behind a candidate rather than just announce, ‘Here’s your candidate, and this is the way it’s going to be,'” Haley said. “There is a danger to naming a sole finalist before the final decisions have been made because it makes some people feel the decision is pre-ordained… But it is hard to involve everyone in a presidential search because, usually, the way you keep your candidates is to keep them confidential. If they think they’re going to be exposed, they’ll drop out. They don’t want to be one of three and lose it and be humiliated.”

Joanne Addison, CU Faculty Council chair and an English professor on the Denver campus served on the search committee that produced Kennedy. She for transparency’s sake this time around.

“There’s a lot of talk that good people won’t apply if they know more than one will be named, but that’s not true,” Addison said. “We’ve seen this happen at major universities all over where they name multiple finalists. Even the makeup of the search committee last time around ended up being very partisan. I hope that won’t be the case this time around. It was clear a number of people were on there more because of their politics than any expertise they had in higher education.”

Bosley countered that confidentiality for the candidates tossing their hats into the ring was vital to collecting the best options during the searches he led.

What’s in a president?

Once candidate names start coming in, how does a committee know which ones are keepers? Allow a handful of university priorities to be the guide, McGuinness said.

“Search committee members have got to sustain attention on four or five major university priorities they all agree upon and know that those are the things that matter and focus on those,” McGuinness said.

McGuinness said the Kennedy helped guide could present beneficial goalposts.

As far as qualities to be watchful of, Haley said political candidates for university presidencies can be tricky.

“I’ve seen political candidates be successful, but there’s a high risk,” Haley said. “I’ve seen a number of them be unsuccessful, as well. They’re really public people. Everybody knows a lot about them. Frankly, a politician has been working in an entirely different world from higher education and a lot of the time political candidates don’t understand how different that world is from the one they’re used to dealing in.”

Though Kennedy had a prior career in politics, he came to CU from the University of North Dakota, where he also served as president.

Chavez said he’s interested in someone who brings something to CU rather than CU bringing something to the candidate.

“Hank Brown, Bruce Benson, John Buechner — they brought an air of respect and accomplishment and a reputation and they were easily able to succeed in the higher education environment,” Chavez said. “As opposed to a career academic, largely forgotten. I would like to see someone in the same category, along the same lines as those folks who have brought something to the table that allowed them to be skilled, that allowed them to be successful in the position beyond academics.”

McGuinness said it would be worthwhile for CU’s regents to ask themselves some introspective questions.

“What did they learn from the previous search? What can they learn from the searches at comparable university systems? How can we frame this search in a way that is going to be consistent with the kinds of goals and priorities we’ve already set so we can move the university ahead?” McGuinness said. “That’s going to take time, but I think it will benefit them — benefit the whole university.”

The after two years on the job passed on an 8-1 vote, with Regent Heidi Ganahl, an at-large Republican, voting no. The regents are expected to name an interim president soon and initiate a search process for a permanent successor.

Despite the near-unanimous vote, Wednesday’s virtual meeting laid bare the stark partisan division of CU’s elected Board of Regents, which earlier this year came under a Democratic majority for the first time in four decades.

The university had insisted the departure of Kennedy, a former Republican congressman hired in a contentious party-line vote in 2019, was neither a resignation nor a termination, while Board Chair Glen Gallegos, R-Grand Junction, previously told The Denver Post he believed the president’s stepping down “may be a mutual thing.”

But on Wednesday, Ganahl characterized Kennedy’s departure as a firing, and Regent Chance Hill, R-Colorado Springs, described the separation as a Democratic power-grab.

“This resignation is not just a resignation,” Hill said. “It is a forced resignation resulting in a shameful $1.36 million buyout and waste of taxpayer money because of the five Democrats who now constitute the majority of the CU Board of Regents. And why is the new board majority forcing such a reckless decision now — not even five months into their term — rather than allowing for a good-faith determination at the end of the CU president����ap contract next year? Because the five Democrats on the board cannot bear the pressure from their liberal political base.”

