Patrick Gamble to Tanaina Supporters: Are You Saying Tanaina's Location Is an Entitlement?

That's a question that University of Alaska president (until June) Patrick Gamble asked at least two people who spoke to the board of regents last Friday about keeping Tanaina Child Development Center open and on campus after the University of Alaska Anchorage administration abruptly notified the Center that it would have to move, soon.  

I've been thinking about how to write about this pre-school closing by the university. (It's not exactly a done deal - there's a task force that's been set up to find some options.)  I understand the bigger contextual issues, but I needed to get my facts about the specifics at UAA better.  I went to the board of regents meeting Friday and task force meeting Friday afternoon and so I have more facts.  Too many for one post.  So I'm going to start here with the president's use of the word 'entitlement.'  

I try pay attention to words, and as most of you are probably aware, 'entitlement' is one, heavily loaded  term these days.  The New York Times pointed out how Mitt Romney's team was using the term back in 2011, so this isn't anything new:

"Romney and his aides have designed his rhetoric to define pretty much all spending on entitlements, including provisions for the injured, unemployed, sick, disabled or elderly as benefits to the poor who, Romney implies, are undeserving. And it doesn’t matter whether the money to pay for these programs comes from employer and employee contributions and not just tax revenue — they are all under suspicion. 

Will the United States be an Entitlement Society or an Opportunity Society? In an Entitlement Society, government provides every citizen the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort and willingness to innovate, pioneer or take risk. In an Opportunity Society, free people living under a limited government choose whether or not to pursue education, engage in hard work, and pursue the passion of their ideas and dreams. If they succeed, they merit the rewards they are able to enjoy. [emphasis added]

Basically, we have the lazy welfare cheats who want government to supply them with everything versus the Horatio Alger go-getter who makes his fortune on his own.  This view of the world helps explain why people can be against Obamacare - they see it as lazy people getting something for nothing.  Which is how the Koch Brothers (I guess that's becoming the metaphor for those on the right who want to shape public opinion to reflect their political interests) want people to think.  In this model, people are poor because they choose to be and they prefer to live the great life provided by welfare.

An opposing model, one that is much more realistic for me, is that some people in this society either are born into privilege, get lots of lucky breaks, and/or genetically have been blessed with the right skill set that can be successful in today's United States.  The rest are blocked by big and little structural barriers - from parents who were ill-prepared to raise them, schools that teach to academically (or athletically) oriented kids, a society that assumes certain skin colors and other physical characteristics are less intelligent, more violent, and otherwise threatening or disgusting, to student loans that force them to get any job they can just to pay off the debt.  (This is just scratching the surface, of course.)

In any case, it was disturbing to hear Gamble question people about whether they thought the Tanaina location was an 'entitlement.'  It was like a trap question - what would have happened if they said yes?  They didn't, and he said, "That's good, because you're going to have to compromise."  The very fact that he used that word in the context was scary.  Was he, in fact, trying to trap them into admitting they thought it was an entitlement?  Was it just his own emotional reaction?  Is he just around people who use that term so much that he doesn't even realize others see it as a code for bad and undeserving?

It's also kind of strange, because by my calculations, Gamble is getting what some would call  'entitlements' in the guise of military and Alaska Railroad retirement checks that boost his annual income from the University to close to $500,000 a year.  And on top of that he wanted, and got the board to agree (before they changed their minds) a  $320,000 longevity bonus.   Of course, I don't think that pension money is an 'entitlement' but Republican governors in Illinois, New Jersey, and other states have used attacking pensions as part of their budget reducing strategy.   Are there abuses of some pensions?  Of course, just as there are abuses in all systems that are made up of people.  But, that is yet another post.

Let me say that the news isn't all bad.  Going to the meetings was a good idea because I've gained some factual data that changes my view of things to a certain extent and I hope to lay this out in future posts.  

On Finding A New President After University President Gamble Retires In June: "you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them they are not worth the search.'

 The Alaska Dispatch reported this week:

FAIRBANKS—University of Alaska President Pat Gamble plans to step down next summer after five years on the job, triggering a move by the UA Board of Regents to begin looking for a new leader at a retreat in January.
"President Gamble's commitment to the university and its students is a deep and genuine one. It capstones a lifetime of serving our country and our state. He deserves the time that retirement will allow to enjoy family and explore personal interests," said UA Regents Chairwoman Jo Heckman of Fairbanks.
Gamble told the regents Friday he plans to retire June 1. He began the job June 1, 2010.

