“We are not political hacks. We are not a rubber stamp” -Board of Regents’ President Amy Bogost
Amy Bogost, the president of the UW Board of Regents, told a panel of concerned lawmakers that the Regents are “not political hacks,” but revealed that fired President Jay Rothman’s performance review was not documented beyond her own personal notes, which she hasn’t released.
State Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) asked Bogost to clarify whether any discussion or improvement requests with Rothman “were put in writing and in file and available.” What was said during any performance review is the matter of heated dispute between Rothman and Bogost. He’s claimed on television that he was caught by surprise to learn that the Regents had lost confidence in him, and disputed Bogost’s claims that he was privy to good-faith discussions about his performance.
Some Republican legislators have expressed concern about Rothman’s sudden firing, as they considered him a rare UW figure who was willing to work across the aisle. They also saw him as a person who made efforts to depoliticize the universities as institutions. However, Bogost and Regent Tim Nixon, who also appeared before the Senate committee last week, painted Rothman, a corporate lawyer, as a methodical incrementalist who is resistant to change at a time when it’s needed.
They repeatedly stressed that they couldn’t say much because Rothman hasn’t waived confidentiality over personnel-related conversations; however, they claimed that Rothman, while achieving some good things, was too sluggish about developing AI guidelines and reducing staffing in a bloated UW System office (Nixon indicated there are 579 staffers, whereas the tech schools have about 50).
Nixon, in particular, painted the behind-the-scenes environment at UW HQ as a secretive enclave where rolling meetings were held with small groups to prevent open meeting requirements; he was allegedly admonished to watch putting details in writing.
Nixon said Rothman and the Regents “frequently butted heads on open meetings. He fervently believed in closed meetings and to brief us in closed groups so we didn’t have these public discussions about things. Open meetings don’t bother me. Just because you can go into a closed session doesn’t mean you have to. I think we have way too many closed meetings.” He said “side briefings occurred,” and he thinks that’s “inappropriate.” He thinks the system is “obsessed” with not making public records.
Bogost stressed that Rothman’s review was handled the way that other personnel reviews unfolded, noting that she “took copious notes that I didn’t share with anyone.” Bogost claimed that she was “told that I could not make it any record, that was not okay…Unfortunately, I am unable to share those.” She claimed that the general counsel and Rothman himself suggested handling reviews this way, noting, “I would have loved to have done it a different way.”
Hutton expressed surprise that an evaluation of that magnitude wasn’t “transferred into a formal document” that Rothman reviewed and signed off on. Bogost confirmed that “nothing was written down as to what was in the evaluation.” She said it was “shared with him orally.” She said that she would be happy to “look at my notes and go further with you” if Rothman waives confidentiality.
Bogost said that Rothman was told verbally by her and Regents in closed session about “certain things” that were “asked of him,” but added, “We don’t have any documentation of that.”
Both Bogost and Nixon repeatedly stressed that they want to have a good working relationship with legislators and work across the aisle.
Hutton referred to the evaluation as “pretty high stakes,” saying the practice was concerning, surprising, and disappointing because it “leads to a lot of verbal hearsay and he said, she said. Rothman has been clear in those discussions that there was no mention of potential termination.”
“I agree with you,” Bogost said. “It made it much more difficult for me… It’s absolutely something we need to reevaluate.”
The pair testified before the Senate Committee on Universities and Technical Colleges.
Concerns About Transparency
Hutton said the decision to fire Rothman “raises concerns, not just about transparency but about how prepared and serious they are about addressing the strategic direction of the Universities of Wisconsin system.”
He believes the public deserves answers as “transparency is the foundation of public trust.” He added that the Legislature “has an important role.” The Senate approves the governor’s nominations to the Board of Regents, and it’s possible they won’t be. He said the Regents need “open and accountable decision making,” adding that enrollment has declined by 9 percent. He said the “sudden” leadership change sends a “troubling” signal to donors, taxpayers, and more.
Sharp Words for Rothman
Bogost had some sharp words for Rothman, who has spoken out publicly, indicating he still hasn’t been given a reason why he was fired. “President Rothman knows exactly what he is doing.” She said the Regents kept the matter confidential because it is “what law requires.” She said that Rothman has “chosen to use that constraint as a shield, making public statements he knows I can not rebut.” She said the narrative is a “strategy.”
