Who Are These Folks?

CCU trustees have duty to acquaint communities with finalists for president

Does it matter that none of the four finalists to replace Ron Ingle as president of Coastal Carolina University is a college president - though one of them, Kyle Carter, served as an acting president at a state university in Missouri? There's no way to tell as yet, considering that CCU's board of trustees won't introduce the candidates to our communities until next week.

At that time, local constituencies with an interest in Coastal's academic success and financial health will meet the finalists:

Carter, provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, N.C.;

Sue DeWine, provost of Marietta College in Ohio;

Maurice Scherrens, senior vice president of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.;

David DeCenzo, Coastal's provost and senior vice president of academic administration and former Wall College of Business Administration dean.

Trustees and the CCU administration should make certain those meetings are thorough and informative. Except for DeCenzo, a force in local economic development and regional cooperation efforts, local folks don't know the finalists.

Especially because Coastal is the centerpiece of our communities' ongoing effort to train a new generation of business, government, educational and nonprofit leaders, residents need to know the attributes that attracted the trustees to these particular finalists.

Do the candidates have a track record in - or demonstrated potential for - raising money for building construction and college endowments? Do they have prowess in dealing with the local, state and federal politicians who control public grants and appropriations? Do they understand Coastal's position in the S.C. system of higher education finance, and do they have ideas on how that position might be improved?

Can the finalists challenge faculty members to excel in teaching and research - especially grant-funded research? Do they have demonstrated experience in challenging and inspiring students to make the most of their college educations, and in dealing with students' concerns? Most important, have the finalists articulated a vision for the university that includes a strong role in community leadership, development and service?

None of this is to take issue with the trustees' presidential candidate choices. Indeed, given the snapshots that their resumes provide into their academic backgrounds and the choices they've made in putting together their careers, the finalists seem an impressive lot. We especially like the diversity of their backgrounds - Carter's emphasis on educational psychology, DeCenzo's focus on private-side management and economic development, DeWine's training in rhetoric and organization communication, and Scherrens' strong legal and administrative background. Based on the little we know about them at this point, it is easy to imagine how each might benefit the university and our communities.

They deserve congratulations for emerging as presidential finalists from the pool of 76 applicants. We, among many others, look forward to learning more about them in the days ahead.