Friday, Nov. 29, 2002 | 4:02 a.m.
PARDON THE SKEPTICISM, but the Board of Regents doesn't exactly have a great track record when it comes to dealing with the errant behavior of its own.
So the move to censure three regents who've been accused of misbehaving leaves one doubting whether the board has the ability to pull it off without further embarrassing itself.
And whether the board even should try to pull it off.
The big showdown, which could turn into Nevada's version of the Gunfight at the OK Corral, is scheduled for the board's Dec. 12 and 13 meeting in Las Vegas.
Standing accused are: Regent Linda Howard, for gaining access to private student records; Regent Howard Rosenberg, for intervening in the termination case of a university employee; and Regent Mark Alden, for publicly calling a colleague a racist name.
The censure session will give the regents a chance to bring into the open the infighting, backstabbing and all-around childish antics that have long plagued the overseers of higher education in Nevada -- and kept alive their reputation for being the least-admired elected body in the state.
"We're going to have an opportunity to let everyone air their concerns," said Board Chairman Doug Seastrand, who put the censure action on the meeting's agenda. "It's going to be played out in public."
That's scary, but believe it or not, it's an improvement from past mishandled attempts by the board to censure its own. Those attempts originated behind closed doors, hidden from the eyes and ears of the voters who elected the regents.
In 1992, during the height of the bitter feud between UNLV President Bob Maxson and legendary basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian, then-Chairwoman Carolyn Sparks held a closed-door personnel session to rap Regent Lonnie Hammargren for his overzealous defense of Tarkanian. Sparks at the time was an ardent Maxson supporter.
The matter drew criticism from the Nevada Press Association, which accused the board of circumventing the open meeting law and the will of the voters who elected Hammargren.
By 1995 the regents still hadn't learned their lesson. Then-Chairman James Eardley secretly communicated with fellow board members through a series of fax exchanges to drum up support for a censure of Regent Nancy Price, an outspoken critic of some of the board's policies.
In that case the attorney general sued the regents for violating the open meeting law, and ultimately changes in the law were made barring the regents from polling each other by fax or other electronic means.
Price never was censured, but her colleagues ended up scolding her during a heated four-hour meeting that she had requested to clear the air. The meeting, which became nasty and personal, was not one of the prouder moments in the board's history.
And so if history tells us anything, this month's board meeting is destined to once more portray the regents in an unflattering light. Sometimes, they just can't help themselves.
Last week, when the subject of the censures arose, Regent Doug Hill suggested what most people already knew -- that the regents "have become a laughingstock and have modeled some of the worst behavior that one could fear from elected officials."
That perception won't be changed if the regents decide to hand out censures. It will only be enhanced.
The regents don't need a public shootout to restore the public's confidence in their abilities to keep watch over the university system.
They need to do what Regent Steve Sisolak suggested last week: "... start acting like adults instead of schoolyard kids in a playground fight."
archive
