While the public and the activist class has weighed in on the appointment of former Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano to become the next president of the University of California, the major newspapers in California are split, sometimes within themselves, on whether it was a good move, a desperate move, or a disaster.
One area of concern was the process, with the LA Times asking how we can tell if this is a good choice or not, based on the limited search process that went on.
“The outgoing secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, may be a brilliant choice to serve as the new president of the University of California,” they write in an editorial last week. “But how can we tell? And how, for that matter, can the Board of Regents tell?”
“Half of the regents haven’t even had a chance to talk to her about how she would approach the job – a job that involves 10 campuses, 170,000 faculty and staff members and more than 220,000 students,” they noted, calling for a delay in the vote that ultimately went through with only the student regent dissenting.
The Bee went further, arguing that UC insulted the public with its process of picking its leader, noting that they “did not have a good week demonstrating it is attuned to concerns over transparency and taxpayer accountability.”
They added, “Just six days after announcing her nomination, the regents hired Janet Napolitano, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, to be the next UC president. Just minutes before approving her and with no opportunity for the public and university community to weigh in, the regents announced her base annual salary – $570,000 – a vast sum more than the $199,700 she earned yearly protecting the United States from terrorist attacks and natural disasters.”
While slightly less than what current President Mark Yudof earns, they argue “it perpetuates the administrative salary bloat that UC faculty, taxpayer groups and this editorial page have criticized for years. UC was once an institution of relatively even salaries between faculty and administrators, partly because the latter were nearly always drawn from the faculty, with plans to return to teaching after finishing their administrative terms.”
This has all changed, as they argue that now UC administrators have been treated more like corporate CEOs, “CEOs and receiving salaries and benefits out of sync with every other form of public service.”
They argue, “That bloat undermines their ability to work with faculty and lower-paid staff, and it undermines their credibility when they go to the Legislature to seek increased financial support for UC and its mission.”
The Bee adds, “Undoubtedly, the regents designed a compressed schedule around Napolitano’s selection to avoid scrutiny over her qualifications and salary. Yet that expeditious route was an insult to both the public and Napolitano.”
“Had they set aside more time for her to meet with the university community, Napolitano could have addressed criticisms about her lack of an academic background, and laid out her priorities for the job. She also could have answered questions about the deportations of a record number of undocumented immigrants during her tenure as homeland security secretary. That might have headed off the protests that disrupted the regents’ meeting Thursday,” they write.
But protests are not something that the regents seem concerned about, and they were determined to press through despite them.
The Bay Area publications were more positive on Ms. Napolitano. The Chronicle called her a “surprising super-pick” for UC, writing, “The choice of Janet Napolitano as the next president of the University of California is both a bold idea and a cry for help. The venerated higher ed system needs strong leadership that can repair its frayed finances and shore up a precarious future.”
The San Jose Mercury News argued, “Napolitano wasn’t an obvious pick for the Board of Regents as the 20th president of the University of California, but the choice is inspired. She brings skills that are precisely what the 10-campus system needs now.”
They add, “Some object that she isn’t an academic, but that says more about the insularity of her critics than about her qualifications. Of course she’s qualified to run UC. It’s precisely her experience outside the university and her high national profile that make her so promising.”
The LA Times notes, “It has become more common in recent years for colleges to pick leaders with nonacademic backgrounds. About one-fifth of the nation’s current college presidents were not selected from the ranks of academic administrators or professors.”
“Such leaders sometimes bring fresh perspectives to outmoded ways of thinking. But even among unconventional candidates, Napolitano is especially unconventional,” the Times notes. “Usually, when outsiders are hired, they come from the business world as colleges seek to shore up their finances.”
Ms. Napolitano is a long-time public servant who, the Times argues, “is politically adept.”
They write, “She managed to lead the largely Republican state of Arizona as its Democratic governor – which can only help UC fight for its share of state funding and fend off attempts in Sacramento to micromanage its academic affairs.”
That said, they called most of this “speculation.” They write, “It’s still unknown how Napolitano’s impressive skills fit with the UC job. The Times reported that some UC officials thought Napolitano’s Cabinet experience would help her run UC’s energy and nuclear laboratories, but those are a small and ancillary part of the university’s mission. Also mentioned was that she might be able to aid in the university’s federally funded research, though there’s no obvious connection between running the Department of Homeland Security and being an expert on research grants.”
Our view is that Janet Napolitano is a risky choice, even within a multitude of risky choices available. Her ties to the Obama administration set the right off, and her ties to Homeland Security and its immigration and surveillance policies unsettle the left.
It is obvious that the Board of Regents was looking for a political operative that could guide the organization through legislative challenges and provide a counterweight to the strong presence of Governor Jerry Brown in California.
But there is a huge risk. As the Times notes, she is an unknown commodity in this setting. She comes in with enemies already in place and she is being asked to save a huge organization that right now teeters on the brink… of what, we do not know and that is where the next chapter will begin.
However, two things concern us most here – the indifference to the dissent of critics accompanied by the rapid process for pushing this through, and the continuation of the huge Yudof salary for a public official that would seem to have been able to settle at $400,000 – twice what she makes now.
That is not the change many were hoping for, and now we have to hope that Ms. Napolitano can do what Mark Yudof never did – prove us wrong.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
” continuation of the huge Yudof salary for a public official that would seem to have been able to settle at $400,000 – twice what she makes now”
It’s probably more fair to base her salary on what her predecessor made, then what she makes at her current job.
I agree with B. Nice on comparison with her predecessor.
Seems to me she was underpaid as head of Homeland Security. I support high pay for senior government officials, so they are less tempted to compromise their actions/policies depending on potential future effects by influential players on their personal finances; e.g. lucrative subtle dangling of post-term high-pay jobs by private sector if they play ball right while in office.
That said, I’m sorry to see a politico heading the UC. I would much rather see a person of high achievements and record of integrity within the UC system; he/she could hire politically savvy assistants/advisors to help steer them thru the political landscape. I fear the continuing corporatization of the UC system as just another business deal.