Expert says weak contract causes confusion over UW president’s firing
The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents is searching for its next leader of the state university system after firing UW system President Jay Rothman with little public explanation as to why.
One expert offered an immediate suggestion for the next hire: Write a stronger contract.
“In terms of Rothman’s contract, it is one of the thinnest we’ve seen for a position this important,” said George Mason University professor emeritus James Finkelstein, who reviewed the contract at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s request. “Overall, this reads more like a basic appointment letter than a serious executive contract.”
Finkelstein and his colleague, Judith Wilde, have reviewed more than 300 university presidential contracts across the country and developed a framework for what strong executive agreements should include.
Rothman’s four-page contract for a $600,000-a-year job leading a 165,000-student system and $7 billion budget addresses only a small part of what it should, Finkelstein said. Most importantly, it falls short on the provisions that matter most when a presidency ends badly.
Wisconsin law gives the board broad authority to remove the president. But it doesn’t distinguish between a routine leadership change and a president committing the most serious institutional breach.
This is where a contract would offer clarity by differentiating between removal for cause and removal without cause, Finkelstein said. But Rothman’s does not, leaving the institution financially, legally and reputationally vulnerable.
A well-drafted contract specifies different financial consequences for presidents removed due to the board’s loss of confidence as opposed to more serious reasons, such as financial misconduct, ethical violations, criminal conduct or major breach of duty.
Rothman’s does not. He will continue to be paid for the next six months, according to the contract. He told the Associated Press he’s unlikely to file a lawsuit over his firing.
“We’ll have to see how circumstances develop,” Rothman said. “I don’t think it’s likely that I would go in that direction. That’s not who I am.”
The UW system did not respond to criticism about the contract nor say whether it planned to draft a significantly different contract for the next person hired as president.
Finkelstein identified other gaps in Rothman’s contract:
- It requires the president be evaluated annually but doesn’t specify documentation requirements or consequences for negative results. Rothman told the Journal Sentinel he received feedback verbally and got no indication his termination was under consideration. Board President Amy Bogost said Rothman was not left uninformed.
- It lacks a non-disparagement clause, leaving both sides open to litigating the separation publicly.
- Unlike many university presidents who hold a concurrent faculty tenure appointment, Rothman came from outside academia entirely. The contract says nothing about what happens to Rothman’s status after his presidency ends.
- There is no clear statement about which separation decisions require full board action and which can be handled by the board president.
“When a public university system can remove its president without explanation but still seems to pay the same price whether it’s for misconduct or just a loss of confidence, the issue goes beyond secrecy,” he said. “It points to failed governance.”
That’s why this situation now appears so confused and so unclear, he added.
Kelly Meyerhofer has covered higher education in Wisconsin since 2018. Contact her at [email protected] or 414-223-5168. Follow her on X (Twitter) at @KellyMeyerhofer.
First Appeared on
Source link
