OU President Gallogly

[PhiAlpha]

Pick the person who is BEST - male, female, black, white or purple - l don't care. Not some person to fill an affirmative action slot.

That said,why does J C Watts come to mind?

This exactly. And I thought of JC Watts as well.

[jerrywall]

Honestly, what will it take for OU to not hire a white male? It seems like they don't even consider candidates who don't fit that narrow demographic.

Hopefully, if they're more open in the search process this time, they can address that second sentence.

[Rover]

Pick the person who is BEST - male, female, black, white or purple - l don't care. Not some person to fill an affirmative action slot.

That said,why does J C Watts come to mind?

When boards are stacked with mostly people from the same demographic they tend to pick others from the same demographic. They naturally favor them. They are not always objective about what makes someone the best choice. They think people that look and think like them are the best suited, even if they aren’t.

[mugofbeer]

When boards are stacked with mostly people from the same demographic they tend to pick others from the same demographic. They naturally favor them. They are not always objective about what makes someone the best choice. They think people that look and think like them are the best suited, even if they aren’t.

I think people are starting to move beyond that. Nevertheless, l still want to see the BEST candidate, not necessarily someone who looks different. The problem with Boren is that he left a vacuum. There should have been someone being groomed for a natural, quick and smoothe transition.

[soonerguru]

I think people are starting to move beyond that. Nevertheless, l still want to see the BEST candidate, not necessarily someone who looks different. The problem with Boren is that he left a vacuum. There should have been someone being groomed for a natural, quick and smoothe transition.

WTF you talking about bro? You are not qualified to speak on this matter. You're simply spitballing. As some people have mentioned upthread, Harroz was groomed for the position by Boren. You are adding nothing to the discussion by suggesting this at all.

[dankrutka]

I think people are starting to move beyond that.

What evidence do you have to support this thought of yours?

[Rover]

I think people are starting to move beyond that. Nevertheless, l still want to see the BEST candidate, not necessarily someone who looks different. The problem with Boren is that he left a vacuum. There should have been someone being groomed for a natural, quick and smoothe transition.

There were at least two already on campus who were ready to take over smoothly and professionally. One was dean of the business school, dismissing the fear that financial issues couldn’t be fixed. Unfortunately, the primary mission was to destroy the Boren legacy.

[FighttheGoodFight]

I was doing a bit of reading on if other universities tend to have very secret processes for selection. Seems to be a nationwide trend.

"Jack Stripling, a senior reporter at the Chronicle of Higher Education, called the increasing secrecy in university president searches a “national phenomenon.” The trend, he said, can be attributed to the growing use of consultants who specialize in recruiting educators and often push the idea of keeping searches closed to the public.

“We now have a new industry, a consultant class, that is telling [university officials] this is the only way,” Stripling said. “Universities follow the lead of their peers, and everyone is doing it.”

Judith Wilde, a professor who leads the George Mason University school of policy and government, said the use of search firms has increased tremendously since the mid-1970s. About 2 percent of American institutions used search firms to find presidents then, compared to about 92 percent in 2015-16, according to her research.

There is “no empirical evidence” that public searches deter high quality candidates from applying to lead a university, Wilde said. But that’s what consultants — whose function is to woo educators from around the country — tell their clients.

“A secret search makes it much easier for them to recycle candidates to several different universities,” Wilde added.

Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at UF, put it this way: “If you are a search firm, your merchandise is your list of resumes. That’s what you have to sell. Having the candidates discussed in public for one search damages their merchandise” for future searches.

The push for more secrecy, he said, “has nothing at all to do with the quality of the candidates, and everything to do with protecting the commercial business of search firms.”"

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/sta...228950794.html

[TheTravellers]

I was doing a bit of reading on if other universities tend to have very secret processes for selection. Seems to be a nationwide trend.

