The University of Hawaii Board of Regents has gone too far in its laudable quest to guarantee that the next university president’s term does not end in a costly and embarrassing buyout.

Rather than hiring the next president as an at-will employee with no defined contract at all, the regents should draw up a three-year deal that gives the new executive the stamp of approval he needs to get things done, but without the usual separation clause that would cost the taxpayers dearly if things don’t work out.

Given that the regents’ unconventional search process has resulted in two unconventional candidates rising to compete for the top job, reasonable people could interpret the at-will employment offer the regents plan to extend on Monday as signifying a lack of confidence in either of the two finalists.

That’s no way for the board to position the incoming leader of a beleaguered University of Hawaii system that has cycled through three presidents in roughly the last decade.

The next president needs to be fearless and visionary as he faces entrenched, powerful bureaucratic and union interests and builds cooperative relationships with the sometimes meddlesome lawmakers who exert great authority over the university. How can we expect entrepreneurial behavior from a president who knows he can be fired at any moment, while the people he is supposed to lead remain confident that they’ll keep their jobs regardless of his success or failure?

Such job insecurity is a recipe for obsequiousness and timidity, the opposite of what UH needs as the system copes with a huge backlog of repairs and maintenance and strives to attract more students without raising tuition too much.

We applaud the regents for trying to protect the taxpayers and understand why they have explored this route, knowing that UH has paid out at least $5 million over the past decade to make assorted administrators and coaches go away. UH does need tougher contracts limiting buyouts for highly paid employees, in general. They have simply gone too far in this case, though, and need to balance the potential financial loss of a future buyout with the actual and present loss of confidence a no-contract offer may signify to the general public.

The two finalists — interim president David Lassner, UH’s longtime technology chief, and recently retired Lt. Gen. Frank Wiercinski — have amiably gone along with the selection process so far, withstanding criticism from some who have questioned their credentials, meeting people (and protesters, in Wiercinski’s case) at community forums and publicly answering questions from the regents last week. When the regents extend the $375,000-a-year offer to one of the men, it should be with the assurance that they believe the new president is in it for the long haul, and has the support necessary from the regents to do a good job.

Absent a buyout clause, some may argue that such reassurance is merely symbolic. Still, in what has been an unusual search ending with someone sure to be an unconventional president, even symbolic support has value.