Leaked evaluation troubles regents

Debra D. Bass

Tuesday, July 2, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

University regents are looking at ways to enforce the confidentiality of personnel records after UNLV President Carol Harter's self-evaluation was leaked.

Regents President Maddy Graves said there were only 12 copies of the appraisal -- one to the chancellor and the 11 he forwarded to the regents. Yet at least two media outlets obtained the "absolutely confidential document."

Under state statute, personnel records are supposed to be private unless the employee grants written permission for them to be released.

Harter could seek legal recourse, but "there really aren't a lot of penalties that can be sought," Graves said. "In fact, the statute doesn't list any for the person being harmed or damaged."

Harter said today that she doesn't want to exercise her legal options.

But, she added, "I hope to get an apology and that the system will get revised somehow to protect against this kind of embarrassing circumstance. To think you're having a personal conversation with your employer only to have it become the topic of public discussion is really beneath us all."

Graves plans to call a special board meeting to discuss the matter and implement improved confidentiality procedures.

He said the chancellor may be asked to retain a lone original document under lock and key. Regents then would be allowed to review self-evaluations at a system office. This is the second year of the revised evaluation process and, so far, Harter is the only victim of a leak.

"Regents could still read it, but if they can't be trusted, then copies should not be distributed," Graves said.

Regent Jill Derby said, "The integrity of the process has been violated. We can't do it like this anymore. There isn't a president in the system that would be completely forthcoming after this."

Harter's self-evaluation reportedly reveals her desire to see presidential perks include a house and regular maintenance of a vehicle. That practice was dropped by the UNLV Foundation two years ago amid criticism of the perks given to former President Bob Maxson.

Of her suggestions to the board, Harter said, "This is not unusual. When you are paying someone to be a university president you have to decide how you can equip them to afford the best uses of a president's time."

She called public discourse on the matter "much ado about nothing."

Though other regents were certain someone from the board leaked the document, Regent Mark Alden said he isn't so sure.

"If they think that a confidential document (can be sent to various offices by mail), they are kidding themselves," Alden said, criticizing the process. He said he would "absolutely support changing the evaluation procedure."

Regent Daniel Klaich said, "Our board has a history of leaking documents, which I find despicable. There are always one or two mavericks."

Connie Howard, a spokes woman for the university system, said the specifics being discussed by the media are "not in the public good. It really only creates a mockery, because people are going to be writing them in the future with the media in mind and deciding what will play well in the press."