Battling To Keep The Florida Law School Dean Search Open

I'm struck by the paucity of female applicants, and disappointed that decades after we achieved gender equality in the classroom, we still have a long way to go in the boardroom, the partner's club, and the dean's office.

It's hard for me to understand who is benefited by disclosure of this list of names at this stage of the process.

There certainly a cost to disclosing the names at this stage, but I have to think that the larger benefit is simply compliance with the open records law. I worked in state government for years (in a state with a robust open-records law), and I think the value in openness is considerable. Some states do make exceptions for personnel decisions (e.g., delaying disclosure of candidates until after the hire has been made), and I'm not against that–but I also think there is value in seeing the slate of candidates early, especially if there is interest in ensuring that a diverse pool of candidates is considered. UF alumni and Florida taxpayers also have an interest in the school's leadership, and early disclosure of the candidates lets them have a chance to weigh in too.

Do other states have laws that require disclosure at this stage of the process or is Florida unique in this respect?

It's actually hard for me to understand who would be materially harmed by being disclosed as on this list. All of these candidates surely are tenured, if not extremely well-regarded, at their home institutions, and even if it might not be difficult to conceive that one of their colleagues might take their candidacy or expression of interest in another school's deanship as an affront, it's surely difficult to concieve of what such a colleague would or could do about it.

On the other side of the balance, as they say, I have no problem understanding why an alumn of UF Law would benefit from seeing the pool of applicants and nominees when it's at this point. To claim that there's no benefit to such a person, let alone that it's difficult to imagine, is a bit churlish.

Any sitting Dean would be reluctant to have his or her name surface in an early Search as one example, plus those who do not make it to the final round of interviews have been publicly, and unnecessarily, slighted. And it is hard to see how the faculty member — who kind of seems like the Campos of the East — was acting in the best interests of the law school, where he works and where the students he is paid to teach attend. Just for show.

The folks on this thread who can't imagine the harm in the disclosure of not just the names but also the application letters of 24 applicants for the deanship either don't have very good imaginations or don't understand how human beings actually feel and behave.

"It's actually hard for me to understand who would be materially harmed by being disclosed as on this list. . . it's surely difficult to concieve of what such a colleague would or could do about it." Those who control their salary or assignments might assume that there's little return in favoring them. Those considering them for another position (e.g., another deanship) might regard this as showing a roving eye. Anyway, the point isn't strictly harm to the candidates; Florida might be harmed if they regard this as betraying some understanding, or as a sign of further releases, and the candidates bail. I guess we would have to know more about what the school or the recruiting firm (which appears surprised by this development) told the candidates before. Particularly about disclosing their application letters, not just their names. If everyone knew, much less of a problem.

"On the other side of the balance . . . I have no problem understanding why an alumn of UF Law would benefit from seeing the pool of applicants and nominees when it's at this point. To claim that there's no benefit to such a person, let alone that it's difficult to imagine, is a bit churlish." Sure, seeing candidates is interesting. Given that some will not make the cut, and others with withdraw, and others will fall into the middle, it is not that actionable a list.

I can't fault what happened in Florida, given the law, which seems to require this. I assume it also requires such disclosure regardless of whether anyone asks for it — that is, it functions more as a affirmative obligation than a reactive one (like, say, FOIA), such that the faculty's judgment in pressing for the information and disclosure can't fairly be faulted. I'd still lack confidence that sharing all this here was a kindness to anyone, other than future applicants for positions in the state. Especially can't see how anything warranted linking to the actual candidate information, unless all were informed that this would happen and given options.

"Campos of the East" was a nice touch.

And does the law require this level of disclosure i.e. application letters, lists of referees, etc? Or does it just require the list of names to be disclosed? As per Eric's comment, there is arguably a significant difference between the two levels of disclosure.

I can hardly blame Jeff Harrison for asking if he's interested and the law requires it, although I'm not sure what serious information he gained. I gather that searches through search firms can be structured to avoid such early disclosures in similar cases elsewhere, and I can hardly blame that for happening either, somewhat empty talk about the spirit vs. the letter of the law aside. But of course mandatory early-stage disclosures of this sort are much more likely to be destructive for such searches.

The letters are actually pretty fascinating, given how different candidates pitch their strengths.

"I can hardly blame Jeff Harrison for asking if he's interested and the law requires it." I don't understand this position, if it means that the fact that there's a legal entitlement to demand disclosure of a piece of information entails insulation from questioning the reasons for demanding it and the costs and benefits of demanding it. There are lots of things that the law probably entitles me to know — if I'm not mistaken, North Carolina law would allow me to demand to see my faculty colleagues' emails — but I don't pretend for a moment that if I actually made that demand because "I'm interested," my faculty colleagues wouldn't have reason not to like me.

