Trustees showed disdain for public in secret process

THERE’S MUCH TO like about the selection of Harris Pastides as the next president of the University of South Carolina. There’s one thing to dislike, and it has nothing to do with Dr. Pastides himself, but rather with the Board of Trustees, and the way it made its choice.

Once again, the board showed its utter contempt for the people of South Carolina, rejecting the spirit of our open government law. The board obeyed the letter of the law, which requires all public bodies to release the names of at least three finalists before making a hire; but it voted to offer the job to Dr. Pastides a mere two days later, at a meeting that had been scheduled before the list was made public. Not only did this leave the public with insufficient time to mull the choices and weigh in, but there is every indication that it wouldn’t have mattered anyway, as trustees’ comments made it apparent that the decision had been made before the public was allowed a peek at the process.

We wish we could dismiss this as an innocent mistake. We cannot. The board did much the same thing when it hired Andrew Sorensen six years ago, releasing the list of finalists just two business days before the selection; in that case, one of the “finalists” had already withdrawn his name for consideration. In fact, USC trustees have had a problem with the idea that what public universities do is the public’s business going at least back to the clandestine Holderman era.

The finalist law is an accountability measure, designed to let the public review a board’s actions after the fact. But it serves an even more important function — when it is taken seriously: It can prevent public bodies from making a dreadful mistake, hiring someone only to find out too late about serious problems with the candidate. Even if there are no skeletons lurking in a candidate’s closet, people in the community need the opportunity to weigh in on the candidates’ philosophy, experience, approach, what have you; ideally, they should have a chance to meet the candidates.

The community already knew Dr. Pastides and his interest in the job, so more time probably wouldn’t have produced any more useful information about him. But while we doubt this would have happened, we can’t discount the possibility that, with more time, it would have become clear that one of the other candidates was a better choice.

Officials argue that attractive candidates won’t allow their names to be made public unless they are guaranteed the job. But we have serious questions about whether a candidate who would demand secrecy has enough of an appreciation for transparency to be an appropriate fit at a public university. If anything, Dr. Pastides’ selection demonstrates that secrecy is not necessary to attracting a top-flight president. There must have been some point in the search process when he was not a shoe-in, yet he never hid his interest in this job — or in top jobs at other universities.

The inappropriate actions of the Board of Trustees should in no way be seen as a mark against Dr. Pastides. But neither should it be ignored. The Legislature should consider establishing a waiting period between the time boards name finalists and make a hire — perhaps even mandating public meetings with the candidates. Or perhaps legislators could simply make it clear that they expect trustees to operate our public university in the sunshine — and that there will be consequences if that concept is too difficult for them to grasp.