Salt Lake Tribune, February 13, 2009
Aileen Clyde

The recurring discussion on how to evaluate ethical behavior of public policy makers should evoke citizens' support of action since obviously there are problems not being recognized or addressed. A significant case in point was related in Paul Rolly's column of Jan. 30.

As a former regent I was shocked to read that Ned Hill, former dean of BYU's Marriott School of Business, was a finalist for the position of president of Utah Valley University in Orem until Republican legislators intervened.

Hill has since said in a telephone conversation that he received two phone calls during the search process. The first came from a member of the Utah Board of Regents. He was told that, despite his superior qualifications, he would have to "make nice" with Utah County's Republican lawmakers to get further consideration of a possible appointment as UVU president. Hill said that the second caller, a Utah County Republican legislator, took the demand even further. The state representative told Hill he should bring his wife, Claralyn, to the Republican lawmakers to apologize.

What was Claralyn Hill's fault for which she should seek forgiveness? Her supposed transgression was that she ran for election to the state House of Representatives last November as a Democrat against Republican incumbent Chris Herrod of Provo, and she talked about legislative ethics during her campaign.

The result of this intervention by the Utah County Republican legislators was that Hill, a highly qualified university administrator, withdrew his name from consideration rather than participate in a tainted and unfair process.

The regent who called Ned Hill was in clear violation of Board of Regents' policies and procedures which require that a presidential search committee "exercise special care to avoid disclosure of confidential information and to protect the right of all applicants and nominees to privacy and anonymity... ." Despite that policy, one or more members of the regents' presidential search committee apparently felt they needed to get the advance permission of Utah County lawmakers before proceeding with finalist interviews.

State legislators are not invited to be on search committees or even to know who the candidates are, and there is good reason for that. It prevents partisan meddling in the selection of university presidents. Clearly, the office of president is to be an academic position based on a candidate's qualifications, not a political patronage plum doled out to those who demonstrate loyalty or subservience to the majority party in the state Legislature.

The Board of Regents should conduct an immediate investigation into this violation of its own policies. Anything short of exposing those responsible for this violation and full commitment to honoring its own rules will have dire consequences. If the board ignores this incident and fails to take strong action, future candidates may be deterred from applying. And for those who were appointed, there could be a cloud of suspicion over whether they were the best candidate, or the candidate who satisfied the political considerations important to Utah County legislators.

In addition, the Utah Legislature should convene an ethics investigation and make it known to the public which lawmakers engaged in this unethical arm-twisting. It is ironic that the Utah County Republicans who tainted the presidential search process should cry foul because Claralyn Hill made legislative ethics one of her key campaign issues. This kind of behavior is exactly what Mrs. Hill was referring to.

The integrity of the Utah Board of Regents and UVU, as well as all the candidates for the UVU presidency, calls for a thorough, immediate investigation of this incident to assure that such political manipulation is not possible in future recruitment of Utah's highest education appointments.