A university hiring advisory committee did not consider Provost Alan Sams a leading candidate when recommending individuals for the executive vice president and provost position in 2023, according to documents obtained by The Battalion through a Public Information Act request. 

In a final report from a 15-person group of faculty and staff tasked with finding a permanent provost, three final candidates had their strengths, visions and weaknesses listed alongside an overall recommendation. 

The group sent the document to M. Katherine Banks, the former president of Texas A&M, who made the final decision to hire Sams last year. 

“Dr. Sams does not portray himself as a dynamic leader nor does he portray significant enthusiasm for the job,” the report reads. “His communication skills are viewed as marginal, which has resulted in a sense of distrust with stakeholders.” 

The other finalists were Andreas Polycarpou, an adjunct professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, and Eli Jones III, a professor and the former dean of the Mays Business School. A majority vote of the committee deemed all three candidates acceptable as provost. 

“Two of them — Dr. Polycarpou and Dr. Jones — are being forwarded as leading candidates,” the report reads.

The report labeled Jones as a “dynamic and experienced leader” and Polycarpou as a “surprisingly successful candidate” whose “vision and excitement for the role is evident.” Sams’ listed strengths include an “understanding of the new provost position” and his experience as a dean at Clemson University and Oregon State University. 

Banks chose Sams as interim provost in August 2022 after Timothy Scott, the current vice provost for academic affairs, stepped down from the role. A committee to find a permanent replacement was announced in January 2023 with two co-chairs: professor N.K. Anand, the then-vice president for faculty affairs, and professor Dale Rice, the speaker of the Faculty Senate at the time. 

Notably, the provost position was stripped of much of its power by the time Sams was appointed to it, one of the multiple changes under Banks’ “The Path Forward” initiative that aimed to centralize university operations under the president. An October 2023 report commissioned by President Mark Welsh said faculty viewed Sams as someone who lacked authority, with power and resources viewed as out of his control. 

“Dr. Sams will bring a solid understanding of the changes already made institutionally and has the dedication to try and make those changes work,” the recommendation report reads. “His communication skills and perceived lack of enthusiasm for the job may hinder his ability to be successful in the role.”

Five candidates were invited to on-campus interviews with the committee, which also solicited input from various “stakeholder groups, including faculty, staff, students and administrators.” Some stakeholders noted Sams was more suited for special projects, according to the report. 

Additional feedback on the three finalists was acquired through an anonymous survey before the committee sent its final recommendation to Banks on May 4, 2023. 

The committee believed Jones was an “effective communicator” who embodied the Aggie Core Values and could navigate the institutional changes A&M was undergoing.  

“His focus on working collaboratively with faculty, staff and students is inspiring,” the report reads. 

Polycarpou’s “holistic approach” to student success was praised as well, with the committee reporting that he also generated excitement by discussing A&M’s various campuses and how the flagship university could “create a more synergistic environment.”

“Polycarpou shows a genuine concern for all stakeholders, faculty, staff and students and places a high value on shared governance,” the report reads. “He is committed to getting the right people at the table to figure out where the issue lies.”

The report said Jones’ weaknesses were not being specific in follow-up answers after presenting to the committee and viewing his service as provost “as a calling, as opposed to a destination.” Polycarpou’s engineering background was seen as a concern that could have caused backlash from stakeholders, and the anonymous survey “revealed mixed feedback from those he’s led in the past.” 

After the recommendations were sent, Banks announced she chose Sams for the position on May 23, 2023, an appointment that was effective on June 1 of that year.  

“The Provost Search Advisory Committee presented a slate of three highly qualified candidates for the position, including Dr. Sams,” Banks’ 2023 announcement reads. “After careful consideration, I selected Dr. Sams to serve in this important role.” 

Banks resigned months later, leaving Welsh as the university’s head. As president, he has reversed various changes Banks made and pursued different policies — including returning power to the Office of the Provost after faculty requests to do so. Months after being permanently appointed to a position with few powers and under multiple individuals, Sams was elevated to the university’s second in command. 

A year later, Sams is now facing criticism after he, alongside other deans in the Office of the Provost, began developing a process to discover and subsequently inactivate dozens of minors and certificates not meeting new enrollment thresholds. It went live with little faculty involvement and was called a “deeply flawed” process by the Faculty Senate’s Speaker Angie Hill Price that had a lack of “meaningful input from many stakeholders.” 

At the Oct. 14 Faculty Senate meeting, he answered questions and received feedback for over an hour from faculty senators who claimed the move lacked transparency and violated shared governance. An A&M spokesperson said a follow-up meeting between Sams, Welsh and Price had not yet occurred and the inactivations were continuing. 

“We have a current provost who has made significant progress in his time already, moving forward with open source textbooks, improving the affordability of an Aggie education,” the spokesperson said. ” … The inactivations are moving through the full review process and are in various stages. Again, while the process for identifying low performing minors and certificates is new, the process for reviewing programs being recommended for inactivation is not. So, these are still moving through the full review process in alignment with the standard administrative procedures.”

One of the co-chairs, Anand, said in an email that executive search committees are bound by non-disclosure agreements at A&M. 

“The Executive Search team and the committee conducted a broad internal search that led to interviews with five candidates and resulted in three recommended candidates for the position of provost,” Anand said. “Each had identified strengths and weaknesses but all three were deemed acceptable and recommended to the president for the position.”

Co-chair Rice said in an email that he was also bound to the confidentiality pledge the committee made “so that all would feel free to express their views without fear of their comments or conclusions being made public.” 

“The Search Committee, after a careful, deliberative process, did what President Banks asked us to do: delivered a list of acceptable candidates for the position of provost along with their strengths and weaknesses,” Rice said.

In a statement, Sams said he considers the impact on people, process, resources, the quality of A&M academics and more when making decisions. 

“Faculty are an extremely important part of that equation, offering valuable direction and guidance for our curriculum,” Sams said. “To ensure their voices are heard, I meet with faculty groups regularly, including the Faculty Senate. It’s also why the Faculty Senate speaker is included in the Council of Deans meetings and receives the minutes every month.”