Kennedy’s announcement last week that he planned to step down followed recent censure votes by Boulder faculty members and students for his handling of diversity issues. Critics also have targeted Kennedy for a lack of “shared governance,” or not seeking sufficient input from the university community.

Board Vice Chair Lesley Smith, an at-large Democrat, said she voted in favor of buying out Kennedy’s contract to show solidarity with CU faculty.

Kennedy was advancing an online education initiative prior to his announcement to step down, and faculty had raised concerns about the amount of money being spent and the ways in which the CU system office was involved, said Joanne Addison, CU Faculty Council chair.

Regent Ilana Spiegel, D-Englewood, noted voters had swung the board majority and said her vote to end Kennedy’s contract was in the best interest of the university and “the least disruptive, least costly option.”

“In the midst of budget cuts, tens of millions of dollars have been spent by the system office for an online initiative that has not honored the principles of shared governance and democratic decision making — all while putting the security and privacy of our student, faculty and staff data at risk,” Spiegel said in a statement.

Ken McConnellogue, the CU system’s spokesman, disputed that “tens of millions” have been spent, saying about $4.9 million in new spending on online education was approved after Kennedy’s arrival at the university.

“Conservatives are not welcome”

Wednesday’s special board meeting began with an hour-long private executive session followed by a motion presented by Hill, which asked the board to vote to allow Kennedy to carry out his original employment contract, which, if not renewed, would have ended in the summer of 2022.

Hill’s motion failed on a 3-6 vote with Hill, Ganahl and Sue Sharkey, R-Castle Rock, voting in favor.

����ԲԱ���’s $1.3 million payout includes $850,000 for the year of base salary he would have earned through mid-2022, plus $297,500 as the monetary value of the benefits he would have accrued during that year, and an additional $211,482 to cover tax consequences, the university said.

Discussion around Kennedy’s departure included Republican regents arguing that CU was hostile toward conservatives.

“Conservatives are not welcome at the University of Colorado,” Sharkey said. “I love the University of Colorado. However, sadly, conservatives are not welcome… I hope that CU becomes a welcoming place for all people, including conservatives.”

Ganahl said the Board of Regents’ Democratic majority’s “need to grind partisan axes will cost taxpayers and students millions of dollars.”

“I don’t think we should trouble ourselves with the illusion that Mark Kennedy’s firing was a great failing or fundamental error in leadership,” she said. “Mark Kennedy is being fired for the high crime of not being a Democrat or left-wing academic to a new board majority who many days forget they serve the students of CU and not the (Democratic National Committee).”

In rebuttal, Regent Nolbert Chavez, D-Lakewood, pointed out the long history of Republican leadership at CU.

“We’ve had incredibly successful presidents that have been Republicans, like Hank Brown, John Buechner and Bruce Benson,” Chavez said. “They didn’t have this trouble with faculty or students. It doesn’t bear out.”

“A positive trajectory”

����ԲԱ���’s announcement about stepping down last week cited the board’s “new makeup,” which he said led to “changes in its focus and philosophy.” A CU spokesman confirmed the discussion about Kennedy’s departure had been initiated by the Board of Regents.

At the end of the virtual meeting, Kennedy wished the university system well and said he will continue to support CU.

“It was an honor to work with you and many hard-working people to advance CU,” Kennedy said. “I think there’s a lot of great things moving forward and a positive trajectory.”

In closing remarks at Wednesday’s meeting, Board Chair Gallegos said it’s time for the regents to start looking out for the interests of their constituents — the University of Colorado– rather than personal or political interests.

“It would be good if we started talking in terms of quality of a CU education, the type of research we want to be turning out, the student success and diplomas that change students’ lives and types of diplomas that get them in the workforce,” Gallegos said. “We’ve been lacking in terms of what it is that makes this a great university. We need to get back to the discussion about students, the university, professors and moving forward.”

