Behind the tumultuous fanfare associated with the nomination of Biddy Martin as University of Wisconsin-Madison’s new chancellor, another chancellor search process taking place revealed a number of disastrous inadequacies in the screening of UW System chancellor candidates. The system, scrambling to find a replacement for outgoing Chancellor Jack Keating, settled on a Robert Felner to take the helm at Parkside starting in the fall.
On the surface, Felner seemed like the ideal candidate. His fundraising success as a dean at the University of Louisville indicated an impressive ability to find alternative sources of support, especially at a time when the UW System is struggling to compensate for decreasing support from the state.
However, beneath the glowing reviews, a long history of financial abuse haunted Felner’s past positions at Louisville, the University of Rhode Island and the University of Illinois. Felner’s past finally caught up with him when federal agents arrived at Parkside to seize computers from Felner’s office as part of a comprehensive investigation. After the investigation was made public, allegations of fraudulent accounting and egregious mismanagement of state funds became more prominent, culminating in Felner’s resignation from Parkside.
What is most troubling is the fact that the search committee did not find any questionable components in Felner’s background. Whether or not criminal activity did occur, the Parkside search committee should have conducted a more in-depth review of Robert Felner’s activities at Parkside. Additionally, we are especially troubled by a subordinate search committee’s failure to deem an earlier no-confidence vote against Felner by the Louisville faculty — a vote which Felner lost — as significant enough to be passed on to the final committee.
When the UW System Board of Regents conducts its overview of its processes for selection of chancellors, it must understand mistakes will inevitably be made. However, failing to comprehensively investigate the backgrounds of its most significant administrators is unacceptable and constitutes a grievous lack of caution with dangerous implications for the UW System.
