Days before a University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents committee started meeting to decide on the next chancellor at UW-Madison in May, Gov. Jim Doyle interviewed the four finalists for the position over the phone. He then passed his thoughts about the candidates along to the committee.

The governor’s interviews have predictably caused some to speculate that Doyle played a role in the selection process, which ended with the committee choosing former Cornell Provost Biddy Martin to succeed John Wiley.

The concern is not unreasonable. We do not know what was said in the governor’s interviews. We cannot prove Doyle attempted to influence the choice of chancellor candidates in any way. But the mere fact that he interjected himself into the selection process creates the impression that he sought to have some effect on its outcome. Why else, after all, would Doyle take time out of his schedule to talk with the four finalists?

Lee Sensenbrenner, Doyle’s spokesperson, told The Wisconsin State Journal the governor conducted the interviews simply so he could get to know the candidates. That doesn’t sound nefarious, and a good working relationship between the chancellor and the governor certainly is beneficial.

Yet only one of the four candidates was destined to become chancellor, meaning Doyle was attempting to get to know three people he had no particular need to know. Besides, the three-month period between Martin’s selection and her first day at the helm in Bascom was more than sufficient for the two to familiarize themselves with each other.

The fault lies not entirely with Doyle but also with regent David Walsh, who asked the governor to talk with the four finalists. Walsh should have been aware that such a request created the impression that the governor has a hand in the selection process.

The UW System has hired a consultant to review its process for vetting and selecting chancellor candidates, a reaction to the disastrous nomination of a man under federal investigation for misappropriation of grant money at the University of Louisville to the top post at UW-Parkside.

As the university system works to reform its process, it should make clear what contact politicians in the Capitol should have with potential chancellors. In doing so, it should bear in mind that contact along the lines of Doyle’s makes it seem that the chancellor is in part a political appointment, even if that is not the intent behind the communication.