DW ‘COMPLETELY WRONG ON THE LAW’ Despite the regent’s assertion that the UA presidential search be conducted under confidential circumstances, critics say the secrecy is contrary to public interest, damaging to democracy and may be
DAILYWILDCAT.COM
Monday, February 27, 2017 – Tuesday, February 28, 2017 VOLUME 110 ISSUE 64
OPINIONS | PAGE 8
Elections | 2017 READ THE DAILY WILDCAT’S ASUA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENTS FOR AVP AND EVP INSIDE
SPORTS | PAGE 14
BY J.D. MOLINARY @DailyWildcat
The search for the University of Arizona’s next president appears to be winding down, but the Arizona Board of Regents and their specially appointed UA Presidential Search Committee have yet to tell the public anything about the now less-than-20 remaining prospects in the search. This reality isn’t for a lack of trying—the Daily Wildcat has repeatedly requested the names, resumes and relevant information regarding candidates in the search, only to repeatedly be told no. As the search draws to a close and the committee proceeds with what they call “discussions” with “prospects” in the search, the legality of their secrecy is under question. “Obviously, I think that [the regents are] completely wrong on the law,” said Derek Bambauer, a UA law professor. “The
[Arizona] Supreme Court set out the rules for what constitutes a prospect, candidate and finalist, and it’s not up to [the regents] to unilaterally redefine that.” The ruling Bambauer refers to is a 1991 Arizona Supreme Court case regarding the secrecy of a 1989 search for a new Arizona State University president. By the books: Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers As in the UA’s search, the search firm ASU hired recommended names of candidates be kept confidential. Due to the suggestion, the board of regents refused to release the
FEB. 25 PROVED TO BE QUITE THE HIGH-PROFILE DAY FOR ARIZONA ATHLETICS
names of candidates. Regardless, the Arizona Republic and the Mesa Tribune published the names of 17 candidates after an investigation. The board of regents sued the newspapers, arguing that fewer people would apply for the position if their names were made public. In their ruling, the justices determined that once prospects seriously consider the position and are interviewed they become candidates. This is important because this ruling created terms for the regents to use when conducting a presidential search. In Arizona, the public has a legal right to know the name of anyone considered a candidate for the presidency of a public university. The court also said the regents should create rules of procedure for the search process for future reference so it would be clear when a prospect becomes a candidate. According to Sarah Harper, vice president of communications for the board of regents, such rules were never
SEARCH SECRECY, 4
/DAILYWILDCAT
@DAILYWILDCAT
@DAILYWILDCAT