Friday, Jan. 16, 2004 | 11:14 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval issued a stinging opinion and filed a lawsuit Thursday to void the demotions of former Community College of Southern Nevada President Ron Remington and his adviser, John Cummings, on grounds that the university regents repeatedly violated Nevada's open-meeting law.
The suit, filed in District Court in Las Vegas, seeks to overturn the regents' decision to return Remington and Cummings, who also served as the college's lobbyist, to the faculty.
Sandoval's office also issued a critical opinion rebuking the Board of Regents for deliberating and building a consensus behind closed doors, all on the advice of the attorney for the University and Community College System of Nevada.
The lawsuit says the board illegally deliberated behind closed doors and failed to notify people it planned to discuss, as required by law.
"I am ecstatic," Cummings said. "Now maybe we can expect the Board of Regents to operate in the light of day rather than behind a curtain of darkness."
Remington said he hoped he would get the opportunity to tell his side of the story in the open forum he was denied.
"The arrogance of the Board of Regents and (its) attorney was beyond belief," Remington said Thursday.
"Now they will have to do things publicly and the truth can come out."
The regents met in closed session Nov. 17 and 20 to review an investigative report of more than 1,000 pages. In open session they voted 7-6 to remove Remington. They also voted 9-4 to send Cummings back to the faculty and to select an administrative officer who would consider firing Cummings.
A motion not to renew the contract of Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, who works for Cummings at the community college, failed on a 4-9 vote.
Despite the contentious battle that has swirled since his Nov. 20 demotion, Remington said he still wants to return to his job as president.
"I love working with the students and the faculty and the staff," Remington said. "I'd have to see what the climate was, because right now it's not what anyone would want it to be. I would want the opportunity to work fairly with the governing board and the chancellor."
Minutes of the closed-door meeting show some regents who voted to oust the CCSN administrators were angry that Remington, Cummings and Giunchigliani reportedly pushed during the 2003 Legislature to get some four-year degree granting courses at the community college against the wishes of the regents. Giunchigliani also sponsored a bill to limit the size of the regents' board.
Giunchigliani, who works as director of government relations for the community college and worked for Cummings, said she was grateful to see Nevada's open-meeting laws upheld.
"This restores my faith in the process," Giunchigliani said. "The law is there to make sure citizens have open and fair access, and the law should be taken with a great deal of seriousness."
Remington, Cummings and Giunchigliani were not allowed in the meeting to defend themselves. Sandoval said the "Legislature and the law contemplated and intended that persons who are at risk of a public body taking administrative action against them have the fundamental right to confront the public body that is considering administrative action against them."
Chancellor Jane Nichols said she was surprised by the attorney general's complaint against the Board of Regents.
"We were confident at the time that we were upholding the open-meeting law," Nichols said. "We would never violate the open-meeting law intentionally."
Nichols noted that the lawsuit does not change anything unless the court rules in favor of the attorney general's office.
"All the actions that the board took still stand until this is resolved," Nichols said, adding that the complaint faults the process, not the actual decisions that were made.
If the court does rule against the board, Nichols said, the board would vote again on their decisions to reassign Remington and Cummings and the end result "may not be any different."
The opinion is "disappointing," said Regent Brent Whipple, who along with Regents Jack Schofield and Tom Kirkpatrick released a joint statement explaining their decision to vote in favor of demoting Remington and Cummings.
"I recognize that the attorney general has jurisdiction and I respect that," said Whipple, who is an attorney. "(The Board of Regents) will have to address this just like we do any other issue and address the facts as they come to us."
Regents who questioned the closed meetings and the decisions made in them were said they were "ecstatic" about the law suit Thursday.
"This is the best day of my whole elected career," said Regent Mark Alden, who filed one of the complaints that led to the lawsuit. "The attorney general has done what is right."
Regent Steve Sisolak, who also protested the decisions, said he hoped "justice will be served" from this lawsuit.
"I hope this is a wake-up call to the board," Sisolak said. "They were elected by the citizens of Nevada, they are responsible to the citizens of Nevada, and they must live up to the Constitution."
