The sensation everyone should feel from the easing of hostilities over the University of Hawaii "Wonder Blunder" uproar is a kind of relief. It’s not a blessed relief, however, or any sort of pleasurable experience. This feels more like the moment when an assailant stops hitting you over the head with a hammer, the conviction that one more excruciating minute of it would have been unbearable.

This beating, like the kind with a real hammer, has done serious damage — to the reputation of the university and of its president, M.R.C. Greenwood, first and foremost.

The scam that turned into a crisis has shone a light on a university system where transparency isn’t valued and finger-pointing has taken the place of accountability.

Without a doubt, it was better for Greenwood to patch things up with her employers, the UH Board of Regents, which included a faction that was calling for her head. A recklessly emotional decision to fire her would have yielded little more than acrimony and even more expense.

Further, the university needs to refocus on its educational and research functions, demonstrating to Hawaii residents that the decision to give the institution greater autonomy several years ago was a good one.

However, the public can’t be blamed for questioning the wisdom of that right now. Taxpayers were given a front-row seat at a show that was painful to watch. The highlights (though "low points" would be the more apt description):

» UH had a disturbingly weak protocol in place for spending large amounts of money. It started with a $200,000 loss to a fraudster purporting to arrange a fundraiser for UH athletics, starring Stevie Wonder.

The transaction happened at a bad time — Jim Donovan, then the athletic director, was out of town and a changing of the guard had just occurred at the UH-Manoa chancellor’s office. Still the fiasco was the appalling first sign that fiscal controls were leaking like a sieve.

» Donovan should not have escaped all responsibility here, no matter where he was at the time. Part of the duties of a highly paid department head is to keep track of things and to provide direction for when you’re absent.

Instead, the former director was treated with kid gloves, landing on his feet in a communications position created as a golden parachute.

» Greenwood succumbed to pressure from Donovan’s friends in high places and enabled that expensive escape hatch.

The better outcome would have been for Donovan to serve out his contract and for any changing of the guard to be handled at that time.

» The most distressing revelation here is that, rather than autonomy enhancing its professionalism, UH plainly remains a political creature.

While influential lawmakers and even the governor had Donovan’s back, none of these supposed public advocates seemed concerned about repercussions on the public.

» Replicating Donovan’s self-interested actions, Greenwood herself was showcased trying to extort a bargain with the Board of Regents as it mulled over the prospect of dismissing the president. A letter that went public, reportedly after Greenwood had retracted it, demanded a $2 million settlement.

Did Greenwood deserve dismissal over her handling of this episode? Probably not, given that her past evaluations have cited considerable achievements in securing grants and other aspects of the top UH administrator’s post.

But this whole affair has exposed an unbecoming side of Greenwood’s personality. Confidence is a desirable trait in any leader, but over the course of legislative hearings on the matter, the effect was one of an arrogant and defiant executive. And with the revelation of the $2 million exit bid, the adjective "grasping" could be added to the list, too.

Greenwood reportedly apologized to the regents during their closed-door meeting, but it’s not just with them that some serious fence-mending must happen. She’ll need to rebuild burned bridges with lawmakers, who now likely will scan budget requests with a jaundiced eye.

The trust needs to be restored first, and then lawmakers need to reciprocate by resisting the urge to micromanage. They really should have nothing to say about hiring decisions, for starters.

As the president moves past this spectacle and resumes her contractual duties, though, she should realize that the bar has been raised. The public that pays her salary deserves to see a change in direction: better oversight of expenditures, more effective stewardship of taxpayer resources and a genuine commitment to transparency.

Apologies are nice, but these things are utterly essential.