Menu
- Deadly rural roads and securing a safe ride home (12/17/24)
- The fall of Assad: A sobering lesson in pragmatism (12/13/24)
- Finding transparency in TEEOSA (12/12/24)
- In with a heavy hand, and out with a whisper (12/10/24)
- Applauding leadership that listens: a triumph for local representation (12/6/24)
- Are elected officials above the law? (12/4/24)
- Shopping tips to reduce holiday stress (11/29/24)
Editorial
Public positions should be filled in public view
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
We once heard some sage advice to women who are tempted to have an affair with married men.
If you get involved with a man who cheats on his wife, you'll end up married to a man who cheats on his wife.
Yet that same flawed course of action is one that would be facilitated by LB1018, which would exempt from public records law the applications of all finalists, as well as other candidates for the office of president, chancellor or vice president of the University of Nebraska.
Under existing law, all such materials are public record.
We understand the reasoning. Candidates should be free to explore their options without worrying that interviewing for a new position would undermine their current job.
That may be a valid argument if one is talking about ordinary jobs, which are precious in the present economy. One doesn't want to endanger even minimum-wage employment if the extra $2 an hour in the next job isn't a sure thing.
But we're talking about professionals who can't be replaced by making a call to the job service.
That's especially true in education, which takes about a quarter of state taxes and half of local property taxes in most cases.
The University of Nebraska budget is $2.3 billion a year, $1,300 a year for every man, woman and child in the state.
Should we trust that much tax money to someone who wants to hide their intentions from their current employers? If they are unwilling to be forthright with the people and entities who depend on them now?
Even if they are simply insecure about their standing in their current position, that might be considered enough to disqualify them as a viable candidate for such a public post.
Those who are tasked with interviewing and hiring someone as important as a top university official should welcome public scrutiny of all candidates, especially the finalists.
Should they make the wrong choice, they are sure to regret their pick once any skeletons come to light or personal failings that are revealed after the wrong person is installed in the post.
The university, like all entities entrusted with public funds, should welcome the free vetting services media and, today, social media can provide.
LB 1018 is a step in the wrong direction and should be rejected.