EDITORIAL
Dobelle evaluation hurts more than helps
A performance review of University of Hawai'i President Evan Dobelle released late last week makes it clear there is very little trust or unity of purpose between the board and the president.
Advertiser library photo • March 25, 200
What is unfortunate is that the review makes it crystal clear that the task of restoring, or building, that trust rests entirely on the president's shoulders. That will be tough going, considering that the regents unaccountably seek to block productive avenues of fund-raising for Dobelle and his team.
In their evaluation of President Evan Dobelle, the University of Hawai'i Board of Regents made it clear they're angry with their top man. The evaluation was made public last week.
There was little in the review to suggest the board is interested in working with Dobelle to improve relationships and get things on track. Rather, it was plainly stated that they expect him to change if things are to improve.
Bad timing
This does not bode well for a university that can scarcely afford turmoil at the top, particularly at a time when the faculty are about to accept or reject a new contract.
Most of the criticism of Dobelle focused on atmospherics, or style. Still, for the good of the university, Dobelle must take the regents' criticisms seriously and do what he can to patch up what is obviously a soured relationship.
This is not to say that the fault is all on his side. Hardly. But the name of the game is that the regents are in charge. Their concerns must be met.
Dobelle has charged that the evaluation was unprofessional and gossipy. And indeed, there were ample examples of "people say," or "we heard that," which do little to help the president improve his performance.
Off the mark
We were particularly struck by the comments of one of the six students interviewed by the regents. According to Katie Barry, secretary of the Student Caucus, the characterization of what students told the regents in the evaluation was completely off the mark.
Rather than being negative, she said, the students were mostly positive, but none of that showed up in the evaluation.
The evaluation, in parts, appears to be more interested in being hurtful than helpful.
The regents said that after a lengthy series of interviews and cross-checking, they came up with a number of terms that they say describe Dobelle. These include "arrogance," "disrespectful," "cronyism," "lavish spending" and "condescending."
This is hardly useful. What Dobelle and the university need are clear policy directions, not back-handed criticism. Some direction, it must be said, can be found in a list of "expectations and performance guidelines" attached to the review.
Jerking Dobelle chain
Some of these guidelines appear reasonable; others read as if they are simply attempts to jerk the president's chain.
Particularly outrageous is an order that Dobelle must raise $150 million to match a state appropriation for the new medical school strictly from private money.
This is a direct rebuke to Dobelle's assertion that he believes much of the matching money can be generated through federal money won by Sen. Dan Inouye and the Hawai'i congressional delegation.
What is the purpose of tying Dobelle's hands like this? To make things even more difficult, the regents said in their "expectations" document that they expect Dobelle to pick up at least $75 million of the matching money, as well as all the money needed to pay for renovations to College Hill, the president's residence, by June 30.
Recipe for failure
This is an arbitrary recipe for failure. In fact, it is a dereliction of fiduciary duty. If there's money available to help the university achieve a critical mission, it would be unconscionable to turn it down simply out of political pique.
There's no question Dobelle has alienated the current Board of Regents, in part through his ill-timed endorsement of Democrat Mazie Hirono in the last election, in part through his propensity to announce big ideas publicly rather than run them through the board first and in part because he has failed to keep the board intimately informed on administrative decisions and activities.
At the same time, however, he is thinking big about the university, its future and its opportunities. The regents owe Dobelle a chance to follow through on those dreams.
To force him out at this point would be a disaster for the University of Hawai'i and the community as a whole.