As to blame, it may be that the law affirmatively required posting — then, the agency of the faculty member may be somewhat less, as opposed to a circumstance in which disclosure turns completely on whether someone elects to seek the information. I don't know. So far one can discern, the reason for asking was both "I'm interested" and something a bit more complicated:http://classbias.blogspot.com/2014/01/petty-status-power-and-law-profs.html

I appreciate your point, and I'm happy to accept the criticism. I think I made clear that I doubt Prof. Harrison received any terribly useful information as a result, and that I think requiring disclosure is a mistake. Beyond that, I guess I just think the Internet is a much nicer place if we are cautious, circumspect, and charitable in our criticisms. (Up to a point, and I would understand if you think I took that too far.) To the extent that there is an open meetings law that actually covers this information, however unwisely, I'm not sure I would want to rush into outrage even if the reason that the person sought the information was nothing more than a view that such laws ought to be obeyed, and that the institution in this case or habitually evades them. I made clear that the effect of this law/request is in my view bad for the search and the institution, and more generally I would add that I have concerns about broad open meeting laws. But I'm perfectly happy to be very Canadian about expressing my sentiments, and happy to be criticized for it too.

It's interesting to me that Alex Acosta says that under his Deanship at FIU, the school promoted diversity by raising female JD enrollment from 46% to 52%. There's an interesting question in that claim; is diversity measured based on the proximity to 50/50, in which case the change slightly improved diversity but somewhat overshot the mark, or is diversity measured based on the percentage absolutely, with the thinking that any added female lawyers adds diversity to the still-largely-male profession as a whole?

If it's a public institution, why shouldn't we see the letters? All the stakeholders could then comments on the candidates' priorities and strengths.

Could Professor Muller please be specific about his cautionary language? What is the danger? The 3 comments he posts here are so vague and innuendo-ish. (I am not disagreeing with him. I just don't know what his objection is.)

First I'd like to say my effort has been exaggerated. I asked to see the list and a colleague gave to me. The only brouhaha is that I asked the Chair of the committee first and he referred it to a University official who claimed there was no list. My modest efforts were driven by the simply notion that people should tell the truth (radical I know) not any grand principle about dean searches. If I had not asked, the list would have become public in a few more days so my demand was irrelevant with respect to the embarrassment the applicant might experience. My personal view is that I do not want a dean who will only be considered if his or her identity is kept secret. Two of our three past deans have been marvelous and they were all produced by an open search. I do not mean to slight the other one but there was no search.

For the doubters, particular Muller, it might be useful to know that the law faculty has had virtually no input to this point. The search was conducted by a private firm which I assume largely recycled the same list created for other schools. The search committee is composed largely of non law school people and, I think, are a minority on the committee but I do no recall off hand. We are still weeks away from the law faculty having any significant input.

The process was largely taken over by the central administration and law professor make up a minority of the membership. In this instance openness as soon as possible was important so the law school could begin to have meaningful

Sorry for not editing better. The incomplete paragraph at the end was supposed to be deleted but I was in a rush because my dinner was getting cold and I needed a reboost of my notorious crankiness.

The interesting thing is that there had been 24 candidates on the list when they first posted it, there were 23 this morning, now there are 22. I did not notice who dropped.

Probably less interesting than you think. One candidate dropped before the list was public and all candidates were informed it would be public. There are no surprises. The impact, if any, would be whether to include your name in the first place.

Sunshine, Disinfectant: I have adopted a personal policy of not conversing with anonymous commenters on blogs. My life is much happier that way.

Professor Harrison, may I ask you a question? I mean it purely informationally, not argumentatively. Am I understanding correctly that the dean candidates all knew that their application materials would be posted on the internet at a stage of the process when 24 candidates remained in contention?

Eric: I cannot be sure because you ask if they knew. I cannot poll them to determine that. All I can say is the policy is well know and, if any of them did not know, it was due to a lack of diligence. Another possibility is that the search firm dropped the ball but I do not know that either. I note that some included more material than others and that may reflect some squemishness about the process. I think it is more likely they all put on their "big boy" pants and went for it.

I know one candidate, and am posting anonymously to protect their identity, not mine. This candidate understood that the process would be confidential at this initial stage. The person was shocked to see the public posting of both identity and application letters.

Larry Ponoroff (Arizona) was originally on the list but his name has since disappeared.

