In your editorial, "Californian Named 14th President" from the Oct. 20 issue, you claimed the Presidential Search committee was reclusive and closed to the public by stating that "it has been unfair to the community to bring in someone new without allowing any outside input."
This, as you should be well aware of, is a false assertion as there were representatives of all relevant publics on the Presidential Search committee (see http://www.buffalo.edu/presidentialsearch/committee.shtml for a full list). The assertion is also somewhat contradictory as one of your editors did attend the undergraduate Student Association Assembly's first meeting, where Jennifer Tuttle, the undergraduate representative, was available for a question and answer session.
I believe it is also worth noting that in regards to matters like this where the university administration is in charge, there is never the same kind of outreach effort that you will see preceding Student Association elections, for example. It is all based on the requirements for a more mature and educated position on behalf of the constituents in that they are expected to request and find information and make comments based on that as opposed to being fed by the other party and then reacting to that.
Another factor is also that using a method resembling the one chosen in the search for a new president for UB will generally result in a better successor to the current president - he or she will have been chosen by the best and brightest representatives. It is for the same reason that we have the Electoral College on the federal level. If you left the choice of a new president completely up to the constituents, chaos would ensue as many uneducated and extremist voices would have just as much weight as the established voices and those worthy of becoming established.
So in brief, the opportunity for input was there, even though it may have required a few more steps, something some students may not be used to.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
