Trusteeship - November/December 2020 - 39

Lastly, a list of individuals was generated
and I made personal phone calls to approximately 60 individuals to gain their insights
on the future of our state, higher education,
the university, and some of the qualities and
characteristics we should be seeking in our
next president. These individuals included
elected officials (ranging from the state representatives where our campuses are located
to the governor), executives of major foundations, corporate executives, and previous
employees and administrators of the university. Every opening in my calendar was
filled with calls such as these. I even made
some calls while riding in the backseat going
from campus to campus during our listening
sessions. I attended a Faculty Consultative
Committee meeting when the search kicked
off and engaged with student groups on the
Twin Cities campus by attending organizations' meetings throughout the search.

Committee Meetings
The University of Minnesota Board of
Regents is fortunate to have a stellar staff. The
executive director and deputy director were
with me every step of the way. These two staff
people attended all precommittee meetings
and we discussed flow, potential discussion
points, and ways to keep the meetings on
track. Within committee meetings I found it
integral to have staff I trusted and staff with
whom I had a good relationship. The staff
knew what my facial expressions meant and
when it was clear that I needed things to
move along. They were able to interject with
neutral perspectives at times when the same
comment from me might appear biased.
Moreover, what is not frequently considered
during a search is that the daily work for staff
does not stop. The executive and deputy
director put tremendous energy and time
into the search while maintaining their dayto-day work and the other staff members put
in extra efforts to ensure that things stayed
on track throughout the search. It was a gift
to watch the poise and professionalism of the
staff during this chaotic time and every staff
person profoundly stepped up.
AGB.ORG

To ensure that everyone felt
comfortable, I expressed that we
would be using first names only
and there was no need to use
titles during the deliberations.
Everyone was selected to be on
the committee because their
views and opinions were greatly
valued and that only a small
percentage of the interested
people were selected to be
on the committee. Therefore,
everyone gets an equal voice.
In addition to the BoR staff, the vice chair
of the committee plays an important role.
First, it was important to have someone that
I trusted to push back on me in our pre- and
post-committee meeting conversations.
It was someone I felt comfortable sharing
my uncertainties and someone who could
complement my strengths. While we intentionally did not use titles and the formalities
associated with them (committee members
were referred to by their first name), everyone remained aware that I was an elected
regent and the chair of the search committee. That said, there were times when the
vice chair and I agreed that a comment from
her would be received differently than if it
were coming from me. In our case, the vice
chair happened to be the dean of school of
my master's program and we had built a
great relationship since my graduation years
earlier. In other cases, if the conversation
was leaning too far towards a focus on the
business relationships maintained by the
university, I would call on a faculty member
to recalibrate the conversation and be sure
we were considering all stakeholders and
components of our mission.
As noted, we changed search firms
midway through the search. The firm for

the second half of our search was AGB
Search. The lead consultant and I quickly
garnered a trusting relationship. One in
which phone calls were the norm, texts
became frequent, and emails were ongoing. We planned our committee meetings
together and frequently cofacilitated. He
would present big picture information and
offer guidance when the committee sought
it. I would facilitate conversations-unless
it was meaningful for me to be active in the
conversation. I pushed back on him in our
meetings and he did the same with me. I
sought guidance around the landscape of
searches and presidents, while he sought
understanding about the university context.
As committee chair, I had the unique
and challenging task of managing the flow
of the meetings and keeping everyone on
time while attempting to make sure members did not feel as if they were being cut
off. I started our first meeting by expressing
that despite the differences in positions
of individuals on the committee (regents,
faculty, students, staff, etc.) everyone is
equal on the committee and has an equally
important voice. To ensure that everyone
felt comfortable, at the recommendation
of the vice chair, I expressed that we would
be using first names only and there was no
need to use titles during the deliberations. I
reiterated that everyone was selected to be
on the committee because their views and
opinions were greatly valued and that only
a small percentage of the interested people were selected to be on the committee.
Therefore, everyone gets an equal voice.
Several times, I reminded people that
although they were chosen to serve on the
committee because of their unique backgrounds and experiences, we were selecting
a president for the entire university and all
of its constituents. The president is expected
to serve numerous stakeholders who all
have different needs, expectations, and
views on the position. So, individuals on the
committee should bring their backgrounds
to bear on the discussion but realize that
they were not advocates for their constituNOV. DEC. 2020  TRUSTEESHIP  39
http://www.AGB.ORG
Trusteeship - November/December 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Trusteeship - November/December 2020
