Friday, Jan. 16, 2004 | 5:17 a.m.
Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program Face to Face on Las Vegas ONE and publishes the Ralston Report. He can be reached at (702) 870-7997 or at [email protected].
WEEKEND EDITION
January 17 - 18, 2004
FIRST THING they should do is fire all their lawyers. Then, perhaps, they should consider resigning.
The Board of Regents, in its determination to finish first in the race to the bottom of all Nevada elected bodies, continues to pile embarrassment upon embarrassment.
This is a board that has crumpled people's lives without any fealty to tenets such as due process or even common courtesy, acting like a graceless and arrogant politburo that does not allow anyone to peek into its inner workings. It was egregious enough when they trifled with the careers and reputations of system and elected officials.
But with last week's revelations that the system, under the misguiding hands of its counsels, has been overcharging students on tuition, the regents now have extended their abysmal stewardship to deleteriously affecting the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands of kids. Thanks to an opinion that they are above the Nevada Constitution, the regents confront a possible class-action lawsuit because they decided to force prospective students to live in the state for a year before paying in-state tuition, when the laws clearly sets the threshold at six months.
And while that court action has yet to be filed, a lawsuit crafted this week by the attorney general's office has validated what many inside and outside observers have believed since the board met behind closed doors and then cashiered community college President Ron Remington and lobbyist John Cummings. The lawsuit essentially says the regents broke the open- meeting law in every way that you can break it -- they considered items they shouldn't have in private, they deliberated in private and, worst of all, they voted in private.
All of this catalyzed by one Briget Jones, the face that launched a thousand inquiries and burnt the ivory towers of a university system that now has a community college that should be renamed Whistleblower U (three and counting with Jones, Cummings and Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani). How ironic that Jones, whose position was secured by her patron, Assemblyman Wendell Williams, and then saved by her serendipitous friend, Chancellor Jane Nichols, still has a government job and Williams does not (having been, again ironically, defenestrated from City Hall after a bizarre, protracted firing saga.)
The real danger these days is getting inured. The ability to surprise has wilted in the face of so much lunacy and an electorate that is easily distracted or bamboozled.
This is, after all, a country where a populace thrills to an ersatz reality program called "Average Joe," where Adonises are shipped in at the eleventh hour so the bathing suit-clad beauty doesn't have to choose one of the eponymous ones. Or, closer to home, we live in a state where the electorate just may buy into a phony campaign show called "We were against the largest tax increase in history," where some Assembly Republicans see how many voters they can fool, even though they privately stated their willingness to vote for $600 million or $700 million in new taxes.
But there is no show that these less-than-Average Joes could put on that could conceal their haughtiness and irrational resolve that surely will begin to crumble now that Attorney General Brian Sandoval has flayed them in his court filing.
Sandoval points out that despite what the regents and their attorneys have said, they were not even required by law to retreat to that closed personnel session, that it is "solely within the discretion of the public body." And while common sense indicates those affected should be present, in this place where common sense is on a permanent holiday, Sandoval found they also conducted a "lengthy deliberation" (and an illegal one) and took a vote (an illegal one) on allowing Nichols to stay.
The attorney general also found the votes taken in the open meeting that followed the closed-door session were a fait accompli. "Indeed, this office's review of the tapes and minutes revealed that it is fairly simple to measure a Regent's judgment and position on whether he/she felt it necessary to take action against certain UCCSN employees," the lawsuit says amid a thorough and compelling dissection of the regents' non-performance.
I have said before that this may be more about process -- Remington should have to account for what seemed like a Reagan-like stewardship of the community college, as he was portrayed as smiling benignly while Cummings, like Ollie North in the basement, carried out an agenda not sanctioned by anyone. But in this case, process is critical since we are talking about constitutional rights and the means do not justify the end.
This could get even messier. Even if a judge agrees with Sandoval's suit, will the regents be chastened or will they simply repeat their votes at another meeting, especially since they already have replaced Remington?
One wag suggested legal research should be done into whether an entire body can be recalled. That would entail the proverbial throwing out the baby with the bathwater -- but perhaps in this case that bathwater is so polluted that a thorough flushing is necessary.
So first thing they should do is fire all the lawyers. And next thing we should do, if they persist in being bereft of honor and shame, is fire all the regents.
archive