“What he said publicly is misleading,” she said. In turn, Rothman has accused Bogost of claiming things happened that “didn’t occur.”
She said the process was “very thorough” and the reasons are “substantial.” She said Rothman could “waive his confidentiality.”
“That decision was not made lightly. It was not political. It was not retaliatory,” Bogost added. “He is engaged in a sustained public campaign that is causing real harm to these institutions.”
“We are not political hacks. We are not a rubber stamp. We made a difficult decision for the right reasons, and we stand by it.”
Nixon said that he is 68 and “never before have I been accused of not being clear, direct, and ambiguous. His (Rothman’s) claim that he does not or did not know has all the substance of the shadow of a starving pigeon.”
He said Rothman’s management style was needed initially, when the system required “operational and financial discipline.” But he said Rothman is a bit “like the rooster crowing and then taking credit for the sunrise afterward.” He said things were team efforts and “not the accomplishments of one person.”
“Change is not Mr. Rothman’s strong suit, yet change is what we need,” he added, saying that Rothman was “very deliberate” and showed “lack of urgency.”
“We can’t take a year and six months to decide and think about each issue,” claimed Nixon. “This is no different than moving on to a new quarterback.”
Nixon believes reforms are needed.
‘We’re Not Being Innovative’
“We’re not being innovative,” said Nixon. “We need to be talking about certificates. We need to be talking about non-traditional students.”
He questioned: “Why does the University of Wisconsin System bureaucracy have 579 employees for a 13-school system when the technical college has 50, for a 16-school system? That’s a great question. Since last November, this has been the horse I’ve been riding. I have asked for justification.”
He thinks many of those staffers are “better off reassigned, where the resources are used at campuses where we actually educate people. President Rothman has not provided an answer to me since November….He has not been on board with moving that along.”
Bogost said the UW is at a precipice in higher education. There is a demographic slide and a narrative that higher education isn’t necessary. “We need a transformative leader” to “take us into the future. We have pressures of AI. We have this narrative… 76% of the public doesn’t want AI, they’re terrified.” She said the UW needs people with critical thinking skills who understand AI.
“There are many pressures we feel as a board, as an institution.” She said she didn’t want to “diminish all of the wonderful things that Mr. Rothman has done.”
Nixon said there are “no Regents’ guardrails on AI. President Rothman has blocked those since November. We need an articulated Wisconsin Board of Regents AI guidelines, not one crafted by Silicon Valley through negligence or neglect. This has not been brought to us. We’ve been asking for it since November.”
A ‘One-Sided’ Narrative?
“I believe his objective is to get his narrative out and to be one-sided,” Bogost said. “He knows the truth, and he understands what this was all about. We were hoping he could move on and we could celebrate all of his accomplishments. To do the media circuit that he’s on denigrates our wonderful universities, and that makes us really sad, because I know he worked tirelessly for the universities.”
Bogost confirmed that Rothman was given an opportunity to resign at the end of the year instead and a six-month severance package.
Hutton told the two Regents that the UW needs “significant reforms, structural and otherwise.”
Nixon repeated that Rothman has a “command and control management style… Now we kind of need something else.” He claims Rothman was always concerned that change would “alarm people.”
“In my view, people should be alarmed,” claimed Nixon, citing certificates, program array, and faculty pay. As for the controversial deal on DEI, Nixon said that he was “big on living up to agreements” and talked to Rothman about “whether the system was complying with the deal…He and the system are not designed to move quickly.”
“This is a moment for transformation,” added Bogost. “…We are doing our best to make sure all campuses are complying.” According to Nixon, Rothman didn’t like it when Regents spoke to individual legislators.
Bogost noted that UW-Madison’s chancellor is leaving, and the system has already lost 10 chancellors. She indicated that their goal is to “bring stability back.”
Asked what the future holds, Bogost admitted that “maybe we are looking for a unicorn as a president,” but stressed they want to “have a successful president and board where we move in sync. We move together as one voice because we have one mission.”
Table of Contents
