Columnist Jeff German: Regents return to their covert ways

Friday, April 8, 2005 | 5:15 a.m.

Jeff German's column appears Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays in the Sun. Reach him at german@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4067.

WEEKEND EDITION

April 9 -10, 2005

The secretive regents are at it again.

A strong move is afoot to call off the national search for a new university system chancellor so that the job can be handed to Jim Rogers, the media mogul who currently occupies the position on an interim basis.

And the regents pushing the dynamic Rogers don't seem to care that it would mean throwing away the $80,000 in taxpayer money they paid to a headhunting firm to find the best available candidates.

The firm is supposed to provide a search committee with its top choices on April 25.

But an item requested by five regents has been placed on the agenda of this week's Board of Regents meeting, calling for a vote to name Rogers chancellor.

Regent Doug Hill sent a letter to his 12 colleagues last week stirring up interest in ignoring the headhunter. He made a compelling case for appointing Rogers, saying he's "the right person, in the right place, at the right time."

Then Hill concluded: "I would encourage you to put this matter on the board agenda for consideration if you feel my arguments have merit."

Four of his colleagues -- Linda Howard, Doug Seastrand, Jack Lund Schofield and Dorothy Gallagher -- apparently felt Hill's arguments had merit. They all called the university system's administrative office to request the Rogers agenda item. A sixth regent, Mark Alden, said he supported the item, giving Hill one vote shy of a majority of seven before there's even any public debate.

Since it only takes three regents to place an item on the agenda, questions are starting to be raised about whether the regents once more may have violated state's open meeting law.

The circulation of Hill's letter bears similarities to an open meeting law controversy a decade ago.

The regents came under fire after they conducted a secret poll by fax to censure one of their colleagues, Nancy Price, who had been critical of some board actions. Regent Jim Eardley faxed a letter condemning the unpopular Price to his fellow regents and asked them to sign it. Price was the only regent who didn't get the fax.

The letter never was formally made public, and no action was ever taken against Price because some regents were uncomfortable with the clandestine way in which the letter was circulated. There also was never any discussion at a public meeting about censuring Price.

Later, after the letter was leaked to the media, the attorney general filed an open meeting law complaint against the regents. Ultimately the complaint was upheld by the Nevada Supreme Court, which ruled that the regents should not have conducted the secret polling over the fax lines.

Whether the circulation of Hill's letter is a similar violation of the open meeting law is something for lawyers to figure out.

Regent Steve Sisolak -- who opposes the move to crown Rogers chancellor without looking at the other candidates -- said late last week that he asked the university system's lawyers to research the legality of how the Rogers item landed on the agenda.

"It needs to be looked at," he explained. "It's a close call. It seems to me that we're talking about the potential of a decision having been made outside of a public meeting."

Vice Chancellor Dan Klaich, the university system's chief legal counsel, said his "gut reaction" is that Hill's letter didn't violate the open meeting law.

But he added he was seeking advice from Deputy Attorney General Neil Rombardo, who regularly handles open meeting law issues.

"We'll put this in front of him and check his comfort level," Klaich said. "We don't want any person to be appointed chancellor under a cloud."

But beyond the open meeting questions, Sisolak said, he hopes the regents don't ignore the work of the headhunting firm.

"If there was this much appetite to hire Rogers, we should have hired him before we spent the $80,000 on the search," Sisolak said.

Sisolak acknowledged that Rogers, who has received a groundswell of community support, is likely the best candidate.

But Sisolak added that the regents have an obligation to the public to make sure that's truly the case.

And that's precisely why all of the maneuvering on behalf of Rogers behind the scenes last week was wrong.

Why can't the regents wait another two weeks to let the headhunter weigh in on the search?

If Rogers is the "right man" for the job, give it to him the right way.

archive