I don't have any further information on this, but think it is important to note, given the drama of the Board of Regents offering him a a longevity bonus earlier this year and then rescinding it after considerable protest around the state.  The bonus might have kept him one more year.  Looks like we saved more than $360K. 

Rather than dwell on the past, it's time to think seriously about finding a new president who will serve the university and the state well.

Replacing university presidents, is a long affair and is almost always a nationwide or even international search.  The American Council on Education (ACE) writes in a 2012 report:

The Presidential Search Process  The presidential search and hiring processes for presidents appointed since 2007 are very different than those used for presidents hired between 1969 and 1983. For example, only 12 percent of presidential searches between the late 1960s and early 1980s employed a search consultant. The share of searches between 2007 and 2011 that used a search consultant was 80 percent. Likewise, only 31 percent of presidents hired between 1969 and 1983 received a written contract, compared with 61 percent of presidents hired between 2007 and 2011.
Presidents do not take lightly the acceptance of a presidential position. As such, most presidents sought advice from a trusted source before making a decision about their current position. The overwhelming choice of counsel for a majority of presidents was colleagues in the field, or family members. Nearly 30 percent of presidents sought no advice prior to accepting their current position.
While a majority of presidents reported having a clear understanding of the job when they accepted it, a sizeable minority expressed confusion or a lack of knowledge over some aspect of the job. For example, at least one out of five presidents stated they were not made fully aware of all institutional challenges, the institution's financial condition, or the expectation of the president during the search process.

Given the academic calendar, searches are usually begun nine months to a year before the position is to be filled.  Starting later than that means many good candidates have already accepted positions for the following academic year.

The timing of this announcement puts the University of Alaska at a distinct disadvantage.  For instance, the University of Nebraska announced four finalists for their presidential search in November.  Their president resigned in January 2014 and they have an interim president for this year.  I'd note they also identified these criteria for their president:

• A deep understanding of higher education and proven success leading a major organization.
• Passion for the key role the University of Nebraska plays in ensuring the state’s overall success through teaching, research and service.
• Willingness to serve as president for at least five years, perhaps up to 10.
• Credentials sufficient for appointment as a tenured university professor, including an earned Ph.D. or other relevant terminal degree, teaching experience and a personal record of research and scholarship.

This wouldn't be a bad model for Alaska's search.  The second point has to be adapted to Alaska, of course, and experience with Alaska is crucial.  We need someone who knows the state and isn't going to pack up when the temperature drops below 0˚ and the sun goes into semi-hibernation. 

The ACE report cited above also describes the characteristics of university presidents:

In 1986, the first year of ACE’s college president study, the demographic profile of the typical campus leader was a white male in his 50s. He was married with children, Protestant, held a doctorate in education, and had served in his current position for six years.
Twenty-five years later, with few exceptions, the profile has not changed.
Two decades ago, the average age of college and university presidents was 52. Today, it is 61. In fact, in 1986 just 13 percent of presidents were over the age of 60. In 2011, 58 percent of presidents are over 60. One possible reason for this aging of the presidency is the increasing complexity of leading a postsecondary institution. As colleges and universities face a growing number of internal and external challenges, governing boards and search committees are likely looking for more experienced leaders. This tenet is supported by the fact that 54 percent of current presidents in 2011 were presidents in their last position. In 1986, only 40 percent of sitting presidents held a presidency in their previous role.
While college campuses have diversified the racial and ethnic makeup of their student bodies, the racial and ethnic composition of college and university presidents has changed very little. Between 1990 and 2009, the share of college students that were racial and ethnic minorities increased from 20 percent to 34 percent. Between 1986 and 2011, the racial makeup of college presidents only increased from 8 percent to 13 percent. Moreover, when comparing data from the two most recent president studies, racial diversity declined from 14 percent in 2006 to 13 percent in 2011.
A 2008 ACE study¹ suggested a possible reason for the continued lack of diversity in the presidency: a lack of racial diversity among the positions that are typically recruiting grounds for college presidencies, senior campus officials. In 2008 only 16 percent of senior administrators were people of color including just 10 percent of chief academic officers (CAO).
Although racial and ethnic diversification of the college presidency has lagged, there has been some headway in gender diversity. In 1986 just 10 percent of college presidents were women. Today, 26 percent of institutional leaders are female. Twenty-five years ago bachelor’s institutions had the greatest share of female presidents. This is not surprising given that most all-female postsecondary institutions were bachelor’s institutions. However in 2011, associate colleges had the largest share of women leaders. One reason for this shift is likely the closing of a large number of all female institutions over the past two decades.  [emphasis added]

