Selecting a sole finalist for CU chancellor fails transparency test

In 2021 when lawmakers passed a bill allowing Colorado’s public entities to skirt transparency in hiring by selecting a “sole finalist” for critical positions, Gov. Jared Polis refused to sign it.

The governor also failed to veto the bad legislation, instead allowing House Bill 1051 to become law without his signature and with a terse statement that said: “while the bill creates flexibility for organizations by leaving to their discretion the number of finalists who are publicly named, it should remain a best practice to release the names of several finalists.”

Today, the standard practice is for universities and colleges to name a single finalist which results in a sham public vetting before the final offer of employment is made.

On Tuesday, CU President Todd Saliman announced that there was a sole finalist for chancellor at the University of Colorado Boulder.

“I had hoped to forward more than one finalist, depending on the willingness of candidates to be part of a multi-candidate finalist pool,” Saliman said. “After discussions with candidates, it became clear a multi-candidate pool was not an option. Therefore, I am advancing Dr. (Justin) Schwartz, an outstanding finalist who can effectively and enthusiastically lead CU Boulder into the future.”

This raises many questions and underscores the lack of transparency in the CU search process for chancellor.

Is Saliman saying he contacted multiple finalists to inform them that they were selected and they all refused the offer? If so, that is astounding. Did these individuals want to be chancellor of CU, but not so badly that they would be willing to undergo a public vetting process? Perhaps most importantly, was Schwartz also unwilling to stand up to scrutiny in a multifinalist process or did he receive the employment offer by default of being the only candidate willing to participate in CU’S employment process?

We’re flummoxed and also peeved.

In 2021 we urged Gov. Jared Polis to veto House Bill 1051 as the University of Colorado Regents engaged in another search for a president of the University of Colorado system when Mark Kennedy stepped down after a disastrously short term.

We wrote: “History will only repeat itself if this state’s elected regents don’t take stock of what went wrong last time and commit to a more open and transparent hiring process … ”

This time around, the regents should openly disclose finalists. Students and faculty will trust the process more if it is more transparent.”

The regents did not heed our words and Saliman, who was serving as interim president, was selected as the sole finalist for president, and now he’s returning the favor by offering candidates for chancellor of CU Boulder a choice about whether to participate in a transparent process.

We do understand that a public hiring process can be complicated and messy. Part of the problem is the behavior of some faculty and some student groups that present a hostile environment for these candidates.

But being able to withstand that fire is part of the job. The environment at CU Boulder is complex and complicated and the chancellor will be required to navigate it every single day. Seeing which candidate best thrives in that environment and can unify the campus would tell us far more than any resume or interview ever could.

Public vettings of more than one finalist aren’t likely to resume unless the law is changed to require public bodies to make their finalists public.