The Fayetteville Observer‘s Corey G. Johnson writes that North Carolina is second to none in secrecy over selecting public university leaders:

North Carolina is the only state in the nation that selects the top leaders of all its public universities in secret.

In 49 other states, the names of the finalists for university president or chancellor positions are made public, a Fayetteville Observer study shows. Six states release the names of all applicants. …

In North Carolina, each university has a search process to choose three candidates for its chancellor position. Those candidates are submitted to university system President Erskine Bowles, who recommends one to the UNC board of governors. Only then ? when it?s time to vote on the one candidate recommended by Bowles ? is the secrecy lifted. And only the name of the person recommended is released.

Johnson’s article also details the cost of such secrecy. It certainly doesn’t have to be that way. As I wrote in 2004 during NC State’s process, which was so secretive that members signed confidentiality agreements:

Other universities, including other UNC schools, have followed the open route in selecting chancellors. Appalachian State allowed public questioning of its three finalists this spring. The names of East Carolina’s finalists were leaked to the press, causing one to drop out.

Nearby University of Tennessee chose a new system president this spring after a highly visible, open search. Tennessee decided to forgo secrecy after scandals ousted the system’s last two presidents within two years. UT officials felt it was important to restore public trust in the process, so they opted for openness. The committee selected University of Connecticut provost John D. Peterson after a large panel of alumni, faculty, students, trustees, and staff sorted through applicants’ resumes, and they broadcast over the Internet the interviews with the six finalists.

The new UT president told The Chronicle of Higher Education April 22 that the open process not only attracted “an excellent pool” of candidates, but also that it would help him because it restored public trust. “The more open the process was, the better, as far as I was concerned,” he said.

Appalachian’s open process “went off without a hitch” and “gave us a second look at the candidates and how they interacted with each group,” search committee member and former Faculty Senate chairman Paul Gates told the N&O. Tennessee’s open process pleased the selection committee, instilled public confidence in the selection, and resulted in a president whose view of openness is the more open, the better.