The job of university president has evolved and fundraising is now often the major focus.  It's not an easy job.  The Nation had an article last year on the lack leadership and boldness from university presidents these days.  Here's are some quotes they gathered about presidents over the years:

The university president, Upton Sinclair wrote in The Goose-Step [1923], was “the most universal faker and the most variegated prevaricator that has yet appeared in the civilized world.” William Honan, writing in The New York Times in 1994, wondered why college presidents no longer “cut striking figures on the public stage.” “Small Men on Campus: The Shrinking College President” was the headline of a New Republic cover story in 1998. In their 2010 book Higher Education?, Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus declared, “Once upon a time, university leaders were seen as sculptors of society.” Now they “are chiefly technocrats, agile climbers who reach the top without making too many enemies or mistakes.”

The whole article would be useful for the search committee to read and ponder as they begin their task.  

So would Milton Greenberg's article in the Chronicle of Higher Education - the one from which I got the Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice quote  ("You shall seek. . ." that's in the title.   He finds  no evidence that search firms  perform any better than the older, cheaper ways universities have found presidents.  He writes, in part,

Now, many years into retirement, I continue to smile at the increasingly convoluted drama of hiring for presidents—and now just about every leadership position. The entire process, managed by a horde of costly "search consultants," has developed partly out of legal and policy requirements regarding inclusiveness, but mainly out of the all-too-human perception that out there somewhere, someone superior to anyone already on campus awaits the call of greatness. These mysterious people are thought to be known to search firms that have rooms full of Rolodexes and computers full of databases chockablock with the names of reluctant candidates whose ambitions just need a nudge.

Yet there is no evidence that the use of a search firm improves the quality or longevity of administrative leaders compared with those chosen the old-fashioned way, by an internal committee, the board of trustees, or the appointing officer based on crony politics. The same lack of evidence applies to the promotion of inside candidates. David Riesman suggested that people tend to undervalue insiders that they know, and to longingly await the brilliant, good-looking stranger who captures the room by storm.

Since 1921, according to the University of Alaska website, we have had 14 presidents.  Two were interim, short term appointments, and one seems to have fled the state when he discovered all the dirty laundry he'd inherited.

The table below is adapted from a similar table at the University of Alaska website.  It, however, left out a picture of Wendy Redman.  I thought it was because she only served as interim president, but another, male, interim president did have his picture up.  So I decided to add her to my chart.  Each name links to short bio of the president.

Our last two presidents have been generals - one army and one air force.  Mark Hamilton championed hard and strong and increased the University's budget.  Patrick Gamble acted as the MBA he is and managed cut back strategies rather than advocating for the university.  I  feel it is important to get back to a president who comes from an academic background.  The next years will be full of turmoil given that the financial doomsday forecasts appear finally to be coming true.   The new president will have to be an articulate and passionate advocate for the university as well as a person with understanding of the underlying purpose of a university, its role in society, and how to fulfill that purpose in the modern era of changing economic and technological times. 


Do we have good candidates who are already in Alaska?  One who comes to mind is Fran Ulmer who served as Chancellor of UAA.  I'm sure there are others, including some with prior Alaska experience who have since moved out of state. 


Pondering these past presidents should be part of the search process.  Where have we been and where are we going?  Which of these presidents moved us forward, backward, or just held us in place?  How can that knowledge help in finding a new president?

1921-1949 Charles Bunnell	1973-1977 Robert W. Hiatt	1984-1998Donald D. O'Dowd
1949-1953 Terris Moore	1977-1977 Charles O. Ferguson	1990-1998 Jerome Komisar
1953-1960 Ernest Patty	1977-1977 Neil D. Humphrey	1998-1998 Wendy Redman
1960-1973 William Wood \	1977-1979 Foster F. Diebold	1998-2010 Mark R. Hamilton
	1979 - 1984 Jay Barton	2010-2015 Patrick K Gamble

It's easy to sit at home and write about this task.  I have no illusions about the difficulties the new search committee will face.  Most likely, the Regents will follow the national trend cited in the ACE report and hire an academic search firm.  Academic 360 lists about 70 firms that would be happy to do the search for UA.  That could easily cost the $360,000 bonus the president didn't get.  (Ohio State paid $610,000 for their President search)

Over the course of a six month presidential search, OSU used “unrestricted funds” to pay a private search firm, a private business jet rental company and other various restaurants and businesses in the Columbus area, expenses that one OSU professor said don’t seem extreme.

