But if their "source" was us and we said it would be this weekend, and it would be one of these two candidates, aren't we deciding when the weekend ends? Don't we also get to decide who the next AD is?

WE ARE IN CONTROL NOW COLLEGEAD.ORG.

Veteran's Day is November 11...

_________________
Cigarboy sucks!

He doesn't talk wage or terms of employment until after an offer is made. He gave the last offer a week to decide and he turned him down. The good thing is these two guys are in need of employment so maybe that won't be an issue. Also both candidates applied during the first 'failed search'. So what made them desirable all of sudden. Where are all of Kelly's connections? I wouldn't be surprised if only 50 or so people applied and the Jesuits threw in a couple and that was the search.

My guess would be that the emphasis on the prerequisites for consideration were changed in the second go-round. Sometimes these searches are done using a scoring system, and if the priorities for certain attributes/qualifications/experience changes, that can drastically skew the results. I have no idea who the original three finalists were, so it's impossible to compare finalists from this search to the original.

When I was involved in a similar search process, we had a lousy first group of finalists. I mean TERRIBLE-- irritating or weak personalities, bad communications skills, and borderline creepiness. We used a search firm that handled advertising the position, assembling application documents, sorting applicants, background/reference checks, etc. The least worst (on paper) of three weak finalists from that process was chosen by the group and an offer was made, but not after I expressed extreme doubt and objections about making an offer. There was pressure to hire one of the people presented to us, and I was noticing a reluctance among the other members of the hiring group to raise objections-- even though I could see from body language and eye contact that there were doubts among some of the others in the group. So I spoke up. But some of the members of the group assured me and two other doubters that the candidate was properly vetted, and their credentials were perfectly acceptable/desirable. It was the first time I'd been involved in a process that detailed and supposedly rigorous, so I expressed my doubts, we had a brief discussion, and I reluctantly went along with the majority opinion to make an offer. After only a few months on the job, that person was fired amid bizarre behavior and workplace lawsuits.

The next time around we handled the process ourselves, and we got a better group of finalists. The vetting, background checks, and reference checks were done internally by a person closely familiar with the requirements of the job (the Interim manager hired temporarily from a public agency). The person we eventually hired didn't apply the first time around because of timing/family issues, but that hiring worked out great-- not perfect, but far exceeding expectations.

In retrospect, our list of desired qualifications in the first round were too strictly focused on rote experience and paint-by-numbers credentials, and not nearly enough on intangibles like energy, imagination, management style, personality, drive, creativity, communications, moving toward positive results, demeanor, and work ethic. Those elements were of secondary concern-- considered an added plus, and the result was an unmitigated disaster.

The problem here is that the system in place is about control and covering one's behind. Tom Kelly is an up manager. It's easy to know that kind of manager when people above him think he's a good guy and everyone below him think he's the worst. The type of animosity he breeds I haven't seen very often. It's usually belongs to sole proprietors who are the only voice that matters in an organization. When I look at the AD processes at other universities it is an open and collaborative process. Kelly sold a secretive closed process under the guise of confidentiality. How does this happen when he has ZERO experience in running athletics and being responsible for revenue? This type of person survives when you rely on direct reports and don't dig deeper two or three levels below your reporting structure. That is Loyola's big problem right now; its over dependence on direct reporting. It has given birth to the endless meeting culture that now exists. Loyola along with many other institutions is riding the success of easy cash for kids to go to school. That will end as it has for many smaller liberal arts colleges in the midwest and you better be able to present yourself as a different choice for kids to choose the Jesuit way at Loyola. If it doesn't, the line to get in will disappear and there will be empty dorms.

I haven't been able to find out who is on the Search Committee this time around. For the Calhoun search. the Committee included Tony Catalano, USGA [Student Government] president, Kevin Gillespie, S.J., associate provost and interim dean of the School of Social Work, Tom Kelly, vice president for administrative services, Bill Laird, vice president for finance, and Susan Malisch, vice president for information technology services.
http://blogs.luc.edu/ilweekly/2011/02/0 ... ts-leader/


I'm assuming that Kiloton Kelly and Malish are at it again, but I don't know who else. It would be interesting to find out; it might provide some insight into which candidate might have the edge, although I realize that all committee members are not created equal.

It's a weighted committee. Literally.

_________________
MBB Scholarship Chart

Kelly, Malisch, Daffron, Neufeld. Kelly gave the names he wanted to Malisch. She checked them out. Then the committee decided the finalists. That's my guess.

I've heard nothing but good things about Jane Neufeld. Don't know anything about Fr. Daffron, but he seems to have a benign online presence.

It seems to me that these two share more in common with Steve Watson than Rick Hartzell, in a Matchmaker.com sort of way, so ....who know?

If I may indulge in some additional psychoanalysis of the two female search committee members, I can't see them being overly thrilled with Hartzell taking as his bride somebody who was formerly a student-athlete under his administration. I don't imagine her cheesecake posters are a big hit, either.

Also, Malisch's husband is an MD, and the fact that Hartzell's wife is a chiropractor might weigh against him, because MDs and Chiropractors are not the best of friends. Additionally, Dr. Malisch's specialty is vascular surgery, and Steve Watson in 2012 underwent elective heart surgery, so this makes Watson a sympathetic "patient/success story" figure.

Admittedly, this is pure speculation based on gross generalizations and offensive stereotypes, so I figure I'm on pretty solid ground here.

I don't think that anyone on the search committee evens knows about Hartzell or Watson. Did they know anything about Calhoun before they hired her?