Updated 3:15 p.m. May 19, 2021 This story has been updated to clarify what Mark ����ԲԱ���’s $1.3 million payout covers.

The virtual board meeting — kicking off with a private executive session followed by a public meeting — will be the first public appearance by university leadership following last week’s announcement that Kennedy will be stepping down in the coming months, ending his presidential term after about two years on the job.

“The University of Colorado and Mark Kennedy have agreed to part ways,” Ken McConnellogue, the CU system’s spokesman, said in a statement. “This is neither a resignation nor a termination. The Board of Regents will vote on an agreement between the board and president that replaces his existing contract and allows CU to move forward in the best interests of the university.”

According to a short agenda posted online, the public meeting starts with a vote to allow for the expiration of Kennedy’s current employment contract and ends with a vote to approve a “transition agreement and release.”

Details about the agreement, including a payout, were not yet available.

McConnellogue previously told The Denver Post that Kennedy’s looming departure was precipitated by the Board of Regents, who recently flipped from a Republican majority to Democratic control for the first time in nearly four decades.

Board Chair Glen Gallegos, a Republican from Grand Junction, said in a previous interview that ����ԲԱ���’s decision to leave “may be a mutual thing.”

Kennedy’s announcement about stepping down cited the board’s “new makeup,” which he said led to “changes in its focus and philosophy.” Kennedy was voted into his presidential role on a split board vote along party lines in 2019.

The departure decision came weeks after Kennedy was censured by Boulder faculty and students for his handling of diversity issues.

����ԲԱ���’s leadership has been contentious since he was first announced as the sole finalist to succeed Bruce Benson in 2019, drawing protest and outcry from faculty, students, staff and alumni who called out the former Republican congressman’s voting record�����������Բ�����issues such as gay marriage as well as some of his comments around diversity.

Kennedy lost, or rather he never had, the confidence of the faculty and students on four campuses in Boulder, Denver, Aurora and Colorado Springs. Another leader in another time might have been capable of overcoming the politically tainted hiring process that gave the former Republican congressman a lucrative contract to run the CU system, however, Kennedy made missteps along the way and failed to wow those observing his progress.

Kennedy faced the growing opposition to his tenure with grace and he now has publicly committed to departing, sparing the regents a likely fraught review process. In some regards, Kennedy is selflessly stepping aside at the right moment.

But history will only repeat itself if this state’s elected regents don’t take stock of what went wrong last time and commit to a more open and transparent hiring process. ����ԲԱ���’s political work was only part of the problem. The unshakable feeling that more qualified candidates had been passed over for the job was heightened by the secrecy around the finalists and was confirmed when a list of applicants and finalists was leaked to the media.

This time around, the regents should openly disclose finalists. Students and faculty will trust the process more if it is more transparent.

We simply don’t buy the premise that the largest public university system in Colorado, offering top-pay and residence in Boulder, would struggle to attract top-tier candidates out of a fear their names would become public. Finalists should wear it as a feather in their cap that they were considered for such a prestigious job when talking to current employers about their application or even when talking to future employers.

The regents should commit to an open and transparent process whether or not the ill-advised House Bill 1051 becomes law allowing public entities to not disclose the names of finalists for chief executive officer positions. Gov. Jared Polis should veto House Bill 1051 and keep the requirement currently in law that a state or local public body “shall make public the list of all finalists under consideration.”

The public has limited say in who the nine elected regents will select to replace Kennedy – the timeline of his departure is still unclear. But the only way the public can hold their elected officials accountable for this critical decision is if they are provided with information about who the final candidates are and what played into the decision-making process.

Denver Public Schools admirably released the names of three finalists for their superintendent position last week, showing what real leadership and transparency look like in this state.

Kennedy was put in a position where he was unlikely to succeed.

The next president of CU deserves a better start and the people of Colorado deserve a more transparent and open search process.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.