Three states are considering changes to how public universities hire presidents via legislation to provide more, and in the case of Utah, less transparency in executive searches.
Florida, Utah and Washington are all weighing changes, driven by state legislators in response to recent presidential searches. In the case of Florida, the move comes after the state, known for broad open records laws, revised presidential search processes in recent years in ways that narrowed transparency, which was followed by an influx of hires connected to conservative politics.
Evergreen State legislators have proposed the changes following closed-door presidential searches at both the University of Washington and Washington State University, which they argue lacked adequate transparency because finalists were not named during the process. (However, they’ve backed off an initial bill to require universities to name finalists.)
In Utah, lawmakers have crafted legislation to limit information on presidential searches. Current state law requires public universities to release the name of three to five finalists for presidential positions, but that could change with only a single finalist unveiled at the end of the search.
The legislative proposals reflect a broader debate over how much transparency should be built into presidential searches and the politics of hiring processes.
Florida’s Proposed Reversal
The Florida Legislature passed a bill in 2022 that allowed institutions to keep the identity of applicants secret until a university identified three finalists. The change marked an about-face from prior practices, in which lists of applicants were released as part of presidential searches.
Although the law passed in 2022 charged universities with naming three finalists, in practice it has often meant that institutions only release the name of one applicant at the end of the process. And since the passage of that legislation, Florida has tapped numerous Republican lawmakers to lead public universities, including former Nebraska U.S. senator Ben Sasse at the University of Florida, who stepped down after less than 18 months amid questions about his spending.
Since Sasse’s exit, critics have alleged UF’s board missed or ignored multiple red flags.
Governing boards have hired numerous other Republican former lawmakers to lead institutions since 2022. Recent hires include Adam Hasner at Florida Atlantic University, Jeanette Nuñez at Florida International University (who stepped down as lieutenant governor to take the job), Richard Corcoran at New College of Florida, Fred Hawkins at South Florida State College, Mel Ponder at Northwest Florida State College and Torey Alston at Broward College.
In a statement on why she filed the bill to open search processes, Florida representative Michelle Salzman, a Republican, wrote that the legislation would ensure “our higher education institutions are governed in a transparent and ethical manner, with the best interests of our students and taxpayers as the guiding principle.”
To Judith Wilde, a research professor at George Mason University who studies presidential searches and contracts, the bill seems like backlash to Republican governor Ron DeSantis, who many critics allege has used a heavy hand in installing GOP officials as college presidents.
“They are definitely moving away from the more secretive and controlled processes that they’ve been under for the last few years. I’d say that is because so many people now are tired and upset with DeSantis putting in place his personal choices and how badly that has worked out,” Wilde said.
Last year, the Florida Board of Governors also gave itself more authority over presidential searches, adopting a policy that requires its chair to approve a list of finalists before candidates are submitted to individual governing boards. That would go away under proposed legislation.
The Florida Board of Governors did not respond to an inquiry about its position on the bill.
Washington Backtracks
Washington lawmakers initially proposed changes to how presidential searches are conducted with a bill that would require public universities to name “up to four priority candidates” for the job. But lawmakers backed off that idea, submitting a substitute bill that would expand voting rights for students and faculty on presidential searches, but not require finalists to be named.
University of Washington officials had expressed concern about the initial proposed legislation, arguing that UW could lose highly qualified candidates if they can’t keep names confidential.
“It’s important to understand that sitting presidents or chancellors participate in these processes at considerable professional risk. There may be reputational damage up to termination, even if their candidacy is unsuccessful, should their present employers learn that they are pursuing other employment,” Blaine Tamaki, chair of UW’s Board of Regents, wrote in a statement.
A UW spokesperson also pointed to fallout in 2020 in the University of Alaska system when then-president Jim Johnsen stepped down after he emerged as the sole finalist to lead the University of Wisconsin system. Johnsen withdrew from the Wisconsin search after criticism that the process lacked transparency. He then resigned from the Alaska presidency mere weeks later.
(Johnsen’s tenure at Alaska was heavily scrutinized while he was there, however, and many students and faculty members expressed relief that he planned to leave for another job, which Wilde suggested was more of a factor in his abrupt exit than his candidacy for the Wisconsin position.)
Washington State University had also expressed concerns about the initial bill.
“Specifically, we were apprehensive about losing strong candidates who would be unwilling to make their names public before a selection was announced,” a Washington State spokesperson wrote to Inside Higher Ed by email. “There is a very real concern for some candidates that they would lose their effectiveness at their home institutions if it became public that they were exploring employment opportunities elsewhere. This is particularly true for sitting presidents.”
Washington State has expressed support for the new bill.
Opacity in Utah?
State Senator Chris Wilson, the Utah Republican who sponsored the bill to overhaul presidential searches, has argued the law needs to be changed so public universities don’t lose quality candidates who are unwilling to go through a process that exposes their identity.
The Utah legislation seems at least partly inspired by Elizabeth Cantwell exiting the presidency at Utah State University last month to take the top job at Washington State.
Wilson has pointed to Cantwell departing for Washington State as an example of why the bill is needed. Last month, in a House Education Committee meeting, Wilson stressed the need for confidentiality in searches and argued, “There’s no way the president of Utah State University would have applied for the presidency of Washington State if it wasn’t a private process.”
Utah commissioner of higher education Geoff Landward has cast doubt on the notion that public universities in the state have lost applicants due to current processes.
“I can confidently say that we have not had a single search wherein we were talking to very high-quality candidates who essentially said that they would be interested and willing to apply, were it not for the fact that the final three candidates would have to be public because that would put their current employment in peril unnecessarily,” Landward told lawmakers in February.
But, he added, “This is a question of who did we not get to consider?”
Wilde is skeptical of Utah’s proposal. She points to an example at Montana State University in 2019 when President Waded Cruzado informed the board that she was being recruited for another job. In response, the board gave Cruzado a $150,000 pay raise to entice her to stay—and it worked.
“Just because they’re in the job market doesn’t necessarily mean that they want to leave the university,” Wilde said. “And if they’re doing a good job, make the effort to keep them.”
