So I was cleaning out my email inbox and found some emails from the Faculty Senate President Yan Searcy about the Presidential Search Advisory committee. The emails took me back to late 2007 when I first suspected that the now former President would not be rejoining us for the 2008-09 school year. I heard two names pop up repeatedly as replacements which was surprising because if true it eliminated the need for any type of search process. If the Board of Trustees had settled on a replacement, then why form an advisory committee and waste the time of faculty and staff who are already working hard. Why hire a executive search firm at a cost that could be spent elsewhere in the university, perhaps recruiting students more likely to stay and graduate within the 4-6 year window we are evaluated on? Why perpetrate the illusion of transparency when it is clear that the Board of Trustees has its collective eye on two candidates whose names have kept re-emerging since 2007? Thus, I was intrigued when the Advisory Committee was formed as to what advice they might give to the Board. I was dismayed upon hearing from Advisory Committee members that there was no discussion about candidates once the original 33 applicants was whittled down to 12. And again no advice was given when the five candidates who would receive “airport interviews” were selected. So I am left to ask what was the purpose of the Presidential Search Advisory committee except to give the illusion that what faculty of this university think is important. If that is true then what can we expect from the next ten years at Chicago State? Maybe broken up and sold to the City Colleges or private educational concerns???