You will recall that after the provost (the No. 2 administrative position) of the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville chose Emily Suski, professor of law and associate dean of Strategic and Institutional Priorities at the University of South Carolina law school, to become the Fayetteville law school's new dean, some members of the Legislature and executive branch expressed concern. So the offer was rescinded.

The school posted: "The university recently announced its intention to hire Professor Emily Suski as its next dean of the School of Law, to begin July 1, 2026. After receiving feedback from key external stakeholders including elected officials and others about the fit between Professor Suski and the university's vacancy, the university has decided to go a different direction. University officials are very grateful for Professor Suski's interest in the position and continue to hold Professor Suski in high regard. We wish Professor Suski well as she moves forward with her career.

"Dean Cynthia Nance will continue to serve as dean of the School of Law through June 30, 2026, as planned. The university has decided to conclude the current dean search and has begun working to identify an interim dean to succeed Dean Nance in consultation with the School of Law faculty, staff and students. The new interim dean would begin July 1, 2026. More updates will be provided as they become available."

More recently, and to the surprise of several, the school's provost announced that he had selected two longtime Fayetteville faculty members as the finalists for the interim-dean position: Professors Tiffany Murphy and Annie Smith. Some are pleased with these candidates. Some are not--both internally and externally.

Given the aforedescribed events, I inquired whether the provost communicated with "key external stakeholders including elected officials"--as they were precisely those who caused the school to scuttle the Suski nomination after having not been consulted earlier in her hiring process. The answer was "no." Specifically, the school said: "The Provost's Office did not consult with anyone outside the University concerning the candidacy of the two faculty members for the interim dean appointment."

Uh, I guess that's one way to go. But what happened to considering the views of "key external stakeholders including elected officials"? Two months isn't long enough to forget the university's decanal about-face. The school's website says it has an "Office for Governmental Relations [that] coordinates University of Arkansas activities related to government and community organizations on a local, state, and federal level." Does it, though?

While neither Benjamin Franklin nor Albert Einstein actually said that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results," the sentiment remains apposite. (Incidentally, one source identifies the quote as coming from the 1983 novel "Sudden Death" by Rita Mae Brown. Others trace the aphorism back to at least the 19th century.)

When the Suski offer was rescinded, Democratic state Rep. Nicole Clowney, who is an adjunct professor at the Fayetteville law school (her husband is full-time faculty), suggested that the university's hand had been forced, writing that elected officials had threatened to cut funding to the university.

"Veiled threats and comments behind closed doors about the political leanings of [University] of Arkansas faculty and staff are nothing new, sadly," she wrote. Perhaps that's accurate--I really don't know--but given that those "political leanings" are overwhelmingly left of center, I'm unsure to what effect those purported statements had. What would the law school have looked like without them--more liberal? Is that even possible?

More importantly, though, is the question of what should be the role of the Legislature and other government officials in choosing senior leadership at our institutions of higher learning going forward. I recently addressed this issue only in part when I discussed a letter organized by Diane Kemker, clinical assistant professor of law, Loyola University Chicago School of Law, objecting to the rescission of the Suski offer.

Kemker wrote that "[i]t does not reflect well on the State of Arkansas, the University of Arkansas, or others involved, that the sound decision of the University of Arkansas School of Law together with the university administration appears to have been overridden by the ill-informed whim of any legislator." Nothing like a junior-practice professor from Chicago (or Los Angeles, New York, or any other big city for that matter) lecturing the Arkansas General Assembly on what's good for the Natural State and its flagship suburban land-grant university.

As I wrote previously, Arkansas law empowers elected officials to have a role in hiring senior government officials; the state's constitution provides the Legislature with the sole authority to fund--or not fund--public institutions. This shouldn't be a controversial notion, particularly among law professors--who supposedly teach how the branches of government are designed to interact with each other.

This paper recently reported on last legislative session's Senate Bill 184, sponsored by state Sen. Dan Sullivan, which would have abolished Arkansas public television. Sullivan said that he withdrew that proposed legislation only after Arkansas PBS board members agreed to make certain changes that he and others wanted, including finding a new executive director after audits indicated mismanagement at the station.

When asked if he had threatened the station's funding, Sullivan said, "It wasn't a threat, it was a promise."

"I don't think the Arkansas taxpayer wants to pay for entertainment and wants to pay for mandated programming coming out of New York, and mandated news programming," said Sullivan. "I don't think that's what the Arkansas taxpayer wants so, yes, I would've gone after their funding. But the board agreed. . . . The vote went our way. And we don't have to shut it down."

He continued: "So one side says, 'Book-ban Dan is threatening to shut down PBS.' [But t]hat's what we do as legislators. There are choices to make. And we gave them a choice: You can do this, or we'll work to diminish funding to whatever level we can."

So yes, legislators use the power of the purse to direct state institutions. My guess is that this lever will be very much at play when the fiscal legislative session starts next month. Let's see how UA-Fayetteville fares.

This is your right to know.

Robert Steinbuch, the Arkansas Bar Foundation Professor at the Bowen Law School, is a Fulbright Scholar and author of the treatise "The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act." His views do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.

© Arkansas Online