Ousted CCSN chief files lawsuit

Jennifer Knight

Thursday, Dec. 4, 2003 | 11:18 a.m.

A lawsuit seeking to stop the Board of Regents from discussing ousted Community College of Southern Nevada President Ron Remington at its next board meeting was filed in District Court Wednesday.

The regents are planning to review Remington's demotion at their Dec. 11 meeting.

"I'm asking that they should not be allowed to have a meeting that involves my client until I have them give me all the evidence against him," Remington's lawyer, Kathy England, said.

Regents voted to remove Remington and his adviser and lobbyist John Cummings on Nov. 20 after reviewing a 1,000-page report prepared by a private investigator. Despite Remington's complaint that he was denied due process, regents said they could not give the reason behind the decision because it would violate rules for closed sessions.

"They conjured up this black cloud. They blindfolded him and now they won't let us see what's in it," England said.

Regent Linda Howard is now demanding more information about how the investigation was conducted.

"I am still unclear as to the reasons for the removal of Dr. Remington and Mr. Cummings from their position at CCSN," Howard wrote in a memo sent to the board chairman, university system lawyer and chancellor.

Howard's memo also asked who ordered the investigation and determined the scope, who hired the investigator and why he was hired. She also asked why only one regent was interviewed by the investigator as a witness while no others were approached. In total, Howard ticked off 10 questions to be answered that would shed more light on the investigation.

"My main reason for asking these questions is because every time time I ask a question I get different answers." Howard said.

Some have speculated that a legislative bill designed to give CCSN the ability to grant four-year degrees was what led to Remington's removal.

Regent Steve Sisolak said that although the bill was penned by Assemblyman Wendell Williams, D-Las Vegas, the allegation is that Remington and Cummings were behind it and therefore attempted to circumvent the board's right to vote on such programs.

"If their argument is that is what he did, I thought that is what he is supposed to do," Sisolak said.

In Remington's 2001 evaluation Chancellor Jane Nichols commended Remington for his work toward developing niche bachelor's degrees. The college currently offers a bachelor's degree in education through a program partnership with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

The board was even scheduled to hear a proposal for a bachelor's degree in dental hygiene during next week's meeting but the item was pulled off of the agenda by Regent Jill Derby.

Derby said that the board is stepping more carefully these days when it comes to the creation of four-year degrees. She added that timing is also at issue.

"I don't know whether the board is gun-shy, but the issue has been raised in a way that it hasn't been raised before," Derby said. "This meeting didn't seem to me the right time to discuss that (program)."

Regents are set to discuss the board's demotion of Remington next week. Although discussion about his removal Nov. 20 lasted 17 hours, the vote to discuss reversing that action is scheduled for 20 minutes.

Remington's lawsuit cites at least seven state statutes that regents allegedly violated during the meeting including the failure to serve Remington with notice before the meeting warning him that administrative action would be taken against him.

When regents barred Remington from speaking on his behalf during the 17-hour meeting, they also violated the law, the suit alleges.

England also points to the Tuesday's release of Regent Tom Kirkpatrick's unsworn testimony as the latest offense, saying, "...the system has now selectively leaked portions of that closed personnel session by publicly releasing the transcript of Mr. Kirkpatrick's 12-minute unsworn interview on Dec. 2, 2003."

Kirkpatrick said his release of his transcribed interview with investigator Jeffrey Cohen was intended to clear up what he called "false and misleading statements" in relation to his conduct during the closed session meeting.

Kirkpatrick was interviewed by Cohen because of a memo he wrote on July 17 questioning the $8.6 million in projects that the college system didn't ask for.

While the money was given to several higher education institutions throughout the state, with the biggest portion going to the north, Cohen focused his question on $500,000 earmarked to beef up campus security at CCSN.

"(The investigator) wanted to verify whether or not we knew anything about that money," Kirkpatrick said. "He honed in on (that appropriation) at CCSN because he was investigating CCSN."

Kirkpatrick who voted in favor of ousting both Remington and Cummings said he took heat because of the interview and was accused by Howard of having a vendetta against Cummings because Cummings worked for the teacher's union when it withdrew its support from Kirkpatrick during a senatorial campaign in 1988.

"I never met John Cummings before 1990," Kirkpatrick said. "I don't care if (Howard) thinks I have a vendetta because it's just not true."

Still, the fact that Kirkpatrick gave testimony and then voted on it could pose a problem in court, England said.

"It looks like Kirkpatrick is the witness, the judge, the jury and the prosecutor," England said. "And in this case the defendant isn't allowed in. He is convicted in absentia while he sits outside and waits."