"Sunshine, Disinfectant: I have adopted a personal policy of not conversing with anonymous commenters on blogs. My life is much happier that way."
Eric Muller: you are conversing with an anon! (in your usual manner, of course).
Happy, happy, happy. Life is but a dream!
Moreover, on the one hand, you are arguing for anonymity in a process, but then decrying it another.
Yes, the circumstances are a bit different, but, not much, really. Anonymity is sometimes necessary, isn't it, Eric?
Oh wait. Don't answer.
Happy happy happy. Life is but a dream.

I'm very confident that Florida's dean search has fewer candidates than it would otherwise have enjoyed because of the ludicrous transparency of the search. I also wonder if Florida recruits football and basketball coaches in the same way; if it does, I'm shocked that they are ever able to make successful hires. Ditto presidents and provosts. A sitting dean, in many ways the strongest possible prospect, at least in terms of available information and risk assessment, will be quite wary of being "outed" as a candidate at another law school (even if it's significantly upmarket). Such knowledge could badly complicate development efforts — would you right a big check to a dean on her way out the door? As well as faculty governance dynamics — "perhaps if I push just a little bit more, the dean will quit/leave!"

I agree 100% that faculty involvement in hiring a dean is an essential element for a successful deanship. However, unless Florida's procedures and policies are even more bizarre (idiotic?) than I suppose them to be, no one can be appointed as a professor of law, with tenure, absent some sort of majority or super majority vote of the whole faculty. It's technically possible to have a dean who holds only an administrative appointment, and this has happened at a handful of law schools over the last 20 years, but it's a freakish exception and most persons holding tenure will not give it up to serve as dean (and dean only).

If I have this right, Professor Harrison's concerns about faculty involvement ring totally false. If the pool sucks, and the faculty feels degraded and marginalized, then you have a very simply solution: deny all the dean candidates the votes necessary to be appointed professor of law with tenure. Simply put, the faculty holds an effective veto. If you think the process sucks, then crash it. The president and provost can, of course, appoint an acting or interim dean, but unless your university has crazy rules (that I suspect violate the governing AALS/ABA rules and principles on law faculty appointments), you cannot have a dean who also holds tenure and professor of law status imposed on the faculty from above.

Frankly, if the process is objectionable (for example based on the composition of the committee), the faculty could easily communicate this fact to the president and provost by enacting a resolution that the requisite number of faculty members will not vote to grant tenure or professor of law rank to any of the candidates brought forward by the search committee. The president and provost could respond as they think best. At the end of the day, however, disclosure of the names and candidate data were not necessary to protect the important principle of faculty governance with respect to faculty hires.

An addendum: just how far does the disclosure rule go? If the search committee or consultant does basic personal background investigation work, such as pulling a credit report or a criminal background check, will these documents also appear on the provost's website for God and country to see? Will all references go up as well — including off-list references from people with axes to grind?

If, in fact, all of this information goes up on the provost's website, the law creates a rather perverse incentive for the committee not to do adequate due diligence work. In point of fact, you should know if someone is financially irresponsible or has been arrested for public exposure; at the same time, most people would take a pass on a candidacy for a position at Florida before agreeing to have their credit history posted on the web. Would the University of Florida even redact sensitive information, like a person's Social Security number? Or would that go up too because "the public must know!"? I'm just wondering how far the sun shines in Florida. . .

Any sane person would refuse to participate in such a process (regardless of whether their credit score is 440 or 810). And to the extent that transparency has the effect of discouraging due diligence by search committees, it will lead to bad decisions — decisions made in ignorance because the duty to disclose the information will strongly incent the search committee not to seek the information in the first place.

Anyone can look at the pool an decide if the open search resulted in a weak pool. If fact, although this post has become dated it would be interesting to know what people think. It has now been pared to ten and within that ten there are, at least to me, some good prospects although there may be competition to get them. Whether better prospects would have applied but for the openness, I cannot say. I kind of doubt it in part because I am not sure what better means in the context of a mid level law school looking for a dean. I do think any candidate who is offered the job would do well to require that there be strong faculty support so rather than a faculty revolt(the UF faculty does not revolt, it always asks permission)the initiative should come from any sensible candidate.

For whatever it has meant for this search, I think going forward this episode is likely to give outsiders pause about applying to public institutions in Florida. As mentioned above, the broad interpretation of "open" to mean total access to everything–even at the earliest stage– will likely affect the way future searches are conducted.

I do not want to come off a seeming to support the law but the truth is that there is no "going forward." The law has been the same for decades, so whatever "when forward" already happened. In the meantime, in that period we have had a number of very effective deans. The process seems extreme to me too (though not as extreme as the slippery slope some have described) but I'd be hard pressed to say it has made a difference.