Personally, I would like a president who would be appalled that the Board of Regents were spending that kind of money on the search.  I want a president who wants to lead a great university, not one who needs to be pampered.  

The search committee will have to work hard not to be intimidated by the search firm.  I wish them, and us - the people of Alaska - good luck along with the diligence they'll need to find a great president for the University of Alaska.  in searching for a new president. 

UA President's Bonus Rescinded And Fuller Cowell, The Regent Who Voted No

This is old news, but I want to complete the story I started on this topic and also get people to start paying attention to who is on the Board of Regents.

At their September 8, 2014 meeting, the Board of Regents voted, at the President's request, to rescind the $320,000 retention bonus.  I'm hoping this is the end of this particular series of posts, but I would note that the president's request did say that the bonus was inappropriate at this time.  Leaving open, perhaps, a more appropriate time.  But I want to give the president the benefit of the doubt.  As I've indicated in previous posts on this topic, he's already earning - with pensions from the Air Force and the Alaska Railroad - and his UA salary, in the ballpark of half a million a year.  Anyone could find something to do with $320,000, but at his income level, surely he can live well without it.

One of the regents voted against rescinding the bonus.  KFQD reported:

"[Cowell] says the university wants to attract high-quality leaders and the vote sets a bad precedent. Gamble says he appreciates the support of the board."

It seems that the rest of the regents thought giving the bonus sends an even worse message to students, faculty, and staff of the university system, not to mention potential donors, the legislature, and the general public.  And I'm not sure what bad precedent it sets.  That the Board listens to the president?  That it is sensitive to public opinion?  That it can correct a mistake?  Or that if you want to be president of the Alaska system, your salary won't be unlimited?

I emailed Regent Cowell right after the vote to ask some questions, but I never got a response.  He's also the only regent who doesn't list his phone number on the University pages for the regents.

So I took to the internet to try to figure out who he might be.  I'll warn you, I've been doing this long enough to know that figuring out someone's values and motives from scraps of bio information is a risky business.  At best it can let you speculate and raise questions to ask.

So let's look at Cowell's online shadow.

First, from the University of Alaska's bio of the regent.

Fuller A. Cowell of Anchorage was appointed in 2007 by Governor Palin. Regent Cowell was raised on a homestead in Fairbanks, attended Lathrop High School and studied biology at UAF. He completed his bachelors of business administration with an emphasis in marketing at National University, Sacramento, California graduating Summa Cum Laude. Cowell completed the Advanced Executive Program at the Kellogg Business School, Northwestern University, in Chicago, Illinois. In 1995, he was awarded the UAF Alumni Achievement Award for Community Achievement. The award was established to recognize outstanding UAF alumni.

If you just read this you might think Cowell was born in Alaska, but a McClatchy article from 1993  says he didn't come until he was seven. 

He has an extensive background in Alaska, moving to the state with his family when he was seven years old. 

That's no big deal.  I didn't get to Alaska until I was in my 30s. It's not so much how long you've been here, but a) whether your story matches what really happened, and b) whether your time here was spent getting to know the state, particularly the people.    

Probably much more relevant to his position as a regent is his educational background.  From the official bio we can infer that he studied at, but did not graduate from UAF.  Then, apparently he switched from biology to business.  National University is today a big online university. How good it is, I can't tell.  Students often go to online universities because it's easier to get in, class times are more flexible, and they want a degree.  While you can get a good education online (and a bad one in person), my guess is that most people going to online programs want the degree more than they want an education.  That's a generalization and there are lots of exceptions.  Does it apply to Cowell?  First, I don't know when he went and whether it was even online at the time.  But it's not a traditional university.  I'm guessing he went there because after dropping out (?) of UAF, he just wanted to get his diploma.  But I don't know.  We just gather clues and make hypotheses and try to test them.  His next educational experience seems to point in the same direction. 

"Cowell completed the Advanced Executive Program at the Kellogg Business School, Northwestern University, in Chicago, Illinois."

First, I'd mention that Northwestern is in Evanston, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago.  But maybe they have a Chicago branch, or maybe he thought people wouldn't know where Evanston was, or maybe he's not a stickler for details.  It's probably not important, but just another clue that may or may not prove useful.

