Transcripts: Regents saw ‘culture’ of corruption

Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2004 | 11:32 a.m.

Many of the university regents who voted to remove community college executives from their posts saw themselves as taking a stand against what one regent called "absolute corruption" at the college, transcripts of the November closed sessions show.

The main reason given by regents for removing Community College of Southern Nevada President Ron Remington and lobbyist John Cummings was they allowed a "culture of intimidation and dishonesty" to exist by allegedly breaking several system hiring and promotion practices.

"There is only one word that describes what is going on at the community college as far as I'm concerned and that is absolute corruption from the top, absolute corruption," board Chairman Stavros Anthony said during the Nov. 20 closed session. "I don't understand how anyone could not see that."

Regents also expressed fear that the board would appear weak if it did not do something about an investigator's 1,026-page report into allegations of harassment, undue hiring practices, improper lobbying activities and policy violations by top CCSN administrators.

"People are doing things at the community college that are corrupt, and if we don't deal with that, you know, there's no reason for having a board," Anthony said in the meeting. "You might as well just do away with the Board of Regents as far as I'm concerned and set up a board for each institution, because if we allow this stuff -- for these people to get away with this and allow this to happen, there's no reason to have us."

During the closed session, the regents made several passionate pleas for action, according to an 846-page transcript of the Nov. 17 and Nov. 20 special meeting. A copy of the transcript was obtained by the Sun.

The University and Community College System investigated claims against Cummings and Remington and, according to the meeting transcripts, regents listened to a 12-hour report by attorney Walter Ayers, who read parts of the investigator's report before the regents voted to oust the two.

According to the transcript, the regents never specifically said which of the allegations they believed.

The investigator's report was a compilation of college documents, records and portions of several statements of people involved in the situation, including Cummings, Remington, university system Chancellor Jane Nichols and Assemblyman Wendell Williams, D-Las Vegas.

The investigator started with the allegations of Topazia "Briget" Jones, a clerical trainee who worked for Cummings and said she was a good friend of and special assistant to Williams.

Rather than stating which of the multiple allegations they though were true, the seven regents who voted for the reassignments cited ongoing problems at the college or a problem with the "culture" at the college.

"In listening to this testimony it was disappointing for me to hear such evasiveness, such dodging of answers," Regent Jill Derby said in the transcript of the Nov. 20 closed session. "... There was so much that was contradictory. And without being able to evaluate who is telling the truth here and who isn't, I ended up looking at this college and saying there's something wrong over there."

Derby and others were especially upset with the "appearance that somebody can just willy-nilly appoint somebody and then everybody else had to sign the form. We heard that from people."

The transcripts themselves show the regents debating the open-meetings law several times during the session, with a majority of regents agreeing to go forward with their discussions.

The regents voted twice in closed session to allow Nichols to stay and later deliberated about their possible course of action, even saying or hinting as to how they might vote.

The transcripts also show, despite protests from Regents Mark Alden and Steve Sisolak, university counsel Tom Ray advised the regents it was acceptable to vote in closed session because it was "a procedural motion and not an action on the merit." He later tells the regents, against further protests, it is acceptable to deliberate in closed session as long as they do not "try to build consensus as to numbers or anything like that."

"There's no doubt we are in a very difficult situation," Ray said in the Nov. 20 closed meeting. "You have got to try to balance the open-meetings law with the legal rights of the people that are being discussed here."

The Nevada attorney general's office recently issued an opinion saying the regents did break the open-meeting laws in the two sessions because they deliberated and came to a consensus behind closed doors. The office filed a lawsuit in District Court seeking to void the decisions to reassign Remington and Cummings.

District Judge Jackie Glass also said during a hearing Monday for Remington and Cummings' lawsuit against the board that she was "seriously concerned" the open-meetings law was violated.

Transcripts also show that both Ray and Ayers advised the regents not to try to fire Jones, the woman whose allegations began the investigation because she was an "African-American woman." Ray said Jones "basically did what she was allowed to do by those above her."

"If you terminate her in light of the allegations she had made of statutory violations, violations that would give rise to tort liability, allegations of sex discrimination, race discrimination, and you do nothing to those who allow it to continue, I'm telling you as your attorney, that's going to be one hell of a lawsuit," Ray said in closed session.

Regent Linda Howard, citing her conscience, moved to direct the college's interim president to terminate Jones during open session but the motion failed on a 9-4 vote.