"Jack Stripling, a senior reporter at the Chronicle of Higher Education, called the increasing secrecy in university president searches a “national phenomenon.” The trend, he said, can be attributed to the growing use of consultants who specialize in recruiting educators and often push the idea of keeping searches closed to the public.

“We now have a new industry, a consultant class, that is telling [university officials] this is the only way,” Stripling said. “Universities follow the lead of their peers, and everyone is doing it.”

Judith Wilde, a professor who leads the George Mason University school of policy and government, said the use of search firms has increased tremendously since the mid-1970s. About 2 percent of American institutions used search firms to find presidents then, compared to about 92 percent in 2015-16, according to her research.

There is “no empirical evidence” that public searches deter high quality candidates from applying to lead a university, Wilde said. But that’s what consultants — whose function is to woo educators from around the country — tell their clients.

“A secret search makes it much easier for them to recycle candidates to several different universities,” Wilde added.

Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at UF, put it this way: “If you are a search firm, your merchandise is your list of resumes. That’s what you have to sell. Having the candidates discussed in public for one search damages their merchandise” for future searches.

The push for more secrecy, he said, “has nothing at all to do with the quality of the candidates, and everything to do with protecting the commercial business of search firms.”"

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/sta...228950794.html

Not surprised, been this way in IT for decades, the middlemen angled their way in and they're not going to lose their clout if they can help it. I was actually very (pleasantly) surprised/shocked when an in-house HR person for the company I work for actually contacted me for my current (and hopefully until I retire/die) job, that was something that had never happened in my 30+ year career, it's always been recruiters...

[aDark]

Board of Regents published their agenda for an 8:15 meeting, tonight. I'm predicting we have a new President announced tomorrow. Smart money says Joe Harroz. If not Harroz could be Turpen. If Turpen then I assume it's just as interim President while they construct a full-blown search.

[Rover]

I was doing a bit of reading on if other universities tend to have very secret processes for selection. Seems to be a nationwide trend.

"Jack Stripling, a senior reporter at the Chronicle of Higher Education, called the increasing secrecy in university president searches a “national phenomenon.” The trend, he said, can be attributed to the growing use of consultants who specialize in recruiting educators and often push the idea of keeping searches closed to the public.

“We now have a new industry, a consultant class, that is telling [university officials] this is the only way,” Stripling said. “Universities follow the lead of their peers, and everyone is doing it.”

Judith Wilde, a professor who leads the George Mason University school of policy and government, said the use of search firms has increased tremendously since the mid-1970s. About 2 percent of American institutions used search firms to find presidents then, compared to about 92 percent in 2015-16, according to her research.

There is “no empirical evidence” that public searches deter high quality candidates from applying to lead a university, Wilde said. But that’s what consultants — whose function is to woo educators from around the country — tell their clients.

“A secret search makes it much easier for them to recycle candidates to several different universities,” Wilde added.

Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at UF, put it this way: “If you are a search firm, your merchandise is your list of resumes. That’s what you have to sell. Having the candidates discussed in public for one search damages their merchandise” for future searches.

The push for more secrecy, he said, “has nothing at all to do with the quality of the candidates, and everything to do with protecting the commercial business of search firms.”"

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/sta...228950794.html

And, if the new hire doesn’t work out, the regents can blame the placement consultant and avoid taking responsibility. Boards of all types try to evade their accountability by hiring consultants as a buffer. It’s a lazy way out.

[Pete]

This private search angle is relatively new.

I tend to think the motivation is based on wanting to control the outcome as much as possible without having to deal with input from others.

[dankrutka]

This private search angle is relatively new.

I tend to think the motivation is based on wanting to control the outcome as much as possible without having to deal with input from others.

Right. Which means that not only do all the criticisms come out immediately once the candidate is announced resulting in a negative start, but the board also can't benefit from public/media/student feedback. These private searches are not only dumb but arrogant.

[Pete]

What has not been discussed is why Gallogly is suddenly gone.

When Boren retired, he announced in September and stayed on the job during the search and didn't leave until the end of the following June.

