A new bill would hide the names of finalists who apply to be a university president in the state. And now lawmakers are wondering if they can make that more restrictive.
On Thursday, during the first hearing for SB282, legislators asked how they might also modify the draft in order to force confidentiality from search committee members tasked with reviewing presidential applicants.
“So how do we have them keep their mouths shut?” asked Sen. David Hinkins, R-Orangeville.
Sen. Chris Wilson, R-Logan, the bill’s sponsor, said he’d consider possibly adding a provision to the bill to have search committee members sign non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs — which would spell out repercussions if they leaked any information about the nominees.
The Senate Education Committee passed SB282 unanimously Thursday without modification, which could still happen. The measure goes next to the full Senate for a vote.
Lawmakers said they’d like for the bill, overall, to take effect quickly and apply to the current search process underway for a new Utah State University president, after Elizabeth “Betsy” Cantwell recently announced she would be stepping down.
Cantwell is taking a job leading Washington State University; the state has a closed presidential search process, and legislators speculated Thursday that was a draw for Cantwell to apply there.
“No way she would’ve wanted to apply in a public search,” Wilson said. “It just doesn’t happen.”
Meanwhile, a lawmaker in Washington is pushing to have the process be conducted in the open.
Utah’s SB282 here is opposed by the Utah Media Coalition, which says the bill is “a huge step backwards for transparency and accountability in higher education.” It’s among a slate of Republican-backed measures the group is fighting against this session that would make the government’s business less public, including efforts to dismantle the Utah State Records Committee.
As it stands, SB282 would shift the presidential search process for the state’s eight public colleges and universities almost entirely behind closed doors.
Currently, state law directs that a search committee review candidates and post the names of three to five finalists to take the helm of a school. The public then has a chance to vet them, ask questions and provide feedback before the Utah Board of Higher Education chooses a final appointment.
That’s happening now at Utah Tech University, where three finalists were named this week.
But under the bill, the search committee would review candidates entirely in private and only present one finalist to the higher education board.
The board would vote publicly to confirm the pick. Or, if the board doesn’t approve of the individual, the search committee would be tasked with providing a new name.
Geoff Landward, the commissioner over higher education for the state, says those committee members are often already asked to sign NDAs in the process. And those could be made more strict moving forward so that no names but the single finalists are ever revealed by members.
“That’s a great idea,” Wilson said.
What supporters say
(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) Sen. Chris Wilson, R-Logan, at the Utah Capitol in Salt Lake City on Thursday, Jan. 23, 2025.
The language of the bill says the state must “respect and protect candidate confidentiality.”
On Thursday, Wilson added that the measure is particularly important for individuals who apply but aren’t ultimately chosen. Having their name released as a finalist alerts their current employer that they were seeking another position.
And because of that, he said, some people won’t apply to positions in Utah, or may withdraw their names once they learn of that provision for “unnecessary disclosure.”
Having the names kept confidential, Wilson believes, will attract more talented candidates to the state because there won’t be a “chilling effect” with applying.
“While transparency is important, the timing of sharing information is equally so,” he said. “… Job applicants deserve privacy throughout the process.”
Commissioner Landward said he’s been involved with 10 searches for presidents in the state. In many, he said, he’s heard from strong candidates who said they would’ve applied if their names were kept private. It’s the top challenge Landward sees in recruiting applicants — for a job that, he added, is already “incredibly difficult.”
“There are few people who can successfully navigate the challenges of these jobs,” he said.
Sen. John Johnson, R-North Ogden, said he supports the change to a closed process. “Why haven’t we always been doing this?” he asked.
The sole Democrat on the Senate Education Committee, Sen. Kathleen Riebe of Cottonwood Heights, also voiced her support. “I think it will bring in more people,” she said.
At the same time, though, Landward said the state does attract good candidates and that shouldn’t be seen as a comment on the quality of current presidents. Johnson said he thinks that has been due to luck, though.
The Utah Board of Higher Education, which Landward represents, has taken a neutral stance on the bill. Sen. Hinkins questioned why, given the commissioner’s experience, that the board isn’t supporting the measure.
Landward said the board will follow whatever procedure the Legislature sets and “very rarely” takes a position on bills. He said members also weighed that the current process includes “a lot of opportunities for public input.”
What opponents say
That’s why the Utah Media Coalition opposes the measure.
The group says the current crop of university presidents have been selected under the existing process, “and there is no evidence that the process has been hampered or that the outcome has suffered.”
Utah Media Coalition statement on SB282 by Courtney on Scribd
The coalition also says that public universities and colleges are funded by taxpayers, who should have a say in who is selected to lead an institution, particularly because the public also pays for presidential salaries.
“These are among the most prestigious and well-compensated positions in the state, earning up to $1 million a year in taxpayer dollars,” the coalition said in a statement.
The group believes announcing just one finalist also eliminates the opportunity for meaningful scrutiny in the process and “invites abuse.”
Wichita State University in Kansas, for example, conducted a private search in 2021 for its current president, Rick Muma.
Last year, though, a former member of the Kansas Board of Regents said that closed process — including national consultants hired to help — didn’t properly vet Muma. It was later discovered, after he was hired, that Muma’s doctoral dissertation included improperly cited materials, raising questions of plagiarism, according to the Kansas Reflector.
Concerns were also raised in 2019 when the board of regents at the University of Colorado unanimously selected Mark Kennedy as the next president without public input. Once he was hired, many members of the public raised concerns about Kennedy’s past statements agains gay marriage and his congressional voting record.
One regent there told The Denver Post that she regretted the rushed process. “We need the press and the public to do the job in vetting him,” Linda Shoemaker said in an interview. The school only released the name of Kennedy as the sole finalist.
Kennedy left his position after two years and after the board paid him $1.3 million to leave early, before his three-year contract ended, according to Chalkbeat.
The Utah Media Coalition says there is already balance in the state’s process in only releasing the names of finalists and not all applicants; and many other provisions, such as communications about the candidates, is already kept from public disclosure. But how it stands now still allows for issues to come forward before someone is hired.
Wilson countered that search committees can do proper vetting. His bill, though, also looks to limit the size of them.
Currently, many search committees get too large, he said. The last USU presidential search committee had 18 members. The last one at the University of Utah had 31. Utah Tech’s currently has 10 members.
Wilson would like to see those limited to eight or nine members; and instead of a two-thirds vote for decisions, his bill would only require a simple majority.
The committees would include, he added, a member of the faculty, a staff representative and a student to make sure different stakeholder voices are heard.
This isn’t the first time this kind of legislation has been presented by state lawmakers. A similar bill was debated in 2021; it ultimately passed with a substitute that took out the provision to make the university president hiring process secretive.
