Opinion: Board of Governors must engage the public

CORRECTION: Due to an editing error, a previous version of this editorial incorrectly made a demand of the Board of Governors. The Board of Governors has already released a specific set of criteria for the next UNC-system president. The editorial has been updated to reflect this change. 

With the UNC Board of Governors’ interview process for the next UNC-system president slated to begin in September, the board’s unwillingness to make more than token efforts at democratization is disheartening.

In January, board chairman John Fennebresque announced Tom Ross, the president of the UNC system, was leaving his position, and Ross said the decision was made against his will.

With that action, it became clear the board was making yet another important decision without consulting a wide range of voices from the constituency it is tasked with serving.

The decision was made behind closed doors, but the board tried to justify it by following it up with limited openness.

In a letter on the board’s website, Fennebresque, said the board is committed to soliciting public input in the hiring process.

The board also placed a public forum for presidential recommendations on the site.

But the board has made insubstantial statements defining what they are looking for in the next system president. This tendency is disturbingly similar to how there has been no adequate explanation for why Ross was forced out.

In a profile in The Charlotte Observer, Fennebresque would only say that a newer set of board members wanted to choose their own leader. This explanation is woefully inadequate given Ross’ solid track record during a difficult period for the University system.

The aftermath of this decision is still being felt, and in this new school year it is imperative to continue the fight for more openness from the board.

As these issues continue to develop, it is imperative to be vigilant monitoring the activities of the board.

The UNC BOG Democracy Coalition currently is pushing to make the board more responsive.

If the board wishes to do so, they need to be more transparent and accessible by starting a conversation that is specific enough to be substantial. Taking this step could also assuage concerns about the board’s lack of diversity by involving more diverse populations than the board itself.

Eighty-seven percent of board members are registered Republicans, more 93 percent are white and 81 percent are men.

They are charged by their mission statement to serve the entire state, but with growing dissatisfaction among their constituents they have not lived up to this task so far.