BY MASS MEDIA EDITORIAL BOARD

Last week two members of the Chancellor Search Committee resigned. The reason: the leak in the search committee that exposed current interim-Chancellor Keith Motley’s status as a potential finalist-a move, the two resigning members cited, was a breach in confidentiality.

“I am outraged that the process has been subverted by a massive breach of confidentiality,” wrote Mary Huff Stevenson, professor of Economics, in her letter of resignation to President Jack Wilson. “The ways in which the committee’s work has been undermined has, in my view, done great damage to the University. Though I began my work on the committee with great enthusiasm, I cannot in good conscience continue to participate in a search process that has been so severely compromised.”

Similarly, ex-committee member Dennis Austin told the Boston Globe that “his resignation from the committee was also meant as a statement about the failure to protect the candidates.” Austin stated, “The confidentiality has been tarnished…I think it ruined the process.”

Notwithstanding the resignations, remaining committee members managed to complete their process and produced the list of finalists (Michael F. Collins, Marvin Krislov, and Keith Motley) that currently sits on President Wilson’s desk for consideration.

So now what?

Should the UMB community retreat quietly and wait until Wilson makes his choice and presents it to the board of trustees next month?

Normally, that idea wouldn’t seem so out of the ordinary. But this time around, it seems a bit odd considering the back and forth banter between administrators that unfolded before the eyes of the community a couple of weeks back.

It’s difficult to take seriously a committee and a process where the most basic of codes have been blatantly violated.

The Chancellor Search Committee website states, “Because UMass is a public institution, the Committee and its search consultant will carefully balance the confidentiality rights of the candidates and the public’s right to know about this important endeavor.”

As community members, there is an assumption that because the board of trustees chose the search committee members, they are eligible to complete the task with sensibility. But that can no longer be assumed.

The public doesn’t know a whole lot, and that’s to be expected. However, we know enough to ascertain that the committee is divided. More importantly, that division begs a lot of important questions that leave the UMB community in limbo.

Motley, undisputedly, is popular. But is he qualified to continue as Chancellor of the university? Some on the committee think so, while others don’t.

To those who were not in favor of placing Motley in the final list, are you that out of touch with the university to not consider placing him on the list of finalists? And to those who voted to have him on the final list, are you overlooking his lack of qualifications and responding solely on the outbursts of the UMB community to his potential loss? Therefore, when the search is done and over with, how is the community supposed to feel if Interim Chancellor Motley is not picked as permanent chancellor of the university? Likewise, how is the community supposed to feel if he is picked?

Furthermore, what are the larger implications of having a blundering committee make important decisions about the future of UMass Boston?

Our vote: no confidence.