Editorial: Censure is option for voters

Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2002 | 9:04 a.m.

When it meets Dec. 12 the Board of Regents will have a chance to bridge the policy shortcomings that have led to abuses of power and infighting. They will consider several new policies, that, if enacted, should clarify the limits of their individual powers and establish new procedures for examining the records of students and employees. At this same meeting the board is scheduled to discuss the conduct of members Linda Howard, Mark Alden and Howard Rosenberg. Chairman Doug Seastrand said this discussion could end with a public reprimand of the three. This means the board will also have a chance to widen the controversies of late and to further alienate themselves from each other and the university system they were elected to lead.

Fueling the controversies over the past several months were the disclosures that Regent Linda Howard reviewed thousands of confidential student records as well as records pertaining to County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates, who is a part-time employee at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Howard's actions stand out because of the sheer volume of records she demanded and received from staff members of the university system. Her actions, clearly an abuse of power, were allowed because university staff relied on traditional interpretations of a regent's authority. There has been no clear policy governing such requests. After Howard's actions became known, Alden mouthed off, calling her an "orangutan." It was also disclosed that Rosenberg, an art professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, had advocated on behalf of two faculty colleagues who were being fired.

The board should concern itself with the new policies, whose adoption would have long-term positive effects on the university system. There would be nothing to gain from a motion to censure. That's a job best left to voters.