Photo by:
Chancellor Daniel L. Ritchie faced a contentious faculty Friday, May 9, that was objecting to not being consulted in the appointment of Marc Holtzman as the university’s president.
About 150 faculty members filled Lindsey Auditorium to express their dissatisfaction with the selection process. Meanwhile about 40 students protested in front of the Mary Reed Building in the rain (See related story.)
Questions from the faculty echoed similar questions put to Ritchie by students two days earlier at the chancellor’s roundtable for students.
Like the students, the faculty was not appeased by Ritchie’s insistence that Holtzman’s role will not be an academic role and therefore had not required consultation with the faculty or the campus community.
“I do not want to send the message that we’re going to change anything,” Ritchie said. “If the title was anything but this, no one would have cared.”
When pressed by several questioners about why no one on the Faculty Senate was consulted before Holtzman was appointed by the DU Board of Trustees on Ritchie’s strong recommendation, the chancellor said, “The problem had to do with maintaining confidentiality.”
He said he did not want the appointment to be discussed and debated in the press. Holtzman had been a candidate for the presidency of Colorado State University, but did not make the final cut.
When asked how much the Holtzman appointment would cost, Ritchie estimated that Holtzman’s salary plus that of two assistants, plus fringe benefits would amount to “about $400,000.”
Despite the criticism, Ritchie maintained that Holtzman was “a great asset” and would benefit DU in the years ahead.
Political Science Professor Steven McCarl said the decision made him, “broken- hearted. I thought you were leading us to know inclusion, collaboration and the pursuit of knowledge.”
Ritchie acknowledge that if he were faculty, he would ” probably feel the same way.”
But he repeated that the issue of confidentiality was paramount. He did extend an olive branch to the faculty by suggesting that in the future a small faculty committee be created, which would participate n and know about high-ranking appointments in the DU administration. .
“What I’m searching for is to… regain your trust,” Ritchie said. “I think it will take time and patience.”
However, he also said, “You can have influence, but while you [the faculty] might have some suggestions, it would ultimately be your [the head’s] decision.”
Last Wednesday, Leon G. Giles, president of the Faculty Senate, posted an open letter to Ritchie on the DU Web page at http://www.du.edu/facsen/lettertoexecutivecommittee05-13-03.htm
The letter said in part, “During this process, members of the faculty have expressed individual responses ranging from acceptance and encouragement to feeling outraged, angered, hurt, disappointed, abandoned, disrespected, and insulted. At best, this event has been distracting and dysfunctional.”
