More controversy on tap for regents

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 | 11:22 a.m.

The university Board of Regents' agenda for its meeting next week includes several items related to a controversy over the firing of former Community College of Southern Nevada President Ron Remington and his lobbyist John Cummings. They include:

The agenda for the state Board of Regents meeting next week shows that the system chancellor and board leaders are walking a line between extreme consideration and disregard for the state's open-meeting laws, critics within the board said Tuesday.

The March 18 and 19 agenda includes several broad policy issues that were originally addressed during the Nov. 17 and Nov. 20 closed personnel session that led to the removal of Community College of Southern Nevada President Ron Remington and lobbyist John Cummings.

Neither Remington nor Cummings was given notice of the agenda items because the issues -- lobbying activities, host accounts, general counsel reporting policies, employee leave of absence for government service and employee credential verification -- can and should be discussed without referring to individuals, Board of Regents Chairman Anthony Stavros and System Chancellor Jane Nichols said Tuesday.

But a few regents critical of the removals said they cannot discuss those policy issues without discussing Remington and Cummings.

"If I am to talk about those issues, you have to talk about those individuals, and to not talk about those issues is not giving those issues being addressed fair consideration," Regent Steve Sisolak said.

"I don't know why we just don't notice him," he said. "It just baffles me that we don't give these guys notice that we are going to discuss these issues."

What was especially baffling to Sisolak was that Remington was informed he would be discussed for a later agenda item discussing his transition from president to professor, but not for an item discussing the search for his permanent replacement at the college.

Tom Ray, attorney for the University and Community College System of Nevada, said Remington could only be discussed on the one item he was officially noticed about. Nichols and Anthony determined who would be noticed and for which items, Ray said.

On the other hand, Sisolak said, Nichols is recommending the board postpone its evaluations of several college presidents because the closed personnel session format mandated in board policy may violate the state's open-meeting requirements. Several briefings about next week's meeting, where University and Community College System of Nevada officials would clear up any questions regents had about the agenda, have also been canceled, Sisolak said.

"It seems like they are going overboard on some things and other things they are not even coming near the line," Sisolak said. "And it doesn't make any sense to me."

Regent Mark Alden, who has filed five complaints against the board for alleged violations of the open-meeting law, said he was also frustrated that the board leadership had decided not to notice Remington and Cummings they might be discussed.

"If we don't bring up their names, it's no problem," Alden said. "But if we want to have an open discussion and we haven't noticed them, it puts us in a funny spot."

Alden, who has asked the board to reimburse him for attorney's fees he incurred because of the lawsuits filed by Remington, Cummings and the attorney general's office against the board, said he would protest the agenda items at the meeting.

Both Anthony and Nichols said the policy issues should be discussed without naming any individuals because policy is not made based on any individual incidents.

"We can talk about all that without talking about names," Anthony said. "The discussions have to deal with the issues in the future, and that was why they weren't noticed. But if that becomes an issue, we'll just pull it off the agenda."

Nichols went further by saying that it would be inappropriate to discuss Remington and Cummings in regard to policy issues such as lobbying and host accounts because that would dredge up the investigation and personnel issues that were not related to the wider policy issues.

"It is my intention that all of these issues be discussed as broad policy issues and not as policies relating to individuals," Nichols said, adding that the policy changes should be discussed on their own merit and not on individual incidents that may have caused the initial scrutiny.

Attorneys for both Remington and Cummings said the board may legally discuss any policy issue as long as they do not specifically discuss the conduct or character of their clients.

Remington's attorney, Kathleen England, said she had no way of knowing if any of the agenda items had anything to do with Remington because she still does not have an official list of the allegations against Remington.

In the formal notice Remington received, he was assured the board would only discuss the transition plan, England said.

"I can't imagine that they would discuss other things," England said. "They are enjoined from it (discussing Remington without notice), but that doesn't mean they have been enjoined from continuing on the business of the university."