The Observer is a Student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame & Saint Mary's. Learn more about us.



Process differed from Malloy search

Matt Lozar | Monday, May 3, 2004

The election of Father Edward Malloy to succeed Father Theodore Hesburgh as University President was the culmination of a four-year public storyline. This time, nobody knew anything about the process.Hesburgh announced his intentions not to seek another term when the Board of Trustees elected him for his seventh term in 1982. After becoming the 15th president in Notre Dame history in 1952, Hesburgh knew his time as the University’s top official was coming to an end.”Father Ted had almost stepped down at one time previously when he was asked to stay on, so I think in that case, [there] was much less certainty about which way to go,” University spokesman Matt Storin said. “He had been president 35 years, and it was a process that was a better part of a year.”But I think a lot of the difference was what was made public and what happened in the public.”Malloy didn’t go public with his desires to step down as University President, but he never made a strong public claim for the Board to re-elect him for another five-year term either.Indications were pointing that he was ready to move on. “I’m not seeking to stay on, because I think that should be the decision of the Board – but I will do whatever the Board wants in terms of what the future has in store,” Malloy said in an article published in The Observer April 23. The process for finding candidates to become president of the University begins with a formal presidential candidate recommendation to the nominating committee by Father David Tyson – the provincial superior of the Indiana Province of the Congregation of Holy Cross. The nominating committee is comprised of seven to 10 Trustees and chaired by the Board chairman. Former Board chairman Thomas Carney went to the student body in 1986 to form a committee of five students to provide input on the selection of Hesburgh’s successor. The students’ committee formed a report for the Board gathering opinions from students across campus. Administrators and faculty also were consulted in the process.Storin said the Board considered making the process public like the process was to replace Hesburgh, but felt it was best to just make an announcement when a candidate was elected. “I think that they felt it was better to try to make a decision and get all of the suspense out of the way,” Storin said.In the weeks prior to the final decision in 1986, trustees confirmed there were five leading candidates to succeed Hesburgh.But just like any big announcement, there was a big rumor. The Chicago Tribune broke a story on Nov. 2, 1986 saying Malloy was going to be named the 16th president of the University. Malloy denied the claim made by the Tribune, calling it “foolish.” Trustees and University officials continue to refute that statement leading up to the Trustees’ November meeting. Twelve days later the Board elected Malloy. This time, the process has been less public.Current Board chairman Patrick McCartan confirmed the nominating committee met in January, February, March and April this year to discuss Malloy’s successor. McCartan also confirmed the nominating committee considered other candidates but declined to disclose their names.Everyone knew the Board was meeting Thursday and Friday to name an executive vice president. But hearing the Board was going to name Monk’s successor came as a shock. Similar to the way Hesburgh chose Father Edmund Joyce and Malloy chose Father William Beauchamp to be his executive vice president, Father John Jenkins recommended John Affleck-Graves for the position.