Robert (Bob) Dynes is president of the University of California (UC) – and has been in that position since October, 2003. During my tenure as a member of the Board of Regents of UC, I worked with Bob while he was chancellor of the campus at San Diego and during his reign as president of the entire UC system. Bob Dynes has excellent credentials as a physicist and he is a very decent human being. But, in announcing his retirement from the position of UC president, Bob is doing something that should have been done the day after he was selected to head the UC system. In fact, it was a mistake from the outset, of which I am just as responsible as all of the other regents who voted to install Bob, for Dynes to have been selected to head one of the nation’s premier public university systems.

Some contend that Dynes was “encouraged” to resign by the regents because of his handling of administrative compensation and other “perks.” This is undoubtedly true.  Yet, while his departure is the right decision, mishandling of executive compensation or the perception of him as a weak administrator are the wrong reasons for “encouraging” him to ride off into the sunset. It would be useful to examine some of the problems at UC.

First, the California Constitution establishes UC as an independent, public entity governed by a board of regents whose members are appointed by the governor, subject to Senate confirmation, and who serve twelve-year terms. In addition, a number of constitutional officers serve as regents and the governor of California is president of the board. Herein lie some of the institutional problems: Twelve years is about two to four years too long, if one takes seriously the responsibility of being a regent. For most regents, burn-out, or senility (whichever comes first), occurs long before the expiration of a twelve-year term. And, putting politicians on the board is a sure-fire way to create endless opportunities for elected officials, such as lieutenant governors, who have little else to do, to use their platform as regent to engage in political grandstanding. Instances far too numerous to mention may be found where such has occurred. 

While some elected officials may accurately be accused of politicizing UC, such cannot be asserted about Governor Schwarzenegger. In fact, to my knowledge, the governor has yet to attend his first meeting of the Board of Regents after serving as governor for nearly four years. Obviously, perhaps the governor has too many other tasks to perform than to serve as president of the Board of Regents. But, this raises the equally obvious question of why the governor should be the president of the Regents if he is too busy to attend Board meetings.

In addition to structural problems of the Board, most of the Regents are generally not “hands-on” enough about the activities of the institution which they govern. Part of the problem can be traced to efforts on the part of several Regents over the years who sought to raise the threshold for transactions requiring the approval of the regents. The historical record will show that I reluctantly supported this effort. In retrospect, I believe the regents - and I included - made a serious mistake in establishing the threshold for the UC president to approve faculty salaries, moving and housing allowances, mortgage loans, and for other transactions at a level that allows the president too much authority. As a result, we achieved our objective of freeing the Board to devote more attention to policy, but we also gave the Office of the President far too much decision-making authority with inadequate oversight of their decisions.   Worst of all, however, I believe those decisions contributed to a culture of laxity and avoidance of oversight within the Office of the President.

When Regents are only minimally engaged in governing and approving transactions, their positions become largely ceremonial. Far too many Regents become enamored with their positions as regents but fail to provide the due diligence that the position commands of them. My good friend John Moores once described one crop of regents as “furniture,” meaning that they were there for the administration to sit on but to do little else in the form of giving matters their thorough attention.

Finally, when it comes to selecting a president, the Board relies on a system that is described as “shared governance.” This means that all segments of the UC family participate in the recruitment and selection of the UC President. This is sort of like designing a camel by committee. “Shared governance” also results in giving the faculty considerable deference in who becomes president; and the faculty invariably insists on someone who commands their respect as a scholar. Yet, scholars are not especially known for their administrative skills. UC and many of its campuses are often administered by someone who has distinguished himself or herself in the lab or the classroom but has little idea about how to effectively manage a major corporation, a term that certainly describes UC. A multi-billion dollar corporation needs a top flight administrator, not a scholar, as its president.

In short, Bob Dynes is not the major problem; he is only symptomatic of a deeper problem. Nothing short of a major restructuring of UC’s system of governance will right the course of this great institution. Something tells me that many other American universities are similarly situated.