Sisolak expressed a lack of confidence in Nichols continuing as chancellor, but Alden called for her, the seven regents who voted for the reassignments and the board's legal advisers to be removed, calling them an "embarrassment to the state."
"Whatever route it takes to move those infamous seven from office, it should be done and it should be done now," Alden said. "If they had any integrity they would remove themselves."
Sandoval also said the law was violated when the regents considered the character, misconduct and professional competence of two elected officials -- Giunchigliani and apparently Assemblyman Wendell Williams, D-Las Vegas, who was a central figure in the investigation.
In the legal opinion, Sandoval said Giunchigliani holds a dual function as an employee of the system and an assemblywoman.
"The alleged misconduct of Ms. Giunchigliani discussed by the board occurred during the 2003 legislative session in her capacity as an elected official," the attorney general said, adding that violated the law because the board cannot discuss in private the conduct of an elective official.
Sandoval said the open-meeting law was violated when the board voted in closed session to allow Nichols to remain during the meeting. There were two votes in closed session to permit Nichols to participate in the meeting even though she was a subject of the investigation.
Remington and Cummings both sued in District Court, claiming the actions taken by the regents were violations of the law because they were not notified. District Judge Jackie Glass ruled they had notice.
But Sandoval disagreed with Glass' ruling. He said the law is clear that if a public body considers whether to take administrative action against a person at a meeting, it must notify the person in writing at least five working days before the meeting.
The attorney general also disagreed with Glass' decision that those under investigation did not have a right to be present during the closed-door meeting. He said the law would not permit a public body to allow one person such as the chancellor to be present while the others are excluded.
The investigation was touched off by the controversy of Topazia "Briget" Jones, an administrative assistant at the community college. She was assigned during part of the legislative session to Cummings in Carson City and had described herself as a special assistant to Williams.
There were questions about her hiring and her promotions. She filed a complaint against the college administration says they lobbied on bills that the regents had not approved.
During the open meeting Nov. 20, motions to fire Jones failed.
The attorney general's office has found the Board of Regents in violation of the open-meeting law for agenda problems on three occasions within the last five years, spokesman Tom Sargent said. The office issued warning letters for agenda problems on Dec. 1, 1999, and Feb. 10, 2000, Sargent said. Last year the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of the attorney general's office that the regents must provide clear and complete statements of what will be discussed on agendas and not just what is germane to the agenda.
The Nevada attorney general's office has received 275 complaints regarding the open-meeting law in the last five years, Sargent said, ranging from high profile boards like the Board of Regents to more incidental boards such as the Board of Homeopathy or the Pahrump City Council. Of those, the attorney general's office found 83 violations.
The attorney general's opinion will be "required reading" prior to next month's meeting of the Legislative Commission, said Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno, who is chairman and plans to call for a special committee to investigate the recent actions by the regents.
"This is an extremely important document," Townsend said. "It suggests the need for potential legislation to clear up any ambiguity or lack of clarity in our open-meeting law so that any agency in the state doesn't have any misunderstanding about what is, and is not, allowed."
Townsend said he hoped the Board of Regents would accept the attorney general's findings and move quickly to repair some of the damage.
"(The Regents) should start back at square one as if the meetings in question never occurred," Townsend said. "They should begin again, but this time post notices appropriately, give individuals the opportunity to address the board and their accusers and proceed from there."
The attorney general's opinion is being reviewed by the Legislative Commission's legal counsel -- particularly the section that references an earlier case where the regents were found to have violated the open-meeting law, Townsend said.
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled last May that the regents violated the law by not properly detailing the contents of the potential topics up for discussion and action on the posted agenda.
Townsend said he was told late Thursday by the Legislative Commission's legal counsel that because the regents have already been found in violation of the open-meeting law, the possibility exists in state statute for misdemeanor charges to come with future violations.
"You can't just keep violating the law," Townsend said. "At some point it has to be taken to the next level."
Sun reporters
Emily Richmond and Christina Littlefield contributed to this story.
archive
