The decision to recommence the search for a new provost is just another incredulous chapter in an alarming trend of questionable hiring practices at this university.

Today marks the 162nd day since Thomas Storch, former associate vice president and provost, announced he would retire in January.

University President Michael Rao said Tuesday that a replacement won't be named any time soon, even after three finalists were chosen after a four-month national search. Rao even hinted at possibly postponing the search until summer.

This is inexcusable. And unfortunately, it's not the first time this has happened at CMU.

The trend continues

Tuesday's development really didn't come as a big surprise to this editorial board.

Remember, the university is only three months removed from naming Merodie Hancock on Nov. 15 as its new vice president and executive director of off-campus programs

This was after CMU spent more than $50,000 and more than two years conducting a search to replace Marcia Bankirer. Two candidates - Frank J. Sabatine and Michael Stockstill - were brought to campus in the summer. But they were rejected because they lacked the "whole package," university officials said.

And then there was the whole College of Business Administration debacle. It took CMU more than two years to name David Michael Fields as the CBA's new dean. But it had to perform two searches because the finalists the first time turned down offers. That search ended up costing CMU $67,000.

We harped on the university in the summer for performing ineffective searches in the media relations, information technology and academic administration departments. After spending money searching for and accommodating candidates, the interim replacement was chosen for the job, instead of an outsider CMU spent money to find and interview.

All these examples beg the question: Why take the time to perform a national search if the final candidates chosen the first time aren't fit for the job?

And don't forget: The university still is searching for a new associate vice president for diversity. The search - originally scheduled to wrap up last fall - might not be finished until summer.

If it's broke, don't fix it

Apparently that's the motto of the current provost search, because this is the second consecutive search for a new provost that will enter multiple phases. The 2003 search took a year and ended in Rao choosing Storch, who wasn't one of the original five finalists.

Wednesday's story in Central Michigan Life reported that Rao rejected the five candidates for the first phase. For the second phase, he offered the job to one of the five rejects - someone Rao already had said wasn't fit to be CMU's provost. When that didn't work, Rao decided on Storch, a sixth candidate.

What has CMU learned from the 2003 search to this one? Evidently not much.

Rao said Tuesday he was prolonging the current search because, "We need the top candidate for the position and don't want to just settle." That's commendable, Mr. Rao, but isn't that pretty much what you did in 2003 - settle with a sixth candidate? It might not have been what you wanted, but judging from the glowing remarks you and other administrators had for Storch when he announced his retirement last year, Storch got the job done.

So why not take a chance again this year? Why prolong this search just as you did four years ago and spend a lot more money in the process?

Rao might not get the candidate he wants, but the way this university has conducted its searches the past few years, it couldn't hurt to give one of the other two current candidates a chance.

Answering questions

This year's search was supposed to be different. We praised the university in an October editorial for the way it was conducting its search. CMU's plan was to use a committee instead of hiring a national firm.

It seemed like the right choice because it would cost the university less. But apparently, less money spent equates to less common sense used in choosing the best finalists.

Again: Why take the time to perform a national search if the final candidates chosen the first time aren't fit for the job?

The university didn't have any trouble finding a replacement for former Athletics Director Herb Deromedi a little more than a year ago.

CMU utilized a diverse search committee of university officials, coaches, a Board of Trustees member, a Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribal member and a student-athlete. The committee searched and found four candidates. They came to campus for open forums, and after the committee made its recommendations, Rao announced on Dec. 8, 2005, that Dave Heeke would replace Deromedi as Athletic Director.

Deromedi announced on Aug. 16, 2005, he would retire on Jan. 15, 2006. Heeke took over the next day.

It took less than four months to form a committee, for the committee to bring finalists to campus and for the choice to be made. No additional phases were needed. No national firms were hired. And no interim posts were named.

Yet when it comes to hiring a replacement for a new associate vice president and provost - the person who is second-in-command to the president - somehow finalists don't have the "whole package."

Isn't a university's top priority supposed to be to provide its students with a quality education? Aren't athletics supposed to be an afterthought?

This is the problem the university needs to fix, and fast.