The media have closely tracked the Special Committee on Accountability hearings led by state Sen. Donna Mercado Kim, but there hasn’t been much focus on the harmful effects of the investigation itself. These promise to far exceed the damage done by the original Stevie Wonder concert blunder.

There’s a fork in the road ahead for the University of Hawaii, and which path it may take depends to some extent on how the Legislature proceeds with its current inquisition.

One way is a hard road, with reduced chances to attract quality leadership in both academics and sports, a situation that could diminish the value of a UH education both for past and new graduates.

The other road allows for continued growth and excellence, helping to assure bright opportunities for UH graduates, the prosperity of our state, and perhaps even a stronger athletic program, if that’s what senators really care about.

Should an excess of scrutiny and tough political pressure result in the removal of the current UH president, it is hard to imagine that finding a replacement will be easy. Any candidate would seek similar contractual protections knowing that the Legislature reserves the right to interrogate and interfere with the management of the university at any time. Who would want to risk a career by taking a job as president of the University of Hawaii?

As the Star-Advertiser reported, the costs of defending itself against outside interference already far exceed the $200,000 lost in the original concert scam — a total of $1,135,200 ("UH Manoa chancellor interrogated on concert aftermath," Star-Advertiser, Oct. 3). The money initially lost pales in comparison to the expenditures resulting from the outside interference. If a legislative committee succeeds in gaining subpoena authority for a further interrogation, the university’s costs will continue to mount.

The waste will be compounded if the Board of Regents, reacting to political pressure, invokes short-term sanctions that have long-term consequences for the quality of education in Hawaii.

Instead of placing blame, it would be far more productive for the Legislature and other concerned individuals to offer assistance to UH with an aim to strengthening its internal governance so that a similar incident is less likely to happen in the future. The university has structural management issues that go far deeper than current or future leadership can likely deal with. What might help would be a makeover by organization development professionals.

While a university does not operate exactly like a corporation, it is possible to put in place structures of management that enable the organization to avoid compounding problems that inevitably occur. The operation of the UH with its many inter-departmental communications problems and uncertain boundaries of responsibility is characteristic of the so-called "garbage-can" model of organization. This needs to be replaced.

If the special committee convenes again, it would be refreshing — and a service to present and future UH graduates and to the state economy — if the committee would replace its current star-chamber tactics with a sincere offer to help.