The recent action taken by the board of trustees of the State University of New York in its hasty, if not precipitous, decision to appoint the then acting chancellor, John Ryan, as chancellor of the SUNY system serves as a prime example of the complete disdain in which that board is held by the leadership of SUNY and the political leaders to whom it is beholden.

With unmitigated arrogance and complete disregard for the trustees’ sworn, constitutional obligations, Mr. Ryan’s nomination was carefully tended through the process in such a manner as to avoid any substantive discussion of his (or any other candidate’s) qualifications and to preclude any serious and normal deliberations on this most important matter.

Lest this assessment seem too harsh, consider the following series of events:

* In December of last year, Chairman Thomas Egan informed the trustees of Chancellor Robert King’s intention to resign the position;

* No action regarding a formal search was taken until July, when a search committee was fully constituted, and a search consultant was not retained until late August;

* The search committee dictated that the identity of applicants would not be divulged to the full board in the course of the process. Upon repeatedly expressing my desire to review the applications – of course in confidence so as to safeguard the applicants’ current positions – the trustees were falsely assured that they would be given full opportunity to review the names and resumes of all applicants prior to a board decision;

* On the evening of Thursday, December 15, notice was given to the board of a meeting to be held the following Monday for the express purpose of interviewing the three finalists who had been selected by the search committee. However, even then, their names were not disclosed as the process continued to be shrouded in secrecy. Moreover, I was later informed by certain members of the search committee – in confidence, for fear of retaliation by the SUNY leadership – that they had not received notice of the meeting at all, or until it was too late to make attendance possible; and

* At the meeting on Monday, following a full day of presentations by the three finalists, Vice Chairman Randy Daniels and other trustees announced their support for Mr. Ryan, and Mr. Egan quickly called the matter to a vote, in spite of my and other members’ objections that we had not had sufficient time to consider the decision and that there was no urgency for an immediate decision.

Among the obvious deficiencies of this procedure are:

* The trustees were in effect barred from reviewing the full pool of applicants for the chancellorship, making it impossible for them to judge the relative quality of candidates and to offer any opinions or knowledge about them. Cynically, Mr. Egan expressed “hope” minutes before the vote that the trustees had had an opportunity to “look at the Big Black Book [containing all applicants’ names]” in a nearby location, knowing full well that the board could not physically have conducted such a review while they were meeting to interview finalists and, in any event, that there would have been insufficient time provided for any meaningful review or comment.

In transgression of the trustees’ by-laws, which specify that the agenda be made clear to the trustees and the public before board meetings, the secretary of the university, John O’Connor, did not announce before this meeting that a vote would take place.

* As required also by the by-laws, Mr. Egan did not provide to the board in writing on the day of the meeting the presumably urgent reasons which necessitated an immediate vote, or “walk-on” resolution.

* Finally, immediately prior to the vote, the board was informed only that Mr. Ryan would receive his current salary of $340,000, but not the full terms of his compensation. What benefits does he receive? Is he entitled upon leaving the position to a tenured professorship? Has he been provided with a severance package? My inquiries on this matter since December 19 have not as yet been fully answered.

When it comes to the selection of the top leadership of the largest public university system in the world, it appears that open discussions among its governing boards as well as an opportunity for the public to express its opinions are to be avoided at all costs. Why the need for such secrecy and obfuscation? Why this abuse of process, which was designed to provide transparency and accountability and to inhibit manipulation by small, powerful groups?

Perhaps the true motivation for keeping this information from the full board and the public will be revealed in the future. Mr. Egan owes the public a full explanation of why this appointment was conducted in so heavy-handed a manner and indeed it should be asked whether the vote taken was in fact legal.

Ms. de Russy is a SUNY trustee.