������Ƶ

The University of Hawaii Board of Regents on Wednesday went behind closed doors to interview the finalists applying for UH’s top job, despite calls from the public to keep the process open. A decision on the selection is expected to be announced when the regents board meeting resumes on Thursday.

Board of Regents Chairman Gabe Lee defended the decision to hold the final interviews in private, saying that Hawaii’s Sunshine Law allows such closed door meetings when personnel privacy issues are involved.

Lee noted that both candidates – City University of New York Provost Wendy Hensel and Western Michigan University Provost Julian Vasquez Heilig – have spoken at multiple public forums, where they answered questions from the public.

Critics called the move contrary to Hawaii law and the spirit of transparency.

Among those testifying against the regents’ unanimous decision to go behind closed doors was , a staff attorney with the , which promotes government transparency. Creps testified that the Hawaii Supreme Court has made clear that public bodies can’t invoke an exemption to the Sunshine Law’s open meetings requirement simply because a personnel matter is being discussed.

“The UH community and general public have a legitimate interest in understanding why a particular candidate for UH President is selected,” Creps testified. “Given the clarity of the law and keen public interest, there is no good reason to hold these important discussions behind closed doors.”

Momi Bachiller, a student activist who also serves as a senator for the , said the decision to conduct interviews in private exemplifies a pattern of Native Hawaiian students “having outsiders imposed on us.”

“This decision exhibits a gross disregard for transparency,” she said.

The private interviews come after a flurry of reports about Hensel and her conflict with  Tanya Washington, a Black law professor at Georgia State University, where Hensel was university provost before going to CUNY. A Civil Beat story on the allegations of discrimination and retaliation by Hensel against Washington prompted UH to change its original policy of prohibiting candidates from talking to the media and make the candidates available for media interviews.

Hensel insisted Washington’s complaints had only involved Georgia State’s interim law school dean, Leslie Wolf, and . But Washington and her lawyer eventually came forward to say Hensel was lying and that Hensel had in fact been a subject of Washington’s complaints.

Testimony Shows No Consensus On Candidates

Whether all that will have any effect on the regents’ decision isn’t clear. Written testimony showed no clear consensus on either candidate.

Among those opposed to Hensel was UH’s Black Student Association. On Wednesday, it issued a “statement of non-support” for Hensel, citing the news reports about Hensel and expressing support for Washington. 

“We stand with, believe, and support every Black woman in academia who has been forced to silence themselves for the sake of their survival at institutions of higher education,” the association said.

Others, like Poranee Natadecha-Sponsel, said they supported Hensel despite the reported conflict with Washington.

The important thing is for the regents to pick one of these two candidates and not drag out the process, said Rep. Amy Perruso. Both candidates are “accomplished leaders” who “have gone through a thorough vetting process,” Perruso said in written testimony.

“I urge you to conclude this process with a selection of one of these two fine candidates and allow the mechanisms that were put in place to function as intended,” she wrote.