Regent may have violated agreement with remarks

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 | 10:49 a.m.

A university regent's public remarks may have violated the settlement agreement the Board of Regents signed with demoted CCSN lobbyist John Cummings, Cummings and two regents said Wednesday.

Cummings, now a tenured English professor, said the published remarks made by Regent Tom Kirkpatrick disparaged him by saying he was less qualified as a professor than others at the Community College of Southern Nevada.

The settlement agreement between Cummings and the regents barred each side from making any disparaging remarks about the other. Cummings agreed to drop his lawsuit in order to retain his tenure, and the board agreed to drop termination proceedings against him and pay his legal fees. Cummings will make $78,500 as a English professor, more than $36,000 less than he made as an administrator.

"The ink was barely dry on the agreement before it was violated," Cummings said.

Kirkpatrick said in published remarks that he thought the settlement may give the impression that "Mr. Cummings is being somewhat rewarded for misconduct.

"We have individuals over there who have been there longer, who have better credentials than he and who do not make as much money."

Kirkpatrick told the Sun Tuesday that he signed off on the settlement at the request of Interim Chancellor Jim Rogers, who wanted to put the lawsuit behind the Board of Regents.

Kirkpatrick said he did not intend his remarks to be disparaging, but he stood by what he said.

"Those are not disparaging remarks, those are facts," Kirkpatrick said. "And if someone wants to take them as disparaging remarks, more power to them."

Kirkpatrick said that as an elected official his responsibility is to the public, and the "public needs to hear things."

Cummings said he was not sure how or if he would try to take action regarding Kirkpatrick's remarks.

"Hopefully the regents will address this or the chancellor will address this first," Cummings said. "We all need to move on."

The Board of Regents has censured members in the past, regents said, but it is up to the chancellor or the board chairman to initiate the action.

Chairman Stavros Anthony said he would not censure another regent. And as for whether Kirkpatrick's remarks were disparaging or not, that was open to interpretation, Anthony said.

"There's a settlement with John Cummings and as far as I'm concerned it's all over," Anthony said.

Rogers could not be reached for comment. University system lawyer Tom Ray said Kirkpatrick's remarks didn't "bother" him from a legal standpoint, and that the intent of his comments was to move on.

Regents Steve Sisolak and Mark Alden, who voted not to demote Cummings during November 2003 closed personnel sessions, said they believed Kirkpatrick's remarks were in violation of the settlement agreement.

"I'm disappointed because I think in the spirit of moving on no one was going to make negatives comments," Sisolak said, noting that Cummings has not said anything negative.

Sisolak did not think censure was a possibility, agreeing that Kirkpatrick could say what he wished as an elected official.

"There's no penalty for violating the no-disparaging agreement, just like there's no penalty for violating the open-meeting law, which got us into this mess in the first place," Sisolak said. "I don't think there is anything that can be done about it, but it's unfortunate."

Alden said settling Cummings' case was the right thing to do not only for the system, but to avoid furthur lawsuits against individual regents.

"My advice to Tom is that you need to be more careful of what you say, or you put yourself in the potential liability of being sued by Professor Cummings."