LB 1109

[zoogs]

Very peripheral to Nebraska football, but I'll start this off here.

 

 

In summary, UNL must release the names of four finalists for an open president or chancellor position. A new proposal -- supported by among others, Regent Tim Clare and UNL President Hank Bounds -- reduces the requirement to one.

 

 

A lot of opponents to this proposal, however. And Emily Nohr's twitter feed is a good run through of the sides being presented.

 

Without knowing too much, I'd have to say I'm on the side of transparency:

 

 

I'm skeptical of the idea that greater secrecy is needed to improve the pool of interested candidates for the job. Greater convenience isn't necessarily worth the cost given up.

[teachercd]

I had a friend that applied for a very big position...he made it into the final two. Without his consent or knowledge the place he was trying to get into ran a story on the two final candidates...Made him looks like an ass and feel horrible because he had not been telling his current employees or his boss about it...or the people in the community.

 

A little bit different but I don't like having to tell people I am applying for things.

[wanderful]

I had a friend that applied for a very big position...he made it into the final two. Without his consent or knowledge the place he was trying to get into ran a story on the two final candidates...Made him looks like an ass and feel horrible because he had not been telling his current employees or his boss about it...or the people in the community.

 

A little bit different but I don't like having to tell people I am applying for things.

 

 

Conversely, since our tax dollars are helping to pay these people's salaries, the transparency is good to see that they are looking into getting the best person possible, instead of just hiring their friends.

[teachercd]

 

I had a friend that applied for a very big position...he made it into the final two. Without his consent or knowledge the place he was trying to get into ran a story on the two final candidates...Made him looks like an ass and feel horrible because he had not been telling his current employees or his boss about it...or the people in the community.

 

A little bit different but I don't like having to tell people I am applying for things.

 

 

Conversely, since our tax dollars are helping to pay these people's salaries, the transparency is good to see that they are looking into getting the best person possible, instead of just hiring their friends.

 

Yeah, I get that. My friends position was not a tax-dollar one, so it sucked for him.

 

But, I guess I just think football coaches (in the example I am using) should hire who they want on their staff.

[wanderful]

 

 

I had a friend that applied for a very big position...he made it into the final two. Without his consent or knowledge the place he was trying to get into ran a story on the two final candidates...Made him looks like an ass and feel horrible because he had not been telling his current employees or his boss about it...or the people in the community.

 

A little bit different but I don't like having to tell people I am applying for things.

 

 

Conversely, since our tax dollars are helping to pay these people's salaries, the transparency is good to see that they are looking into getting the best person possible, instead of just hiring their friends.

 

Yeah, I get that. My friends position was not a tax-dollar one, so it sucked for him.

 

But, I guess I just think football coaches (in the example I am using) should hire who they want on their staff.

 

 

Damn, that sucks for your friend. I'd hate if that happened to me.

 

I don't mind it with football either, but I'd rather have that be the exception to the rule than the rule itself. Especially if we're talking about chancellors, presidents, etc.

[Red Five]

I think that you'll get fewer candidates for these positions if this goes into effect.

[teachercd]

 

 

 

I had a friend that applied for a very big position...he made it into the final two. Without his consent or knowledge the place he was trying to get into ran a story on the two final candidates...Made him looks like an ass and feel horrible because he had not been telling his current employees or his boss about it...or the people in the community.

 

A little bit different but I don't like having to tell people I am applying for things.

 

 

Conversely, since our tax dollars are helping to pay these people's salaries, the transparency is good to see that they are looking into getting the best person possible, instead of just hiring their friends.

 

Yeah, I get that. My friends position was not a tax-dollar one, so it sucked for him.

 

But, I guess I just think football coaches (in the example I am using) should hire who they want on their staff.

 

 

Damn, that sucks for your friend. I'd hate if that happened to me.

 

I don't mind it with football either, but I'd rather have that be the exception to the rule than the rule itself. Especially if we're talking about chancellors, presidents, etc.

 

I know...he literally woke up and saw the article in the paper...with what was essentially his resume listed out in article form.

[teachercd]

I think that you'll get fewer candidates for these positions if this goes into effect.

I didn't think about that but I agree.

[Enhance]

I've been following this decently close with my line of work and have to say I usually ere on the side of transparency. These are essentially public officials and people should be able to know the background and history of the people in line to lead something like the University of Nebraska.

 

I'm also a little confused what their bill proposal suggests - would UNL be required to name only one finalist, or would that just be an option and they wouldn't have to? I'm guessing the former.

 

Furthermore, that seems like unfair publicity, good or bad, for the solitary candidate that is named. Either his/her dirty laundry is aired or all the good things about them are aired. Then the public perception could influence the opinions of the decision-makers. Obviously, they have all the information already at their disposal, but it seems wildly unfair (for good and bad reasons) to give that publicity to only one finalist.

 

Overall, not a good idea in my opinion.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I guess I don't see the reasoning to reduce the amount of finalists from four to one. Doesn't make much sense to me.