Gallogly makes this sudden announcement and now they are saying Harroz's appointment is effective immediately and he will be in that role at least 15 months.


People are owed an explanation for the sudden departure of Gallogly, not just the BS in the press releases.

[FighttheGoodFight]

My guess? They are about to announce the Boren investigation findings and Gallogly wanted to be far away from it.

Also Harroz is a very good choice. I wish him the best and expect to see him as full president next year.

[Pete]

My guess? They are about to announce the Boren investigation findings and Gallogly wanted to be far away from it.

But he and the regents have said over and over again he had nothing to do with this.

So why run away?

[Rover]

you thinking Renzi is not qualified shows all of your bias

At least Dan explains why he believes his assertion, and it seems based on significant directly applicable experience and direct observation. So, what is your basis for defending the status quo?

Renzi may indeed have some qualifications, but it doesn’t mean he was the MOST qualified. Just the most relatable to those doing the choosing. “Most like ME” doesn’t = best.

[jonny d]

At least Dan explains why he believes his assertion, and it seems based on significant directly applicable experience and direct observation. So, what is your basis for defending the status quo?

Renzi may indeed have some qualifications, but it doesn’t mean he was the MOST qualified. Just the most relatable to those doing the choosing. “Most like ME” doesn’t = best.

I actually agree with you. He should have defended why he is qualified, rather than just bashing. But Stone is the CEO of Saxum, and has served on numerous Boards (PR Council, among others).

[dankrutka]

At least Dan explains why he believes his assertion, and it seems based on significant directly applicable experience and direct observation. So, what is your basis for defending the status quo?

Renzi may indeed have some qualifications, but it doesn’t mean he was the MOST qualified. Just the most relatable to those doing the choosing. “Most like ME” doesn’t = best.

Yes, my point wasn't that Renzi Stone hasn't done anything, it's that he's less qualified than other candidates. You also can't just consider him individually, but with any organization, you have to consider what each person brings to the team. The OU Board of Regents is homogenous in so many ways that adding Renzi added little new. There are so many qualified candidates in other areas that could have contributed more. But, again, opportunities open up if you live in that same bubble as the rest of the Regents.

And, look what we get, the Regents oversee a public institution with absolutely no transparency, university, or public input? After the chaos at the university, you'd think someone might reach include faculty and students in some way? Nope. The our-homogeneous-privileged-group-knows-best-for-everyone mentality is not appropriate for public servants.

[Rover]

I actually agree with you. He should have defended why he is qualified, rather than just bashing. But Stone is the CEO of Saxum, and has served on numerous Boards (PR Council, among others).

So, what is the make-up of his client base, boards he sits on, etc.? Renzi is a smart guy and knows how to get where he wants to go.

[jonny d]

So, what is the make-up of his client base, boards he sits on, etc.? Renzi is a smart guy and knows how to get where he wants to go.

I have no idea. But im sensing a bias against Stone here.

Here is his bio on Saxum's website: https://saxum.com/who-we-are/about/

[David]

Harroz will fill the position vacated by James L. Gallogly, who announced his retirement on Sunday evening after just 10 months as university president.

Harroz's appointment is effective immediately and will serve as interim president for at least 15 months.

Pretty damn wild that Gallogly quit and was interim replaced within a week. What the heck happened?

[Pete]

Not even a week.

Abrupt announcement on Sunday night, replacement named to start 'immediately' on Thursday night.


I wonder if Gallogly is still in Oklahoma.

[FighttheGoodFight]

Not even a week.

Abrupt announcement on Sunday night, replacement named to start 'immediately' on Thursday night.


I wonder if Gallogly is still in Oklahoma.

It was always a rumor he flew home every weekend. Not sure he even took up much residence in the Boyd house.

[Pete]

It was always a rumor he flew home every weekend. Not sure he even took up much residence in the Boyd house.

I wonder who paid for those flights?