Columnist Jeff German: Regents should be appointed

Friday, Dec. 13, 2002 | 4:58 a.m.

THE BOARD of Regents was supposed to clear the air last week over the errant behavior of three of its members.

Instead it avoided a public confrontation and left many unanswered questions about the trio's conduct and its own ability to hold itself accountable to the public.

But the board accomplished one thing: It convinced a lot of people, including Gov. Kenny Guinn, that the time has come for regents to be appointed rather than elected.

Guinn is backing a serious bipartisan move for the 2003 Nevada Legislature to revamp the selection process and the makeup of the board.

"If the board is not restructured, it will continue to be an embarrassment to the state," Guinn says. "This arguing back and forth is not an efficient way to handle the taxpayers' dollars."

Guinn says he supports a bill by Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, to amend the state constitution to reduce the board from 13 elected members to as few as five members appointed by the governor. The bill would have to pass two legislative sessions and then win approval of the voters in a ballot question.

The theory behind appointing regents is that the governor can take the time to find people who actually are qualified to oversee higher education.

Those who run for the board often have little knowledge of the university system. And because a regent's race doesn't attract much public interest, the public knows little about the candidates until after they're elected. If a bad candidate wins, we're stuck with the candidate for six years.

In the appointment process, which presumably would be handled in the same manner as appointments to the Gaming Control Board, the governor's reputation would be behind every appointee. That would provide an incentive to select quality people.

With Guinn's support, Giunchigliani's bill has a strong chance of making it out of the Legislature next year.

The regents did little last week to win over friends in Carson City.

We were promised a full public airing of the concerns surrounding the actions of Regent Linda Howard, who has been accused of gaining access to private student records. We were supposed to hear exactly how Regent Howard Rosenberg intervened in a university employee termination case. And we were promised a discussion on the controversy over a racial slur Regent Mark Alden hurled at a colleague.

But none of that happened.

We also were looking for personal apologies from Howard and Rosenberg, but never got any. Only Alden, who's recovering from prostate cancer, offered his regrets.

What we got was a collective apology from the board acknowledging that there was inappropriate conduct and that the conduct wouldn't happen again.

The regents did take steps to tighten up rules governing access to student records, and they strengthened ethics guidelines.

But if you believe the board really has put the petty infighting behind it, then you also probably believe the Cincinnati Bengals will make it to the Super Bowl.

The very next day, Howard went on a local radio show and insisted she had done nothing wrong.

Her lack of remorse tells us that the backstabbing is likely to continue and be a further source of embarrassment to the board.

"I hope it calms down, but I don't think it will," says Regent Steve Sisolak, who introduced the resolution for the group apology.

Sisolak isn't a fan of appointing regents.

"I don't think it's going to solve anything," he says. "I don't think it's the process that causes the problem. It's the individuals who cause the problem."

He's right about that.

But his words also make the case for appointing regents.

The bottom line is we need to find competent public servants, free of conflicts and personal agendas, to watch over higher education.

We need people who can find creative ways to improve the university system -- not tear it and each other down.