Editorial: Statement no substitute for fairness

Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2004 | 8:40 a.m.

On Nov. 20 the Board of Regents levied harsh discipline against two officials of the Community College of Southern Nevada. In a contentious and divided vote taken after two days of meetings, the board demoted Ron Remington, president of the college, and John Cummings, the college's legislative lobbyist and senior advisor to Remington. The board relied on a report compiled by a private investigator in making its decision. During the two days of deliberation over the academic futures of Remington and Cummings, the board never allowed them to personally respond to the investigator's report. Additionally, the board has never officially given the reasons for its actions.

On Friday, however, three regents broke their silence. Their four-page statement says they voted to demote Cummings because he was part of an effort -- one not authorized by the board -- to change CCSN from a two-year to a four-year college. They said he helped create Assembly Bill 511, which would have brought about the change had the 2003 Legislature approved it. They said their vote was also based on Cummings' action in advocating for $500,000 that had "mysteriously been tacked onto" a routine appropriations bill for the college.

As for Remington, the three said they voted for his demotion because, as president, he was responsible for Cummings' actions. Additionally, they said Remington had demonstrated a pattern of preferential treatment toward Cummings, treatment that included granting him tenure prematurely and granting him four substantial pay raises within two and a half years. They also faulted Remington for the college's no-bid, $700,000-a-year advertising contract. Under Remington, the previous contract was suddenly terminated and the new one signed -- with a company that had previously employed Cummings, the regents said. Also cited by the regents were questionable "personnel practices" by Remington. These included the hiring of Briget Jones, the person whose allegations led to the retaining of the private investigator. Jones has alleged that Remington was well aware of AB 511.

While the reasons cited by the three regents appear compelling, we cannot excuse their vote on Nov. 20. Any charge made in the absence of the accused can sound damning. We reject their contention that the private investigator's interview with the two men provided all the context necessary for a fair decision. No amount of after-the-fact statements can change this fact: The board acted on information from a third-party without giving Remington and Cummings a chance to respond. The board should rescind its Nov. 20 vote and place the investigator's report on a future agenda, one that would give the two an opportunity to speak on their own behalf.