The Kellog School has one of the best business programs in the country.  An advanced executive program sounds pretty substantial.  But the Advanced Management Program - Intensive today is just under three weeks long and costs $36,000! (In comparison, a Harvard Business School Program For Leadership Development costs $45,000, but goes from December to June with two (12 day) on-campus and two off-campus modules.)

Again, this is a program for someone who wants to get things done quickly, who can't or doesn't want to spend the time for a longer, more traditional program.  I'm sure it was a stimulating experience, but there's only so much you can learn and retain in such a short program. 

Is this the best person that Sarah Palin could find to be on the board?  Of course, each appointee should be considered in the context of the other members.  If they all have more traditional educations, then he might add a useful perspective. 
 

Back to the official bio. 

Cowell serves as co-chair of the Providence Foundation Steering Committee, is on the board of St. Elias (long term acute care) Hospital and on the C.W. Snedden Chair of Journalism Selection Committee at UAF. He has served on the Journalism Advisory Board at UAA, the boards of Commonwealth North, Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, and the Anchorage Performing Arts Center and co-chaired the United Way of Anchorage campaign.

The Juneau Empire adds this:

He also co-chaired the Providence Foundation Steering Committee and was a founding member of the Alaska Cancer Research and Education Center.

The cancer research makes more sense if you look at Evangeline Atwood's Bent Pins to Chains:  Alaska and Its Newspapers:

"He returned to Alaska in 1993 as publisher of the Daily News but had to retire in 1999 to concentrate on a successful fight against leukemia."

Back to the official bio:

Cowell’s newspaper career took him from a newspaper carrier at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner to director of operations of the McClatchy Company and ultimately publisher of Alaska’s largest newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News. He spent ten years commercial fishing in Area E, which includes Prince William Sound and the Copper River Delta.

Cowell is married to the former Christmas Tripp of Fairbanks. Their daughter Alexis lives and works in Anchorage where she was born.

Much of his career has  been spent working for the McClatchy newspaper chain. Including time with some of its California papers.   He seems to have been in the management rather than the journalism side.  The McClatchy newspaper chain published information about Cowell when he took over as the publisher of the Anchorage Daily News, in 1993.


He's also, it seems, the owner of Cowell's Heliport Service in Big Lake.  The only date I could find on the site was a 7/2004 activation date; there's a July 2014 reference at 123 Jets. Or maybe he has a son with the same name.


OK, as I said, this is just a bunch of facts about his education and his work experience.  It doesn't tell us who he is, what he knows, what he values, and whether he's a good choice for the Board of Regents.

The University plays a critical role for Alaska.  If it does its job well, more Alaskans will get a good education and make important contributions to a sustainable Alaska, an Alaska that uses its resources wisely and has both  physical and social infrastructures that support a good life for this and future generations.

With a FY15 budget of over $1 billion, it's also an institution whose leaders should be closely followed and kept accountable.  But I dare say few Alaskans could name even one or two regents, let alone have any idea of what they do or how well.  (I did post abbreviated bios of the regents in an earlier post.)

I hope to explore this topic further in future posts. 

Gamble Asks Board To Review $360K Retention Bonus

UA Outreach sent a heads-up email (see the whole email below) yesterday to "Dear University Employee" about a press release entitled "UA’s Gamble requests board to review retention incentive."

This is a positive development.  There's been a lot of backlash both inside and outside the university to the $320,000 retention bonus the board of regents voted to give the president.  The board president has strongly defended the bonus as the right thing to do, making it hard for her to back down now.  So the president's asking them to review it is a way for them to do so and save face.  But it sounds so half-hearted.

As I read the release, I noticed that the president danced around the issue.  He doesn't ask the board to withdraw the bonus.  He doesn't say he won't take the bonus.  And most importantly, he doesn't assure that board that he will stay to finish the Shaping Alaska's Future project that board president Jacobson touted as key evidence of the exemplary work the president was doing. 

“I very much appreciate the board’s support, but this issue will remain the elephant in the room every time we meet with faculty, staff, a donor or a legislator,” Gamble said. “The decision ultimately is up to the board, but the timing isn’t right and I think the board is very sensitive to that now.”
Gamble made the remarks during a noon presentation of the Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce today. He said he couldn’t predict what the board will do, but feels certain the board will consider the situation with the public sentiment in mind."

