At the core of the position of Chancellor and President are the following roles:  the public face, the fundraiser, the community leader, the provider of values and vision, and the public servant.  White and Herman can no longer effectively play these roles.  Both have violated the public trust, forever tainted their own integrity, diminished their effectiveness as fundraisers, embarrassed themselves and the university, and enraged lawmakers in Springfield who are now less likely to fund us (with the added excuse of not wanting to pay inflated salaries of these jokers).  There is no question that White and Herman cannot provide the people of Illinois with the best possible leadership of the University of Illinois. This is the most important criteria the BoT and Pat Quinn should use when determining whether White and Herman should be retained.

Although anytime any leader of a bureaucracy the size of the University of Illinois is replaced there will necessarily be a transition period, here the resulting administrative hiccup would be much less damaging than retaining Richard Herman and B. Joe White.  White and Herman aren’t exactly steering the boat alone.  The University has an ever-expanding  army of senior administrative personnel who can keep the wheels going round even if we had to name an Interim-President and Interim-Chancellor tomorrow.

White and Herman have lost the public confidence.  They are forever diminished within the community, within the University, within the state, and within the academy.  Had the vote not been postponed, there was a strong probability that the U of I faculty-student senate would have recommended the removal of White and Herman.  The students and faculty are the heart and soul of a University, not the bureaucrats and administrators.   The U of I is a public institution committed to shared governance, which operates best when students, faculty, and administrators work together and respect one another.  White and Herman have irreparably lost the confidence of a large number of students, faculty members and alumni.  In difficult financial times, they’ve given too many alumni another reason not to give back.

At a world class research institution, and the flagship public institution in Illinois, we have a huge pool of talent to choose from to replace Herman and White, many of whom could hit the ground running on day one.  Just to illustrate some of the possibilities, I compiled a list of names from several friends who are former student leaders of folks who would do a good job as  either President or Chancellor on an interim or permanent basis:

Stan Ikenberry

Jim Edgar

Stan Levy

Ruth Watkins

Bruce Smith

Vernon Burton

Mrinalini Rao

John D. Wiley

Peg Rawls

William Berry

Al Bowman

Glen Poshard

These are just a few off the cuff suggestions from former student leaders.  Please feel free to suggest others in the comments.  Imagine the list of names a committee of current faculty and student leaders could generate in a few hours.   Without the crippling weight of the clout scandal any number of individuals could serve the University more effectively than White and Herman.  Their weakness is apparent without even addressing the other reasons to doubt White’s basic competency, Herman’s commitment to any values whatsoever, or the prowess of either as a fundraiser.

White and Herman seem to think they are entitled to a chance to right this wrong, and they plead ignorance to the overt corruption that smoking-gun emails prove they actively engaged in.  Both have been duplicitous as hell in their public statements, before they realized just how demonstrable their involvement would become to the public.  It isn’t in the best interest of the people of Illinois to give these two another chance after they displayed such an abhorrent lack of respect for public integrity. This wasn’t a mistake, it was a clear lack of character.  This shouldn’t be about whether they deserve a second chance or a chance to make things right, as Herman contends.  This should be about one thing, and one thing only: what best serves the interests of the people of Illinois.  The answer to that question is showing both Richard Herman and B. Joe White the door.

* And a study of the 2008 election results shows that self-funding candidates don’t do well at all…

49 Congressional candidates spend $500,000 of their own money, and of them, only 6 House candidates and 1 Senate candidate won.

Perhaps the saddest case of this was Sandy Treadwell, who ran against Kirsten Gillibrand in NY-20. Treadwell poured in at least $5.9 million of his own money. (Gillibrand spent $3.6 million, but only $250 of that was her own money.) The return on Treadwell’s investment: priceless. If by ‘priceless,’ you mean losing to Gillibrand by a 23-point margin.

The Illinois GOP might take that as a broad hint to stop recruiting those self-funders.

As usual Miller is spot on.  If you can’t convince your people and your party to support your campaign, it’s a good hint that you’re not a viable candidate.

Too often wealthy candidates are surrounded with people afraid to tell them bad news, or the egos of the wealthy are spurred on by staffers who want to keep getting a check.  And when you’re many months, hundreds of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars in to a campaign, its hard to recognize sunk costs, and hard to tell when to stop.

This is also a good sign for our democracy.  Folk’s don’t like it when it looks like you’re just buyin’ it.  An interesting question, would more aggressive federal campaign finance reform reverse this trend?  It’s really hard concoct campaign finance legislation that could constitutionally limit the ability of a candidate to spend their own money on their campaign.  Does limiting PACs, lobbyists, and contribution amounts give self-financed candidates an unfair advantage?