Editorial: Hold confab with Rogers in the open

Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004 | 8:57 a.m.

The Nevada Board of Regents, despite nearly constant power struggles and infighting among its 13 members, has seen little need to restructure its role as overseer of higher education. Even frequent run-ins with the attorney general's office over violations of the state open meeting law have been of no great concern to most of the regents insofar as significant reform of the board is concerned. No one has been in a position to generate reform, as the elected regents do not answer to the governor and have tolerated little dissent from the chancellor. Of late, however, this arrangement has been challenged by Interim Chancellor Jim Rogers.

Soon after his May appointment by the regents to replace former Chancellor Jane Nichols, who resigned, Rogers asserted himself in a most untraditional way -- by sending strongly worded memos to the Board of Regents and sharing them with the press. The backdrop for this was an upheaval at the Community College of Southern Nevada that predated Rogers' arrival. After closed meetings the Board of Regents had decided to demote the CCSN president and the college's top lobbyist. The attorney general charged the board with violating the open meeting law and it fell to Rogers to negotiate settlements with the two who had lost their jobs and to work out an agreement with the attorney general over the board's habit of illegally closing meetings.

Rogers, owner of Sunbelt Communications (parent company of KVBC Channel 3 in Las Vegas) and a long-time donor to higher education, soon encountered other issues that he found frustrating and so began his memos outlining ideas for wide-ranging reforms. He called upon the board to end its bickering and give more authority to the chancellor. He suggested the board be cut to seven members and that they be appointed, not elected. He as much told the regents that their programs to raise private funds have been failures. He raised the possibility of higher tuition. He wanted the regents' legal office to be reorganized, top to bottom. And he suggested a number of ways that the regents themselves could be reorganized to become more efficient.

The upshot of all this is that four regents have requested a "closed personnel session" with Rogers during the board's October meeting. The four, regents Tom Kirkpatrick (who lost his re-election bid in the Sept. 7 primary), Bret Whipple, Linda Howard and Marcia Bandera, say they want to engage in "constructive dialogue" with Rogers about his memos. This would be fine, except for their desire to have this dialogue behind closed doors. There is nothing in the open meeting law that permits a closed meeting for constructive dialogue. Asked about the proposed session, Rogers answered sensibly. "Anything they've got to say I'm happy to have said in public, and anything I have to say I'm happy to say in public," Rogers told the Sun.

We hope Board of Regents Chairman Stavros Anthony schedules this session in open session. All the memos in the world could not undo the damage of yet another open meeting law violation by the regents.