Sorry guys, but this one does not pass the smell test. The Regents may as well have crowned this guy and not bothered to interview the 3 highly qualified, traditional candidates. The Regents completely ignored the feedback from the stakeholders. Is that not what has drawn the ire of many on this board when it comes to decisions made by GB and SM? I cannot believe it is wise to embark on an experimental president for a major Big Ten University with a stellar reputation for teaching, research, and service. You think KF's contract was long...what might this guy do to the U. in five years? At least the buyout would not be so substantial.
Organizational research has clearly pointed out the major differences between private and public sector leadership techniques, let alone the fact that this guy knows absolutely nothing about the U. of Iowa...Wikepedia as a research tool? Geez. That is flat out embarrassing.
Many on this board have been adamant that the new Pres should fire BG and KF. Though I hardly agree with that conclusion, it would be a total waste of time to speculate on what the new Pres might do in that regard.
An earlier poster wrote a long and well reasoned response to this hire. Read it and consider it seriously. A piece of advice I have tried hard to follow when it comes to making important decisions..."You had better be right." The Regents must be held to this standard and should voluntarily resign if they are not "right." After all, the stakes are the reputation and the future of one of the finest universities in the country. The pick was brilliant, elections have consequences and I am glad this state chose Branstad.
