Open And Shut
By Kyle Warneck
Staff Writer

Dr. Brian Rosenberg, Dean of the Faculty at Lawrence University and one of the candidates for Pomona's presidency remarked that, "the openness of the [presidential search] process really says something about the school." He reminded the students that the nature of Pomona's presidential search was not what one would find at most colleges around the country, but then again, Pomona would like to think that its students are not the type of students one finds at most colleges either.

At Pomona, we have a diverse and talented student body and an openminded group of administrators, alumni and trustees who strongly believe in that student body. These are Pomona's grestest strengths. The presidential search committee ought to be commended for its commitment to openness. It provided a wealth of opportunities for students to meet and research candidates and a meaningful way for students, staff, and faculty to participate in the search process.

Despite the importance of that conversation the committee was structured in a way that inadvertently minimized effectiveness of that dialogue. What should have been an opportunity for thorough town hall meetings was compressed into only a few days. The final candidate left campus Tuesday, February 4. All student, staff, and faculty comments were due on Wednesday, February 5 at 5 PM.

The committee met the following day to recommend a candidate to the Board of Trustees. During the week of campus visits, the committee received over 500 e-mails. It is safe to assume that a significant portion of those e-mails were written between the final meeting Tuesday and the cut-off on Wednesday. The committee had to review that feedback and make a decision in only 24 hours.

The committee members worked extremely hard throughout this process and should be commended for their efforts, but even the most dilligent committee member would have had a hard time thoroughly considering all of those e-mails in such a short time. Meanwhile, the 29 hours between the last presidential candidate's final meeting with students and the comment cut-off time, left a very limited opportunity for students, faculty, and staff to discuss the candidates with one another and share their perspectives. There was no discussion outside of those eight meetings.

Dialogue and discussion could only improve the quality of feedback the committee would have received. I am sure that many of the emails it received were rushed and may have lacked some of the further research or thought that many of the candidates merited. The time constraints served no purpose, and the process was harder on everyone. Compare this process with the time spent deliberating about selection processes for admissions or for sponsors and you would see that the presidential search should have taken an equally long time.

Not only was the committee short on time, but it lacked a formal mechanism for incorporating the e-mail comments into its deliberations. Comments submitted on the webpage were automatically e-mailed to the mailboxes of the members of the search committee. What happened from there was left up to each committee member. After reading these e-mails at what must have been a frantic pace, the committee members were left only with what impressions they could glean from those comments on their own. A more thorough system of recording and summary was needed to allow the committee members to have done their jobs effectively.

Although this input would have been important for finding a new president who fits with the Pomona community, the student body did gain from this process. The committee's faith in Pomona students proved to be well-founded. The one consistent theme throughout the meetings with the presidential candidates was the steady turnout and thoughtful questioning.

Students went beyond expressing self-interest and thoughtfully reflected on what it means to be part of something larger. As Eric Mann ' 04 remarked in an open letter in the Pomona Student Digester, "These issues extend beyond the individual case of Pomona College, and ask us to identify ourselves as part of a larger community."

The discussions begun in those meetings have reinvigorated a sense of direction in our community. This process was a healthy one for our college to engage in. It should not have been confined to those few meetings with trustees. This conversation should be part of dining hall chatter and should be incorporated into future decision making processes at Pomona. We can use this process as an example from which to begin an exploration of the needs and goals of our community. This is the broader lesson of the presidential search process and one that will hopefully be reflected in President Oxtoby's time as president.

We should learn from the strengths and weaknesses of the presidential search process and begin a new wave of discussions geared toward Pomona's future. The meetings with the candidates have created a surge of interest and discussion that is healthy for the college and should be capitalized on in such an important year.

When incoming President David Oxtoby arrives on campus this summer, students should have begun to determine what our goals and expectations are for this president. Most presidents spend their first year doing a lot of listening. In many ways, President Oxtoby will not have that option. He will face a number of challenging issues immediately upon arrival on campus. The Board of Trustees have recently convened an ad hoc committee to study Pomona's financial aid policy. The PAC system is due for review. The release of the alcohol study leaves us poised for some difficult decisions and a round of discussions about sub-free housing have already begun. Last year's WASC accreditation lays out another set of issues that demand attention.

President Oxtoby should take his own selection process as an example and include students actively in setting the agenda for what will be an important year for Pomona's future.