Ohio State’s search for a new University president is already underway. Courtesy of Ohio State
Many university presidential searches have two things in common: the use of a private search firm and secrecy.
With University President Kristina M. Johnson set to leave Ohio State after spring commencement, the search for her successor is already underway.
University spokesperson Chris Booker said in an email the Board of Trustees met Dec. 19, 2022, to begin the search process, and more information will be shared as the search continues.
“The university will share further details about the search and how the university can participate soon,” Booker said.
Johnson resigned Nov. 29, 2022, without an explanation. Reports claimed Johnson’s resignation came after she was told to step down by Ohio State’s Board of Trustees following concerns raised by staff members. The Lantern is still investigating.
The public also won’t know much about the search for Ohio State’s 17th president if this search follows the pattern of those previously held, Judith Wilde, a research professor at George Mason University, said.
Wilde said in her research, she found only 2 percent of the universities used private search firms in their presidential searches in 1975-76. In 2015-16, that had grown to 92 percent.
Wilde said the use of firms can be helpful in the early stages of a presidential search.
“They certainly can do a reasonable job with helping with organizing everything and possibly with making the first cut, maybe two cuts, of those people who are really not prepared for the position,” Wilde said.
Searches conducted by firms can be problematic for a number of reasons, including a lack of due diligence when conducting references and background checks of the candidates, Wilde said. In addition, these firms often require complete confidentiality from university faculty involved.
“There were a couple that said that if a faculty member who was on the committee ever said anything about the search that they could lose tenure,” Wilde said. “A couple said they could be fired. We found one that said anybody on the search committee who ever said anything about the search could be put in jail.”
Wilde said these firms claiming secrecy is the only way to find a good candidate because the best candidate is already in a prominent position at another university.
“Search firms will tell you that, but they will refuse to give you any examples,” Wilde said. “We cannot find any examples that we can identify of people who lost their jobs because they were applying for another position.”
This secrecy allows firms to have more control over the presidential search, Wilde said.
“Having it be a secret gives them a lot more control,” Wilde said. “The other thing we found more recently even, is that the search firms are now writing into the contract.”
Mike Hiestand, senior legal counsel at the Student Press Law Center, said in an email Ohio courts have not addressed the issue of university presidential searches, but the Ohio Supreme Court decided on multiple occasions that application materials for government positions are public record.
SPLC is an independent organization which educates students on their First Amendment rights and protects free press rights of student journalists and their advisers, according to their website.
Wilde said search firms have found ways to get around public record laws, including keeping presidential search records with them instead of the university.
“Many of them are writing into the contract that they maintain all the data, which means that while the search committee will see the application package, the letters they write, their background information, all of that, the university does not get to keep a copy of that at all,” Wilde said. “It all stays with the search firm. And what is important about that is public universities — not private — public universities have to respond to [Freedom of Information Act] requests. By having all those applications stay with the search firm, a search firm does not have to respond to a FOIA request.”
If the search for the next president is conducted similarly to the search for Johnson, it will start with the Board of Trustees.
According to the Board of Trustees website, the presidential search was conducted by two subcommittees that compose the Presidential Search Committee — the Presidential Selection Subcommittee and the University Advisory Subcommittee.
In Ohio State’s last presidential search, the Presidential Selection Subcommittee consisted of seven trustees. This committee worked with the University Advisory Subcommittee and — with the help of the search firm Isaacson, Miller — made a candidate recommendation to the Board of Trustees. According to their website, Isaacson, Miller is a national executive search firm which has conducted over 8,500 searches in 40 years.
In the last presidential search, the University Advisory Subcommittee consisted of 20 students, faculty, staff and community stakeholders. The subcommittee’s main tasks were to seek input from the broader Ohio State community during the search.
Susan Olesik, professor of chemistry and biochemistry and faculty representative on the board’s Academic Affairs, Student Life and Research Committee, and David Frantz, faculty emeritus in the Department of English, served as co-chairs of the subcommittee.
Olesik said she could not comment on her experience as co-chair of the subcommittee. Frantz could not be reached for comment by the time of publication.
The University Advisory Subcommittee held six public forums — four of which were held at regional campuses — to solicit feedback from university students, faculty and staff.
In March 2020, the subcommittee released a profile outlining the traits, skills and qualities the community wanted to see in Ohio State’s 16th president.
Issacson, Miller identified 428 potential candidates and narrowed the pool down to 61. Of these candidates, seven were interviewed by the selection subcommittee and four finalists were identified before Johnson was selected, according to a June 2020 Lantern article.
The names of the other three finalists in the search were not released to the public.
In the search for former President Michael Drake, the university’s 15th president, the candidates were also kept a secret until a public records request revealed the names of a few other people considered for the position.
University Senate Secretary Ben Givens said he felt the way the university included students, faculty and staff in the last search process was effective, and he hopes a similar process is used in this search.
“They haven’t announced the process yet for this search, but we would advocate for a similar process as the last one,” Givens said.
Andrew Pierce, president of Undergraduate Student Government and a fourth-year in public policy analysis, and Vice President Derek Moore, a fourth-year in information systems, said in a letter sent to Board of Trustees Chair Hiroyuki Fujita they hope the USG president and vice president can represent the undergraduate student body in the search for the next university president.
“As the largest body representing this institution, student leaders chosen by students must have representation on the selection of an interim President and an eventual successor,” Pierce and Moore said.