Yes, I know the law has existed. "Going forward" means going forward from the publication on this and other sites of the names and letters of application of candidates for the job of dean. People may have known of the law's existence. They probably did not think it meant that their material would be published at such an early stage of the process. A poster above suggests that this was the case with one person on the list. As for due diligence, has this happened before– that names and applications were released to the public at the beginning of the process? I do not follow Florida, maybe this happens all the time.

CHS: I am not sure but I think it was more of a splash this time because the search firm turned over all of the applicants at once. In the past the process was more gradual.– a name here and there and people dropping out here and there. And, if the list had been circulated when it should have been no one would have cared but the faculty. This got blown up because the administration claimed there was no list when there was. The extensive publicity about the contents of the list was a side effect of the administration denying the existence of the list when some people had it. Fortunately there are some good ones still interested.

1. One can't just look at the pool and determine whether this release has resulted in a weakened pool. No one knows from any extant papers how the field of potential candidates would serve UF's needs. As to this search, some may be sticking it out because the cat is out of the bag, but may feel less warm toward the school because of how this developed and less likely to accept. Others may have withdrawn because of the disclosure — reasoning that they were briefly identified, but perhaps not for everyone to see, or worrying about other disclosures to come. That is putting aside future searches.

2. One can't just say the candidates knew or should have known what they were getting into. The linked article says that the search firm was surprised, so presumably it didn't advise the candidates of this possibility, at least not as to the release of materials in addition to their identities this early in the going. Nor does the fact that some stuck around mean that they weren't surprised. Maybe there is a prior notorious episode in which identities and letters of application and reference were all disclosed at this stage of the proceedings, but no one has mentioned it.

3. One can't just blame the law. From all appearances, the law would have been underenforced at this point but for curiosity and, perhaps, outrage at the airs and secretiveness of committee members; how this has enabled constructive scrutiny hasn't been explained. The law didn't require that the names be linked at this blog; I don't see why that was necessary. The law didn't require that some anonymous commentator upthread name a person who has withdrawn, perhaps because the candidate felt disclosure was inappropriate (perhaps for other reasons); I can't see why that wasn't left to him to volunteer. The law didn't require that we now be informed of how many are now in the pool — whether "pared" by choice or by committee — which might have been left to the committee to disclose.

I remain puzzled as to why this "extreme" law is being served in this manner, unless out of an ethic that requires ferreting out violations of the law wherever they occur, which I suppose I could respect. Or in order to secure a backlash against the law, but that seems to be understood as a remote prospect.

Being involved in this discussion has been interesting in part because of the degree of outrage that some commentators have expressed that a small group of privileged people, who may or may not care, had it revealed that they were sufficiently interested in the dean ship (none are begging, the all have good jobs) to discuss it further,. In conjunction with that their CVs (already on the internet) and their statements about what they have done and would do as dean (perhaps a little puffing but standard in today's law teaching world) were made available to people. My goodness!

The relative privilege of these people has nothing to do with an assessment of the interpretation of the law. It's more a matter of the implications of seeing the law as requiring such an extreme measure. Does "open" really mean putting every single thing out there immediately? The law does not just apply to searches for law school deans. So, as someone mentioned earlier, this might cover lots of terrain that is not far down a slippery slope. It's not on a slope at all, if "everything out there now" is actually the rule.

I think people are interested in how far this goes.

CHS: I am not an expert on the law but I think it means making public the printed things that the decision makers base their decisions on. Is that the same as "putting every single thing out there immediately?" I do not know. But so far things like penis or bra size, bowel movements, credit ratings, frequency of sexual activity, size of bank account, if you really are an American, how many pets you have, did you ever tell a lie, what kind of car you have, your favorite movie or book, the names and ages of your children have not been asked. But, if they were and a candidate does not want that to be public it need not be submitted. However slippery the slope may be, no one has to go down it.

As for the craziness of the law, remember people down here elected Rick Scott as governor. He are luck not to have reeducation camps. In fact, although Arizona and North Carolina are giving us a run for our money, Florida has got to be the most wacked out state in Union.

The only thing I have seen that may be embarrassing for any candidate is the statement that they may be interested in the job because it cuts against the close to the vest style of law professors of never ever admitting openly that you want something.

With this I am signing off faculty lounge. I only came over for a few days because someone told me I was mentioned. I love Al Brophy's posts and many of the others but about half of the comments read like really really bad exam answers. If they want to keep the level of discourse high they really need to eliminate the anonymous posts.

Who are the ten semifinalists?

I would venture that most people who are thinking of changing jobs play things "close to the vest" until they get far enough into the process to see whether they may have a chance. This is neither a failing nor a law professor thing. In any event, I agree with you about Brophy.