As president search begins, a look back at last time

They're scouring the continent looking for the University's next president. For four months, they have been working hard, struggling through hours of meetings and reading through the nearly 300 applications that have crossed their desks. But for the 19 members of the president search committee, the job is far from over. Miraculously, such searches do end – for better or worse. Former President Sheldon Hackney became president one year after the the University began searching for its sixth president, 13 years ago. Much like today's president search, the 1979 search effort was the center of gossip and intrigue. Of course, those involved with the search work itself remember the not-so-glamorous side of finding a president – the long hours spent interviewing candidates, researching backgrounds and reading applications. University Trustee Gloria Twine Chisum, who served on the 1979 search committee and is a member of the current president search committee, remembers the rigorous schedule and lengthy time commitment that the process entailed. "The search effort is just a tremendously time-consuming and energy-consuming effort," Chisum said. "After the last one I said never again, but here I am." One of the main reasons she decided to return to the process, she said, is the importance of the presidential position. "I think the leadership of the University is so critically important," Chisum said. "Probably the most important thing the Trustees do is pick a president. I think it deserves everybody's best effort and that's why students and faculty are willing to put in the time." · It was the fall of 1979 the last time the University was without a president. The koosh ball, rollerblades and MTV had yet to make it big. Jimmy Carter was struggling through his last year as president and the University had just begun its 239th year as an academic institution. Then-University President Martin Meyerson had announced he would leave his post by July 1981, giving the Trustees two years to find his successor. So, as the University classes of '94, '95, '96 and '97 romped through the playgrounds of grade school, the University searched for the person who would lead it through the next decade. The search process soon became more complicated and difficult than many expected. First of all, there was little precedent for this kind of situation. The provost had acted as the University's chief executive for most of its history and the University had been led by only five previous presidents. In September 1979, a set procedure for finding the top administrator had yet to be established. It would not be until 1983, four years after the search, that the Board of Trustees would set up official guidelines for the presidential search process. The first question was where to start and the answer was simple – with a committee. The Trustees decided that a committee made up of Trustees, faculty and students should do the job. And so, with a committee headed by Trustee Chairperson Paul Miller and made up of six other Trustees, four faculty members and two students, the University's search began. Finding the right qualities in a potential president would prove difficult. At the time of the search, the campus found itself in the midst of a near crisis. Declining enrollments and the rapidly rising cost of education, with little hope for federal relief, put pressure on the University's dwindling funds. For the first time in four years, it looked as if the University might not balance its budget. And then there was the president problem. Did the University need a liberal arts leader or a Wall Street investor? And would someone with the right qualifications want to take over a multi-million dollar institution that was facing serious financial difficulties? · Early in September 1980, the search committee had narrowed down a pool of 300 applicants to a short list of nine. Rumors were flying all over campus that Provost Vartan Gregorian was likely at the top of that list. He was well-liked and respected both inside and outside the University for his strong leadership capabilities. And Gregorian, now president of Brown University, had shown interest in taking over the position. When the University of California at Berkeley asked him to become its chancellor in February 1980, Gregorian turned down the offer – a move widely interpreted at the time as his intention to seek the presidency of the University. Despite popular belief, he was not the candidate who rose to the top of the search committee's short list. Instead, a prestigious southern administrator was busy turning committee members' heads. He held a master's and a doctorate in history from Yale University; he taught and consequently served three years as provost for Princeton University; and in 1975 he became president of Tulane University. His colleagues and his students raved about his administrative savvy and his ability to perform financial miracles. His name? Francis Sheldon Hackney. Hackney would become the only candidate to be recommended by the Trustee's Executive Committee to the full trustee board. When committee chairperson Paul Miller presented Hackney to the Trustees in October 1980, he said "Hackney's achievements are many, as his talents; and our hope is that these talents be employed for the benefit of Penn." Miller was referring to Hackney's uncanny talent for turning losing financial situations into winning ones. When Hackney assumed the role of Tulane's president, the university had not balanced its budget for almost 25 years. Hackney not only balanced the budget, but also managed to implement new academic programs. University Trustee Reginald Jones had interviewed Hackney when he came before the Executive Committee that September. Jones told the Trustee board that the first question he asked Hackney was, "how do you rate yourself as a fundraiser?" "Hackney I found very concerned about fund raising," Jones said in 1980. "In the short time he was at Tulane, he did balance the budget, but he also increased fundraising by 40 percent." Hackney seemed to be the answer to the University's financial troubles. But what about being an academic leader? University Trustee and search committee member Jacqueline Wexler said the committee had talked with "a number of presidents of leading institutions" and found that Hackney had "intellectual depth and social sensitivity" and "respect for collegial decision-making, but the courage to act on matters of principal." Here, then, was the answer to the University's most pressing problems – a president who was financially shrewd with good administrative abilities and a familiarity with the Ivy League and academic issues. On October 24, 1980, the Trustees voted to make Hackney the University's sixth president. His first day on the job came several months later, on February 1, 1981. · Since the search of 1979, the University has changed and evolved from the institution it was then. In 1979, the search committee primarily looked for a person who could successfully handle difficult finances. And while finances are certainly still an issue, they are not the only issue. "It's going to be a demanding position," Hackney said yesterday. "One of the problems the new president will face is continuing restraints on resources and the faltering economy." And, with the recent controversies on campus concerning free speech and diversity, the 1993 president search committee will likely be looking for a leader who will be able to improve the University's tarnished image. The controversial "water buffalo" racial harassment case and the seizure of nearly 14,000 copies of The Daily Pennsylvanian became issues debated in newspapers and on talk shows around the country. "The challenge of creating a campus that is not only diverse, in fact, but one that works as hospitable and warmly campus ... will take great leadership," the former president explained. If anything, the University needs strong and decisive leadership to move past these difficulties – someone willing to make tough choices and withstand the pressures of the national media. The new president must not only be a positive spokesperson for the University, but must also be able to administer a multi-million dollar institution and keep the quality of education high. The chairperson of the 1993 search committee, Trustee Chairperson Alvin Shoemaker, said he could not comment on the exact qualifications the committee is looking for since that part of the search is strictly confidential. Shoemaker did say the committee has been working throughout the summer, gathering information from other "prominent" academic institutions about administrative searches and collecting opinions about what the University might need in a leader. Shoemaker said comments about the University were very positive. "We don't give ourselves enough credit," he said. Shoemaker would not elaborate on the search because he fears it might adversely effect the search effort and cause speculation about which candidate can better fill the University's needs. Meanwhile, Shoemaker and other members have received about 300 applications and recommendations, all of which they are working on organizing and ranking. Shoemaker said some of the candidates being considered are "non-traditional candidates," meaning they do not come from strictly academic backgrounds and may be involved in politics or business. The committee has been actively seeking women and minority candidates to consider for the position, he said. The president search committee has no official deadline, but Shoemaker hopes to have an entirely new administration "up and running" by the summer. This means the new president needs to be in place in time to participate in the search for a new provost. Shoemaker predicts the next six weeks will involve an "intensive" look at the present pool of candidates, which means long meetings and lots of paperwork. But, he added, the work is worth it. "This is a historic moment for the University and we want to make sure everyone is comfortable with their new president."