Motion is filed to block regents’ action

Thursday, Jan. 22, 2004 | 11:15 a.m.

An attorney for former Community College of Southern Nevada President Ron Remington filed a motion Wednesday to block the Board of Regents from discussing Remington during next week's meeting.

A hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order to block the regents from "considering any matters related to Plaintiff Dr. Remington" has been set for Monday in District Court, said Remington's attorney, Kathleen England.

The board has yet to comply with an earlier court order that it furnish Remington with a transcript of the closed-session meetings that preceded his Nov. 20 demotion, England said. No further board discussions should take place about Remington until he has had an opportunity to tell his side of the story in an open forum, England said.

"We need the transcript to understand what the regents were basing their decisions on when they voted," England said. "How can (Remington) answer the charges against him if he doesn't know what they are?"

In the motion for the temporary restraining order, England states that some regents have engaged in a "whispering campaign" suggesting they had been told privately of "earth-shattering wrongdoing" by Remington "but cannot speak of it."

The regents should not be allowed to air "unreliable, uncontested, unchallenged allegations in public or claim to have considered them in secret while not allowing Dr. Remington to answer or challenge them," England said.

The regents are scheduled to meet next Thursday and Friday at the community college's Henderson campus. A special meeting is scheduled for Wednesday evening for a closed personnel session.

Remington and community college lobbyist John Cummings were demoted Nov. 20. The regents met in closed session for more than 17 hours over two days to discuss an investigator's report into whether Remington and Cummings had swapped political favors for preferential treatment.

Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval filed a lawsuit last week seeking to void the demotions on the grounds that the discussions leading up to the votes violated the state's open-meeting law.

Four members of the Board of Regents will ask their colleagues at next week's meeting to rescind the demotions.

Regents Mark Alden, Linda Howard, Howard Rosenberg and Steve Sisolak all made requests for the item to be placed on the agenda for the Jan. 29 meeting.

Cummings, just a few days ago was vocal about Sandoval's suit against the Regents, noting in Friday's Sun editions, "Now maybe we can expect the Board of Regents to operate in the light of day rather than behind a curtain of darkness." He was more cautious with his words on Wednesday.

"I would like to comment but it is best that I defer to my counsel, Frank Cremen," Cummings said, confirming that Cremen was noticed that a closed-door personnel session for Cummings is slated for the Jan. 30 agenda.

While Remington's name is listed on the closed session for Jan. 30, Cummings' name is not.

Situations like that have put the attorney general at odds with the board for some time.

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.

Last year the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of the attorney general's office, saying the regents must provide clear and complete statements of what will be discussed on agendas.

Cummings, who is on administrative leave awaiting an assignment to teach, said, "I am in academic limbo, waiting what is going to happen next."

Attempts to reach Remington were not successful.

Attempts to reach Board of Regents Chairman Stavros Anthony were not successful.

The attorney general's Jan. 13 opinion sharply criticized the regents and determined numerous violations of the state's open-meeting law had occurred during the closed-door meetings Nov. 17 and 20. The opinion was issued following complaints from organizations and individuals about the regents' behavior.

Sandoval on Wednesday called the violations serious on "Face to Face with Jon Ralston," on Las Vegas ONE, Cox Cable channels 1 and 19.

"We were surprised ... that there were several violations of the open-meeting law," he said on the show. "There were several different instances, and they were serious. That's why we not only filed the opinion, but we also filed the lawsuit simultaneously."

"Typically you issue just the opinion, but because of the heightened scrutiny, because of the magnitude of this case, we decided to take an aggressive stance."

Sandoval said his office combed through 1,000 pages of minutes of the regents' meetings and listened "to every minute of the tapes. That is why we found the violations."

The attorney general said he also will ask the court to clarify the use of closed sessions for personnel matters. "You do not have to close a meeting," he said, "and in fact the open-meeting law encourages all deliberations, all discussions, be public."

He also wants a judge to clarify whether someone who is the subject of a discussion must be present in the session. The regents barred Remington and Cummings from a session discussing their behavior but allowed Chancellor Jane Nichols, who also was a subject of the discussion, to sit in on the closed session.

Sandoval said, "I feel they should have been included in that deliberation, because one of the subjects of that discussion was included."

In addition, Sandoval said, he can't explain how the board was allowed by its counsel to vote in closed session, "not once, but twice."

"We were disappointed at the lack of respect for the law, for the process, for the judicial system," Sandoval said. "Our office is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the open-meeting law, and we are going to be aggressive about that."

Sandoval said even if a court sides with the attorney general, there is no effective action he can take to force the regents to comply.

"There is no penal provision in the (open-meeting) law," he said. But he plans to ask the next session of the Legislature to add civil penalties, such as fines.

The Legislature could also consider more serious consequences, such as having someone removed from office for serious and multiple violations.

"Justice should not be for sale," Sandoval said. "We need to put teeth in this so people take it seriously."

An agenda for a special meeting Wednesday has also been released, and appears to contradict the attorney general's opinion on notification for closed personnel sessions. The agenda lists a closed-door session scheduled to discuss "certain executive employees" -- but does not list individual names.

According to several regents, Wednesday's meeting is expected to be a continuation of a personnel session for Nichols, which began last month.

Howard said she had to call the Board of Regents office to find out who was being discussed at the special session.

"It's always that way, it's ridiculous," Howard said. "We never know who's being talked about until we get there."

Wednesday at 1 p.m. at the UCCSN offices on Flamingo Road members of the regents' presidential search committee will discuss whether to hire an outside firm to look for candidates. The regents' general counsel Tom Ray will also discuss the requirements of the state's open meeting law.

"There has been so much confusion and discontent on what the open meeting law requires," said Sisolak. "I think we do need to go back to the beginning and make sure everyone is on the same page -- the regents, the staff, the attorney general, all of us."

Sisolak said he was troubled that individuals being discussed in personnel sessions may not have been properly notified in advance.

"People have a right to know and the public has a right to know, too," Sisolak said. "You shouldn't issue a blanket agenda item and then decide at the last minute who you want to talk about."

Ray did not return calls seeking comment.

Two separate groups of regents have requested closed-door personnel sessions for the regular meeting Thursday to discuss Remington. Alden, Thalia Dondero, Howard, Rosenberg and Sisolak requested a closed session to hear "a report of the committee that evaluated (Remington's) performance as president."

Regents Marcia Bandera, Douglas Roman Hill, Jack Lund Schofield and Bret Whipple requested that Remington's evaluation include "any matters related his performance as president."

In addition to discussing the attorney general's lawsuit and the ongoing circumstances of Remington and Cummings' demotions the regents' agenda includes: