After calls to pause, presidential search committee defends its ongoing work

After direct calls from Virginia Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger (Col class of ’01) and the Faculty Senate to pause its search for candidates to become UVA’s next president, the special search committee announced that it is continuing its work.

In two statements sent to the Faculty Senate and released Friday, Nov. 21, both the committee and the chair of the external search firm working with it verified that they were staying on their timeline and evaluating candidates. The committee added that it was not yet at the point of selecting finalists.

The statements came a week after a flurry of communiqués—some pointed—in mid-November regarding the search for candidates to succeed President Jim Ryan (Law class of ’92), who announced his sudden resignation in June amid pressure from the Department of Justice.

It started with a letter from the incoming governor to Board of Visitors Rector Rachel Sheridan (Col class of ’94, Law class of ’98) and Vice Rector Porter Wilkinson (Law class of ’07)—who also head the presidential search committee—on Wednesday, Nov. 12. In it, Spanberger criticized the board, writing that its actions over the past six months had “severely undermined the public’s and the university community’s confidence in the board’s ability to govern productively, transparently, and in the best interests of the university,” citing the votes of no confidence from the Faculty Senate and the Student Council.

She also cited the BOV’s current composition as a concern, saying a “legitimate and transparent process must be led by a Board that is fully constituted and commands the trust of the university community and the confidence of the citizens of the commonwealth.”

She urged Sheridan and Wilkinson to “refrain from rushing this search process and from selecting the finalists for the presidency or a president” until she can appoint members to fill vacancies on the board after she is inaugurated in January.

The next day, outgoing Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who appointed every member of the current board, responded to Spanberger’s letter to Sheridan and Wilkinson. He criticized Spanberger and defended the search process: “Your letter was riddled with hyperbole and factual errors and impugns both the Board of Visitors and the presidential search underway. I understand that this search has followed national best practices and been a model of transparency, including offering multiple opportunities for stakeholder input.”

“By acting precipitously,” he added, “you may have inflicted significant damage on the university you profess to love. As two predecessors, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, stated, ‘Decisions about UVA’s leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors.’”

Also that Thursday afternoon, Rector Sheridan sent the Faculty Senate a letter that did not appear to be in direct response to Spanberger’s or Youngkin’s letters. In it, she narrated her view of the events that led to Ryan’s resignation. Ryan responded by sending the Faculty Senate a letter of his own on Friday morning. 

That Friday, Nov. 14, UVA’s Faculty Senate weighed in, passing a resolution calling on the governor and General Assembly to provide UVA with BOV leadership “who merit the trust and confidence of the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of the University”; requesting that the presidential search committee cease activity until the board is up to full complement; and calling for Sheridan and Wilkinson to resign.

The resolution noted that “the faculty, staff, students and alumni of the University of Virginia need leadership that is transparent, accountable and brave and that is not tainted by the ongoing and as yet unanswered questions surrounding the decisions and actions of the BOV in the forced resignation of President Ryan,” and that Sheridan and Wilkinson had refused requests for meetings with the Faculty Senate.

As no public response to Spanberger’s request came from university leadership, it became unclear what would happen with the presidential search. The answer came a week later in the form of two letters sent to the Faculty Senate and released publicly Nov. 21. In the first, John Isaacson, the chair of the external search firm working with the search committee, verified “The work continues.”

The second letter, signed “The Special Committee on the Search for a President,” revealed that the committee had just completed its first round of interviews “with an extraordinarily impressive group.”

It added: “To responsibly narrow this exceptional pool, we must conduct additional due diligence, hold further interviews, and continue our internal deliberations.”

The committee also acknowledged the controversy.

“We know there is concern across Grounds about trust and transparency in the process,” the letter said. “While we understand these concerns, a successful presidential search must uphold strict confidentiality.”

As the university’s governing body, the BOV has the authority to ultimately decide who to hire as UVA’s next president. However, whether the board’s current 12-person makeup is statutorily compliant has been a point of contention among members of the UVA community ever since the last five of Youngkin’s picks were rejected by the General Assembly Senate Privileges and Elections Committee this summer.

Under Virginia code, the BOV “shall consist of 17 members,” of whom at least 12 shall be from Virginia, 12 shall be UVA alumni, and one shall be a physician. The board does not currently include either 12 Virginians or 12 alumni.

In her letter, Spanberger raised that issue, which Youngkin said was “meritless and has been rejected by the Court of Appeals of Virginia.”

While Youngkin did not cite a specific ruling, judges in a 2004 Virginia Court of Appeals case ruled against an auctioneer who claimed that the state Auctioneers Board did not have the authority to take action against him because it did not have the five members called for by code. The judges cited a Virginia Supreme Court opinion that “the use of ‘shall,’ in a statute requiring action by a public official, is directory and not mandatory unless the statute manifests a contrary intent.” The judges also cited the fact that code set forth the conditions under which the Auctioneers Board could act. Similarly, Virginia code sets the BOV’s quorum—the minimum number of members who must be present to conduct official business—at five.

Eight of the current voting members of the BOV—including the rector and vice rector—serve on the special search committee. (The committee briefly contained 10 voting BOV members, but the Privileges and Elections Committee in August rejected the appointments of two of them.)

The next regular meeting of the BOV is Dec. 4.