CCSN faculty angered over chief’s ouster

Jennifer Knight

Monday, Nov. 24, 2003 | 11:08 a.m.

President Ron Remington's removal by the Board of Regents angered many CCSN faculty members, who are discussing how to protest the action.

The regents, meanwhile, moved to reconsider last week's decision to remove Remington from his position amid allegations of improper procedure in the voting process.

To quell concerns about the changing of the administration at the Community College of Southern Nevada, Chancellor Jane Nichols promised to name an acting president today.

Nichols did not provide the names of possible replacements for Remington. After the Board of Regents voted to remove Remington and his adviser John Cummings on Thursday for insubordination and violation of policy, employees reacted by sending a volley of e-mails Friday expressing their grief and confusion about the decision. "What an impact it would make if all faculty, staff and students decided not to show up, Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday," said Brenda Kennedy, CCSN's performing arts director, in an e-mail addressed to the campus. "Let the regents grade the final exams, let them post the grades. As one faculty member wrote me, we could then get out to less polluted waters! This just all stinks to high heaven!"

Faculty members were planning to discuss how to protest the action today.

Albert Fisher, an accounting professor said he was angered by a letter sent by Board Chair Stavros Anthony explaining the situation.

"I read the memorandum from Dr. Anthony sent to us and found it to be ludicrous," Fisher said. "He states 'rules must be followed.' If rules had been followed, we would still have our president and Ms. Jones would have been fired. That's the way I see the situation."

Stan VerNooy, a math professor wrote in his e-mail, "This is not the first time in my six years here that the Board of Regents has behaved in a way that is both ethically repugnant and intellectually stupid. I, for one, had no confidence in them before yesterday's meeting."

Regent Linda Howard said when she visited the campus Friday, many staffers in the executive office were in tears overs the decision. "It was like a funeral," Howard said. Howard said four regents have submitted a request to rescind Thursday's action. She would not say which regents signed the request but said it will be discussed at the board's next meeting Dec. 11-12.

Meanwhile, Cummings has retained Frank Cremen as his lawyer and Remington has retained attorney Kathy England. There is no word on whether either man plans to file a lawsuit.

"We're still trying to figure out what happened," Cremen said. "What is so peculiar about these proceedings is Mr. Cummings has not been confronted. Mr. Cummings doesn't know what he is alleged to have done." The board's action was the result of a four-month investigation into claims made by CCSN secretary Topazia "Briget" Jones, a woman who described herself as the "special assistant" to Assemblyman Wendell Williams, D-Las Vegas. Williams chaired the Assembly Education Committee. Jones, who was hired and sent to work in the Legislature on the recommendation of Williams, alleged that Cummings hired people as political favors and attempted to fire her after she wouldn't help with a bill to make CCSN a four-year college.

Nichols intervened in Jones' firing at Williams' urging and launched the investigation that led to Remington's removal. There are lingering questions about what led to the firings in the first place.

Some regents said the removals were a punishment for an attempt to circumvent the Board of Regents by trying to push the bill in question through Williams' Education Committee. Assembly Bill511 would have made CCSN a four-year college.

Other regents suggested there was a hidden explanation, one that perhaps will not become public knowledge.

"(The bill issue) isn't the primary reason why I voted the way I did," said Regent Jill Derby, who voted to remove Remington and Cummings. "Unfortunately, I can't say why (I did)."

Derby offered no further details.

CCSN spokeswoman Chris Giunchigliani said regents should have looked into another bill, Assembly Bill 391, which called for $3 million to go to continuing education.

Neither bill made it out of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.

Howard said she believes Regent Tom Kirkpatrick has a personal vendetta against Cummings. According to several university system officials present at Thursday's eight-hour session, Kirkpatrick gave testimony against the character of Cummings and then voted in favor of removing him, which Howard said was improper procedure. "I am so outraged that they would interview a regent to be part of this investigation and then allow him to vote on the same issue," said Howard, who voted against removing Remington and Cummings. "He is only one regent of 13 regents (and) he obviously had a vendetta against (Cummings)."

Howard was referring to Kirkpatrick's 1988 bid for state Senate. At that time, Kirkpatrick asked for financial support from Cummings, who was then a lobbyist for the teachers union, but Cummings opted to favor Sen. Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas. Board Chairman Stavros Anthony said he believes Kirkpatrick's testifying and voting on Cummings was not a conflict of interest. "As far as I'm concerned it's fair," Anthony said. Kirkpatrick could not be reached for comment for this story.

Cummings, meanwhile, alleged that Regent Jack Lund Schofield also had a conflict of interest. Schofield, who voted to oust Cummings, had asked Cummings for several favors, Cummings said. Cummings said Schofield asked him to find a member of his family a job at the college. Cummings said he refused.

He also said Schofield tried to get Cummings to get a close friend to invest money in a real estate deal but again Cummings said no.

As recently as a few weeks before the vote Cummings said Schofield asked him to hire someone from his church. Again Cummings said he refused. "I have always considered Jack Schofield to be a friend; unfortunately he turned out to be a friend who easily turned against me when I would not abuse my position to assist him in either the hiring of his family and friends or his entrepreneurial pursuits," Cummings said. Schofield would not answer all of the allegations saying, "It's half-truths what you just said."

Schofield said that he did bring a member of his church to Cummings for the purpose of having him review her.

"I didn't ask him to find her a job," Schofield said. "I wanted him to tell me what her strengths were to see if there was anything the university could use her for."