Ayers skipped over most of the report which acknowledges Jones' inconsistent work performance, including documents from supervisors and coworkers who said Jones came and went as she pleased and refused to participate in the office work.

Regents have been more forthcoming with what exactly they found to be wrong in recent weeks, citing insubordination by Remington and Cummings in pursuing a four-year degree for the college and $500,000 for campus security without the board's approval, and for hiring and promoting various people in violation of system guidelines.

College officials allegedly circumvented university system rules to hire and promote Jones, according to the report.

Regents Bret Whipple, Tom Kirkpatrick and Doug Hill, who all voted for the removals, expressed doubt about Jones' testimony on Tuesday, but thought the other documents, such as personnel files and Cummings' own statements, provided "plenty of evidence."

"I don't need to take Briget Jones' word for it, I don't care what Briget Jones said," Hill said, adding that there was "a tremendous amount of evidence" that several people in Cummings' office had been improperly hired.

The others agreed and ultimately held Remington responsible, whether he knew of Cummings' actions or not.

"For me, the primary concern is what did President Remington know," Whipple said during the closed session. "... And then it got so egregious that at some point it didn't matter to me. It's just almost as bad as the things he didn't know."

Kirkpatrick agreed Tuesday, saying "The more we went through that report the more disgusted some of us got."

Kirkpatrick, who challenged Cummings' character based on personal knowledge during the closed session, said he wished the investigation had been more thorough only because he thinks the problems go further than Remington and Cummings.

"There was a lot of things that went on that just aren't kosher," Kirkpatrick said. "And we just can't have that going on."

Some regents congratulated themselves and the board for their actions during the closed sessions, before forming any consensus of what to do.

"I want to say that I'm very proud to be on a board with 13 people who have the integrity that you all have," Regent Jack Lund Schofield said. "I really do commend us for what we are about to do."

Others said they struggled with the decision, and four regents who were against the removals continually criticized the board's actions throughout the meeting.

Sisolak objected several times during the meeting that the regents were breaking the open-meetings law and lambasted Ayers when he began to give regents a list of legal options of how they could act on the information before they decided they needed to act.

"It's obviously prejudicial that we are already arguing taking disciplinary action," Sisolak said.

Ayers apologized and agreed with Sisolak that one option was to "do nothing."

"In fairness to these people, we're talking about their careers, their lives and everything else," Sisolak said. "We just glossed right over one option is to do nothing."

A few minutes later Sisolak and and Regent Howard Rosenberg asked why Ayers' options did not include Remington or Nichols for their involvement, which is when Ayers reminded regents they could remove either "without cause."

Rosenberg, who voted against the removals, asked Ayers why the only options were to fire those involved.

"We seem to be do nothing or off with their heads," Rosenberg said in the meeting. "And I what I would like to know is reprimand, a slap on the -- I don't know what you call them formally. But there are other things that can be done.

"... What are the places between without, you know, really hurting a human being?"

Alden agreed and called for the board to look at several policy issues to prevent further violations. He said it would be "an absolute travesty of justice" to make any personnel decisions until the investigation could be completed and the individuals involved interviewed by the board.

"Number one, the chancellor sat in throughout this whole closed hearing," Alden said. "The other party didn't. And you go, what I call, cut off their heads. ... It's improper. It's immoral. It's not a fair playing field."

Anthony, who said he did not have time to talk about the transcripts Tuesday, asked regents during the meeting to restrain from asking questions until the end of the Ayers' presentation and tabled a discussion on whether to allow Remington to answer questions.

Alden, who called Anthony a "dictator" during the meeting, said Tuesday that most of the questions went unanswered and that that investigation had gaping holes.

Other regents, however, argued during the session that there was plenty of evidence to call for the removals.

"We have to show that we have the integrity," Schofield said. "That we have zero tolerance for certain things."

Anthony, who called for the removal of Remington, Cummings and CCSN employee and Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, agreed.

"If you don't fire them, what's the message?" Anthony said in the closed session. "You can do this stuff. You can do all this. You can act this way, and the Board is not going to do anything, as far as I'm concerned."

Remington's attorney, Kathleen England, and Cummings' attorney, Frank Cremen, agreed the transcripts are unclear in specifying what the board actually believed their clients did.

"They never made any specific accusations against Cummings or against Remington," Cremen said. "There is the rather loose idea of insubordination, but this is more their idea that they are a fourth branch of government, this is what I think really motivates them.

"I think they were on a power trip to tell you the truth."

archive