Board of Regents- Is search firm really necessary?
by JIM BEAM - The American Press (excerpt)

Ask taxpayers what they think about the state Board of Regents’ decision to pay $105,500 to a company to find a new higher education commissioner, and the odds are 9 out of 10 would say it’s a bad idea. The board coordinates all of higher education, including the management boards of LSU, Southern University and the University of Louisiana System. Regents have had a difficult time improving their public image after a former commissioner pulled the wool over their eyes. Sally Clausen retired over a year ago and was immediately rehired by her staff without ever clearing the action with her board. The furor created by that blatant disregard for the board’s authority eventually resulted in Clausen voluntarily retiring again on July 1 this year.

Higher education officials were already in dutch with legislative money committees for evading their requests and taking a holier-than-thou attitude during committee hearings. The final straw proved to be the outlandish pay packages that have been approved for higher education system leaders. When they were publicized, unrest in the Legislature mounted. The end result was passage of a law that requires the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget to approve the salaries of future higher education commissioners. Is it necessary?

Education supporters call that too much micromanagement. But those outside the field are convinced educators have only themselves to blame. The first time that joint legislative committee had a voice in the hiring process, it rejected a pay proposal for an interim commissioner. Regents wanted to pay him $25,000 per month. Many Louisiana citizens don’t make that much money in a year, so you can understand why lawmakers thought it was a bad idea. They are sensitive to the unrest among their constituents. Grumbling also has been heard about Clausen’s chief of staff, who engineered and approved her boss’ retire-rehire plan. There was apparent–ly no effort to censure the chief of staff for her part in the retirement conspiracy. In fact, there was even talk she might be considered for the top job. Shouldn’t there be some accountability there?