The sudden redirection of the Presidential search effort raises questions of the mechanisms that enabled us to reach the stage where a morally bankrupt leader of a small second-tier medical school was invited to the threshold of the Penn State Presidency.

First, some information about David Smith. In early 2006 he abruptly resigned the presidency of Texas Tech: at the moment of his resignation, neither a permanent successor nor an interim replacement had been identified. Smith was already actively looking for a new job, but had not yet secured a follow-on position. A few months before he abruptly withdrew as one of three finalists for Chancellor of the University of Georgia system, on the eve of the announcement of the winner and for reasons unexplained. Word on the street at Texas Tech is that shady dealings were the likely instigator for these curious events. At Upstate Medical University (where Smith was President until just recently), the Executive Director of a company with major business dealing with the university, MedBest Medical Management Inc., serves as Senior Vice President for Administration and Finance has now retired from the position of Senior Vice President as a consequence of the ongoing investigation. In 2012, the undergraduate medical school at UMU was placed on probation by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, an accreditation association, for fifteen deficiencies including an upswing in the number of student complaints of mistreatment or discrimination, below average student awareness of procedures to report mistreatment, a lack of basic science professors, students not obtaining grades on a timely basis, inconsistent application of criteria to students in clinical courses, little evidence that student feedback was used to improve education, no system to ensure formal feedback to students in some courses, and inadequate oversight of the rural training program. The past two deans of the undergraduate medical school have now resigned under unusual circumstances. UMU was also in hot water a few years back due to deficiencies in their contracting procedures, including a lack of written justification for contract awards. All of these red flags were available prior to the revelation of Smith’s undisclosed income, through web search. The prior resignation and withdrawal were easy to find. The accreditation issues took a bit of digging for someone at a distance from UMU, but they were also public knowledge and well-known in the UMU community.

Smith was apparently a very effective fundraiser, which may be related to his influence over the moneys that course through a large medical establishment and his apparent flexibility in deploying this influence. Of course, now we know that Smith also accepted undeclared compensation from two entities that had tens of millions of dollars in business dealings with the university (Medbest was one; the other, Pediatric Service Group LLP, was apparently a part of UMU). He has now resigned from the presidency of UMU in the middle of an investigation into his affairs. Upstate Medical is also now being audited by the New York State Comptroller.

So the question again: how did this gentleman ascend to the top of the search? In this regard, it’s interesting to note that the actual search procedure deviated from that described in the initial public announcement.

The initial announcement described an 18-person Search and Screen Committee composed entirely of university stakeholders (faculty, staff, students, alumni) and including no Trustees that was to “screen, review and evaluate all applications and nominations to identify a pool of candidates who warrant further consideration by the Trustee council”, and then “forward a short list of names to the Trustee Presidential Selection Council”. The Selection Council, composed of a subset of Trustees plus the chair of the current fundraising campaign, was supposed to “analyze the pool and narrow it further”. Finally the full Board of Trustees would appoint the President. An executive search firm would assist. In addition to its own meetings, the Search and Screen Committee was to “provide periodic updates to the Trustee council” and “hold several joint meetings” with the Council to discuss search progress.

The actual procedure involved certain members of the Selection Council actually participating in the searching and screening, functions originally ascribed to the Search and Screen Committee. This is clear from reading the Sept 2013 update on the official presidential search page: “The University Presidential Search and Screen Committee, along with representatives from the Trustee Presidential Selection Council, reviewed the lists of applicants, nominees, and individuals contacted” and “Karen Peetz, former Board Chair and Chair of the Trustee Presidential Selection Council, participated in the candidate reviews of the University Presidential Search and Screen Committee”. Kudos to the university for releasing this information, but one can raise concerns for the manner in which evidence for this deviation from the originally announced procedure was slipped into a later update focussed on trajectory, not process.

The meat of the search process is covered in a thick gravy of confidentiality, so we really don’t know how it is working. A short ranked list of candidates submitted by a Search and Screen Committee that sets its own rules of procedure and meets independently of the Selection Council is one pole. A long unranked list submitted by a Search and Screen Committee that operates under rules imposed by the Selection Council with active participation of Selection Council members is another pole. A short list would be more conducive to early and thorough background checks. A ranked list generated by non-Trustees and non-fundraisers would be more likely to tilt the balance of academic achievement and fundraising prowess towards the former. A long unranked list would deliver more decision-making power to the Selection Council, and the injection of the Selection Council into the searching and screening would perhaps be more likely to produce one or more candidates whose fundraising prowess obscured deleterious traits. You can update your Bayesian priors as desired based on the meager information that the conflagration of Smith has revealed.

The ready claim that “the search is confidential” greatly impairs input from outside. But perhaps one could obtain some purchase by asking questions based only on information already released by the university, i.e. the stated search procedure. Some creativity here might increase clarity while maintaining and supporting the integrity of the search.

This same confidentiality also prevents any dialogue with the Search and Screen Committee. A one-way conversation is still possible, so some advice to our searchers and screeners: recent events provide an occasion to clarify your committee’s prerogatives in advancing the search. Review the original Board decision that established the scope of your committee and follow its letter and spirit in a way that will ensure that your expertise and insights are fully and effectively incorporated into the process. This may mean making your own independent committee decisions on the proper number and ranking of candidates to convey to the Selection Council. You have soft power and leverage here that might not be readily apparent. Do not deflect responsibility for the Smith debacle entirely onto Isaacson, Miller (who one assumes was supposed to have performed a more timely background check): ultimately, the Selection Council holds the largest measure of responsibility for choosing this candidate. Many red flags here required only a few minutes of googling, well within the expertise of anyone willing to assume the personally accessible part of mission critical tasks. Being a Trustee must get one used to depending on staff and outside consultants for expertise. This is understandable and necessary – it’s a tough job – but good-quality decisions also depend on the decision makers being able to ask hard, pointed and well-informed questions of their experts, cross-checking against whatever independent information is available to the decider. At minimum, it requires a bit of googling and the strength of character and humility to admit mistakes, if only privately. Best wishes to all – searchers, screeners, and selectors – in moving forward on the challenging road ahead.