 "The decision ultimately is up to the board."   As I see it, it is ultimately up to President Gamble.  He can refuse it.  He can return it to one of the various funds and foundations at the university. In an earlier post, I cited the example of Raymond Burse, interim president of Kentucky State University who gave $90,000 of his salary to raise the salary of minimum wage employees at KSU.

One could argue this phrasing is simply a reflection of the president's long military career and he's following the university chain of command, deferring to the board at the top. (And his wording suggests the board was out of touch when he says, "the board is very sensitive to that now.") 

But that's one of the problems many at the university have with the president.  The university isn't a military organization with a rigid chain of command.  It's a collaborative organization where governance is democratic and collegial.

Most vexing to me is the lack of assurance from the president that he will stay to finish the work he's begun, at least until June 2016.  I understand the board's concern that they might have to conduct a search for a new president.  Searches can be expensive and finding a good candidate who will accept the position is not assured.

This retention bonus covers three years, starting in June 2013 when the last contract ended.  There's no explanation of why it took a year to renew the contract, but the practical consequence is that over one-third of the retention bonus time has already passed, and as of today, there are only 22 months left in the new contract.  Surely the president could assure the board, for the sake of a smooth and well planned transition, that he will stay until then.   That would give the board the security of knowing he plans to stay and remove the need for such a bonus.  Does he not plan to stay?  Is that why he doesn't say it?

Instead, he says "the timing isn't right."  Does that mean they should wait for a better time? 

OK, as someone who writes every day, I know that it is easy to misinterpret what someone says. Every reader reads the words differently.   I'm just saying that as a retired faculty member with 30 years at UAA, I felt that the president could have made a statement that was more in tune with the university culture.  He needed to send several messages to several constituencies (the regents, the university community, the state), both with what he said and how he said it:

1. I've learned about the university culture, I've learned your language and values
2. I assure you I'll finish the work I started and stay until June 2016, and so there's no need for a retention bonus
3. Given the state's and university's budget problems, giving me a bonus big enough to pay for three senior faculty is inappropriate.  
4. I urge the board to rescind the bonus and use that money to save programs we have had to cut instead.  [I'd note though, that this is future money, not current money.]

Of the four statements above, the only one he made was #3, and that was supported this way:

"The retention incentive has become a negative distraction at a time when there is a great need for all levels of the university community to pull together."

The problem, he says, is that the bonus is a distraction.  He doesn't say it was wrong.  It seems he still doesn't get it. 



Here's the whole email sent out:

Dear University of Alaska Employee:

Please be aware that the following media release is being issued this afternoon. We wanted you to know about this prior to reading it in the press:
________________________________________________

For Immediate Release
Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2014

UA’s Gamble requests board to review retention incentive

University of Alaska President Pat Gamble has requested the 11-member Board of Regents revisit the issue of a $320,000 retention incentive approved in June.

The board is scheduled to gather in a special meeting Sept. 8 in Anchorage, largely to meet in executive session to discuss financial and budgetary issues. However, Gamble said he anticipates the regents will take another look at the retention incentive, which would be payable at the end of his current three-year contract in May 2016.

The timing of the retention incentive, while offered with good intentions, has been difficult to justify in the public eye as UA works to meet current and expected budgetary and enrollment challenges, Gamble said. It comes at a time when higher education nationally is undergoing rapid change, as students and parents expect greater results, more efficiency and more accountability from public colleges and universities. The retention incentive has become a negative distraction at a time when there is a great need for all levels of the university community to pull together, Gamble said.

“I very much appreciate the board’s support, but this issue will remain the elephant in the room every time we meet with faculty, staff, a donor or a legislator,” Gamble said. “The decision ultimately is up to the board, but the timing isn’t right and I think the board is very sensitive to that now.”

Gamble made the remarks during a noon presentation of the Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce today. He said he couldn’t predict what the board will do, but feels certain the board will consider the situation with the public sentiment in mind.

The regents approved the retention incentive at the June 5-6, 2014 meeting. It was intended to reward performance, with a powerful inducement for Gamble to remain on the job through the end of his contract in May 2016 and to continue forward momentum on the Shaping Alaska’s Future initiative.

“I’d like to put this issue to rest, and for myself, my administration, all of our campus leaders and the regents to focus on the tough tasks ahead, moving the University of Alaska into a stronger, more efficient and highly effective student-centered institution that is worthy of the highest expectations of Alaskans,” Gamble said.